Can One Decide To Be An Athiest?

[rckllnknny]

but since he was referred to as 'a friend' i thought i would keep my peace.

[Alycin]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='1580811' date='Jun 23 2008, 08:34 PM']youre right it was just a speculation.
for some reason i was lead to believe whatever (relationship) you two may have was the determining motives behind his reasonings, like im jealous of alycin getting attention on here. or in life. so i thought i would argue everything like she does.

sorry about that. my bad.[/quote]

whhhhaaaaaaaat??

[JustJ]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='1580811' date='Jun 23 2008, 08:34 PM']youre right it was just a speculation.
for some reason i was lead to believe whatever (relationship) you two may have was the determining motives behind his reasonings, like im jealous of alycin getting attention on here. or in life. so i thought i would argue everything like she does.

sorry about that. my bad.[/quote]
Well, I'm not exactly the jealous type.

When it comes to matters of truth, I don't let emotion play any role.

Also, just remember, not everyone's mind works like your mind does. It took me a while to figure out exactly how true that is, and it was a painful process when I was still in the public school system, assuming that everyone else should think like I do, when often they don't. This is something that needs to be taken into account.

[rckllnknny]

lol. whatever...

[rckllnknny]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580817' date='Jun 23 2008, 08:38 PM']Well, I'm not exactly the jealous type.

When it comes to matters of truth, I don't let emotion play any role.

Also, just remember, not everyone's mind works like your mind does. It took me a while to figure out exactly how true that is, and it was a painful process when I was still in the public school system, assuming that everyone else should think like I do, when often they don't. This is something that needs to be taken into account. [/quote]

ok. ill take that into consideration.

[Deb]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580781' date='Jun 23 2008, 08:17 PM']No, I said that the bible has inconsistencies. This alone does not somehow prove that god doesn't exist.

I guess maybe people just forget about these little inconsistencies with all the rest of the garbage.

I'm not trying to prove a negative. There is no need for that. I need only show that there is no good reason to believe in a god. The burden of proof is on the theist. I am just destroying your arguments.

Not according to every fundamentalist I've ever heard. I'm glad you can disagree with them.

However, how exactly can the bible be telling the truth if it makes mistakes?

The rest of your whole post assumes that faith is a [i]positive feature[/i]. Why?[/quote]

The point was that the passages of the Bible you pulled out do not show any inconsistancy because you don't have a clue as to what the comments about Love and jealousy and a jealous God are in reference to or how they would or would not affect each other based on when they were written and the context in which they were written. If you had a clue, then you would never have used those passages nor would you have responded that they were inconsistancies that people are ignoring. They aren't. You are just not educated enough in the bible to know that. You really look like an idiot. You just can't see it.

Faith is a positive thing. For one, I don't have to worry about what another single person in this world thinks of me. I only have to care about what God thinks of me. I don't have to live my life in pursuit of material possessions because they are not what I consider treasure. My treasure is not here on earth. I have no fear of death or suffering because I know something better awaits me and all suffering serves a higher purpose. I don't have to live my life here as if it is just a finite period of time because I know I will live on forever. Here and now is just a blink the span of time. I am comfortable with anything that comes my way and I will survive anything the Lord wants me to survive. I know what true freedom is. I don't have wounds and pain of the past dragging me down, I don't have fears of for my future causing me worry or anxiety. I just have every single day as another opportunity to experience as much of God's Love as I am capable of in this place. I know what joy and peace and happiness are and I have that every single day. What do you find that is not positive in that? Why exactly would you think that is something that people should avoid? Just because you don't have it, you don't want anyone else to either. You can stow your altruistic motives, they dont' exist.

From the 2004 study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry regarding religious affiliation and suicide: [b]RESULTS:[/b] Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

Hmmmmmmmmm. Would psychology be considered a science? Would these results, for a christian be considered a plus or minus?

Have a beautiful evening. I have to go to bed after I talk to my Lord for a while. I will ask him to open your heart and show himself to you. You sound like someone who needs to see to believe also.

[rckllnknny]

thnx.

[rckllnknny]

oops again.

Edited June 24, 2008 by rckllnknny

[JustJ]

[url="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html"]http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html[/url]

1 down, 404 to go.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580767' date='Jun 23 2008, 07:10 PM']If I were religious, I would pray for you. You really do need all the help you can get.

Truth is absolute and objective. I don't care how much you believe something. If you believe that all ducks are purple and that you are being followed everywhere you go by an invisible pink unicorn that grants you wishes, you could believe it with all your heart, but it still doesn't make it true. It makes you delusional.

Regardless of the appeal of believing that there is a god who loves me and looks after me and has my best interests in mind and answers my prayers and made everything that is just for the sake of making me eternally happy in heaven, new heaven, and new earth in the new Jerusalem, I see no evidence suggesting that it is true, and so I am forced to believe the grim reality that we are alone in a cold, uncaring world guided only by natural processes and that, at any minute, we could be wiped off the face of this planet.

However, it is knowing this that makes life that much more precious, something scarce not to be taken for granted.[/quote]
From where does this absolute and objective truth come?

[JustJ]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1580911' date='Jun 23 2008, 09:49 PM']From where does this absolute and objective truth come?[/quote]
It can be observed everywhere, and tested and confirmed on wider scales through scientific thought, helping to accurately predict the truth on further matters in similar cases, so that one need not take every individual case on its particulars.

[peach_cube]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580795' date='Jun 23 2008, 08:25 PM']Okay. I'll just say those. The laws of physics and principles of evolution (which is really just applied biology (which is applied chemistry (which is applied physics (which is applied math)))) are the nonrandom natural forces you seem to be asking for. :3

Years and years of independent study because the American school system is pathetic and did very little to foster my desire to learn. I learned too fast for the rest of the class, and as a result, was being held back from my full potential, and so I looked to other sources of knowledge to read over and learn, and I believe that I will never be done with my learning, but I am always ready to listen to other arguments, should they be reasonable, logical, and rational.

If you would like to correct me on something, feel free to tell me exactly where, how, and why I am wrong. I will do the same for you every chance I get. [/quote]

First off, I am sorry to hear about your educational experience. I agree that one must never be done learning as well.

Secondly, in a previous statement you said "Nope. The Big Bang is the result of these natural forces, not the cause of them." as well as "Wrong. Learn what the theory actually says. It says that all matter and energy has always existed, and originally, it was in a very, very small point, known as a singularity, where all mass was so closely packed that gravity was holding it quite tightly, making such a deep hole in the higher dimensions through which gravity is explained. Note that it wasn't merely these three, but indeed at least the fourth dimension (which we experience as time) as well that were all packed together."

To the first statement, if you read literature on multiverse theory you will find that during the "bubbling" of new "verses" it is thought that the individual parameters of each "big bang" would determine the specific constants of the natural laws within the particular universe, which would in effect be random. For our universe, the small majority of quarks and leptons would help shape the fundamental laws, however if the anti-quarks and anti-leptons were in the majority we would have a completely different description of the physical laws. Dr. Timothy Ferris does a decent enough job is some of his books dealing with the complexities of multiverse theory. I would recommend his titles, as they are fairly well written and widely available.

On the second statement, the big bang is pure energy, there is no matter until 1 microsecond after the big bang. Hence, saying that all matter has always existed would be incorrect. To say that the energy has always existed is a bit misleading. It has always existed in the 13.7 billion years of the universe, but before that time does not exist, as it breaks down under such immense gravity. If there is no time, it is a bit misleading to say something "always" existed. Also for the clarity of others, the big bang is space-time itself. The entire universe is the singularity. It does not expand into anything. It just expands itself.

To sum up my argument, I believe that the physical laws are a symptom of symmetry breaking after the big bang, and were not predetermined until the time of breaking. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the big bang is the result of the natural forces. The ultimate cause may be speculated but is unknown.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='JustJ' post='1580973' date='Jun 23 2008, 09:32 PM']It can be observed everywhere, and tested and confirmed on wider scales through scientific thought, helping to accurately predict the truth on further matters in similar cases, so that one need not take every individual case on its particulars.[/quote]
I believe you are referring to fact.

[JustJ]

[quote name='peach_cube' post='1580993' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:40 PM']First off, I am sorry to hear about your educational experience. I agree that one must never be done learning as well.

Secondly, in a previous statement you said "Nope. The Big Bang is the result of these natural forces, not the cause of them." as well as "Wrong. Learn what the theory actually says. It says that all matter and energy has always existed, and originally, it was in a very, very small point, known as a singularity, where all mass was so closely packed that gravity was holding it quite tightly, making such a deep hole in the higher dimensions through which gravity is explained. Note that it wasn't merely these three, but indeed at least the fourth dimension (which we experience as time) as well that were all packed together."

To the first statement, if you read literature on multiverse theory you will find that during the "bubbling" of new "verses" it is thought that the individual parameters of each "big bang" would determine the specific constants of the natural laws within the particular universe, which would in effect be random. For our universe, the small majority of quarks and leptons would help shape the fundamental laws, however if the anti-quarks and anti-leptons were in the majority we would have a completely different description of the physical laws. Dr. Timothy Ferris does a decent enough job is some of his books dealing with the complexities of multiverse theory. I would recommend his titles, as they are fairly well written and widely available.

On the second statement, the big bang is pure energy, there is no matter until 1 microsecond after the big bang. Hence, saying that all matter has always existed would be incorrect. To say that the energy has always existed is a bit misleading. It has always existed in the 13.7 billion years of the universe, but before that time does not exist, as it breaks down under such immense gravity. If there is no time, it is a bit misleading to say something "always" existed. Also for the clarity of others, the big bang is space-time itself. The entire universe is the singularity. It does not expand into anything. It just expands itself.

To sum up my argument, I believe that the physical laws are a symptom of symmetry breaking after the big bang, and were not predetermined until the time of breaking. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the big bang is the result of the natural forces. The ultimate cause may be speculated but is unknown.[/quote]
Thank you very much for correcting me of my errors; somewhere between my reading the material and my memory, many details got overly simplified or omitted. Unfortunately, they don't teach these things in high school, nor do they even try to push kids to get that far, and my college experience was cut short when my money supply was likewise cut short.

If you know of any places I could find further reading (preferably free resources; as stated, I don't have a lot of money) to explain this more fully, I would be greatly appreciative.

[JustJ]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1581003' date='Jun 23 2008, 10:44 PM']I believe you are referring to fact.[/quote]
I don't see your point.

truth (trūth)
n., pl. truths (trūTHz, trūths).

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5. Reality; actuality.