Does Atheistic secularism really promote violence?

[Anonymous 42]

Sandals wrote:

3. What does “church” offer the people? The kingdom of heaven, if only the people would worship together in church (which is explicitly banned in the Sermon on the Mount)

Good angle Sandals, I learned there are some gatherers that gather organically, I think that’s the real church, it’s done in passing, a few electrons here, a few over there, then the believer keeps on going like a roman candle, the fire burns within and not relying on the polluted light from the “outside”.

They even worship statues which is considered idolatry according to the scriptures.

The Islamic fundamentalists have taken it to the extreme by destroying “all statues” and “images” in a mob of hyper religion in numbers but 0 individuals, they don’t look inward to find a single beam of light, always battling the polluted light from the “outside”. The “church” starts with introspection not external condemnation with a maundering mob of any kind of extremists.

A real man is a leader and not a follower, that’s why followers are called “followers”.

Thanks for soothing the splinters some “followers” left in me! I hear what you’re saying Sandals, two or more “gathering” not “consolidating” is what my faith means to me.

Following is the path to deception, perdition, and suffering, it’s what always happens when people get lazy and consolidate.

MGTOW fits me like a glove in so many ways I can’t mention them all…

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

Big Bang Theory

Premise 1:
The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Premise 2:
We have made observations of the cosmic microwave background, which contains the afterglow of light and radiation left over from the Big Bang.

Conclusion:
Therefore,
the most likely explanation is that the whole Universe is expanding and this supports the theory that the start of the Universe could have began with a single explosion.

That is the big bang theory in its basic logical form. It is a good theory, with a sound conclusion formed from good premises.

Now science is methodological and objective, this is logically sound and intellectually honest (please remember this term).

Now let philosophy look at the results of science and contemplate on its findings. That is what philosophy has been doing since the days of Ancient Greece.

Question one:
All evidence so far accumulated about the origin of the universe seems to point to a singularity. Then a gigantic expansion of unimaginable proportions. I repeat, that is the most likely proposition. But being most likely does not mean it actually did happen. It probably did, but if you are intellectually honest you will leave room for some doubt, even if it is only a fraction of a percent. A ball passing to your right probably came from your left, but that’s assuming it acted then like a ball would do in today’s physical conditions.

Question two:
I’m going to accept big bang theory as fact here in order to ask this next, more important question. In fact I do accept it in real life.

The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, as the theory’s name might suggest. Instead, it was the appearance of space everywhere in the universe, researchers have said. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born as a very hot, very dense, single point in space. Pinhead sized to everywhere in an instant. That’s not an explosion, it is bigger than that by a magnitude incomprehensible to us. ‘Big Bang’ does the event a disservice with such a puny name.

Cosmologists are unsure what happened before this moment, and that’s being very generous to them. They haven’t got the first clue. Did time even exist? Matter? Physics? Now we’re heading into the central essence of being and nothingness.

So, how did the universe go from being a few millimeters across to what it is today? Why is there something and not nothing?

What came before the big bang? How did it happen? Was is caused? Was it a spontaneous event?

Science and religion fail us at this point. Your guess is as good as mine.

Now we are in the unknowable, what was before the big bang, and all theories are on the table. But some sound more reasonable to others, using our very limited powers of human comprehension over this original point. But even science history has proved that the most popular theory isn’t always the correct one. But with pre-big bang it literally is a shot in the dark, if dark existed. That can leave the two diametrically opposed notions: 1/ a created from a first cause universe, to 2/ a chaotic, it just appeared from nothing universe. It is beyond us.

Yes I have faith, I take my morals from the life of Christ and I hold a belief that all this universe has a point and we aren’t here by chance to witness it. I can’t prove that, but I have faith just from seeing the sheer wonder of it all. I also like to think in logic, and I can except it COULD be just a big old mess of chance and improbability that is there for no other reason than physics. But the latter position lacks imagination to me personally. I respect the atheist position, I can see no logical reason to disagree with it. But I am a Christian without apology and my faith puts hope into this unknowable existence, for me personally. If you disagree then fine, but debate honestly fellas, please.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

What came before the big bang? How did it happen? Was is caused? Was it a spontaneous event?

The BB was a derogatory name as a joke by an opponent of the theory.

The BB theory is about the origin of the universe we are in and is well supported by evidence.

To ask what happened before the BB is not part of BB theory.

In fact in a pure logical sense it is meaningless to speak of “before” the BB.

Science is honest about it’s limits, that why numerical uncertainty is always published with data.

Science is more honest than faith because science states its limitations and scope. When something is unknown it’s simply called unknown.

Faith just asserts things are true because the faithful believe it when they don’t know it is true.

Nobody knows if god exists or not, the faithful just assert a god exists, they neither know it or can demonstrate it.

I stick with the honest approach.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

To ask what happened before the BB is not part of BB theory.

I agree, so what?

In fact in a pure logical sense it is meaningless to speak of “before” the BB.

Show me how it isn’t ‘logical’. Again you don’t understand the term.

You think its meaningless to ask about the origin of everything? That’s a very unscientific approach, no? You accept the big bang but refuse to acknowledge a time (loosely used here) before it? That’s fundamentalism, head buried in the sand, and you accuse the religious of the same over their beliefs.

You can’t understand it so you ignore it. Luddite.

Question : do you accept there could be something BEFORE the big bang?

Science is honest about it’s limits, that why numerical uncertainty is always published with data.

Numerical uncertainty is still uncertainty, data or no. I admire and support science, but I know its limits, it can’t tell me WHY am I here and HOW and WHERE I ultimately came from.

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

The BB theory is about the origin of the universe we are in and is well supported by evidence.

Nope. Not supported by evidence. Supported by theories. Chasm of difference there.

X11 wrote:

To ask what happened before the BB is not part of BB theory.

It may not be a part of BB theory, but is certainly a part of human inquiry.

X11 wrote:

n fact in a pure logical sense it is meaningless to speak of “before” the BB.

Right, which is exactly where the science falls apart. But you wouldn’t want to go where your suppositions expose themselves. Now would you?

X11 wrote:

Science is honest about it’s limits, that why numerical uncertainty is always published with data.

Science is always honest about it’s limits. So then what were you debating when I pointed out these exact limitations?

Every sentence you write is one contradiction after another. Keep going. You’re doing a bang up job of exposing your ignorance.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[X11Spectator 4520]

Stentorian you still frauding. Go read an actual science book instead of your fraud science.

There are f~~~ing Nobel prizes based on the physical evidence supporting the BB.

Stop frauding and spend 2 minutes researching the evidence.

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

Stentorian you still frauding. Go read an actual science book instead of your fraud science.

There are f~~~ing Nobel prizes based on the physical evidence supporting the BB.

Stop frauding and spend 2 minutes researching the evidence.

You’re deflecting.

Respond and back up what you have written. Instead of stalling and hiding.

Cú Chulainn has asked you direct questions. As have I.

Let’s see you formulate a response where you don’t contradict yourself one sentence after the next.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[Frank V.Participant 2445]

The OP got a great deal out of this.

That “question” was not thrown out for seeking an answer.

It was a provocation:

“Why aren’t you married, what are you not into women ?”

“Why don’t you have kids, can’t get a woman and get laid ?”

“Why are you atheists so immoral ?”

Most of these “questions” have more in common than shaming in most of them. These are not questions, in spite of the question mark at the end. They are statements.

And, it has nothing to do with the Big Bang, or God or the Bible or anything like that.

The OP made a statement about some of our brothers.

It was done to provoke religious and Atheist MGTOWs. Don’t bulls~~~ me and tell me otherwise.

I can disagree with my religious MGTOW brothers all day long, but don’t try to pit me against them. I will distrust and resent you.

I can disagree with my Atheist MGTOW brothers all day long, but don’t try to pit me against them. I will distrust and resent you.

Just because I am closer to my Atheist MGTOW brothers doesn’t mean I fall for this kind of obvious baiting anymore.

If it is bulls~~~ for non-MGTOW to patronize a MGTOW and tell them “what they really think” or “what MGTOW really is”, then it is that the same kind of bulls~~~ when we tell some Atheist “what atheism really is” and “what atheists really think”. Same with the Christians here too, I would have no right to pull that on you too.

Here is how MGTOW plays out in this area:

My Christian MGTOW brothers do their Christian thing, and f~~~ anyone trying to stop them. They go their own way.

My Atheist MGTOW brothers want nothing to do with Christianity, and f~~~ anyone giving them s~~~ for it, they go their own way.

Maybe the OP needs to be more like the Christian men who I welcome to my home to get away from their wives. Be an honest man who says what he means and means what he says. They are just as welcome to my home as my Atheist and fellow Agnostics because they are men with integrity and talk straight.

Not this “provoke with a fake question” bulls~~~. What next, you going to ask if those pants make your ass fat ?

Frank V.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Show me how it isn’t ‘logical’. Again you don’t understand the term.

Please do have a think about that question, it’s not posed to be controversial.

Cú Chulainn wrote:

You think its meaningless to ask about the origin of everything?

No I don’t think that, I think its a fine question.

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Question : do you accept there could be something BEFORE the big bang?

I could speculate such for sure.

Cú Chulainn wrote:

can’t tell me WHY am I here and HOW and WHERE I ultimately came from.

My answers will not satisfy you but I will answer;

“WHY” is a question only you can answer. It is only you who can give your life meaning. Please don’t seek it from someone or something else.

“HOW” – your parents f~~~ed.

“Where” – your mothers womb.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Stentorian wrote:

You’re deflecting.

Nah, I’m just not taking you fraud ass seriously.

Only the strong can question their own beliefs.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

Debate is good if its kept within the confines of rational thought and honest exchange of argument/counter argument.

I welcome it. The OP had other ideas maybe, but threads always branch out.

This is a forum, where in ancient times men of honour and intelligence came to argue over life’s great questions . I always hope we can argue with intellectual honesty, and not like women. I fall into emotional argument too, but I’m training myself everyday to be ruthless in logic only.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

I’m training myself everyday to be ruthless in logic only.

You are on the path to atheism.

Only the strong can question their own beliefs.

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

X11 wrote:

Cú Chulainn wrote:

I’m training myself everyday to be ruthless in logic only.

You are on the path to atheism.

Only the strong can question their own beliefs.

Then you just may be the weakest person on this forum.

[X11Spectator 4520]

Maybe, maybe not.

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

Please do have a think about that question, it’s not posed to be controversial.

Deflection. Intentional evasion. You did not answer the question posed.

X11 wrote:

No I don’t think that, I think its a fine question.

That is yet another contradiction. If you read what you initially wrote, you said that ‘it is meaningless to speak of “before” the BB. Now you are saying, no you think it’s a fine question. That is double talk, and completely contradictory. Good job, you flip flop like the best of them.

X11 wrote:

I could speculate such for sure.

Again, that is not an answer. It is a hallow blanket statement.

X11 wrote:

My answers will not satisfy you but I will answer;

“WHY” is a question only you can answer. It is only you who can give your life meaning. Please don’t seek it from someone or something else.

“HOW” – your parents f~~~ed.

“Where” – your mothers womb.

Here you are intentionally dodging the question. You know perfectly well in which context it was asked. But you are answering in a non relevant and glib fashion.

You’re completely full of s~~~. Please by all means, keep going. The more you dodge, deflect and bulls~~~. The more we see what you’re made of.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

Maybe, maybe not.

What’s wrong sweetheart? Did that last question point out your arrogance and self-inflated manner?

Your total lack of character or maturity?

Do you think people are oblivious to your pretentious intellectual facade?

They are not. And I’ll tell you yet again. You’re full of s~~~. You’re a lying, double talking prick. The world is full of spineless pricks like you. Immature. Meek and just small. Lacking any inherent depth or substance.

You’re empty and small. Just as your responses and behavior suggest.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[X11Spectator 4520]

You sound triggered, just keep frauding bro.

If chu wants clarification on my answers to his questions I will oblige.

You get no such privilege until you can demonstrate you have some knowledge of actual science not that fraud science bulls~~~ I exposed.

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

Keep dodging and evading. You’re really predictable.

If you had a set of b~~~~, you’d address the questions posed. But you don’t.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[Anonymous 1]

Someone mention Muslims and we’ll have a full on bar room brawl.

[X11Spectator 4520]

@stentorian

Parapsychology researcher that grows crops and hasn’t published in a science journal since the 80’s.

Nuff said.

Bwahaha.

[Author]

Posts