Atheism

talk
221

I disagree. I have given lots of examples. All of which I have admited were unprovable unless you had my experiences. Links are pretty much irrelivant to me, which is why I barely use them. I have posted one in this thread.

We were discussing why someone is an athiest. If you ask me why I’m not a Christian, I’ll say, because of this, and this and this I find the belief in the Christian god to be a very unlikely truth, which is all I have done throughout this thread.

If you experience “holier than thou” attitude from me, that is purely passion related to the subject matter. That doesn’t mean that I feel that I’m right. If you don’t believe that, and you find that I am not a humble person, which is possible, tough. There is nothing anywhere that says that I can’t be arogant with my beliefs.

It is much easier to cast aspirsions upon what others claim is truth, than to prove what one believes is true. All the more reason to do so. If you go into any book store, or to any search engine, you will find literaly millions of people stating that what they believe is fact. I mearly state that what you believe is not necessarily fact unless it adhires to some sort of standards. If you don’t like that, fine, but it’s not against the rules of this forum in any way.

222

Now thats a quality post phil!

:wink:

223

You have been warned Phil. Your posts, if they fail to have bearing on this conversation, will be deleted. Any further attempts to disrupt this conversation will be reported.

224

im not gonna go into any religion specific topics here, i only have one pint to make;

how can you not believe in a supreme being? where do you think you came from? think carefully and ask yourself that question. do you believe in the big bang? come on, all existence as we know it just suddenly “appeared” out of nothing?! the world works perfectly (ecologically, solar system, etc …) i dont thint it just appeared out of nowhere…

thats my opinion anyway …

225

Well, Even though I do beleive in a Higer or Supreme Being,
Ecology is a diffrent matter, the reason it function perfectly is because if anything dosent functions perfectly, it dies out.

But the big bang theory, is a complicated and very vague theory, there is very little knowledge on what and how it was.

226

I understand where you’re coming from Kobrakai, but think on these points.

A) the big bang is not a theory as far as science is concerned, it is a postulate. I know it’s called a theory by many people, scientists included, but as of yet, we do not have an experiment for testing the validity of the big bang. Until that happens, it is just a fanciful idea that has some small amount of evidence implying that it existed.
B) the “theory” of the big bang, to laymen may suggest that everything came from nothing, but when one studies physics one learns that “nothing” is a relative thing. Everything did not come from nothing.

As far as the perfection of the ecosystem, that has been explain above by my posts concerning probebility verse infinity. When the universe has an infinite number of chances to get it right, the probebility of it occuring just as it has here on earth becomes not chance, but a guerranty.

I suggest if you want to find out how so many people can not believe in a creator, you check out some college based physics courses. The laymen’s information which filters into general society is rife with misunderstandings like “it all came from nothing.”

227

A good thing to mention, since we are breifly on the topic of physics.

Einstein beleived in an afterlife, because he knew that energy (or anything for that matter) is never completle destroyed, it is just transformed.

228

True. Some even say that he believed in God as well. I am not completely convinced of that, even given his last words on earth, but regardless, I’m ok with Einstein believing in God. The most intelligent people can fool themselves, and the most foolish people can spawn moments of intellectual insights.

If anything I think that he added more mysteries than he solved, and that is a good thing. Without the mysteries to explore, life would be pretty boring.

229

I only mentioned the big bang as it (or a similar idea) always comes up when i talk to atheists. the main idea is that most athiests i have spoken on this topic to come down to a belief in this “idea” (ok i wont use “theory”). when challenged about how, not only did all this existence come from nothing, but it all came out with life and galaxies and solar systems and all that … i get the chaos theory in reply.

“When the universe has an infinite number of chances to get it right, the probebility of it occuring just as it has here on earth becomes not chance, but a guerranty.”

that is assuming that matter and energy can be “generated” from nothing in the first place, an idea that i see as ridiculous. as the topic has brought up einstein and his theories, one of which is that energy cannot be destroyed, only transferred. likewise that means that energy cannot be created, either. Only a supreme being who also created these restrictions can create energy, life etc… etc…

230

I only mentioned the big bang as it (or a similar idea) always comes up when i talk to atheists. the main idea is that most athiests i have spoken on this topic to come down to a belief in this “idea” (ok i wont use “theory”).
It’s ok. I know everyone calls it a theory. I just mention it to point out that often Atheists are ignorant of what they believe in. Something which I find just as distastful as a religious person being ignorant of what they believe in. You can call it a theory, I wont get mad or anything. :slight_smile:

when challenged about how, not only did all this existence come from nothing, but it all came out with life and galaxies and solar systems and all that … i get the chaos theory in reply.
The easy answer. I assure you that this is the answer they give simply because they don’t know any better.

“When the universe has an infinite number of chances to get it right, the probebility of it occuring just as it has here on earth becomes not chance, but a guerranty.”

that is assuming that matter and energy can be “generated” from nothing in the first place, an idea that i see as ridiculous.

Actually it has nothing to do with the theory of the big bang at all. It just has to do with the nature of energy and matter, how it reacts to each other, and the number of occurances of the possibility for such a reaction to occure.

It is however founded upon faith that life can spawn from non-living matter. A theory which at this time is still being heavily experimented upon, and is not entirely sound yet. There is a lot of evidence to prove that it can occur, but we have not yet been able to prove that it could occur in the conditions which were active during the age which scientists claim life started.

So I will admit that it is not completely adiquate as far as answers go… but I’m just throwing possibilities towards you. I have not tried to prove that all things that scientists say is true…keep that in mind. Some people are blind and follow scientists without question. The only thing that I follow without question is the form which scientific investigation takes. I cannot find a flaw with that. There are many theories which I disagree with. :slight_smile:

as the topic has brought up einstein and his theories, one of which is that energy cannot be destroyed, only transferred. likewise that means that energy cannot be created, either. Only a supreme being who also created these restrictions can create energy, life etc… etc.

Except that energy and matter can be transformed in such a manner that you would not recognise either, and or that you may not be able to locate it any longer. An object exists in many demensions which we as humans have no way to perceive except through mathmatical formula. As such, energy or matter may at times take on forms which are also unidentifiable to us. This we have proven, and again, can only be properly explained by a physisist.

I like your thinking though. At least you are looking for real faults in science. So many of the faithful come up with the worst examples of scientific flaws as to be laughable. But you are quite correct. The idea that something could come from nothing is almost impossible to understand from our perspective, and may be a complete falsity. As for Einstein saying that nothing could be destroyed or created, again I point to the fact that Einstein is not the end all be all of knowledge. He was working in the middle of this century, before most of our major scientific achievments were explored more in depth. He was just a very smart man, not a god of Atheism. :slight_smile:

peace

231

Upuaut

Some people are blind and follow scientists without question

Boy does this sometimes drive me nuts. People are so willing to believe everything they are told without asking themselves a few questions that it is mind boggling. A recent discussion I had with someone was about the big bang. Scientists state that due to the big bang all galaxies are moving outwards from the center (a proven fact - that they are moving I mean) but they also claim that at one poing they will start moving back in and then the big bang will happen again and so on and so on (i.e it is a permenant cycle). The question I ask is: Where in nature is there such a cycle, in other words evolution - de-evolution (if that is a word :slight_smile: ) - all nature has shown us is constant evolution thus why would the universe devolve? There is no such cycle in nature - everything moves forward. But a scientist said it so that means it’s gotta be true, right? :sure:

232

I’ve got the same problem with it. I know that there is some mathematical support for the idea that it will retract eventually, but I’m pretty sure that the default opinion would have to be that matter/energy, expanding into an infinite horizon must continue to do so.

First law of motion. An object in motion tends to remain in motion.

All in all though, I don’t really understand why the exact functioning of the Universe is even an issue with regards to Atheism.

This is one of the better explinations I’ve received from a scientist as to why Atheism is the only path to take which is true to one’s self. Obviously I’m paraphrasing a bit here.

One of many scientific principals states very simply. Given all things being equal, the simplest answer is probebly the correct one.

again, this is a principal that many don’t exactly get. Lets break it down.
“Given all things being equal…” This is simply stating, barring no outside interfierance, and assuming that what we are experiencing is in fact real, and proper data.
“…the simplest answer…” That which is most likely. That which requires the least explination. That which works in unison with what we know to be fact.
“is probebly the correct one.” Is more likely to be true than any other. More likely, not definitively.

This is the basis of how a scientist is supposed to examine his world. He must use this principal in order to facillitate a mean to opperate from. A starting point. This is important in science because discoveries are based upon one another. All scientists would be working in the dark if they had to start from scratch “I think therefore I am.” type of premise. The mean average gives them a working point to coexist in.

This leads to problems, which we see in conversations like this one. However it is absolutely neccessary in order to explore from as subjective a viewpoint as possible, the truth behind a event.

It also leads to the “default” veiw point of atheists. Given all things being equal, a lack of a God is simpler than explaining how such a creature as a creator of a universe could exist. To have a creature which is so powerful as to be able to create a rock that it cannot move, causing a paradox that would destroy reality as we know it, if it were to be fulfilled, is a monumental thing to explain. The fact that energy and matter coexist to make up the universe, is not difficult to explain at all. It simply is so. It is what you already know to be true.

Most of the time these conversations center around wether or not science is correct about the universe when in fact that is not an issue. We do not choose beliefs because they have all the answers. We choose beliefs because they have the most logical answers.

My own viewpoint is agnostic. As I recognise that the Universe itself, including all energy and matter in it, is god the creator. I just happen to have a different viewpoint as to what the actual personality/mentality/intelligence, of such a being might be. My view of God is one which is unconcerned with us as a life form. We are no more imporant or less important to it than a rock which is floating in orbit around Alpha Centuri.

233

It means we have the same belief… I cannot see how something that is so great to create the universe would be interested in our existence - something like this “I made you so now get on with it… you survive or not - that’s up to you”.

Given all things being equal, the simplest answer is probebly the correct one.

I believe this is known as Occam’s Razor, though I am not sure. I also believe this is the reason that it will take a loooong time before we understand our universe and our existence … it is to simple for us to comprehend. Or more importantly, it is to simple for us to want to comprehend as we believe ourselves (as humanity) to be too important to simply exist, and not be part of some greater design.

234

The way I see it is that God created all of existence as we know it, the matter, the energy, and the rules that govern them. I also beleive that God created all beings as we know them and see them, and I do not believe in evolution in any way.
I really cant comprehend that anyone can genuinely believe that matter can just “appear” out of nothing, let alone life.

Ill elaborate more tomorrow as im really pressed for time now, but i’d like to see more of your views …

235

I recognise that the universe is the creator because we are birthed of that which is it. I believe that it has no interest in us because it has no mind that we can conceive of, which relates on any level we can imagine.

That hardly implies anything spectacular about creation. As far as I’m concerned, creation is not relivant.

Maybe that’s the same as your beliefs, I don’t really know. :slight_smile:

Yes Occams razor does make things slow. If you are looking for “Ultimate” truths though you simply will not find them in science. It was never meant to explain such things in the first place. It mearly provides the basis which we start observation at.

236

I do not believe in evolution

So you honestly don’t think that humans decended from apes or decended from anything?

237

A good book to read:

Religion Explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought

by Pascal Boyer

I don’t have time to comment on everything but I’m glad to see that this conversation is still moving. :slight_smile:

238

well i’m really late on this thread, but…

i was born and raised catholic. i do believe in god, and i also feel it’s fien if you don’t. i don’t believe any religion is “bad” or better than another. what i can tell you is my own experience. i used to go to church every sunday, and believe me things just seem to go better for me when i do continously go. maybe it’s in my head, maybe it’s not. the only religion i believe are “not good” are the ones who take things to extremes. for example, killing yourself or others, or terrorism. i feel this way because all of that goes against any religion, and morality.

as far as athiests… all good, i got no problem with your beliefs. every man or women is free to believe or pratice what they wish however… if you don’t believe in god or if there is even a god, when the bridges are burning don’t let me catch you praying :slight_smile:

239

I agree with you digi,

Religious people should not convice athiest that they should beleive in something.

But athiest should return the favor by not trying to disprove peoples beliefs.

240

Religious people should not convice athiest that they should beleive in something.

But athiest should return the favor by not trying to disprove peoples beliefs.

sorry, I have to disagree Russian. What has it come to when we should stiffle our beliefs because of someone elses feelings on a matter. Should I learn what everyone else’s beliefs are so that when in the company of any one of millions of different people on the planet I’ll be PC enough to make sure that their lives are safe, secure and ignorant?

remember, ignorant to me is not an insult, but a natural state of being. I’m not calling other beliefs stupid, mearly calling those who do not wish to hear anything that might not coincide with their beliefs unknowledgable. Which they are by their desired state…

Asking an athiest to not disprove things is just plain silly. It means that they basicaly can’t do anything in life other than work eat and sleep. The nature of science is to disprove. It is the foundation of the subject.

I like religious people who are certain, and smart in their beliefs. I like ones that believe so much that they are going to save my eternal soul, that they must share this with me. That is a beutiful thing, no matter how anoying you may find it on a sunday morning.

I say let the Christians come and try to save my soul. Any who do will get an ear full. From Dante to Shakespear, from Mathew to Gnostic records.

In the end it comes down to this. Some like myself will seek out such esoteric conversation. The forums of the internet make it all the more easy. It is up to those who wish to remain ignorant of other’s beliefs, to stay out of such conversations, it is not up to me to stiffle them.