Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Audie]

Hopefully your comment was in jest. If not, the explanation for my comment was that I was making an appeal to numbers (and the relative rarity of a thing) like @leov did - to try and make him realize how dumb his point was about atheism somehow having a strike against it for being outside the norm.

Next time watch for comments unworthy of any response!

 

[sooda]

How does you or me or the man behind the tree know
the original intent?
The word or concept of "science" as now did not
exist.
But I bet those guys, like any tribal people knew
basic science pretty well. Look how people learned
every use of every plant. Testing and recording
results! Etc.

I think they described how the world formed as
their best understanding, as proto-science.

(have you ever read Lucretius, on the nature of the
universe? VERY worthwhile! )

But anyway, the fact is that those bible-writers
got a lot of things profoundly wrong, as did Lucretius.

And that is ok; except for that the Roman poet
was not claiming god exaplined infallible truth to
him to write down.

And Rome was founded by two boys suckled by a she wolf.

 

[Audie]

And Rome was founded by two boys suckled by a she wolf.

We all know that story but the relevance is
not apparent.

 

[sooda]

We all know that story but the relevance is
not apparent.

Its just another foundational myth.. Like Genesis.

Audie, you might really enjoy reading History Begins at Sumer by Noah Stanley Kramer. He spent 50 years translating from the cuneiform tablets.

 

[leov]

Which is a comment made so that you can pretend you actually answered to the point I made. The point that displayed how your line of thinking about atheism being "abnormal" as some strike against was complete and utter garbage.

It something that belong to the entire humanity, our intuition abilities deteriorate due to epigenetic changes due to pollutions, sugar intake , and many more factors, some people deteriorate faster than other. So atheists are the fastest...

 

[ChristineM]

May be of may be not. Look up Stan Tenen. Letters represent the same objects or actions from the beginning.

Whatever makes you happy. But if letters are different but some guy 3500 years later says they are the same so he can massage his pet theory and consequently sell more books who am i to argue.

I just wonderh why the guys who wrote didnt say 'here is our new scroll, 'we bet ya'all cannot find all the codes we have hidden'

 

[ChristineM]

It only says what one is capable to understand.

It says what is printed

 

[leov]

Whatever makes you happy. But if letters are different but some guy 3500 years later says they are the same so he can massage his pet theory and consequently sell more books who am i to argue.

I just wonderh why the guys who wrote didnt say 'here is our new scroll, 'we bet ya'all cannot find all the codes we have hidden'

It says what is printed

I hope you read and understand ancient Hebrew and Greek, I don't.

 

[Road Warrior]

Which atheists are you referring to? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. It does not require a belief in any particular origin of the universe or anything else.

Just like there are Bible-thumpers and normal Christians, there are militant atheists and normal atheists. The difference is that the former is loud, obnoxious and self-righteous and the second just minds their own business and expects others to do the same.

A good example is Richard Dawkins and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Dawkins is a loud-mouthed "New Atheist" while Tyson is a "Sceptic".

I've listened to a few of Dr. Tyson's talks on Youtube from the Skeptics Conferences. Interesting stuff. He is one of my heroes. Dawkins is not. He's the atheist equivalent of a televangelist.

This video exemplifies exactly the difference in what I mean. THIS VIDEO IS NSFW, notably by Dawkins' remark at the end.

 

[Thief]

Actually he didn't say that.....

took a look about....and it seems he did

he might not have been the author
but that doesn't mean he didn't say it

 

[ChristineM]

I hope you read and understand ancient Hebrew and Greek, I don't.

No i dont, but others do.

And the point is, after all this secret code stuff in the torah, is that we were talking about what is written in the english language bible, of its many different versions, most agree on genesis 1.

 

[leov]

No i dont, but others do.

And the point is, after all this secret code stuff in the torah, is that we were talking about what is written in the english language bible, of its many different versions, most agree on genesis 1.

I try to read old rabbis comments because they knew language and may had more reliable texts. I found that I like Nachmanides's comments the best. I sorted out the purpose of OT and decided that English is not the best language to convey the intent of the book.

 

[Road Warrior]

Hey @Road Warrior thanks for the win frube. I like facts and truth. Did you notice none challenged that post? It's all fact and shows truth.
Anyhow no one is perfect and no one knows what happens next, if anything does.
All anyone has to go by is what they think or believe, atheist or christian, neither knows because no one has any evidence to show otherwise.

People would rather discuss rhetoric than facts since facts causes sane people to shut up, the fanatics not so much.

 

[ChristineM]

Just like there are Bible-thumpers and normal Christians, there are militant atheists and normal atheists. The difference is that the former is loud, obnoxious and self-righteous and the second just minds their own business and expects others to do the same.

A good example is Richard Dawkins and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Dawkins is a loud-mouthed "New Atheist" while Tyson is a "Sceptic".

I've listened to a few of Dr. Tyson's talks on Youtube from the Skeptics Conferences. Interesting stuff. He is one of my heroes. Dawkins is not. He's the atheist equivalent of a televangelist.

This video exemplifies exactly the difference in what I mean. THIS VIDEO IS NSFW, notably by Dawkins' remark at the end.

By his own words, Dawkins is not an atheist.
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is however a qualified evolutionary biologist and is entitled to discuss his subject, if his findings upset the god magic belief then so be it.

I must say his work is impeccable, but he could do better on putting his conclusions across? But loud mouthed? I think not, more intolerant of deliberate ignorance.


Tyson is a qualified astrophysicist and by the same token is entitled to discuss his work.

In the same way that every single priest, preacher, pastor and general bible thumper can discuss their passion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It something that belong to the entire humanity, our intuition abilities deteriorate due to epigenetic changes due to pollutions, sugar intake , and many more factors, some people deteriorate faster than other. So atheists are the fastest...

Yeah... right. Any evidence or sources for this junk you're spouting Mr. Undeteriorated?

 

[leov]

Yeah... right. Any evidence or sources for this junk you're spouting Mr. Undeteriorated?

Spend time researching, I did.

 

[ChristineM]

People would rather discuss rhetoric than facts since facts causes sane people to shut up, the fanatics not so much.

Me, i love facts. Real facts backed up with real evidence. I am not keen on the ones that some people believe should be facts but are only opinion so they get all upset when you point this out.

 

[Road Warrior]

By his own words, Dawkins is not an atheist.
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is however a qualified evolutionary biologist and is entitled to discuss his subject, if his findings upset the god magic belief then so be it.

I must say his work is impeccable, but he could do better on putting his conclusions across? But loud mouthed? I think not, more intolerant of deliberate ignorance.


Tyson is a qualified astrophysicist and by the same token is entitled to discuss his work.

In the same way that every single priest, preacher, pastor and general bible thumper can discuss their passion.

Like Trump, Dawkins' both deceptive and never admits to error. He's an arrogant *** fleecing militant atheists for profit. While he certainly acts like he doubts his own beliefs, his speeches and rhetoric say otherwise. One example is the earlier video. This example is from the 2012 Reason Rally in DC:

So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

 

[ChristineM]

Like Trump, Dawkins' both deceptive and never admits to error. He's an arrogant *** fleecing militant atheists for profit. While he certainly acts like he doubts his own beliefs, his speeches and rhetoric say otherwise. One example is the earlier video. This example is from the 2012 Reason Rally in DC:

So when I meet somebody who claims to be religious, my first impulse is: “I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you until you tell me do you really believe — for example, if they say they are Catholic — do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?” Mock them! Ridicule them! In public!
Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits.

2012... Wow

But hey, he is skeptical, a scientist, he should not believe anything until proven, you cant fault him for that. That is not mockery, (believe me, i i have experienced mockery) that is being honest about the logical conclusions of the symbolism.

And why should religion be off limits? When a priest offers you a dry wafer and coloured water and tell you it is the body and blood of chris, why should it not be open fir discussion?

 

[Thief]

In the same way that every single priest, preacher, pastor and general bible thumper can discuss their passion.

with this.....are you assuming only passion?

as if a believer can't think