Why I am an atheist – Fralan


I am the confident and comfortable atheist I am today for three main
reasons, among others. These are just common sense notions that
leveled the Catholic faith I was brought up in when I was 14.

1. I do not wish to live in perpetual fear. Christian philosophy,
specifically Catholic philosophy, dictates that everyone WILL suffer
for eternity. You are born that way, you have no chance of escape from
the vile disgusting thing that is you. Only by completely throwing
your life away to a divine tyrant and unquestioningly spreading his
will, whether you agree or not, is the way to not suffer. Being angry:
damnation. Asking questions: damnation. Being born: Damnation.
Religion removes the point of life by making you miserable and
submissive. Religion relies on this loathing of oneself to get what it
wants: obedience and money.

2. I live in reality. Religion lies straight to the faces of millions
and they believe it. Why? Because it’s what the magic desert
scribblings say. So there. Once again they rely on straight fear to
keep people in line, and it is only this fear that keeps them
believing. They simply ignore inconsistencies as trivial because these
inconsistencies prove errors. Everyone knows that dinosaurs died out
65 million years ago. The bible says that the earth is 6,000 years
old, but people still just ignore it.

3. Religion is self-righteous and egotistic. Countless millions have died
because religion told them that their way was correct, as opposed to
someone’s slightly different way. Crusades, witch hunts, jihad, the
Holocaust, and scores of other events are justified only to the
killers because they’re just acting under a direct order from god,
given by man, of course.

Religion is a brutal prison warden on people’s lives. They stop at
nothing to maintain control and recruit new members. Permanent
psychological damage? They don’t care. It tries to destroy
independence, coexistence, and confidence in the name of an
oversensitive, jealous, maniacal, dictator in the sky, and they do no
one any good.

Fralan
United States

Comments

  1. says

    But…God gives meaning to life, don’t you know?

    It always makes me wonder how vacuous one’s life has to be to need that “meaning.” Although there do seem to be enough who really do need that.

    Well, I don’t.

    Glen Davidson

  2. loreo says

    A bit strong? That’s pretty much exactly my experience with Holy Mother Church. I don’t want to lend credence to the Angry Atheist stereotype, but I’ve been surprised at the calmness of many of these posts. Myself, I was raised in a fantasy world for two fucking decades, living in fear of an imaginary tyrant. I’m still pissed that I swallowed that bullshit hook, line, and sinker for so long.

  3. chigau (違う) says

    I was a Catholic as a child and was never told I was disgusting, was never made to fear God™ and was never told to spread Catholicism.
    There was a lot of smugness, though.

  4. says

    “Stories made up by bronze/early iron age goat herders” has kind of run its course with me. I think “magic desert scribblings” has good potential for an alternative.

  5. chigau (違う) says

    Bronze Dog
    Is that magic-desert scribblings or magic desert-scribblings?
    either works for me.

  6. eclectabotanics says

    I’m with Bronze Dog – bravo for bringing the phrase “magic desert scribblings” to the Pharyngula lexicon. I’ll be using that one.

  7. alexmartin says

    Hi. New here, but just a thought, if I may. It seems to me that one should not make an important judgment or decision base upon strong, impassioned emotion, particularly anger or vexation. I note, however, that points #1 and 2 appear to be mainly bitter repudiation devoid of reason (which a-theism purportedly is based upon). So, anger at “God” equates to “everything just kinda happened”? I don’t see the correlation you imply. Yes, by your own admission, you may be fiercely angry at some “imaginary” invisible tyrant in the sky, or at the form and function of religion as prescribed by man,etc., but what’s any of that got to do with self-evident existence?

  8. chigau (違う) says

    alexmartin
    God does not exist so Fralan is not angry at god.
    Fralan is angry at all the People who lie about god.

  9. glowball says

    to alexmartin@8
    Not seeing the anger you speak of. Only plain honest-spoken fact. No bitterness, and a great deal of reason. Don’t understand where you are getting your assertions.
    And your sentence, “So, anger at ‘God’ equates to “everything just kinda happened”, really isn’t the least bit clear. What are you implying, and what exactly are you referring to with this query? Seems to come right out of the blue.
    Methinks there’s a bit of projection going on with you. If I’m wrong and only misunderstanding (possible), then you need to work on your clarity a bit. Just curious.

  10. raven says

    It tries to destroy
    independence, coexistence, and confidence in the name of an
    oversensitive, jealous, maniacal, dictator in the sky, and they do no one any good.

    You forgot money. God is all powerful but he always seems to need your money.

    Maybe he should get a real job instead.

  11. raven says

    alex the moron troll:

    Yes, by your own admission, you may be fiercely angry at some “imaginary” invisible tyrant in the sky, or at the form and function of religion as prescribed by man,etc., but what’s any of that got to do with self-evident existence?

    This is stupid.

    We atheists get along really well with the gods. Couldn’t be better, just wonderful. They’ve been so quiet for centuries that it is almost like…they don’t even exist.

    What we have trouble with is the gods’ followers. Like you. They cause huge problems and if no one is looking are frequently homicidal maniacs.

  12. chigau (違う) says

    raven

    Maybe he should get a real job instead.

    It’s very difficult to get a real job when one has no real, marketable skills.
    and one cannot speak any human language.
    and is invisible and incorporeal.

  13. says

    Religion relies on this loathing of oneself to get what it wants: obedience and money.

    The last straw for me was when our pastor used his entire sermon, two Sundays in a row, to beg for more money for the wealthy Vatican. I never went to church again.

    It would be nice if the world’s theists read these Why I am an atheist posts at http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/category/testimonial/. Especially young victims of religious indoctrination need to read it so they understand there’s an alternative to wasting an entire life believing in childish fantasies.

  14. alexmartin says

    Glory be! The fires-of-hell critiques dropped quicker than a police Rapid Response Unit. Geez. Glowball, I mean (as inference alone should have shown you), that Fralan’s titled piece is “Why I am an atheist”, yet chiefest amongst his or her points is anger at some God, equivalent to the ostriche deciding that, as it wishes there were no tiger to attack it, it must then thrust its head into the sand to make that mean old tiger go away; fervently wishing and hoping something, alone, does not make it so. “I am an atheist because religion and religious people are very, very bad” does not prove therefor that all that exists just kinda…., er, “happened”. An indefensible non-sequitur. Get it? One cannot be an atheist just because religion and faulty human beings are problematic. That would be both illogical and irrational.

  15. sumdum says

    Even if he was just angry at god: so what ? Should he continue to worship a being he’s angry at ? That doesn’t make sense. So even if we grant you that for the sake of argument, it’s senseless.

  16. kemist says

    It seems to me that one should not make an important judgment or decision base upon strong, impassioned emotion, particularly anger or vexation.

    Depends.

    Sometimes those are very good guides to point out to yourself that enough is enough. They also provide a strong motivation.

    To decide to stop abuse for instance.

    So, anger at “God” equates to “everything just kinda happened”? I don’t see the correlation you imply.

    Already pointed out, but one cannot be angry at something that doesn’t exist. Being lied to and made to live in fear for years on end, on the other hand, should make you angry.

    And please note if your god existed, I would consider bowing to it to be an act of cowardice.

    Yes, by your own admission, you may be fiercely angry at some “imaginary” invisible tyrant in the sky, or at the form and function of religion as prescribed by man,etc., but what’s any of that got to do with self-evident existence?

    Self-evident existence ?

    Bwhahahahahahahahahaha !

    You made a funny.

  17. KG says

    yet chiefest amongst his or her points is anger at some God, – alexmartin

    You’re seeing something that’s not there – I guess you have plenty of practice at that. Read the piece again: there’s not a single mention of God (or any other fictional character), anywhere in it. I certainly see anger there, but it’s directed solely at real people and institutions. It’s true enough that the offences of religious people and institutions do not entail the non-existence of gods, but if any of them really did have a hotline to the creator(s) of the universe, one would expect abundant evidence of that fact. That there is nothing at all in the behaviour of religious people and institutions that suggests that they do have any such hotline, does indicate that if there is or are a god or gods, it or they is or are not interested in talking to us.

    Now most atheists will admit that they cannot prove the non-existence of gods, but nor can we prove the non-existence of leprechauns; and gods (or leprechauns) that are not interested in talking to us are no different, for any practical purpose, from gods (or leprechauns) that don’t exist. Moreover, in the absence of positive evidence for them, the parsimonious hypothesis is that they don’t exist.

  18. raven says

    “I am an atheist because religion and religious people are very, very bad” does not prove therefor that all that exists just kinda..

    That is true. Just because some xians are evil morons (like you) has no bearing on whether the gods exist or not.

    But it does strongly call their existence into question. Xians frequently claim that all morality derives from their god. That their god is omni-beneficial. These are demonstrably easily falsified statements. You can be a good person and be a xian but it makes it harder.

    Further examination shows that the gods don’t exist. The bible is a kludgy incoherent mess written by and for humans. The scientific claims of the fundies are wrong. And so on.

    We all start somewhere. The fundie xians made me question xianity. Reading the bible was the end. What a horrible, pointless wreck of an anthology. And the proof for the existence of the gods doesn’t exist and never has.

  19. raven says

    but what’s any of that got to do with self-evident existence?

    The existence of the gods isn’t self evident at all.

    1. There are thousands of gods and religions. Humans never, ever agree on anything about the gods. In fact, they frequently kill each other to settle their differences.

    2. Religion survives by early, intense brainwashing of children. Followed by all known methods for coercing social conformity. Backed up by the occasional murders of defectors.

    And guess what? Even then it fails. When people can get out of it, they get out of it. The big news in religion of the 20th century was the rise of the No Religions. They went from about zero to 1 billion people worldwide and are growing rapidly.

  20. says

    @alexmartin – if you can’t understand why anyone would be angry that religions and gods have been used as excuses for exterminating your neighbours I really don’t want to live anywhere near you.

    I’ve yet to meet a fellow atheist who ‘suddenly’ stopped believing in a god or gods – it took me years to figure out that they’re all fictional creations of the human mind. Knowing that no god exists excludes any possibility of hating one, but it is possible and reasonable to hate people who perpetrate the myths for personal profit or for reasons of hatred against non-believers.

    That all said your comments come across as just silly – as though you are incapable of accepting that bronze age myths belong in the bronze age At best god stories belong in the history or mytholgy sections of your local library to remind us of the stupidity of our ancestors.

  21. alexmartin says

    I won’t attack any of you personally, please respond in kind. Name-calling and personal attacks reflect poorly on the respondent and damages ones’ cause.
    Thanks for the interest, Raven and Kemist, but assuming I am christian demeans yourselves. I only seek fairness and impartiality. That can never be improper.
    Kemist, “self-evident existence” is not some naive redundancy: it is deliberate and necessary for accuracy’s sake. To some eastern religious systems, “reality” itself is only an illusion or dream. You understand.
    One could figuratively feed all of the worlds established and organized religions through a trash disposal and flush them into the sewer, but it would mean little. Even in an idealized, hypothetical world devoid of the possibility of a metaphysical notion, you would still face the natty problem of “How Did We Get Here?”
    You are left with, It All Just Happened, with no direction or plan of any kind. A faith-based proposition. Pitiful basis upon which to hang an alternative philosophy.
    It’s nice to think that it All Just Happened. That notion seems comforting. As religiosity strikes some as inherently horrid, it’s good to summarily dismiss the god mythologies which underpin those religious systems. But if I may, just because you might be dissatisfied with the product you bought, that doesn’t by itself disqualify the products’ maker.
    You don’t like religion = therefore God does not exist. Doesn’t add up.

  22. says

    alexmartin – if people are concluding that you are a Christian, that’s because you write like one.

    Literally EVERY WEEK we get people in here doing what you just tried – that whole “you can’t call me a Christian because I haven’t told you I am one” schtick. Tired and worn out, that one is, and fools no one.

    Try being honest.

  23. raven says

    You are left with, It All Just Happened, with no direction or plan of any kind. A faith-based proposition. Pitiful basis upon which to hang an alternative philosophy.

    This is pathetic nonreasoning.

    It’s god of the gaps. It’s also the fallacies of argument from ignorant and personal incredulity.

    Basically it is, we and the universe exist, therefore goddidit. A pure assertion devoid of logic or data.

    It’s also wrong. Cosmology has come a long ways in recent decades. We do in fact have a good idea where our universe came from and it doesn’t involve Invisible Sky Fairies.

  24. raven says

    alex missing the point:

    As religiosity strikes some as inherently horrid,

    You seem to be able to miss every point while constructing strawpeople and murdering them.

    Try to read for comprehension before making yourself look like an idiot troll.

    Religiosity doesn’t just strike people as horrid. A lot of us found it horrid by bitter personal experience. That wasn’t me but Fralan seems to have had a bad experience with the RCC.

    PS Alex does seem like a typical fundie. Probably thinks the earth is flat, orbited by the sun, and 6,000 years old. But is ashamed to admit it among normal people because it is silly.

  25. janine says

    I won’t attack any of you personally, please respond in kind. Name-calling and personal attacks reflect poorly on the respondent and damages ones’ cause.

    Tone troll. So far, only one person insulted you. (As it stands, I have to agree with that insult.)

    Thanks for the interest, Raven and Kemist, but assuming I am christian demeans yourselves. I only seek fairness and impartiality. That can never be improper.

    They are only following the established trend of people who post comments like yours. With just a little prodding, the christian apologetic begins. You are hardly the first person to come in like this.

    Kemist, “self-evident existence” is not some naive redundancy: it is deliberate and necessary for accuracy’s sake. To some eastern religious systems, “reality” itself is only an illusion or dream. You understand.

    This is hardly exclusive to some eastern religions. Many christians contend that the only reality is god’s reality. But this just leads to pointless pondering.

    One could figuratively feed all of the worlds established and organized religions through a trash disposal and flush them into the sewer, but it would mean little. Even in an idealized, hypothetical world devoid of the possibility of a metaphysical notion, you would still face the natty problem of “How Did We Get Here?”

    But if they were flushed, it would eliminate a lot of white noise.

    You are left with, It All Just Happened, with no direction or plan of any kind. A faith-based proposition. Pitiful basis upon which to hang an alternative philosophy.

    Right here is why you are being treated as a defender of some sect. You are dismissing an atheistic point of view as It All Just Happened. You are the one assuming that there is some guiding intelligence to existence.

    It’s nice to think that it All Just Happened. That notion seems comforting. As religiosity strikes some as inherently horrid, it’s good to summarily dismiss the god mythologies which underpin those religious systems. But if I may, just because you might be dissatisfied with the product you bought, that doesn’t by itself disqualify the products’ maker.

    Piss poor analogy. My life is something that I bought and an now feeling buyer’s remorse. Also, the onus is upon you to show that their is an intelligence.

    You don’t like religion = therefore God does not exist. Doesn’t add up.

    You keep repeating this yet you have not shown that this is what anyone thinks.

    Get ready for more insults to be tossed your way. You will have earned them. And none of them will take away from the fact the your argument is silly to its core.

  26. chigau (違う) says

    You don’t like religion = therefore God does not exist. Doesn’t add up.

    On the other hand “God does not exist therefore I don’t like religion.” adds up nicely.

  27. KG says

    alexmartin,

    The smug superiority you evidently feel is quite unjustified.

    You are left with, It All Just Happened, with no direction or plan of any kind. A faith-based proposition.

    No: a high-level hypothesis that inspires the naturalistic research programme. In the absence of any evidence for a creator, despite thousands of years of search for that evidence by many fine minds and dedicated institutions, the hypothesis that there is no ,creator, and hence no direction or plan of any kind readily arises. So far, science – our most reliable way of learning about those aspects of relaity that are not logically necessary – has found nothing that contradicts it. It could do so, and if it does, I will cease to be an atheist.

    As religiosity strikes some as inherently horrid, it’s good to summarily dismiss the god mythologies which underpin those religious systems. But if I may, just because you might be dissatisfied with the product you bought, that doesn’t by itself disqualify the products’ maker.

    The metaphor makes no sense. The “product” here can only be religion or religiosity or a religious system, but it’s evident Fralan did not buy it, and nor does anyone else arguing with you, so who can this be addressed to? But in any case, if a product is a piece of tawdry trash, or is actually dangerous, that does reflect badly on the maker. Hence I certainly would not worship the creator of this universe – if it is an artefact, then it’s quite clearly faulty, and the manufacturer should supply a replacement free of charge.

    You don’t like religion = therefore God does not exist. Doesn’t add up.

    The “=” is superfluous. Fralan’s piece is describing what led to hir becoming an atheist, not constructing an argument for atheism. That’s perfectly legitimate in the context of this series of posts. If you want an argument for atheism, then with reference to gods in general, atheism has exactly the same justification as aleprechaunism: there is no evidence for the existence of either gods or leprechauns. The only “argument” for a creator you’ve even hinted at so far is the argument from ignorance: we don’t know how things came to be as they are, therefore God. Is that the best you can manage?

  28. alexmartin says

    Wrong, Raven: cosmological STORIES have come a long way. In my frequent perusal of scientific literature, I note that the preponderance of long-held theorems face near constant upheaval,major rethink, from cosmology, age of the universe, star-planetary-galactic formation, etc. Recently, even the fixity of the speed of light has apparently been disproven. Don’t try to snow me.

    Also, Raven, you have no idea where the “universe” came from, as the very existence of the “universe” defies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics themselves, as energy can never be created, can never be destroyed, can never increase, can never decrease, and is therefore quite simply an impossibility. First explain the origin of that which cannot exist before you insult me. You have no plausible origins story to fall back to.

    What’s this gibberish about sky-fairies again?

  29. Zinc Avenger says

    alexmartin, @30:

    First explain the origin of that which cannot exist

    Normally at this stage of a discussion I like to ask for evidence that a deity exists, but in response to this oddball assertion all I can ask is for evidence that the universe doesn’t exist.

  30. alexmartin says

    And anyway,Fralan, people can be bad and religion is terrible, terrible I say(!). Yes…

    But you are an atheist not (just) because religion and religious people are bad but because your reason and logic tells you that you must be so based upon the information provided you to this point, which is what you likely have always meant.

    That’s understandable.

  31. alexmartin says

    Zing Avenger, as you are scientifically literate, I need not explain anything that you do not already understand.

    Zinc Avenger says:
    12 December 2011 at 2:08 pm

    alexmartin, @30:

    First explain the origin of that which cannot exist

    Normally at this stage of a discussion I like to ask for evidence that a deity exists, but in response to this oddball assertion all I can ask is for evidence that the universe doesn’t exist.

    Your problem is not with me.

  32. kemist says

    Kemist, “self-evident existence” is not some naive redundancy: it is deliberate and necessary for accuracy’s sake. To some eastern religious systems, “reality” itself is only an illusion or dream. You understand.

    Yes.

    Eastern bullshit stinks just as much as western bullshit.

    Next.

    One could figuratively feed all of the worlds established and organized religions through a trash disposal and flush them into the sewer, but it would mean little. Even in an idealized, hypothetical world devoid of the possibility of a metaphysical notion, you would still face the natty problem of “How Did We Get Here?”

    A problem to which all religions offer only ignorant, childish and useless non-answers.

    I prefer an honest “I don’t know” to “magic daddy/pixie/fairy/”energy”/whatchamacallit did it”. At least “I don’t know” is an occasion for people to start searching – it’s the basic primer for science.

    Religion, on the other hand, is a science-stopper.

    You are left with, It All Just Happened, with no direction or plan of any kind.

    It’s just your human tool-user brain that demands for plans and purpose. Nature doesn’t conform to human needs and thoughts. It’s quite egotistical and childish to assume so.

    A faith-based proposition. Pitiful basis upon which to hang an alternative philosophy.

    Mirror, mirror…

    It’s nice to think that it All Just Happened. That notion seems comforting.

    No,it ain’t, not if you think about the consequences. Like what you sweet little all-important person really represents in the grand scheme of things : zero, nil, zilch.

    You.

    are.

    not.

    speshul.

    Comforting, he?

    But if I may, just because you might be dissatisfied with the product you bought, that doesn’t by itself disqualify the products’ maker.

    But observing that religions all seem man-made allows you to draw some valid assumptions.

    Also, for a supposedly perfect, omniscient, all-powerful, ect. being, this “maker” seems to have an awful rate of defective products. I wouldn’t consider it’s services to make any product I might need.

    Also, Raven, you have no idea where the “universe” came from, as the very existence of the “universe” defies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics themselves, as energy can never be created, can never be destroyed, can never increase, can never decrease, and is therefore quite simply an impossibility.

    You seem, like all faithheads, to misunderstand thermodynamics.

  33. alexmartin says

    Kemist, I do not misunderstand thermodynamics. First Law: Energy cannot EVER be created. As there is no Creator to bring about this non-existent energy (from which matter is derived), and since energy (from which matter is derived) cannot arise out of non-energy, then energy (from which matter is derived) cannot ever independently exist. Energy and matter cannot bootstrap itself into existence.

    Period.

    Go try to clown someone else. And ponder the riddle above while you’re navelgazing.

  34. KG says

    alexmartin,

    My my, what a parade of ignorance!

    In my frequent perusal of scientific literature, I note that the preponderance of long-held theorems face near constant upheaval,

    “Theorem” is not a term scarcely used by scientists, except when referring to mathematical theorems, which most certainly do not “face near constant upheaval”.

    major rethink, from cosmology, age of the universe, star-planetary-galactic formation, etc.

    The consensus acceptance of Big Bang cosmology dates from the 1960s; it has certainly been refined since then, and its date (always estimated at around 10bya, IIRC) more precisely determined but there is no likelihood it will be overturned.

    Recently, even the fixity of the speed of light has apparently been disproven.

    No-one has yet claimed that. If it does turn out that neutrinos can travel faster than light does in a vacuum, that will indeed imply major changes in both fundamental physics and cosmology; but the new theories will build on the achievements of the past century. That’s the glory of science – that it is both cumulative and creatively self-correcting.

    the very existence of the “universe” defies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics themselves, as energy can never be created, can never be destroyed, can never increase, can never decrease, and is therefore quite simply an impossibility.

    More ignorance. It is quite possible the net energy of the universe is zero. It is also possible the universe has non-zero energy but had no beginning. It is even possible the first law of thermodynamics may not hold in all circumstances. Incidentally, the hypothesis of a creator appears to demand this if the universe had a beginning and has non-zero energy.

  35. says

    Jeez, not only do you not understand thermodynamics, you are completely forgetting that all the current laws of physics were not in effect before, during and a fraction of a second after the big bang.

    And that’s not even getting into the whole “net energy of the universe is zero” thing.

    Jeepers. Didn’t they teach you anything in that not-christian school of yours?

    Don’t answer that, it’s rhetorical.

  36. KG says

    Energy cannot EVER be created. As there is no Creator to bring about this non-existent energy – alexmartin

    It takes stupidity of an exceptional order to contradict oneself quite so quickly. If energy cannot EVER be created, clearly no creator could have created it.

  37. sumdum says

    You are left with, It All Just Happened, with no direction or plan of any kind.

    You mean no direction or plan mandated by someone or something from above. That’s the beauty of it, you get to make your own plan, you choose your own direction, you give your life meaning yourself. Nobody to tell you that, it’s all you. Freedom.

  38. alexmartin says

    KG, you and the Cornell physicists at the above have just demonstrated that zero always equals zero except in cases where it does not equal zero in totality within a closed system. Then in total, the sum of itself equals zero.

    Yes?

    I am very ignorant. Too ignorant to comprehend that there may be something, or a great many somethings, but in total it all adds up to zero, as compared to other things.

    Yes?

    Ignorant buffoon, am I.

  39. kemist says

    Kemist, I do not misunderstand thermodynamics. First Law: Energy cannot EVER be created. As there is no Creator to bring about this non-existent energy (from which matter is derived), and since energy (from which matter is derived) cannot arise out of non-energy, then energy (from which matter is derived) cannot ever independently exist. Energy and matter cannot bootstrap itself into existence.

    ->

    The experimentally reproducible distinction between heat and work is at the heart of thermodynamics; thermodynamics has nothing to say about processes in which this distinction cannot be made.

    Classical thermodynamics describes the exchange of work and heat between systems. It has a special interest in systems that are individually in states of thermodynamic equilibrium.Thermodynamic equilibrium is a condition of systems which are adequately described by only macroscopic variables.

    Question : How can you manage to observe the universe macroscopically as a system ?

  40. kemist says

    I am very ignorant. Too ignorant to comprehend that there may be something, or a great many somethings, but in total it all adds up to zero, as compared to other things.

    Yes?

    What is the total power of a finite energy signal ?

  41. alexmartin says

    Myeck, KG: I understand, in fact we all understand. It will be impossible for you to understand that energy cannot ever exist independently.

    You cannot ever understand that there cannot ever be a great tiny cosmic egg out of which the universe explodes into existence in a Big Bang.That matter, that energy for that Big Bang came from somewhere. A scientific impossibility, as that energy/matter matrix did not and could not inscrutably, unsearchably, ineffably, will itself into existence.

    You cannot see what is right in front of your face.

    Do you, can you understand that?

    Zero Energy State?
    With stuff in it?

    Ok.

  42. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    First Law: Energy cannot EVER be created. As there is no Creator to bring about this non-existent energy (from which matter is derived), and since energy (from which matter is derived) cannot arise out of non-energy, then energy (from which matter is derived) cannot ever independently exist. Energy and matter cannot bootstrap itself into existence.

    BZZZZ! Wrong, thank you for playing.

    Ever hear of virtual particles?

    Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles)

    There’s a theory which holds that the total energy of the universe is zero. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it changes form. Incidentally, quantum theory is non-intuitive. Drop “common sense” when you start investigating quantum effects.

    And if you’re trying the old “there gots ta be a creator ’cause somethin’ cain’t come from nutin'” shuck and jive, then you’re stuck with explaining where your creator comes from. “He always existed” is a logical fallacy called special pleading.

  43. KG says

    alexmartin@46,

    That’s just the argument from personal incredulity. It’s invalid: the universe is not obliged to conform to your prejudices. Presenting it simply confirms that you are indeed an ignorant buffoon.

  44. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Oh wow, we’ve got us a special kind of ignorant fuckwit here. He knows just enough not to know he doesn’t know anything.

  45. says

    alexmartin:

    A scientific impossibility, as that energy/matter matrix did not and could not inscrutably, unsearchably, ineffably, will itself into existence.

    Why is teleology necessary?

    Also, as we don’t have a good idea of the pre-existing conditions before the big bang (ignoring for a moment that time and space in our universe didn’t exist “before” the big bang), I’m not sure how you can say it’s a “scientific impossibility.” I mean, other than your question-begging teleology.

  46. Brownian says

    Ever hear of virtual particles?

    Of course. Fucker assures us he ‘peruses’ the scientific literature.

    What was that he keeps saying? “Don’t try to snow me.”

    Yeah, Alex: you’re on top of all the latest developments, all right.

  47. Brownian says

    Oh wow, we’ve got us a special kind of ignorant fuckwit here. He knows just enough not to know he doesn’t know anything.

    He’s got the smarmy, pedantic, philosopher patter down. Too bad he’s too fucking stupid to realise the trick only works if your audience doesn’t already think you’re a moron.

    Maybe this sort idiotic browbeating works in Church groups where they like to pat themselves on the back for stumping all the biologists with questions about why monkeys still exist, but this dope’s got about as much traction as howard “est worked for me, and that’s all you need to know” shumann.

  48. alexmartin says

    Yep, there’s turtles all the way down after all.

    Special pleading?
    Harumph.

    I am not of the Philosophical Metaphysical Greek Pantheism School of Kabbalistic Enlightenment.

    Scientific gloss does not evoke scientific validity.

  49. KG says

    #53 just reinforces the conclusion that you have nothing; you’re not even trying to put forward an argument. You’re just a standard issue ignorant goddist troll.

  50. Brownian says

    Yep, there’s turtles all the way down after all.

    Special pleading?
    Harumph.

    I am not of the Philosophical Metaphysical Greek Pantheism School of Kabbalistic Enlightenment.

    Scientific gloss does not evoke scientific validity.

    So, that’s the plan God has for you? He said, “Alex: I want you to waste people’s time on the internet with obfuscatory bullshit.

    That’s right; I want you to be a piece of shit, publicly.”

    Is that what his plan is? To make you a fucking asshole?

    Or is that something you stumbled onto all by your moron self?

  51. alexmartin says

    KG, that’s funny. Quite funny. I like it. May I use it some time?
    Anyway, the theoretical physicists may float about in the bubbleverse, but you need not as well.

    Or do you need a ‘brane?

    After all has been said and done, any idea of the origin of anything at all is a matter or mere conjecture and out-and-out Faith.

    Goddist troll?
    Sorry, but no…

  52. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    That matter, that energy for that Big Bang came from somewhere. A scientific impossibility, as that energy/matter matrix did not and could not inscrutably, unsearchably, ineffably, will itself into existence.

    Citation from the peer reviewed scientific literature need for your special pleading. Science says otherwise. You, like all creobots, lose unless you can show how your imaginary creator came to be. Minor details of logic you keep overlooking and avoiding with slight of hand, smoke and mirrors.

  53. alexmartin says

    Sorry, Brownian. Not trying to be argumentative. I used to spend time on another atheist site, now defunct (CVAtheists), and I kinda missed it.

    Off work today, and this website caught my eye.

    Did I need a permission slip?

  54. kemist says

    Yep, there’s turtles all the way down after all.

    Special pleading?
    Harumph.

    I am not of the Philosophical Metaphysical Greek Pantheism School of Kabbalistic Enlightenment.

    Scientific gloss does not evoke scientific validity.

    Wow. I’m totally whelmed by your understanding of thermodynamics. Or of … whatever.

    So, just to clarify the above gibberish :

    If you observe something which exists within the universe – matter or energy, are you or are you not observing the universe macroscopically ?

  55. alexmartin says

    And finally, Nerd, we actually both have the exact same problem:

    Ultimate Origins.

    See, You will always shamelessly demand of the religionist that THEY must first account for the origin of their god/gods/godlings, all the while excoriating them for their primitive, simpleton, credulous mythologies, while all the while slipping through the back door the fact that you have the exact same problem–explaining the ultimate origin and eternal existence of your magical, mysterious, eternally pre-existant everything, of whatever form or happenstance permutation.

    See, it always Just Existed, just because.See?

    Have I got that right?

  56. Brownian says

    Not trying to be argumentative.

    Really? If that’s the case, then you’ve managed to achieve brain-injury-level stupid.

    Sorry: I’ll put that in words you can understand:

    “That which is.

    PERIOD.

    What you cannot see, you cannot see.

    Derp.”

    Go back to ‘perusing’ the scientific literature while making the kinds of errors in understanding a third-grader would, assface.

  57. Zinc Avenger says

    alexmartin, do you have a point?

    ZOMG SCIENCE DOESN’T KNOW EVERYTHING!!@#!~!

    Well done. Have a cookie. We know.

    People are working on it. Smart people have dedicated their lives to thinking about it and finding ways of testing their hypotheses. They might never finish; they might spend the rest of our species’ existence wrangling ever-finer details and never find the turtle at the bottom. But you’re the one screaming about how nothing at all exists, adding precisely… what? to the conversation.

    You want reassuring false certainty and answers that fit in a fortune cookie? Religion’s got that. Go tithe someone.

    You might want to stop with the sickeningly greasy combination of “I’m ignorant” and “Science ain’t as smart as moi“. It makes you look like a kid at a science fair proudly exhibiting a smeared turd, convinced that his entry is beyond criticism.

  58. alexmartin says

    *Sigh*
    Oh, Broooowniiiiing…
    It is said that, if you have to resort to namecalling to win your argument then you’ve already lost.

    Do you believe that?

    “Assface”. Hmmmmm. What’s that again about third-graders?

  59. elronxenu says

    After all has been said and done, any idea of the origin of anything at all is a matter or mere conjecture and out-and-out Faith.

    Wrong again. You theidiots love to bring everything down to your own level. Did anybody here argue that we can’t possibly know how everything came to exist, and so every opinion is equally valid? No. The fact is that we have a fairly good idea of the history of not only our planet but the entire universe, based on evidence and a detailed understanding of the behavior of matter and energy.

    We don’t know everything yet; there is new physics yet to be discovered. That doesn’t give you license to insert your god or other creator into areas we don’t yet understand. Your attempt to plead for a deity is just telling us it happened by magic.

    Magic is not the answer; it has never solved a single problem in the history of our species. When invoked, it shuts down enquiry. When used by many people, they shut down enquiry, often by burning the enquirer. You are a cheerleader for this system, I hope you know.

    Faith is stupid. Faith is saying you care more about your belief than you care about reality. Faith is living in Crazytown and you don’t know it.

  60. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And finally, Nerd, we actually both have the exact same problem:

    No, we don’t have the same problem. You have a problem. We don’t. You haven’t shown your imaginary creatory exists, only presupposed it. Typical creobot behavior. Funny how I don’t accept your word as anything other than lies and bullshit. There is a whole scientific literature out there that doesn’t need your imaginary deity in any form. Makes everything you say suspect if you can’t deal with that truth.

  61. Brownian says

    See, You will always shamelessly demand of the religionist that THEY must first account for the origin of their god/gods/godlings, all the while excoriating them for their primitive, simpleton, credulous mythologies, while all the while slipping through the back door the fact that you have the exact same problem–explaining the ultimate origin and eternal existence of your magical, mysterious, eternally pre-existant everything, of whatever form or happenstance permutation.

    Right.

    Except that the ‘just-so’ story that is modern cosmology has been built through the processes of experiment and empiricism, which, while not perfect, are more or less absent from religious thought in that way.

    But don’t let that stop you from awarding yourself back pats for your marvellous equivalences.

    Wanna go back to the speed of light? Wanna talk about how we ‘know’ what that is? You talked about ‘theorems’ being subject to changing.

    How is it that you think those revisions happen?

    Through the kind of vacant philosophical masturbating fuckheads like you specialise in as a smokescreen for your lack of general knowledge?

  62. Brownian says

    It is said that, if you have to resort to namecalling to win your argument then you’ve already lost.

    Do you believe that?

    No, that’s what passive-aggressive fuckheads like you say because you use the tone card to get out of sticky situations.

    The speed of light in a vacuum is not made different than c if I punch you in the fucking face while telling you it is.

    Or would you like to try your philosophy against my empiricism on that little problem?

  63. kemist says

    See, You will always shamelessly demand of the religionist that THEY must first account for the origin of their god/gods/godlings, all the while excoriating them for their primitive, simpleton, credulous mythologies, while all the while slipping through the back door the fact that you have the exact same problem–explaining the ultimate origin and eternal existence of your magical, mysterious, eternally pre-existant everything, of whatever form or happenstance permutation.

    Not exactly.

    Science is searching for answers to the question of life the universe and everything. The reason there is still science to be done (till we run out of cake) is that we don’t know everything. Yet. Maybe we’ll never know. But at least we do try to find out the best we can.

    Religions are not. They’re buzy taking credulous people’s money in exchange for lazy, comfy, human-bias-conforming non-answers. The explanation they owe is bigger because they assume more things than we do : we only assume the universe exists (else it makes no sense and we’re wasting our time), they assume the universe exists AND that something extremely complex made it.

    And we’re supposed to swallow both these assumptions without them showing any homework.

    Choosing religion over science to explain the universe is like scorning a thesis full of accurate tensor calculus in favor of a crayon drawing of Santa.

  64. elronxenu says

    #60 alexmartin,

    See, You will always shamelessly demand of the religionist that THEY must first account for the origin of their god/gods/godlings, all the while excoriating them for their primitive, simpleton, credulous mythologies, while all the while slipping through the back door the fact that you have the exact same problem–explaining the ultimate origin and eternal existence of your magical, mysterious, eternally pre-existant everything, of whatever form or happenstance permutation.

    The difference is, of course, that you explain the problem of the universe’s existence with your god. When asked to explain the problem of your god’s existence, you use special pleading.

  65. elronxenu says

    It is said that, if you have to resort to namecalling to win your argument then you’ve already lost.

    You had already lost, no later than post #21. But you’re apparently too stupid to understand it. You think you’re still in the ring doing battle against the atheists; reality is you were knocked out after making the common xtian mistake that Fralan is angry at god, rather than angry at religion. All this First Cause bluster is apparently your best shot at justifying why you side with ancient barbarity.

  66. says

    @KG, FYI: not 10 billion, more like 14 billion.

    Thermodynamics? Really? It’s hilarious how the godbots imagine that physicists have NEVER HEARD of thermodynamics! This must be strange new knowledge!!elebenty!! Surely no-one has ever thought of applying this knowledge to physics before! WOAH DUDE!

    It’s like a child arguing that there’s no such thing as a negative number because you can’t have -2 apples, DUH!, so ALL OF MATHS IS WRONG!!!! And therefore God! Which is clearly the logical conclusion just because.

    Err, yeah, OK. Whatever you say, run along and play now, there’s a good little entity. There’s no arguing with that level of stupid.

  67. alexmartin says

    Hey, hey, hey, people, it’s cool. Real cool. Chill.
    I’m not trying to convince you of a god.

    Don’t believe in “magic”.

    Not impugning science. There’s no telling what tomorrow might bring. No need to invoke a magical fairie goddaddy to fill in the gaps. Naw, none o’ that.

    I imply asked y’all a question.
    I asked your explanation for a conundrum (for which you seem largely incurious),in the absence of the divine.

    You typical atheists may be satisfied with a leaky origins mythology (as I term it), but for me, your story just won’t cut it.

    Never could accept, on faith and a future promissory note, that it all just, sorta, “happened”.

    That kind of thinking is for the religious.

  68. fralan says

    @alexmartin

    I’m going to return to your first comment (#8) instead addressing your ridiculous claims about actually knowing something about thermodynamics and other areas of physics. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about or what point you’re trying to make other than ‘I’m right and you’re wrong so there.’ I am only 18 so I won’t claim to be an expert on the subject either, my basic understanding doesn’t satisfy the qualifications necessary to argue about something on this scale.

    So, without further ado,

    “It seems to me that one should not make an important judgement of decision base upon strong, impassioned emotion, particularly anger or vexation” -alexmartin

    In this instance, my anger is not impeding my judgement. You are telling me to become emotionless and apathetic about an issue which is very important to me. It’s not as if I woke up angry one morning and found a punching bag in religion. It was a gradual building up of intolerance towards it, which started with what was simply discomfort with a basic idea. It was four years ago so I can’t remember exactly what that initial inkling was. It’s lost among the dozens of things I find wrong with religion in general and catholicism in particular.

    “I note, however, that points #1 and 2 appear to be mainly bitter repudiation devoid of reason (which a-theism purportedly is based upon).” -alexmartin

    My reasoning is simply what I’ve deduced from my observations from all those years of going to church and catechism and confession and listening to fire and brimstone sermons from a priest who takes our money and buys himself a brand new pickup every other year, then asks for more money.
    I was taught that, because of what my many-times great grandmother did, which was eat the wrong fruit, I was going to hell. What someone else did is not my problem, and I refuse to have to accept responsibility or pay for it.

    “So, anger at “God” equates to “everything just kinda happened”? I don’t see the correlation you imply.” -alexmartin

    In order to be angry at a god, I have to grant the premise that it exists. I did not do that. Also, in my argument, I did not claim to know where all this came from. Science has a good theory (the Big Bang), with pretty reliable evidence (Cosmic Background Radiation, Hubble’s red shift, etc.), but that is not the point of my original statement. I used the dinosaur thing as an example of having been directly lied to, which was the point of a lot of it.

    “Yes, by your own admission, you may be fiercely angry at some “imaginary” invisible tyrant in the sky, or at the form and function of religion as prescribed by man,etc., but what’s any of that got to do with self-evident existence?” -alexmartin

    I did not say I was angry at a god. I implied that I was angry at religions that are oppressive. They are oppressive in the name of god X who, if it existed, which it doesn’t, would make Stalin look like a regular philanthropist. They are oppressive because it benefits them, them being the people who receive our money. Finally, once again, you return to the ‘why are we here?’ thing. You totally missed the point, but to answer your question, there is no higher calling as to why we’re here. Period. People will have their own agendas and purposes in their lives, and they will keep themselves happy.

    Don’t twist my words. I know what I said.

  69. Brownian says

    I asked your explanation for a conundrum (for which you seem largely incurious

    I’ll tell you what’s incurious: discovering that the laws of physics (which theoretical physicists understand as part of their job) invalidate the existence of the universe as theoretical physicists postulate it, and rather than investigating the possibility that you’ve made a mistake, you simply assume you’re the first to stumble upon this mystery, and that the reams of students and grad students and actual scientists whose job it is to reconcile such things simply ignore it.

    That’s your contention? And you dare fucking excroriate somebody else for their lack of curiosity?

    You’re fucking clown. Die horribly, slowly, and painfully, you narcissistic dolt.

  70. says

    alexmartin:

    See, You will always shamelessly demand of the religionist that THEY must first account for the origin of their god/gods/godlings, all the while excoriating them for their primitive, simpleton, credulous mythologies, while all the while slipping through the back door the fact that you have the exact same problem–explaining the ultimate origin and eternal existence of your magical, mysterious, eternally pre-existant everything, of whatever form or happenstance permutation.

    Here’s what I shamelessly demand of theists:

    A simple, clear, logical description of their epistemology. What epistemic right do you have declaring your god exists, and your interpretation is the correct one?

    In this awkward sentence/paragraph, you have drawn a false equivalence. You have snuck in the proposition that religious explanations are the equal of explanations based on observation. This is simply not so. There is no epistemic foundation on which you can stand this argument. The proposition fails at the most fundamental level: on the basis of how we know things.

    So. Come back when you have a plausible, logical description of how you know your proposition is viable. Then maybe you can start making assertions such as, “Science has the same origin problem as religion.”

  71. raven says

    I see that alex in several hours hasn’t gotten beyond Big Bang = goddidit.

    I suspect that in a few decades he will still be at:

    Big Bang = goddidit.

    This is what happens when you are very stupid and very dishonest. This troll is exceptionally dumb and boring. See y’all in a few more hours. I’m sure nothing will have changed one bit.

  72. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    but for me, your story just won’t cut it.

    And your lack of conclusive physical evidence for your presupposed and imaginary creator doesn’t cut it with us. We need real evidence. Until you present said evience you lose preacher.

  73. consciousness razor says

    I’m not trying to convince you of a god.

    These aren’t the droids you’re looking for. You can go about your business.

    I imply asked y’all a question.
    I asked your explanation for a conundrum (for which you seem largely incurious),in the absence of the divine.

    No, you weren’t simply asking questions. You asserted that our strawman explanation (“It All Just Happened”) was based on faith, along with lots more bullshit and bluster. And you continue to do it. Does this look like a fucking question, asshole, or like you have any idea what you are talking about?

    You typical atheists may be satisfied with a leaky origins mythology (as I term it), but for me, your story just won’t cut it.

    Never could accept, on faith and a future promissory note, that it all just, sorta, “happened”.

    That kind of thinking is for the religious.

    How about you explain your own point of view, dipshit?

  74. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I asked your explanation for a conundrum (for which you seem largely incurious),in the absence of the divine.

    No conundrum. Try string theory, and physics. All there without your delusional deity/creator. And “I don’t know, but I’ll find out” is an acceptable answer for a scientist/rational person.

  75. kemist says

    Hey, hey, hey, people, it’s cool. Real cool. Chill.

    I, for one, assure you that I was quite “chill” all along.

    In fact, the only thing that made my blood pressure rise a bit as I was typing these comments was the debugging of the program I’m working on. Oh, and a bit might be due to blowing myself up in minecraft. Again. With freshly mined diamond over a lava pit. *cries*

    Anyway this :

    I’m not trying to convince you of a god.

    and this:

    I asked your explanation for a conundrum (for which you seem largely incurious),in the absence of the divine.

    does not compute. The second part reads like you assume the divine, yet you insist in saying that you’re not a faithhead. It’s a bit weird. As if you’re trying to play a role, and failing badly at it.

    You typical atheists may be satisfied with a leaky origins mythology (as I term it), but for me, your story just won’t cut it.

    Wut ?

    You don’t seem to understand that we don’t need a mythology.

    We simply accept that we do not have all the answers. That we’re interested, but not necessarily habilited to understand the smallest details, by the work being done in getting them.

    It’s you who don’t accept this simple fact, and seem to need the non-answers that religion specializes in. You do not seem interested either in understanding the actual concepts and theories beyond what you need in order to impress the ignorant with big terms like thermodynamics, hoping that nobody in the audience has an actual understanding of it.

    Thing is, you chose the wrong place to pull it off. There is a resident expert on every subject you can think of here. If you were genuinely curious, it would be a wonderful opportunity.

  76. says

    See, You will always shamelessly demand of the religionist that THEY must first account for the origin of their god/gods/godlings, all the while excoriating them for their primitive, simpleton, credulous mythologies, while all the while slipping through the back door the fact that you have the exact same problem–explaining the ultimate origin and eternal existence of your magical, mysterious, eternally pre-existant everything, of whatever form or happenstance permutation.

    We’re still working on the explanation, while the religious believe they already have it, despite a complete lack of evidence for god. And one of the most common arguments used by the religious is the “first cause” or “prime mover” idea, that the universe must have some cause outside itself. And that cause, of course, is God.
    The problem here is that religious people think it’s reasonable to posit a being that has always existed and required no cause, but we’re not allowed to posit a universe that has always existed. This despite the fact that we have evidence of a universe and none for a god. And that, given what we’ve observed about the universe, the idea that the complexity grew out of something simple is far more likely than a beginning that involves something as obviously complex as a super-powerful, intelligent being.
    One side is searching for an explanation, and the other has already decided on one even though “god” explains nothing without an explanation for itself. God is not an explanation, it’s an excuse for not requiring one.

    Gah…it’s like playing whac-a-mole with these people, only the mole just keeps popping up in the same place every time. Whack whack whack whack…boring.

  77. kemist says

    So, has our pal alex said ANYTHING that isn’t copy-and-paste from the creationist/xian playbook? Anything?

    Well, he tried to reverse the argument of religion-as-a-comfortable-idea into atheism-as-a-comfortable-idea without much success.

    Then we got gibberish about thermodynamics and atheism-is-a-religion-too, which are fairly bog-standard I believe.

    Followed by “it’s unfair to ask the religious evidence for their god ’cause I’m not satisfied with your answer for the origin of the universe.”. Which is a weird variant of burden of proof reversal.

    The whole while trying to pretend, not too successfully not to be a faithhead.

    All in all, I’d give it a C-.

  78. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    fralan #74

    Well done. I’m impressed by both your thinking and your writing. I couldn’t write that well when I was 18.

    In order to be angry at a god, I have to grant the premise that it exists. I did not do that.

    It amazes me how the goddists insist “you’re angry at gawd.” Many atheists are angry at religion and religious people. But we’re not angry at The Big Guy In The Sky™ because that’s just plain silly. It’s like being angry at Sauron or Lord Valdemort or any other fictitious villain.

  79. loreo says

    All this faithbot bashing aside, congratulations to Fralan, from one recovering Catholic to another. We got out, buddy.

  80. says

    These so-called “leaks” as identified by our ickle godbot are in fact, simply his own failure to understand high-school physics. Just a boringly trivial misuse of thermodynamics – attempted gotchas that fall totally flat. It was about as good as “why are there still monkeys?” is as a gotcha to biologists.

    There are actual genuine problems in cosmology, but these are clearly beyond his ken. And also pretty much beyond mine, to be honest, since my physics degree was scarily-many years ago and things have moved on a lot and I haven’t kept up. And I was more interested in astrophysics than cosmology anyway. I’ve been meaning to read Singh’s book on the big bang but I have a big pile of unread books waiting for me.

  81. KG says

    How about you [alexmartin] explain your own point of view, dipshit? – consciousness razor

    I think alexmartin is one of those moral and intellectual cowards who will not admit to having such a thing as a point of view (which xe does, even if it is one of radical (“Pyrrhonian”) scepticism or antirealist postmodernism), because then that viewpoint could be criticised, and xe knows it is vulnerable to criticism.

  82. John Morales says

    alexmartin:

    It’s nice to think that it All Just Happened. That notion seems comforting.

    But it’s nicer to think that some magical sky-fairy Just Happened, then created that which is known to exist, right?

  83. consciousness razor says

    I think alexmartin is one of those moral and intellectual cowards

    Indeed, and probably an intellectual lightweight for that matter. Even if he were up to the challenge of being criticized, the likelihood his ideas are worth considering is slim at best, given his contribution here. Still, I was slightly curious what kind of crackpottery he would’ve peddled in place of the science he knew nothing about. Wake me up if he returns and says anything interesting.

  84. alexmartin says

    Silly of me.
    Most–all of these people–assume I attempt,crudely and crassly (with no hint of originality or wit, as has been pointed out,it’s all been done by x-tian tolls and the like before), to sneak the nose of the theological camel under the atheist tent.

    No.

    This isn’t some stealth proselytizing mission. I find it ironic that the origins story you propound actually first found traction millennia ago in ancient Vedic and Hindu doctrine, seminal Kabbalist occultism, ancient Mystery School theosophies, and is ultimately religious in it’s epistemology, to answer someones’ question. The cosmic egg conception and uncountable evolutionary aeons mythos is nothing new and is undoubtedly well known amongst you all. Don’t think that I attempt to school you on anything in this regard or any other. I just believe it important to admit what tune you’re currently dancing. That Big Bang cosmology is itself rooted in occult theology does not of itself disqualify it as a satisfactory scientific theory, sure; I ask only that you not (knowingly or unknowingly) bash one religion with another.

    Redshift and expansion of the universe: unassailable observation. Logical to conclude that what expands explosively at some point must have been compact and discreet. No problem there either.

    Beyond that point, however, is my demarcation.
    All else, though based upon observable phenomena, boils down to to mere speculation: none of us were there some 14.5 Ga to observe the birth of the universe. That past is gone, unrepeatable, untestable.

    I explain myself and myself only. No, KG, mine is not a case of futile Pyrrhonian rigidity, but rather an earnest incisive dissatisfaction with official dogma on the order of Diogenes. The ideal of the eternal regress of matter or energy in the stylized pre-born universe causes me to itch.

    Where is “God” in that formulation?
    I don’t need a puerile, cowardly god non-explanation to fall back on; I need an answer, to my satisfaction, as to why I must accept, purely upon allegedly “SCIENTIFIC” grounds “that, well, er, um, you know, it all JUST KINDA HAPPENED”.

    Yes?

  85. kemist says

    I find it ironic that the origins story you propound actually first found traction millennia ago in ancient Vedic and Hindu doctrine, seminal Kabbalist occultism, ancient Mystery School theosophies, and is ultimately religious in it’s epistemology, to answer someones’ question.

    Why is it surprising ?

    1) The similarity is quite superficial

    2) The reason there are creation myths in religions is the need to explain our origins – essentially the same reason as science exists. Both use human imagination to come up with models.

    But the comparison stops there. Religions don’t test their models. They expound efforts to fit evidence within those models rather than the other way around. They may, like a broken clock, get some things right once in a while, but they don’t strive to fit their models to reality. Myth stories are definitive; changes mean schisms.

    I need an answer, to my satisfaction, as to why I must accept, purely upon allegedly “SCIENTIFIC” grounds “that, well, er, um, you know, it all JUST KINDA HAPPENED”.

    Search for it then. Being free from religion gives you that opportunity.

    I’m afraid however that science is harder, and tends not to produce definitive, dogmatic answers – answers will always be subject to modifications by further evidence – evidence that will keep on coming as we learn more new and weird things. And that math-free oversimplifications can only go so far in unserstanding the current theories (which are not dogma but consensus).

    Realize also that human assumption – purpose, plans, conscious agents, spurious patterns – are not necessarily part of that explanation. A big part of science training is to unlearn those things our human brains fool us with, that so-called “common sense”.

    It may be that you are simply asking a question that makes no sense.

  86. jentokulano says

    The bible says that the earth is 6,000 years
    old, but people still just ignore it.

    Actually, if you read it, it says no such thing. It’s just the people that don’t read it that have (quite recently) been making this claim.