The Religion of Atheism

[Mike375]

Is there any atheist that will support Bing Bang OR support Steady State?

I know Rabbie expressed his opinion, but he is not a true atheist.

There is no reason for atheists to fear Big Bang.

 

[Rabbie]

Is there any atheist that will support Bing Bang OR support Steady State?

I know Rabbie expressed his opinion, but he is not a true atheist.

There is no reason for atheists to fear Big Bang.

I resent you calling my integrity into question.

I don't believe in God/gods or other supernatural beings. Therefore I am atheist. I might revise my opinion in the future if I saw rational evidence but until then I don't see any reason to change my position.

As for your question whether it is Big Bang or Steady State or whatever does not have any relevance to me in coming to my position. In a similar way it is possible for a religious person to believe in evolution either by saying their God seeded the planet with a primitive life form which has since evolved or that the creator merely created a planet where life could evolve from non-life.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Is there any atheist that will support Bing Bang OR support Steady State?

Why do I get the feeling there is an 'AHA!' lurking, ready to pounce at such time as some atheist sheepishly answers this question in the affirmative?

 

[Rich]

Rich shouldn't you leave that sort of correction to Colin.

He was absent, so I took the liberty

 

[Mike375]

I resent you calling my integrity into question.

I don't believe in God/gods or other supernatural beings. Therefore I am atheist. I might revise my opinion in the future if I saw rational evidence but until then I don't see any reason to change my position.

In one of the other threads you said something like.....I don't know

But I note your new position of ....."I don't believe in God/gods or other supernatural beings. Therefore I am atheist."

As for your question whether it is Big Bang or Steady State or whatever does not have any relevance to me in coming to my position.

Noted. It is interesting that you can come to a position while ignoring Steady State and Big Bang. So is your religious position only one of default?

In a similar way (Not sure what you mean by a similar way)

it is possible for a religious person to believe in evolution either by saying their God seeded the planet with a primitive life form which has since evolved or that the creator merely created a planet where life could evolve from non-life.

Assuming your question is real I will try and answer.

Firstly, I don't know why you have introduced evolution to the discussion since that is way down the track....but whatever

Staying with the theme you set......I think in general the theory of evolution sits easy with most people who believe a supernatural or supernaturals were involved. But the reason it sits easy with them is because they are like most atheists. The vast majority of atheists are like the vast majority of "religious". Non thinking. Hence Big Bang question with entirely predictable results

But moving on.

In my opinion there is nothing in nature that supports evolution. There are heaps of things that support natural selection.

 

[Rabbie]

In one of the other threads you said something like.....I don't know

But I note your new position of ....."I don't believe in God/gods or other supernatural beings. Therefore I am atheist."

Not a new position at all. this a clear definition of my position. If you have chosen to misinterpret what I have said that is your problem not mine

Noted. It is interesting that you can come to a position while ignoring Steady State and Big Bang. So is your religious position only one of default?

My point was that what happened maybe 14 billion years ago is not actually relevant to my position today

Assuming your question is real I will try and answer.

Firstly, I don't know why you have introduced evolution to the discussion since that is way down the track....but whatever

Staying with the theme you set......I think in general the theory of evolution sits easy with most people who believe a supernatural or supernaturals were involved.

Try telling that to fundamentalist christian creationists

But the reason it sits easy with them is because they are like most atheists. The vast majority of atheists are like the vast majority of "religious". Non thinking. Hence Big Bang question with entirely predictable results

I beg to differ there. In my experience people who haven't thought about it remain with the religion they were brought up in. To change your position is usually the result of some considered thought.

But moving on.

In my opinion there is nothing in nature that supports evolution. There are heaps of things that support natural selection.

I choose to refer to "evolution by natural selection" evolution for reasons of brevity. Lets stop the undergraduate debating society semantics and try to have a sensible discussion about this

 

[Mike375]

Try telling that to fundamentalist christian creationists

The problem is not restricted to fundamentalist christian creationists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
But the reason it sits easy with them is because they are like most atheists. The vast majority of atheists are like the vast majority of "religious". Non thinking. Hence Big Bang question with entirely predictable results

I beg to differ there. In my experience people who haven't thought about it remain with the religion they were brought up in. To change your position is usually the result of some considered thought.

I have to beg to differ I can't see any difference between most atheists and most "believers"

In the vast majority of cases either position is a case of a statement of position. That is why Big Bang is avoided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
But moving on.

In my opinion there is nothing in nature that supports evolution. There are heaps of things that support natural selection.

I choose to refer to "evolution by natural selection" evolution for reasons of brevity. Lets stop the undergraduate debating society semantics and try to have a sensible discussion about this

That is what I was wanting to do and why I differenciated between natural selection and evolution etc.

 

[Rabbie]

That is what I was wanting to do and why I differenciated between natural selection and evolution etc.

I am afraid I don't understand your point here. Surely if we are talking about Evolution by Natural Selection" there is no need (and no point) in differentiating them. Evolution is the idea and Natural Selection is the mechanism which makes it work.
Now I am taking a break from this thread as you seem unwilling to actually listen to what other people are saying.

 

[Alc]

It would depend on wholeheartedly - if I could proof it didn't exist of course I could dismiss it.

However if I had one option which I didn't really understand but felt it was unlikely, but had no better theory. I could not dismiss it. Even the most unlikley things can be true, and if you have no knowledge of other theories - the fact that one seems unlikley doesn't mean the others can't be even more unlikely.

I can reasonably safely dismiss the gryphon, cos I understand what is puports to be, and I have never heard anyone even claim to have gotten a gryphon to work. And also because I do have good theory of how else you may have gotten to work. As there are millions of other examples each day of how else it could be done. ie - I got the bus, so its quite reasonable that you may have done too.

However having not really got to grips with the concept of nothing - and then there being everything, created by a god of by other methods.

I really don't have the knowledge to rule anything out, and I have no other proven examples given to me everyday of how it is done elsewhere. Then there are the great minds through history who support a belief of God, not many for the gryphon.

Thats the situation you report yourself to be in - but choose to dismiss the theory of God.

I am more open minded, or willing to admit I really don't know.

So, when you don't know something and admit it, you're open-minded, but when I try tp do the same you are unable to fathom the idea?

When I feel safe in dismissing the existence of a mythical creature, due to lack of evidence, it's unacceptable. When you do it, that's okay.

Gullible, yes. Hypocritical, certainly. Open minded? I don't think so.

 

[Pauldohert]

You clearly can't see the differance between the examples can you?

 

[Mike375]

I am afraid I don't understand your point here. Surely if we are talking about Evolution by Natural Selection" there is no need (and no point) in differentiating them. Evolution is the idea and Natural Selection is the mechanism which makes it work.

Natural selection can and does occur independent of evolution. In fact it is happening all of the time.

 

[Alc]

You clearly can't see the differance between the examples can you?

There is no difference beyond the fact that don't you happen to think of God as a fictional being.

For all your meandering around the point, it is still possible for someone to dismiss an idea - in spite of knowing nothing about the alternatives, beyond the fact that they exist - as long as they know that idea to be completely impossible, based on everything they have ever learned.

From an atheist perspective, one mythical creature is the same as another. If anything, the idea of one or more gods is just more far fetched, given the abilities they're supposed to possess.

 

[Pauldohert]

The definitions make them clearly differant.

 

[Alc]

The definitions make them clearly differant.

Please enlighten me.

In what way do the following statements not apply equally to both God and to dragons/ogres/whatever, IF you assume that God does not exist.

1) Something created the Earth.
2) There are many theories, one of which (theory X) is that {mythical creature(s)}created it.
3) Based on eveything I have ever learned, {mythical creature(s)} don't exist and have never existed.
4) Therefore, regardless of what I know about the remaining theories, I can dismiss theory X out of hand.

 

[Mike375]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
Is there any atheist that will support Bing Bang OR support Steady State?

Why do I get the feeling there is an 'AHA!' lurking, ready to pounce at such time as some atheist sheepishly answers this question in the affirmative?

Well, I will try again.

Is there any atheist that will support Big Bang or support Steady State?

 

[DanWall]

I went to church once.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

I don't qualify to answer. Am I wrong about the 'aha!'?

 

[Alc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375
Is there any atheist that will support Bing Bang OR support Steady State?

Well, I will try again.

Is there any atheist that will support Big Bang or support Steady State?

Why did you start the new thread then continue to bang on about it here?

 

[Rabbie]

Why did you start the new thread then continue to bang on about it here?

Because he's a ......

 

[oumahexi]

I went to church once.

We know, that was the day they were colour co-ordinating the dieties