Atheism and Self-Esteem

[lithium.]

thx for the link but i already know what heat-death is but i just have a hard time believe that everything will just die out. You probably think its crazy that i believe that. But since we don't know like anything about how the universe works, its hard for me to believe that all the energy will effectively die.

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
No, seesaw, it will not just be dark in "some places". The entire universe will cool down. Please do some reading on this.

As the universe ages, entropy will take effect. This will result in heat death.

As it expands, the process of expansion will lead to cold death.

Either way that you look at it, at some point in the future there will be no light and no heat in the universe. It will be cold, non-luminous matter and space-time expanding forever.

Cheers,
Prax

Yeah i do agree with what physics say about the universe being cold and just a expanding forever, but right now we know almost nothing about the universe and how it works, and it have a hard time believe that all energy will die, since new stars and planets form all the time.

But for some reason that is the only thing that i KIND OF disagree with scinece and physics. Everything else i agree with. Weird huh.

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by seesaw
thx for the link but i already know what heat-death is but i just have a hard time believe that everything will just die out.

Well, seesaw, there lies the problem!  Remember, the argument from incredulity is a common one among YECs (ie.  I can't believe it, therefore it isn't so), so do be careful!!

 You probably think its crazy that i believe that. But since we don't know like anything about how the universe works, its hard for me to believe that all the energy will effectively die.

The thing is, mate, we do know something about how the universe works.  Maybe not more than half a poofteenth about it all, but enough to postulate the ultimate result of expansion and entropy.  Also, we learn more as time passes.

Maybe you're right, and maybe future discoveries will lead to completely different conclusions.  However, with the evidence and knowledge that we currently have, the cooling of the universe is the only reasonable conclusion.

Cheers,

Prax

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Praxiteles
Well, seesaw, there lies the problem!  Remember, the argument from incredulity is a common one among YECs (ie.  I can't believe it, therefore it isn't so), so do be careful!!



The thing is, mate, we do know something about how the universe works.  Maybe not more than half a poofteenth about it all, but enough to postulate the ultimate result of expansion and entropy.  Also, we learn more as time passes.

Maybe you're right, and maybe future discoveries will lead to completely different conclusions.  However, with the evidence and knowledge that we currently have, the cooling of the universe is the only reasonable conclusion.

Cheers,

Prax

Well lol i shouldn't have said that, i believe in everything that physics and science says cause of the evidence. I do understand what you are saying, just as the sun dies out all of the other energy will, so i do believe it but i keep thinking about othere theories, like if the theories some day turn out to be true about multi big bangs wouldn't that change everything.

 

[lithium.]

i just got down reading up on this, i have a small question, at the end of everything, will there only be a bunch of black holes like I think. But they would be dead blackholes right or am i missing something.

 

[Praxiteles]

As I understand it, there will be matter in many different forms, just as it exists now: small particles, planets, cores of dead stars (including black holes). So, yeah, there will be black holes, but not just black holes.

And, since gravity will still be in effect, black holes will still be very serious customers!

 

[lithium.]

lol look at my Activity.

Mood: (Edit)

Activity: 666 / 666

that is funny.

 

[Jedi]

Bravo, Jedi, you're doing a wonderful job with your reasoning. I'm really enjoying your posts.

Thanks. I always try my best, though I must say, I’m quite impressed with your abilities as well. It’s not often that I find myself debating alongside a fellow Christian who possesses the intellectual power to keep posting in discussions such as these.

Really? "Atheistic/naturalistic evolution" actually says that? Where? Do you have some atheistic dogma I don't know about?

Without a God to give you worth, you have no more worth than a dollar in a world without humans. There are consequences in believing in Naturalism and Atheism, all of which follow from saying there is no God, and the natural world is all there is. You have yet to explain how anything I’ve said is mistaken according to these presuppositions.

Natural selection is about certain traits increasing the chance of survival (and hence, breeding) for a particular organism in a particular environment. It is not about a bunch of squirrels taking up arms to wipe out a bunch of rival chipmunks.

Natural selection is about the weak being annihilated by the strong (or natural forces). Deer are hunted by wolves, the slow or weak antelope are annihilated by lions, and so on. There is no difference between these situations and the situation of the Holocaust (the Nazis hunting down the Jews and taking over their possessions as a result in a demonstration of strength over weakness).

Defend Islam? From what? Oppression perhaps?

If September 11 was done in the name of Jihad, how were the innocent civilians in the Twin Towers oppressing the people thousands of miles away in the Middle East?

"How"? Why is "how" even relevant?

If you cannot explain how, then why do you believe you possess such meaning? Saying “I have meaning” and leaving it at that is like a dollar saying to itself “I have worth” in a world without humans.

It's MY life we're talking about here, not yours.

Yes, that’s true. However, if you say that all of those with atheistic presuppositions have meaning, what leads you to believe this (since you’re just a product of blind chance with no particular purpose at all if atheism is true)?

I could care less about explaining "how" I found meaning in my life. You (obviously) found meaning in your life via Christianity. I found meaning elsewhere. Simple as that.

Where? Where did you find meaning? And how did this area you found it in possess meaning to give away in the first place? You still have no basis to say someone has meaning as an atheist or naturalist, since all abstract concepts really don’t exist according to those presuppositions. All of your thoughts are mere chemical reflexes in your brain reacting to outside influences. Similarly, since there is no ultimate authority/standard, meaning is not objectively better than non-meaning, truth is equal in worth to falsehood, and all moral judgments are subjective, and so good and evil do not really exist. If atheism/naturalism is true, you have no purpose/meaning, since such things simply don’t exist.

Actually, death is a good thing too. Without that, the world would get over populated pretty quick.

It seems your only reason for saying that death is good is because, without it, life would be in trouble (and so to preserve life, there must be death). However, in a system where overpopulation did not occur, would death still be good? I mean, life isn’t threatened any more. Your reason still presupposes that life is good and should be preserved (and you saw death as only a means to that end for the general population).

i [sic] don't realy [sic] understand, objective reason why survival is a good thing, I don't get it why wouldn't you want to survive.

Why should you? That’s the question posed at the atheist & naturalist. If there’s no reason, then life and death are equal in worth, and should be equally sought after (thus surviving wouldn’t make any sense, since you are just working harder not to die. Why would this be so if death and life are equals?).

If we're gonna talk about "condescension"... is it really necessary to [sic] every single typo someone makes? And you are the one always complaining about the time commitment it takes to reply to these posts.

Typing “[sic]” takes less than a second for me. I spend more of my time thinking and rewording my posts to better convey what I have to say rather than typing things out. Anyway, I’ve explained my doing this before. I’m not doing so to insult the original poster of the comment, but rather to make sure that the readers don’t think I misquoted someone and attributed an error to them that’s not really theirs. I simply clarify that the errors seen are not committed by me, but by the source I’m quoting. It’s just a professional touch.

I'll say. Christians finding out that the whole creation story they've been told is a fairy tale is probably the #1 cause for leaving the faith.

Being told that it’s wrong without looking further into the objections thrown at them is probably more like it. A lot of Christians don’t have an adequate knowledge of both science and hermeneutics to understand what the situation actually is, and so they generally don’t have the ability to fight back against such objections.

As it's been explained on these boards numerous times before, nature just plugs along the best it can with what it's got. There's no objective or goal.

All right, so at least we have someone willing to admit this (from a Naturalistic/Atheistic viewpoint). Would you tell this to my buddy, Pete? He seems to think there’s still meaning, purpose, or things of that nature in looking through an atheistic or naturalistic point of view.

We atheists find our basis for morality, of course, in nature. Where else would we look?

So if you look to nature, and guppies eat their young and black widows eat their mates, does that mean humans can do it too? I mean, if nature is our example on how we ought to live...

Most atheists think moral values are real, but that does not mean they are "objective." They can't be.

I know. The atheistic presupposition demands that all moral judgments be subjective. However, if all moral judgments are subjective, then there is no real standard at all, and so good and evil do not exist, and everything is equally acceptable – thus the destruction of morality.

A value is not a "thing"--it is a function of a mind (which is itself a function). To be objective is to exist independently of a mind. So, an "objective value" is an oxymoron: the existence in the mind of something that is independent of the mind.

A value is more of something that has its worth to be constant. Truth is more valuable than falsehood, and so it should be sought over falsehood (Though an atheist cannot say this). If the mind is nothing but a function, and your thoughts are merely the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms, why should I believe them to be true? Your thoughts are nothing but reflexes (there’s as much truth in your thoughts as there is when a doctor bonks my knee checking for reflexes). If this were true, we’d all be speaking meaningless gibberish.

The word "morality" is just a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in minds. If no minds existed, no morality would exist.

Yep, agreed. Though, through a Christian perspective, God is goodness itself (the source of all that is good), and so morality has always existed and will always exist.

Morality is simply the avoidance of unnecessary harm. Since harm is natural, its avoidance is a material exercise. Organisms suffer as they bump into their environment, and as rational animals, we humans have some choice about how this happens. If we minimize pain and enhance the quality of life, we are moral. If we don't, we are immoral or amoral, depending on our intentions.

Why avoid harm? Why is harm something to be avoided? An atheist would have trouble answering this (“To survive?” That only brings you to the same ‘ol question “Why survive?”). And even then, this definition of morality isn’t entirely accurate, since morality isn’t concerned only with actions, but puts a strong emphasis on intent. If a man trips me in a crowd by accident, I would be less upset with him (after I come to my senses) than with a man who tried to trip me and failed, although the first has hurt me and the second has not. Morality is much more than avoiding harm.

From Dan Barker, a Pastor turned atheist.

If the only thing that's stopping you from killing, stealing, raping, and genocide is faith in your religion, then there's something definitely wrong with you.

It seems he begs the question of morality just like I’ve seen so many other atheists do.

What if I were to take some quotes from the Bible where God killed babies, made war, and practiced genocide?

Then we’d launch into a study of each and every case brought up. I’ve done this plenty of times before.

In any case I don't see how knowing that you're a depraved creature, that if left to your own devices would rape,pillage [sic] and eat babies would help your self-esteem.

Without God, good cannot exist. Take God away from man, and all true goodness is gone, and man decides what he will or will not do free of any sense of moral obligation. Man wouldn’t feel that he “ought” to do anything except for what he wanted. If that included raping and pillaging, who would have any basis to say he’s wrong (since all goodness is gone)?

Nor would knowing that you cannot do this because there is a God "This Big" out there who will punish you forever for the slightest screw up helps either.

This God who created you out of love, and loves you no matter what has provided a way out of the hole you’ve dug yourself in (sin – rebellion against God and all that is good).

Especially when you find out this God is basically in charge because he's the biggest man on the block.

He’s the only man on the block. He’s always existed, and always will (Psalm 90:2).

Basically then the message is: God is the strongest so God is right.

Basically, the message is this: God is goodness itself, and that makes him right. To say that God is wrong is to argue against the very power that enables you to argue at all. It’s like cutting off the branch you’re sitting on, or saying that a stream can naturally flow higher than its own source.

And if God gets mad at you for, whatever reason, probably doing all the raping and murdering you as a human being love to do, God will send you to be tortured forever.

By your own choice, he won’t force you into Heaven. By your own choice, he will not pay your debt of sin (which he isn’t obligated to do in the first place). By your own choice, he’ll let you take the Justice of God for the wrongs you’ve done rather than the grace of God he’s offered through Christ.

In this case it is only by denying your own sick,twisted,disgusting [sic] nature and becoming God's good slave that you will avoid an eternity of torture

It’s a simple matter of choosing good over evil, God over man, and Jesus over all.

 

[Jedi]

How would you feel if I used some of your posts to make a case for the condescending tone of the "general Christian?" He's no more of a "general atheist" than Hitler was a "general Christian."

If you can show me where I’ve insulted or looked down upon people (on a fairly regular basis), then hey, I’m all ears. The thing is, though, if I have been condescending (which I don’t doubt you might find an instance or two given the great number of discussions you and I have shared), I have someone to answer to, and motive to modify my behavior, unlike the atheist.

Wrong. Holy War is actually a phrase coined by the Europeans during the Crusades. There is no direct translation of the word Jihad in modern english [sic].

Then, given I speak English, how else would you have me explain it? I spent 2 years in the religious capitol of Saudi Arabia (Riyadh), so I think it’s safe to say I know a detail or two about Islamic terminology & beliefs. Jihad (though it has a technical, much more broad meaning) is used more often than not to refer to Muslims taking up arms against Pagans.

Because no one that I know would knowingly choose hell over heaven.

Ever hear of the phrase “Better to reign in hell than to serve in Heaven?” It seems that’s the case for some people. From what I’ve read, a lot of philosophers/theologians have agreed that if such a place as hell exists, its gates are probably locked from the inside (People who are there are there by choice).

As it stands, the question isn't about choosing heaven over hell, but simply being convinced that God even exists!

I still cannot understand how so many people claim there’s no evidence for God. When I post such evidences, I very rarely get a response at all, and have never had anyone capable of adequately refuting such conclusions, yet they still shout “Where’s the evidence?” It’s ironic.

If the Christian God has provided evidence for his existence, then I can't see why anyone would knowingly choose hell.

Pride, selfishness, apathy (thinking everything’s going to be all right in the end no matter what), and so on. Hell is only for the unreformable and unrepentant, the reprobate (2 Peter 2:1-6). It is not for anyone who is reformable. If they were reformable, they would still be alive. For God in his wisdom and goodness would not allow anyone to go to hell whom he knew would go to heaven if he gave them more opportunity. As C.S. Lewis observed, the soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will never miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened (Lewis, Great Divorce, 69).

If say, we were to all meet at a cafe and have a chat, we'd find everyone to be really nice people. But tempers and egos tend to flare easier on the internet.

Perhaps so (since you cannot tell the tone of voice or facial expressions – thus the smilies), though nearly all of those who claim to be atheist I’ve met in real life (with the exception of one) seem to look down on the general believer. (A case that almost immediately comes to mind, though this most definately isn't one of personal experience, is the Scopes Trial. The atheist in that situation, I forgot the chap’s name, always seemed rather abrupt or condescending in his wording, and never seemed to have a happy face on at any given moment. Not only that, but as I recall, he also prevented the Christian he was debating against from giving his final statement, which I thought was rather rude).

No, but I'm citing them as examples that refute your condemnation of evolution as merely "naturalistic philosophy" and not science. It is every bit as scientific as any of the mentioned fields.

None of those fields, however, prove that man is a product of blind chance through evolutionary processes from some sort of amoeba that put itself together billions of years ago, nor does it prove that all creatures have a common ancestry.

Well, then, we are in agreement. If someone says that about evolution, then it definitely is not scientific, but merely naturalistic philosophy.

Wonderful! Glad we’ve come to an understanding on that then.

Your glass is half empty, mine is half full.

I see the point you’ve made, however, this point depends entirely on whether or not you have some sort of objective basis to believe that being more complex is a good thing. It presumes that complex organisms are better than primitive ones. If there’s no reason to believe this, then there’s no reason to believe we’re any better than a paramecium, and so there’s no reason to feel good about yourself.

Excuse me, Jedi, but an anti-atheism thread is not relevant in the E/C forum.

Have you gotten just as worked up over threads that started out clearly on a logically scientific premise that morphed into more of an Atheism/Theism debate? The original article discussed what people generally seem to think evolution is, and pointed out its negative contributions (nothing more). Throughout all these pages, half of the discussion seems to have been simply defining what evolution states. Surely, this is scientific enough for you. Besides, if you don’t like a topic, you’re not forced to reply to it, or even look over what’s being said. It isn’t preventing you from replying to other topics.

In anticipation of the response I expect to get from you (and you've probably heard this countless times before!) but the ToE does not equal atheism. From my reading of your posts, it seems to me that you equate an acceptance of evolutionary theory with atheism. This is a mistake.

I never said that evolution equals atheism. Talk to Blader, and I’m sure even he’ll tell you I know the difference between atheism and evolution (since such things exist as Theistic Evolution). However, what I’m getting at is what people generally tend to think evolution says isn’t really evolution in the truest sense of the word, but merely naturalistic philosophy masquerading as “science.”

Why is it bad because there are limited resources?

Exactly. That’s the sort of thing I’ve been trying to get at all this time. Glad to see I’m not the only one asking these questions.

This of course assumes that the Universe is a closed system. If there is some external source of energy, it would be possible to live indefinitely. However, I haven't seen any evidence for this, yet.

The first law of Thermodynamics clearly tells us that energy can’t be created or destroyed. We have a finite amount of usable energy, and however much in amount, it will only last so long.

Well ok since the universe is speeding up and yes it is expanding, if it was slowing down it would be cooling down but its not.

The fact that things are speeding up only means that more and more useful energy is being used – the end draws even closer due to this process.

In sum, I never suspected that this topic would have sparked such a lively discussion (seeing how it's not a logical/scientific argument like so many are used to here). With it being Monday and all (Generally the worst day of the week for me), I've received plenty of homework to keep me busy for college. Essays to write, assignments to read (Some of which I had forgotten about 'til today, which are due tomorrow - whoops), and so on, so I'll be taking a break from this discussion here (as fascinating as it has become). Rest assured, like I've said before, I'm sure we'll find ourselves discussing similar subjects across pages of forum space sooner or later. It just seems inevitable here.

As always, if anyone has a question or two, I'm always open to Personal Messages or e-mail (Daringjedi@hotmail.com), even if I might not be replying to everyone's comments in a given discussion. Well gentlemen (and the occasional lady), it's been fun. Time for me to hit the hay.

 

[Praxiteles]

Truly, I am not forced to reply in a topic!

I do apologise for coming across as worked up. I just feel that there are more appropriate fora for this discussion.

As for evolution not being what people think it is... well, what can I say? It is nothing more than a scientific explanation for the diversity of life as we know it. It is not a philosophy, as you seem to think, although I don't doubt that many people use it as part of their philosophies.

As a philosophical discussion, however, I still maintain that it doesn't belong here.

Cheers,
Prax

 

[Humanista]

Jedi said:
So then you are saying that the idea that man is a result of blind chance through time and natural forces with no meaning, no purpose, and no direction is “science?” This is an aspect of evolution that many people accept to be true, yet it’s never been observed, tested, or repeated. Very curious...
__________________________________________________________

Perhaps you should check with your college science professors about what science is and isn't. Science does not attempt to determine your purpose and meaning in life. These are philosophical questions. They do not exist empirically and cannot be tested as such.

Your problem is you insist on mixing the two, and it is leading you to absurd conclusions. Just because I do not share your belief in mythical gods who poofed living things into existence, and instead accept what the evidence of the natural world shows, you have twisted science into philosophical nihlism.
Frankly, I find it tiresome for you to continually hammer this idea that YOU know what all atheists think and feel. Perhaps you should take this psychic mind-reading ability to the CIA. I'm sure they would love to know what Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden think also. Or maybe you could get a talk show. After all, there is no need to interview anyone else. You can tell us what everyone thinks better than they can themselves. You sure like to do it here.

 

[Humanista]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Well if this isn't a serious scientific discussion I don't know is. Move over Freud!

 

In any case I don't see how knowing that you're a depraved creature, that if left to your own devices would rape,pillage and eat babies would help your self-esteem. Nor would knowing that you cannot do this because there is a God "This Big" out there who will punish you forever for the slightest screw up helps either. Especially when you find out this God is basically in charge because he's the biggest man on the block. Basically then the message is: God is the strongest so God is right. And if God gets mad at you for, whatever reason, probably doing all the raping and murdering you as a human being love to do, God will send you to be tortured forever. In this case it is only by denying your own sick,twisted,disgusting nature and becoming God's good slave that you will avoid an eternity of torture.

 

Well shucks if that don't raise a man's self-esteem I don't know what will.

 

 

What nonsense. If I have to choose between that belief and the one that has me "eating crackers and swining from a tree", I'll swing from the freakin' tree.

 

ROTFLMAO!

I'll be saving this! Sums up my thoughts exactly!

 

[lithium.]

yep DialecticMaterialist posted a great post.

 

[Humanista]

Jedi said:
Natural selection is about the weak being annihilated by the strong (or natural forces). Deer are hunted by wolves, the slow or weak antelope are annihilated by lions, and so on. There is no difference between these situations and the situation of the Holocaust (the Nazis hunting down the Jews and taking over their possessions as a result in a demonstration of strength over weakness).

___________________________________________________________

No. Natural selection is NOT about deer being eaten by wolves. The competition is within each local population. The natural selection taking place is within the deer living within breeding distance of each other. Whoever is best adapted to the environment will survive to pass their genetic material on. The deer are vying with other deer for the chance to reproduce. The environment includes predators, weather, resistance to disease and many other factors. "Survival of the fittest" (or strongest) means the deer that is most fit for the enviroment will survive instead of some other deer,
not that wolves are stronger (or more fit) than deer.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Jedi
Without a God to give you worth, you have no more worth than a dollar in a world without humans. There are consequences in believing in Naturalism and Atheism, all of which follow from saying there is no God, and the natural world is all there is. You have yet to explain how anything I’ve said is mistaken according to these presuppositions.

So, you're saying I can't find self-worth in the things I do that make me and other people happy? That others cannot define my self-worth? That my very actions cannot define my self-worth?

*sob* It's all true, I'm so worthless! </sarcasm>

You have yet to explain how your "without God to give you worth" presupposition is even valid.

Natural selection is about the weak being annihilated by the strong (or natural forces). Deer are hunted by wolves, the slow or weak antelope are annihilated by lions, and so on. There is no difference between these situations and the situation of the Holocaust (the Nazis hunting down the Jews and taking over their possessions as a result in a demonstration of strength over weakness).

Go see Humanista's post (#154). I'm not going to argue your strawman version of natural selection anymore.

If September 11 was done in the name of Jihad, how were the innocent civilians in the Twin Towers oppressing the people thousands of miles away in the Middle East?

Um... yeah, that September 11th thing. Let me see... oh yes, I seem to recall that the Muslim community (at least a good majority of them) condemned the actions of the terrorists and that such actions are prohibited by Islam.

Like I said, if you want to discuss atrocities, I can pull out quite a number perpetuated by Christians. Of course, you'll then argue they weren't "true" Christians, and I'll argue that the September 11th terrorists weren't "true" Muslims. There, argument settled, let's move on.

Similarly, since there is no ultimate authority/standard, meaning is not objectively better than non-meaning, truth is equal in worth to falsehood, and all moral judgments are subjective, and so good and evil do not really exist. If atheism/naturalism is true, you have no purpose/meaning, since such things simply don’t exist.

By any chance have you ever read Ayn Rand?

Anyway, this whole "proof of meaning" argument is pointless. I could just as easily turn around and ask you to prove God. And none of this "faith" or "belief" stuff. I mean absolute, definitive, empirical proof. But since you could never do such a thing, it's irrelevant for me to even ask. Just like asking me to "prove" the meaning in my life. It's two sides of the same coin. But you can't seem to figure that out.

All right, so at least we have someone willing to admit this (from a Naturalistic/Atheistic viewpoint). Would you tell this to my buddy, Pete? He seems to think there’s still meaning, purpose, or things of that nature in looking through an atheistic or naturalistic point of view.

Hey, no talking about me behind my, er, "back" now, k?

 

[Humanista]

Jedi said:Where? Where did you find meaning? And how did this area you found it in possess meaning to give away in the first place? You still have no basis to say someone has meaning as an atheist or naturalist, since all abstract concepts really don’t exist according to those presuppositions. All of your thoughts are mere chemical reflexes in your brain reacting to outside influences. Similarly, since there is no ultimate authority/standard, meaning is not objectively better than non-meaning, truth is equal in worth to falsehood, and all moral judgments are subjective, and so good and evil do not really exist. If atheism/naturalism is true, you have no purpose/meaning, since such things simply don’t exist.
___________________________________________________________

You have taken a concept to ridiculous extremes. There is a name for this kind of logical fallacy, perhaps someone can help me remember.

Try to follow me here:

1. I am an atheist and a naturalist. I think the natural world is all there is.
I also accept evolution as a valid explanation for the empirical evidence found in the world.

2. There are no morals or purpose that exist outside human thought. There is no supernatural being dreaming these things up or assigning meaning to our lives.

3. (stay with me now) People can and do find purpose and meaning in their lives, and they also develop a moral code. Surely you can see (or maybe you can't, you haven't yet) the vast difference between an opinion on origins of life and the everyday LIVING of life experienced by people? Do you really think the only basis for morality is a philosophical examination of the origins of the universe and the existence of gods? How naive are you?
How can you go on and on with this asssumption that flies in the face of what people all over the world actually experience? There are no atheists who think torturing children and selecting ice cream are equivalent. And atheism does not "command" them to think it. Only YOUR warped and narrow interpretation of it does!

Morals developed because humans live in social groups and need to be able to live in harmony. Humans are genetically programmed to want to bond to one another and have feelings for each other. Altruism is a survival trait in social groups. An intellectual idea or philosophy about the nature of the natural world does not negate the very real human experience of love, compassion, commitment, and meaning, no matter how often you bray that it must. Morals and other noble human traits are formed in early childhood through experience and example. We are taught and we also find out about consequences. Eventually this is internalized, long before we even have the intellectual capacity to form a naturalistic or atheistic philosophical understanding.

Your pet theory which you so lovingly parade about this board, takes an idea and expands it far beyond what is reasonable and it fails miserably when you try to show any real-world examples. No atheist here--or anywhere--is the sub human monster you are trying to portray.
___________________________________________________________

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by seesaw
Yes you are right something will happen but it will not be the universe that runs out of energy it will be our sun, and it will distory the earth. But just cause a sun dies doens't mean the universe will. Suns are being made every day in the universe. The universe has alot of energry to last all time.

But you probably know this already.

i havn't seen any evidence either, but there is so much energy in the universe that we can see, And lots more in energy we can't, like dark matter.

Energy will last forever, it just won't be usable anymore. Generators require an unequal distribution of energy (order). For example, turbines require fluid to move from high pressure to low pressure and photovoltaic cells require more solar energy coming in than going out through black body radiation. Eventually, when all inequalities are smoothed out, there will be no more usable energy.

Of course, humanity has more pressing threats to its survival: climatic change, asteroids, the destruction of the Earth by the Sun, Bush, etc. We need to maintain civilization for a hundred thousand, a million, or a billion years before we will know whether surviving until heat death is even probable.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The first law of Thermodynamics clearly tells us that energy can’t be created or destroyed. We have a finite amount of usable energy, and however much in amount, it will only last so long.

While we can probably extrapolate to encompass the entire Universe, we can't observe the entire Universe, so we can't test whether this is a safe extrapolation.

 

[lithium.]

Well we can observe alot of the universe and in a few years alot more with new telescopes. So we can test "whether its a safe extrapolation".

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by seesaw
Well we can observe alot of the universe and in a few years alot more with new telescopes. So we can test "whether its a safe extrapolation".

We are not sure if anything exists beyond the visible edge of the Universe. It takes over twelve billion years to see the most distant objects. It might take another billion to see more objects beyond them. Because part of the Universe is beyond our sight, we have to be careful about what we say about the Universe as a whole.