So let me get this straight, atheists believe that at first there was nothing, and then a random explosion happened which created the universe, and then after millions of years of rocks smashing into each other life randomly appeared?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
No that's what christians believe
atheists just don't believe in god anon, thats it, everything else is just speculation
No.
It was billions of years of rocks smashing into each other.
That's not what happened?
That is what happened?
>there was nothing
No we don't. We *currently* believe our observable universe was in a condensed state.
>random explosion
Rapid expansion of what is measurable.
>created
Formed into
>the universe
Observable universe
>rocks smashing
Particules interacting, forming, amassing, merging, breaking. What's making the sun shines and your body function.
>life randomly appeared
Life gradually formed from self-replicating systems of carbon compounds in thermo-active environments gradually resulting in amino acids in lipid layers that would refine into the first cells, into Life. Spreading, undergoing constant changes and replication within different evironments over billions of years resulting in the great diversity of Life on earth.
All these things? Deductible from observation. Not hearsay, not fantasy, nothing based on unverifiable personal experiences. It's all science, the gathering of human knowledge and understanding of the world that is itself ever-changing from new observations and discoveries as we continue to learn and research.
what a good God who designed it that way
>our observable universe was in a condensed state
why, was it always like that? was it always there?
Impossible to know what happened before that or if “before” even applies here. It’s been compared to asking what’s north of the North Pole. Nothing, you reached the end, at least of this universe. So op, you are wrong. Let’s see how long you go without conceding to get some insight into why Christians are the way they are.
dude you are a hypocrite and an idiot. we Dontknow because our math breaks down with a singularity once you condense the universe past a certain point. its not impossible to know its just beyond our capacity atm and your north pole analogy actually fricking proves the theist point of you guys believing in creation out of nothing. super simple dude there are only 2 options either creation out of nothing or an eternal state. pick one and explain to me how it informs your world view that there is nothing with dominion over ethhxxistence?
>what’s north of the North Pole
It's impossible for there to be a north of north pole. So are you saying that it's impossible for the universe to not exist?
>Let’s see how long you go without conceding to get some insight into why Christians are the way they are.
I mean you answered your own question, people want an answer for what is "before" and you don't have the answer, so they will default to "God" or whatever other myth their culture has
No one has the answer. It’s stupid to just fill gaps in knowledge with whatever you want to be true and base your entire life off of that being true.
It’s a mystery, The Great Mystery embrace the unknown stick with what you know and do your best.
You could have and people did fill previous gaps in our knowledge with “X god did it” and they’ve been wrong every time.
We don't know, we might or might not know with further research. This is all we can observe and deduce for now. The rest is speculation
But one thing is for sure...
>magic human-like creator did it!
Is not a valid option in any shape or form.
>magic human-like creator did it!
>Is not a valid option in any shape or form.
How do you know that?
Yeah but even though that's clearly correct it makes my head hurt a bit and there's this book that says it's right about everything so I'm going to believe that instead.
>Observable universe
This is why you are all mid wits.
It’s like an ant describing the entire world by observing its ant hill.
>Muh heckin dark energy
Grow up
You're not speaking from a place of authority. Everything in your post points to the idea that you're right here with the rest of us midwits, if not a little lower on the curve.
>>Muh heckin dark energy
>Grow up
Don't get mad at your inability to understand
see this is why im of the belief that the majority shouldnt have access to academic literature. we have no clue past a certain point of mathmatics what a condensed state would even look like and then the question becomes where did that condensed energy state come from? all cosmology (religious or otherwise) has 2 options. either creation out of nothing or an eternal process. the eternal implies the eternal consciousness (given consciousness is an observable part of existence) and creation out of nothing implies the prime mover. your obfuscating how flawed the scientific cosmological model is because you know for all your hubris the question of god will still remain
>question of god still remain
We do not even think about it, that's how much it is irrelevant.
Cognition, intelligence i.e. consciousness is the property of a system, implying motion, space and time. The flow and processing of information into thoughts.
Anything beyond space-time wouldn't even be intelligent.
God, as theists put it, doesn't just not exist, it cannot exist at all.
And that's not all..
If you remove its cognition then it becomes indistinguishable from the universe on its own, it's just a force or property with no reason to call it "God", while if you strip away its almighty-ness and all the special pleading-ness found in Aquinas' & such arguments it becomes subject of the same principles and problematics you give to a creator-less universe.
The God hypothesis has long been REBUTTED
no. no its hasnt little man. but no you for sure think about it and the insecurity and fear you feel has molded you into the disgusting fedora gay you are rn. you didnt actually present any arguments against what i said, you gave your special pleading to authority about how you understand the natural world? lets test it. do you even understand that there is a speed of light in ANY universe with an access of time? do you understand how fundamental the interactions between the building block 0 dimensional points of our universe are? do you understand the shapes of existence following logic? your so dumb you dont even understand that the idea of a combustion engine could be made manifest regardless of the universal constants (given time and space)? explain to what is so fundamental about the uncertainty principle to any field with a lowest unit of quanta? no you cant. cause you havent actually tried to learn anything over your sad and disgusting life. all you have ever tried to do is justify why being a disgusting piece of shit doesnt matter and shouldnt matter to anyone else. ill ask again fedora gay (try to stay on topic and answer) do you think existence is eternal or came into being out of nothing and how does your understanding of that opinion remove the reality of something with dominion over existence?
>incomprehensible ad hominem-ridden babbles mixed with off-topic questions
Uh...
>is existence eternal
"Existence" is not something that can start or end.
Nothing is created or destroyed all is transformed as Lavoisier put it. There always was "something" which by definition has the property of "existence" thus existence never started. The form/arrangement/state of that something is what changes. There never was "nothing" in the strict sense, it's only a man-made concept.
>dominion over existence
If your God is above existence, beyond logic, time and space then it might as well be *NOTHING* because nothing is.
*GOD IS NOTHING*
okay so you believe existence is eternal. why are you making this so hard to have a simple discussion by all your obfuscation? what are the mechanisms that lead to this constant generation or change? what mechanism keeps eternal existence going?
infinite regress just means eternity and eternity implies god
If God doesn't require a creator and can be infinite. Then why can't Big Bangers say the laws of physics are eternal and don't need a beginning?
its not comparable. god is an insight from the consequences of eternity. we might live in a steady state or syclical universe but if its eternal there are eternal truths that keep it going. we call the amalgamation of those truths (one of which is consciousness) god.
just one last thing tho, that question about 'why cant big bangers say the law of physics is eternal" was sososoososo moronic man. like dude, the big bangers are the ones who posit a beginning of time.
>beginning of time
this homie believes in "time". kek.
time is just another word for change? you dont belive in change? makes sense cuz you seem to be justt about as moronic as when you were born
Based skeptic. Time didn't exist before anyone started counting
regress just means eternity and eternity implies god
>implying the universe cannot be an eternally cyclical universe or something of that nature
....you dont know how to read do you? ive already accomodated a cyclical universe in that if it is eternal there are eternal mechanisms to keep that process going (one of which is consciousness) we call the amalgamation of those truths god.
>what are the mechanisms that lead to this constant generation or change
Interraction which results in motion. No such thing as "inert". Even the "emptiest" vacuum interacts with itself causing changes such as generating virtual particles.
Even the most sturdy "time-proof" piece of matter is nothing more than a slow moving fluid.
There is no "mechanism", it simply is a property of anything and everything.
>eternity implies god
No it doesn't???
Consciousness, cognition, is understood now. We are starting to replicate it in machines of our own making. Merely the product of a system. There is no magic behind how our brains function
The idea of God has always been the product of ignorance.
wow you really are just popsci. let me educate you a bit bud. the only reason that is true of the vacuum is because of its state as inside the expansion. thats true because because the fields of space are again INSIDE the expansion of the initial state (that our math can get to)
yes eternity implies god because again, in an eternal system the "initial state" of that system (what dictates if its fundamentally deterministic or not) are eternal constants within the system that work toward the manifestation of whatever axis the system is eternal in. one of those by your own experience is the manifestation of consciousness. you have a misconception of god, he is not magic, it is divine logic. your perceptions of the beauty of nature are psalms to those with ears to know from which the beauty flows.
as far as the development of a self you are sorely mistaken, your chatbot wont be more then a masturbatory device for you for a while. your asking a computer to be able to have a conception of self, the other, the known world, the perhaps infinite unknown world, to be able to have an opinion on whether its worth pursing eternal truth, to form an opinion on the best way to navigate towards the eternal, to have the ability to change that opinion in light of new information in comparison to the eternal and the now. you have a profound disrespect for the natural world and its wonderous harmony, id backhand you for the "merely of a product of a system" comment
Cope, special pleading, sophism and wishful thinking. Theism
i just hit you with scientifically definable terms to describe the nature of an eternal system and then you use my own words against me "special pleading" that you dont even understand? it must hurt to be so ignorant and to have it showcased so publicly? again explain to me how your cosmological model precludes something with dominion over existence? even better show me ANY reasonable cosmological model where god isnt self evident?
just for the sake of argument we would be able to see that process as it would be an integral part of the food chain. abiogenesis is an interesting field and im curious what the fundamental reproductive systems are from particle physics all the way to biology. if anyone has any literature on the topic id be super thankful if you could drop it
>v
>t we would be able to see that process
no because under all models abiogenesis would take geological time scales to happen and wouldn't be able to happen in current earth do to how live modified the planet since it appear
>as it would be an integral part of the food chain.
no it isn't even close to an integral part of the food chain and there no reason to believe that it would
>fundamental reproductive systems are from particle physics all the way to biology.
there's no reproductive system, right here you show how little you know about biology and chemistry
And no, we don't know the exact path for life formation, what we know is that aminoacids and nucleotides, as other organic compounds, can be formed by inorganic reactions, as demonstrated by the Miller-Urey experiment and by the detection of such compounds on comets and even signatures of those in nebulas, we also know that those can react with each other to form simple polipeptids and RNA strings, and that some RNA strings can interact with free nucleotides and self replicate
The currents hypothesis is that one simple selfreplicant RNA string formed by chance and from there evolve into more complex forms that became the first simple microorganisms
i will admit biology and engineering are parts of the big 4 where my knowledge is lacking very formal education but there are some things i have to opine about for this discussion.
it doesnt matter the time scales. in the vein of a ladder (carbon, fundamental particles etc.) at the top of a hill (an energy gradient occurring) it will "walk" down the hill because of its shape, if the angle is correct. your arguement is that the ladders need a super long hill because if you have enough of them going down the hill they will collide in a way that the shape forms a megazord the reproduces. i can agree but my question is what is the fundamental reproductive shape that arises from the fundamental shapes going through the energy gradient? this is the holy grail of abiogenesis and should be easily reproduced in a lab but the only thing we have observed is "organic compounds" that have no capacity to reproduce? i can understand the skeptics.
yes it would be a part of the food chain as you just said these protolife compounds arnt observed because they get ate by the existing biomes?
okay but we havent replicated or even have a reasonable theory on how the first reproductive RNA strand could naturally form from ANY collision or environment? if you have any literature id love to read it but ive had this conversation before and people who argue these points generally have an overinflated view of our scientific knowledge.
it seems you take the rare earth hypothesis while at the same time taking the view life is prevalent across the universe? at the same time your saying there is no fundamental reproductive system but claim self replicating RNA strands naturally form in nebulas billions of lightyears away from us? i can tell you are educated but you might be ideologically captured so i look forward to your response.
>We are starting to replicate it in machines of our own making.
No, we are not.
We're actually not sure, because of the qualia problem. It's entirely possible that some of the abrupt breakdowns in LLMs is because the things have arrived at consciousness, thus tapping into scientifically unknown dualistic properties of reality to cause continuity of processes beyond what the system was intended to have.
>do you even understand that there is a speed of light in ANY universe with an access of time?
A hard cosmic speed limit is not required for a singular time axis, and the depths of quantum physics keep running into edge-cases that show such to be emergent likelyhood rather than an actual physical law.
>do you understand how fundamental the interactions between the building block 0 dimensional points of our universe are?
Pretty sure local realism was disproven, without which 0-dimensional points can't actually exist.
>your so dumb you dont even understand that the idea of a combustion engine could be made manifest regardless of the universal constants (given time and space)?
This is far from a certainty with the only constant being the 3+1 bulk, because of all the ways there are to end up lacking meaningful matter to make the engine out of, let alone a remotely viable fuel to run it on.
>what mechanism keeps eternal existence going?
Doesn't actually need to be one, the bulk existing because it exists because it exists is just taking the bulk as an axiom, no different from you presuming God and absent the need to twist everything you see back to Him.
>infinite regress just means eternity and eternity implies god
Eternity does not imply an actor, and given the shared properties of all observed actors it largely contra-indicates a God worth thinking about in day-to-day life.
>we call the amalgamation of those truths (one of which is consciousness) god.
Psychoactive substances, congenital cognitive deficiencies, and neurological damage provide a large body of evidence for consciousness being a contingent property, which contra-indicates your assumption of the eternal "unmoved mover" being an actor.
An eternal system doesn't need an initial state, though. Infinite regress is not a failure of logic, it's that all the "Great Thinkers" couldn't stand there not being a real end-point to thinking.
the fundamental axis is change(time). the dimensions of space arise from the relation of that change.
local realism has nothing to do with the observed properties of massless particles gaining an energy state through interations with the fields of space. you could argue that there are dimensions looped inside these points but its conjecture and tbh i havent gone down the rabbit hole because we both know its pseudo science to justify bunk axioms.
i agree hypothetically but any universe where a being COULD exist (has time and space which has definable properties) has access to the concept of energy compression for use at a later time by unbinding it. the point was that there are physical constants about essential parts of any existence and you have access to that knowledge right here as a man. another example is that it is better to give than to recieve.
(cont)
>the fundamental axis is change(time). the dimensions of space arise from the relation of that change.
And there's no fundamental logical requirement that said relations have a HARD cannot-be-passed limit of distance, with our own universe appearing to be so. Faster-than-light interactions exist, but are so rare and limited you can't KNOW anything from them.
>the observed properties of massless particles gaining an energy state through interations with the fields of space
Has nothing to do with 0-dimensional points. Those massless particles and their corresponding quantum waveforms have definable radii, if they didn't then them having mass would entail a true gravitational singularity.
>i agree hypothetically but any universe where a being COULD exist (has time and space which has definable properties) has access to the concept of energy compression for use at a later time by unbinding it.
Not in the sense of a combustion engine, as it is predicated on the unbinding resulting in a compressible fluid.
>then there are observable phenomena within the sytem that can be represented mathmatically that maintain its eternal state, thats what i mean by "nitial conditions" and why it has the quotation marks.
Again, infinite regress is not a logical fallacy, and the bulk can exist axiomatically. The assumption of an unmoved mover maintaining the eternal state is not sound, the constants can exist for no underlying reason.
>we observe consciousness as an observed phenomena within observed existence. if existence is eternal then consciousness is apart of it as well?
It being derived means that it is not necessarily a part of the sum of constants, unless you extend into a moronic form of panentheism.
>we call the amalgamation of those constants god.
The overall point I'm trying to get at is that "god" implies an actor, which is not required of an Unmoved Mover, and an Unmoved Mover is not required for an eternal existence.
the speed of light might not even be the actual speed of light in that the observed "speed of light" is through a false vacuum and whatever phenomena your referring to (whether it be the instant transmission of quantum entanglement or gravitational phenomena) would be the limit for us and my point was there is a limit for any universe. i dont believe in time travel, ive never experienced it and if what you your saying is true then the geodesic's would loop back creating a paradox in the vein of a singularity (meaning we can draw out the consequences of the paradox but we cant observe it).
okay so you believe they are 1 dimensional looped strings acting a fluid way? its irrelevant than because my points still stand if thats the fundamental building block of existence? it still has a definable shape that interacts with itself and the fields around it in a way that logically builds up to a tiger?
i was speaking more to the platonic form or idea of energy generation to produce work using physical constants. in the way a pilot will have a basic understanding of how to fly any omnidirectional vehicle (once you inform him of the various forces acting on the craft and how to craft interacts back) you have access to knowledge about the nature of existence that will always inform the way you correctly navigate it. has nothing to do with the actual combustion engines we use today.
the unmoved mover is in relation to someone arguing creation out of nothing. me and you are debating the eternal axis and whether it, by ontological necessity, has eternal constants. try to keep them separate in the future so we can argue on healthy terms.
i agree it might not be necessary, i would argue against it because we are the only system capable or reversing entropy at any large scale.
god as understood in theism IS existence. it would be the Buddhist nothingness/pleroma with the addition of a self with dominion over its "body" (existence/the pleroma/nothingness).
Sounds like wishful thinking, giving a face to the world when it needs none?
how disrespectful to a system that generates separate free thinking selves, to think it would not one of its own? you really think you are the highest form of cognition within existence? do you understand how prideful that sounds?
I see none like us around so we might as well be
yea the symmetry of ignorance. your answer says more about you then reality but i will concede we havent observed anything with higher cognition. what we do know is that cognition exists in lower forms than us and that it exists on a gradient whose upper limit is far above ours. your problem with the reality of god is your pride. if we break it all down its gonna come to "whose this frickin guy to tell me how to live" the answer? the literal embodiment of living
You make shit up, I look at the fact.
you dont have a single fact you can defend in an epistemological or ontological way.
also go back and read but i never said an unmoved mover was necessary for eternal existence, i said it was necessary for creation out of nothing. the eternal implies almost platonic eternal truths
(cont)
yes there does mate. if i divide 2 numbers there are only 3 options as an output. a number that ends, a number that repeats forever and a hypothetical number that runs forever without stopping or repeating. the 2 numbers i use initially interacct in a way where i can use an equation to describe what type the output would be without having to actually calculate it (hypothetical for the eternal one because as far as i know we haven't solved the halting problem). what im trying to express with that is that there is an understanding for any eternal system that there are properties about the system that dictate whether it is eternal or not and so for a truly eternal system (without a beginning) then there are observable phenomena within the sytem that can be represented mathmatically that maintain its eternal state, thats what i mean by "nitial conditions" and why it has the quotation marks.
we observe consciousness as an observed phenomena within observed existence. if existence is eternal then consciousness is apart of it as well? what is the nature of eternal consciousness and how would it relate to existence as whole? would it be divided (polythiesm)? would it be inert (deism)? the answer is a mix of the christian god and hindu cosmology if im being honest but its beside the point.
do you know what gabriels horn is? how would you intergrate the finite into the infite? even harder how would you intergrate a finite consciousness (created beings) into eternal existence? it looks a lot like whats going on rn if im being honest. on your point of conciousness being a physical system, where did i deny this? of course it acts according to logic when we are saying the world was created by divine logic?
all that out of the way, again, yes the eternal implies eternal constants. we call the amalgamation of those constants god.
Also you're wrong about most of your post, saying many big words doesnt make you right. Dont bother replying because ill be busy eating corn dogs and my own cum
was not the actual priopos but im super down to have this name be a mechanism by which we wreck fedora gays
Sorry my meds are acting funky today haha but believe me when I say I am enjoying smoking weed and eating corn dogs and also my own cum!
>Life gradually formed from self-replicating systems of carbon compounds
Okay so if we leave a petri dish containing nothing but inorganic carbon, and give it the right conditions and all, at what point do we expect it to spontaneously regenerate and turn into cells?
We're talking about a process that took around or more than a billion years to occur in an undetermined space with undertimined factors.
And I do mean process, not a spontaneous occurence like a simple chemical reaction. It is gradual.
Unless we know every single parameter and even then it's going to be nearly impossible to replicate in-vitro with our current technology and techniques.
We can and did produce amino acids tho, the fundamental organic compounds that constitutes proteins.
It's more complex than putting those lipid bubbles and expect them to produce identical copies of themselves.
If anyone manages that in the future that's would be the biggest discovery of the century.
thats a beautiful way of saying he was right. its funny tho cause i actually agree with you. we have the physical manifestation of the idea of a monad/atomos in our fundamental particles (and possibly at the singularity at the beginning of time) which by the nature of their shapes fundamentally form planets/stars/tigers/you. hopefully we understand better as we mature as a species.
If it occurred gradually over a billion years, it should be occurring now as well. Yet nowhere in nature to date have we observed such a phenomenon. Did the inorganic carbon molecules just decide to stop turning into amino acids and replicating?
no, because any organic compound formed would be devoured by existing bacteria long before it has the chance to react with other compounds and form self-replicating units
"Microbes" are not even real
If you say God doesn't sinve you can't see it then I don't believe in microbes, I can't see them. Bet they're made up by big pharma to sell their fake medicine
>christcuck rednecks have never even looked through a microscope
Troubling but not surprising
What was your science class like in school? Follow up question do you understand that your education is well behind the level of most nations on earth?
Germ theory is only a theory
germ theory is like any other theory. it takes an observed phenomena and attaches a bunch of axioms to it and then test those axioms against observed phenomena. while germ theory as a ideology has had many failures, the observed phenomena of micro organisms stands
Doesn't occur in a lab either
>We *currently* believe our observable universe
So the universe was once spaceless?
>at first there was nothing, and then a random explosion happened which created the universe, and then after millions of years of rocks smashing into each other life randomly appeared
But enough about the christian worldview
The other option is to believe that at first there was nothing but a magical old man and that he wished everything else into existence.
Who were his parents?
I’m not an atheist but I can’t pretend it’s any less absurd after inserting the existence of god as a first cause. Existence is completely fricking absurd
Why do Christians believe that something can come from nothing?
Why do atheists?
Do we? It's not required.
>so let me get this straight, christians believe that there's a guy in the sky who made everything, including evil, and then punished those who tried being evil, then he sent his son to try to help people and then killed him
To answer your question, technically yes, although we all know that's a gross oversimplification of things in the same way the above is. Things are much more complicated and nuanced on both sides. But you, me, and everyone else see that you're just trying to evoke a response through lazy straw-manning by way of oversimplification.
kys gay
Why is every namegay moronic?
Why does God is allowed to be an exception to the problem of infinite regress but the Big Bang isn't?
Well for one the people who believe in the big bang never claimed it came from nothing. And the people who believe in God never claimed he came from nothing either.
And what’s wrong with that?
Something can't come from nothing?
So let me get It in any way possible, straight or otherwise: Harry Potter is real sorcery of demons
No its a gay fanfic written by a demon worshiper.
If there is a powerful deity than it's probably one that created Earth then bailed. Why directly worship them?
Yes and they hate when you break it down like that. They start denying it. But then just repeat it back to you when they try to clarify what they really believe. They think men accidentally happened after billions of years of chance particle interactions.
>atheists believe that at first there was nothing, and then a random explosion happened which created the universe
Atheism has nothing to do with the topic of the Universe's origins, but I'll bite. To my knowledge, and do take me with a grain of salt, the most popular explanation within the relevant scientific fields is that the universe likely always existed in an infinitely small point, and that the big bang was the expansion of (not the explosion of) this matter. I, however, am not learned enough to have any solid opinion on the universe before the big bang, if such a thing existed at all.
>after millions of years of rocks smashing into each other life randomly appeared?
Once again, this has nothing to do with atheism. You seem to be referring to abiogenesis, the process of how non-living things became early life. As for that, the basic gist is that in conditions believed to be similar to early earth, amino acids will be produced, which are the building block of proteins. One of the hypothesis for early life is the RNA world hypothesis, which postulates that the earliest life, or the ancestor of life at least, was RNA, which is like DNA, but less complex.
No atheism is where you don't believe in any religion or 'theism' hence, a-theism
Not to be pedantic, but not all religions are theistic and not all theists are religious. Religions TEND to have deities or some similar sort of spiritual entity, but not all do.
No that's the definition of religion, belief in God or God's, maybe your thinking of like spiritualism where we can include like Confucianism or whatever
>No that's the definition of religion, belief in God or God's
It's really not though. Deists think their God created the universe but doesn't care about human affairs, for example. They don't worship their God, nor do they inherently have any other spiritual or ethical beliefs.
It doesn't matter if they worship or in what manner, for the definition, all they have to do it believe. You know you really are some kind of moron.
It does tho? But the place is already occupied. Filter feeders would eat those away before they even get the chance to replicate.
Meant to quote
Such a long lasting process cannot go undistrubed in our time. Our planet's environment vastly changed, the earth's temperarure, the atmosphere and how much the sun shines. All is different
So lets see anon.
If a pagan mixes Hermes and Thoth, and worships the resulting God, he's an idolatrous schizo. Or Set and Typhoon.
But if ancient israelites, mix YHVH the thunderer, Baal, El and others, and decide to call the mix YHVH, that's a God for real.
I see, enjoy your made up mythology.
The universe is actually a Boltzmann brain, that formed in the void and all of reality was experienced by that brain in a microsecond before it collapsed into himself.
No a Catholic Priest believed that and everyone else just agrees with him.
>believe
no atheists dont 'believe' at all, the atheist bases everything on logic and what can be currently be proven.
no fairy tale cope, just reality.
As much as I want this to be true... it's not.
Many atheists are superstitious or subscribe to unscientific ideologies.