₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
Just like the christians I know,you are clearly iggnraunt about history.
I'm sure you haven't heard of the Great Crusades, Huguenot Wars, Salem Witch trials etc. These combined killed millions.
The League of Militant Atheists" was a non violent group. This is what historians called it in their own words.

Why are the lying so hard? The League of Militant Atheists was a violent group that murdered religious people, priests and clergy. This is well documented.

The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against the colonial expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

The Salam Witch Trials and Huguenot wars did not kill millions. State atheism killed millions though.

jaephoenix:
Served as a bureaucratic mechanism for the Party, rather than a truly powerful grassroots movement, despite its intimidating name.
North Korea doesn't execute religious folks. What they do is suppress and regulate religion but not execute them.
So no,Mr liar I don't know if Jesus told you guys to go ye into the world and spread falsehood but everything I have been reading from christians these days are well scripted lies

No, The League of Militant Atheists killed religious people, helped by the atheist government. This is documented even on Wikipedia with sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

"The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[65] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[66] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."

Sources: Peter N. Stearns. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 278.

Theodore R. Weeks. Across the Revolutionary Divide: Russia and the USSR, 1861-1945. John Wiley & Sons, 2011

North Korea kills its own citizens as well as religious folk. This is well documented by intelligence agencies and defectors. So Mr Liar, why are you lying on behalf of atheism? If atheism was a logical position, why do you feel the need to spread misinformation, falsehoods and engage in history revisionism? All you atheists do is lie and deny history.

Clearly you're not very confident in the worldview if you have to lie this hard and ignore history, academic sources including the one the OP provided concerning the Encyclopedia of Wars which show the majority of wars throughout history have been entirely secular.

As for that LordReed...

He needs to go back to my first post, in my response to Hohenheim, I say in the third paragraph:

"The Big Bang Theory doesn't show a universe from nothing, it simply explains what happened after the moments that the universe begun.

Better go back to school yourself."

Yet he claims I said The Big Bang was the beginning. So he's either another liar for atheism like jaephoenix, has terrible reading comprehension or holds a psuedoscience view outside of established physics and disagrees with the established evidence that The Big Bang does show that our universe had a beginning. One we have dated back to 13.8 billion years ago.

Like with Hohenheim, I think he needs to go back to school, I'm done educating his tiny intellect that apparently struggles understanding basic concepts and words.

Cycleoftheworld:
Lol says the one who couldn't even read what I said. I said The Big Bang Theory only explains what happened AFTER the universe began and it's evidence of the fact that the universe had a beginning, not that it's the beginning of the universe.

How about you learn some reading literacy and educate yourself more? Clearly you aren't capable of intellectual discussion if you fail reading comprehension so badly.

I also notice you can't address anything. As expected based on all your mumbo jumbo across this entire forum.

Cycleoftheworld:
As for that LordReed...

He needs to go back to my first post, in my response to Hohenheim, I say in the third paragraph:

"The Big Bang Theory doesn't show a universe from nothing, it simply explains what happened after the moments that the universe begun.

Better go back to school yourself."

Yet he claims I said The Big Bang was the beginning. So he's either another liar for atheism like jaephoenix, has terrible reading comprehension or holds a psuedoscience view outside of established physics and disagrees with the established evidence that The Big Bang does show that our universe had a beginning. One we have dated back to 13.8 billion years ago.

Like with Hohenheim, I think he needs to go back to school, I'm done educating his tiny intellect that apparently struggles understanding basic concepts and words.

LoLz. Your attempt at an explanation doesn't still help your case. I repeat get off SM go learn proper science and then come back to discuss. Your glib jibber jabber is not worth the effort. Run along now and be a good sport.

Cycleoftheworld:
Lol says the one who couldn't even read what I said. I said The Big Bang Theory only explains what happened AFTER the universe began and it's evidence of the fact that the universe had a beginning, not that it's the beginning of the universe.

+
I am interested in the distinction between the red and the blue please. Thank you.

LordReed:
I don't believe such a thing. Which atheist told you big bang came from nothing?

+
Lawrence Krauss famously or infamously argued that. Or something close to that. I think precisely that the universe arose from nothingness. I found it absurd because he proceeded to define that "nothingness" in a way which is alien to the meaning of the word itself.

It reminds me just how scientists have a different definition for time than that which exists in layman's experience.

Having said that, there is the failure by many (like Lawag3) to take note of different ideas such as creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing), creatio ex materia (creation from some matter already existing) and creatio ex deo (creation from the divine substance of the creator itself.

LordReed:
Unknown.

+
It is said to be an expansion from the point of a singularity in theory.

Cycleoftheworld:
Except atheists like you do make claims all the time. You have conjured up the concept of a "nothingness" that apparently can produce universes but you can't explain how nothing can do something in the first place.

The concept of God is already answered by the Prime Mover argument which says that God is eternal so Christians have already given you an answer.



OP literally gave you a source showing that most of the devastating wars throughout history have been secular and still you try to blame religion. Atheism itself has killed more than religion. This continues today with the atheist states of China and North Korea killing religious people or persecuting them because they practice religion. The Soviet Union killed millions and it was an atheist state. It also killed people literally in the name of atheism via its "League of Militant Atheists" organisations.



Not true, the majority of atheists are constantly shoving their beliefs upon everyone whether it be atheism itself or the many secular ideologies they believe in such as transgender and non binary nonsense. This is especially common amongst atheists in the West.



There's not really much to argue about with atheists. "Debating" atheists is like educating children. LMAO



It sounds like you atheists don't even go to school letalone university. Nobody here is confusing scientists with atheists. Scientists do not make the claims of atheists, in fact scientists are often the ones refuting atheist claims.

The only "scientists" to have argued in favour of a universe from nothing are all fringe and psuedo-scientists who have all been refuted. The fringe atheist scientist Lawrence Krauss and his book "A Universe from Nothing" was rejected by actual scientists including the physicist George Ellis who described it as nothing more than bad philosophy and fantasy.

This is because there's no evidence of a universe from nothing. The Big Bang Theory doesn't show a universe from nothing, it simply explains what happened after the moments that the universe begun.

Better go back to school yourself.









The Big Bang doesn't explain how the universe begun. It only shows that the universe had a beginning which is what we theists have been saying from the beginning.

The Big Bang Theory was actually proposed by the Catholic priest and scientist Georges Lemaître and was originally rejected by many atheists such as Fred Hoyle who argued that it "brought religious implications into physics by showing a beginning to the universe and therefore implying a creator."

Hoyle was right. The beginning of the universe does point to a creator as all things with a beginning need a cause.

It's funny LordReed says he doesn't believe matter, space and time came from nothing as all atheists do. He argues saying "unknown" in which case that makes him agnostic instead.

Unknown can only be two things: something or nothing. It's that simple. And well nothing does nothing and is by the very definition incapable of doing anything. So that means the universe can only come from something.

This universe coming from another and so on for infinity avoids the question. An infinite chain regression of universes without beginning would mean nothing should exist so ultimately there still had to be a first universe.

The idea of a eternal lifeless energy also doesn't answer anything. It's something but if it's lifeless, how can it produce the universe and the very laws of science which govern our universe? These very things came into existence with our universe so a lifeless energy wouldn't have any motion or the ability to do anything, since following the argument, the laws of science wouldn't have existed. It's like expecting a rock to move by itself without any outside influence, it's not going to happen.

This is why the idea of an eternal conscious energy aka God has always remained the logical position and philosophically sound because not only does it explains everything better, it adheres to logic unlike the naturalistic atheist worldview.

We also have the fine tuning of our universe which is something that is recognised by all scientists. Two examples below:

"N, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist. If it were large enough, they would repel them so violently that larger atoms would never be generated."

"Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force. If ε were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the Big Bang."

You can look up on science sites for more examples but things like this show conscious intelligence rather than happenstance from a something that shouldn't be able to do anything.

Atheism is ultimately a dead end philosophically and intellectually. If you are arguing that consciousness can come from random chance or nothingness, then you can't rule out the idea of a conscious entity that exists beyond the universe in any case. According to atheist naturalism, such a thing is a possibility.

You see, if atheists could actually think logically, they'd realise that and how atheist arguments always work against atheism itself.

+
Interesting and some legitimate points here.

However let me say that you can't claim that all atheists believe the universe came from nothing. There are different views. What unifies atheists is non belief in the existence of God or gods, not any specific knowledge on how the universe arose.

Also the logical challenge that remains for theists is proving the very nature of the God they say exists as being a conscious living being, as opposed to say, a simple force or pure energy.

DeepSight:
+
Lawrence Krauss famously or infamously argued that. Or something close to that. I think precisely that the universe arose from nothingness. I found it absurd because he proceeded to define that "nothingness" in a way which is alien to the meaning of the word itself.

It reminds me just how scientists have a different definition for time than that which exists in layman's experience.

Having said that, there is the failure by many (like Lawag3) to take note of different ideas such as creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing), creatio ex materia (creation from some matter already existing) and creatio ex deo (creation from the divine substance of the creator itself.

I think we've touched on this previously and we agree that Krauss was coming at this sideways.

DeepSight:
+
Interesting and some legitimate points here.

However let me say that you can't claim that all atheists believe the universe came from nothing. There are different views. What unifies atheists is non belief in the existence of God or gods, not any specific knowledge on how the universe arose.

Also the logical challenge that remains for theists is proving the very nature of the God they say exists as being a conscious living being, as opposed to say, a simple force or pure energy.

No one demanded theists to prove the nature of God nor do we contend with Him being described as Force and Pure Energy for if any one calls Him that, they are not far from the Truth

DeepSight:
+
It is said to be an expansion from the point of a singularity in theory.

As far as I understand the singularity is no longer held as an actual description of the nature of what preceded the big bang.

LordReed:
As far as I understand the singularity is no longer held as an actual description of the nature of what preceded the big bang.

+
That may well be but simply because the truth is that they cant say what it was, and so you are right to say unknown. Not even could they ever properly describe what "singularity" meant. At best they say expansion from a point.

But tell me, what is the latest said.

Dtruthspeaker:
No one demanded theists to prove the nature of God

+
But theists positively assert the nature of God all the time, as good, loving, kind, forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, three-in-one, one, eternal, just, jealous, etc.

nor do we contend with Him being described as Force and Pure Energy for if any one calls Him that, they are not far from the Truth

+
They do assert that he is a conscious being and even attribute masculinity to him in many cases.

DeepSight:
+
But theists positively assert the nature of God all the time, as good, loving, kind, forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, three-in-one, one, eternal, just, jealous, etc.

+
They do assert that he is a conscious being and even attribute masculinity to him in many cases.

That means they have proven it already hence no dispute

Dtruthspeaker:
That means they have proven it already hence no dispute

+
How does that mean they have proven it?
Have you eaten and taken your meds?

Cycleoftheworld:
The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against the colonial expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

+
The Ottoman Empire did not exist when the First Crusade was launched.

Lawag3:
Apart from that We both believe something can come out of nothing 😁 God created the world from nothing. To atheist the big bang came from nothing but created everything.
P.s Unlike what you think God didn't exist out of nothing.

We dont believe something came outta nothing. It's a theist thing

Lawag3:
If you ask someone about God and the person gave unknown or I don't know as an answer you'll take that as prove that God doesn't exist.

We rely in evidence. If I tell you how this world came about without a shred of evidence backing my claim,would you believe me

DeepSight:
+
How does that mean they have proven it?
Have you eaten and taken your meds?

If you had eating and had any sense at all then you would have known that restating our assertions at this time and in the way you said it, means you have previously accepted the evidence supplied, hence proof. But since your cuss started you have been losing sense every day.

Dtruthspeaker:
If you had eating and had any sense at all then you would have known that restating our assertions at this time and in the way you said it, means you have previously accepted the evidence supplied, hence proof. But since your cuss started you have been losing sense every day.

+


Shift jaare.

jaephoenix:
We rely in evidence. If I tell you how this world came about without a shred of evidence backing my claim,would you believe me

+
In fairness, the evidence of how this universe came about is likely permanently outside the paygrade or capacity of this humanity.
It is also likely outside the realm of physical science alone.

jaephoenix:
We dont believe something came outta nothing. It's a theist thing

+
Some atheists, notably Lawrence Krauss have insisted on that. But you are right that its not a claim made by atheists generally and in fact has nothing to do with atheism.

DeepSight:
+
That may well be but simply because the truth is that they cant say what it was, and so you are right to say unknown. Not even could they ever properly describe what "singularity" meant. At best they say expansion from a point.

But tell me, what is the latest said.

From what I understand the singularity is a hold over from the mathematical equations that describe the earliest moments of the big bang. I think I heard quantum foam is the leading view.

LordReed:
From what I understand the singularity is a hold over from the mathematical equations that describe the earliest moments of the big bang. I think I heard quantum foam is the leading view.

+
While mathematics may be used to understand things I doubt that it stands in any causative chain which leads to movement. For maths is always an idea, a mental construct and not an existent thing in itself. Secondly I would be wary of words or phrases such as "quantum foam" which may be nothing more than a new term for the same idea.

Especially because the word "quantum" has become the escapist word for science to describe all things mysterious and incomprehensible. This is just the way they talked about virtual particles in quantum vacuums even when there is no such thing anywhere to be seen as a vacuum.

In short, it seems to me that the word "quantum" has become the god of the gaps of the science world.

DeepSight:
+
While mathematics may be used to understand things I doubt that it stands in any causative chain which leads to movement. For maths is always an idea, a mental construct and not an existent thing in itself. Secondly I would be wary of words or phrases such as "quantum foam" which may be nothing more than a new term for the same idea.

Especially because the word "quantum" has become the escapist word for science to describe all things mysterious and incomprehensible. This is just the way they talked about virtual particles in quantum vacuums even when there is no such thing anywhere to be seen as a vacuum.

In short, it seems to me that the word "quantum" has become the god of the gaps of the science world.

Nah, quantum foam is whole different thing than pure math or the quantum woo woo people usually refer to when they say the word quantum. I think it is the basis for why Krauss says nothing is unstable. I know Krauss' description is problematic but I think quantum foam is an interesting direction.

Provide evidence that a God exists

Cycleoftheworld:
Why are the lying so hard? The League of Militant Atheists was a violent group that murdered religious people, priests and clergy. This is well documented.

The Crusades were a series of defensive wars against the colonial expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

The Salam Witch Trials and Huguenot wars did not kill millions. State atheism killed millions though.



No, The League of Militant Atheists killed religious people, helped by the atheist government. This is documented even on Wikipedia with sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

"The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[65] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[66] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."

Sources: Peter N. Stearns. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World. Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 278.

Theodore R. Weeks. Across the Revolutionary Divide: Russia and the USSR, 1861-1945. John Wiley & Sons, 2011

North Korea kills its own citizens as well as religious folk. This is well documented by intelligence agencies and defectors. So Mr Liar, why are you lying on behalf of atheism? If atheism was a logical position, why do you feel the need to spread misinformation, falsehoods and engage in history revisionism? All you atheists do is lie and deny history.

Clearly you're not very confident in the worldview if you have to lie this hard and ignore history, academic sources including the one the OP provided concerning the Encyclopedia of Wars which show the majority of wars throughout history have been entirely secular.

Clearly someone does not have a history of the crusades in the slightest

LordReed:
Nah, quantum foam is whole different thing than pure math or the quantum woo woo people usually refer to when they say the word quantum. I think it is the basis for why Krauss says nothing is unstable. I know Krauss' description is problematic but I think quantum foam is an interesting direction.

+
Thank you for this.

I gather -
----------

Quantum foam (also called spacetime foam) is the idea that at the most microscopic level imaginable, the fabric of the universe is not smooth or empty, but is a roiling, turbulent "foam" of energy and fluctuating geometry.

1. The Scale: Beyond Microscopic: Quantum foam exists at the Planck scale, the smallest possible unit of distance in physics.7 To give you a sense of how small this is:Planck Length: 8$\approx 1.6 \times 10^{-35}$ meters.9Comparison: If you magnified an atom to the size of the entire observable universe, the "bubbles" of the quantum foam would only then be about the size of a human fingernail.

2. Why Does It Exist?
The concept arises from trying to combine two conflicting "rulebooks" of physics:

General Relativity: Einstein’s theory, which says spacetime is a smooth, flexible fabric curved by gravity.

Quantum Mechanics: Which says that on a small enough scale, nothing is ever truly still or "zero." Everything fluctuates due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

When you apply quantum rules to the fabric of space, the "uncertainty" means that at the Planck scale, the geometry of space-time itself begins to wobble and fluctuate wildly.

3. Key Characteristics
Virtual Particles: The foam is filled with "virtual" particles and antiparticles that pop into existence and annihilate each other almost instantly.

Fluctuating Geometry: Space might not just be "bumpy"; it could technically form tiny wormholes or microscopic black holes that appear and disappear in fractions of a second.

The Vacuum is Not Empty: It suggests that "empty space" actually contains a massive amount of "zero-point energy."

4. Experimental Evidence
Because it is so small, we cannot "see" quantum foam with any current or foreseeable microscope. However, scientists look for its effects:

- The Casimir Effect: A proven phenomenon where two uncharged metal plates in a vacuum are pushed together. This is widely considered evidence that the "vacuum" is actually full of fluctuating energy (virtual particles).

- Light Speed Variations: Some theories suggest that very high-energy light from distant Gamma-Ray Bursts might be slightly slowed down by the "bumpiness" of quantum foam, similar to how a car slows down on a gravel road compared to smooth asphalt.

-----------------------
*Culled

Having looked at it, I can't see how this helps anything in the discussion as to the origin of the universe. In fact rather than speak to the beginning or origin it would appear to be speaking to the base nature of its fabric. That doesnt seem to me to advance the discussion an iota.

In fact there does not seem to be anything new about this. It seems to have been proposed by the physicist John Wheeler in 1955 - same man who advanced the notion of black holes. or made the notion popular. 1955 is a very long time ago in this science.

Over and above all this is the fact that this notion does not change the fact that the universe is expanding, which is the fundamental fact that roots the Big Bang. And to that extent, it does not take away the core concept of the universe expanding from a point still.

So I struggle to see the value here.

Disinfectant123:
Clearly someone does not have a history of the crusades in the slightest

+
Yeah he was wrong on that but he made some other valid points and said some important things quite correct in history.

DeepSight:
+
Yeah he was wrong on that but he made some other valid points and said some important things quite correct in history.

True I guess

DeepSight:
+
While mathematics may be used to understand things I doubt that it stands in any causative chain which leads to movement. For maths is always an idea, a mental construct and not an existent thing in itself. Secondly I would be wary of words or phrases such as "quantum foam" which may be nothing more than a new term for the same idea.

Especially because the word "quantum" has become the escapist word for science to describe all things mysterious and incomprehensible. This is just the way they talked about virtual particles in quantum vacuums even when there is no such thing anywhere to be seen as a vacuum.

In short, it seems to me that the word "quantum" has become the god of the gaps of the science world.

To be clear I am not stating that quantum foam is what preceded the big bang, it is just a candidate explanation for how it went down.

This article should explain it a bit better than I: https://www.space.com/the-universe/how-quantum-foam-may-have-inflated-the-early-universe

LordReed:
To be clear I am not stating that quantum foam is what preceded the big bang, it is just a candidate explanation for how it went down.

This article should explain it a bit better than I: https://www.space.com/the-universe/how-quantum-foam-may-have-inflated-the-early-universe

+
Thanks for this, which I have gone through. Did you see my last revert by the way?

Well, all said and done all I see there is a great amount of speculation without any concrete answers to questions. As the article acknowledges, the early universe remains a mystery. I will add that the present universe is still one.