Atheism - Discussion thread (1 Viewer)

[Will Shakespear]

If someone asks me, "what was the state of the universe prior to the big bang" (if that even makes sense, since time started with the big bang), or "what caused the big bang", I'd say "I don't know, and neither does anyone else". This statement is both correct (for now), and requires 0 faith.

You'd say "my magic man did it".

As for the canards about "chance", find me one peer reviewed scientific paper which has in its discussion, 'thus we conclude the universe must have appeared from nothing, purely by chance' or something equivalent.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

If someone asks me, "what was the state of the universe prior to the big bang" (if that even makes sense, since time started with the big bang), or "what caused the big bang", I'd say "I don't know, and neither does anyone else". This statement is both correct (for now), and requires 0 faith.

You'd say "my magic man did it".

As for the canards about "chance", find me one peer reviewed scientific paper which has in its discussion, 'thus we conclude the universe must have appeared from nothing, purely by chance' or something equivalent.

Like I said, get back to me when you've come up with somethig better than 'something just 'poofed' nothing by chance', because right now Gods Grace seems to require far less faith.
I'll be all ears.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Like I said, get back to me when you've come up with somethig better than 'something just 'poofed' nothing by chance', because right now Gods Grace seems to require far less faith.
I'll be all ears.

How do you know there was ever nothing?

 

[philphie]

Like I said, get back to me when you've come up with somethig better than 'something just 'poofed' nothing by chance', because right now Gods Grace seems to require far less faith.
I'll be all ears.

end this racist thread immediately

 

[ComingUpForAir]

How do you know there was ever nothing?

Thats what the Athiest's say (i.e. through evolution we just 'poofed' into existence,i.e. an old fashioned tautology). I accept the notion that time and space correlate rather than 'causate', meaning the true solution lies in the 3rd variable, God Grace.

 

[jazzzod]

This thread is full of douchebaggery.

 

[annabackwards]

You missed my point entirely.

What makes you so arrogant, feeble human that you can hope to understand everything there is in the universe, merely through a dogmatic obsession with observation and experimentation?

Even if there is no God, why should this universe obey any finite number of definate rules at all? Do such certin rules even exist? And if they do, then why do they exist and how did they come into being? (Don't say its obvious, because it isn't).

And what makes you think, that even IF the universe is in fact subject to certinty in physical laws (which begs the questions, why it is, and then how this came to be) what makes you think, you can even hope to understand them?

You claim science provides answers, start providing.

And asking me to have faith in that some time down the track, some smart guy is going to be able to give them to me isn't evidence you can use to prove your assertions now. I can say your faith in that genius down the track is as misplaced as mine in God because as I am continuously told; faith =/= evidence.

"No it does provide answers, I don't know what they are, and I don't know when they will be discovered, by whom and how, bu they will be, and they will explain everything, have faith in science" - Don't tell me to only trust evidence, because you have as little as I do.

What makes you so arrogant, feeble human that you can proclaim the existence of God and knowledge of his rules, insulting everyone else who chooses not to believe in his existence?

Read my quote above as science requires no faith.

Thats what the Athiest's say (i.e. through evolution we just 'poofed' into existence,i.e. an old fashioned tautology). I accept the notion that time and space correlate rather than 'causate', meaning the true solution lies in the 3rd variable, God Grace.

I suggest you look up what the theory of evolution actually is and you are undoubtedly confusing science with religion.

 

[spammy679]

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector

 

[Name_Taken]

Faith is the rejection of evidence.

I disagree, faith is belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. Note an absence of evidence/logical proof to support an assertion is not evidence in itself that the assertion is not true.

If someone remains faithful to something despite evidence that rejects whatever they believe in I would describe them as an idiot.

No such evidence exists that would disprove the existence of God.

 

[Name_Taken]

What makes you so arrogant, feeble human that you can proclaim the existence of God and knowledge of his rules, insulting everyone else who chooses not to believe in his existence?

Faith, and faith alone, which is also what you are relying on to support your assertions, you're just not aware of it

Read my quote above as science requires no faith.

Read my previous post again. What evidence is there to support the notion that the universe is governed by a series of finite laws which can be discovered and understood by the human through observation and experimentation?

What evidence do you even have to support the notion that humans are even capable of actually understanding all there is to know in the universe?

Answer; nothing, you have no evidence, all you have is faith that we are able to and our methods are correct.

Cease you're hypocrisy.

If you did not rely on faith as much as I do (faith in a different thing however), neither of us would have anything to argue.

 

[Graney]

Read my previous post again. What evidence is there to support the notion that the universe is governed by a series of finite laws which can be discovered and understood by the human through observation and experimentation?

What evidence do you even have to support the notion that humans are even capable of actually understanding all there is to know in the universe?

Answer; nothing, you have no evidence, all you have is faith that we are able to and our methods are correct.

Cease you're hypocrisy.

If you did not rely on faith as much as I do (faith in a different thing however), neither of us would have anything to argue.

The absence of belief is belief. Truth is fiction. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

 

[Name_Taken]

The absence of belief is belief. Truth is fiction. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Lolwut?

 

[Graney]

What you're saying is intellectually vapid. The absence of understanding, and the admission of the impossibility of knowledge, isn't making a claim to hold a kind of knowledge.

This is speaking as an agnostic.

 

[Name_Taken]

What you're saying is intellectually vapid. The absence of understanding, and the admission of the impossibility of knowledge, isn't making a claim to hold a kind of knowledge.

This is speaking as an agnostic.

No but making an assertion for which there is no evidence is a belief. Belief is characterised by faith.

There is no cold, hard, definate evidence that there is no God, therefore believing that there is no God is a belief.

(This wouldn't apply to you as it would an athiest, being agnostic).

 

[Kwayera]

Absense of belief is not a belief. I have no reason to believe in a God (agnosticism), therefore I do not (atheism). It is not active thing; it is just lack thereof. It is possible to be an atheistic agnostic, as opposed to a theistic agnostic (no reason/evidence to believe in a God but does anyway) or apathetic agnostic (no reason/evidence to believe and doesn't care either way).

 

[Name_Taken]

Absense of belief is not a belief. I have no reason to believe in a God (agnosticism), therefore I do not (atheism). It is not active thing; it is just lack thereof. It is possible to be an atheistic agnostic, as opposed to a theistic agnostic (no reason/evidence to believe in a God but does anyway) or apathetic agnostic (no reason/evidence to believe and doesn't care either way).

I would agree agnostic is an absense of belief.

But athiests go further and assert that there is in fact no God, for which they do not have evidence to prove this. Athiests believe there is no God.

Agnostics merely say (correctly) that presently there is no proof that there is a God or that there isn't a God. They don't believe in God, but by the same token, they don't believe there isn't a God.

 

[Kwayera]

So you're putting your faith science lol, in corruptable humanity over and above that of the Creator?

You can't say you don't believe in God becuase you don't have faith. You do have faith, just in science rather than God. You rely on faith as much as I do, its just in a different area.

Science is a blunt tool. The scientific method will not have changed in 1000 years. New technologies and developments in thought may unlock new tools to use with which to investigate but, the unanswerable will remain so.

Faith in science? Science doesn't require faith. That's like saying I must have faith in the fact an iron ingot is made of iron. It doesn't require faith, it simply is.

What is it with you Christians and your obsession with faith?

 

[Riet]

Thats what the Athiest's say (i.e. through evolution we just 'poofed' into existence,i.e. an old fashioned tautology). I accept the notion that time and space correlate rather than 'causate', meaning the true solution lies in the 3rd variable, God Grace.

No atheists ever say that.

 

[Kwayera]

I would agree agnostic is an absense of belief.

But athiests go further and assert that there is in fact no God, for which they do not have evidence to prove this. Athiests believe there is no God.

Agnostics merely say (correctly) that presently there is no proof that there is a God or that there isn't a God. They don't believe in God, but by the same token, they don't believe there isn't a God.

Incorrect. Agnosticism is not an absense of belief - it is an acknowledgement that there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of God, and that that evidence may in fact be impossible. Atheism is an "absence of belief in at least one deity". A-theism, literally "without God".

Do you actively disbelieve in the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun? No. You don't know whether it is there or not (agnosticism), and at this point in time you can't know, but all things being equal, it's unlikely that there is a teapot (ateapotism).

 

[Will Shakespear]

Thats what the Athiest's say (i.e. through evolution we just 'poofed' into existence,i.e. an old fashioned tautology). I accept the notion that time and space correlate rather than 'causate', meaning the true solution lies in the 3rd variable, God Grace.

no we don't

try understanding what evolution and cosmology say first