The Religion of Atheism

[Alc]

I think I'll book a spare afternoon before looking this one up.

You may need to allow more than that
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Ye...ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1238517830&sr=8-1

 

[dan-cat]

I think about it a little differently, so I think I will ramble a bit.

Final post then I must get back to work.

Well they certainly wouldn't be CALLED atheists, because the entire concept of theism, and the later concept of atheism, would never have developed. However, those people would still not believe in god. This non-belief would not be a purposeful nonbelief.

In much the same way as the car.

If I lived in my rhetorical world where religion never existed in the first place, I would still be an atheist, but I would have no need to label myself as such because that would be like defining myself as a 2-footed human. When everyone has 2 feet, you don't need to point it out.

You wouldnt be able to label yourself. As you agreed to in an earlier post, atheism requires the ability to believe in theism.

 

[Mike375]

You just proved my point. Thank you.
Until religious folks can get it through their skulls that absence of belief is indeed completely different than belief, this conversation is about as pointless as argueing whether absence of sunlight is the same as sunlight, or absence of water is the same as water.

Of course it is different, it is the opposite.

But a lack of belief in X means either a belief in Y or you don't know.

If there was a term for believing natural laws/physics were responsible for it all then the supernatural believers would be aWhatEverItisCalled

There are potentially three basic parts to arrival of the belief position. First is disbelief in X. The atheist disbelieves supernatural being or beings are responsible. The spritituals disbelieve natural laws are responsible.

The disbelief must be replaced by something and that will be either a belief or a "I don't know"

A belief in atheism or supernaturals is arrived at about the same way.

1) How did it all start.

2) The atheist believes they have seen enough evidence of natural laws so as to have faith that the big puzzles will be answered via natural laws.

3) The supernatural follower believes they have seen enough evidence of "an outside force" so as to have faith that the big puzzles will be answered via a supernatural or supernaturals.

Now the atheist will say...but what evidence....has the supernatural follower seen. Well the position is the same for both. A combination of seeing everyday things that in turn support a faith that the everyday things will be extended out to the big picture.

Is there any atheist who has seen the Big Bang, a black hole etc and etc. Is there any atheist knows what causes gravity. Sure, you know it is related to mass, you know how to do calculations for the required speed to achieve orbit etc. But it is not known what causes it.

 

[Alisa]

Of course it is different, it is the opposite.

You started out correctly - lack of belief is the opposite of belief, it is not the same as belief.
Think of it this way. Think of the very first humans. Maybe they are just begning to develop language. (btw, this scenario assumes that you are not trying to make the argument that god placed fully developed humans upon the earth at some point) Now those first humans must have been amazed when they found fires burning in the forest. They didn't know that lightening had struck and lit the fire. Maybe they didn't even know that fire was hot. They just knew it was something amazing. At that moment, there was no belief about where the fire came from. Now one instant AFTER that moment, they of course came up with an explanation, because that is human nature. They couldn't imagine what fire was, or how it came to be, so they made up a story about it. The story could be anything, it doesn't matter. The point is that the story they made up was wrong, and later humans figured out how fire works and how lightening works and how lightening can sometimes start a forest fire. Nowadays you won't find anyone who will try to argue that forest fires are supernatural.

Now fast forward. Humans have been around for a few thousand years. Their brains have evolved further. They start to wonder where they came from. Before the first human made up the first story about where humans came from, there WAS no story, therefore there WAS no belief. After the first human made up the first story, lots of other people retold the story, or made up their own stories. Why? Because humans like stories.

Now fast forward some more. Billions of people all around the world now believe the same story. It is a much more complicated story at this point, and there are few different brands of the story, and there are a lot more people involved in the story. Nonetheless, it is still JUST A STORY.

Atheists are just the people who point out that everyone else is choosing to believe a story, when there is probably a real explanation, just like there was an explanation for the fire in the forest (lightening). The fact that we don't KNOW the explanation and the fact that we may NEVER know the explanation is immaterial to the logical conclusion that there probably is an explanation.

 

[Mike375]

Atheists are just the people who point out that everyone else is choosing to believe a story, when there is probably a real explanation, just like there was an explanation for the fire in the forest (lightening). The fact that we don't KNOW the explanation and the fact that we may NEVER know the explanation is immaterial to the logical conclusion that there probably is an explanation.

Either side is a story although you need some powerful believing to be an atheist.

You base your belief on natural laws/physics being the answer. But then Hawking and Co tell you there is no physics pre Big Bang.

Do you know of any aspect of physics that allows for something to start from nothing?

Is the universe expanding into the infinite? If the universe has a boundary what is on the other side of the boundary?

The bottom line is that all the knowledge on physics is not worth 10 cents as a method of finding the answer.

Hawking has basically said you need to go back to the drawing board.

If the answer is to come from physics then it will be something that bears no relationship to what is known today. Perhaps similar in concept to the difference between nuclear and chemical energy. Perhaps there will be a way to easily exceed the speed of light. However, I think you would agree that nuclear and speed of light appear to be at the centre, that is, there can be no jump as was the case from chemistry to nuclear, no where to drill down further.

The most logical explanation to cover both the "start up" and the world and universe as it is today is a supernatural or supernaturals started it, set the rules (the physics) and then let nature take its course.

As an atheist and thus only accepting hard evidence what do you think was there pre Big Bang. If there was nothing then which rules of physics allow things to start from nothing. Do you believe in Big Bang. Sorry, I let the "b" word in. Do you agree with the theory of Big Bang? If you don't agree with the theory of Big Bang then which theory do you support?

 

[Rabbie]

Either side is a story although you need some powerful believing to be an atheist.

You base your belief on natural laws/physics being the answer. But then Hawking and Co tell you there is no physics pre Big Bang.

Not exactly what they said They haveonly said they don't know what physics there was then

Do you know of any aspect of physics that allows for something to start from nothing?

See above.We don't know what was there before the big bang so how do you know it started from nohing?

Is the universe expanding into the infinite? If the universe has a boundary what is on the other side of the boundary?

The bottom line is that all the knowledge on physics is not worth 10 cents as a method of finding the answer.

Hawking has basically said you need to go back to the drawing board.

If the answer is to come from physics then it will be something that bears no relationship to what is known today. Perhaps similar in concept to the difference between nuclear and chemical energy. Perhaps there will be a way to easily exceed the speed of light. However, I think you would agree that nuclear and speed of light appear to be at the centre, that is, there can be no jump as was the case from chemistry to nuclear, no where to drill down further.

The most logical explanation to cover both the "start up" and the world and universe as it is today is a supernatural or supernaturals started it, set the rules (the physics) and then let nature take its course.

As an atheist and thus only accepting hard evidence what do you think was there pre Big Bang. If there was nothing then which rules of physics allow things to start from nothing. Do you believe in Big Bang. Sorry, I let the "b" word in. Do you agree with the theory of Big Bang? If you don't agree with the theory of Big Bang then which theory do you support?

Just becase we don't know the answers doesn't invalidate what we do know.

Now excuse me while I look at your previous posts in similar threads so I can see what you are going to post next.

 

[Mike375]

There is nothing in physics that even remotely addresses pre Big Bang. The mystery is the same today as it was 10,000 years ago. How did it start.

My reading of Hawking and Co is that there is no physics, no time, pre Big Bang. Trying to analyse pre Big Bang would be the same as using chemistry to analyse what happened in a nuclear reaction.

If we look at the history of technology, say from 1850s, I think the general situation is the theory or the basics are known well before it transforms into a working model. How long before 1945 were the basics of nuclear energy known.

Is there currently any ideas that suggest the stars are doing something different to nuclear fusion or that the speed of light is only like the sound barrier. When I say "like the sound barrier" is there a threory that says the speed of light is not a barrier and only the technology is missing. The speed of sound was well understood before it was broken in an aeorplane. Rifle bullets have been above the speed of sound even in the black powder days. It was known from early days that bullets became unstable as they dropped below the speed of sound.

If you drop the apple you can calculate the velocity when it hits the ground. You can factor in air resistance etc. But this all irrelevant one we go to pre Big Bang. In other words the science you apply to become an atheist is not relevant as it no longer works.

 

[Rich]

In other words the science you apply to become an atheist is not relevant as it no longer works.

Neither does your theory that some supreme being conjured the whole lot up from thin air

 

[Alisa]

There is nothing in physics that even remotely addresses pre Big Bang. The mystery is the same today as it was 10,000 years ago. How did it start.

I'm with you so far.
It is a mystery.
A mystery that I do not think has a supernatural explanation.
A supernatural explanation is ultimately unsatisfying. If you conjure up some supernatural being to explain "the begining", you really haven't answered the mystery at all, you have just added more questions to the mix. Where did the supernatural being come from? Why did he create everything? Why did he leave? Now we have even fewer answers than before.

 

[Mike375]

I'm with you so far.
It is a mystery.
A mystery that I do not think has a supernatural explanation.
A supernatural explanation is ultimately unsatisfying. If you conjure up some supernatural being to explain "the begining", you really haven't answered the mystery at all, you have just added more questions to the mix. Where did the supernatural being come from? Why did he create everything? Why did he leave? Now we have even fewer answers than before.

Perhaps what people think is a supernatural or supernaturals is the mysterious science yet to be found. It might even be unscience like in the sense it does not reliably repeat.

A supernatural explanation is ultimately unsatisfying.

In fact it is the only explanation that solves the problem. If it is God then there is no beginning or end. That is no longer an issue.

 

[Rich]

If it is God then there is no beginning or end. quote]
How do you figure that?

 

[Alisa]

In fact it is the only explanation that solves the problem. If it is God then there is no beginning or end. That is no longer an issue.

No it doesn't. It only replaces the question of what happened in "the begining", with the question of "where the hell did god come from?"

 

[Mike375]

If it is God then there is no beginning or end. quote]
How do you figure that?

Because that is the nature of God. If it was gods then things would be different.

In other words if the answer is God and as He is as perceived by the believers then beginning and end is irrelevant.

Think of this way. Let's say I have a pet and one neighbour thinks I have a canary and the other neighbour believes I have a lizard. I leave the house for a few weeks and make no arrangements. If the neighbour who thinks I have a lizard is correct then lack of food and water for the month is irrelevant.

So if God is the answer then all is solved.

Remember that God is the same sort of theory as any pre Big Bang stuff.

 

[Alisa]

Because that is the nature of God. If it was gods then things would be different.

In other words if the answer is God and as He is as perceived by the believers then beginning and end is irrelevant.

Think of this way. Let's say I have a pet and one neighbour thinks I have a canary and the other neighbour believes I have a lizard. I leave the house for a few weeks and make no arrangements. If the neighbour who thinks I have a lizard is correct then lack of food and water for the month is irrelevant.

So if God is the answer then all is solved.

Remember that God is the same sort of theory as any pre Big Bang stuff.

God is not ANY sort of theory, it can't be tested.
If you are willing to pick a word, any word, and then tell yourself that the utterance of that word renders the answer to all other questions irrelevant, then that is your perogative, but it is still total BS.

 

[Mike375]

God is not ANY sort of theory, it can't be tested.

And just how do you propose to test pre Big Bang

By the way, I will ask the question again, do you agree with Big Bang theory or do you support an another theory.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

In science, you can test things that have already happened - in fact you can only test things that have already happened.

Predictions arising from scientific theories may be tested against events and outcomes in the future (but only as, or after they happen), or evidence already in existence from events in the past.

So the Big Bang theory may predict that we should be able to observe certain specific residual phenomena - and if we find that to be the case, it lends weight to the theory. It doesn't absolutely prove it, or rule out the possibility of another explanation, but that is very much the norm for science.

 

[Mike375]

So why can't I get the atheists to answer a simple question.

To all atheists:

Do you agree with the Big Bang theory. If not, what theory do you support.

 

[Mike375]

In science, you can test things that have already happened - in fact you can only test things that have already happened.

Predictions arising from scientific theories may be tested against events and outcomes in the future (but only as, or after they happen), or evidence already in existence from events in the past.

So the Big Bang theory may predict that we should be able to observe certain specific residual phenomena - and if we find that to be the case, it lends weight to the theory. It doesn't absolutely prove it, or rule out the possibility of another explanation, but that is very much the norm for science.

Forget Big Bang.......all about pre Big Bang

you can test things that have already happened ......I assume pre Big Bang qualifies for already happened

 

[Mike375]

So why can't I get the atheists to answer a simple question.

To all atheists:

Do you agree with the Big Bang theory. If not, what theory do you support.

It was best to start a new thread.

 

[Rabbie]

And just how do you propose to test pre Big Bang

By the way, I will ask the question again, do you agree with Big Bang theory or do you support an another theory.

A long time ago when these theories were first put forward I tended to support the Steady State theory of Sir Fred Hoyle and others over the Big Bang theory. However more research and observations have largely discredited that theory in favour of th Big Bang theory.

Now there are variants of the Big Bang theory which suggest that the univers doesnot expand for ever but oscillates between its maximum size and th small volume which causes the big bang. So this may have happened many times - we just don't know. Any evidence has been destroyed by the big bang.

Since you like throwing out challenges answer this "How do you know that the entire universe was not created an hour ago including all the so called historical evidence and memories."