"Lack of belief"

[serp777]

agreed. I don't know, I acknowledge my belief as such, faith



that it was, was the complaint of atheists at the time, their argument not mine!



atheists picked uncreated explicitly because that meant no creator, which was the point, letting personal beliefs guide conclusions instead of the evidence.



In physical cosmology, the photon epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which photons dominated the energy of the universe. The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.[1]


...let there be light...

cmon credit where it's due, that's not too shabby is it!? considering atheists considered the whole thing religious pseudoscience.

The atheist Static, steady state, big cruch theories were what turned out to be woefully inaccurate



The 'Christian God' for sake of argument, created a world with no pain, suffering, grief, hate, that still exists today, for jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, bliss either, would you trade?

The 'Christian God' for sake of argument, created a world with no pain, suffering, grief, hate, that still exists today, for jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, bliss either, would you trade?

In physical cosmology, the photon epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which photons dominated the energy of the universe. The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.[1]


...let there be light...

cmon credit where it's due, that's not too shabby is it!? considering atheists considered the whole thing religious pseudoscience.

Well this is a little iffy because the universe was still completely dark until 379k yearas later. The rest of that wiki article says:

"The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.[1] Atomic nuclei were created in the process of nucleosynthesis which occurred during the first few minutes of the photon epoch. For the remainder of the photon epoch the universe contained a hot dense plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons. 379,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was created and thenstructure formation took place."

Even though photons were technically created, they still couldn't propagate until the universe became cold enough. I consider the CMB to be the "let there be light" event because that's the oldest light in the universe that first lit the universe.

that it was, was the complaint of atheists at the time, their argument not mine!

My bad!/

Yes I would trade all of that in an instant if it meant avoiding infinite suffering in hell. A little bit of finite love is worth an infinite amount of pain and suffering.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well this is a little iffy because the universe was still completely dark until 379k yearas later. The rest of that wiki article says:

"The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.[1] Atomic nuclei were created in the process of nucleosynthesis which occurred during the first few minutes of the photon epoch. For the remainder of the photon epoch the universe contained a hot dense plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons. 379,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was created and thenstructure formation took place."

Even though photons were technically created, they still couldn't propagate until the universe became cold enough. I consider the CMB to be the "let there be light" event because that's the oldest light in the universe that first lit the universe.

Okay we're getting into the weeds on this now So there was light, but the universe was opaque yes?, and transparent 379k years later (or so we figure) ... so still very much 'in the beginning' from the perspective of a book written nearly 14 billion years later is it not?

Interestingly you are using the same perspective sometimes used to support the apparently late appearance of the sun & moon in Genesis, that they were there but not visible as singular objects due to opaque atmosphere...
which skeptics usually protest as stretching it a bit!

I don't think Genesis was meant as a scientific cheat sheet, creation is for us to explore, discover for ourselves, what better way to appreciate it? But it does give a pretty good accurate summary- with some quite remarkable specifics also- that earth was once all water, then a single land mass with a single ocean, that the number of stars in the heavens are comparable to the grains of sand on Earth. And of course just the fact that there WAS a beginning, was a remarkable scientific validation- we take it for granted today, but the concept of a beginning of time/space was considered very far fetched not so long ago.

Yes I would trade all of that in an instant if it meant avoiding infinite suffering in hell. A little bit of finite love is worth an infinite amount of pain and suffering.

I'm not sure about the eternal suffering myself, but none of us get out of here alive, and it's probably not going to be very pleasant, we all suffer, but would you trade every bit of love and joy you ever experienced.. for oblivion? to avoid that suffering?

 

[serp777]

Okay we're getting into the weeds on this now So there was light, but the universe was opaque yes?, and transparent 379k years later (or so we figure) ... so still very much 'in the beginning' from the perspective of a book written nearly 14 billion years later is it not?

Interestingly you are using the same perspective sometimes used to support the apparently late appearance of the sun & moon in Genesis, that they were there but not visible as singular objects due to opaque atmosphere...
which skeptics usually protest as stretching it a bit!

I don't think Genesis was meant as a scientific cheat sheet, creation is for us to explore, discover for ourselves, what better way to appreciate it? But it does give a pretty good accurate summary- with some quite remarkable specifics also- that earth was once all water, then a single land mass with a single ocean, that the number of stars in the heavens are comparable to the grains of sand on Earth. And of course just the fact that there WAS a beginning, was a remarkable scientific validation- we take it for granted today, but the concept of a beginning of time/space was considered very far fetched not so long ago.



I'm not sure about the eternal suffering myself, but none of us get out of here alive, and it's probably not going to be very pleasant, we all suffer, but would you trade every bit of love and joy you ever experienced.. for oblivion? to avoid that suffering?

Regardless, there wasn't light at first, there was the emergence of space time and many other things before the emergence of light, and then the universe wasn't lit up in any sense until the CMB. The most important parts of the big bang occured at 10^-35 seconds after the big bang down to 10^-20 seconds. The bible didn't clarify any of that. If it said first there was space and time, and then soon after there was light, then that would be a lot better.

I don't think Genesis was meant as a scientific cheat sheet, creation is for us to explore, discover for ourselves, what better way to appreciate it?

Its making a scientific claim though by saying that there was light first. That is testable, and therefore scientific. Why would genesis make us appreciate things more though?

But it does give a pretty good accurate summary- with some quite remarkable specifics also- that earth was once all water, then a single land mass with a single ocean, that the number of stars in the heavens are comparable to the grains of sand on Earth.

It didn't cover the formation of the galaxies, the formation of stars, then the supernova explosions required to create the elements, which then formed the solar system. Also the number of stars in the universe greatly, greatly, greatly exceeds by orders of magnitude all of the grains of sand on the earth. Its missing very important specifics, and the specifics it does mentioned could have been guessed. For example, some guy looking at the vastness of the oceans could easily think that the earth was once covered in water. If it covered things that couldn't have been guessed, like the stars forming the elements that make up humanity and the earth, then that would be serious evidence.

I'm not sure about the eternal suffering myself, but none of us get out of here alive, and it's probably not going to be very pleasant, we all suffer, but would you trade every bit of love and joy you ever experienced.. for oblivion? to avoid that suffering?

Well for eternal suffering I would. I'm talking about the concept of a vengeful God who punishes those who dont believe or otherwise defy him, with eternal torture. If I had the choice between oblivion or some finite love and eternal suffering, I would easily choose oblivion. I don't care if you have 100k years of love, that can't be better than infinite suffering. You can't even imagine eternity or infinity, so the torture would never end, and soon that love would be fleeting and irrelevant. Infinite things are always more substantial than finite things.

 

[Agondonter]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

To deny the personality of the First Source and Center leaves one only the choice of two philosophic dilemmas: materialism or pantheism. Dissatisfied with the former, many nowadays are turning to the latter.

Materialism denies God. Secularism, on the other hand, is a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations. Secularism simply ignores God; at least that was the earlier attitude. More recently, secularism has assumed a more militant attitude, assuming to take the place of the religion whose totalitarian bondage it onetime resisted. 21st century secularism tends to affirm that man does not need God.

The inherent weakness of secularism is that it discards ethics and religion for politics and power. Without God, without religion, scientific secularism can never co-ordinate its forces, harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms. So, in spite of the denials and notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, our secularistic human society is slowly disintegrating.

 

[JustWondering]

Sorry, I might post a few ideas I've been sharing elsewhere (which drove me to remember the one forum that actually matters for this stuff), do bear with me!

Why can I, as a theist, not simply say "I lack a belief in a godless universe" or "I lack a belief in materialism", anything of the sort? I've never liked the claim that an atheist lacks a belief. On both sides you have people making the call on god or no god based on experience, reason, and evidence. Put these behind a currently unproven ideology and you have a belief, whether positive or negative. Worse, I don't see the problem with understanding atheism as a judgement call, a stance, a belief. I didn't even see the problem when I WAS and atheist. So what's your take on the whole "lack of belief" debate?

I think history clearly shows that religions change over time to meet the demands of the cultures that have them. Which IMO clearly shows that religions are man made. Since I have never seen any god, or any credible evidence for the existence of any god, why would I believe in their existence?

Why do theists think non-believers have to give their beliefs any serious consideration?

What really makes belief in the average religion anymore credible and worthy of consideration than belief in UFO's and big foot? Nothing.

 

[Agondonter]

I think that religions change over time to meet the demands of the cultures that have them. Which IMO clearly shows that religions are man made.

It is true that history clearly shows that religion do evolve over time to meet the demands of the cultures that have them, but it can said the same history also shows that that the evolution of religion is punctuated by religious genius.

Since I have never seen any god, or any credible evidence for the existence of any god, why would I believe in their existence?

Where did you look? What did you expect to find?

Why do theists think non-believers have to give their beliefs any serious consideration?

Because those geniuses might have been made aware of something you are not.

What really makes belief in the average religion anymore credible and worthy of consideration than belief in UFO's and big foot? Nothing.

UFO's are about beliefs; religion is infinitely more than "mere belief."

 

[JustWondering]

It is true that history clearly shows that religion do evolve over time to meet the demands of the cultures that have them, but it can said the same history also shows that that the evolution of religion is punctuated by religious genius.

Religious genius? Sounds like an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Where did you look? What did you expect to find?

First off, no one is under any obligation to indulge your views and beliefs. Secondly, after some soul searching and research when my faith was beginning to wane, guess how many gods I found? Zero.

Because those geniuses might have been made aware of something you are not.

One man's geniuses is another man's con artists and their marks.

UFO's are about beliefs; religion is infinitely more than "mere belief."

Religion is a mere belief. You can try to dress it up all you want, but at the end of the day it has no more substance than any other unsubstantiated belief.

 

[Agondonter]

Religious genius? Sounds like an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

Perhaps, but how many secular geniuses have had such a profound effect on the moral evolution of the human species?

First off, no one is under any obligation to indulge your views and beliefs. Secondly, after some soul searching and research when my faith was beginning to wane, guess how many gods I found? Zero.

Doesn't answer the question.

One man's geniuses is another man's con artists and their marks.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Religion is a mere belief. You can try to dress it up all you want, but at the end of the day it has no more substance than any other unsubstantiated belief.

Mere secular superstition. I doubt you'll find many psychologists who will agree with your premise.

 

[JustWondering]

Perhaps, but how many secular geniuses have had such a profound effect on the moral evolution of the human species?

Only every single person who has fought for human rights and equality against corrupt if not outright evil institutions who justified their unjust ways WITH religion.

Doesn't answer the question.

Wrong, I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer.

By their fruits you shall know them.

Some of the most hateful and nasty people I've met have claimed to be Christians.

Mere secular superstition. I doubt you'll find many psychologists who will agree with your premise.

Do you not know what the word unsubstantiated means?

 

[Agondonter]

Only every single person who has fought for human rights and equality against corrupt if not outright evil institutions who justified their unjust ways WITH religion.

You mean like those who fought against slavery in the American Civil War? They weren't motivated by secular ideals or values. In fact, neither is your evaluation of those "outright evil institutions."

Wrong, I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer.

You dodged. But I expected that.

Some of the most hateful and nasty people I've met have claimed to be Christians.

So?

Do you not know what the word unsubstantiated means?

Do you know what "infinitely more than "mere belief" means?

 

[JustWondering]

You mean like those who fought against slavery in the American Civil War? They weren't motivated by secular ideals or values. In fact, neither is your evaluation of those "outright evil institutions."

The south supported slavery with the bible, and the bible does indeed give directions on how one should treat their slaves, including how to beat them. That's a FACT. Now you present a fact to support your position instead of unsubstantiated claims.

You dodged. But I expected that.

You are being dishonest now or have reading comprehension issues. You asked if/where I looked for gods and I told you. You not liking my answer does not equal me dodging anything.

So?

It is a trend I have noticed throughout my life. The atheists, agnostics, and those of non-Abrahamic faiths I've met are so much more...happy and less stressed out and less angry. Why do you think that is?

Do you know what "infinitely more than "mere belief" means?

Your beliefs have as much evidence and sound reasoning to support them that UFO believers have to support their beliefs. Your beliefs are not worthy of any more consideration than any other belief system that makes extraordinary claims without ANY evidence to support it. That is reality. You not liking it doesn't change anything.

 

[Agondonter]

The south supported slavery with the bible, and the bible does indeed give directions on how one should treat their slaves, including how to beat them. That's a FACT. Now you present a fact to support your position instead of unsubstantiated claims.

I learned that in elementary school. History books are still available.

You are being dishonest now or have reading comprehension issues. You asked if/where I looked for gods and I told you. You not liking my answer does not equal me dodging anything.

You dodged. But I expected that.

It is a trend I have noticed throughout my life. The atheists, agnostics, and those of non-Abrahamic faiths I've met are so much more...happy and less stressed out and less angry. Why do you think that is?

Studies tell a different story.

Your beliefs have as much evidence and sound reasoning to support them that UFO believers have to support their beliefs. Your beliefs are not worthy of any more consideration than any other belief system that makes extraordinary claims without ANY evidence to support it. That is reality. You not liking it doesn't change anything.

What part of "more than mere belief" don't you understand?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Regardless, there wasn't light at first, there was the emergence of space time and many other things before the emergence of light, and then the universe wasn't lit up in any sense until the CMB. The most important parts of the big bang occured at 10^-35 seconds after the big bang down to 10^-20 seconds. The bible didn't clarify any of that. If it said first there was space and time, and then soon after there was light, then that would be a lot better.


Its making a scientific claim though by saying that there was light first. That is testable, and therefore scientific. Why would genesis make us appreciate things more though?



It didn't cover the formation of the galaxies, the formation of stars, then the supernova explosions required to create the elements, which then formed the solar system. Also the number of stars in the universe greatly, greatly, greatly exceeds by orders of magnitude all of the grains of sand on the earth. Its missing very important specifics, and the specifics it does mentioned could have been guessed. For example, some guy looking at the vastness of the oceans could easily think that the earth was once covered in water. If it covered things that couldn't have been guessed, like the stars forming the elements that make up humanity and the earth, then that would be serious evidence.



Well for eternal suffering I would. I'm talking about the concept of a vengeful God who punishes those who dont believe or otherwise defy him, with eternal torture. If I had the choice between oblivion or some finite love and eternal suffering, I would easily choose oblivion. I don't care if you have 100k years of love, that can't be better than infinite suffering. You can't even imagine eternity or infinity, so the torture would never end, and soon that love would be fleeting and irrelevant. Infinite things are always more substantial than finite things.

well again, even the very concept of a beginning was not even guessed at by scientists, it was utterly rejected and mocked


The Bible is the most widely read, inspiring and influential book in the history of humanity.

If you went back and edited it to say, let there be light, and by that I mean an epoch dominated by photons after first 10 seconds, but not technically visible, to a would-be observer because of lack of transparency in the fabric of space time until slightly later....

I think you would lose a few readers already! Remember that the Bible had to resonate with people across millenia, cultures, continents, these things would have been meaningless

While again in the wider perspective, scientists were still rejecting even the basic concept of a beginning very recently, before the Priest Lemaitre's primeval atom theory was proven beyond reasonable doubt, far less debating the exact nature of the light that first dominated it.

Similarly the idea that stars could numbers as great as grains of sand, was considered a wild exaggeration, before we discovered those galaxies.

So it's about our own scientific discovery validating what the Bible says, not the other way around

e.g. the further discovery that elements necessary for life, were not just arbitrary stuff floating around, but specifically manufactured at the subatomic level by precisely engineered fusion reactions, showed that life developed according to a very detailed specific blueprints, even if one argues that these blueprints could have been accidentally created by a giant infinite probability machine (multiverse)

Perhaps you are right, these were all lucky guesses on the part of the authors of the Bible, but I think there are far less improbable explanations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do theists think non-believers have to give their beliefs any serious consideration?

What really makes belief in the average religion anymore credible and worthy of consideration than belief in UFO's and big foot? Nothing.

I agree. In fact, I'd say that UFO claims are better supported than most (all?) religious claims.

When it comes to UFOs, we can talk to many people alive today who claim to have been abducted by aliens. When questioned, their stories seem to generally reconcile with each other despite no apparent sign of collusion.

This is way better support than the typical religion has.

 

[JustWondering]

I learned that in elementary school. History books are still available.

So you have nothing of substance to support your position.

You dodged. But I expected that.

Ah, you're trolling, ok.

Studies tell a different story.

Please present these studies, I would like to see them.

What part of "more than mere belief" don't you understand?

For something to be more than a mere belief it has to be a proven fact. Your religion and the claims it makes have yet to be proven fact. Therefore, your religious beliefs are just beliefs.

Another theist that seems unwilling or incapable of having a proper debate.

 

[Agondonter]

I agree. In fact, I'd say that UFO claims are better supported than most (all?) religious claims.

When it comes to UFOs, we can talk to many people alive today who claim to have been abducted by aliens. When questioned, their stories seem to generally reconcile with each other despite no apparent sign of collusion.

This is way better support than the typical religion has.

What part of "more than mere belief" don't you understand?

 

[Augustus]

Please present these studies, I would like to see them.

I'm not religious, so am not shilling for anything.

There are academic studies that show religious people are happier than non-religious people. I've never looked into them that much, so am not going to comment too much on them, but they do exist and I have seen them cited in more than one non-religious academic texts (off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure they are referred to in at least one article by Scott Atran).

Whether or not these studies stand up to a greater degree of scrutiny, I don't know as I've not really looked. They do exist though in a secular academic context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What part of "more than mere belief" don't you understand?

What are you going on about?

Religion is lots of things (tribal identity, social club, business networking gathering, etc.), but religions do proclaim beliefs. Don't you care whether your religious beliefs are justified?

 

[Agondonter]

So you have nothing of substance to support your position.

"Prove it": the last refuge of the lazy-minded.

Ah, you're trolling, ok.

Ah, you're dodging. ok.

Please present these studies, I would like to see them.

Investigate for yourself; affirm or falsify for yourself. But that would require you to question your own views and beliefs, which you do not feel obliged to do.

For something to be more than a mere belief it has to be a proven fact. Your religion and the claims it makes have yet to be proven fact. Therefore, your religious beliefs are just beliefs.

Not everything is reducible to ideas.

Another theist that seems unwilling or incapable of having a proper debate.

Another self-appointed secular "expert" who thinks they are qualified to talk about religion.

 

[JustWondering]

"Prove it": the last refuge of the lazy-minded.

Personal attack.

Ah, you're dodging. ok.

Trolling.

Investigate for yourself; affirm or falsify for yourself. But that would require you to question your own views and beliefs, which you do not feel obliged to do.

Refusal to support your own argument.

Not everything is reducible to ideas.

Nonsensical statement.

Another self-appointed secular "expert" who thinks they are qualified to talk about religion.

Another personal attack.

Gee, I guess my assessment that you were not interested in having a proper debate was spot on.