User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
Nearly Atheist

Hello,

I've considered myself "agnostic" for as long as I can remember. I've come across so many arguments, some suggesting God exists and some suggesting God doesn't exist. Like most agnostics I find myself thinking 'God-exists' arguments groundless and 'God-doesn't-exist' arguments plausible but unprovable. Basically I find myself in a very uncomfortable (and very long lasting) sense of uncertainty. I can't seem to join Christians because I can't stand following something so *sound of sheeps*, even though I have a very large desire to be a Christian. I can't seem to join Atheists because I can't get over the possibility that..well...anything is possible.

Hey Wesley -

I have recently deconverted from christianity. I could not reconcile the christian belief system with the fact that there is such an abundance of evil and suffering in the world. This 'problem of evil' has been addressed by christian apologists with a series of arguments called theodicies, but each of these theodicies has something lacking. For me the process started a few years ago when I took a job in special education. Every day I read about children who were born with profound disabilities - many of whom are bound to wheelchairs for life and have to be fed through tubes stuck down their throats. Some who have to have their diapers changed several times a day and others who need to use a catheter. These children will never know what it's like to run through a field on a sunny day, what a cheeseburger or ice cream tastes like. They'll never fall in love or know what it is to be a parent. The sad thing is that most of them are severely mentally disabled and so they don't even realize what they're missing out on; I have heard some christians say that is god's mercy to them so they won't be upset - we can't know why god does what he does because it's a mystery. How callous. How unthinking. Is making a child ignorant of his limitations the best mercy that an infinite god can muster? Why does anyone need to be born like that if god is loving and wants the best for us? For the sake of argument, let's assume that there is a god and a satan: Who is more immoral, the one who does evil or the one in whose power is the ability to easily stop evil but who does nothing about it? These are some of the questions I started examining and for which I could find no satisfactory answers.

Sorry if I've rambled on unnecessarily; I just wanted you to know where I'm coming from. I have a very nonexistent desire to ever affiliate myself with christianity again. To say that anything is possible is to concede that it is possible for some things to be impossible. Paradox? Fancy semantics? Who knows. Many things may be possible, but not everything is probable.

Frankly belief in something because "anything is possible" is not that different from believing something on faith alone. If "anything is possible" should be the standard for what we believe to be true then I guess we don't ever have to prove anything is a fact. Many things are possible, but that doesn't determine what we should believed to be true. Why do we believe some things and not believe other things? What difference does it actually make in whether you believe one thing or another if "anything is possible"? I will only agree that many things are possible until proven otherwise. We should base what we believe is true on what has been proven to be a fact. Most people would never believe a theory because "anything is possible" in the field of science or any kind of research. Scientists are required to produce proof that can be tested when they discover something or present a theory. If ancient writings are what some people base a belief on, and if they are make-believe than what is believed is also make believe.

What's important is not what we believe but why we believe it. We can believe almost anything is true if we look only at the evidence that supports what we already believe, and ignore any evidence that disputes it. Belief or disbelief does not influence facts. So, one has to ask why one believes at all in anything; what is the basis of belief? Is it fear and uncertainty or is it facts? We fear the unknown because of the lack of knowledge. Agnostics "have no knowledge" of god or gods, so they see no reason to believe. Atheists agree. I would like to know how you establish or confirm that something is true? Theists are the one's who are making claims, and do carry the burden of proof. In science the burden of proof rests on those making claims. If scientists or scholars cannot provide proof of what they claim it is not validated. No one has proven that the scriptures are the word of God. The validity of miracles, the bible, or the existence of any deity has not been proven. There are many facts or concepts on any given subject, which is why people read more than one book before they decide what the truth is. The fact that some people form opinions with only one source is suspect. It implies that they don't want any arguments from scientists, archeologists or scholars. If the bible is inerrant then the earth is 6000 years old (any archeologist knows that is false.) And an all-knowing god would also know that and would know about evolution (which is a fact.) To prove that something is a fact people have to find information on the subject, (this requires confirmation from many sources) or a consensus of opinion. For instance, global warming was denied by right-wing-theocrats for years until a consensus of opinion by the scientific community established that Global Warming is a fact. Looking at all the facts (pro and con) and then making a decision is called "critical thinking", and is the only way to get to the truth. In most instances the truth about "sacred cows" are not found easily or in one place. It is very common to find errors in history because of the revisionists. Many people have written and quoted sources that claim that America was founded as a Christian Nation. But if they had done research they would find that in 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring, "The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". This information is in any American history book. Those men who fought in the American Revolution founded this Nation, and most were not Christian.

Finding the facts on any subject necessitates comparing many facts against your own common sense. One considers something to be "possible" based on requirements, or criteria. They use their own best judgment (not hearsay which provides no proof or good evidence of anything.) Apologists prefer to believe that the bible is true, and that there is really no-good reason to reject any of it. The merit or accurateness of the bible, which has been established by a set of findings and interpretation from experts in many fields of science, is of no value to them. Is this the way we should find out what the facts are with no accountability?

If you can't validate your source of information (prove it's true) it's not an argument. Many scholars have found through extensive research that miracle-working sons of God, born of a mortal woman were common elements of Pagan religion that preceded Christianity. Mithras had Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus etc. And they were around centuries before Jesus. Heaven, hell, prophecy, sacrifice, baptism, communion, monotheism, the Holy Spirit and immortality can be found in earlier Pagan faiths. They came from ancient Mediterranean culture.

When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity the festivals and stories were merged with the traditions of the earlier Roman pagan religion. Everyone knows that Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan. Constantine himself worshipped both Jesus and the sun god Sol Invitus, the Romanized version of Mithra, until he died. Mithras accepted the immortality of the soul, the triumph of good over evil, judgment day, and the resurrection of the dead. Mithras, the sun god, was born of a virgin on December 25, and worshipped on Sunday. He was a savior-god. (Sound familiar?) The idea that claims without any validation is information is baloney. Any claim of an event that happened in the past cannot evade historical scrutiny of that claim (nobody has to believe anything on "faith.") It is easier to just have "faith" that something is true, and far more difficult to dispute facts. An example of this is Joshua commands the sun and moon to stand still (such an event never happened.) I know that from every science book or scholarly writing I have ever read. I also know that evolution is the result of natural selection. I know what has been written about evolution in many science books. Most of the people who dispute evolution obviously do not understand the theory. The idea that there are no errors in the bible can be proven wrong by most any scholarly writing. There are also strange contradictions. The Book of Jasher was not considered scripture (although it is mentioned in several places in the bible.) The book of Jasher is referred to in Joshua. In the book of Jasher this is written "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and God created man." Our image is plural maybe that's why they deep sixed it.

Philo (a historian) lived during the time of Jesus in Jerusalem, from 20 BCE to 50 CE. never once mentioned Jesus. Josephus, the acclaimed Jewish historian was also a native of Judea and was born in 37 AD. Josephus lived in Cana, which is the very city in which Christ is said to have performed his renowned miracle (the rulers in those days were also said to have performed miracles.) Josephus never once mentions Jesus. Justin Martyr not only never quotes or mentions any of the four Gospels; he never even mentions the writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. The name "Jesus Christ" was not formally adopted until after the first Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, there is no cross in early Christian art before the middle of the 5th century. (John 8:3-11) Jesus was stoned to death and then hung on a tree. The crucifixion was added in the year 367. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts 5.30.) If Jesus was hung on a tree, then why say in Mark 8.34 "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Jesus was allegedly saying this long before he was crucified. Any biblical scholar already knows all of this.

Who does believe there is a god who sends people to hell for pursuing facts! I have studied history and religion and I have found that the revisionists have lied about both, and that is not only ancient history, but they have also lied about more recent history.

Dead Sea Scrolls leather, parchment and metal scrolls written in Hebrew which have been unearthed in the hundreds, often complete and in excellent condition. The records of religious events, important commentaries and chronicles by a sect of Essene scribes and scholars writing in Judea for a hundred years up to 70 A.D. And nowhere is mention made of a new religion, a Messiah, a worker of miracles, a preaching to multitudes, a trial and crucifixion. Nothing! This silence is a great embarrassment to Biblical scholars and is treated extremely cautiously by the Biblical academic community. The Church is nothing more than a corrupt institution that has no ability to forgive or redeem anyone.

The Roman crucifixion is a fictional add-on, which came upon the stage for political reasons. The so-called "virgin birth" myth was also a very late addition to the Christian mythologies. Last but not least, the resurrection of the Jesus mythos came some 70 years after, but nevertheless were included in the canonized book of myths some 300 years later. Philo lived during the time of Jesus in Jerusalem, from 20 BCE to 50 CE. Philo was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Philo was living right there when Christ was supposed to have been crucified. He was in town when the earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place. Philo was there when Christ himself rose from the dead and, in the presence of many witnesses, ascended into heaven. Philo never once mentioned Jesus. He must have been out of town.

Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian was also a native of Judea and was born in 37 AD, making him a cohort of the Apostles. Everyone knew Josephus. He served as Governor of Galilee, which was the province in which Christ lived and taught. Josephus knew and had traveled throughout every part of Galilee, the very same place where Christ had performed his wonders just a few years back. Josephus lived in Cana, which is the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first famous and renowned miracle. In his writings, Josephus takes great pains to mention every possible important and unimportant event (his work is extensive) comprising twenty books. He dedicates whole pages to petty robbers and cult leaders. The life of a single King took up forty chapters. And yet, Josephus never once mentions Jesus nor even so much as hints of such a personage (except for two paragraphs that were proven to have been forged in the 4th century by Bishop Eusebius.) There is an extensive list of writers living in the same place and time as Christ is said to have lived, and none of them mention anything about him. In fact, the four Gospels we are so familiar with were completely unknown to the early church.

Justin Martyr not only never quotes or mentions any of the four Gospels; he never even mentions the writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Few Christians know that the name "Jesus Christ" was not formally adopted until after the first Council of Nicaea. Furthermore, that there is no cross in early Christian art before the middle of the 5th century. In fact, the first clear crucifix does not appear until late in the late 7th century. They were not unaware of the crucifixion!

Researchers say that the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate an attack on James led by his rival Paul. It has also been noted that Josephus mentions one 'Saul' as having acted as an intermediary in inviting the Romans to attack Jerusalem; Saul of course was the name of St Paul before his conversion. In the circumstances, it would be entirely in order for Christian scribes to shift the blame for the death of James from Paul to the Jews. Otherwise it would be a major problem if St Paul and his followers assassinated James, in the Temple!

Most scholars of The Dead Sea Scrolls realize the fact that there was nothing unique about the title Christ. Christ was a generic title used by the leaders of a sect like those of Qumran, the followers of an extremist Jewish sect, these were the men responsible for the Jewish Wars of AD 66-74 and AD 132-5 in which both they and their faith perished.

Pope Benedict XIII firstly singled out for condemnation a secret Latin treatise called 'Mar Yesu' and then issued instructions to destroy all copies of the Book of Elxai. No editions of these writings now publicly exist, but church archives recorded that they were once in popular circulation and known to the early presbyters. The Jesus (Messianic) God that we read about in the Bible is not the same Jesus as the "Brother of James", but as Paul said, "My Christ" and "another Jesus." Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this amazing statement, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us"!

As an atheist you'll enjoy the following benefits. - You get to let doubt rule your life. - The spider web of history will allow you to disprove everything about religion, you'll always be able to find a doubt/loop hole! - When you die you become the same dirt you came from. If an asteroid hits earth we'll be forgotten! - The only thing that matters in life is power and those without it, much like animals. - Do whatever you want as long as you don't get caught, justice is just a state of mind, a chemical reaction. - You get to say you're a rebel. - You can project the sense that your smarter than everyone else. - You get to act like a criminal defense lawyer. Every conversation about religion is not a quest for the truth but rather a chance for you to achieve intellectual superiority because you get to ask the question, "where's the proof, where's the proof?!"... When in fact you don't realize what you're truly asking for. - You'll find meaning in yourself when you rebel against those who find meaning in God. (Aren't you still living in God's shadow?) - Do what you will, but hurt no one. (A cheap rip off of previous ideologies without having to believe in God). - You can get away with killing 6 million people and just taking your own life without having to worry about any kind of hell. The balance of justice is flawed here but it just doesn't matter. Nothing matters. - Suicide is ok since it is a means of lowering the population. - Abortion is just fine, it is a means of lowering the population. - Harvest humans for their organs in labs. - Harvest babies for stem cells. Oh wait they're not babies they are fetus no wait zygote, therefore they are not human just bio mass! Those little bastards think they can live and rob me of living an extra 20 years? NOT.

QUOTE: " As an atheist you'll enjoy the following benefits. - You get to let doubt rule your life. - The spider web of history will allow you to disprove everything about religion, you'll always be able to find a doubt/loop hole!"

Recognizing this fact does not make me a better person, but it allows me to feel pretty good about picking certain things apart. There was in fact no personal attack, but only attacks on a ridiculous assumption (anything is possible.) I'm telling the agnostic why this approach is nothing but dishonest and bad for everybody, and will not change anything for the better. When you point this out, some people become extraordinarily angry because you are pointing out the difference in superstition, fact and reality.

QUOTE: "When you die you become the same dirt you came from. If an asteroid hits earth we'll be forgotten! - The only thing that matters in life is power and those without it, much like animals. - Do whatever you want as long as you don't get caught, justice is just a state of mind, a chemical reaction. - You get to say you're a rebel."

Some people make decisions on their own, and some people can't accept that there are people in the world who disagree with them. That's why they get angry if anyone tells them they are wrong, and they get angry because they can't reason or put forth a rational argument. They are just right, and you just can't reason with brainwashing. Their "god happy" and feel things, which means they don't let facts get in the way of their "happy thoughts". Their "ideas" about what the world is like with god sure doesn't reflect the current state of affairs; that's because it's just bilge. Another ploy to advance their fairy tail kingdom come. These people are brain dead rather than brainwashed, so there is no need to spend valuable time trying to reason with them?

QUOTE: "You can project the sense that your smarter than everyone else. - You get to act like a criminal defense lawyer. Every conversation about religion is not a quest for the truth but rather a chance for you to achieve intellectual superiority because you get to ask the question, "where's the proof, where's the proof?!"... When in fact you don't realize what you're truly asking for. - You'll find meaning in yourself when you rebel against those who find meaning in God. (Aren't you still living in God's shadow?) - Do what you will, but hurt no one. (A cheap rip off of previous ideologies without having to believe in God)."

Don't you know how to read and look up the facts, I think not? Only a truly brainwashed idiot that doesn't know the facts but thinks they have the right to pass judgement? I couldn't care less about the stupid ranting and ravings of brainwashed scared idiots. It's one thing to be brainwashed, but to like it! Well guess what? Some people don't like it, but most idiots do. Religion is a drug for the masses. It is necessary to keep the flat earth crowd from ripping each other apart. Brainwashing is also known as re-education, thought control, propaganda, and conversion. This is how brainwashing works. Mental programming requires three basic elements. First, the programmer needs to limit the information available to the subject. Then they control the subject's behavior, and finally apply subtle amounts of stress to the subject to distract them from the thought control process. Isolating the subject from alternate opinions, limit the information, and before you know it, your brain is where your crapper ought to be. Brainwashing also involves repetition repeating sayings, prayers, and behavior such as, being told to kneel, stand, or sit on command. Imitation is also a behavior. If an evangelist says someone is possessed by demons they will shriek and foam at the mouth until they are loosed from the demon by the evangelist prayer.

QUOTE: "You can get away with killing 6 million people and just taking your own life without having to worry about any kind of hell. The balance of justice is flawed here but it just doesn't matter. Nothing matters. - Suicide is ok since it is a means of lowering the population. - Abortion is just fine, it is a means of lowering the population. - Harvest humans for their organs in labs. - Harvest babies for stem cells. Oh wait they're not babies they are fetus no wait zygote, therefore they are not human just bio mass! Those little bastards think they can live and rob me of living an extra 20 years? NOT."

I guess all of the useful idiots freaked out! But I know that personal attacks are all you have. I don't usually answer this kind of nasty personal attack on false basis. Anyone who doesn't share your beliefs and values must be crude. Ha! You think you can brainwash them! This is another way they advance their cause. It is the application of stress. Most often, this takes the form of a conditional threat; hence it is often called conditioning. "If you don't believe in god you will go to hell!" And in some instances they project their own behavior onto someone else. This is called transference. The great thing about his system is that people already have a need to be socially acceptable, and these Neanderthals are going to "teach" you "proper behavior".

I guess it never occurs to profoundly ignorant people that everyone has a mind of their own and the right to think without being brainwashed. They don't want to be brainwashed or to brainwash others. They don't want to spread programmed behavior like a disease. The worse thing about being brainwashed is you don't know you are brainwashed because you are brainwashed. You seem completely normal to you.

They are defending the right to be idiots (and boy, aren't they!) Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a commie, socialist, leftist foe! If someone is trying to control your behavior or putting stress on your life, you are being brainwashed. Get away from them! The main defense against brainwashing is to not let the stress distract you and to remain aware that you are being brainwashed. Next time someone is telling you what to do, if you are doing something that seems against your will, if the words coming out of your mouth are not yours, you are being brainwashed! Then get yourself out of that situation and away from those people! Remember that they are brainwashed. Just get away from them.

I heard that the real "Mr.T" was a born-again fruit loop and co-starring in some of those "Left Behind" movies with fellow Christian Kirk Cameron. With people like that to look up to, it's no wonder you won't abandon your faith. You threw out a lot of vile insults, and this one is my favorite: "You can get away with killing 6 million people and just taking your own life without having to worry about any kind of hell." Guess what Mr. T-You need to do a little research. In Hitler's book, "Mein Kempf", he refers to ethnic cleansing and eugenics being the work of GOD. How many people do you think have been murdered in the name of Freedom from Religion? Not nearly as many as have been murdered by the God Squad. And here you get even nastier: "Harvest babies for stem cells. Oh wait they're not babies they are fetus no wait zygote, therefore they are not human just bio mass! Those little bastards think they can live and rob me of living an extra 20 years? NOT." If you are still ignorant enough to believe that you have to kill babies to get stem cells, you need to do some reading. I am proud as hell to be all for stem cell research, and think this is a great example of what is wrong with religion. Because of the religious fanaticism that you and your fellow "believers" want to impose on the rest of us, we can't MOVE FORWARD and actually SAVE HUMAN LIVES! And you dare to call yourselves "Pro Life." I think some of the ill children in this world whose suffering could be alleviated would rather have MEDICINE than just "wait to die and go to heaven." And lets not forget your morbidity: "When you die you become the same dirt you came from." Guess what Mr. T; that's the only true thing you said! I know reality can be harsh, and some people "just can't handle the truth." Your comment, "As an atheist you'll enjoy the following benefits. - You get to let doubt rule your life" makes no sense. Religious zealots let faith rule their life, no matter what the facts are. Atheists let truth rule their life, and I'm quite proud of that. Wesley, you said, "I can't seem to join Christians because I can't stand following something so *sound of sheeps*, even though I have a very large desire to be a Christian. I can't seem to join Atheists because I can't get over the possibility that..well...anything is possible." I can identify with what you're feeling. I think your desire to be Christian stems from living in a world where people are rewarded and applauded for being "faithful believers." Also, for myself, I had to get past the fact that the Christ story is one I have heard since before I was literate; that makes it seem as though it has to be true-that is precisely why the religious start their indoctrination so early, so that believing in god will seem a natural part of the landscape by the time you are old enough to really question what truth is. I read Leonard Peltier's book "Prison Writings" a long time ago, and it really opened my eyes to something-He said that as a child he was taught the Sundancer religion, and they have their own set of beliefs. Their spiritual beliefs are very much interwoven with nature. When he was force fed Christianity in the schools, and heard the story of the crucifixion, he couldn't believe that anyone would find peace from such a horrible story. When I read this I thought of myself, and realized that it would seem just as grotesque to me, too, had I not been indoctrinated by the society we live in from birth.

I kinda agree with you. I certainly don't beleive anything when it comes to the beginning of time. I find it ridiculous that religion claims to have the answers to this question and they simply 'assign' rules and a name (god) to the force that was responsible for the beginning of the universe. Also they go on to claim that the force that created the universe was 'aware' and has an agenda and all kinds of ideas that are just simply assigned to this force. There is no reasonable basis for any of it AT ALL. On the other hand, science can axplain things and how they work. It is just a matter of time before the answers are unveiled to everyone. But, I don't think science will EVER answer the questions about the beginning of everything. We can prove or disprove evolution (some day) but that will still not explain why everything came to exist in the first place. SO, as an atheist, I will admit that there DOES infact appear to be some sort of intelligent force behind portions of existence, but as well, there also appears to be a serious LACKING of perfection in this 'design' (if that is what it is). Therefore, I can understand why people make think we were created by something, or someone, but, to suggest that it was a perfect being that makes NO ERRORS and is interested in our faith and judges us etc., is such a HUGE conclusion to just 'fill in' the blanks.

QUOTE: "But, I don't think science will EVER answer the questions about the beginning of everything. We can prove or disprove evolution (some day) but that will still not explain why everything came to exist in the first place."

ANSWER: If that is what you think you have very little scientific knowledge. The ID'ers (creationist) try to prove scientists wrong about Evolution or The Big Bang Theory because they think if they prove there is a 'designer' that will proves there is a god. But science has answered far more than you seem to know, as well as, the fact that evolution is stronger today than it was when it first started because of DNA. If evolution was an erroneous theory DNA would have falsified it, but instead DNA is confirming evolution. What I have written below explains evolution - the last paragraph explains that the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, that we observe there is no need for anything outside.

Biologists do not have to believe that there are transitional fossils; we can examine them in hundreds of museums around the world, and we make new discoveries in the rocks all the time. Scientists do not have to believe that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old; we can test the age of the Earth, Moon, and meteoric rocks very accurately. We do not have to believe that protocells can be easily created from simple chemicals in the laboratory; we can repeat the experiments with comparable results. We can also create artificial species of plants and animals by applying selection, and we can observe natural speciation in action. That is the big difference between science and religion. Science exists because of the evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith -- and, in the case of religious fundamentalism and creationism, in spite of the evidence.

Those scientists who do not believe that history began on "creation week" have developed theories. One is 'The Cell Theory' and it is not the only theory, because this lead to other theories (that's how science works). There are very different theories on the definition of Life. The Theory of Negentropy (Life must comply with the laws of physics as it exists in the physical world.) This theory is based on the observation that living organisms possess the ability to remain in a state of order, or low entropy, against the natural tendency for all things to decay into disorder, or high entropy. Living things feed on matter "negative entropy" and use them to avoid decay. The phenomenon of resisting decay towards greater entropy can be seen in generally accepted to be non-living materials too. Crystals have the ability to create "order from disorder" and "reproduce" other crystals similar to themselves if a piece of the crystal is placed in a suitable environment. In fact the existence of a crystal in Life, which helps propagate the "genetics" of the Life form. This suggestion is said to have inspired the discovery of DNA later on. The Theory of Negentropy did propose a crucial point that is often overlooked, and that is that however "mysterious" Life may seem, we are still physically composed of nothing more than the same molecules also found in non-living matter. Just as with everything else, these molecules must comply with the laws of the Universe.

Three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. British astrophysicists Stephen W. Hawking and James B. Hartle were trying to understanding such things as what came before the "Big Bang" at the beginning of the universe as well as what laws were true at the beginning of time itself. By combining Einstein's ideas about time and space (from the theory of relativity) with the known laws of quantum physics, they developed a mathematical description of space-time that used imaginary time. One wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, that we observe. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again.

It is fairly simple. Do you believe in leprechauns? Do you believe in the boogie man hiding under your bed? Do you believe in any sort of wild crazy claims you just happen to hear or read. I am pretty certain leprechauns, the boogie man or any claims that involves supernatural powers is unfounded. Defining a God with supernatural powers is the same as believing that there are leprechauns hiding gold at the end of the rainbow. If you are defining a god as a natural force or event that start our universe. That's completely different from the God that loves you and can send you to heaven or hell.

It's not very simple if you are talking about why we do know things scientifically that "Nearly Atheist" thinks that we will never ever know. It does not eliminate the possibility of an "intelligent designer" if we will never ever know how anything about the beginning of everything.

The beginning of the Universe and Evolution are not simple subjects, but he is saying that we will never ever know things that we already do know. They have very strong theories about what came before the beginning, and NASA through (time travel) has gone back to the beginning.

When someone answers a person who does not understand the scientific reasons behind something you can't just simply say it is because there are no leprechauns. There are very good theories behind science and there are no theories about leprechauns or intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is all but a thing of the past just like Creationism.

I guess I have to repeat myself. If you are defining God as a "who" in which that who loves you and wants his creation to worship "him", NO! I am very certain that this God does not exist just like I am certain that leprechauns and a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow do not exist, 99.999999999999% sure of it. Make any wild supernatural claim you want, it doesn't make it true.

If you are defining God as a force or event that start the universe without all the supernatural, man made folklore then that is a completely different conversation. It is absurd to talk about "God" in a scientific terms and then jump into battles of good and evil, heaven and hell, or which religion is the real religion.

First, you have to clearly define what God you are talking about. And if you believe the God of the holy books is the god you believe in, then you are not an atheist. If you are defining God as some galactic force, or some cosmic event that began our universe, now we can have some intelligent conversation. We may never completely answer to this mystery, but made up stories thousands of years ago will not better our understanding. Please, we have to shed all this irrational supernatural BS thinking that is sufficating our human potential.

Wesley Crozier wrote: QUOTE: "I've come across so many arguments, some suggesting God exists and some suggesting God doesn't exist. Like most agnostics I find myself thinking 'God-exists' arguments groundless and 'God-doesn't-exist' arguments plausible but unprovable."

I will only speak for myself. Atheists do not try to prove anything about something that there is no tangible proof for. There is no proof that god exists. The burden of proof is on the one who makes claims. Those who make claims about god often use the Bible as their proof, which it is not. They have not researched the Bible; they have read the Bible.

I think my last post was answering Martano666 who wrote. QUOTE: QUOTE: "But, I don't think science will EVER answer the questions about the beginning of everything. We can prove or disprove evolution (some day) but that will still not explain why everything came to exist in the first place." (The answer to all of that is in my post.)

And then Leysin wrote: QUOTE: "If you are defining God as some galactic force, or some cosmic event that began our universe, now we can have some intelligent conversation. We may never completely answer to this mystery, but made up stories thousands of years ago will not better our understanding."

Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. British astrophysicists Stephen W. Hawking and James B. Hartle were trying to understanding such things as what came before the "Big Bang" at the beginning of the universe as well as what laws were true at the beginning of time itself. By combining Einstein's ideas about time and space (from the theory of relativity) with the known laws of quantum physics, they developed a mathematical description of space-time that used imaginary time. One wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, that we observe.

I would like to add that to say the Bible proves something about god is the same as saying ancient mythology proves something about Zeus. The Ugaritic text is the oldest written text ever discovered. Since the discovery of the Ugaritic materials at Ras Shamra, there has been a great deal of comparative work done in order to explicate the relationship between the Canaanite pantheon and cult, and Israelite faith and practice. These comparisons are necessary for interpretation of texts and the customs written of in the Old Testament that were previously not clearly understood. El was the ancestral deity of the Semites. El appears also in Arabia under the expanded form Ilah, who's plural of majesty is the Hebrew Elohim. The names ending in el and in ilah are more numerous in the various Arabic dialects than those in honor of any other deity. Taken as a whole, they are to be considered as survivals, for it has been proved that they were preponderant in ancient Akkadian and in Aramaic. Since the word el corresponds to the word god, it has been rightly concluded that the Semites invoked only El. El was lifted out of obscurity to be used as the name of the eternal, exclusive, unique, all-powerful God of monotheistic religions. This required that El be shorn of his consorts, children, peers, sexuality etc. The first occasion, was when the Israelites identified him with their God YHWH, appropriating a number of Canaanite El's titles or epithets, as part of the process of developing the monotheism of the Torah. Then, much later, under Jewish and Christian influence, Muhammad declared El, under his Arabic designation, Allah, to be the one true God thus founding Islam. Many of the sacrifices mentioned in the Ugaritic texts have names, which are identical to those, described in the book of Leviticus. Ugaritic texts speak of the Burnt Offering, the Whole Burnt Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Offering for Expiation of the Soul; the Wave Offering, the Tribute Offering, the First Fruits Offering, the Peace Offering, and the New Moon Offering. The term "offering without blemish" also appears in the Ugaritic literature. In Carthage, a Phoenician-Canaanite colony near present-day Tunis, he and his consort were the main or only gods to which child sacrifices, which took place on a massive scale, were dedicated. It is clear that Ugaritic and early biblical Hebrew poetry share a common literary tradition.

wesley crozier

god goes exhist and he does love you. so turn to him.

god bless

I guess so? But where is the proof of either one of those statements?

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

blip.tv ustream.tv

Join us for the Bat Cruise Lecture, 1:15pm September 27th at Trinity United Methodist Church, at 40th and Speedway. Lecturers will be Richard Carrier and Chris Johnson.

The ACA Bat Cruise is set for Saturday, September 27th, 6-8pm. Purchase tickets in advance here.

The audio and video from Dr. Shahnawaz August lecture is now available.