Post your tough questions for an Atheist/Agnostic.

He had to toss a few 'object lessons' into the mix along the way to warn the rest that nobody better mess with him..

 

I'm not responsible for your need to feel like a victim here.

Don't play the 'devils advocate' or 'just asking questions' card and try to pretend you made no assertions, here is where you made some assertions...

Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining.

Theists who can barely piece together what they themselves believe or understand won't ever be able to get the point of formulating a tough question for anyone.

End of conversation with you, you simply do not have any self awareness and it is not my responsibility to provide you with some.

 

Now that is real life actual insulting and toss in a bit of taunting too.

 

I can not think with brain. And some dude hates my food. And some else will to take over my place who he can not from a distance even he knew when I eat food. Do that jerk Jesus Christ knew to the jerk how eat from a distance and my food is only for me from begun but some dude hates my food. He wants to kill me from a distance. Of course he hinder me so I am evil against mostly one God and he is Swedish with name even Jesus Christ maybe knew he don't exists. But England's or Israelis God exist or both and they can do my dream to true and send my hinder to Satan arms so he will to be a lunch buffé after Satan has grill him in Satans hinder with Satans arms. This poor happens me every day with far away jerk. Jesus Christ knew to him when I eat food so he will eat my food. Is this normality from Jesus Christ or is my distance person a big loses on earth or on Satans master grill??? This is worth my problem with my distance problem if one send eating through to Satans master grill.

 

I likes evil in hell. GUD is a Swedish name on God. One are evil before I am evil.

 

A distance eater are unhappy when I eat food so he eat my food far away from my distance. Is this normality from that God how knew to this person then he eat my food from a distance. Is this American or European style and I was evil back to Swedish GUD after this happens. For sure after food time 2005 he takes over and 2008 I hate GUD in reality one Swedish forum and I was there to 2012 before they take me down to no forum. This is what free speech is when it exist. I can hate GUD in big format. Is this normality from God or Gud??? Jesus Christ knew to Catholic so he can eat my food from a distance. I am still atheist AND I liked. No Gods can send me to hell when I am people how need thinking. Happy Muhammad hour.

 

Given that you are an atheist why in hell do you CARE about this (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Some is evil against me so I am evil against GUD.

Free speech are perhaps wrong.

 

I wish that many stopped believing in these myths, but just not the case, maybe someday these theists will see the truth that there jealous God is just a myth

- - - Updated - - -

cause some theists try to force their beliefs on non-theists sadly... punish them for their non-belief or they just kill them

.

 

OK, let me start by saying that I believe that this kind of gets confusing for many theists because their religion informs them of almost their whole existence and they cannot separate their faith from existing as a human being. That is not meant as a criticism by the way, just an observation as to why this specific question might get asked so often and I am going to try to answer it as a sincere question and not a rhetorical question.

I am an atheist, I am generally a 'humanist', I am generally what would be described as a 'materialist, I accept science is the best tool that we have to explore the Universe, I prefer solutions to issues that can be shown to work and I try to accept them regardless of my subjective feelings. This is a belief system however, I do not consider that any of these elements are synonymous with each other, there is nothing that intrinsically ties them together except that this set of beliefs are commonly found in a subset of humans that mistakenly get called 'atheists' as short hand. My atheism is simply a part of that system that covers my lack of belief in the existence of a set of things called 'gods'. Most of my beliefs are an extension of my generally skeptic belief based upon not accepting assertions without evidence.

As an atheist, I find theistic assertions on the existence of 'gods' to be interesting mental exercises, in fact, until a theist asserts the existence of 'gods' I am not an atheist. I only care in this respect when theists try to make their 'faith' into 'justified belief' and my response to that is, 'show it or, you don't know it'. What I am getting to is that just as I am not an atheist until a theist compels me to be by assertion without evidence then, I do not feel I need to be concerned with religion until the religious compel me to be 'humanist' by asserting that we need to build social units based upon the principles of their theology. I see theism as a belief in 'gods' that is pretty much benign and relatively inconsequential until it turns into religion and becomes a social and political entity.

It just so happens that sometimes, religions do get things right and even though they might not have reached a solution based upon reason, everyone is pragmatic and things work. The problems generally occur, when religions and the religious want to embed their religion into public life and they assert that solutions should only be based upon their theology; if the religious were as neutral about public life as humanists generally are then there would be very little debate. I guess that the problem for me and, maybe other people is that the religious entwine their existence with their religion and by doing so always make a debate about what they believe regarding the existence of 'gods' into a debate about politics and public life.

Now, I draw the distinction between 'theism' and 'religion' because, I do not see a complete contradiction between sincerely held 'faith' and holding generally humanist principles about public life. If I am pushed, then I would narrow the problem down to what I call 'politicised religion' but, that might have me typing for the rest of the day, suffice to say that I do not completely get why the religious feel compelled to align themselves with some quite extreme social conservatism.

On a more polemical level, one thing I will say is that, claiming to be a 'moderate' religious person does not absolve you of responsibility for those who want to push a more tyrannical religious agenda!

 

Perhaps you can explain how the universe and matter was formed in a complete vacuum without energy or mass.

What's that formula?

 

Cosmologists and physicists do not hypothesize that the universe was formed in a complete vacuum without anything else present. Only creationists peddle this strawman fallacy.

As to what they are investigating, they will be the first to admit they have not yet developed a robust scientific theory. So, they don't know, I don't know, and neither do you.

 

If there was pressure or the presence of any matter or energy before the Universe then how did they come about?

Also, gravity is likewise a mystery, as why does Pluto 3.18 billion miles away from the Sun, still maintain a orbit from it's weak gravitational field? Why wouldn't the much closer gravitational forces of Jupiter throw it radically off course as it passes by it every 12 years?

Like swinging a steel ball on chain in a circle above you once you let loose the ball goes away in a straight line.

 

The term "pressure", when used in physics, is generally used to describe a certain property of mass or energy when compared to other masses or energies. The term is only useful when and requires the presence of matter or energy. Put another way, without different groups of matter or energy to compare, the term "pressure" is meaningless.

Current cosmology and physics hypotheses and theories predict that space, time, matter and energy, as we observe them in our universe, were formed together, i.e., at the same point. As to where they came from, again, the scientists have no robust theory, only a strong hypothesis or weak theory (Big Bang Model), so they don't know, I don't know and neither do you.

As to gravity, Pluto's orbit is not a mystery at all. Both Newtonian and Einstinian theories of gravity explain it quite well. Although Jupiter's gravity well is deep, it pales in comparison to the sun's gravity well. The relative distance from Pluto to the sun, compared to the distance from Pluto to Jupiter (when Jupiter is closest to Pluto), is fairly close (3.7 billion miles compared to 3.2 billion miles). Using the inverse square law applied to these facts results in a conclusion that the sun's gravitational effect on Pluto is immensely greater than Jupiter's effect, by a factor of over 10,000.

It's not like that at all, at least when discussing planetary motion in our solar system, particularly the example of Pluto and Jupiter of which you inquire.

Actually, that ball as you swing it is orbiting you in an ellipse, not a circle. While swinging the ball you will notice that you are being pulled slightly towards the ball. Indeed, you (the ball swinger) is also orbiting in an ellipse, although the center of gravity for you is inside of your space. When you let the ball go it does not travel in a straight line. You will notice that it begins an orbit influenced by the Earth' gravitational field and will shortly collide with the Earth.

I suggest you study these topics in more detail. Use scientific sources and avoid lying creationist websites.

 

Here's my question:

How did a highly dense singularity of energy pop out of nothingness?

 

Once again, you act as if you already know that "a highly dense singularity of energy pop out of nothingness" (your words). Or, it could be a strawman fallacy that you invented. Or something else.

An honest and truly curious person wouldn't pretend to already know, like you do, or attempt to be clever by inventing a strawman fallacy, which is more likely what you have done. Instead, an honest and truly curious person would ask a question, that question being, "Did a highly dense singularity of energy pop out of nothingness?" Next, that person might attempt to find an answer to that question.

But not you. You already have all the answers. At least you believe so.

You even have an answer to the actual question you posed. Your answer is GODIDIT. How convenient.

 

Let's just cut to the chase:

A highly dense singularity of energy either alway existed or came out of nothing. To claim that there may be other alternatives is intellectual dishonesty.

 

Ah yes, the false dichotomy fallacy. Perhaps you could fire some neurons together and think of other possibilities.

Here, let me do your work for you:

1) A highly dense singularity of energy was formed from something other than a highly dense singularity of energy.

2) A highly dense singularity of energy has never existed.

3) A highly dense singularity of energy existed when there was no time, rendering temporal analysis meaningless.

I could go on.

Yes, you present a classic false dichotomy. Why do you use fallacious reasoning so frequently?

Sure thing, Sparky.

 

Something other than energy? Interesting.

However, this answer takes us back to square one- did this "other" always exist or did it pop out of nothing?

But it did, and expanded.

Meaningless, but not futile. Also, that ain't an alternative.

 

People need to learn a new phrase and turn it into something of a mantra.....it's very easy and accurately solves this entire problem.


I DON'T KNOW.

 

More like- I don't want to know.

 

What do you see as the boundary that separates action from immoral action.

 

The Bible contains a predetermined narrative where one is expected to obey under the threat of condemnation to Hell. The atheist Bible are text books which are subject to being updated as new scientific discoveries are made.

 

How do stars form? They form from clumps of celestial hydrogen atoms that are attracted to each other by their own gravity fields. When they become large enough they go nuclear. Over time the star's hydrogen is transformed into new and heavier elements by the nuclear reaction. Eventually those elements transform into assorted life forms that question where they came from.

 

You have problems with that because you don't understand the properties of "Nothing", or quantum foam. The formation of matter is simply an evolutionary process from "Nothing" to "Everything". We are probably in a transitional state and the end result of the evolutionary process may be trillions of years from now. We simply don't know where we are on the time line but we can make an educated guess as to how far we have already traveled on the time line and what has evolved during that time. The problem is that we don't know how long it took for celestial hydrogen to evolve from "Nothing", or quantum foam.