Why are there so many atheists these days... (srs)(warning dear diary)

[joblank]

Because there's no reason to believe there is a god.

/thread

Not entirely true, I believe religious people generally live happier lives.

[clamps121]

this. With a purely scientific approach to religion/deities, you will see things like an atheist. With a purely emotional, or hopeful/wishful (as in faith) approach, you will see things like a theist.

I have faith that a flying spaghetti monster exists, and it told me your god doesn't exist.

[NIguy]

It refers to the fact that the only way we see things is when they release photons. We don't 'see' any matter, we just see the photons that everything absorbs and re-emits. So in order to see things we have to shoot photons at them and look at the photons it re-emits, but doing so increases the energy of the atom and changes its state.

You can basically just think of it like this; we only see things that we can shine a flashlight on, but once we shine the flashlight on anything it changes what it 'looks' like. It's not that the act of observing something changes it, it's that something being in a state where it IS OBSERVABLE means it's already altered.

It refers to the fact that the only way we see things is when they release photons. We don't 'see' any matter, we just see the photons that everything absorbs and re-emits. So in order to see things we have to shoot photons at them and look at the photons it re-emits, but doing so increases the energy of the atom and changes its state.

You can basically just think of it like this; we only see things that we can shine a flashlight on, but once we shine the flashlight on anything it changes what it 'looks' like. It's not that the act of observing something changes it, it's that something being in a state where it IS OBSERVABLE means it's already altered.

...and does this still stand wrt the double slit experiment, were the wave function collapses for whatever reason when being observed?

[moogleshieh]

Not entirely true, I believe religious people generally live happier lives.

Religious people don't generally live happier lives because they believe in a hell. Hell causes people to stress out. Also, when god fails to protect them or their loved ones can create hatred in their hearts. Kind of a vague statement for you to make.

[clamps121]

Not entirely true, I believe religious people generally live happier lives.

ignorance is bliss, I could smash my head in with a hammer and be the happiest man alive but I'd rather not

[blue_aviators]

I agreed with you all the way until your parentheses. Until there is evidence for a deity, I can not believe in any.

evidence for a deity, been baffling atheist philosophers for hundreds of years even today

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

[midniteOG]

atheists = religous hipsters

[joblank]

Religious people don't generally live happier lives because they believe in a hell. Hell causes people to stress out. Also, when god fails to protect them or their loved ones can create hatred in their hearts. Kind of a vague statement for you to make.

But they can always confess their sins and be forgiven. Losing a loved one is difficult for anyone. When I lost my grandma my religious family members believed she went to heaven and that they will see her again. I don't see the point you are trying to make.

I'd like to point out that I'm not religious, this is just a general observation I have made.

[BrotatoChip]

...and does this still stand wrt the double slit experiment, were the wave function collapses for whatever reason when being observed?

what? the double slit experiment has nothing to do with the observer effect. It's just meant to show that light acts as a wave and as a result can give rise to constructive and destructive interference. The interference isn't a unique property of light, ANYTHING that can be described by a wave function can exhibit interference, even ocean waves.

[lexinak]

That's a totally valid stance. Assuming a deity did exist, I bet it would be impossible to prove with evidence, or in any real scientific way.

Belief in a diety can't come from logic or reason, imo, it has to come from your feeling or intuition. Emotional intelligence vs logical/rational intelligence.

Just my thoughts...

So your "god" is on the same philosophical level as Santa Claus.

Do I really need to explain why it's a bad idea to believe in things that don't have any evidence to support them? Because if you don't know that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[stimjunkie]

I don't know whether to laugh or be saddened by the amount of weak minded individuals and awful posts in this thread.

[NIguy]

what? the double slit experiment has nothing to do with the observer effect. It's just meant to show that light acts as a wave and as a result can give rise to constructive and destructive interference. The interference isn't a unique property of light, ANYTHING that can be described by a wave function can exhibit interference, even ocean waves.

hmm it now clear as fuk that you have been talking about a completely different thing than I have.

I have been talking about the double slit experiment the entire time and the effect of an observer in that experiment. Just because I used observer and effect in the same sentence does not mean that I am talking specifically about the 'observer effect.' I'm talking about how the effect of an observer alters the experimental outcome in the situation of the double slit experiment

edit - just so I am very clear

ds exp.
when not observed electrons go through both slits
when observed they go only through one
idea in quantum physics is that the observer by simply observing collapses the wave function

[blue_aviators]

EVIDENCE FOR GOD

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

this philosophical statement has puzzled many atheist philosophers for 800 years, still today many of the critiques of this argument are very weak. You learn about this guy and his theory in nearly every philosophy class. Very huge argument.

[ejeyol]

So your "god" is on the same philosophical level as Santa Claus.

Do I really need to explain why it's a bad idea to believe in things that don't have any evidence to support them? Because if you don't know that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Yes, "my god" and Santa Claus both have the same amount of scientific evidence. But drawing from my own life, and what I feel, there is some evidence for god. This evidence wouldn't hold in a scientific paper, and probably wouldn't even hold up to a logical argument, but to me it is evidence nonetheless. Which is why it is called faith...

[ejeyol]

I don't know whether to laugh or be saddened by the amount of weak minded individuals and awful posts in this thread.

Then enlighten us, oh wise one.

[BrotatoChip]

hmm it now clear as fuk that you have been talking about a completely different thing than I have.

I have been talking about the double slit experiment the entire time and the effect of an observer in that experiment. Just because I used observer and effect in the same sentence does not mean that I am talking specifically about the 'observer effect.' I'm talking about how the effect of an observer alters the experimental outcome in the situation of the double slit experiment

edit - just so I am very clear

ds exp.
when not observed electrons go through both slits
when observed they go only through one
idea in quantum physics is that the observer by simply observing collapses the wave function

I don't know where you heard this crap but it's completely wrong. Seriously, I can't tell you how wrong that is, please show me a source.

[ejeyol]

ignorance is bliss, I could smash my head in with a hammer and be the happiest man alive but I'd rather not

I don't think smashing my head with a hammer would make me the happiest man alive.

However when people truely believe in their deity, they usually are pretty happy.

[NIguy]

EVIDENCE FOR GOD

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

this philosophical statement has puzzled many atheist philosophers for 800 years, still today many of the critiques of this argument are very weak. You learn about this guy and his theory in nearly every philosophy class. Very huge argument.

My promise that I will read, think about it and respond to it.

I will say straight up, that fundamentally I come from the perspective of cause and effect, therefore I am more likely to believe in a God than someone who believe that from nothing comes everything.

Yes, "my god" and Santa Claus both have the same amount of scientific evidence. But drawing from my own life, and what I feel, there is some evidence for god. This evidence wouldn't hold in a scientific paper, and probably wouldn't even hold up to a logical argument, but to me it is evidence nonetheless. Which is why it is called faith...

Exactly, it is wrong to suggest that 'feelings' are worthless and should not be used when making a judgement because feelings are no different that thoughts fundamentally, they have a chemical basis, and if quantum physics/quantum biology are right and these atoms have quantum properties who the fuk knows what these feelings are? They could be as real as anything else.

[ejeyol]

atheists = religous hipsters

lol this is true in 90% of cases

[BrotatoChip]

EVIDENCE FOR GOD

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

this philosophical statement has puzzled many atheist philosophers for 800 years, still today many of the critiques of this argument are very weak. You learn about this guy and his theory in nearly every philosophy class. Very huge argument.

Aquinas is a huge *******

His argument is this:
I shall define God's properties as follows; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and he has always existed
I now have proof he exists because in the DEFINITION of God, it says he has always existed

100% srs, I remember taking a philosophy of religion course and just losing it when we started reading Aquinas

[NIguy]

I don't know where you heard this crap but it's completely wrong. Seriously, I can't tell you how wrong that is, please show me a source.

Google it ffs, it's not like there isn't **** loads of links on it, and prove to me how the interpretation of Quantum mechanics is wrong. How the fuk have you not heard of this before?

[joblank]

So your "god" is on the same philosophical level as Santa Claus.

Do I really need to explain why it's a bad idea to believe in things that don't have any evidence to support them? Because if you don't know that, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

hello heavenly blessed beauty

wait what?

[ejeyol]

Exactly, it is wrong to suggest that 'feelings' are worthless and should not be used when making a judgement because feels are no different that thoughts fundamentally, they have a chemical basis, and if as quantum physics/quantum biology are right these atoms have quantum properties who the fuk knows what these feelings are? They could be as real as anything else.

Nice, the thought process you're on blows my mind to bits. lol

How deep does the rabbit hole go....

[BrotatoChip]

Google it ffs, it's not like there isn't **** loads of links on it

OK now you're just being a fuking *******

brb bold claims of science showing supernatural and impossible results
brb no evidence, and when asked for evidence just say "YOU find the evidence for me"

You're not even TRYING to learn or think rationally you dumb *******, will neg on recharge for being so stupid.

[NIguy]

Nice, the thought process you're on blows my mind to bits. lol

How deep does the rabbit hole go....

yeh doesn't mean it isn't complete bull**** though lol

[MrVaginaSoup]

/thread

[NYCJovi]

Sigh. The OP of this thread has got to be trolling.

It's been known by top scholars for years even centuries now that the Abrahamic religions are basically mythological. There are plenty of books detailing history of the formations of world's three major religions. Seriously, there is a ton of information picking apart religions in every aspect.

The people who are religious probably aren't looking for truth. Most of the time they just want assert their beliefs, can't understand why others don't believe what they believe, and want to prove others wrong. Religious people who are looking for truth can find it are almost always more open to the possibility of taking the red pill.

As a former Christian i can understand why religious people just don't get that what they believe has been made up. A lot of religious people just can't grasp the notion that what they've been brought up to believe is a lie. They look around and see what their belief and faith in god has done for them and the people they know. All the positive experiences pile up and serves to further solidify their belief.

The reason why there are more Atheists now more than ever are because there's better access to information. You can find almost anything you really need on the super library that's the internet. That's why so many people who are active online besides for things like social media and games are not religious. Atheist can't speak out IRL b/c the religious people just shout and scream and drown out what they have to say.

Also, arguing against reason is silly. You're basically explaining your reasoning for not using or "believing" in reason and logic...

[ejeyol]

mr vaginasoup pls go

don't just post an image of something off topic and think that you just "ended the thread"

[BrotatoChip]

mr vaginasoup pls go

don't just post an image of something off topic and think that you just "ended the thread"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

It's not his fault you can't accept the truth.

[NYCJovi]

[*img]http://i.imgur.com/BLOT7.jpg[*/img]

/thread

Or in words: