If God doesn't exist then how was everything/the earth created?

[Luke O]

I always love the nonbelievers and their reasons why God doesn't exist.

I struggle at times to believe in a god, but I do know there is some sort of higher being out there...after all, the earth and life itself came into existence from nothing.

When people start blaming God for every bad thing that happens in their lives, that's where they fail to realize God gave everyone free will in how to handle their trials.
They can either stay mad at Him for giving them such a harsh life or do something about it to get their lives to where they want to be.

There's also Satan out there so if people are questioning why there are bad people who do bad things who don't care what they do...that's from Satan, not God.

And some people allow their demons to over power themselves.

If God doesn't exist then how did this very earth and everything living come into existence?

The second sentence there is something I come across often, as it's assumed to be a "well it must have done" about the universe coming into existence from nothing. For a start, it's impossible to make something from nothing, but you can make something from something. It isn't conclusive that we were magicked into existence, I'd say it is conclusive that we weren't, unless we can create something from nothing in the lab (but then we'd know we wouldn't need a god to do that).

I see gods as an obsolete stage in human development. They were thanked for the rains to save harvest, feared when lightning struck or earthquakes shook, back when we did not understand how things worked and we felt that we needed something to project our feelings on. We thanked the gods for giving us children and tried to understand their motive when diseases, conflict or famine took those children away from us. As this relationship with our intangible punchbags developed, so did their complexity - they had names, appearances, stories, families, rivalries and hierarchies. We felt we could touch them, be with them, talk to them and receive punishment when we went against the rules we made up in their name. We started to murder our children for the gods' favour and purge undesirables from our tribes. We would also go to war with other tribes in their name, relentlessly slaughtering those who worshipped other deities. We'd built grand cities and decorate them with images and sigils of our gods, appoint intermediaries to deal with them on our behalf, all the while fortifying our own belief system by indoctrinating our young as soon as they were able to understand and question the world.

Religions themselves would evolve and spawn new religions, sometimes offshoots, sometimes hybrids. They would swarm to take over the entire planet, crushing and absorbing smaller religions as they progressed, fighting the bigger religions when they collided with them.

And then you have some atheist pointing out the ridiculousness of it all, and they won't believe a single word of it.

 

[entropie]

by porn

 

[Coriolis]

Actually, a Muslim is defined by what they do, much the same way a Nazi or Serial Killer is defined by what they do. A black person cannot stop being black, regardless of what they believe (though transracialism is becoming a thing) whereas a Muslim can simply deconvert and join the real world. I will judge others based on their pernicious beliefs. How is somebody born into a Nazi family different from somebody born into a Muslim family?

Actually, no, especially given that most people are raised in their religion by their parents. Sure, it is possible to come to a different understanding than they had, or to reject one's childhood faith altogether, but that is as difficult as rejecting your culture. Our religious identity, especially when inherited, is thus about who we are and not what we do, almost as much as our culture or nationality. Indeed these aspects are often intertwined and difficult to separate. To make a different Nazi analogy, Nazis killed Jews even when they didn't act very Jewish. A Jewish background or family were more than enough.

The greater shortcoming in your analogy is that "what Muslims do" differs greatly across the world's Muslim population. This means that a given set of actions is not an inherent property of the faith, but rather the choice of some (subsets of) adherents. I am not aware of any diverse strains within Nazism that preach tolerance of Jews, peaceful coexistence with non-Aryans, etc., which makes that analogy not applicable.

Indonesia is more moderate than other Muslim nations, but it still pretty radical by western standards. A poor man, the mayor of Jakarta, was recently convicted in that country of simply not being a Muslim. He wasn't murdered to my knowledge, but having such a law on the books is very backwards.

Some of the US states still have religious tests for holding public office, so we are not that far ahead.

Does anyone wonder what the next "dangerous ideology" will be when the right gets bored with islam?

Well, it used to be Fascism, then Communism, now Islam. If we are lucky, they will eventually set their sights on Christianity.

 

[Mole]

it's impossible to make something from nothing

Meanwhile, quantum mechanics has revealed atomic particles popping into existence and popping out of existence around us all the time. And this is real because we can actually measure it accurately.

So something is coming into existence from nothing around us all the time, and then going out of existence.

 

[Coriolis]

Meanwhile, quantum mechanics has revealed atomic particles popping into existence and popping out of existence around us all the time. And this is real because we can actually measure it accurately.

So something is coming into existence from nothing around us all the time, and then going out of existence.

But it doesn't go out of existence. It just goes somewhere else.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I see gods as an obsolete stage in human development. They were thanked for the rains to save harvest, feared when lightning struck or earthquakes shook, back when we did not understand how things worked and we felt that we needed something to project our feelings on. We thanked the gods for giving us children and tried to understand their motive when diseases, conflict or famine took those children away from us. As this relationship with our intangible punchbags developed, so did their complexity - they had names, appearances, stories, families, rivalries and hierarchies. We felt we could touch them, be with them, talk to them and receive punishment when we went against the rules we made up in their name. We started to murder our children for the gods' favour and purge undesirables from our tribes. We would also go to war with other tribes in their name, relentlessly slaughtering those who worshipped other deities. We'd built grand cities and decorate them with images and sigils of our gods, appoint intermediaries to deal with them on our behalf, all the while fortifying our own belief system by indoctrinating our young as soon as they were able to understand and question the world.

The time might be ripe for Electric Monks:

High on a rocky promontory sat an Electric Monk on a bored horse.
...
The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.

Unfortunately this Electric Monk had developed a fault, and had started to believe all kinds of things, more or less at random. It was even beginning to believe things they'd have difficulty believing in Salt Lake City.

 

[Mole]

But it doesn't go out of existence. It just goes somewhere else.

This is news. We can measure when it comes briefly into existence, but so far we cannot measure non existent particles.

You say with confidence they go someplace else, just where is this someplace else?

 

[Coriolis]

This is news. We can measure when it comes briefly into existence, but so far we cannot measure non existent particles.

You say with confidence they go someplace else, just where is this someplace else?

That depends. It's just not the original location. I assume you have read about the uncertainty principle.

 

[Mole]

That depends. It's just not the original location. I assume you have read about the uncertainty principle.

If we can't measure it, we don't know its there.

We can measure the original location with accuracy, but we don't know where the not original location is, so we certainly can't and don't measure it.

The Uncertainly Principle tells us particles pop into existence for a brief period than disappear, it does not say they go to another unmeasurable location.

Your not original unmeasurable location seems to be very like a supernatural location. I do understand that some of us try to validate the supernatural using quantum mechanics, but it is a vulgar use of quantum mechanics, and dare I say, in bad taste.

You see, good taste saves us from making vulgar mistakes.

 

[Lark]

Well, it used to be Fascism, then Communism, now Islam. If we are lucky, they will eventually set their sights on Christianity.

Eventually? Look around you, its long since been the target, if you want to destroy a thing you throughly corrupt it first and render it a poor reflection of what it once was and was meant to be.

Personally, I hope you find a way out of sectarianism but the decision's got to be your own.

 

[anticlimatic]

Meaning arises from meaninglessness through recursion and self-reference.

 

[Coriolis]

Eventually? Look around you, its long since been the target, if you want to destroy a thing you throughly corrupt it first and render it a poor reflection of what it once was and was meant to be.

Personally, I hope you find a way out of sectarianism but the decision's got to be your own.

I have long left that behind - no worries. Christianity has not been targeted by "the right" in the sort of organized, deliberate, institutional manner you mentioned in your earlier post. Apples and oranges. Sure, there are plenty of Christians corrupting Christianity, just like Muslims corrupting Islam. Groups like ISIS are at the top of that list.

 

[Lark]

I have long left that behind - no worries. Christianity has not been targeted by "the right" in the sort of organized, deliberate, institutional manner you mentioned in your earlier post. Apples and oranges. Sure, there are plenty of Christians corrupting Christianity, just like Muslims corrupting Islam. Groups like ISIS are at the top of that list.

I think you're occupied with the monkey and not the organ grinder to be honest.

 

[Coriolis]

I think you're occupied with the monkey and not the organ grinder to be honest.

Your meaning here escapes me. If there is an actual point you wish me to consider, you will need to be clearer.

 

[Mole]

Meaning, Reality, and Nihilism

Meaning arises from meaninglessness through recursion and self-reference.

Fortunately we can test meaning against reality, so rather than arising from meaninglessness, meaning arises from reality.

Since the 17th century and the Western Enlightenment we have been using evidence and reason to test meaning against reality, with the great success we see around us in modern medicine, modern economics, a multiplicity of factual sciences, modern liberal democracy, and our understanding of the smallest particles to the largest groups of galaxies.

We no longer believe as Jesus did that demons cause disease, and astronomy has shown that astrology has no basis in reality, and that mbti is a fantasy like astrology.

However nihilism, the hatred of what is, is common among fantasists, because fantasy is inherently unsatisfying, and the fantasists project their dissatisfaction onto the whole world, and so become nihilists.

 

[Lark]

Your meaning here escapes me. If there is an actual point you wish me to consider, you will need to be clearer.

When you attack religion you make no sense because not all religion fits the frame you are using, in fact the greater part of it for the greater part of human history is exactly the opposite, all the monumental progress in christendom attests to it, therefore what you're talking about is religion being used as a vehicle for malice and hate, if it wherent religion it would be something else and often it is.

 

[Mole]

When you attack religion you make no sense because not all religion fits the frame you are using, in fact the greater part of it for the greater part of human history is exactly the opposite, all the monumental progress in christendom attests to it, therefore what you're talking about is religion being used as a vehicle for malice and hate, if it wherent religion it would be something else and often it is.

The question is not whether Christianity made progress, but is it true. Does the theology of Christianity reflect reality, or does Christianity not reflect reality?

 

[Lark]

The question is not whether Christianity made progress, but is it true. Does the theology of Christianity reflect reality, or does Christianity not reflect reality?

Mole, rather than engaging you in what's likely to be a very, very lengthy, but fruitless, discussion with you returning to the script that you've learned by heart, as you have before, I'd just direct you to do a bit more reading on the topic.

The conflating of religion or christianity with child abuse is wrong, equally any equating of it with violence etc. is wrong too, you're taking a thing at its worst and confusing it with the thing itself, if you're seriously interested in questions of more theological depth, which I doubt, there's plenty to read besides all the voguish opinions of contemporary atheist journalists or pundits.

 

[Coriolis]

When you attack religion you make no sense because not all religion fits the frame you are using, in fact the greater part of it for the greater part of human history is exactly the opposite, all the monumental progress in christendom attests to it, therefore what you're talking about is religion being used as a vehicle for malice and hate, if it wherent religion it would be something else and often it is.

That is exactly my point. It isn't Islam, or Christianity, or Communism, or whatever other ideology per se leading to violence and oppression. These are all just convenient tools in the hands of humans who will sometimes give in to their baser nature. Humans use the exact same tools to do much good. This is why it is foolish to target the ideology itself. One should instead target the actions, whatever rationale is presented for them.

 

[Mole]

That is exactly my point. It isn't Islam, or Christianity, or Communism, or whatever other ideology per se leading to violence and oppression. These are all just convenient tools in the hands of humans who will sometimes give in to their baser nature. Humans use the exact same tools to do much good. This is why it is foolish to target the ideology itself. One should instead target the actions, whatever rationale is presented for them.

Au contraire, we create our tools, then our tools create us, we create our ideologies then our ideologies create us, we create our religions then our religions create us, we create our Gods then our Gods create us. So beware of what we wish for. Whatever we worship we become, whether it is our ideology, our technology, our religions, or our Gods.