The Religion of Atheism

[Mike375]

Science is certainly the best method we have for finding answers - but science as THE answer? Depends on the question. Depends if the question even HAS an answer.
Which is better, oranges or November?

In the context of these threads/topics it was either started by a supernatural or supernaturals or there is a scientific explanation.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

In the context of these threads/topics it was either started by a supernatural or supernaturals or there is a scientific explanation.

That doesn't mean every single detail of one possible explanation needs nailing down in order to dismiss the other.

 

[Mike375]

That doesn't mean every single detail of one possible explanation needs nailing down in order to dismiss the other.

Big Bang would hardly be called a single detail.

 

[DanWall]

That'll make it true then. Was this book by any chance published in Africa

I can't remember.... Neither can anyone else for that matter. In fact, it doesn't have a publishing date OR author, and is written in a language I don't understand.

It IS written in a fancy book though, so it's gotta be true.
My mum told me so.

 

[Alisa]

But atheists constantly mention science is the answer. Check through the thread Alisa started in The Watercooler, about 2500 plus postings.

I have never seen an atheist state that the answer to "where did everything come from" can be definitely answered, much less that they themselves are personally able to answer it, which is what you are implying. If you disagree, maybe you should refer to a specific post.

 

[Pauldohert]

You must have some idea though, (which was all Mike asked you for), for you consider it less preposterous than theism.

Otherwise you are clueless on the subject.

Which is it?

 

[Alisa]

Big Bang would hardly be called a single detail.

Or put another way, one can disprove one solution without offering an alternate solution. This is not like the U.S. senate where if you don't like my budget you better offer an alternative of your own.

 

[Pauldohert]

Disprove it then!

 

[Mike375]

Or put another way, one can disprove one solution without offering an alternate solution. This is not like the U.S. senate where if you don't like my budget you better offer an alternative of your own.

Not asking to prove or disprove Big Bang, simply do you agree with the theory.

 

[Alisa]

Not asking to prove or disprove Big Bang, simply do you agree with the theory.

And I am telling you that my opinion of the Big Bang is irrelevant to the discussion of atheism. One has nothing to do with the other. If I wanted to talk about the Big Bang, I would be posting about it on the other thread you started.

 

[Mike375]

And I am telling you that my opinion of the Big Bang is irrelevant to the discussion of atheism.

But surely you must have some thoughts on Big Bang and as to whether it was responsible for the start of the universe.

Is the way the universe started irrelevant to atheism?

 

[Alc]

You must have some idea though, (which was all Mike asked you for), for you consider it less preposterous than theism.

Otherwise you are clueless on the subject.

Which is it?

Okay, if it'll make you feel any better if I 'pick a side', I believe it's a possibility. Happy now?

Bear in mind that that statement was made in the context of my having no idea about it. The only thing that, to my mind, makes it at least plausible is that it - as far as I'm aware - it's based on knowledge, as opposed to blind faith. If you want to rip holes in it, go onto Mike's other thread and do so to your heart's content. I won't able to argue since - one last time for those at the back and the hard of hearing - I know nothing about it.

I've already explained that I don't need to know the details of one theory to be able to dismiss another as sounding ridiculous to me.

I ask you, how did I get to work, today?
Was it by car, train, bus, or riding on a gryphon?
You don't know which of those it was. How could you? However, you can probably dismiss the last option it from your consideration, as it would necessitate the existence of something you, presumably, don't believe in. I can use the same logic to say that I don't believe the universe or anything within it was created by one or more gods.

 

[Pauldohert]

Why do you think Alisa won't answer Mike?

 

[Alc]

Why do you think Alisa won't answer Mike?

My guess is because it's been tried in the past.

 

[DanWall]

My guess is because it's been tried in the past.

That's a good theory. Prove it.

 

[Alc]

That's a good theory. Prove it.

I submit post #49.

 

[Alisa]

But surely you must have some thoughts on Big Bang and as to whether it was responsible for the start of the universe.

Is the way the universe started irrelevant to atheism?

The specific details of the way the universe started are not relevant to atheism.

What is relevant is whether you need to know definitively (the theist), or whether you are ok with uncertainty (the atheist). What is not relevant is whether you think any one theory is valid or not valid or whatever.

Aside from yourself, I have never seen anyone claim that the big bang/big bounce theories are at all definitive or complete or that "the science is in". As an atheist, I accept the fact that we currently DON'T KNOW, and we may NEVER KNOW the answer to the question where did everything come from. My opinion on the particulars of the big bang theory are irrelevant.

 

[oumahexi]

Why do you think Alisa won't answer Mike?

I would think you would understand someone's reluctance to answer a question Paul. Do you think she's scared that she may have to concede to being wrong?

Nothing personal against YOU Alisa...

 

[Mike375]

The specific details of the way the universe started are not relevant to atheism.

Big Bang and the earlier Steady State theory are far more than specific details

Aside from yourself, I have never seen anyone claim that the big bang/big bounce theories are at all definitive or complete or that "the science is in".

Big Bang/Big Bounce is the accepted theory and has been that way for many years.

My opinion on the particulars of the big bang theory are irrelevant.

 

[Pauldohert]

Okay, if it'll make you feel any better if I 'pick a side', I believe it's a possibility. Happy now?

Bear in mind that that statement was made in the context of my having no idea about it. The only thing that, to my mind, makes it at least plausible is that it - as far as I'm aware - it's based on knowledge, as opposed to blind faith. If you want to rip holes in it, go onto Mike's other thread and do so to your heart's content. I won't able to argue since - one last time for those at the back and the hard of hearing - I know nothing about it.

I've already explained that I don't need to know the details of one theory to be able to dismiss another as sounding ridiculous to me.

I ask you, how did I get to work, today?
Was it by car, train, bus, or riding on a gryphon?
You don't know which of those it was. How could you? However, you can probably dismiss the last option it from your consideration, as it would necessitate the existence of something you, presumably, don't believe in. I can use the same logic to say that I don't believe the universe or anything within it was created by one or more gods.

If I was as ignorant as you claim to be - I would be guessing.