Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?

Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?

There are 11901 comments on the Free Republic story from May 5, 2011, titled Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?. In it, Free Republic reports that:

'RELIGION SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RIDICULE, HATRED AND CONTEMPT' Atheism, or 'antitheism,' which was once considered taboo in America, has gone somewhat mainstream in today's society.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#6547 Dec 1, 2013
Absolutely. Lighter ships pull higher gees, so it helps if your astronaut can take it.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting. And being fully enclosed, they'd take high accelerations better as well.

Judged:

14

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#6548 Dec 1, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to ask your opinion about this response that I have gotten on another forum.(This is for Rhill as well)
"By some random quantum events I assume they are referring to measurement outcomes on quantum systems. These are not known to be truly random. Whether or not they call them random depends on their interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The measurement outcomes are effectively random to us, since we currently have no way of predicting them. Whether or not they are truly random is debatable, and an active area of current research.
It's like weather patterns were also considered random just 100 years ago, it turns out that they are not. Certain conditions cause certain outcomes whether we make the connections or not.
As far as a higher conciseness, lets just say that if you were out in the desert and found a giant indescribable piece of machinery that you'd never seen before much less knew how to operate would you just assume it was there by chance? That it wasnt designed by someone with a fairly high level of consciousness or that it was designed without purpose? Even if you didnt know what that purpose was it would be fairly obvious that it didnt just get there on it's own. The universe is also giant piece of machinery. Not just the universe, but the microcosmic universe as well. From the smallest particle to the largest black hole the universe is a vast machine that works like clockwork right down to the most intimate detail.
There is one universal truth that applies to all things, that truth being cause and effect. You cant have one without the other in every aspect of existence. Nothing is random whether we understand the cause or not. That being the case,then to say that there is not some design behind the universe is akin to finding that giant piece of machinery in the desert and not believing as in the case with atheists that someone or something put it or left it there.
I dont go for the popular explanations such as religion would have us do, but I do suspect that all this chit here...was done by something smart."
The person who wrote this response wasn't a xtain, but one of the people who subscribe to the vague theory of a "higher power."
On the "random quantum events" thing, pretty much go along with that. Not really a "random" system, but the system's state when we take our snapshots can't be predicted. Not sure unpredictability itself is enough to define something as "random". It is said that the particle, wave or whatever possesses 'all possible states' at the same time. This, of course, brings up interesting possibilities regarding superstrings, multiple dimensions/universes, etc. and how things work at this exceedingly fine level.

The second part ... all baloney. You simply cannot compare the Universe to a machine. No way, no how. The Universe does not "work like clockwork" ... it is a violent and chaotic place. No comparison, none whatsoever.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#6549 Dec 1, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to ask your opinion about this response that I have gotten on another forum.(This is for Rhill as well)
"By some random quantum events I assume they are referring to measurement outcomes on quantum systems. These are not known to be truly random. Whether or not they call them random depends on their interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The measurement outcomes are effectively random to us, since we currently have no way of predicting them. Whether or not they are truly random is debatable, and an active area of current research.
It's like weather patterns were also considered random just 100 years ago, it turns out that they are not. Certain conditions cause certain outcomes whether we make the connections or not.
As far as a higher conciseness, lets just say that if you were out in the desert and found a giant indescribable piece of machinery that you'd never seen before much less knew how to operate would you just assume it was there by chance? That it wasnt designed by someone with a fairly high level of consciousness or that it was designed without purpose? Even if you didnt know what that purpose was it would be fairly obvious that it didnt just get there on it's own. The universe is also giant piece of machinery. Not just the universe, but the microcosmic universe as well. From the smallest particle to the largest black hole the universe is a vast machine that works like clockwork right down to the most intimate detail.
There is one universal truth that applies to all things, that truth being cause and effect. You cant have one without the other in every aspect of existence. Nothing is random whether we understand the cause or not. That being the case,then to say that there is not some design behind the universe is akin to finding that giant piece of machinery in the desert and not believing as in the case with atheists that someone or something put it or left it there.
I dont go for the popular explanations such as religion would have us do, but I do suspect that all this chit here...was done by something smart."
The person who wrote this response wasn't a xtain, but one of the people who subscribe to the vague theory of a "higher power."
I have heard this one previously, and I've seen the response by folk who really do understand quantum mechanics.

The answer they gave is essentially that we *do* have a pretty good grasp of QM, and one of it's fundamental properties is that at the quantum mechanical level, the universe is both chaotic, random and uncaused.

All at the same time.

There is no real debate about that, among the scientists who are studying this stuff at it's bleeding edge. Nor among the scientists who are trying to develop experimental proof about qm (those lovely men and women who operate the super collider).

So the argument that the universe is a "massive, clockwork machine" is fundamentally false.

Furthermore, from chaos, patterns *can* emerge. I cannot describe it eloquently, but I've been told this from people who's expertise is both statistics and chaos theory. I'll take their word for it, I suppose.

And it appears that our universe is such a thing: an emergent pattern on top of what is basically a chaotic foundation.

Judged:

11

11

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#6550 Dec 1, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
On the "random quantum events" thing, pretty much go along with that. Not really a "random" system, but the system's state when we take our snapshots can't be predicted. Not sure unpredictability itself is enough to define something as "random". It is said that the particle, wave or whatever possesses 'all possible states' at the same time. This, of course, brings up interesting possibilities regarding superstrings, multiple dimensions/universes, etc. and how things work at this exceedingly fine level.
The second part ... all baloney. You simply cannot compare the Universe to a machine. No way, no how. The Universe does not "work like clockwork" ... it is a violent and chaotic place. No comparison, none whatsoever.
Somehow I missed your reply. Yes, I agree with your conclusion: the second part is b.s.

The universe is a very chaotic place.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LCNLin

United States

#6551 Dec 1, 2013
81,268 chaotic posts?

"Furthermore, from chaos, patterns *can* emerge. I cannot describe it eloquently, but I've been told this from people who's expertise is both statistics and chaos theory. I'll take their word for it, I suppose."

= faith

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#6552 Dec 2, 2013
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
On the "random quantum events" thing, pretty much go along with that. Not really a "random" system, but the system's state when we take our snapshots can't be predicted. Not sure unpredictability itself is enough to define something as "random". It is said that the particle, wave or whatever possesses 'all possible states' at the same time. This, of course, brings up interesting possibilities regarding superstrings, multiple dimensions/universes, etc. and how things work at this exceedingly fine level.
The second part ... all baloney. You simply cannot compare the Universe to a machine. No way, no how. The Universe does not "work like clockwork" ... it is a violent and chaotic place. No comparison, none whatsoever.
Thanks for the response.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#6553 Dec 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have heard this one previously, and I've seen the response by folk who really do understand quantum mechanics.
The answer they gave is essentially that we *do* have a pretty good grasp of QM, and one of it's fundamental properties is that at the quantum mechanical level, the universe is both chaotic, random and uncaused.
All at the same time.
There is no real debate about that, among the scientists who are studying this stuff at it's bleeding edge. Nor among the scientists who are trying to develop experimental proof about qm (those lovely men and women who operate the super collider).
So the argument that the universe is a "massive, clockwork machine" is fundamentally false.
Furthermore, from chaos, patterns *can* emerge. I cannot describe it eloquently, but I've been told this from people who's expertise is both statistics and chaos theory. I'll take their word for it, I suppose.
And it appears that our universe is such a thing: an emergent pattern on top of what is basically a chaotic foundation.
Even in human life, something chaotic or accidental can result in a pattern.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#6554 Dec 2, 2013
Absolutely - and to be expected. Apple had to put a pseudo random number generator into the iPod because people didn't like getting the same song three times in a row, which is what should happen from time to time if the iPod was truly random.

If instead there were no coincidences, that could indicate design.
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Even in human life, something chaotic or accidental can result in a pattern.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#6555 Dec 2, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the response.
Unqualified, of course, but you're welcome to it!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#6556 Dec 2, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
81,268 chaotic posts?
"Furthermore, from chaos, patterns *can* emerge. I cannot describe it eloquently, but I've been told this from people who's expertise is both statistics and chaos theory. I'll take their word for it, I suppose."
= faith
Not "faith" ... Trust. Big difference. Science 'believers' TRUST the system, the Scientific Method, to produce reliable results. It does. We know (trust) that with the proper investment in study and effort, we would reach very simular conclusions. We (all) demonstrate our Trust when we ride in an airplane, take an antibiotic or flip on a light switch. You 'bots demonstrate your lack of "faith" with every muttered prayer and get results statistically indistinguishable from a coin toss. All hail his Holy Name! LOL

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#6557 Dec 2, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Absolutely - and to be expected. Apple had to put a pseudo random number generator into the iPod because people didn't like getting the same song three times in a row, which is what should happen from time to time if the iPod was truly random.
If instead there were no coincidences, that could indicate design.
<quoted text>
I used to love my TRS-80's pseudo-random-number generator. It would quite predictably generate the same "random" number sequence given the same seed. I got around the problem by converting the Real-Time-Clock's output into an integer, giving me 24x3600 different 'seeds' depending on when I ran the program. The odds of running it at the exact same 'second' were rather small. Ahhh ... the good old days!

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#6558 Dec 2, 2013
The above post got me to lamenting the lack of programming in BASIC on modern computers. This led me to this " http://smallbasic.com/" ; ... programming is ALIVE AND WELL and free for the taking!!! Now all I need is the time to learn a new language. BASIC ain't what it used to be ...
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#6559 Dec 2, 2013
I taught myself Z80A on an old Spectrum and learned to do tricks with the clock too.

The UK has a savings scheme which pays out like a lottery in lieu of interest. A random number generator called ERNIE (Electronic Random Number Indicating Equipment) used the noise from a bank of neon tubes because a digital solution could not be proved to be random.

ERNIE was such a star that old ladies used to send him christmas cards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERN...
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to love my TRS-80's pseudo-random-number generator. It would quite predictably generate the same "random" number sequence given the same seed. I got around the problem by converting the Real-Time-Clock's output into an integer, giving me 24x3600 different 'seeds' depending on when I ran the program. The odds of running it at the exact same 'second' were rather small. Ahhh ... the good old days!
LCNLin

United States

#6560 Dec 2, 2013
Atheists Ridicule Christianity because they can't prove atheist philosophy?

Atheist seem good on the attack,
defending their beliefs
the seem to go limp :-)

Judged:

12

12

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#6561 Dec 2, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I taught myself Z80A on an old Spectrum and learned to do tricks with the clock too.
The UK has a savings scheme which pays out like a lottery in lieu of interest. A random number generator called ERNIE (Electronic Random Number Indicating Equipment) used the noise from a bank of neon tubes because a digital solution could not be proved to be random.
ERNIE was such a star that old ladies used to send him christmas cards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premium_Bond#ERN...
<quoted text>
That is too cool!

I've also read about true random numbers using a frequency counter, and listening to the cosmic rays coming into an appropriate antenna. The actual frequency of the rays is random as far as anyone can prove. It would be "normalized" to the usual values between 1 and 0, of course.

Another method, is to use a fast-decay radioactive source that emits electrons (alpha particles) at a reasonably quick rate. Over a set time period, the exact moment when the next alpha/electron particle is emitted is purely random (as Polymath has explained elsewhere), and again, this is normalized to the usual 0 to 1 range. A slug of californium would do nicely--such as what you'll find inside a typical smoke detector. Then, all you need is a sensor-- a simple photo-electric cell or solar cell, masked from ambient light would work quite well here. Couple this with a 555 integrated chip, and you'd have a lovely, home-brew truly random number generator.

(I'll leave the actual details as an exercise for the student... <laughing>)

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#6562 Dec 2, 2013
The current government lottery system uses noise from transistors. It's a really hard work to get truly random numbers.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That is too cool!
I've also read about true random numbers using a frequency counter, and listening to the cosmic rays coming into an appropriate antenna. The actual frequency of the rays is random as far as anyone can prove. It would be "normalized" to the usual values between 1 and 0, of course.
Another method, is to use a fast-decay radioactive source that emits electrons (alpha particles) at a reasonably quick rate. Over a set time period, the exact moment when the next alpha/electron particle is emitted is purely random (as Polymath has explained elsewhere), and again, this is normalized to the usual 0 to 1 range. A slug of californium would do nicely--such as what you'll find inside a typical smoke detector. Then, all you need is a sensor-- a simple photo-electric cell or solar cell, masked from ambient light would work quite well here. Couple this with a 555 integrated chip, and you'd have a lovely, home-brew truly random number generator.
(I'll leave the actual details as an exercise for the student... <laughing>)

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#6563 Dec 2, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The current government lottery system uses noise from transistors. It's a really hard work to get truly random numbers.
<quoted text>
Yes it is.

I listened to a very lengthy discussion from a computer guru, back in college, on that very subject.

It turns out, that your average computer is really *crappy* at random numbers-- in fact? If you do manage to tickle one into making them? That usually means it's broken-- and in a bad way.

:D

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Thinking

Merthyr Tydfil, UK

#6564 Dec 2, 2013
Absolutely. To prove beyond reasonable doubt that these lottery generators are truly random distributors - and reliable - involves a lot of mathematics professors.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is.
I listened to a very lengthy discussion from a computer guru, back in college, on that very subject.
It turns out, that your average computer is really *crappy* at random numbers-- in fact? If you do manage to tickle one into making them? That usually means it's broken-- and in a bad way.
:D

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Thinking

Sydney, Australia

#6566 Dec 2, 2013
jolo wrote:
<quoted text>
I see youve had another thread of mine deleted cuck
Teleological Arguments for God's Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleologica...
Yep they are either never listed as last poster or deleted

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#6567 Dec 2, 2013
LCNLin wrote:
Atheists Ridicule Christianity because they can't prove atheist philosophy?
Atheist seem good on the attack,
defending their beliefs
the seem to go limp :-)
Our philosophy is simple. You have to prove that your god exists, case closed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Dogen 81,862
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 9 hr Science 2,196
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Science 33,086
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 18 Eagle 12 - 3,978
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) Oct 11 old_moose 233
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) Oct 10 blacklagoon 3 94
Deconversion (Feb '17) Oct 10 Eagle 12 - 145
More from around the web