• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
You really do not understand what Bible is for. God tried to cure bicameral humanity with a little step up on evolution of consciousness ladder.
Sorry, but I'd flip that one around; the Bible's OT is an example of the final steps of the bicameral mind whereas the NT is an example of modern self-awareness hence why it's much more enlightened than the bloody, highly emotional and wrathful OT.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but I'd flip that one around; the Bible's OT is an example of the final steps of the bicameral mind whereas the NT is an example of modern self-awareness hence why it's much more enlightened than the bloody, highly emotional and wrathful OT.
Agree, I meant OT times because NT is written for another type of consciousness.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
On the contrary, you've been on the attack projecting your beliefs onto me since the beginning

Dude, I wasn't even talking to you when you butted in to say "tnx for expressing your beliefs". That was the response that started this particular line of discussion between you and me, as, again, I wasn't talking to you in that reply. I was responding to someone else.

Stop back pedalling and try to be a good sport without trolling and trying to lure people into arguments over nothing for no apparant reason.


it's not really a surprised that you would
assume
I supported IC even though I never have, never will nor have ever hinted that I do.

I assumed such based on your response to a post of mine that wasn't even addressed to you. If you agreed with what I said in that post, then you had no reason at all to respond like you did.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
You really do not understand what Bible is for. God tried to cure bicameral humanity with a little step up on evolution of consciousness ladder.

I understand perfectly, having read and studied the infernal thing for 40+ years.

It's part of why I'm an atheist today-- what sort of god would permit the bible, as written, to even exist in the first place?

Considering how much evil it has inspired in people, down through the centuries...

The only sane conclusion, is that if the bible god exists? It is a Monster, Evil, Capricious and worse.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
You really do not understand what Bible is for. God tried to cure bicameral humanity with a little step up on evolution of consciousness ladder.

Let's deconstruct the part I have put in bold.

"God tried to cure"

The implication is? God has failed, and failed miserably. From the first group of humans out the gate, the bible god was a miserable failure.

Did god create humans as god intended to?

If not? That was an Epic Fail.

If so? Then, any "failure on the part of humans? Was by design....

 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
Could this explain it? :D


This is not what atheists believe. What atheist believe is the only things that DO exist have evidence of their existence. So the idea of creating something from nothing does not exist in the mind of an atheist. An atheist would argue since we have evidence of somethingness, somethingness has always existed. Since there is no evidence nothingness ever occurred, it never existed.
 

Road Warrior

Seeking the middle path..
I assumed such based on your response to a post of mine that wasn't even addressed to you. If you agreed with what I said in that post, then you had no reason at all to respond like you did.
Nice waffle. The fact remains your posts, and not just to me, are clearly indicative of a person who is angry, pushing an agenda and tends to make assumptions against others who disagree with him to the slightest degree. In short, you don't ask questions, you make accusations.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
You are unreasonable. Hatred? God wants as to care of fellow human being and you define it as "hatred", you should shred your instruction book.

There you go, making claims about What God Wants, but you haven't a single written shred of evidence to support your claim.

The bible certainly does not agree with you, here...
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Let's deconstruct the part I have put in bold.

"God tried to cure"

The implication is? God has failed, and failed miserably. From the first group of humans out the gate, the bible god was a miserable failure.

Did god create humans as god intended to?

If not? That was an Epic Fail.

If so? Then, any "failure on the part of humans? Was by design....
It is ongoing process, have nothing to do with 'fail'. We are different species now than we were a few thousand years ago. Majority of humanity have different consciousness now.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
This is not what atheists believe. What atheist believe is the only things that DO exist have evidence of their existence. So the idea of creating something from nothing does not exist in the mind of an atheist. An atheist would argue since we have evidence of somethingness, somethingness has always existed. Since there is no evidence nothingness ever occurred, it never existed.
No, that is not what it means to be an atheist. Atheist simply see no evidence for a God or some might claim that there is no God, depending on how they view themselves in regard to atheism.. It has nothing to do with somethingness or nothingness, or whether something can be created out of nothing.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Right, you feel that God does not exist but the truth is you don't have any evidence that support this.

No evidence is needed to dismiss an insufficiently supported claim.
  • "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

it looks look like many of them simply prefer the amorality and lack of responsibility philosophical Atheism seems to afford them.

I found the moral set of Christianity to be inadequate for the 21st century. Where does the Christian Bible proclaim that democracy is a more moral system of government than monarchy, or that people be viewed as citizens with guaranteed personal rights rather including freedom from religion than subjects at the mercy of the whims of a despot, that society should be structured to facilitate the most opportunity for the most people to pursue happiness as they envision it, that women should be seen an men's equal rather than their property, and more. It doesn't, so I don't go to it for moral instruction.

These are the values that define modern life, which is why a book that commands men to submit to gods, subjects to kings, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands simply isn't relevant today.

Some people too eager to blame God

With omniscience and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility. If you know everything and can do anything, then you are fully responsible for what happens.

Science does not contradict religion unless you are a literal reader.

Yes, if you keep reinterpreting scripture to conform with the new science, then your religion won't contradict science, but you'll need to stay current in science.

Regarding being a literal reader, prose is intended to be understood literally, and the Christian Bible is said to be a guide for living. It would be absurd to write such things figuratively. It I want to leave instructions as to how my estate is to be handled after my death, or if I want to give you directions to get to my house, or if I want to teach you how to make a certain dish, I'm going to use the clearest language I can : "Go two blocks then turn left at the light" or "slice into the chicken several times, about ½ cm (¼ inch) apart, but only cut about 85% of the way through, leaving the bottom intact," not vague poetic passages or metaphors. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" means whatever you want it to mean, since it has no clear or distinct meaning.

Incidentally, Bible apologists like to tell us that the passages that we know cannot be taken at face value metaphor or allegory, but scripture that is now recognized to be mythology is neither. It's simply the best guesses of an ancient culture that were undoubtedly reported and believed as history and science until that became untenable. Saying that the Bible is wrong isn't an option for the believer, so now, the stories are called metaphor or allegory.

But here's the thing about both of those. They stand for something else, something the writer is aware of. The elements of the Genesis creation myth don't stand for anything, nor were the writers aware of really happened - the singularity, initial temperatures and densities, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life. The is no mention of lava, no Great Bombardment, no coalescing dust around early star, no proto-star, no first and second star, no proto-galaxy, no Big Bang. All it seems to have gotten right is that the universe had a beginning - just like every other creation myth.

Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect.

"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted
." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story, for example, are not allegories or metaphors, which require that their source understands what the elements in the story actually stand for. They are stories that were wrong. Some of us are free to say as much. Others can't and won't.

I don't expect you to actually address this argument - what parts you agree with, which you disagree with, and why

What atheist believe is the only things that DO exist have evidence of their existence. So the idea of creating something from nothing does not exist in the mind of an atheist. An atheist would argue since we have evidence of somethingness, somethingness has always existed. Since there is no evidence nothingness ever occurred, it never existed.

That's not what this atheist believes. I'm pretty much agnostic on any point that cannot be resolved at this time. I neither say that something can come from nothing, nor that it can't.

Nor do I say that either something has always existed, nor that there was a first thing. Although they are both counterintuitive, it seems that one of these two must be the case, but I have no means to rule either in or out, so I remain agnostic. No other position is as sound.

I am sure that many things exist for which we have no evidence at this time, such as extraterrestrial life.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
No evidence is needed to dismiss an insufficiently supported claim.
  • "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens



I found the moral set of Christianity to be inadequate for the 21st century. Where does the Christian Bible proclaim that democracy is a more moral system of government than monarchy, or that people be viewed as citizens with guaranteed personal rights rather including freedom from religion than subjects at the mercy of the whims of a despot, that society should be structured to facilitate the most opportunity for the most people to pursue happiness as they envision it, that women should be seen an men's equal rather than their property, and more. It doesn't, so I don't go to it for moral instruction.

These are the values that define modern life, which is why a book that commands men to submit to gods, subjects to kings, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands simply isn't relevant today.



With omniscience and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility. If you know everything and can do anything, then you are fully responsible for what happens.



Yes, if you keep reinterpreting scripture to conform with the new science, then your religion won't contradict science, but you'll need to stay current in science.

Regarding being a literal reader, prose is intended to be understood literally, and the Christian Bible is said to be a guide for living. It would be absurd to write such things figuratively. It I want to leave instructions as to how my estate is to be handled after my death, or if I want to give you directions to get to my house, or if I want to teach you how to make a certain dish, I'm going to use the clearest language I can : "Go two blocks then turn left at the light" or "slice into the chicken several times, about ½ cm (¼ inch) apart, but only cut about 85% of the way through, leaving the bottom intact," not vague poetic passages or metaphors. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" means whatever you want it to mean, since it has no clear or distinct meaning.

Incidentally, Bible apologists like to tell us that the passages that we know cannot be taken at face value metaphor or allegory, but scripture that is now recognized to be mythology is neither. It's simply the best guesses of an ancient culture that were undoubtedly reported and believed as history and science until that became untenable. Saying that the Bible is wrong isn't an option for the believer, so now, the stories are called metaphor or allegory.

But here's the thing about both of those. They stand for something else, something the writer is aware of. The elements of the Genesis creation myth don't stand for anything, nor were the writers aware of really happened - the singularity, initial temperatures and densities, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life. The is no mention of lava, no Great Bombardment, no coalescing dust around early star, no proto-star, no first and second star, no proto-galaxy, no Big Bang. All it seems to have gotten right is that the universe had a beginning - just like every other creation myth.

Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.

"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect.

"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted
." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels

That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story, for example, are not allegories or metaphors, which require that their source understands what the elements in the story actually stand for. They are stories that were wrong. Some of us are free to say as much. Others can't and won't.

I don't expect you to actually address this argument - what parts you agree with, which you disagree with, and why



That's not what this atheist believes. I'm pretty much agnostic on any point that cannot be resolved at this time. I neither say that something can come from nothing, nor that it can't.

Nor do I say that either something has always existed, nor that there was a first thing. Although they are both counterintuitive, it seems that one of these two must be the case, but I have no means to rule either in or out, so I remain agnostic. No other position is as sound.

I am sure that many things exist for which we have no evidence at this time, such as extraterrestrial life.
It is not God but human 'experts' interpretations create contradictions.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I 've already said that this was a different issue. When God connects a person it is "unmistakable" , but we because of free will may ignore it or respond in some way (this is what 'faith' meant is Greek), one becomes a theist, but if one decodes further 'message' correctly or not depends on one's spiritual development.
So many make this claim. But their differing beliefs also refute it. This could just be a common human failure in reasoning. Tell us how does one test such a belief to see if it is rational or not?
 

leov

Well-Known Member
So many make this claim. But their differing beliefs also refute it. This could just be a common human failure in reasoning. Tell us how does one test such a belief to see if it is rational or not?
We deal with spiritual science, different beliefs is what is expected. One needs to understand but it takes certain level of spirituality (not very high) to understand it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We deal with spiritual science, different beliefs is what is expected. One needs to understand but it takes certain level of spirituality (not very high) to understand it.

"Spiritual science" is an oxymoron and you have just admitted that your beliefs are irrational. What you have is belief and not knowledge. Knowledge is demonstrable. You cannot support your claims except by appealing to woo and since beliefs in woo vary greatly they are not reliable.
 
Top