Why do some atheists have to be so insulting and mean?

[Trailblazer]

You are welcome to your belief but just remember, it is a belief with no evidence to back it up.

There is no proof, but there is evidence that indicates that the belief might be true.

We all process things differently in our minds. They way I process it, since there is evidence that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God, that constitutes evidence that whatever He wrote is truth from God. But evidence is not proof. Nobody can prove a soul and an afterlife exist because those are not objective realities.

 

[Trailblazer]

Those are both claims........

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. https://www.google.com/search

For me to say "I believe" or "I know" God exists is not a claim because it is an "I statement," not an assertion that what "I believe" is the truth.

Just because "I believe" God exists does not mean I expect anyone else to believe God exists. As I said, I could provide you with the evidence that led me to believe what I believe, but it would no doubt not constitute evidence for YOU.

 

[Milton Platt]

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. https://www.google.com/search

For me to say "I believe" or "I know" God exists is not a claim because it is an "I statement," not an assertion that what "I believe" is the truth.

Just because "I believe" God exists does not mean I expect anyone else to believe God exists. As I said, I could provide you with the evidence that led me to believe what I believe, but it would no doubt not constitute evidence for YOU.

Okay, to say you believe something is a claim, and I believe that claim. I think you actually do believe that. So I am okay with that claim, because your comments in the thread support that.
To say you know a god exists is a separate claim. It is a claim that you hold specific knowledge about a deity. Knowledge is different from belief. I have every right to ask you to support the claim of knowledge if I am to believe that claim. If I am not expected to believe the claim of knowledge of a god, then there is really no reason to make the statement. Just go with "I believe" and leave it at that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, to say you believe something is a claim, and I believe that claim. I think you actually do believe that. So I am okay with that claim, because your comments in the thread support that.

I do not want to argue about the meaning of the word claim. The way you see it, because I believe God exists I claim God exists. The way I see it, I cannot claim that God exist because I cannot prove God exists even though I believe God exists. When someone makes a claim, they should be able to prove it, and nobody can prove that God exists. That is why I do not CLAIM God exists. I hope that makes sense.

To say you know a god exists is a separate claim. It is a claim that you hold specific knowledge about a deity. Knowledge is different from belief. I have every right to ask you to support the claim of knowledge if I am to believe that claim. If I am not expected to believe the claim of knowledge of a god, then there is really no reason to make the statement. Just go with "I believe" and leave it at that.

When I say “I know” I mean that in the sense of having absolute certitude given what was revealed about God by Baha’u’llah. I do not mean I know in the sense of having objective proof or empirical evidence. Nobody can ever have that.

So I believe I have some specific knowledge about God, although not much, only some of God's Attributes and God's Will for this age in history. Nobody can ever know the Essence of God, God's intrinsic nature.

 

[Milton Platt]

I do not want to argue about the meaning of the word claim. The way you see it, because I believe God exists I claim God exists. The way I see it, I cannot claim that God exist because I cannot prove God exists even though I believe God exists. When someone makes a claim, they should be able to prove it, and nobody can prove that God exists. That is why I do not CLAIM God exists. I hope that makes sense.

When I say “I know” I mean that in the sense of having absolute certitude given what was revealed about God by Baha’u’llah. I do not mean I know in the sense of having objective proof or empirical evidence. Nobody can ever have that.

So I believe I have some specific knowledge about God, although not much, only some of God's Attributes and God's Will for this age in history. Nobody can ever know the Essence of God, God's intrinsic nature.

No need to argue about the meaning of the word claim. The definition is readily availabe in a good dictionary.
I am fine with you wanting to believe a god exists even though you do not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it actually does. It’s a free country.

If you claim knowledge of the god’s existence, that is where I take issue. Please explain how you can know anything without evidence to support that knowledge. knowing implies knowledge. Knowledge requires factual information. That pretty much is the meaning of knowledge.

Put another way, knowledge represents the small fraction of our beliefs that are factually true. So knowledge relies upon factual information. So if you cannot provide factual information which can be verified, you cannot claim knowledge. Just because something is written in a book does not establish it as a fact. If that was true, Harry Potter is real and he is a wizard.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hence the question of why you created a thread asking why “some atheists” do this rather than the more accurate and honest “some people”. Even if it wasn’t your intention to attack atheists in general, you have to see how your choice of approach can make it look that way.

Yes, I understand how it might have looked that way to some people, but I was not talking about some people, I was talking about some atheists, because they were the ones who were insulting and mean... That does not mean beleviers cannot also be insulting and mean, but that has not been my experience with believers.

Yes, and doesn’t that challenge the idea that and belief in a god offers a greater deterrent to breaking moral rules since many people seem to do so regardless of whether their personal morality has a god in its basis or not?

I think fear of God is a strong deterrent but not the only deterrent to being immoral. One's conscience another deterrent to immorality. But where do we get a conscience, why do we have one?

That does not mean that believers are more moral than atheists. I don't know if that is true. One would have to research that in order to know, if that information is even available.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes, I understand how it might have looked that way to some people, but I was not talking about some people, I was talking about some atheists, because they were the ones who were insulting and mean... That does not mean beleviers cannot also be insulting and mean, but that has not been my experience with believers.

I think fear of God is a strong deterrent but not the only deterrent to being immoral. One's conscience another deterrent to immorality. But where do we get a conscience, why do we have one?

That does not mean that believers are more moral than atheists. I don't know if that is true. One would have to research that in order to know, if that information is even available.

It is interesting to note that research shows that the more religious a country, the higher the crime rates tend to be. Of course, correlation is different from causation, and many factors probably come into play. For instance, generally, the more religious populations tend to have a higher level of poverty and a lower overall educational level and so those surely come into play. It would be interesting to see that all,sorted out.

 

[Trailblazer]

Now I understand WHY some people would become insulting. Reading through all the straw man, misrepresentation, distortions, fallacies, and testimonials, can truly be annoying..

You must first learn the difference between not liking something, and being threatened by something. When I say Atheist are not threatened by any religious threats, it doesn't mean that Atheist don't mind someone threatening them. If you said my car is parked in the driveway, it is not an unusual claim since cars are parked in driveways. If you said my car is parked on the roof, I would need objective evidence to prove it. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". You make extraordinary claims, therefore you have the burden of proof. Your cult beliefs includes a belief in a Holy Ghost, a Jesus Story, an afterlife, a Judgement Day, Sin, a soul, and Messengers of God and Apostles. Are these Christian beliefs construed or implicit in your belief? In your faith, why can't women serve at the highest level of authority (International House of Justice)? Why are you required to give-up 10% of your income, carry a card indicating membership, refrain from political activities, and prohibited from premarital sex? Does your belief still practice shunning? Why is your ideology a mishmash of Hindi, Muslim, and Christian beliefs. Finally, Do you really think that by selling "peace and harmony", you can bring together both sexes, of all races, from all nations of the world? Buckley's! Just another new age cult.
On Bahai Faith religion

If you read on the internet you will find any manner of false information and attacks on the Baha’i Faith. This is what people do when a religion is relatively new. Moreover, the Baha’i Faith is attacked more virulently because of the claims it makes. The only way to obtain accurate information about the Baha’i Faith is from the official Baha’i sources. There are explanations for everything you cited. We are not required to give up 10% of our income. Our ideology is not a mishmash of Hindi, Muslim, and Christian beliefs. We share some common beliefs but our beliefs are unique to our religion.

Baha’is share some but not all Christian beliefs. For example, we do not believe in the Jesus resurrection story the same way Christians do. We believe that man has a propensity to sin but we do not believe in original sin. We do not believe in an afterlife the same way Christians do. We do not believe in the soul the same way Christians do.

Nobody comes back from being dead (ADE), which was my point. NDE IS NOT ADE. The people talking about their experiences were NOT dead. They were only near dead. How many beheading victims have explained to you their NDE? So using NDE's to prove that anything supernatural exists is intellectually dishonest, and another fallacy. What is the evidence that you claim would prove that mediums actually speak to the dead?

I never claimed that NDEs are proof of anything. They are an indication that consciousness can exist outside the body which indicates that there might be a soul, but they are not the reason I believe in an afterlife.

You stated, "Nobody can be fooled or manipulated unless they allow themselves to be fooled or manipulated, since we all have free will.". Now you are saying, "The fact that some people were fooled does not mean all people are fooled and that certainly is not proof that the Messengers of God were con men. It is their life that tells us what they were, not what people believed about them because people are fallible and beliefs do not create reality". I get all warm and fuzzy whenever I listen to people arguing with their own straw man.

I do not know what you mean. What is the straw man I am arguing with? Some people were fooled and manipulated because they allowed themselves to be fooled because they did not do their due diligence. The fact that some people were fooled does not prove anything about the Messengers of God. What people believe is totally unrelated to the truth of their claims.

Since you obviously have not idea of the value and purpose of objective evidence, the rest of your post is just word salad without a bowl.

I know the value and purpose of objective evidence but I also know there can never be any objective evidence for God, a soul, or an afterlife. Objective evidence cannot be used to prove God exists, for obvious logical reasons, not the least of which is that there never has been and never will be any objective evidence of God since God is an immaterial Being.

Anyone who expects to obtain objective evidence of that which has no material properties is clearly illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

My point really is if the messengers are proof of the essense of god, why say there isnt proof of god? (More explanation in the last part of the post)

I dont understand why you say there isn’t when the messengers are the proof. You have it via your messengers.

I have evidence. Messengers are the evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

The existence of God cannot be established as a fact because there can be no objective evidence that God exists, since God is an immaterial Being.

Moreover, the Essence of God can never be known. All we can know are the Attributes of God and the Will of God for any age in history. Messengers reflect and describe the Attributes of God and reveal the Will of God.

But God’s Essence is above all His Attributes, forever hidden.

That makes sense. I’d express it instead:

There is no proof god exists DIRECTLY TO ME. There is ONLY proof of gods existence via the voice of his messengers.

That is correct, because if the evidence (Voice of the Messengers) is good enough it becomes proof DIRECTLY TO YOU.

When you say it like this, you arent saying there is no proof AT ALL (as I keep getting from your posts) but the proof is not isolated from the voice of the messengers (which is proof and their validity of their message is evidence of it).

As a result, if someone asks for proof of god, you wouldnt say there is none, you’d say there is only proof via the voices of his messengers.

See the difference in expressions?

Yes, you are correct. Another way to say it is that the Voices of the Messengers are proof to me that God exists. They are proof to anyone who believes they speak for God, because if they speak for God, God must exist.

It is not only the Voices of the Messengers but their lives that constitute proof. As Jesus said, “by their fruits you shall know them.”

 

[Truly Enlightened]

as above, Hoyle and many other atheists mocked and rejected the BB, arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, because it appear to THEM to have undesirable implications of God. We should not let our beliefs influence our judgement either way.

But you highlight the problem here. Lemaitre went out of his was to disassociate the BB with his faith, because he could.
But how does a person recognize and separate a belief he refuses to acknowledge as such?





And eventually you manage to make a cake that taste's just like grandmas, or looks just like the one in the picture.

But without those instructions to follow, randomly mixing entirely random ingredients and cooking methods doesn't work.

Classical physics used to adhere to the exact same Victorian age model of reality; a handful of simple laws + lots of time and space= jolly interesting results eventually.
We know better now, that physics requires vast arrays of finely tuned guiding instructions is a mathematical necessity, life doesn't get a waiver on this, everything boils down to specified information, and we only know of one source for it.

If you dig up the Rosetta stone and conclude ID, is this a 'supernatural' explanation based on zero evidence?



I agree entirely- that's science - 'the method' and science 'the academic opinion' is exactly the opposite way around. Which is why I prefer the former

These early great minds were not known for how they reconciled their beliefs with their science. They were known for their major contribution to science. Science doesn't care what your motives are, or what you believe in. It only cares about the evidence supporting best explanations. Nothing else. We can conclude that the whole ocean is inside a sea shell if we want to. That don't make it so. Hoyle was simply wrong with his "steady state" postulate, and Lemaitre's "cosmic egg"(not BB) was proven correct(by Hubble). Their beliefs are irrelevant.

You seem to dismiss the role of probability and chance in your understanding of randomness. This also implies a misunderstanding of the Chaos Theory, and the principles of thermodynamics(enthalpy and entropy). Given an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of materials, and an infinite amount of possibilities, any possibility becomes possible. If one person bets on lotto, the odds are millions to one against. If countless billions bet on lotto, what do you think the odds would be to win? Considering the vastness of the cosmos, the total amount of matter and other materials in it, the odds of a goldilocks planet able to support life would be impossible not to have occurred. No recipe book is necessary.

Our Universe is what it is, because it isn't anything else. We have no other Universe to compare ours to. If there was only one type of car in the world, you couldn't claim that it was the best fine tuned vehicle in the world, could you? This "fine tuned" argument has already been debunked, so lets just keep it buried.

There is a delineation between Classical Physics and Quantum Physics. The former uses Gravity, time, and relativity when describing its understanding of the macro-world. The latter uses the "uncertainty principle, wave functions, probabilities, and no gravity, when describing its understanding of the micro-world(where anything is truly possible). Otherwise, both disciplines are the same. Only the scales have been changed.

 

[Trailblazer]

No need to argue about the meaning of the word claim. The definition is readily available in a good dictionary.
I am fine with you wanting to believe a god exists even though you do not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it actually does. It’s a free country.

I have sufficient evidence to prove TO MYSELF that God exists, as I just said in the post above, to Unveiled Artist. I just cannot prove it to anyone else, because everyone has to prove it to themselves, based upon the evidence that is available.

If you claim knowledge of the god’s existence, that is where I take issue. Please explain how you can know anything without evidence to support that knowledge. knowing implies knowledge. Knowledge requires factual information. That pretty much is the meaning of knowledge.

There is more than one meaning to knowledge, more than one way of knowing. I have knowledge because I have factual information about the Baha’u’llah, what He did and wrote, and coupled with my reasoning I concluded that He was a Messenger of God.

Definition of knowledge
1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2) : the range of one's information or understanding
c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition
d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned
2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind
b archaic : a branch of learning
Definition of KNOWLEDGE

Put another way, knowledge represents the small fraction of our beliefs that are factually true. So knowledge relies upon factual information. So if you cannot provide factual information which can be verified, you cannot claim knowledge. Just because something is written in a book does not establish it as a fact. If that was true, Harry Potter is real and he is a wizard.

You are correct. I have factual information about Baha’u’llah that can be verified and that is why I believe He was a Messenger of God. I know God exists because I know Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God since God has to exist in order to send a Messenger. I cannot prove that as a fact but I know according to my reasoning and the sum total of what is known about Baha’u’llah that He was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is interesting to note that research shows that the more religious a country, the higher the crime rates tend to be. Of course, correlation is different from causation, and many factors probably come into play. For instance, generally, the more religious populations tend to have a higher level of poverty and a lower overall educational level and so those surely come into play. It would be interesting to see that all,sorted out.

From what I know about the less religious countries such as in Europe, they are more universally educated and their systems of government are very different, so wealth is more evenly distributed and there is less poverty. That is probably one reason there is less crime. People in those countries are more content because they have their physical needs met, but I am not so sure they are that they are truly happy since humans are spiritual beings, not physical beings.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

If you read on the internet you will find any manner of false information and attacks on the Baha’i Faith. This is what people do when a religion is relatively new. Moreover, the Baha’i Faith is attacked more virulently because of the claims it makes. The only way to obtain accurate information about the Baha’i Faith is from the official Baha’i sources. There are explanations for everything you cited. We are not required to give up 10% of our income. Our ideology is not a mishmash of Hindi, Muslim, and Christian beliefs. We share some common beliefs but our beliefs are unique to our religion.

So the views of thousands of sites are wrong. And, your only evidence is to assert that they're wrong. Maybe we should go to Clan sites to understand the true nature of THEIR beliefs, as well.

Baha’is share some but not all Christian beliefs. For example, we do not believe in the Jesus resurrection story the same way Christians do. We believe that man has a propensity to sin but we do not believe in original sin. We do not believe in an afterlife the same way Christians do. We do not believe in the soul the same way Christians do.

But you DO believe in Jesus, a soul, an afterlife, sin, and your ideology IS a mishmash of other ideologies. It is irrelevant if this makes your beliefs, or the version of your beliefs, unique.

I never claimed that NDEs are proof of anything. They are an indication that consciousness can exist outside the body which indicates that there might be a soul, but they are not the reason I believe in an afterlife.

No, like everything else you say, you simply assert, insinuate, or imply. This way you can deny everything when confronted. So let's put this theory to the test. There is no evidence that consciousness can exist outside of the mind, and without a functioning brain. Since reality is only a representation by the mind, why not NDE? You do realize that many of these experiences can be scientifically recreated under controlled conditions? Why don't you use dreams as a reason to believe in an afterlife? They also are created by the mind.

I do not know what you mean. What is the straw man I am arguing with? Some people were fooled and manipulated because they allowed themselves to be fooled because they did not do their due diligence. The fact that some people were fooled does not prove anything about the Messengers of God. What people believe is totally unrelated to the truth of their claims.

You first claimed that "Nobody can be fooled or manipulated unless they allow themselves to be fooled or manipulated, since we all have free will.". Now you claim that if SOME PEOPLE allow themselves to be fooled, that it is their own fault due to their lack of "due diligence". You argue that this does not prove anything about the Messengers of God, or how a person's belief is unrelated to their claims. Your response had nothing to do with my comment, thus an argument with your own straw man.

I know the value and purpose of objective evidence but I also know there can never be any objective evidence for God, a soul, or an afterlife. Objective evidence cannot be used to prove God exists, for obvious logical reasons, not the least of which is that there never has been and never will be any objective evidence of God since God is an immaterial Being.

Anyone who expects to obtain objective evidence of that which has no material properties is clearly illogical.

To expect extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims is certainly not illogical. In fact, it is logically expected. You have a right to believe anything you want, but you don't have a right to create your own logic. How do you know that no evidence exists that supports the existence of a God? Just because no one is able to present any, doesn't mean that none exists.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, I understand how it might have looked that way to some people, but I was not talking about some people, I was talking about some atheists, because they were the ones who were insulting and mean... That does not mean beleviers cannot also be insulting and mean, but that has not been my experience with believers.

Atheists are people too. Atheists are people first. Atheism is a infinitesimally tiny aspect of the make-up of an individual. Note that things like anti-theism or attacking specific elements of religion are above and beyond atheism itself.

Also, you’d be amazingly lucky in life never to have been insulted by believers. Couldn’t it be that you just don’t identify them as such, that when an atheist attacks you, you blame atheists but when a believer attacks you, you blame people?

I think fear of God is a strong deterrent but not the only deterrent to being immoral.

But since we’ve agreed there is no evidence of believers being more (or less) moral than non-believers, it would suggest “fear of God” is no better a deterrent than anything else. You clear implication when you brought it up was that belief in God is some kind of additional deterrent which makes believers more likely to be moral. You seem to be (correctly) stepping back from that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The existence of God cannot be established as a fact because there can be no objective evidence that God exists, since God is an immaterial Being.

Hmm. That would mean the messengers only talk about what they know of god but not the essense of god because they dont know either?

Moreover, the Essence of God can never be known. All we can know are the Attributes of God and the Will of God for any age in history. Messengers reflect and describe the Attributes of God and reveal the Will of God.

Attributes are not the essense?

But God’s Essence is above all His Attributes, forever hidden.

Edited. Reread it.

How do you know his attributes when the essense the attributes describe are hidden?

That is correct, because if the evidence (Voice of the Messengers) is good enough it becomes proof directly to you.

Evidence of someones actually existence is independent of our beliefs. Unless you are saying god only exists to the people who choode to believe he does.

Evidence of attributes that are always hidden? (Or the attributes are the only ones you know of god?) Referring to the clarification needed in the last two statements.

Yes, you are correct. Another way to say it is that the Voices of the Messengers are proof to me that God exists. They are proof to anyone who believes they speak for God, because if they speak for God, God must exist.

You cant know that 'cause you dont know his essense and said he is unknownable. Is god define by his essense or his attributes?

It is not only the Voices of the Messengers but their lives that constitute proof. As Jesus said, “by their fruits you shall know them.”

That would take a huge amount of faith and trust. Though, if the attributes do not describe the essense of god, whatever attributes you have could probably be shared by many god religions; but, because we dont know the essense, most likely (its a fact according to all other faiths) its not the same god.

Edited...

Oh. If gods existence is only proof to you through the voice of the messengers, our beliefs shouldnt "make god apear." If he is a fact, his existence is not dependent on our beliefs.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Having knowledge about anything is meaningless. Knowledge can be anything that the mind can create. It doesn't matter if it's only a mental or physical construct. What makes knowledge relevant, is its level of object certainty. Science only accepts the knowledge it receives, from the highest level of this object certainty. If the evidence is enough for you to believe, it should also be enough for anyone to believe. Why would any critical thinker need to convince himself? It seems more the case that your belief is based not on evidence, but on faith, and the need to believe in anything that is greater than ourselves. This level of religiosity only gives the perception of certainty, not certainty

 

[ChristineM]

There is no proof, but there is evidence that indicates that the belief might be true.

We all process things differently in our minds. They way I process it, since there is evidence that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, a Messenger of God, that constitutes evidence that whatever He wrote is truth from God. But evidence is not proof. Nobody can prove a soul and an afterlife exist because those are not objective realities.

There is no evidence, just belief.

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

In your example Baha'u'llah claimed, a claim is not evidence unless verified as valid. Say for instance i claim to be a messenger of a god... Is that evidence that i am a messenger from a god? I am sure you would not take my claim as evidence... Would you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

These early great minds were not known for how they reconciled their beliefs with their science. They were known for their major contribution to science. Science doesn't care what your motives are, or what you believe in. It only cares about the evidence supporting best explanations. Nothing else. We can conclude that the whole ocean is inside a sea shell if we want to. That don't make it so. Hoyle was simply wrong with his "steady state" postulate, and Lemaitre's "cosmic egg"(not BB) was proven correct(by Hubble). Their beliefs are irrelevant.

thanks for the thoughtful response, I appreciate it

of course , 'science' doesn't care about beliefs, but scientists do. Big Bang was the term Hoyle coined explicitly to mock Lemaitre's primeval atom which he saw as 'religious pseudoscience'.

Their beliefs are irrelevant to the truth, and science won out over atheist beliefs in the end yes, but they severely delayed scientific progress, and I think still do in life sciences for instance

You seem to dismiss the role of probability and chance in your understanding of randomness. This also implies a misunderstanding of the Chaos Theory, and the principles of thermodynamics(enthalpy and entropy). Given an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of materials, and an infinite amount of possibilities, any possibility becomes possible. If one person bets on lotto, the odds are millions to one against. If countless billions bet on lotto, what do you think the odds would be to win? Considering the vastness of the cosmos, the total amount of matter and other materials in it, the odds of a goldilocks planet able to support life would be impossible not to have occurred. No recipe book is necessary.

Our Universe is what it is, because it isn't anything else. We have no other Universe to compare ours to. If there was only one type of car in the world, you couldn't claim that it was the best fine tuned vehicle in the world, could you? This "fine tuned" argument has already been debunked, so lets just keep it buried.

There is a delineation between Classical Physics and Quantum Physics. The former uses Gravity, time, and relativity when describing its understanding of the macro-world. The latter uses the "uncertainty principle, wave functions, probabilities, and no gravity, when describing its understanding of the micro-world(where anything is truly possible). Otherwise, both disciplines are the same. Only the scales have been changed.

"Given an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of materials, and an infinite amount of possibilities, any possibility becomes possible"

except God, right?

That's where multiverse theory ultimately shoots itself in the foot, it can create anything at all, except anything that could ever be described as 'God' which would defeat the whole purpose of it.

Yet this 'flying spaghetti multiverse' already 'accidentally' produced creative sentient beings with an insatiable appetite for reverse engineering the entire universe around them. oops!

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory considers it 'feasible' that we can engineer our own universe, and that this may possibly be where ours came from... not necessarily what I adhere to, but it certainly comes under the realm of your 'possibilities' as one version of intelligent design


The mind boggling level of fine tuning in the universe absolutely was the rationale for multiverse theories, an infinite improbability machine being the only way it could happen without ID- the only remaining way to 'make God redundant' as Hawking put it. The concept of all reality running on a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in... went out with classical physics.- though some still hold to this Victorian age model for the development of life



If a gambler sits down at 4 tables and plays a royal flush at each- chance is not impossible, it's just not the least improbable answer unless you can utterly rule out cheating, aka intelligent agency.

So ultimately chance must be granted the entire playing field to itself to be allowed to accidentally win out eventually, not so the other way around, merely permitting both possibilities, ID has the better power of explanation

 

[jonathan180iq]

Why do some atheists have to be so insulting and mean? I am a believer and I do not ever insult atheists; in fact I tell them their lack of belief is just as rational as my beliefs since nobody can prove there is a God. I never threaten them with hell because I do not even believe in hell.

But I constantly have to defend myself from being call brainwashed and stupid and having dumb arguments, just because I believe in God and have a religion that is different from Christianity, a religion they do not know how to refute. Nobody deserves to be treated this way.

If atheists want to say they need no God for morality then some of them are not doing a very good job of demonstrating that with their air of superiority, arrogance, and rude behavior, not to mention dishonesty, lack of self-awareness and unjust treatment of others.

I am not referring to any atheists in this forum. They have been more than civil and respectful and kind.

I am being called stupid but I am not stupid. I went to college for over 15 years and I have several degrees, two advanced. But I am called stupid because my degrees are not in science subjects, because I do not know a lot about history. So what? What is more important, how much one knows or how they treat their fellow man?

Some people are jerks. Sorry you have to deal with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you felt insulted by my OP, that is not my responsibility.

When I communicate, I do it to cause an intended effect in the person hearing me: I want to inform them, persuade them, make them feel a particular way, etc.

If I intend for my message to make the listener feel one way but they end up feeling the opposite, then my communication has failed in its purpose.

The best thing to do is ask me what I meant by it. You might still feel insulted but the only way for me to avoid insulting everyone is to never say anything that anyone might perceive as insulting.

I did ask you... and I do still feel insulted. Nobody's forcing you to care, but if you don't care that you insulted me, this is going to frame my opinion of you.

If someone felt insulted by something I said even though it was not meant to BE an insult, then they misinterpreted what I said.

I think you've clarified things enough that I'm pretty confident I haven't misinterpreted you. The only question at this point is whether I was right in finding what you said insulting.

It is basic psychology that people are only responsible for their own feelings.

I think this is excuse-making to avoid being responsible for the effects of your actions on others.

I am only responsible to be courteous and respectful. Unless what I said was actually insulting I cannot be responsible for people feeling insulted.

You weren't courteous or respectful, IMO. And the only measure of "actually insulting" is whether someone was actually insulted, which they were.

Either it was an insult or it was not an insult. My intent and how it was worded determines that. If someone completely misunderstands what I meant by what I said I cannot be responsible for that. Most people are mature enough to ask me what I meant and continue talking, whereas immature or arrogant people just assume they know what I meant by what I said, which is impossible. Then they fly off the handle and blame me. This has only happened to me with a few people, and those people have problems with other people, which proves that it is not me who is the one causing the problem. I am always the first to admit when I make a mistake but when I accept blame for what I did not do wrong then they just gives them an excuse to keep blaming me.

That would be true if it was many people; but it is not many people, it is just one or two people on forums, and nobody in real life. My two best forum friends are atheists and we get along just fine even though they do not like my beliefs. That is because we can communicate back and forth and work things out.

How am I responsible for how you feel? If some people just do not like some people then I guess they should not talk to those people. I like everyone but not everyone is going to like me.

"You're resposible for your own feelings" is something we say to people who have been hurt by others to empower them not to dwell on it. It doesn't excuse impolite actions.

There is a good example of you misconstruing my words. I did not complain about how mean atheists are... I said “some atheists”

I know. That's what I was referring to.

and later on in the thread I explained that the thread was precipitated by one atheist who was mean and insulting to me, and that it was not a way to disparage atheists in general.

But you generalized the conduct of one atheist to "some atheists." You also focused on his atheism and not any of his other traits.

The whole problem I have had with that atheist that precipitated the OP is that he does not believe I am telling the truth when I explain what I mean by what I said. That is the same as calling me a liar.

So you think that he is responsible for your feelings here?

He has no right to assume he knows what I mean because he cannot possibly know what I mean. Only I know that. If he cannot trust me, that is not my fault. That is his issue.

If the message you express doesn't match what you intended to express, that's your problem, not his.

He also hates my religion and he has said as much, so that is a big part of the problem. By contrast, I do not hate his atheism, so he has no right to accuse me of that when I have said the exact opposite.

I wasn't privy to that conversation, but frankly, what you've said in this thread is consistent with you hating atheism (edit: while not wanting to be seen as hating atheism).