Why do Americans still dislike Atheists?

[Earendil]

The bottom line is that what is required of humanity is absolute perfection. And neither you nor I could ever attain that standard, not even close. And so you could think of our sin as making a great divide between us and God because he requires perfection. And you wouldn't want to Him to have any less a standard because where would He draw the line then? What sin would be acceptable and what sin wouldn't? It would become a very gray area. This way it's black and white and everyone knows exactly where they stand, which is initially far apart from God.

I would add that this is not much different than a human relationship. We expect perfection from our friends, even though we know they will screw up. This is why when they eventually do screw up, we expect them to apologize to us, and ask for our forgiveness (even if they don't use those words).

If my friend betrays me, talks shit about me, lies to me, cheats on me, I'm going to be rather upset. But I can forgive my friend a lot easier if they acknowledges that they screwed up. However, if a friend offends and acts in a way that is rather contrary to our relationship, and proceeds to act like it didn't happen or worse yet tells me to fuckoff, I won't be forgiving them so easily.

[Kershaw]

i had a lot of fairy tales read to me as a kid. and later read by me. we have a copy of the brothers grimm, and i've heard them all. as well aesop's fables. and i've gone to a few years of christian schooling. as well as taken classes in the religions of the world.

so thanks for calling me very intelligent. :P

on the flip side, if 1 fairy tale is all you've ever heard (christianity folks) you're brain is not really going to be exercised. the original german fairy tales are incredibly complex stories, with multiple layers of meaning. so that they can be understood by all walks of life in the same hearing. and as you grow up, you understand different bits of the story. im pretty sure that was einstein was referring to.

[joshh]

Why do Atheists still dislike Atheists?

[HarryPotter]

I like the way Stephen Hawking looks at God. God might have decreed these laws and this universe into place, but he does not intervene or break the laws.

[Bill 84 318i]

I like the way Stephen Hawking looks at God. God might have decreed these laws and this universe into place, but he does not intervene or break the laws.

I'm not sure that's how he looks at it - though there have been times (decades ago) that he didn't dismiss the possibility, I haven't seem him actively say that God decreed any laws.

Regardless, he has more recently written and spoken to the contrary.

[HarryPotter]

He is quoted on that post I made. Granted like you said I have not recently seen what he thinks. I find the relatively new Holographic Theory to be very interesting. It basically claims that every piece of information in this universe is at the edges of the universe on a two dimensional hologram. EVERYTHING. Maybe a giant TV for god himself to keep an eye on everything? Not sure, but very intriguing.

[Bill 84 318i]

He is quoted on that post I made.

In what? I've found this: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

Granted like you said I have not recently seen what he thinks. I find the relatively new Holographic Theory to be very interesting. It basically claims that every piece of information in this universe is at the edges of the universe on a two dimensional hologram. EVERYTHING. Maybe a giant TV for god himself to keep an eye on everything? Not sure, but very intriguing.

Holographic Theory doesn't even seem to have a wikipedia link, so you'll either have to pass along a link or whatever you're smoking. :-P

You've gotta be trolling. Anyway, I see the Holographic Principle, but if you truly understand that shit, dumb it down for me.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman.

[Vrbovsky]

?

I'm not an authority on religion or God/gods but I am a physicist..... ;)

First consider the idea of religion and the separation of Jesus from that religion.
read and learn that most non bias historians understand Jesus as a cynic in the Greek tradition on account of Galilee being very Helenistic at the time of Jesus. He very well probably spoke Greek read Greek and lectured in Greek.

Now consider what his message was. Peace, love, brotherhood. big deal right? sounds like a hippie. In fact consider when he lived. Death by Roman iron was an ever present reality, revolution war famine death were the realities of life 2000 years ago. So peace and love were nearly unfathomable for his listeners... and for the world for many centuries.

The historical reality is that Jesus was important in the shaping of western cultural values like justice, mercy, equality brotherhood and the dignity of every race.

[Vrbovsky]

now onto the math... or at least theoretical astronomy...

Hubble told us that the universe is expanding... this everyone should know, but what is it expanding from? and what the hell is it expanding into?

simple math will show that the universe was at one time infinitely tiny. that all we know was packed into a pinhead or smaller size space. now at that time the universe was not made of matter of atoms of electrons neutrons. no helium or hydrogen or a touch of lithium. it was a single solitary force so hot and so dense that the four forces that govern all physics were actually combined, gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces were actually one.... think of it this way... water ice steam... all the same at the same stage all chemically the same but assume different forms and act quite differently...

Einstein's theory of relativity proves that the very early universe was nothing more than forces and energy, there was only one singe entity.... God? I dont know but why not? its at this point (the Planck era) where it looks possible...

any ways.. is God a dude in heaven with a guitar chillin on a cloud waiting to judge your ass??? no...

[Vrbovsky]

Oh and the Idea of a two dimensional universe is the real fairy tale... its little more than an analogy used to understand the bending of space-time by massive objects.... like gravitational lensing.. where we can "see" objects light years behind galaxies simply because the mass of a galaxy or galaxy cluster bends space and light...

[Cinnabar325is]

now onto the math... or at least theoretical astronomy...

Hubble told us that the universe is expanding... this everyone should know, but what is it expanding from? and what the hell is it expanding into?

simple math will show that the universe was at one time infinitely tiny. that all we know was packed into a pinhead or smaller size space. now at that time the universe was not made of matter of atoms of electrons neutrons. no helium or hydrogen or a touch of lithium. it was a single solitary force so hot and so dense that the four forces that govern all physics were actually combined, gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces were actually one.... think of it this way... water ice steam... all the same at the same stage all chemically the same but assume different forms and act quite differently...

Einstein's theory of relativity proves that the very early universe was nothing more than forces and energy, there was only one singe entity.... God? I dont know but why not? its at this point (the Planck era) where it looks possible...

any ways.. is God a dude in heaven with a guitar chillin on a cloud waiting to judge your ass??? no...

So the very interesting point that people should take away from that is that science cannot answer where the matter/energy at the beginning of the universe came from nor say what the cause for the "big bang" was. There may be "scientists" out there stating various answers to these questions but these are opinions more than they are genuine science.

Also, science has no solid evidence on what is referred to by the general populace as the "theory of evolution. Evolution may be divided into two basic segments, micro and macro. We have genuine scientific evidence for the ongoing process of microevolution wherein small changes occur WITHIN a species based upon genetic variation. We have no examples of macroevolution wherein one species changes to another. The most common example is apes to humans. True science has no evidence for this process, as there is a complete lack of fossil evidence for the transitional species that would need to have existed to bridge the gap from apes to humans.

Here's an interesting quote by Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natrual History, a staunch evolutionist, "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it... I will lay it on the line. There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

[dirtysix]

Round an' round an' round....

[cale]

The fossil argument gets to me every time I hear it, because I know it's not something you've concluded yourself...you're just parroting what you've heard or read by other like minded individuals. The proof of evolution for man is in the dna, evidence is by no means absent. Proof for evolution is overwhelming, but if you'll only be convinced when you see a skeleton and dismiss everything else there really isn't much reason to argue you is there? You're choosing to remain ignorant when all those who've devoted countless years to furthering our understanding are doing everything they can to explain to you why it is such a strong theory.

Again, you evidently have no idea what you're talking about in terms of astro-physical science. The "scientists" you condescendingly refer to do indeed have evidence to back up their theories, that's an essential aspect of being called a scientist and I assure you there are some extremely reputable physicists working on the problems you highlight in your post. Being unable to answer those questions now only does more to motivate physicists to keep going, with your negative skepticism we'd still be living in caves.

[Kershaw]

nice job cale. im a bit sad you beat me to the punch, but you were definitely a whole lot nicer about it than i would have been.

cinnabar, please refer to the quote in my signature.

[ck_taft325is]

i had a lot of fairy tales read to me as a kid. and later read by me. we have a copy of the brothers grimm, and i've heard them all. as well aesop's fables. and i've gone to a few years of christian schooling. as well as taken classes in the religions of the world.

so thanks for calling me very intelligent. :P

on the flip side, if 1 fairy tale is all you've ever heard (christianity folks) you're brain is not really going to be exercised. the original german fairy tales are incredibly complex stories, with multiple layers of meaning. so that they can be understood by all walks of life in the same hearing. and as you grow up, you understand different bits of the story. im pretty sure that was einstein was referring to.

This thread is still alive?

Gnarly.



The bolded part is a stupid ass assumption. Stupid times 10.