Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[leov]

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 except that they are different. Leave the judgment to God.

It is not judging, it is the way things are, at a given moment it is not your fault so, it is not matter for judgement, it partially a matter of ignorance which, as you know, fixable. I was an atheist, than fundamentalist, than kept asking questions and got a little more knowledge...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not judging, it is the way things are, at a given moment it is not your fault so, it is not matter for judgement, it partially a matter of ignorance which, as you know, fixable. I was an atheist, than fundamentalist, than kept asking questions and got a little more knowledge...

You have to make up your mind. You can't claim they are blind due to environmental factors as you do up thread and then claim it is cognitive, that you can learn to think differently. Indeed if it is based on how you think it is a matter of belief. I.e. what thoughts you believe in versus those you don't believe in. That has nothing to do with seeing. It is a case of cognitive relativism.

 

[leov]

You have to make up your mind. You can't claim they are blind due to environmental factors as you do up thread and then claim it is cognitive, that you can learn to think differently. Indeed if it is based on how you think it is a matter of belief. I.e. what thoughts you believe in versus those you don't believe in. That has nothing to do with seeing. It is a case of cognitive relativism.

I already explained this, environmental issues make it hard, yes, some almost completely lost functions, it affects everybody to different degree, it is fixable if one wants to improve self, it may take years or it is easier just to be an atheist.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You need to understand Gnostic ways. God seldom communicate in literal ways, every person may have different take. There are those who take written Scripture as unchangeable God's word forever. It defeats the purpose, atheism is a knee jerk reaction to those people.

There is a problem with this (what I have put into Bold)

I will grant you, for the sake of argument, 1) gods can exist, 2) your god exists as you just describe.

What is the consequence of "God seldom communicate in literal ways, "

EVIL. That is what! Seriously.

Have you never read the cartoon Dilbert, with the incompetent and often obtuse boss-man?

Either your god is deliberately being EVIL? Or your god is simply an incompetent idiot.

Which is it?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Which personal opinion would you chose? Trump or Gandhi?

Neither. Both were/are racist in the end.

But at least Gandhi was willing to give up personal gain, to try to do good.

The Donald? Never in a million years.

On the third paw? If I needed an opinion on "How To Get Away With Raping Women, Especially Underage Teens?"

I quite expect tЯump is rather an expert on that particular subject....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How would you know what I got,? Show me your poof, you just have your belief about it.

You are guilty of another Logical Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof.

That's not how evidence works.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I already explained this, environmental issues make it hard, yes, some almost completely lost functions, it affects everybody to different degree, it is fixable if one wants to improve self, it may take years or it is easier just to be an atheist.

Sounds like Magic to me. You haven't any proof of your wild conjecture "lost function" to? Magic?

'Cause that's what it appears you are talking about, here-- magic.

You know-- the same "method" that people use to "talk to god"-- or more accurately, "hear" what god said

I should be clear: People talk to god all the time. That's a real activity.

And? People also talk to their cats (I know I do), their dogs, their houseplants, their cars, their smartphones (and no-- not another human using the 'phone, I mean talking at the infernal contraption) and so on.

I would be quite interested in an Outcome Study:

How much more effective is it, to talk to your pet, versus talking to god?

Versus talking to that giant tree in your front yard?

Versus talking to Zark from the planet Narlorf?

I quite expect that talking to your pet, yields the greatest measurable outcome.

Any takers?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why 93 % of theisst would have burden of proof to explain 7% of spiritually defective that theistic position is default human state?

what?

I have found, that 90% of statistics are numbers somebody pulled out of a donkey.

The fact is? At last check, about 20% of the planet has been cured of the god disease, and that number is on a sharp rise too. Especially among the younger set.

But wait! It's worse! The biggest god on the planet? (strictly going by the number of followers, here) is the Catholic God. With all the remaining gods representing a diminishing number of followers.

And, again, at last count, Catholics represent roughly 20% of the planet.

Meaning? 80% of the planet reject the Catholic God.

Oh dear... you are in the minority here... by... a lot...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Agree to disagree, you have no base to judge false or not, it is your opinion only. I decide if my inner process is false or not.

that is NOT how it WORKS! And I can prove it: the record of success, with respect to the Scientific Method? Has no equal on the planet.

You do not get to simply pick your own reality.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Wrong.

Proof? All the religious in-fighting on the planet represents more strife than any other single cause.

All arguing over WHICH of the THOUSANDS of "god" is the "correct" one!

SO IT VERY MUCH DOES MATTER-- YOU DO NOT GET TO CLAIM YOU ARE THE SAME AS EVERY OTHER GOD-FOLLOWER ON THE PLANET.

NONE OF THOSE GODS ARE THE SAME.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

Moreover, the number "93%" is grossly wrong. The correct value is closer to 79% and falling fast.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

NOT, according to the bible.

Oh, My! It seems you have rejected the bible. Again.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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 just have to laugh and laugh and laugh at this bit of Woo.

Seriously? Oh. My. That's the funniest sh--- I've seen all week!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Multi-universe is as out of the blue as god is. Anything beyond this natural limited known universe is nothing more than speculation, also known as belief.

When I read this, I had a mental picture of you stuffing your ears and screaming "lalala, can't hear you, lalala".

I told you how the idea of a multiverse is well-motivated. How it is not some stand-alone invention of any one person, but instead a prediction that naturally flows from scientific models that DO deal with this universe.

I hope you can agree that scientific models are worthy to explore, right?

Well, if you explore the scientific model of inflation theory, then you are exploring a model that predicts a multiverse.


Don't forget that this conversation started with you asking me why the multiverse is worthy to explore, but claims about supernatural god-realms (as in: "outside the universe") are not.

I explained why about a dozen times now, including again in this post.

Do you understand what is being said about scientific models and the predictions they make? And how that differs from religious claims?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agree to disagree, you have no base to judge false or not, it is your opinion only. I decide if my inner process is false or not.

Except when it comes to god claims, it's not me that needs a base. It's you. Since you're making the claims.


And also, this is so absurdly easy to counter....

So, was 9/11 a bad decision by Mohammed Atta?
He believed he was on a holy mission. Who are you to tell him it's false? It is your opinion only.

 

[We Never Know]

When I read this, I had a mental picture of you stuffing your ears and screaming "lalala, can't hear you, lalala".

I told you how the idea of a multiverse is well-motivated. How it is not some stand-alone invention of any one person, but instead a prediction that naturally flows from scientific models that DO deal with this universe.

I hope you can agree that scientific models are worthy to explore, right?

Well, if you explore the scientific model of inflation theory, then you are exploring a model that predicts a multiverse.


Don't forget that this conversation started with you asking me why the multiverse is worthy to explore, but claims about supernatural god-realms (as in: "outside the universe") are not.

I explained why about a dozen times now, including again in this post.

Do you understand what is being said about scientific models and the predictions they make? And how that differs from religious claims?

Dude?? You can have 20 billion models/simulations/hypotheses. The bottom line is nothing can be shown, tested or proven outside of the known natural universe.
It's all speculation/guessing/belief.

Remove the cotton from your ears and quit singing lalala.

 

[charlie sc]

it is easier just to be an atheist.

How?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

The problem is that things being "comfortable" does not mean they are true.
The problem with that is that accepting things as true because they make you happy, is irrational.

The problem with that, is I like to be rational. And I prefer my fellow citizens to be rational too.

In other words, as for rational people, I am at least in part irrational, but I am rational enough to admit that.

Why would you be irrational on purpose?
This seems to mean that you actually realise that your beliefs are bs, but that you just pretend as if they are true, for some reason.

So really, you're an atheist disguised in a theist jacket?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. When I come to realise that a belief that I hold is irrational.... I instantly lose my conviction of that thing, whatever it is. By compulsion.

I can only imagine it would be the same for everybody.
When you come accross a realisation that your reasons for belief are false or fallacious, then the claim being believed instantly gets a serious credibility blow, right?

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.

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.

Nobody is "demanding" anything from you.

At best, I'm here now asking you questions about why you say you believe while understanding your belief is irrational.

You can believe whatever the heck you want. And I get to question those beliefs. I also get to have an opinion on your beliefs.

It's a two way street.

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

No... rationality being better then irrationality, is not a matter of "ethics".
It's a matter of logic and evidence.

Rational reasoning will objectively yield better and more accurate results then irrational reasoning.

Using irrational reasoning will inevitably lead to false beliefs and being conned by charlatans

, 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.

This has nothing to do with ethics and everything with being rational.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dude?? You can have 20 billion models/simulations/hypotheses. The bottom line is nothing can be shown, tested or proven outside of the known natural universe.
It's all speculation/guessing/belief.

Remove the cotton from your ears and quit singing lalala.

Nobody said anything about proving untestable prediction.
Nobody even claimed that the prediction of the multiverse is testable.

The thing is, as a scientific model, it makes many predictions. The universe is just one of them. Other predictions can be tested.

As Krauss said: if you have a model that makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable and 1 untestable, and if you test those 99 and they all come back succesfull, then that says something about the 1 untestable one.

Eventhough it is untestable, it is not at all on par with religious claims of the supernatural.

In the end, every succesfull test, strengthens a scientific model. And the thing about such models is such that if the model is accurate, then the predictions are true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem is that things being "comfortable" does not mean they are true.
The problem with that is that accepting things as true because they make you happy, is irrational.
...

Here is a page about science:
Science relies on evidence

Ultimately, scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested — preferably with many different lines of evidence by many different people. This characteristic is at the heart of all science.

So you are not doing science, you are doing philosophy.
So how many kinds of truth are there in practice? At least 3 to start off with.
Through observation, that is the domain of natural science.
Through reasoning, that is math and philosophy.
Through what matters subjectively, that is in the end good and bad in all variations.

Now if you say up thread that the multiverse theory is science, it is not actual science, because it is in principle not testable. It is theoretical physics, so let us play that. We will need a Boltzmann Brain. You know science, so you know the following. There are in theoretical physics different models of the probability of you being a Boltzmann Brain. All of them just like the multiverse model are not testable, because of the following fact. They all require that you are not in the universe, but outside the universe observing if there is a multiverse of if you are a Boltzmann Brain or not.
You are doing a form of metaphysics, that is philosophy but it is not testable using science. Now as per up thread you used the word "worthy". It is worthy to you and other humans, but not all humans. So let us test the word "worthy" using truth. Can you see, hold, touch or otherwise observe worthy? Can you link to how to calibrate a scientific instrument, which can measure worthy? No, in both cases. Worthy is not science, it is something else.

So is worthy attainable using only reason and logic; i.e. rational? Not because worthy is a subjective choice. You choose that it is worth your time. I find it a waste of time, because it is unknowable as science. It is worthy to believe in as a belief and it apparently works for you to believe in, but it is not science nor is it rational per se. It is a belief.
So what is it? It is a variant of good, it matters subjectively to you as a positive.

Your whole reasoning boils down to what matters to you and some other humans and it is without evidence and reason/logic.
You then use your belief that it is rational and science to bash other beliefs, because your beliefs are not about what works for you subjectively, but that is the problem. It is subjective and rests on your subjective thinking and emotions; i.e. worthy.

What I believe the universe is in the metaphysical sense; i.e. having reality independent of the mind, is something I know is a belief. You don't, because you believe you can know something, which is unknowable. You think that based on your thinking (the 100 as 99 and 1, where the 1 is untestable) you are doing science. You are not, it is a version of induction, but neither science nor philosophy can give evidence or truth for that. To use induction is a matter of belief and to claim it for something not testable, is not science. You can use induction in science, IFF you can test it. If you can't test it and you still claim it, you are claiming a belief.

You are doing philosophy to show that you are superior´in thinking and reasoning. You are not, because you don't understand the limit of thinking. That you think there is a multiverse, will not cause there to be a multiverse and if you can't test it, it is unknown and thus a belief.
Don't use science for feeling better. Check your own thinking and realize when you are not using reason, logic and evidence and then admit that. You are irrational when you state what matters to you, because you can't use evidence, reason and logic on that alone. You have to feel for it. That is so for all humans including me. I just tell you the truth.
The 4th version of truth is the ability to separate the 3 others and not conflate them as you do.
You can use evidence, logic and reason to figure out that they have limits and then you can state when you are using good and bad, beliefs and what not.

Stop using science for doing philosophy. I am a skeptic, yet religious so I know the limits of my own beliefs. They give me comfort, that is it. And that is true and good for me. When I then engage you I use methodological naturalism and yes, I compartmentalize between religion and methodological naturalism, but that works for me and I am honest about. Try being honest with yourself and admit that nobody knows what reality is independent of the mind, other than independent. And that nobody have ever solved that, neither through science, philosophy nor religion.

You can believe all you like. I just demand of you that you are honest and check your own thinking/reasoning and emotions before you start judging other humans' thinking/reasoning and emotions. And please stop believing that you know what reality really is.
Science rests on the assumption that we can trust the universe to be fair and not be anything else, than it appears to be. Once you accept that, you can figure out that experience is 3-fold, observation, thinking and emotions and that you use all 3 in combination.

Why would you be irrational on purpose?
This seems to mean that you actually realise that your beliefs are bs, but that you just pretend as if they are true, for some reason.

So really, you're an atheist disguised in a theist jacket?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. When I come to realise that a belief that I hold is irrational.... I instantly lose my conviction of that thing, whatever it is. By compulsion.

I can only imagine it would be the same for everybody.
When you come accross a realisation that your reasons for belief are false or fallacious, then the claim being believed instantly gets a serious credibility blow, right?

You are aware, that for the 3 bold part, you are neither using evidence, reason or what ever. You are stating your beliefs about what matters to you and you think that I must do to so. But that is not the case. Cognitive relativism is a fact and how you make reality true to you, don't need to be true for me. Nobody can eliminate subjectivity; they either believe that their individual subjectivity is true for all - they subjectively deny their own subjectivity - or they accept the individual aspect of reality and state that. You do the first 2, I the 3rd one. That is all. As a skeptic I check the limits of all ideas, including yours. You are not alone in how you think and believe, but your problem is that it is a fact that it can be done differently.
So here it is reductio ad absurdum.
If it is a fact, that I am irrational, then that is natural and part of how reality works. Your problem is that you don't understand that you are subjectively judging me, because you don't recognize that you are subjective and use subjective values. I.e. what is worthy to you, is subjectively worthy to you. By using worthy and the other cases, you in effect give evidence for subjectivity. That you subjectively deny subjectivity, is evidence of subjectivity.
You don't seem to understand that you attach subjective worth to rationality and subjective disdain to irrationality.

BTW how do you scientifically measure bs? You don't, it is an emotion. It is bs to you and good to me. That is what makes this subjective, yet natural and a fact. It is an observable fact that humans use emotions and it is an observable fact, that some humans deny that. That is what some religious humans and some atheists have in common.

BTW I have never claimed that I know what reality really is. I don't have to, my beliefs work fine for me and that is it. I know when I use emotions, what about you?