God Bless the Atheists, I love you guys (and girls)

But supposedly "god" used to come down and make himself known all the time, in the OT. So why doesn't he do it now and put all our disbelief to rest?

Not to derail the thread. it appears to have gone off track several posts ago.

Atheist believe the craziest things. Bless their little (pure coincidence) hearts.

*That should put us back on topic :-)

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
But supposedly "god" used to come down and make himself known all the time, in the OT. So why doesn't he do it now and put all our disbelief to rest?

Oh I so try to stay out of these threads. Anytime I try to participate I feel like I need pages of disclaimer before I even get to the point and even then, there's no way to concisely express a valid (to me) point without going far afield.

But to MM's question, I'll throw this out there. You know the experiment you did recently with the personality traits? You know how you couldn't relate the whole story up front because it would ruin the experiment? Same deal. We go through what we go through when we go through it for a reason. (From my perspective, in my opinion).

Which I know opens up a whole other set of issues (on, as the guy from Mad TV puts it, "A ho' nuvah levol.")

dbates, you are an idiot.

What do I base this assertion on? The picture you posted is ignorant and down right deceitful. This silly attempt of 'obvious' theist humor does not reflect what atheism actually means. The picture is simply stupid. Therefore I conclude that you are an idiot for posting it. Feel free to disagree.

Please, in the future, don't try to define a world view you clearly know nothing about.

Thanks and a have a nice day.

reply to post by MajorMalfunction


Actually MM, only the most devout, faithful, most adherent ones were able to communicate with God in the physical.

Again, from Exodus. Notice that the Israelites were not allowed to go up with Moses to the top of the Mountain to talk to God and get the Commandments. He even told them surely you will die, because they were so impure, single minded, jealous, people who didn't have the faith of Moses.

If any a time for chosen ones, Moses was a chosen one. And the wisdom of God is, Moses had to use his brother Aaron to write stuff down and address the people because he was I believe illiterate, or at least couldnt write, or had something wrong with his voice, I really forgot the exact detail of why.

Notice that each time something profound happened, it was in the most mysterious way possible. God didn't pick an able-bodied, younger, smarter, literate man to talk to and give the commandments to, he chose an old, decrepid, possibly illiterate, possibly speech-impeded, but faithful guy to do it. The least one you'd expect based of his physical attributes.

This is to say, the physical is .. shall we say, of the toilet.

Originally posted by runetang


This is to say, the physical is .. shall we say, of the toilet.

Physical reality is "mammon," which is spoken of profusely throughout the bible. The real sin of taking the "mark of the beast" will be that it is a declaration of your devotion to the physical, rather than the spiritual.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SilentGem
dbates, you are an idiot.

We all have our opinions don't we. Name calling is the weapon of choice when you don't have any facts to back up your opinion. Stomping your feet and yelling doesn't make your opinion correct does it?

While it's true that my representation of atheism was a bit sarcastic/simplistic, it's not a false representation at all is it? Athiest believe that there is no god/creator and that the complex life forms we see today are a complete random accident. Of course this flies in the face of science, but athiest tend to ignore this point.

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

After the Big Bang, the state of the universe should be getting worse and worse. Instead we see that entropy hasn't been working so well here on Earth. No go back and read the text in the image again. It's brutally honest isn't it?

What's the point of growing a plant if you automatically know the exact height it will reach, the exact color of the flower, and the lifespan of it? Much less try to appreciate the beauty, once it grows to its peak it gets ripped right out of the ground?

Are you implying that the christian god isn't onmipotent?

Atheist believe the craziest things. Bless their little (pure coincidence) hearts.

*That should put us back on topic :-)

After the Big Bang, the state of the universe should be getting worse and worse. Instead we see that entropy hasn't been working so well here on Earth. No go back and read the text in the image again. It's brutally honest isn't it?

It is getting "worse". The universe is cooling, going towards a state of equilibrium called the big freeze.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by DarkSide]

Ah! Touche`

I still think my story makes more sense than yours, but let's save that for another discussion. I was only trying to be lighthearted, but apparently I needed to use more novocaine with that image. My bad.

Originally posted by dbates

After the Big Bang

Neva' happened, Im telling you.

This is at best a guess by the scientific community on something they don't yet understand.

I am confident that before mankind sees it's end, the big bang will be proven false, in that it did not spontaneously create pre-cursor elements on its own, magically out of thin dark energy, which then instantly exploded, creating all matter which ever exists, even 1 million years from now.

Hogwash I say. God put those molecules which exploded there, something cant come from nothing. This is the universal point I cannot stress. Something cannot come from nothing. Think about it.

Simple experiment. Try making a big bang theory happen on your desk by the keyboard. Look at the spot, and think hard, and say to yourself, "molecules, spontaneously form, and explode now!!!"

You'll end up disappointed. Or dead. Either way its all good right?

[edit on 10/16/2007 by runetang]

reply to post by runetang

By the Big Bang, I meant what scientist can detect. Of course we know that the cause of this was when God spoke the magic words, "creatio ex nihilo". But then if the creation was produced from God's energy it wasn't actually ex nihilo.

reply to post by runetang


you show a horrid misunderstanding of the big bang theory... to the point that you think it's equivalent to a spontaneous explosion of a molecule. read up on it, it's a far more complex and well supported theory

there was, in fact, a massive expansion (or "bang") that occurred, it's quite apparent when you look at all the evidence.

Neva' happened, Im telling you.

This is at best a guess by the scientific community on something they don't yet understand.

I am confident that before mankind sees it's end, the big bang will be proven false, in that it did not spontaneously create pre-cursor elements on its own, magically out of thin dark energy, which then instantly exploded, creating all matter which ever exists, even 1 million years from now.

Hogwash I say. God put those molecules which exploded there, something cant come from nothing. This is the universal point I cannot stress. Something cannot come from nothing. Think about it.

Of course we know that the cause of this was when God spoke the magic words, "creatio ex nihilo".

Do me a favor, go to your local amazon, and buy a couple of book about basic cosmology, then buy a few about the big bang itself, and LEARN!!!

Your misunderstanding of the theory is just blatant. Do you seriously think that physicist and atheists believe that a point of energy actually exploded out of nothing to hurl molecules around and re-organized themselves into humans by chance?

No, if you had understood the theory, you wouldn't say things like "out of nothing" "explosion" and "molecule".

the universe was created ex nihilo 12-15 billion years ago.

Professor Henry F. (Fritz) Schaefer - five time nominee for the Nobel Prize.
source

There's nothing wrong with saying "ex nihilo" when referring to the Big Bang. It's a common term in the scientific community. I believe Hawking has used the term several times in his books.

Wrong.

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

Big bang cosmology

The big bang theory hasn't been perfected as the site says, but religious people still have to debunk the hard evidence (Which I don't think will happen anyday :p)

And by the way, read that paragraph carefully, it doesn't say anywhere that the universe popped out from nothing, nor that it has a beginning.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Originally posted by SilentGem
dbates, you are an idiot.

What do I base this assertion on? The picture you posted is ignorant and down right deceitful. This silly attempt of 'obvious' theist humor does not reflect what atheism actually means. The picture is simply stupid. Therefore I conclude that you are an idiot for posting it. Feel free to disagree.

Please, in the future, don't try to define a world view you clearly know nothing about.

Thanks and a have a nice day.

Hey hey hey, dbates is not an idiot. In fact, no one on ATS is an idiot. Please don't be so rude and intolerant. :[

[edit on 16-10-2007 by Paresthesia]

It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across.

That is completely asinine, I'm sorry. The universe was only a few milimeters big? Where did it come from eh? Where did that universe of just a few millimeters across come from? Did IT spontaineously create itself?

This is what you don't understand. Something cannot come from nothing. An explosion cannot come from nothing. Even in the strangest circumstances, such as this big bang theory, even then an explosion cannot occur without precursor elements. You can't start a fire without a spark, or two things to rub together. When you combine this chemical and that chemical, it explodes, this is how we make weapons and bombs.

You absolutely positively need =something= there to explode! For the big bang to be plausible. It's utterly ridiculous that people can discredit the existence of God, or that God created matter, yet will claim the universe used to be 2 millimeters big, spontaineously exploded for absolutely no reason because NOTHING was there to cause such an explosion (ie; things that explode when combined, even in the molecular form, smaller than the human eye can see?)

Not ONE molecule was present, not ONE. NOTHING was present.

Until you can explain to me how this explosion occurred out of NOTHING, and how this universe which "in the beginning" was a couple millimeters across got there, I cannot believe such a ill-conceived concept. The laws of physics tell me that it requires precursor elements to create an explosion, or to create anything!

You can't just have nothingness for infinity, then for absolutely no reason whatsoevever, with no elements or chemicals present or anything else present whatsoever have a big explosion that creates all matter which has ever existed. Face it, it's a dumb theory, and its untrue.

It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

Why did it expand? What propelled the expansion? What energies pushed these things outward to expand? Why was there "space" present for the expansion to occur? How did it get there? Was it always there for infinity, is that the only explanation? Well guess what, so was God, aka "I AM".

I do not accept crap theories that haven't been proven true just because they are the most common theory. Much like you do not accept Biblical teachings just because believers claim that it has authority to it.

I've read extensively on the "big bang", and I know quite a bit about the universe, how planets form, why gravity exists and what it is, the extremely long cycles of rotation that the heavenly bodies make, their effects on the other heavenly bodies (read: planets and stars).

Each solar system revolves around a star, (there are exceptions) and in each galaxy are tons of stars, thus solar systems. In the center of each Galaxy is a black hole, which the Galaxy revolves around, just as Earth revolves around the Sun. All Galaxies we theorize are like this.

But I'm no astronomer, so whatever. To each their own. Your beliefs can be a living hypocrisy if you'd like, in one hand claiming theres no such thing as Godly creation, yet on the other hand claiming all which exists spontaneously formed out of absolute nothingness.

Doesn't it require something to create? I know the house I live in required building materials. The shirt I wear required fabrics. The hair on my head is dead cells from my body, shaped into hair to keep my head warm. Where did those cells come from that are dead? They once lived, and how did they live? They were created by Mom and Dad. And Mom and Dad were created by Grandma and Grandpa you see. Now trace it back. We're all just recompiled star dust with a soul inserted, but you can go forth believing that the soul does not exist, it's your own life and choice.

reply to post by runetang


I believe in God just as much as the next guy, so don't take this as an insult to belief, but you've got a few inconsistencies in your idea of the big bang. The very fact that all the whole of creation was concentrated into such a small point (don't know where the 'it was a few millimetres across' came from, I've not heard that before, will have to check it up) is what caused the 'explosion' and subsequent expansion.

Of course, there ARE a lot of problems. The science that governs the universe as we know it is not applicable to the universe at time even a moment before the big bang. People have this theory that the universe is cyclic (that it was always there, always bigbanging), but I don't buy that. The universe is expanding at an increasing rate. This means that the more it expands, the faster it expands! Currently the only explaination that scientists can come up with for this phenomenon is by inserting the idea of 'dark matter' into it. Personally, I think that is all crackpot science, but I'm willing to wait till a better explaination comes along.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
but I'm willing to wait till a better explaination comes along.

Not me. I firmly believe God created everything which exists, even the Universe itself. And the "Big Bang" in my opinion was the moment of creation, when God made everything out of absolute nothingness.

I don't get it. Scientists say "The Universe was created by the Big Bang, before that, there wasn't anything". So when you question them further, as to how this is possible, they come up with MORE unproven theories such as, "Well, the universe is cyclic and big bangs, then sucks itself back into a singularity, then big bangs again, then sucks itself back in, over and over for infinity!"

Well thanks a pad load Chad, that really clears things up! (sarcasm)

reply to post by runetang


No, scientists cannot possibly know the state of the 'universe' before the big bang.

Don't get me wrong. I also firmly believe that God created everything that exists. But that is not going to stop me from researching it, learning about it, wondering at it. The universe is a thing of beauty and balance.

One guy says that Da Vinci was the best*, because he's painted the Mona Lisa, and this guy has checked up the picture on the internet, and read up about it on wikipedia. He feels no need to waste his time going and checking out the painting, because he knows that Da Vinci was the best.

The other guy says that Da Vinci was the best, because he painted the Mona Lisa, and this guy checked up the picture on the internet and read up on it at wikipedia. Because Da Vinci was the best, this guy went to have a look at the painting, and found out that the picture on the internet did no justice to the painting at all, and wikipedia was all wrong. Da Vinci was the best because he painted the Mona Lisa, which was awesome. This guy went back and fixed up the wikipedia article. Was Da Vinci no longer the best because the original article was wrong? Didn't Da Vinci get even better?


I have absolutely no knowledge of Renaissance art