Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[mikkel_the_dane]

"something greater", aka God, Spirit, title does not matter.

Yes, it matters, because you could be going to Hell if you believe in the wrong God. So could I for that matter. You are a Christian, but if God is not Christian, you might be going to Hell. That 93% of all humans are religious, only tells you that 93% are religious, not what kind of God there is. And it doesn't tell you if some atheists can go to Heaven and some religious people will go to Hell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Atheists have no working communication system, it the same as a blind would state that there is no red color.

Well, I will defend the ability for atheists to be atheists. I will on the other hand speak out against anyone who judge their follow humans with Objective Authority. Only God has that. In practice no humans has that because we can't rule out that it is Satan that is speaking. So when I die, I will by judged by God. But when I live, you can't judge me, because you are not God. Nor am I, but I don't judge you using God. I just point out that you are as human as everybody else.

 

[leov]

Yes, it matters, because you could be going to Hell if you believe in the wrong God. So could I for that matter. You are a Christian, but if God is not Christian, you might be going to Hell. That 93% of all humans are religious, only tells you that 93% are religious, not what kind of God there is. And it doesn't tell you if some atheists can go to Heaven and some religious people will go to Hell.

There is no permanent hell, theoretically, atheist can go to heaven if fits requirements.

 

[leov]

Well, I will defend the ability for atheists to be atheists. I will on the other hand speak out against anyone who judge their follow humans with Objective Authority. Only God has that. In practice no humans has that because we can't rule out that it is Satan that is speaking. So when I die, I will by judged by God. But when I live, you can't judge me, because you are not God. Nor am I, but I don't judge you using God. I just point out that you are as human as everybody else.

Stating facts is not judging. If you see a blind person and state this, it would not be judgement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no permanent hell, theoretically, atheist can go to heaven if fits requirements.

So where is the problem?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Greatest predictor of religious affiliation: where you were born (over which you have NO control.)

 

[leov]

So where is the problem?

OP stated the issue. But I have an issue atheists stating that my experiences are just belief, how would they know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know that one. So I don't use proof or evidence. I use the following observation, it is a fact that some humans have religious beliefs and that they work in some sense. E.g. my religious beliefs give me comfort, i.e. they are a crutch for me. But I have figured out that I need that crutch, so I keep it. So where is the problem in that?

Do you really? Or is it merely make it easier to rationalize your actions. The main problem that arises from religious beliefs is that religious groups tend to try to force their beliefs upon others.

In other words, as for rational people, I am at least in part irrational, but I am rational enough to admit that. Further I don't demand of you that you believe like me, but I do demand that you accept that I am religious as such, because it is a fact of how the world works, that I am religious.

I can accept that you are religious. You merely cannot demand respect based on the excuse that your beliefs are religious. When I wear a colander on my head I cannot demand that others give me a holy title.

So in effect, you are doing a form of ethics. You demand a certain behavior of other humans, but you can give no evidence or proof of that, because ethics is not rational nor open to evidence. It is emotions in the end. I am playing with you, because if we take this to the end, you are in effect evaluating rationality as better that being irrational. But that is not science, evidence or proof. That is a form of ethics, so here it is: I have a good life being religious and as long as I don't judge you with Objective Authority as for the value of your life and behavior, where is the problem?
A valid reason in science, logic and math, is not the same as it is in ethics.

No, I am more than happy to give evidence for my claims. You are wrong there. And rational thought has a clear history of beating irrational thought. Yes, occasionally an irrational thinker may be correct. But that is the exception rather than the rule.

By the way, I do not know of any religion that has Objective Authority. An examination of such claims usually runs very quickly into circular reasoning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Stating facts is not judging. If you see a blind person and state this, it would not be judgement.

Atheists are not blind. They believe differently. Stop acting as if you know "better" or what ever. Leave that to God. Be humble and not judgmental. To judge another human as a human is in the end the job of God. You are not God, you and I are humans and thus fallible. Look at the world you are in and learn from that. I.e. one problem is that to many humans judge other humans in the name of God, but that can't always be correct, because e.g. slavery can't both be right and wrong. So I stopped doing that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OP stated the issue. But I have an issue atheists stating that my experiences are just beliefs, how would they know.

Because you keep supporting that claim of atheists. There may be a very very small chance that you actually know. But your posts have largely refuted that claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OP stated the issue. But I have an issue atheists stating that my experiences are just belief, how would they know.

Well, they are in all likelihood. Religion is one kind of beliefs and knowledge is another kind. Of course you could Know God, but that doesn't help the atheists and someone like me, who is an agnostic, yet religious. You can't explain that, if you only know and I don't. So you have to use other words, you want to "sell" it.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Actually, even Christians believe something came from nothing. It is just that Christians have an explanation for how and why it happened but atheists only guess.

 

[leov]

Atheists are not blind. They believe differently. Stop acting as if you know "better" or what ever. Leave that to God. Be humble and not judgmental. To judge another human as a human is in the end the job of God. You are not God, you and I are humans and thus fallible. Look at the world you are in and learn from that. I.e. one problem is that to many humans judge other humans in the name of God, but that can't always be correct, because e.g. slavery can't both be right and wrong. So I stopped doing that.

over thousands of years practically there was no atheism, people had functional organs of perception, the last several hundred years, I'd say starting beginning of industrial era, atheism increased. I partially attribute it to industrial pollutions that kill perception functions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, even Christians believe something came from nothing. It is just that Christians have an explanation for how and why it happened but atheists only guess.

No. Atheists try to find out. Scientific theories are not guesses. If anything that is the action of many Christians. Though there are some Christians that are not afraid to use the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

over thousands of years practically there was no atheism, people had functional organs of perception, the last several hundred years, I'd say starting beginning of industrial era, atheism increased. I partially attribute it to industrial pollutions that kill perception functions.

I attribute it to better knowledge.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Actually, even Christians believe something came from nothing. It is just that Christians have an explanation for how and why it happened but atheists only guess.

'Explanation' is a generous word. 'Fabrication' is closer to the mark because there is no empirical evidence for God and his existence is not falsifiable since, by definition, God is not physical.

 

[leov]

Well, they are in all likelihood. Religion is one kind of beliefs and knowledge is another kind. Of course you could Know God, but that doesn't help the atheists and someone like me, who is an agnostic, yet religious. You can't explain that, if you only know and I don't. So you have to use other words, you want to "sell" it.

I can explain it, ancient Gnostics had references as well as St. Paul.

 

[We Never Know]

Believer: I don't believe in something from nothing. It's here and god created it all from his supernatural powers.

Non-believer. I don't believe in something from nothing. It's here and even though I don't know where it came from, it wasn't from nothing.

There are 2 common breakdowns of what is said here. Does anyone see the problems?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you really? Or is it merely make it easier to rationalize your actions.

So what is the problem with that?

The main problem that arises from religious beliefs is that religious groups tend to try to force their beliefs upon others.

That is not limited to religion and it is not relevant to me. I am a moral relativist. Indeed it is worse than that, I am a cognitive relativist.

I can accept that you are religious. You merely cannot demand respect based on the excuse that your beliefs are religious. When I wear a colander on my head I cannot demand that others give me a holy title.

I just demand that if you judge my worth as a human, you do that with the knowledge that there is no Objective Morality/Ethics neither in science, philosophy or religion,

No, I am more than happy to give evidence for my claims. You are wrong there. And rational thought has a clear history of beating irrational thought. Yes, occasionally an irrational thinker may be correct. But that is the exception rather than the rule.

You can't give evidence for the fact that you are a reality, which objectively is(philosophical realism) as it appears to you subjectively(in your mind).
That connects to this; within methodological naturalism science has these limits.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

By the way, I do not know of any religion that has Objective Authority. An examination of such claims usually runs very quickly into circular reasoning.

I know of no method, which holds Objective Evidence, Knowledge, Reason, Logic, Proof or what ever for all of reality. Neither in science, philosophy nor religion.
As a fact, rationality is as real as irrationality and irrationality do "beat" rationality some times. How - it is a fact, that I have a life despite being somewhat irrational. Indeed by accepting that I am in part irrational, I am better off that "beating" myself up with trying to be something I can't be. I accept that you can do it, but stop judging me based on your personal standard.

Yes, I know what I am doing. I am reducing this down to you and I and point out that your brain is not mine and so in reverse. So you are demanding something of me, I can't do. How rational is that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can explain it, ancient Gnostics had references as well as St. Paul.

Yes, I get it. You are different that me and you judge me for being blind. Stop doing that. If you can see, then you should be able to accept that I can't. I don't judge you because you can see, I point out that you are judging me. I accept the difference, you don't. I know some atheists don't accept you, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't accept them as humans. Just point out, that your experiences are real to you and accept that they are different. Leave the judgment to God.