Doubt?

[Imagist]

Knowing that a rock is an animated thing, being no more that a conglomeration of Molecules which are but atoms that have been gathered into shapes that we see as building blocks in the creation of all things, which atoms are no more than gatherings of animated subatomic particles etc, you still claim that there is no universal force inherent in all things which animates all that is? Well I don’t believe you.

So far, we don't know of a universal force; we know of four: gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear.

If you can find a way to mathematically unify those four forces, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. But so far, no such equation has been found.

But what it comes down to is, even if such a force were found, it would be ridiculous to refer to that force as a god. I don't worship electricity or pray to gravity; why would I deify a universal force?

If it were possible to take a photo of the earth as it was forming from the condensing cloud of elements that has become our sun and take another photo every one million years, then run all the frames together as a moving picture, you would see the living earth as it produced the first primitive plants

Since you can't seem to break your thoughts into sentences, I'll just have to do it for you.

Let's pause here. You speak of a "living earth". There is some argument over the definition of life, but generally living things are considered to have at least a few of the following properties: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Which of these exactly does the earth posess?

and watch as those innumerable developing life forms change over time, to be seen as the complex array of life forms which occupy mother earth today, which life forms include Mankind, the Most High of all those creature, and the only known species that has the capability of comprehending the invisible mind that has developed within that body.

What basis do you have for the assertion that humans are any better than any other species? And what exactly makes you think that the mind is invisible? We don't fully understand how the brain works, but I think that we can agree that it's not invisible.

This applies to the universal body also, if you were to take a photo at the instant when the origin of all that is this universal body that had been condensed into the infinitely dense and infinitely hot, infinitesimally small primordial atom, burst forth with a Big Bang, then take subsequent photos every hundred million years or so; you would watch as the moving frames reveal the myriads of life forms, grow from and within that living universal body.

Ah, so you are also asserting that the universe as a whole has these properties: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.

Well I cannot agree with you: for I believe that the swirling boundless cloud of shimmering ever changing patterns of invisible wave Particles, is the mind that is God, who manifests himself as the visible Cosmos, through the physical senses of this conglomeration of wave particles that is the body in which “I” the invisible mind, who is a potential child of the Living mind that is God, is developing.

Wait a second: life = god? When did this happen?

The problem with your entire post is that you are using scientific terms, particularly "life", to sound scientific, when in actuality the scientific words do not mean anything even remotely close to what you claim they do.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[whereismynotecard]

No my friend, you may use the word god a million times, and you can use the name Jesus Christ as an expletive, as many times as you like, and it does not mean that you are doubting your Atheism, and nowhere have I said that it would, irrelevant to what those who would twist and distort my words claim.

But if you have ever said, or ever will say in the future, one little prayer to God, then you are doubting your atheism. You can lie to everyone else and say that you have never doubted your atheism, but how do you live with 'Who You Are' when you lie to yourself?

I believe that every person, irrelevant to the belief that they cling to, if they are honest to themself, will admit that there have been times in their life, when they have, even if, for only a fleeting moment, doubted their belief. You may agree or disagree, but this is my opinion.

Thank you for your opinion. But I don't see how you could claim to know what everyone else in the world thinks. I would never say a prayer no matter what, because I don't believe in god. If I'm about to die, that wouldn't change. Maybe some atheists would, but I would not, and I don't appreciate that you are claiming to know what each and every atheist would do if he or she was falling out of an airplane with no working parachute. "The Atheist" is not one person. There are tons of atheists, and they are all different. Some might throw a prayer out, but that would mean they probably weren't ever so sure of their beliefs in the first place.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

But if you have ever said, or ever will say in the future, one little prayer to God, then you are doubting your atheism. You can lie to everyone else and say that you have never doubted your atheism, but how do you live with 'Who You Are' when you lie to yourself?

Even if I believed in the Christian spirituality, I would probably not pray to God even then (I'd most likely become a theistic satanist). Have you ever prayed to Jimi Hendrix to give you amazing guitar skills? Have you ever prayed to Shiva? Have you ever, for a second (Before now) thought that there might be an all-powerful God of Sausage Rolls that taught man how to create sausage rolls and bestows the gift of eternal ability to create sausage rolls in he is appeased?

Right, So why would I pray to God?

GhK.

 

[blackout]

Have you ever prayed to Jimi Hendrix to give you amazing guitar skills?
[/color]

Do you think that might work?!

 

[S-word]

Quote... If you can find a way to mathematically unify those four forces, gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. But so far, no such equation has been found.
I have no interest in, nor the qualifications to mathematically unify those forces, but I know that they were unified in the singularity within the Black Hole of our origin, and will be unified once more, when all that exists, including Time and Space, is condensed back into the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, before being resurrected again to continue on in its eternal process of Growth or evolution

Quote... But what it comes down to is, even if such a force were found, it would be ridiculous to refer to that force as a god. I don't worship electricity or pray to gravity; why would I deify a universal force?

Neither did I love that animating force in the fertilised cell that would become my child, nor did I have any great feelings for that original cell that duplicated itself and occupied two different positions in space and therefore in time, which cells continued to duplicate, each new cell occupying a different position in space and time, until it was born as a human body, which again, I had no great paternal feelings for. It is the mind or the spirit that has developed within that living body that I shower my love upon.

Quote... Since you can't seem to break your thoughts into sentences, I'll just have to do it for you
.
Ah, there’s you customary sarcastic remark, I knew you couldn’t complete a post without one.

Quote... Let's pause here. You speak of a "living earth". There is some argument over the definition of life, but generally living things are considered to have at least a few of the following properties: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Which of these exactly does the earth posess?

Considering that the earth, with the help of starlight and other universal forces, has produced all the diversity of life forms that are her body in the process of her growth or evolution, I would say, all of the above.

Quote... What basis do you have for the assertion that humans are any better than any other species?

“The Most High in the evolution of the species, who has gained dominion over all creatures and is therefore Lord of Creatures,” I think that was my statement, I did not say better, I’m sure there are animals that I would classify as better than you.

Quote... And what exactly makes you think that the mind is invisible? We don't fully understand how the brain works, but I think that we can agree that it's not invisible.

I didn’t say anything about the brain. I was talking about the mind that is imprinted on the eternal evolving universal life force, of which we are all sharers as with the universal body from whose elements our bodies, which are animated by the life that is inherent in all things, are formed. The invisible mind will continue on, long after the body, hair, flesh, bone, brain-matter and all, has been returned to the universal elements from which it was formed.

Quote... Ah, so you are also asserting that the universe as a whole has these properties: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
YEP!

Quote... Wait a second: life = god? When did this happen?

Right from the very beginning old mate, when the first proton occupied two positions in space in the one apparent time, and in the aeons of eternity, became this living Cosmos in which there developed a supreme personality of Godhead, who is the spirit that is developing within mankind who is the Most High in the physical creation, and who is Lord of creatures and the prototype of the Lord of spirits who rules all that is, 'visible and invisible.'
Of course, according to your definition of time, the Omega who the Alfa becomes, does not yet exist.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

Do you think that might work?!

Haha, It doesn't, i've tried
Of course, that's not disproving that he can, due to Hendrix being omniguitarpotent!!!!!!!

GhK.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

But how did the name of an American Indian leader get associated with jumping out of a plane?

This exclamation is believed to date from August 1940, and is attributed to Private Aubrey Eberhardt, member of the US Army's parachute test platoon at Fort Benning, Georgia. The parachute had only recently been adopted and this platoon was the first to test it. On the eve of an unprecedented "mass jump", the platoon decided to calm their nerves by spending the day before taking in a film at the Main Post Theatre and a night at the local beer garden. The film they saw was a Western featuring the Native American chief Geronimo. Its title is uncertain, but it was probably the 1939 film Geronimo with Andy Devine and Lone Ranger star Chief Thundercloud in the title role. On the way back to barracks, Eberhardt said he expected the jump would be no different from usual. The others taunted him saying that he would be too scared to remember his name. Eberhardt retorted, "All right, dammit! I tell you jokers what I'm gonna do! To prove to you that I'm not scared out of my wits when I jump, I'm gonna yell Geronimo loud as hell when I go out that door tomorrow!" Eberhardt kept his promise and the cry was gradually adopted by the other members of his platoon.

Source.

 

[rockondon]

There are times when a man/woman of faith will go through periods of doubt. I think it is a normal thing for any person of faith to have some lapses into doubt. I am wondering if the same thing happens to atheists- Do they (you) go through brief periods of the opposite of doubt? Is there a time when you briefly, for a moment to up to a week believe that maybe there is a God? I would like to hear about it if you do, not for any reason except it would be interesting to read. :candle:

What an interesting question.
I'm a weak atheist, therefore I accept the possibility that a god or gods may exist. And I'd like it if there was a god, but I have no reason to believe it, so I don't. I have never believed a god existed since I was a kid.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Not really, but I had a moment that gave me pause. When we went to Niagara Falls, I had been an atheist for less than a year. We were on the boat going toward the Canadian Falls, plunging into the mist and surrounded by the roar of the falls, and in an moment of awe and joy and wonder I caught myself saying, "Doxa soi, o theos emon, doxa soi!" ("Glory to thee, our God, glory to thee!")

I thought that was kind of freaky, because it just sort of slipped out, and then I had to think about whether I still believed in god or not. But I wasn't wondering about the existence of god so much as the state of my own mind. I came to the conclusion it was just a natural way for me to express what I was feeling, given my background.

I've made peace with my atheism plus Orthodox leanings now. I still say my prayers sometimes, not because I think anybody is listening, but because it pleases me to do so. I like the sound and rhythm of the Greek, and it's pleasantly nostalgic.

You're not the only one that does this.

Sometimes when I leave work at 6 am the sun is just beginning to rise and the sky is painted.

I get the urge to shout the Adhaan for some reason.

 

[Imagist]

If you can find a way to mathematically unify those four forces, gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. But so far, no such equation has been found.

I have no interest in, nor the qualifications to mathematically unify those forces, but I know that they were unified in the singularity within the Black Hole of our origin, and will be unified once more, when all that exists, including Time and Space, is condensed back into the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, before being resurrected again to continue on in its eternal process of Growth or evolution.

You can't possibly know this. By what evidence do you claim that you do?

But what it comes down to is, even if such a force were found, it would be ridiculous to refer to that force as a god. I don't worship electricity or pray to gravity; why would I deify a universal force?

Neither did I love that animating force in the fertilised cell that would become my child, nor did I have any great feelings for that original cell that duplicated itself and occupied two different positions in space and therefore in time, which cells continued to duplicate, each new cell occupying a different position in space and time, until it was born as a human body, which again, I had no great paternal feelings for. It is the mind or the spirit that has developed within that living body that I shower my love upon.

There are two problems here:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that your childs mind is anything different from your child's brain, which is made up of the cells you speak of. Given this, you DO feel paternal feelings for your child's brain.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the universe has developed such a mind of its own. Even if such a mind did exist, its existence would not justify deification.

Since you can't seem to break your thoughts into sentences, I'll just have to do it for you.

Ah, there’s you customary sarcastic remark, I knew you couldn’t complete a post without one.

If you don't want me to make sarcastic remarks, break your thoughts into sentences.

Let's pause here. You speak of a "living earth". There is some argument over the definition of life, but generally living things are considered to have at least a few of the following properties: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Which of these exactly does the earth posess?

Considering that the earth, with the help of starlight and other universal forces, has produced all the diversity of life forms that are her body in the process of her growth or evolution, I would say, all of the above.

In what way is the universe homeostatic? What conditions across the universe are regulated, and by what mechanisms?

In what way are the parts of the universe organized into cells (the basic unit of its life), how do they work together, and toward what goal?

What does the universe do to metabolize chemicals and store or use the resulting energy? Furthermore, where do these chemicals come from (they can't come from inside the universe - that would be like an animal surviving by eating itself).

How does the universe grow, or maintain a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism? How does a growing universe NOT violate the principle of conservation of mass/energy?

How does the universe adapt? And what conditions are there external to the universe for the universe to even adapt in response to?

To what external stimuli does the universe adapt? And what stimuli are even possible outside the universe?

Where are the little baby universes that demonstrate that the universe is able to reproduce?

The long and the short of it: the universe is not a living thing. Period.

What basis do you have for the assertion that humans are any better than any other species?

“The Most High in the evolution of the species, who has gained dominion over all creatures and is therefore Lord of Creatures,” I think that was my statement, I did not say "better",

If by "Most High" you don't mean "best", then please explain what you do mean, and please use clearer terms that actually mean what you're trying to say.

I’m sure there are animals that I would classify as better than you.

I see I'm not the only one being sarcastic.

And what exactly makes you think that the mind is invisible? We don't fully understand how the brain works, but I think that we can agree that it's not invisible.

I didn’t say anything about the brain. I was talking about the mind that is imprinted on the eternal evolving universal life force, of which we are all sharers as with the universal body from whose elements our bodies, which are animated by the life that is inherent in all things, are formed. The invisible mind will continue on, long after the body, hair, flesh, bone, brain-matter and all, has been returned to the universal elements from which it was formed.

Please provide a single shred of evidence that such a thing exists. Until you do, I will continue to treat mind and brain as equivalent terms.

Ah, so you are also asserting that the universe as a whole has these properties: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.

YEP!

Unless you can credibly answer the questions I posed above about these properties, you are simply making this assertion up.

 

[Imagist]

I'm a weak atheist, therefore I accept the possibility that a god or gods may exist. And I'd like it if there was a god, but I have no reason to believe it, so I don't. I have never believed a god existed since I was a kid.

I am also a weak atheist in relation to a general concept of god; however, I am a strong atheist in relation to most specific gods. For example, I am a strong atheist in relation to specific gods who are omnipotent (omnipotence is self-contradictory and therefore impossible: an omnipotent being cannot create a task that (s)he cannot complete). Would this accurately describe your beliefs as well?

 

[linwood]

Quote: No, I do not believe the entirety of the cosmos is a "living entity".
I do believe all things withing the cosmos are governed by the laws of physics.

Q. Do you believe that there is an animating force that pervades the entire Cosmic body, activating all that is?
A. No, this I do not believe.

Knowing that a rock is an animated thing, being no more that a conglomeration of Molecules which are but atoms that have been gathered into shapes that we see as building blocks in the creation of all things, which atoms are no more than gatherings of animated subatomic particles etc, you still claim that there is no universal force inherent in all things which animates all that is? Well I don’t believe you.

A rock is not an "animated thing".

I think your definition of "animated" is slightly skewed.

Q. Do you believe that the Living Cosmic body developed the intellectual species that has the capability of comprehending the invisible mind that is he, who is most high known and visible life form in the living Cosmos, and that he, the most high in the creation, has gained dominion over all creatures that preceded him and is therefore Lord of Creatures?

A. Nope, don`t believe it.

If it were possible to take a photo of the earth as it was forming from the condensing cloud of elements that has become our sun and take another photo every one million years, then run all the frames together as a moving picture, you would see the living earth as it produced the first primitive plants, and watch as those innumerable developing life forms change over time, to be seen as the complex array of life forms which occupy mother earth today, which life forms include Mankind, the Most High of all those creature, and the only known species that has the capability of comprehending the invisible mind that has developed within that body.

The changes in the Earth over the eons does is not evidence that the Earth is itself a living thing any more than the algae growth in my fish pond is evidence that the vinyl lining is a living thing.

While I hold humanity(mankind) as the highest of all animals I recognize my belief is a direct result of my own bias of self preservation.
Humans are simply animals and when all is said and done have earned no greater standing than a Ferret.
In fact they may have earned a less glorious position than a Ferret considering the harm they`ve done to this planet.

That is of course unless you are one of those naive people who believe that physical life forms have developed only upon this earth.

Not at all.
I believe it is more than likely there are numerous life forms throughout this universe.
I still disagree with your definitions of what constitutes "life" and "animation" however.

And yet still, you don’t believe that the animated universal body is a living entity.

You still haven`t provided any evidence to the contrary.

 

[S-word]

Quote....Imagist....You can't possibly know this. By what evidence do you claim that you do?
I think that it’s pretty well documented that before the Big Bang there was neither time nor space, and that all the exists today was once condensed in the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, within the Black Hole from which we originated. There is also the belief among the scientific and religious communities that this universe continually oscillates between a state of activity and an apparent state of non-activity.
The nights and days of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, ‘The Great Day,’ which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. ‘Manvantara,’ is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, ‘Pralaya,’ is the evening that precedes the next creative day.

Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

Neither was this concept confined solely to the eastern religions, Origen, who was well versed in the writings of Enoch, was a Christian writer and teacher who lived between the years of 185 and 254 AD. Among his many works is the Hexapla, which is his interpretation of the Old Testament texts. Origen holds to a series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it. So according to Origen, there is not only evolution within the periods of universal activity but the universe itself is continually evolving.

Quote....Imagist....There are two problems here:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that your childs mind is anything different from your child's brain, which is made up of the cells you speak of. Given this, you DO feel paternal feelings for your child's brain.
The soul is the animal life force; the animating principle that pervades all that is “visible and invisible.”
According to the Bible the soul is in the blood, (see Genesis 9:4) and it is into the universal soul which has been breathed into all living beings which are formed from the universal elements, that the minds of all that the singularity of origin has become, is imprinted, as the singularity that was in the beginning, continues to evolve from the interactions between all that it has become.
Google up “The Heart is the Seat of the Mind,” then get back to me.

Quote....Imagist....2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the universe has developed such a mind of its own. Even if such a mind did exist, its existence would not justify deification.
The mind is within the living body. You must believe that mankind who is capable of comprehending the invisible mind that is he, is not one of the things that has developed from the singularity of our origin. Do you honestly believe that the living universal body did not develop within itself the mind of man, which has gained dominion over all creatures and is Lord of creatures? Or do you believe that mankind is the end of the eternal process of universal growth and that a higher being has not developed, or will not develop within the Cosmos, a being that will gain dominion over all life forms, “Visible and Invisible.” A being who is the Most High that Mankind will bow down to.
Quote....Imagist....In what way is the universe homeostatic? What conditions across the universe are regulated, and by what mechanisms?

In what way are the parts of the universe organized into cells (the basic unit of its life), how do they work together, and toward what goal?
Undoubtedly, you do not believe that atoms and electrons are living things, and yet this body in which I, the godhead is developing, is nothing but atoms and electrons. In what way is this conglomeration of non-living atoms and electrons homeostatic? What conditions across this body of non-living atoms and electrons are regulated, and by what mechanisms?

Quote....Imagist....What does the universe do to metabolize chemicals and store or use the resulting energy? Furthermore, where do these chemicals come from (they can't come from inside the universe - that would be like an animal surviving by eating itself).
The constant cosmos does exist by eating itself. Out there in the boundless reaches of interstellar space there are countless super massive black holes which are gathering all the expended cosmic energy and dying galactic bodies.
The Virgo cluster of galaxies to which we belong, are all falling into one of those super abyss’, where, one day in time, all will be gathered into that crushing void and condensed into an invisible primordial atom, which will then feed on the expended energy of the other living universal cells within the constant Cosmos, until the gravitational field will no longer be able to contain it, and it will burst forth, to be resurrected once more and continue on in its eternal process of evolution.

Quote....Imagist....How does the universe grow, or maintain a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism? How does a growing universe NOT violate the principle of conservation of mass/energy?

How does the universe adapt? And what conditions are there external to the universe for the universe to even adapt in response to?

To what external stimuli does the universe adapt? And what stimuli are even possible outside the universe?
The facts are: once upon a time there was only the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, which has grown into the living Cosmos that you see today, I have no need to explain how it happened, only that it did.

Quote....Imagist....Where are the little baby universes that demonstrate that the universe is able to reproduce?
Look out at ‘The Pillars of Creation,’ see the death of a once mighty Light Being, who collapsed in upon itself after blasting off a percentage of its mass. Watch as the interstellar gas, dust and residue in that great cloud which is held in orbit around the unescapable mass at its centre, is formed into new stars that are being born into a new galactic body. Understand the growth of our own Milky Way Galaxy.

Quote....Imagist....The long and the short of it: the universe is not a living thing. Period.
And the fool says, “There is no God.”

 

[S-word]

A rock is not an "animated thing".

I think your definition of "animated" is slightly skewed.

Animate: "To impart motion or activity to."
A rock is no more that sub-atomic particles, that are in perpetual motion, which are gathered into animated atoms that are formed into animated molecules which you see as an inanimate object. Do you still believe that a rock is not an animated thing?

quote=linwood....Humans are simply animals and when all is said and done have earned no greater standing than a Ferret.
In fact they may have earned a less glorious position than a Ferret considering the harm they`ve done to this planet.

You may see yourself as less than a ferret and I respect your judgment, but it is obvious that I have a far higher opinion of the body of mankind than you.

quote=linwood....I still disagree with your definitions of what constitutes "life" and "animation" however.

And it is your god given right to agree or disagree.

 

[rageoftyrael]

It is always nice to think there is somebody out there looking out for you. Not necessarily logical, but a nice thought. I can almost certainly say that everyone will have doubts about their own logic, if they are intelligent beings anyway. To firmly set yourself in a belief, with absolutely no room to wiggle a little, is only asking for trouble, as it is human nature to question and wonder why. We are an unquenchable species, incapable of true happiness because once we've gotten what we want, we look for more to want. I will question everything, even if it makes people uncomfortable or even angry. Of course, as an agnostic, i have no reason to doubt what i believe because if asked what i believe in, i would simply say i have no religous beliefs because unlike so many other people, i dont know the answers to much of anything, let alone such cosmic questions like is there a being who made us? who is watching over us? I dont know. And if you think about it, saying you don't know is the only logical conclusion to come to when it comes to religion, for i am only man, and very fallible. Got a little off topic there i guess. I think that athiests probably dont doubt it for the most part, because like everyone else who isn't an agnostic, they KNOW that religions is a load of bull, while religious people KNOW that their beliefs are 100 percent true. Doubts, if you KNOW something, is for the weak willed, and thus there can be no doubt if you are a true believer(or non-believer in athiests case). Just my idea of a joke if you will.

 

[S-word]

It is always nice to think there is somebody out there looking out for you. Not necessarily logical, but a nice thought. I can almost certainly say that everyone will have doubts about their own logic, if they are intelligent beings anyway. To firmly set yourself in a belief, with absolutely no room to wiggle a little, is only asking for trouble, as it is human nature to question and wonder why. We are an unquenchable species, incapable of true happiness because once we've gotten what we want, we look for more to want. I will question everything, even if it makes people uncomfortable or even angry. Of course, as an agnostic, i have no reason to doubt what i believe because if asked what i believe in, i would simply say i have no religous beliefs because unlike so many other people, i dont know the answers to much of anything, let alone such cosmic questions like is there a being who made us? who is watching over us? I dont know. And if you think about it, saying you don't know is the only logical conclusion to come to when it comes to religion, for i am only man, and very fallible. Got a little off topic there i guess. I think that athiests probably dont doubt it for the most part, because like everyone else who isn't an agnostic, they KNOW that religions is a load of bull, while religious people KNOW that their beliefs are 100 percent true. Doubts, if you KNOW something, is for the weak willed, and thus there can be no doubt if you are a true believer(or non-believer in athiests case). Just my idea of a joke if you will.

quote=rageoftyraelI....I think that athiests probably dont doubt it for the most part, because like everyone else who isn't an agnostic, they KNOW that religions is a load of bull,

I totally agree with you on this point, as Agnosticism and Atheism are religions, as is borne out by the amount of agnostics and atheists who frequent the general religious debates. I see that "Imagist" declares Atheism to be his religion, which as you say is nothing but a load of bull.

 

[linwood]

Quote....Imagist....You can't possibly know this. By what evidence do you claim that you do?
I think that it’s pretty well documented that before the Big Bang there was neither time nor space, and that all the exists today was once condensed in the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, within the Black Hole from which we originated. There is also the belief among the scientific and religious communities that this universe continually oscillates between a state of activity and an apparent state of non-activity.

Could you please supply documentation of this evidence?
You don`t really have to, I know you can`t.



What you should have said is ..

There is a un-evidenced hypothesis that before the Big Bang there was neither time nor space, and that all the exists today was once condensed in the infinitely dense, hot, and infinitesimally small primordial Atom, within the Black Hole from which we originated.

There is no evidence of any singularity.

It is an assumption, a somewhat reasonable assumption but an assumption none the less.

The fact that science disregards the concept of time and space prior to it`s Big Bang theory is not because it has evidenced that there was no time or space but simply because it cannot be known AND is irrelevant to their hypothesis.
It is unnecessary.

I think you need to learn a bit more about cosmology before attempting to speak on it in such a tone.

 

[linwood]

Do you still believe that a rock is not an animated thing?

Yes and I still think your definition of animated is skewed.

You may see yourself as less than a ferret and I respect your judgment, but it is obvious that I have a far higher opinion of the body of mankind than you.

That was good.
:biglaugh:
If that wasn`t meant as a backhanded compliment it should have been.
That I can respect.

And it is your god given right to agree or disagree.

Nope, it`s a right I assert myself.
But you can believe what you like.

 

[S-word]

Yes and I still think your definition of animated is skewed.

I have two dictionaries before me, one define "Animate: as, 'to put in motion,' the other, 'To impart motion or activiy to.'
Would you describe an electron in orbit around the nucleus of the atom as 'animate, or inanimate?

If you agree that it is animated, why can you not accept that the universal animating force is inherent in all that exist?

 

[EverChanging]

I'd like to go through this thread later and read it more thoroughly, but the answer the question, when I had not been an atheist very long, I would sometimes waver, but the more I studied, the more firm I became in my skepticism.

Sometimes I come across a thought from a theist that I will research more thoroughly, but even then, I have usually found some kink in the argument immediately and research it to get better ideas. It seems to be in my nature to admit that I could be wrong -- my views have changed so much because I admit that, and often that change was painful, but I couldn't deny evidence -- but it will take a lot to change my naturalist worldview because for centuries, as we have gained knowledge, natural explanations have always replaced supernatural explanations; there is not one example of a supernatural explanation supplanting a natural one. I therefore fall back to naturalism by default.

It isn't just my theism that waned in favor of skepticism, either. I was interested in all kinds of supernatural beliefs, such as astral projection, that I later decided were explained much better by natural causes rather than supernatural realms.