Atheism : Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Gotham Knight]

Thanks but I'm very informed as it is. That and your video isn't showing up. I just find it ignorant to deduce something as being false or not true, when you yourself have no scientific proof in order to do so.

 

[JAK®]

Thanks but I'm very informed as it is. That and your video isn't showing up. I just find it ignorant to deduce something as being false or not true, when you yourself have no scientific proof in order to do so.

I get what you're saying. You can't ever prove that God doesn't exist for sure.

But I submit that God, as a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence, is equivalent to fiction, since it's an explanation proposed as a story but has no tangible evidence to bring it further than that. This, of course, would change with the introduction of evidence.

The truth is, however, that there is more evidence for God being fiction than there is that he is real. Which you will find is more from a historical standpoint than a scientific one. Because Science isn't in the business of proving something doesn't exist.

 

[Gotham Knight]

I get what you're saying. You can't ever prove that God doesn't exist for sure.

But I submit that God, as a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence, is equivalent to fiction, since it's an explanation proposed as a story but has no tangible evidence to bring it further than that. This, of course, would change with the introduction of evidence.

The truth is, however, that there is more evidence for God being fiction than there is that he is real. Which you will find is more from a historical standpoint than a scientific one. Because Science isn't in the business of proving something doesn't exist.

But I'm always dumbfounded when someone, whether it be an Atheist or Christian, whatever, deduces the other. Especially when compared, because neither one is more believable than the other in my opinion. Little more evidence or not.

So I take it you're an Atheist?

 

[Bill]

But I'm always dumbfounded when someone, whether it be an Atheist or Christian, whatever, deduces the other. Especially when compared, because neither one is more believable than the other in my opinion. Little more evidence or not.

Depends on whether it's a specific god or the Christian God. There is no reason to state that there is no Supreme Being, but then again, there is no reason for one to exist, either. In fact, the only time it becomes problematic is when the lack of a Supreme Being hinders some notion of an afterlife or to placate a believer. Otherwise, there is no useful purpose for it to serve.

When you make the god more specific and start stating characteristics and adding stories about your god, then you can see if he exists based on the available evidence when compared to the characteristics and stories provided. If the Christian God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect, yet exhibits characteristics that run contrary to that description, then you have compelling reasoning to dismiss the Christian God. There may still exist some Supreme Being, but the Christian God is dismissed based on his inability to live up to his own characteristics.

There is certainly reasonable evidence that the Christian God is a Hebrew invention. And that he exhibits characteristics and behaviors that are relevant to Hebrew culture of that time.

 

[redhawk23]

But I'm always dumbfounded when someone, whether it be an Atheist or Christian, whatever, deduces the other. Especially when compared, because neither one is more believable than the other in my opinion. Little more evidence or not.

So I take it you're an Atheist?

You don't at least admit that scientific observation is tangible and actually allows the computer you are typing on to actually exist? I understand hesitance to beleive scientific theories of the origins of the universe (of which there are many, people tend to forget that science is not some monolithic field), but to disregard that scientific inquiry has given insight and allows our society to exist is slighty preposterous.

Where in the bible or any other book does God say "LET THERE BE INTERWEBZ!"

 

[JAK®]

But I'm always dumbfounded when someone, whether it be an Atheist or Christian, whatever, deduces the other. Especially when compared, because neither one is more believable than the other in my opinion. Little more evidence or not.

Neither one is more believable than the other? That doesn't make sense. Atheism has nothing in that requires belief. It just means that you don't believe in deities. The reasons given for individuals being an atheist can be analysed, but that isn't an intrinsic part of Atheism itself.

Christianity, however, is specific. It states that there is a God who created the universe, and he did it a certain way, in a certain order, within a certain timeframe. It tells you the names of the first human beings created. It tells you all of God's interaction with humanity in chronological order. It gives you ten rules to follow life by, and if you don't, you won't join God in the kingdom of heaven. It tells you that a man called Jesus existed in a known, recorded part of history, and that he performed several miracles until he was crucified, and then he came back from the dead.

Christianity is, by several orders of magnitude, far less believable than Atheism. Atheism doesn't ask you to believe anything.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Neither one is more believable than the other? That doesn't make sense. Atheism has nothing in that requires belief. It just means that you don't believe in deities. The reasons given for individuals being an atheist can be analysed, but that isn't an intrinsic part of Atheism itself.

Christianity, however, is specific. It states that there is a God who created the universe, and he did it a certain way, in a certain order, within a certain timeframe. It tells you the names of the first human beings created. It tells you all of God's interaction with humanity in chronological order. It gives you ten rules to follow life by, and if you don't, you won't join God in the kingdom of heaven. It tells you that a man called Jesus existed in a known, recorded part of history, and that he performed several miracles until he was crucified, and then he came back from the dead.

Christianity is, by several orders of magnitude, far less believable than Atheism. Atheism doesn't ask you to believe anything.

That seems like a cop out to me. Any Atheist chooses not to believe in a God. And I also find that believing in the big bang theory, or that we came from monkeys, equal to walking on water.

 

[Lighthouse]

That seems like a cop out to me. Any Atheist chooses not to believe in a God. And I also find that believing in the big bang theory, or that we came from monkeys, equal to walking on water.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Yeah, I pretty much knew that was going to start a firestorm.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Truth be told I find coming from monkeys a better explanation than "We came from our parents." so I was just doing a favor.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

We don't come from monkeys though. We come from a common ancestor. Also That is has evidence so no its not anything like walking on water.

 

[bunk]

subscribed.

 

[Bubonic]

Yeah, I pretty much knew that was going to start a firestorm.

Okay, so you were just being a troll.
Good, better than the alternative.

 

[Gotham Knight]

Last post here. The only reason I came into this thread was to point out what I found an absurd comment found through a signature. I'm not getting sucked into a verbal discussion about something no one can prove or disprove. It's silly and only ends in nonstop internet fighting. It's a waste of time fighting with someone only interested in getting me angry rather than having an adult discussion; Like I could have in the real world where people don't let loose because they can hide behind their computers and attack your beliefs. And when I could be doing something productive. That being said, I have respect for your belief in whatever it may be. But I didn't post here to take part in the discussion. I avoid these threads for a reason. If JAG would like to respond, he's more than welcome. But I'm going to let you guys carry on with whatever it was you were discussing.

 

[redhawk23]

The theory of evolution as the origin of species (not the origin of life by the way, just the differences between species, people tend to miss that) is in no way comparable to "walking on water." Adaptation through survival of the fittest is actually very much obserable over a fairly short time. I mean do I really have to bring up the moths here? Within a few generations peppered moths in england became amost entirely black as the lighter colored moths began to stick out in the soot covered 19th century environment, and were eaten by birds. As the industry of England has changed and the environnment has become cleaner the moths are lighter again. Thats one trait, color, in one species over a fairly short time. Also simply tracing genetic evidence tell us about how organisms are related.

I know you were just trolling on that one, but it was really just a preposterous statement to make.

Now as for the big bang, there's evidence for that as well. There are a number of different arguments on the matter, its not like "science" just declared on point of view as ultimate truth. However, it is known that the universe is expanding, that the galaxies are moving away from eachother. Theres also a lot of radiation leftover from whatever it was that brought the universe into existence. Turn your television on to an empty channel. About 5% of what you see is your tv picking up radiation from the beginning of everything.
People dont just whip these theories out their asses. I think people think think of theoriey in the colloquial use of the word "theory" as if they are just hunches. They are a conceptual framework modified to fit systematic observations. Also scientists are eachothers biggest critics. Every single serious paper on any matter is extremly scrutinized and often argued against. Its not like science rests on it laurels. Everything is constantly re-examined, all theories are under attack. Any scientist would absolutly love to one-up Darwin, or Einstein. They'd be pretty much famous, when the Nobel, get grants to continue their research.

Also adherence to scientific principles is not Atheism. Many Atheists are interested in science but they are on in the same. Attempting to discredit science in order to discredit Atheism is a moot point.

 

[redhawk23]

Last post here. The only reason I came into this thread was to point out what I found an absurd comment found through a signature. I'm not getting sucked into a verbal discussion about something no one can prove or disprove. It's silly and only ends in nonstop internet fighting. It's a waste of time fighting with someone only interested in getting me angry rather than having an adult discussion; Like I could have in the real world where people don't let loose because they can hide behind their computers and attack your beliefs. And when I could be doing something productive. That being said, I have respect for your belief in whatever it may be. But I didn't post here to take part in the discussion. I avoid these threads for a reason. If JAG would like to respond, he's more than welcome. But I'm going to let you guys carry on with whatever it was you were discussing.

The only one hiding behind their computers is you. You said yourself that you didnt come here to discuss, you came only to incite. Youre attacking beliefs, but also making yourself look quite ignorant. Most of the people in thread, while expressing their own person distaste for theistic beliefs were not ripping on others who are religious. Who let loose?

So yes, when YOU are ready to have an adult discussion, feel free to come back.

 

[JAK®]

That seems like a cop out to me. Any Atheist chooses not to believe in a God.

You should have highlighted the 'not' as well, since that is what describes Atheism.

And I also find that believing in the big bang theory, or that we came from monkeys, equal to walking on water.

These are not aspects of Atheism. But I'll bite. We have evidence for the big bang. We know when it occurred and what effects it had and has on our universe.

We didn't come from monkeys. We just share a common ancestor. We have fossils that prove this. Obviously you find evolution hard to believe because you don't understand it fully.

But when it comes to walking on water, all it takes is trying it to prove that you can't do it. The only evidence that it ever occurred is a story in the Bible.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Geez. Come on, at least understand the very basics of evolution and cosmology if you are going to try to discredit it. And just in the interest of fairness watch "The Magic of Jesus" and "Tricks from the Bible". ITZ TEH BYE BULL FOR REALZ!!!

 

[redhawk23]

Chill bro.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You should have highlighted the 'not' as well, since that is what describes Atheism. These are not aspects of Atheism. But I'll bite. We have evidence for the big bang. We know when it occurred and what effects it had and has on our universe.

We didn't come from monkeys. We just share a common ancestor. We have fossils that prove this. Obviously you find evolution hard to believe because you don't understand it fully.

But when it comes to walking on water, all it takes is trying it to prove that you can't do it. The only evidence that it ever occurred is a story in the Bible.

I don't fully understand evolution.

But I know that plenty of other people who are a lot smarter than me understand it. I know they write about it. I know that people can spend their entire lives and careers working on the evidence for it, working on building bigger and better pictures of the truth. I know that there are many documentaries I could watch right now that would give me a better understanding of it, and I know that it has been accepted as truth, as it is taught to us as FACT in school.

That is enough for me.

I'm pretty sure there are people who have DISPROVEN the notion of being able to walk on water too...

So no, something that is scientifically proven as fact, and something that is scientifically proven as nonsense (and widely accepted even by members of the christian church to be a 'metaphor', as are a lot of the stories in the bible), are not comparable.

P.S.

Just wanted to post this Q&A with Joss Whedon in which he is asked about being an atheist, because I love it, and I think it says a lot of how I feel, especially towards the end when he references the quote in 'Angel' - 'If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.' That quote has meant a lot to me since I first heard it, and so it was nice to hear how much it means to him too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EReyF2ZzXGA&feature=related

 

[hopefuldreamer]

And just for fun, a couple more of my favourite Atheists, Stephen Fry and Alan Davies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLWWwV4OiHk&feature=related

And Stephen Fry on his own:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv2EouwmLfM

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Humppity bump.

I can understand why people, turn to religion. They feel insignificant. They need their to be something more that thinks they are special. Even if they went to Hell, it's better than there being nothing, you're alive, you can feel the pain, and at the end of (the day/eternity?) that would be the important thing. There is something afterwards. And you can't blame them for that.

http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

 

[WeasleyIsRKing]

I'm curious on everyone's views on what was the catalyst that started the Big Bang...how did the Universe begin? What caused it?

I have a Christian friend who argues against the Big Bang because, as he states, in what other cases can you think of where an explosion creates life? None...what do you guys think of life arising (billions of years after the Big Bang) and its origins?

 

[Knight Rise]

Yes the world appeared out of nowhere, that makes sense. Sorry, im not trying to bash anyones beliefs, but God seems to make more sense than the Big Bang

 

[redhawk23]

Yes the world appeared out of nowhere, that makes sense. Sorry, im not trying to bash anyones beliefs, but God seems to make more sense than the Big Bang

Where did God come from? That argument is replacing one paradoxical conclusion based on observable evidence with one, no less paradoxical, with no proof. How is that more believable? I'm not ripping on you at all. What you choose to believe in is your business I've just never understood that argument.

And as for the "explosion creating life" explosions release energy and particles, which form atoms, which combine into chemicals, which can combine into amino acids which can combine into proteins, which are the building blocks of all life.

We tend to think of explosions in terms of destruction, but esentially they are just a release of energy. Energy is at the root of everything. And life is energy being stored and used and recycled.

We know that there was an explosion. Things are expanding and moving away from eachother in a path that suggests it and the radiation from that explosion still exists. Turn on your tv to an empty channel. Part of that static is your receiver picking up radiowaves from that explosion

Now as for what caused this, what set things in motion, we do not yet know. That is the edge of our accumulated understanding. To reach that edge understanding and say "See! You don't know! It HAD to be God then!" Is somewhat foolish. Theres always an edge to our knowledge, to our current ability to percieve, of our ability to create tools to increase that perception. It is those limits that we challenge ourselve to edge past, to refocus our gaze upon. It's not a matter of the things we don't know, or can't know. It what we don't know yet.