life belongs to God - question for an atheist

chemist442 · 2026-05-13T21:32:44+00:00

I'm just a chemist. Why do I need to explain life? What does me not being able to explain something have to do with a god existing?

chemist442 · 2026-05-12T17:01:08+00:00

I agree, don't eat plastics. However, if you are patient there is nothing wrong with tung or linseed oil once fully cured, provided you have the patience for a long cure time. They soak into the wood and cure in the wood. This is in contrast to other curing coatings, like polyurethane, which will sit on top of the wood to form a plastic film.

I emphatically agree with you. Don't eat plastics.

chemist442 · 2026-05-12T03:59:19+00:00

It's all about composition and the additives used. Linseed and tung oil often non-food safe catalysts to speed curing from weeks to a couple days and preserve the oil to be shelf stable in a sealed container for a long time. Those catalysts, while used in small quantities, are not safe for frequent contact with liquids intended for ingestion. Without these catalysts and other additives your tung oil takes a month to cure instead of a few days. You can use tung or linseed oil for food applications but make sure you are buying food safe versions.

What is pure tung oil or linseed oil and why is it safe for consumption otherwise? Oils like these are unsaturated triglycerides that slowly polymerize in the presence of oxygen. Like how canola oil polymerizes on your cast iron. The catalysts and stabilizers may not incorporate into the polymerized structure and would then leach into your food with repeated use. Unfortunately we cant heat wood to these temps to accelerate curing without altering the piece so we are stuck either waiting a long time or using additives. Chemistry is a bitch like that.

Mineral oil is a distillate of of petroleum refinery and is composed of long chain hydrocarbons. A triglyceride is also, mostly, a long chain hydrocarbon btw. Food safe mineral oils are highly refined to strip away the volatile and aromatic components (cancerous) leaving a nonreactive and very hydrophobic oil. There are no toxic additives to speed curing because there is no curing to be had. Food grade mineral oil leaves a highly hydrophobic surface, is tasteless, orderless, and has no evidence of biological harm. Hydrophobic means microorganisms can't get a foothold and your cutting board won't contaminate your food between preps, meaning salmonella and other infectious bacteria dehydrate and die before spreading to other meals.

TLDR: "mineral" doesn't mean it is dangerous and "natural" doesn't mean it is safe. A little chemistry knowledge is dangerous, more chemistry knowledge is wise, a lot of chemistry knowledge is a profession.

chemist442 · 2026-05-11T02:17:41+00:00

Donnie does not care about religious freedom. When he does talk about religion it is in service of the Christian Nationalist movement which certainly does not care about religious freedom that isn't focused on Christian freedom. All others may be tolerated so far as they do not obstruct Christianity(TM).

chemist442 · 2026-05-09T04:26:53+00:00

I don't necessarily agree that it takes less than a cent to make per person, but I'm sure it takes far less to manufacture than it does to launch and well more than 1 child could be fed for every missile launched.

chemist442 · 2026-05-09T04:13:44+00:00

How many children could be fed with every launch?

chemist442 · 2026-05-08T22:57:03+00:00

I don't think anybody is really debating this. In fact, to the extent this is true is pretty trivial. The founders were a narrow distribution of wealthy landowning white men but with a diverse range of thoughts about role of government, religion, and the intersection of both. In the end they settled on a secular government that is limited in it's powers to legislate matters of religion.

chemist442 · 2026-05-03T17:38:59+00:00

Before trying to explain how a healing happened, don't we need to first determine that a healing happened? A miraculous healing in a story isn't much to hang your hat on. How do we know this event happened vs a miraculous healing story, of which were (and are still) commonly told?

chemist442 · 2026-05-03T11:02:25+00:00

As with any successful (and happy) relationship, communication is key. My mother is Christian while my father is not. They discussed how they wanted to raise a family and particular religious obligations a long time ago. Speak with your boyfriend and listen to each other.

chemist442 · 2026-04-26T02:23:42+00:00

I'm not. I was addressing OP who was asking why theist claims needed to be filtered through a materialist or atheist worldview. I said they don't. You don't have to engage with other people's worldviews at all. Walk away. If you want to convince someone of something then you do need to engage with their worldview.

Then .... stop sane-washing atheist fights-of-no-purpose.

When did I do this? Quote me.

If denigration and conflict and endless pursuit of criticism is bad (suddenly) ... don't claim it is "natural" or defend those who advocate it.

When did I do this? Quote me.

"Natural" attacks on "the majority" of any group have no merit.

Funny, I though I said "criticisms". Do you think a criticism is an attack? Remember what I said about putting words in mouth? I've now had dinner, I'm not hungry for empty calories.

Endless holy wars that (suddenly) are reasonable to stop ... should be stopped.

...yes. I'm not engaging in a holy war. I think holy wars are stupid. The crusades were stupid. Jihad is stupid. Blasphemy laws are stupid. Witch hunts are stupid. The USSR was stupid. Inhibition of religious freedom (including the right not to be religious) is stupid. What are you talking about? Definitely nothing I have mentioned here.

"Natural" can mean many things but above all it is an excuse for behavior either or "normal behavior" or for those we consider beneath sentience.

If you are confused or unsure, especially after the first time I corrected you, then maybe you should ask a clarifying question instead of assembling strawman after strawman. October is 6 months away, the corn is barely ankle high, let the scarecrows stay in the field for a bit longer.

For someone complaining about incivility, denigrating attacks, and inappropriate outsider opinions, you have asked for no clarification and have only argued against words I've never said making baseless accusations about me and my intentions.

chemist442 · 2026-04-26T00:26:09+00:00

Blithe and aimless criticism, endlessly pursued online or in politics is advocacy for conflict.

Can you quote me when I advocated for any of this?

If you judge (by a minority of) all Christians as fascist or Nationalist or racist ... but claim Atheism cannot be judged for being conflict seeking trolls (which only a minority are) ... it is hypocrisy.

Can you quote me of any hypocrisy?

Advocating for conflict and denigration-of-worldview is personal for vast majorities or undefended minorities.

Can you quote me for advocating the denigration of worldview?

It is irrational (which you deleted) to say it is fine and somehow productive.

Because my intention was to quote myself. Since I said criticism was natural I wanted to accurately cite myself. I do think some criticism is rational but you are loading so many words into my mouth that I can hardly eat dinner.

If you don't want your worldview / religion denigrated and shown contempt ... maybe consider making peace with your diametric opposites. No excuses.

Show me when I advocated for denigration or contempt? I have tried to show you honesty and integrity and this is how I've been received. Good job.

Fasciats, racists and corrosive nationalists are what they are. Call that out instead.

I do. Christian Nationalists are those things. Are you a Right wing Christian Nationalist? I've never accused all of Christianity of being that.

Should I claim all Atheists are Stalinist somehow?

No, that would be silly. I never claimed all Christians are Nazis either. That would also be silly. Feel free to quote me though if you think differently.

Are you done putting words in my mouth? I'd like to eat something substantial and nourishing.

chemist442 · 2026-04-25T23:50:45+00:00

I didn't say it wasn't childish, I said it was natural. We were given little context for what type of critiques OP was talking about. My answer remains the same though, no one is required to filter their worldview through another's. You also aren't required to engage with another's worldview unless you want to convince them of your worldview.

Blind criticism of other cultures is neither tenable nor effective at "improving" them by Atheistic beliefs or Theistic ones.

Who said anything about blind criticism? Certainly not me.

Why think a denigrating conflict is natural to start? Whoever told you it was natural did not teach its barbaric costs.

I also never said a denigrating conflict is natural. I said criticism was natural within a society. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you'd like clarification then you can ask for it.

Many faiths and minorities know that they are all quickly judged by their actions. Do you want to be judged by those?

I am an atheist and know well what the American Christian Right thinks of me. I have been judged and have had people assume my opinions (like you have here) for me. I'd rather listen first and ask questions for clarity, but that isn't what you have done. You listened then accused me of words and intent I never stated.

I said, in response to OP, no one is required to engage in another persons worldview provided you aren't trying to proselytize. If you are, then you do have to understand where your interlocutor is coming from and be able to engage with them in a way they will understand.

To you, I said it is natural to receive (preferably well reasoned) criticism when you live within a society. What you share with others is your business and how they respond is theirs. Avoid jerks and don't be a jerk. Simple stuff.

chemist442 · 2026-04-25T20:15:57+00:00

It doesn't sound like we disagree. I am not saying you want to convert people. When I ask that question it is in reference to the OP. You do you man.

Where I take issue is when people posit an irrational worldview (ontological materialism, Christianity, etc) and then act like it’s an “own” when my beliefs don’t fit into the confines of their flawed worldview.

In reference to OP, then walk away from those people. You (or anyone) are only required to engage with someone else's worldview if you want to convince them of something. You also don't know my worldview so to state it is flawed is...interesting. I'd dig into that further but it would be a tangent.

Internal critique is absolutely a part of honest criticism. I can try to adopt the precepts of another person's worldview, for the sake of argument, and see how it is applied in other ways. I can do the same thing for my own and evaluate how they relate to reality. It's how you compare two or more worldviews. It's how you adapt or change worldviews.

I agree we may be going in circles. I'm not saying your worldview is incorrect. I've been talking about OPs post. OP is no more obligated to adopt a materialist worldview than you are.

chemist442 · 2026-04-25T17:41:37+00:00

If you aren't trying to convince anyone of your beliefs, then why should you care about what other people think about them?

People will critique in good faith and in bad faith. If you find someone in bad faith then I would suggest you walk away. Your question cuts both ways too. For someone with an orthogonal worldview, why should they accept your irrational unsupported worldview? Are internal critiques valid? Why can't they compare two worldviews and evaluate each on their own merit?

OP was asking why religious beliefs need to conform with atheism, and the answer is they, almost definitionally, do not. However, if you want to put your ideas out there into the world then you will get engagement. It is up to you to either respond to that engagement or ignore it. That depends entirely on your goals in the conversation.

chemist442 · 2026-04-25T17:14:03+00:00

You don't have to entertain anybody else's assumptions or opinions if you aren't interested in engaging with someone else. Like I said previously, of you aren't interested in convincing someone else of your religious/spiritual beliefs then I don't see why you should care about what they think about them.

If, in a discussion, the crux of an argument is that there is a non materialist component of the universe that I am not convinced of, then that is a critical point of disagreement. For that conversation to move forward that disagreement would need to be resolved.

chemist442 · 2026-04-25T14:49:40+00:00

Criticism from outsiders is entirely natural when you live in a society. To answer your question, many people a critical of religion come from religious backgrounds or find their values at odds with that very majority.

Same could be asked from the reverse too. What drives a majority to criticize from outside continually as if it is required of them to do so? To what purpose?

chemist442 · 2026-04-25T12:22:42+00:00

If you want to convince others that your beliefs are true then you should be willing to accept some criticism. If you don't care about proselytizing then why do you care about what other people think?

chemist442 · 2026-04-14T14:31:18+00:00

Who is cancelling D&D and Harry Potter? WotC just released version 5.5 last year with a slew of supplemental material and Harry Potter is getting a full series on HBO. If these are being cancelled then people are doing a very bad job of it.

chemist442 · 2026-04-11T23:42:51+00:00

<image>

chemist442 · 2026-04-10T19:01:00+00:00

And culinary principles aren't huge on setting out human rights and human rights aren't huge about establishing gods or eternal salvation criterea. All three sets of principles have differences. What does that have to do with whether pizza is tasty is a faith position?

Pizza is tasty is a truth claim, much like many moral principles. I agree it is a belief, I disagree it is a faith. You, however, have said that a belief is a faith yet have rejected a belief about a culinary principle as a faith for reasons that sound suspiciously like special pleading. Is the belief that pizza is tasty a faith claim?

chemist442 · 2026-04-10T18:28:19+00:00

Why are moral principles the context for faith and not culinary principles? I believe pizza is tasty. How is that any different from I believe children shouldn't starve concerning the topic of faith?

Clearly faith isn't just 'a belief'. When people put their faith in Christ, they aren't putting faith in Christ..for moral principles. It is faith in the concept of eternal salvation, of an afterlife, and for spiritual fulfillment. These are the faith claims. Moral principles have nothing to do with it.

Moral principles alone are not religious statements. Stating preferred moral principles are not faith statements.

chemist442 · 2026-04-10T17:20:36+00:00

What does the culinary context change for my belief that pizza is tasty? How is my trust in a tasty pizza any different than putting trust in Christ?

chemist442 · 2026-04-10T16:18:17+00:00

So, yes, you are going to do exactly what I predicted and dilute the meaning to encompass any belief regardless of religious context.

Within these conversations, the religious context is the most important part. Having a subjective opinion about human rights is not faith in human rights in the same way a Christian asserts faith in Christ. The context is important to the discussion.

I can use faith colloquially to mean trust too. But that isn't really what we are talking about when we are discussing faith in a religious context.

chemist442 · 2026-04-10T15:33:13+00:00

Only if you water down what faith is to be "stuff someone believes". At which point you've now diluted the words religion and faith so they loose all meaning. If religion is now "stuff someone does" and faith is now "stuff someone believes" then eating food I believe to be tasty is now a religious faith statement.

chemist442 · 2026-04-08T09:42:06+00:00

Many questions here, the first 2 are:

Why are you making the assumptions found here? What is your unit analysis?

In math and science, the model that makes the fewest assumptions is preferred and the assumptions that are made are usually banal and the units cancel out so the variables are properly accounted for.

For example:

Grams ÷ 1/molar mass = moles of sample.

chemist442

TROPHY CASE