₦airaland Forum

If religion cures nihilism why are the vast majority of prison convicts religious? If atheism causes nihilism why are we apparently underrepresented in that unhappy demographic?

Oh, that's right. We don't need a god to give us meaning or morality.

triplechoice:
He never told us what makes for a self fulfilling live.

Why do you insist that meaning should be handed down to you from on high? You don't seem to understand that people can define the meaning of their own lives for themselves, without being told what to value by someone else.

Sure, to a goldfish, the only part of the world that matters is his goldfish bowl. But I can assure you that there's a world of thought and meaning far and wide outside the goldfish bowl you live in.

efficiencie:
If there is no God then what is the basis of morality? How do you define something good or evil? What makes stealing wrong in every culture? Can you answer that objectively without recourse to God or anything supernatural? If there is no God then what is the origin of order and regularity? If there is no God then all life must be random. Order cannot just bring itself into existence. Order requires intelligence. Just as you can never attribute a book to random events. So what is the origin of order? What is the origin of order in the cosmos and in physical reality? If there is no God where did all of existence come from? Where did matter, space and time originate from? If you say they came from nothing then please define "nothing"?

The last question could easily take you forever to answer in a logically coherent manner. Only a fool assumes there is no God. The real question is "who is God and how can He or She or It be reached?"

These questions have been raised and adequately disarmed many times over, some in this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/7320593/religion-101-exam

You can try to read and address the answers given in that thread and show that, you're not simply regurgitating the tired collection of ignorant theist chestnuts which ignorant theists are wont to repeat because their intentions are not honest and they are simply arrogantly trying to piss into the gale force wind of historically given answers without actually considering them because they don't care.

Your questions have been asked and answered in thread I linked you to. Prove to me that you're looking for honest discussion and you're not just a dishonest person acting in bad faith.

Endtimer:
Contrary to common atheist folklore, science has spent the last century bringing us closer to belief in the supernatural.

[Citation needed]

If we all began to live without belief in God as a result of some impossible scientific discovery, it would ultimately destroy society or lead back to religion. The reason for this is because atheists take for granted the religious pillars all civilized societies are built on; the concept of morality and legislation for instance go hand in hand. Rather than reorder society after the eradication of religion, atheists would need to continue pretending as though religion still had moral force in society; until someone asks: “why can’t I just do whatever I want”. In the end we’ll arrive at a religious society because atheistic society is unsustainable and humans are incurably religious.

Your unspoken, and clearly unquestioned, premise here is that religion provides the only solid basis for the social contract.

n a personal, rather than sociological, level religion provides purpose for living. Atheism doesn’t. On atheism, suicide is not morally abhorrent. Western nations are beginning to witness the effects of unbelief as their citizens increasingly end their own lives. Let me ask you a question: would it make any difference if you were going to kill yourself today or tomorrow? On atheism, it certainly wouldn’t. On atheism, the fact that we are going to die one day is enough motivation for us to end our lives at once. Anything is enough motivation for us to end our lives.

Why are you worried about what others do with their lives? And do you have reputable sources to back up this claim of yours?

I do not look to my atheism for any reason to live, because it is not any sort of guiding set of principles for me. It is merely a statement of one belief which I don't hold. I find the meaning for my life myself. I get that you and many other religious folk do not understand this because y'all apparently need to be told why your own lives are important. Thankfully, I'm not that blind. I can find my own purpose for myself. Religions or gods need not apply.

Contrary to what many atheists believe, increasing secularism negatively correlates with happiness in society. While happiness isn’t the point of life, it is worth noting that the decline of religion has been accompanied by increased depression in the west.

Is this correlation or causation?

Note that none of the above is meant to validate the authenticity of religion. Instead it is to conceptualize the faithless society posited in the op.

If so, it's a shallow and unconvincing attempt. You should think more about this.

GodHead85:
That's exactly what a metaphysically subjective morality would mean. .. But you don't think that morality is subjective, and your comment here is not, accurately..that "just because morality is subjective".... You, as a point of fact, insist in these comments that morality is relative..instead- which is to say, the result of communal agreement and practice.

Of course. It seems self-evident to me, so there's always a danger of sounding recursive when trying to explain it. A community is a collection of individuals, and things like social constructs will happen in a community.

Those social constructs are based on a collation of subjective feelings about this or that virtue or vice. We are then raised in this environment, so it's easy to feel that those moral standards are objective. It's all we've known.

Of course some, like "thou shall not kill", seem painfully obvious to me, just like the warning sticker on the toaster. How they came about is more objective. Natural selection will winnow the field somewhat.

MaxInDHouse:
I don't read lengthy posts so can you give a brief summary of what he typed in just two to three sentences?
Thanks in advance!

No, you'll have to actually show you know how to exercise your own brain-power. I wasn't put here for your convenience. Now go reread it. Ask questions where you get stuck. It's really not that hard.

MaxInDHouse:
Why you do atheists often confuse yourselves?

If you don't have the answer just say so instead of giving a lengthy epistle without the answers!

Take the time to read FemiAjani's posts. They answer your questions well. So well that you seem unable to reply.

MaxInDHouse:
If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?
If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully?

Probably because most people are empathetic. Just because morality is subjective doesn't imply that morality is developed separately by each and every individual human on their own, as if they have no contact with any other human being. Subjective points may still be a result of communal agreement and practice.

Topics like altruism, the social contract, and the group interactions of both humans and animals might help you see why your questions seem, at best, uninformed. Morality does not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, it seems to require human judgement and agreement.

SlayerofSatan:
Morality by its very nature is supposed to be objective, which means it exists outside of intuition which is entirely subjective. If morality was determined by each individual's moral intuition then we would have thousands of different moral standards because not everyone shares the same intuition.

So I repeat, where does the atheist get his morality from?

Morality may indeed lie outside our subjectivity, but we only have access to it through our subjectivity. And we do have thousands of different moral standards.

I answered your question. You asked where my morality came from. My subjectivity is the only endpoint that I can know. As to its ultimate origin, I don't know. It could be a god, it could just be baked into the laws of the universe, it could be dependent upon our nature as a specific type of animal, or it could come from society, or a number of other options. It may not even be a real thing, as various error theories suggest.

At the end of the day, we all get our morals the same way at this point, from our subjectivity, using reason to guide our intuitions. You may believe otherwise, but that and N2,000 will get you a cup of coffee at your local coffee shop.

The fact that you were looking for me to answer in a different way is not a problem with my answer.

SlayerofSatan:
Here's my question. Where do atheists get their morality from?

Same place that you do, your intuition guided by reason. If God said something was moral, but your intuition told you otherwise, you might grudgingly accept that, but deep down you'd still think it's not moral. Gods only rule by our assent.

DeepSight:
The first cause would necessarily be self-existent. It would not "come from" anything.



That nothingness by definition does not exist is not the prerogative of scientists to determine. We have of course seen some physicists (such as the renowned iidiot, Lawrence Krauss) try to hijack the word "nothing" and then use it in reference to "something" but that is contradictory and will not wash.

And yes, my position on most of these matters is "I dont know." By the way this is what the word "agnostic" refers to - which I have used a thousand times, but which you insist - on account of your obvious Gnosticism - that I am not.



All else that exists could only arise from self existent things.
Dont worry, I will not get dizzy. I have devoted many years to thought on this already, and I would urge you to do the same.

You're claiming either Creatio ex materia or Creatio ex deo. In either case, where the hell did this "previously existing substance" come from?

Then you go on to say, "1. Something cannot arise from nothing and 2. You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain"

One more time, where did this Something come from? If you claim this Something is eternal with no evidence to support your claim then I can just as easily claim the universe is eternal with no supporting evidence. You're just making shit up as you go along and you may not want to admit it but your argument boils down to a magical Something that just popped into existance from....... what else?........nothing.

As it stands now the best answer is "Nobody knows" where everything came from before the Big Bang. Scientists cannot see past the Big Bang so we don't know and frankly, you don't know either. You're wasting everyones time and your argument goes around in dizzying circles.

DeepSight:
Not at all my sinister and most tightfisted friend. Nothingness, you see, does not exist. The word "nothing" refers to "no-thing" - and as such is frankly a concept quite beyond all contemplation in these matters as well. I do not see just how you believe you can so automatically and so completely without grounds, so peremptorily - declare that the choices are limited to two impossible options. You will first have to show that it is conceivable for anything to emerge from nothing, before you present those two options in the first place.

As regards concepts of creation we have -

Creatio ex nihilo - which refers to creation from nothing
Creatio ex materia - which refers to creation from some previously existing matter, and
Creatio ex deo - which refers to creation from the substance of divinity

I say - that given that nothingness does not exist - it is inconceivable to speak about creatio-ex nihilo. But let me stop here because I am agnostic on the question of creation altogether: all I can tell you for sure is that the question of something arising from nothing is nothing short of subscription to voodoo and far worse than all the fairy tales in the world put together.

Once you have settled properly down to understand that -

1. Something cannot arise from nothing and
2. You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain

Then you would quite easily and quite naturally draw the correct conclusion that for anything whatsoever to exist, something or the other must always have existed - because if there was pure nothingness, then nothing would ever have come into existence, given that 0 + 0 = 0: in other words - no combination of nothingness could ever result in a somethingness. For that would be manifestly absurd, and magical thinking at its worst.

I would have thought that you would have asked me for examples of self-existent things rather than lose yourself with the non-starter of impossible options which you presented. Because by addressing yourself to the self-existent, you would immediately begin to understand why discussing nothingness, or things arising from nothingness, is a perfect and absolute non-starter.

I did ask you to research the philosophical meaning of "necessary and contingent things" - and you are well urged to indeed do so, for ignorance on that subject will render you perpetually incompetent to discuss this matter. Now, I understand ahead, that you are likely to ignore this advise, and rather keep insisting - without reason - on your two impossible options. If you do so, be warned however, that there may be nothing else I could possibly say to help you.

In no event can anything arise from "nothing."

Then explain where the first cause came from.

nothingness, you see, does not exist.

Dodgy. Thus far scientists don't knows this for sure. We still have a so much more to learn so you're using an argument from ignorance. You could answer honestly with the phrase most physicists use...."We don't know."

You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain

Back to square one then. Where did the Maker of Stuff come from?

Don't get overly dizzy here.

DeepSight:
Why five, why not four or six, thou wicked, eminently sinister and mischievous soul.



Easy on the sarcasm. I didnt intend to come across as painting myself as any better. Most of us are wanting in this, one way or the other.

Wow, your attempts at sarcasm are even more pathetic than your attempts at intellectual discourse. It's actually embarrassing.

Very good then. I'll settle for three (it's a nice, meaningful number) valid meanings of the word spiritual.

And then, if you'd be so kind, a further explanation of what it means to be spiritually lazy and what is the opposite of such laziness.

Not that word salad about bestirring oneself inwardly, if you don't mind.

Unlike you, the vast majority of people do not speak gibberish. However "intellectual" it might sound to the intellectually poor.

^^^^^^^ A whole lot of claims made with no support. You're about as agnostic on creation as the pope. Ha! It is to laugh!

DeepSight:
You havent given this quite enough thought. In no event can anything arise from "nothing." If you dwell soberly and properly on the questions here, you should soon enough come to see that the only possible answer is that there is something or the other, or there are somethings or the other, which have always existed.

Such are called self-existent things - philosophers refer to them as fundamentally "necessary" things - as opposed to contingent things. Please take a moment to research "necessary things and contingent things."

Self existent things cannot but exist. They are fundamentally existent by nature and it is with self-existent things that the root of reality can be found.

Au contraire, mon ami. You are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Once again, you have two choices 1) A Maker came from nothing. 2) The universe came from nothing.

Which is it gonna be? Something somewhere at some time came from nothing so you're stuck and don't want to admit it.

DeepSight:
I mean those who settle for most of the offering of religion - they are not inclined to sufficiently bestir themselves inwardly in order to come to an original perception of any kind.

I hope you are not one of those atheists for whom the mere use of the words "spirit" or "spiritual" raises alarm. For quite aside from the fact that there are many valid contexts for the use of these words, the mere fact that one rejects the fraud and manipulation foisted on most people by religion does not necessarily mean that one must altogether deny any notion of spirituality whatsoever.

Do enlighten us about five of these numerous valid contexts, please, now that we're in your exalted, spiritually hard-working presence, please.

DeepSight:
No worries amigo.



To be clear, I havent done this. I have simply said that its not a blank slate - even saying that evolution has written quite a bit therein already.



What I have said is that there is an innate predisposition towards assuming causality in this reality and thus an innate tendency to ask the "why" questions. This neednt lead to religious belief though. It could lead to philosophy.



Oh ofcourse because most people are intellectually and spiritually lazy and take the path of least resistance. You are thus right here.



I havent said anything about magic, and I dont believe in magic. I am clear, however, that something cannot come from nothing - and if there is any belief in magic to be spoken about, then it is with regard to those who believe that something may arise from nothing. That, amigo, is what is magical thinking.



Please remember that I told you what the theist would say, not what I would say, and I also told you I am not a theist. All I did was to point out to you that there is clear reason to believe that there exist factors beyond "spacetime" as conventionally scientifically described. Incidentally reading the latest edition of Scientific American after our interaction, I came across an article that began to discuss just that. And i thought, wow, synchronicity. But the synchronicity became even more alarming when in the same magazine I found an article about children and what is imprinted on their minds! I just had to smile. The articles were even back to back - one following from another. Perhaps this conversation was fated. I will show you snapshots of the articles.

To the bolded: That is nurture. Not nature.

To the italicized: You're going down a very deep rabit hole and begging the question. If Something made everything happen at the beginning of spacetime, where did that Something come from? Did that Something come from nothing? It's turtles all the way down. At some point something DID come from nothing. Your choice is: 1) A Maker came from nothing. 2) The universe came from nothing. Pick which one. As with most things the simplicity of Occam's Razor fits best. The universe popped into existance naturally without a middleman, a maker, a something causing it to happen.

The Kalam’s problem is that you cannot prove that an infinite regress of events is impossible, (accidentally ordered series of causes). Aquinas provides a better argument in which an infinite regress of entities is impossible. It’s called an essentially ordered series of causes, in which you cannot have one cause existing without the simultaneous existence of its own cause. It has to do with movement (not just strictly locomotion but rather the change of states of being).

With this infinite regress, nothing at all would be changing because there’s actually nothing to provide any change of state, it’ll just never exist. So when we observe one thing moving or changing, we know that there is at least one end point when looked at regressively, simultaneously existing while said observed thing is changing. That is what theists call God, and that type of infinite regress is impossible

jamesid29:
And it's [worth] noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

What gave you that impression? Certainly not all philosophers are atheists.

I would assume that the definitions of atheism as a positive belief were written by theistic philosophers, whereas the definitions of atheism as either a positive belief or a lack of belief were written by atheists (or perhaps by people without an ax to grind).

jamesid29:
Turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

You can check
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy( one of the most cited encyclopedia of philosophy)

Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

Internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica

ismbook.com/ism-list/

The oxford companion to philosophy

oxford dictionary of philosophy

Blackwell dictionary of western philosophy

Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (the only dictionary to include the none-standard definition in a positive light but it itself holds to the standard definition as it's preferred one)

and so on

And it's what noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used.

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.

These four references from your list did not support your assertion:

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/
"The term 'atheist' describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism...of-atheism
"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived):" etc.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10....&result=11
"A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence."
(Both Oxford references led to the same place.)

I only found that a couple references on your list included a definition which supported your assertion. I could not check several. Perhaps you would be so kind as to double check your own assertion and provide the quotes and links required to support your assertion, if in fact you found them somewhere even within the four above-listed references (I would assume a wide range of opinions are represented within each work cited).

In the meantime, it appears such philosophical references do not present any consistent definition for atheism between them and perhaps within them.

JideJordan:
Hello guys, so I've been lurking around this section for a few weeks now. I've got a lot of questions on my mind and I am not getting satisfactory answers.
Does God exist? I don't know. At this point, I can't keep deceiving myself. I don't think I can call myself a Christian any more because I am starting to doubt a lot of things. If you are a Christian/believer, I have nothing against you, neither I'm I here to "deconvert" you or something.

Anyways, I just wanted to post this here, because I don't have anyone to talk to at the moment. Have a nice evening.

Hey JideJordan. Welcome to Nairaland.com. If you are having doubts about your faith, that's fine. It is a really tough time for everyone right now with the pandemic. Lots of things in the world and in our own personal lives don't make a huge amount of sense. I might be an Atheist, but I do understand and it's not easy when it's so confusing.

Christianity is more than two thousand years old do you aren't the first (or the last) to question your beliefs, so you are not alone. If you take your time to get to know Christians on here, I'm sure they will be willing to debate some of the questions you have. We also have plenty of non-believers and non-Christians on here who you can bounce your ideas off too. And, naturally as this is the internet, all of them are very, very busy coming up with the proof to show how right they are.

Don't feel that you have to believe something to please others or allow people to bully or manipulate you on questions as important as religion and the meaning and direction you have in life. Just remember to take your time and respect yourself and your own opinions. I hope you will stick around the find some of the answers you are looking for and will have some fun in the process. It's always good to have new people to keep the discussions fresh and relevant after all.

Cheers

Bishopkingsley:
I did not lie it was a typing error so all you had to do was say that definition is not complete then I would have cross check you just said it not the definition

There is a big difference

That was not a typing error. If it was you would have acknowledged my correction instead of calling me a liar. So not only did you score an F. Your response would have earned you a trip to the principal's office.

Bishopkingsley:
Before I will apologize you have to say to me that my definition was not complete

Not saying no which is totally wrong

Admit it correct but not complete even in school any teach will score me 80% at least

Sorry, but the excuse "it was incomplete" does not fly. You conflated an amount with a rate and then called me a liar when I corrected you. And 80%? Are you kidding. That rates a 40% at the most.

Bishopkingsley:
Another circle who created mass

It was me. Last Tuesday.

I wasn't all that busy so I thought "Why not?"

Bishopkingsley:
My friend read my writing very well there is no place I canceled your definition

You are the one who said no to my own definition I actually know you were correct but you failed when you said that no mine was not correct

So think properly you are the one at fault now I have given you prove of my definition and you are there running up and down so

Trying to manipulate the definition found in Google is trying to hit the wall with your fist it will give you no good results

I have given one Def to power it up to you to accept it or continue to manipulate it

What you could have said is that I should put per unit time

Nice word salad, but I'm not hungry. The correct thing to do when you make an error and falsely accuse another of lying is to own up to your mistake and apologize to the one that you accused.

Try again.

@Bishopkingsley

Bishopkingsley:
I don't think you understand English language and I don't think you understand physics

Power means a lot of things in physics Because English language is interchangeable

I gave you one definition of power you say no does that not mean you don't know both physics and English properly

I repeat


In physics, power is the amount of energy transferred...

Now I want you to fight with the picture below and fight with Google and physics

After you fight with the pictorial evidence below it is either you apologize for not knowing what all the definition of power is or you continue to lie

No, power has one meaning in physics. You appear not even to have a high school level of understanding. In physics, power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time. In the International System of Units, the unit of power is the watt, equal to one joule per second.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

And you did not understand your own picture. It says that I was right. You did not read the whole thing. Or you did not understand simple English. It is not the amount of energy transferred. It is the amount of energy transferred per unit time. You have to read the whole sentence. Amount over time is a rate.

Bishopkingsley:
In physics, power is the amount of energy transferred...

No. Power is the rate of energy transfer.

I am sorry, but your argument has no merit. It is only handwaving.

@Bishopkingsley

The problem with your argument is that you do not understand energy. In physics energy is mostly bookkeeping. And it turns out that there is both positive energy, usually seen in the form of light or kinetic energy, or mass itself since technically mass is energy, for positive energy, and usually seen in the form of gravitational potential energy for negative energy.

Physicists have measured the total energy of the universe. And as closely as they can determine the total energy of the universe is zero. So a universe from nothing does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. I can provide links and sources if you wish.

jamesid29:
I'm not sure what you mean by there's not alot here sir. As I've pointed out; The central and core premise of the OP is in fact incorrect. The world is not becoming less religious but rather it is becoming more religiously diverse.

But if you are more interested in having a conversation on why people walk away from religion or religious affiliation, I'm happy to have a conversation on that.

I have no idea why you think the world will become religiously diverse. Non-religious has been rising rapidly recently. I think the growth in Muslim population will slow because they literally threaten apostates now, that’s not sustainable. So far, you have not supported your arguments with data or citations, so, not sure how interesting this conversation will be. Plus, people may currently call themselves Christians, but they wouldn’t pass in a church from just a few decades ago. People may say they are “culturally” a certain religion, but they don’t really practice

jamesid29:
Well this is largely inaccurate.
There are many things we still have no clue about and some we would probably never have.
And secondly, we do know to a high degree that this universe has not always been here. It does have an ultimate origin


It's fascinating that humans as far back as recorded history have always been obsessed with some form of immortality.
Just something to ponder about, though.


Ok, so this is one of those sayings that are popular on the internet, but are in fact incorrect.

For starters, secularism is not on the rise. That is, if we are defining secularism has having a naturalistic atheistic worldview, as your write-up seems to allude to.

What is on the rise in North America and Western Europe is irreligion. What it means is that there's an uptick in people identifying themselves as not being affiliated with any organized religious organizations. This can range from people who hold religious beliefs and practices but do not identify with any church or mosque to people who hold some type of spirituality or cosmic energy without any defined concept of God or gods and of course it can include those who are agnostic on the matter.

Irreligious or nones should not be confused with materialistic atheism.

Secondly, if we are to define secularism by its more rigorous secularization theory (basically, the historical process in which religion looses it's cultural and social significance), this trend, as alluded to above, only holds true in North America and Western Europe. They are the exception, not the rule.

For the rest of world, religiosity is on the rise.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, mainly due to birth and mortality rates, while Christianity is still holding steadly with world population growth. Other world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, folk religion etc also have upward trend with world population.

Even in countries that have tried to stamp out religion or are fundamentally Atheistic, the steady rise in religiousity or religious affiliation still holds true. For example, China has been undergoing a religious revival in recent years and might hold the world's largest population of Christians in a few decades to come, by some estimates.

It's worth pointing out that these data mostly show how people identify but doesn't signify if this religiosity or irreligiousity is intrinsic.

Finally, the idea that the world is going to be more secular as we better understand how the world works is just wrong. Humans are complex emotional beings and people lose religious affiliation for a vast array of reasons.(ranging from trauma experiences to the rise in individualism and self-autonomy and everything in-between).
In any case that's a longer conversation on its own.

While I appreciate the detailed rebuttal of the OP, there's still not a lot here. You allude to “array of reasons” towards the end of your post, but don’t name them. I'm sure anyone who is conversant with these discussions has been over these major themes. Maybe pick one of these “reasons” and back it up with some data and draw some conclusions from your experience.

Thanks

Hismasterpiece:
You do realize that those articles were written by non-Christians who are understandably biased?

You continue to use words that you don’t understand. If I’m wrong, you should be able to explain what you mean by this.

Hismasterpiece:
You do realize that those articles were written by non-Christians who are understandably biased? Give me an article by a honest skeptic who is open hearted and presents the truth with no biases behind them and I'll take you seriously.

No, you won’t. If anyone says something you do not agree with, you will see it as biased, regardless if it is founded on an unbiased viewpoint. The problem is that you begin by assuming a God exists and that it is up to Atheists to prove God doesn’t exist, which they do not need to do at all. Atheists don’t choose to become Atheist. They just believe that in the absence of any proof, there is no reason to choose to be Theist. But make no mistake about it, Atheists don’t need a God to be in awe of the majesty of the universe. I just don’t think all this needs a motivated Agency. Evolution has proven to apply to everything, not just to living things but to all natural self-organizing patterns.

Do you want to see self-organizing patterns? The mathematical geometry of nature?

Mathematics is not the language of Humans. It is the language of Logic, an abstract guiding equation that can be described and organized via symbolic mathematics such as human maths.

The manifestation of potential Higgs bosons was only mathematically predicted. There existed no record of ever having observed a Higgs boson. In Cern it was the “applied mathematics” of controlling certain natural forces to spontaneously create the form of a Higgs boson pattern at very small scales.

It took the Collider, but by setting all the controls in a certain mathematical pattern, the Higgs boson, would appear and show us it’s naturally self-forming pattern for just an instant. When we speak of “cell-memory”. is this the ability of cells to produce extremely small patterns , which may occasionally happen or at every instant in time, if we look deep enough.

Existence is a pattern, a chronology of patterns, from the extremely subtle abstract Implicated form, to gross expression in Explicated form as Reality (David Bohm). Reality consists of sets of patterns with various densities, starting with fractals and showing up in all naturally self-forming universal geometries such as atoms and spiral galaxies. Even subatomic particles are patterns arranged in a specific size and density. Wave functions shape the geometric arrangement and expressed (observable form) of complex patterns of size and density.and densities.

Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mynr7uik5-0

It’s interesting why you as theist are so materialistic.