reedemption -
3. Why do atheist believe soul[s] exist even with no [proof]...
6. What is origin of the Spirit beings

"You are only living a life of self deceit ,----------"

My Irony metre just broke (again)

From whence do you get the quaint notion that a person 'should 'answer a question just because you say so? What are you, 12?

To basics; perhaps first grasp the meaning of the word 'atheist'. It's from the Greek word 'Atheos' : 'a '= without theos =god

Without god .

I don't claim to know. That makes me an agnostic or 'soft' atheist; 'agnostic" is again from the Greek 'a';=without gnosis= knowledge

To be an atheist , one needs meet only one condition; a disbelief in god(s) THAT'S IT! No claims are made and so the atheist does not attract the burden of proof. I need prove nothing, explain nothing .

I'm wondering why you've come to atheist forum to ask questions best answered by a physicist. .Although I'm unconvinced you would understand the physics. I say that because your questions show you lack the most basic understanding of science or reasoned discourse.

This becoming really tedious, You're the third apologist in as many weeks, with the same inane questions

Bored now.

These questions you ask describe a lot about you, redemption. You lack any real knowledge about atheism, science, history, psychology, neurology, medicine, etc etc
What's worse is you haven't asked them to get any answers or to learn anything. You have just dumped them here In some feeble attempt to sow doubt in our "godless" minds. Nothing your seven sad questions could excite me to accept the existence of a god.You might consider it your holy act of faith, but posting unreasonable unintelligible questions that you are not going to debate is a sad and paltry offering to the god you claim to passionately worship.

Know this, most of us atheists understand more about gods and religions than most theists. We are not as ignorant about theism as theists are about atheism.

You wont be coming back to read or answer responses to your seven questions. You posted them in a sad pathetic attempt to preach and convert. You have failed already by not responding to our answers.
Nevertheless, I have provided my answers for them.

1. Before the big bang? No-one knows, not even the most pious theist. Atheists are really very honest.

2. Because modern science has only been researching for the past three hundred years (religion has held back any real scientific research for over 2000 years) and life on this planet has been evolving and changing for over 4 billion years. Science has some catching up to do. However it is still quite an achievement of medical science to be able to grow sheets of living skin from a burn victim's single cell to help them heal. Its been proved more effective than prayer. That's an amazing service to people in need. Wouldn't your god condone such an act of humanity?

3. I don't believe we have souls. We have consciousnesses that stem from our material brain matter. But when the brain dies so too does that sense of self we seem to perceive as a soul.

4. 'Seeing' in dreams is not a direct function of optics or the eyes themselves. Dreams are the method with which the subconscious mind deals with the over load of visual, audible and tactile input we receive every day. I can shut my eyes and imagine the Mona Lisa by Da Vinci, in great and correct detail, but that is just an operation of my conscious mind. Of all the senses we have, visual images play a predominant part in our perceptions, both conscious and subconscious. My subconscious, and yours, particularly when we are sleeping process the same sorts of information in a different way but visual images play important part in both.

5. This question shows how little you understand about reality. Nothing we see about us existed before the event we call the big bang. The explanation is very long. You would not read nor understand nor accept anything I or anyone else could write here about it, so I see no reason to offer it here. If you want to know go to a science forum and you will get very detailed answers.

6. There is no proof of spirit beings. The supernatural realm exists only in the creative imaginations of human beings. Atheists ask theists for proof they have of supernatural events or beings, because we know they can't provided any. I concede its a mean trick.

7. There is no answer to why we are alive and what purpose we are expected to strive for. I imagine religions were created by humans to help deal with that imponderable question and others, but got bogged down with issues about how many times we needed to pray in a day and which way we should face, whether or not humans should enjoy equal rights on the basis of having a dick or not, whether Saturday or Sunday is the correct day of worship, and how do we effectively stop and punish other people spreading stories about their gods and not ours.
In a sentence this is the meaning of life "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". There you go, says it all really and its a fundamental rule in every religion man ever made. See? I am not completely opposed nor ignorant to religion, but I reserve the right to determine what I choose to believe without the fear of human persecution or execution.
If there is a god, I would leave it to him to determine my sins and punishments, in the meantime I will live out this life in full appreciation of the good and bad things (I have certainly seen both) that befall me while I live. I reject letting the fear of supernatural punishment or reward to interfere with my immersion in the one and only life I believe I have.

Bye-bye redemption, hope you have a good life, but also hope you extend your perceptions of this world beyond the blinkered and limited bounds by which you are confined.

Still the same bullshit, using the irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies to demand answers, yet reedemption is never prepared to offer any answers himself, or any objective evidence.

1. Why do you assume a trigger, and what are you defining this trigger as,, and of course what objective evidence can you demonstrate for this trigger? Also why address a scientific question to atheists, as if we didn't know?
2 Again why are you asking atheists scientific questions, how do you know science can't do these things, or did you mean yet? You're not even asking specific questions ffs.
3. What atheists believe this, I certainly don't. Have you left a word out form your latest troll?
4. What on earth are you talking about, seriously? And yet again why are you asking a scientific question on atheist forum? And again I think we can all infer the answer from your previous bullshit.
5. What material, what on earth are you talking about? What has your bullshit lie got to do with atheism?
6. What fucking spirit beings? Again why would you think this a serious question for atheists? You can demonstrate no objective evidence for this horseshit.
7. Why do you think there is a reason I'm alive beyond biology? What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assumption.

Yet again you are lying and implying atheism is the assertion no deity exists, but it's not, atheism is imply the lack or absence of theism, that's what it means, and the rest is just nonsense you've made up.

The last half dozen sentences are just fucking hilarious, dumber than a bucket of hair of course, but fucking hilarious nonetheless.

Going to make this really simple. If this God exists, then show us the proof which we ask for.

My two cents.

Oh look, it's another piece of supernaturalist word salad, replete with bad spelling and grammar.

Since I currently have some spare time on my hands, let's have at it ...

The Atheist

And already, we see the typical opening gambit of supernaturalists who come here, thinking that they're going to teach us a lesson ... the tiresome stereotyping of atheists as an amorphous, homogeneous assemblage. It will almost certainly only go downhill from here ...

has always find a way to insult the religious by calling them ignorance [sic]

Not doing a very good job of persuading people that you're mot ignorant, even at this early stage, are you?

Due to their doctrine or belief, which they hold on to

Ah, it's that tiresome supernaturalist lie, that so many of your ilk love to masturbate over, the "atheist belief" bullshit. Which IS bullshit, because atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of nothing other than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. Not that presenting this elementary fact to you, will dissuade you from perpetuating the "atheist belief" bullshit, I don't doubt. Except of course, that NOT treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, the way you and your ilk do with your mythologies, is the very antithesis of "belief".

Although most doctrine religious people hold on to are not real especially Islamic, but That's does not mean
There is no ONE WHO IS THE ORIGIN.

And we see here, the "CAPS LOCK MAKES MY ASSERTIONS INTO FACTS!!!!!1111ELEVENTYONE" aspect of the supernaturalist aetiology that is so well documented.

Except of course, that those of us who paid attention in class, learned the fatuousness of this a long time ago.

The Atheist [sic] are so ridiculous, By asking for a physical prove [sic] of a spirit being

Do keep digging that hole, with respect to the self-image you're presenting here.

Oh, and since this entity asserted to exist in your favourite mythology, is also asserted to engage in direct manipulation of the physical universe, said direct manipulation of the physical universe would, if it happened, make this entity physically observable. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?

As a corollary, given that assertion from your mythology, we are perfectly correct when requesting observational data on this entity, given that your mythology asserts that said entity purportedly provides said observational data, and in the past, purportedly provided said data in ways involving spectacular pyrotechnics and widescreen cinematic CGI. Except of course, that this was only asserted to take place, when the audience consisted of pre-scientific goat herders who couldn't count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. How conveniently coincidental, that said entity should be coy about such matters, when the planet is littered with camera phones, scanned with both civilian and military radars 24 hours per day, and the farthest reaches of the universe are now being examined with space based telescopes. That's even before we consider the fun and games that are taking place in various physics laboratories, which would have uncovered anything genuinely unusual in this regard a long time ago.

But anyways if still hold to atheist [sic], I will like you to answer the ques [sic]

Oh, how supernaturalists love their little lists of supposed "gotcha" questions, that turn out to be vacuous apologetic farts.

Please, bring it on ...

1. What triggers big bang

Oh wait, this question isn't part of the remit of "atheism", courtesy of the proper, rigorous definition of atheism I provided above. Instead, this question is the remit of cosmological physics, and if you had ever bothered to read the output of the tenured scientists working in that field, you would know that this is an active research topic. Indeed, several hypotheses have arisen from the cosmological physics community in recent years, aimed at answering this very question, though of course direct test of those hypotheses is going to be a tad difficult. However, one of the particularly interesting hypotheses arising in said research, centres upon the work of Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, who wrote two papers in 2011, covering a mechanism that, if it applies, solves three nice problems at once, viz:

[1] It provides a mechanism for the donation of energy to the observable universe, for use in matter synthesis, during the Big Bang transition;

[2] It eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;

[3] It provides an observable test of its validity, courtesy of observational consequences of the operation of the mechanism in question, detectable in our observable universe, in the form of the power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves.

Now, understanding how the authors got to [3] above, requires an in-depth understanding of the operation of the Ricci calculus in multi-dimensional spaces (the authors worked in 11 dimensions). But, said work was checked over and over again by other cosmological physicists, who found no errors lurking therein, and as a corollary, this is now an accepted part of the body of literature from the cosmological physics community, and that test described in [3] above, is one of the motivations for the construction of gravitational wave detectors, precisely so that said power spectrum can be sought. If those detectors, once hunting for the data, reveal a different power spectrum, it's back to the drawing board. But if those detectors reveal a power spectrum matching the Steinhardt & Turok prediction, then these two scientists are pretty much guaranteed a Nobel Prize.

Moving on ...

2. Why can't science create natural material such as human blood, instead of donating or Culturing from existing cell

Oh dear. Apparently you're unaware that this is also an active research topic.

Guess what? The chemical composition of blood is well known and well documented in the literature. However, total organic synthesis of the requisite molecules, while possible, is prohibitively expensive. It's simply more convenient and cheaper to let existing biological systems do the work for us. Any competent organic chemist will be exquisitely placed to inform you of the issues involved in this research. Why don't you find one and ask this question?

Indeed, developing an effective blood substitute, that would bypass the issues of haematogenic infection or blood type mismatch, that doesn't involve prohibitive economic cost, is another of those active research projects. It's the economic cost bit that's proving hard to solve, not the actual chemistry.

3. Why do atheist [sic] believe soul exist even with no prove [sic]

Oh dear.

If there is one lesson you should have learned, from my above presentation of the rigorous definition of atheism, it is that atheists, when operating properly, dispense with belief altogether.

Furthermore, since I haven't encountered any atheists who do subscribe to the notion of the existence of a 'soul', during 12 years of active discourse in the relevant arenas, I'm tempted to respond to your assertion above with "Citation please".

Indeed, most of the atheists I encounter, regard supernaturalist assertions about the 'soul' as merely more of those unsupported assertions to be suspicious of, and as a corollary, discardable with the same absence of effort that supernaturalists expended in disseminating said assertions.

As to some of the more interesting activities that are taking place in the human brain, well, this again is an area of active research, and one whose body of literature is generating some interesting results. I'm aware, for example, of results from the cognitive neuroscience literature, in which it has been demonstrated experimentally, that is it possible to determine which still images or movies a person has recently seen, via appropriate data processing of fMRI scanner data. The technology is very much in its infancy, but proof of concept exists in the literature.

4. How do we see in the dream, even when our eye [sic] are close, any scientific explanation ??

Appropriate stimulation of the visual cortex of the brain during REM sleep. Next?

You do realise that you would see nothing if your visual cortex was absent? Without a visual cortex to process your visual data, your eyes would be pretty much useless.

Though at this point I'm minded to recall those unusual organisms known as the Warnowiids. These are dinoflagellates, namely, a clade of single celled plants. But, these have eyes, and have eyes that are comparable in structural complexity to vertebrate eyes. But being single celled organisms, they don't have a visual cortex. So, how they process their visual data is, wait for it ... another area of active research.

5. Where did the material they form Earth and Rock comes from before big bang

Go and ask those cosmological physicists again. Who will tell you that the business of supplying the observable universe with energy for matter synthesis, is again, you guessed it, an area of active research, one example of which I've already provided. However, once that energy is present, matter synthesis therefrom is pretty well documented in the literature, and Einstein's famous equation E=mc² applies.

6. What is origin of the Spirit beings,. D

Since these are merely asserted to exist by supernaturalists like you, and said assertion is bereft of supporting evidence, this assertion can be safely discarded and ignored.

7. Why do you think you are alive,. To study gravational laws ?? Or study chemistry ??

Actually, if you bother to pick up the relevant textbooks, life IS chemistry writ large. Millions of chemical reactions are taking place in your body right now, and if some of those reactions stop, then you die. Indeed, that's how poisons work - by shutting down critical chemical reactions needed to keep you alive.

If you can get all these questions, then it mean you know what you are doing and probably Right that, God doesn't exist

But I don't assert that a god type entity doesn't exist, which is another area where you are wrong. I simply regard mythologies as incompetent to answer the question.

But If you don't have answer to this question,. Then it mean something Is above your intelligent [sic] and logic

Looks like it's game over then, doesn't it?

That thing which is beyond your intelligent [sic] is what is Call the Origin

I think you've demonstrated you're in no position to lecture me even on simple subjects, let alone subjects I spent over a decade learning about ...

The Origin is a Palace , occupied by a Supreme Being

Blind assertion, and discardable on that basis.

That Supreme Being is the one Known as t GOD

Really? Do explain to us all, why it is, that supernaturalists across the planet, cannot even agree with each other on a global scale, which of the numerous human mythologies extant is purportedly the "right" mythology, and why adherents of a particular mythology cannot agree with each other, what that mythology is purportedly telling us? I've never seen a supernaturalist even acknowledge the existence of this question, let alone attempt an answer.

So

Atheist [sic] is really at loss because whether you believe or not HE EXIST

And the evidence to back this assertion is what, precisely?

Oh, and do I look as if I'm "at a loss", given the detailed expositions I've been able to provide above? All of which stand in stark contract to the manifest paucity and vacuity of your output?

You are only living a life of self deceit ,

So says the individual who treats unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact.

Read the above and weep.

@reedemption: "4. How do we see in the dream, even when our eye are close, any scientific explanation ??"

Maybe the same way you see when you close your eyes and imagine Baby Jeebus? Happy Holidays anyway!

OK, well this should be fun....

1 We don't know. We don't know *if* there even is a trigger.

2 Science can't create these things....yet. They're actually working on "growing" meat independent of an animal. If that's successful no reason to think blood won't come afterwards.

3 You'll have to ask an atheist that believes in a soul. AFAIK most atheists do not believe in a soul.

4 We don't "see" in dreams. Our brain uses something closer to what is rendering and modelling in computer graphics.

5 They didn't. Our concept of matter doesn't work at or "before" the Big Bang.

6 What spirit beings?

7 I'm alive because a certain amount of time ago my parents had sex, and nine months later I popped out.