• 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!

Atheism and Physics are Phenomen of Apostle Peter

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Logic is simple
1. Atheism is lowest level of spirituality.
2. There are two levels inside Atheism:
Level A: "no faith in God",
Level B: "no god".
The level B is absolute low,
Logic is simple
1. Theism is the lowest level of cognitive reasoning.
2. There are two levels of theism
Level A: Those with strong faith
Level B: Those with weak faith who feel threatened by those who don't share in their delusion and make up lies about atheism.
Level B is the absolute lowest.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
......................................
“Simon, son of Jonah, you will be called Peter - the Stone. And on this rock, I will build My Church. " (the Bible). As many as two letters of Peter are in the New Testament. And his acts are in the Book of Acts. Peter is the supreme apostle for the Jews. The Paul for the Gentiles. Hence, Peter-Stone is the cornerstone of the Church.










So, since then everything is based on some kind of stone: The founder of Scientific Atheism is the talented scientist Pierre Simon Laplace. The France name Pierre translates as Peter. That is, Simon-Peter. He told the emperor about God "I didn't need this hypothesis." He was the introducer of atheism as the basis worldview into Scientific Community. Science was atheism-free until Peter Simon Laplace was born. He founded scientific atheism. The Modern Science was founded only after 15-th century. Science in prior times was connected with pagan gods (the texts of pagan thinker Aristotle). After 15-th century and before Laplace's birth, it was Christian Science. Peter Simon Laplace was the most influential, most rich, and most talented scientist in the pre-Einstein era, please read his glorious extraordinary brilliant biography. The words and influence of ordinary atheist on Science is near zero. Thus, the voices of some strange people before Laplace's birth have not spoiled the course of Science.

The founder of the modern scientific picture of the world is the German Einstein. From German: "Stein" - Stone. The "ein" is the usual addition in German: "Einstein = Ein Stein".

Because Einstein's ideas are well supported by observations and experiments, Einstein is truly right.

Proof:

In Einstein's theory for a system of size S, holds not the Einstein equation in its textbook form, but the scientific description contains the value of S. In the limit S=0 the Einstein equations emerge. Hence, any future theory, which has as limit Einstein Equations, coincides with Einstein Theory. Hence, the ideas to generalize Einstein equations using non-locality or non-linearity
[Hehl and Mashhoon in Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 064028; Cooperstock and Tieu in astro-ph/0507619]
are not new physics at all.

The Einstein Equations must emerge in the limit S=0, because of Newton's principle: "I was standing on the shoulders of giants": the new theory must not contradict old theory in the area of its applicability. For low energies holds Newton formulas, for high energies - Einstein. There is no third option because all range of energy is well covered by these two theories.

This explains why Scientific Community continues to search for dark matter particles
and plans to do so indefinitely. My idea is the same particles, but they have no weak interaction [as well as any other "direct-contact" interaction (which are strong and electromagnetic ones)]. Or, more generally: "Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) is a substance that has no weak (or any else) interaction with an ordinary substance." That explains how angels and devils can move through closed walls of houses: angels are made of such invisible matter, which has no interactions with ordinary matter.

I wonder how Peter can be the cornerstone when Jesus is the cornerstone according to 1 Peter 2:6 ________
( Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Ephesians 2:20-22 )

I find No mention of Peter being supreme, but Peter is spokesman for the 12 (we) at John 6:68-69.
Peter stands up 'with the eleven' (No Judas) at Acts of the Apostles 2:14.
Peter is coupled with John at Acts of the Apostles 4:13, 19
Peter was Not used at the time of Acts of the Apostles 9:12-13,17 but Ananias was.
Peter was Not used at Acts of the Apostles 11:22-24 but Barnabas.
It's Barnabas and Paul used at Acts of the Apostles 13:46
Notice who is pleased to send out Paul and Barnabas at Acts of the Apostles 15:22,25 B.
So, true, Peter played an important role or part but Not as a supreme apostle.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
I wonder how Peter can be the cornerstone when Jesus is the cornerstone according to 1 Peter 2:6 ________
( Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Ephesians 2:20-22 )

I find No mention of Peter being supreme, but Peter is spokesman for the 12 (we) at John 6:68-69.
Peter stands up 'with the eleven' (No Judas) at Acts of the Apostles 2:14.
Peter is coupled with John at Acts of the Apostles 4:13, 19
Peter was Not used at the time of Acts of the Apostles 9:12-13,17 but Ananias was.
Peter was Not used at Acts of the Apostles 11:22-24 but Barnabas.
It's Barnabas and Paul used at Acts of the Apostles 13:46
Notice who is pleased to send out Paul and Barnabas at Acts of the Apostles 15:22,25 B.
So, true, Peter played an important role or part but Not as a supreme apostle.

They had a lot of cornerstones back then. Now they use particle board. I knew someone who was the chairman of the board....he got bored very easily.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
They had a lot of cornerstones back then. Now they use particle board. I knew someone who was the chairman of the board....he got bored very easily.

Good one ^ above^ Clara Tea.
I've also heard of people who got bored with the Bored of Education.
Now it would be good if people would Not get bored with the challenges of modern life - 2 Tim 3 -
because only the Bible holds out real HOPE for us.- Revelation 22:2
H old
O n
P ain
E nds
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I don't know the OP well-enough to want to judge him or her.
Fair enough. I have seen enough shenanigans over the past several months to feel otherwise. This is a difference between us.

What does this have to do with you personally?
So, you mean to tell me that you didn't intend to passively give me your judgment of people (perhaps like myself) who pass judgment? Let's take a look at a few of your replies back to me in series:

Unveiled Artist said:
I don't judge people like that so not much I can do.
So... why even mention that you "don't judge people like that" unless you felt this to be a superior position to take? Like some sort of "high road" perhaps? And if you think that is so, then you are implicitly condemning those who do make judgments as being on some "low road." Wouldn't that be correct? Isn't that, in itself, a judgment being passed? I believe it is.
And here's the next:
Unveiled Artist said:
Well, I don't. Its red flag.
You mention here that it is "a red flag" - which is an idiom used to indicate that something should serve as a warning - an indicator of further bad or detrimental things to come. So this is you, stating that when people judge others, that to you indicates that something bad is likely to come from the person doing the judging. Is this not you then judging the person who was originally doing the judging? I believe it is.

So here we are. What does this have to do with me, personally? You seem to have judged me - that's one thing. Not only that, but I am an atheist... and so all the convictions being set forth in OPs like this are directed at me, and people like me. I rather enjoy defending myself and people like me. It gives me great satisfaction to do so, and to attempt to do so well and to the chagrin of the would-be attackers of my character. And so yes - this all involves me, personally, very much, I feel. Do you believe otherwise? Perhaps you can convince me?
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Fair enough. I have seen enough shenanigans over the past several months to feel otherwise. This is a difference between us.

Well, I just don't feel it's my place to judge a person I don't know. Their behavior, sure, but I try not to let it affect me since in this case I have no clue where the OP person lives non-less know his or her values.

So, you mean to tell me that you didn't intend to passively give me your judgment of people (perhaps like myself) who pass judgment? Let's take a look at a few of your replies back to me in series:

I didn't. You'd have to clarify where I pass judgement on you personally. Unless it's directly aimed at you, the only way it can be true is if you ask.

So... why even mention that you "don't judge people like that" unless you felt this to be a superior position to take? Like some sort of "high road" perhaps? And if you think that is so, then you are implicitly condemning those who do make judgments as being on some "low road." Wouldn't that be correct? Isn't that, in itself, a judgment being passed? I believe it is.
And here's the next:

It's just my view. I don't judge people like that-I don't judge a person as a person because of his or her actions. In other words, I don't define a person by their actions insofar that whatever they do that I dislike reflects how I should intentionally treat him or her as a person.

I get where you're going now, but no. My language use wasn't intended to insult people who think differently than I do. But you're putting a lot of assumptions that doesn't exist. I never said you guys were "lower than me" just because I don't judge people 'the way' that some of you do. And unfortunately, I can't always edit my words so much that people won't take offense.

You mention here that it is "a red flag" - which is an idiom used to indicate that something should serve as a warning - an indicator of further bad or detrimental things to come. So this is you, stating that when people judge others, that to you indicates that something bad is likely to come from the person doing the judging. Is this not you then judging the person who was originally doing the judging? I believe it is.

Red flag meaning because of my past, I get a red flag or a high reaction from judgement.

So here we are. What does this have to do with me, personally? You seem to have judged me - that's one thing. Not only that, but I am an atheist... and so all the convictions being set forth in OPs like this are directed at me, and people like me. I rather enjoy defending myself and people like me. It gives me great satisfaction to do so, and to attempt to do so well and to the chagrin of the would-be attackers of my character. And so yes - this all involves me, personally, very much, I feel. Do you believe otherwise? Perhaps you can convince me?

"Seem to"? Seems to isn't a fact.

Why would I? I'm an atheist too and have no stock in gods and deities and so forth.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Why would I? I'm an atheist too and have no stock in gods and deities and so forth.
Since you like to point out what "isn't a fact" so much, here we can point to the idea that you are completely missing the mark here. Did I once, even slightly, indicate that you were judging me on the basis of my atheism? On the basis of the fact that I don't believe in god(s)? No. I said you were judging me for being judgmental - which now I should amend, I suppose, given your attempts at clarification, to state that you were judging my behavior of passing judgment at the very least.

And here we come to an interesting question - why is it you think I am explicitly judging "the person" when I state that ongoing behaviors will see me reacting certain ways to a person? Is it not always the behaviors that I was making a judgment over? The behavior comes from the person, but it is the behavior I judge in poor favor. If this were just about a person, sitting there, enacting zero behaviors (i.e. catatonic) then of course there is nothing for me to pass judgment on. It is only behavior that triggers such judgment. It is not like I saw the color of @questfortruth's skin and passed judgment, or the color of his/her eyes. No... it is behavior, and behavior alone that has me stand up and call it out.

And so, will you at least admit to having judged my behavior for being one who agrees that @questfortruth's behavior should be judged? You have a problem on your hands, because you have stated "I don't judge people like that" - and therefore are setting my judgments apart from your own - as if my judgments are somehow not within your wheelhouse, and yet you admit that judging behavior is something you accept, and perhaps even participate in. And obviously (so, so obviously) I am going to have to take up my beef's with anyone's behavior with the person themselves. Who else is there to take it to in most cases? I certainly can't take it to "The Human Behaviors Council" or some such, because it doesn't exist. I feel you just aren't very introspective, and you like to think of yourself as always following some "ideal" which sees you believing certain things about yourself that simply aren't true, or at the very least, gets you confused as to what your actual principles are, or how to articulate them.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Well, I just don't feel it's my place to judge a person I don't know. Their behavior, sure, but I try not to let it affect me since in this case I have no clue where the OP person lives non-less know his or her values..............................................
It's just my view. I don't judge people like that-I don't judge a person as a person because of his or her actions. In other words, I don't define a person by their actions insofar that whatever they do that I dislike reflects how I should intentionally treat him or her as a person.
Why would I? I'm an atheist too and have no stock in gods and deities and so forth.

Even as an atheist, to me the biblical advice 'Not to judge' another is based on one's ' personal judgement ' of another.
in other words, we are Not to personally judge someone as to impute a bad or wrong motive to another.
On the other hand, in the Bible book is recorded what wrong actions, what wrong behavior is Not acceptable.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Since you like to point out what "isn't a fact" so much, here we can point to the idea that you are completely missing the mark here. Did I once, even slightly, indicate that you were judging me on the basis of my atheism? On the basis of the fact that I don't believe in god(s)? No. I said you were judging me for being judgmental - which now I should amend, I suppose, given your attempts at clarification, to state that you were judging my behavior of passing judgment at the very least.

And here we come to an interesting question - why is it you think I am explicitly judging "the person" when I state that ongoing behaviors will see me reacting certain ways to a person? Is it not always the behaviors that I was making a judgment over? The behavior comes from the person, but it is the behavior I judge in poor favor. If this were just about a person, sitting there, enacting zero behaviors (i.e. catatonic) then of course there is nothing for me to pass judgment on. It is only behavior that triggers such judgment. It is not like I saw the color of @questfortruth's skin and passed judgment, or the color of his/her eyes. No... it is behavior, and behavior alone that has me stand up and call it out.

And so, will you at least admit to having judged my behavior for being one who agrees that @questfortruth's behavior should be judged? You have a problem on your hands, because you have stated "I don't judge people like that" - and therefore are setting my judgments apart from your own - as if my judgments are somehow not within your wheelhouse, and yet you admit that judging behavior is something you accept, and perhaps even participate in. And obviously (so, so obviously) I am going to have to take up my beef's with anyone's behavior with the person themselves. Who else is there to take it to in most cases? I certainly can't take it to "The Human Behaviors Council" or some such, because it doesn't exist. I feel you just aren't very introspective, and you like to think of yourself as always following some "ideal" which sees you believing certain things about yourself that simply aren't true, or at the very least, gets you confused as to what your actual principles are, or how to articulate them.

You'll have to read post 69 again.

I'm honestly not sure how I am judging you on the basis of your atheism... I just said your statement doesn't apply to me because I am an atheist. In other words, your comment about gods and such doesn't make sense to me.

Here's what I said:
I get where you're going now, but no. My language use wasn't intended to insult people who think differently than I do. But you're putting a lot of assumptions that doesn't exist. I never said you guys were "lower than me" just because I don't judge people 'the way' that some of you do. And unfortunately, I can't always edit my words so much that people won't take offense.

My point is I don't judge person as a person. Their behaviors, sure, but not who they are.

Whether you take that as a judgement on you as being my being superior (as said) that's your views but it doesn't change the fact that I don't judge people like others do.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You'll have to read post 69 again.

I'm honestly not sure how I am judging you on the basis of your atheism... I just said your statement doesn't apply to me because I am an atheist. In other words, your comment about gods and such doesn't make sense to me.

Here's what I said:
I get where you're going now, but no. My language use wasn't intended to insult people who think differently than I do. But you're putting a lot of assumptions that doesn't exist. I never said you guys were "lower than me" just because I don't judge people 'the way' that some of you do. And unfortunately, I can't always edit my words so much that people won't take offense.

My point is I don't judge person as a person. Their behaviors, sure, but not who they are.

Whether you take that as a judgement on you as being my being superior (as said) that's your views but it doesn't change the fact that I don't judge people like others do.
When I was speaking about attacks against atheism, I was speaking of the OP... not you. And yet you replied saying: "Why would I? I'm an atheist too and have no stock in gods and deities and so forth." - which isn't applicable at all. Why else would I ask "Did I once, even slightly, indicate that you were judging me on the basis of my atheism?"

My guess is that you are barely even reading my replies, so it makes no sense to continue trying to discuss anything. You just take things I say and run with them in some other direction. I will keep this in mind, and avoid conversation with you in the future. It is entirely unproductive.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
When I was speaking about attacks against atheism, I was speaking of the OP... not you. And yet you replied saying: "Why would I? I'm an atheist too and have no stock in gods and deities and so forth." - which isn't applicable at all. Why else would I ask "Did I once, even slightly, indicate that you were judging me on the basis of my atheism?"

My guess is that you are barely even reading my replies, so it makes no sense to continue trying to discuss anything. You just take things I say and run with them in some other direction. I will keep this in mind, and avoid conversation with you in the future. It is entirely unproductive.

Believe it or not, yes I do. I separate quotes because I can't read them all in one setting. In other words, unless the paragraphs are short-one or two at most-I have to separate it to get what people are saying. It's not an RF thing.

I re-read it:

So here we are. What does this have to do with me, personally? You seem to have judged me - that's one thing. Not only that, but I am an atheist... and so all the convictions being set forth in OPs like this are directed at me, and people like me. I rather enjoy defending myself and people like me. It gives me great satisfaction to do so, and to attempt to do so well and to the chagrin of the would-be attackers of my character. And so yes - this all involves me, personally, very much, I feel. Do you believe otherwise? Perhaps you can convince me?


But I'm not sure how I have to do with your feelings about the OP though. I'm not a theist so what am I supposed to be convincing you of? Why would I believe one way or the other?
 
Top