The Religion of Atheism

[Mike375]

My opinion on the Big Bang theory is irrelevant to the question of atheism. Atheism has to do with not believing the story that there is a god out there that created everything. It has nothing to do with my opinion of the merits of the big bang theory or any other theory.

Sunk by Big Bang

 

[Alisa]

Sunk by Big Bang

I know your propensity for veering off onto tangents when you are losing an argument, so this doesn't surprise me.

 

[Alc]

I suspect you don't know.

If you do have an idea, let us know, what an more educated atheist like yourself thinks started it all off.

Its kind of important - well, to everything afterwards I would have thought.

I am here to learn, you are my rabbi.

Alissa, myself and a lot of other people are able to accept that we (meaning mankind) can't explain everything at this point in time. We may or may not be able to in the future, but at this moment we definitely can't.

Many of the theist posters apparently can't accept that, which is fine and explains the need for a supernatural 'fall back'.

If you believe that we can explain a lot and everything else came from God then there are no more secrets left. As of 2009, mankind has answered every question there is to be answered, one way or the other.

The only problem I can see with the latter view is if you picture all knowledge' as being like a pie (bear with me ). Go back thousands of years, the proportion explained by science was relatively small, the proportion explained by the idea of one or more gods was much larger. The further forward in time you go, the less there is that gets attributed to gods - creationists excepted - and the greater the amount explained by science. I'm not saying that everything is now scientifically explicable, just much more than before. Why should there automatically be a point where no more progress can be made?

 

[oumahexi]

... or simply smile at a stranger, and the world will be made all the better.

Or you'll end up in jail! People don't seem to take kindly to the "kindness of strangers" these days, they are all too wary of each other.

 

[Pauldohert]

What would be wrong with not knowing? Certainty is valuable in theism - valuable enough that it is sought independently of verifiable facts or truth, in some cases.

But I don't see any reason for theists to demand certainty of atheists - what if they don't really find the question of God's existence important or relevant enough to warrant the effort of answering? (for example).

Theres no problem with not knowing or caring at all - unless you are like Alisa and start threads pontificating about athiest being better educated.

She must have some knowledge - to justify this opinion? Maybe not!

 

[Pauldohert]

Alissa, myself and a lot of other people are able to accept that we (meaning mankind) can't explain everything at this point in time. We may or may not be able to in the future, but at this moment we definitely can't.

Many of the theist posters apparently can't accept that, which is fine and explains the need for a supernatural 'fall back'.

If you believe that we can explain a lot and everything else came from God then there are no more secrets left. As of 2009, mankind has answered every question there is to be answered, one way or the other.

The only problem I can see with the latter view is if you picture all knowledge' as being like a pie (bear with me ). Go back thousands of years, the proportion explained by science was relatively small, the proportion explained by the idea of one or more gods was much larger. The further forward in time you go, the less there is that gets attributed to gods - creationists excepted - and the greater the amount explained by science. I'm not saying that everything is now scientifically explicable, just much more than before. Why should there automatically be a point where no more progress can be made?

Surely you can't deride one theory, and have no opinion on others. But still have a stance as an atheist.

Whats the stance based on - ignorance or knowledge. Just a little knowledge was asked for - in a view of a theory of big bang or otherwise.

 

[DanWall]

Jesus was a black man.

 

[Mike375]

What would be wrong with not knowing?

Given that Big Bang and Big Bounce is the currently accepted scientific explanation for the start of the universe one would think it was natural for the atheist to have both interest and knowledge.

 

[Thales750]

Or you'll end up in jail! People don't seem to take kindly to the "kindness of strangers" these days, they are all too wary of each other.

I manage that quite well.

People resond to act of kindness, and even when they don't, you can.

 

[Thales750]

Jesus was a black man.

And your point is?

 

[oumahexi]

Jesus was a black man.

LOL. And... ????

 

[oumahexi]

I manage that quite well.

People resond to act of kindness, and even when they don't, you can.

I do try. Although you wouldn't believe it reading some of my post , but the response is often two words long, the second being off. It doesn't stop me though. I do like to keep them guessing "where did she escape from?"

 

[Alisa]

Given that Big Bang and Big Bounce is the currently accepted scientific explanation for the start of the universe one would think it was natural for the atheist to have both interest and knowledge.

I do have interest and knowledge, however, you always bring up the big bang to change the subject when you are losing the argument, which is why I refuse to discuss it. The theory could anything or nothing at all, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the discussion of atheism.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Given that Big Bang and Big Bounce is the currently accepted scientific explanation for the start of the universe one would think it was natural for the atheist to have both interest and knowledge.

Perhaps, but it would only be mandatory if atheism is to be treated as a religion, as you assert to be the case.

In the case of atheism consisting of (something like) "There's just no evidence for the existence of God, and who cares anyway?", there need be no compulsion to reach certainty on alternative explanation to theistic ones, about origins - that is, (a)theism - the absence of theism, but not the presence of anything specific at all in its place.

 

[Pauldohert]

I do have interest and knowledge, however, you always bring up the big bang to change the subject when you are losing the argument, which is why I refuse to discuss it. The theory could anything or nothing at all, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the discussion of atheism.

Is this an April fools?

 

[DanWall]

LOL. And... ????

And..... nothing really.

I just thought I'd throw a bit more controversy into the mix.

But he really is. Black, I mean.
I read it in a book.

 

[oumahexi]

But he really is. Black, I mean.
I read it in a book.

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

 

[Alc]

Surely you can't deride one theory, and have no opinion on others. But still have a stance as an atheist.

I can see a bird in my garden. I don't know what it is, but based on what I do know, it isn't an eagle. Does that make sense? I think it does.

Based on what I know, there is no evidence at all to convince me that the universe and all in it was magicked into existence. I do not know how it came about, just that I don't believe that magic does or has ever existed.

Whats the stance based on - ignorance or knowledge. Just a little knowledge was asked for - in a view of a theory of big bang or otherwise.

I don't have a physics background and I'm afriad things like the Big Bang are beyond me. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree, just that I don't understand them. If it's any consolation, I don't know much about the internal workings of a car, either, but I'm willing to accept that others do.

 

[Mike375]

Perhaps, but it would only be mandatory if atheism is to be treated as a religion, as you assert to be the case.

In the case of atheism consisting of (something like) "There's just no evidence for the existence of God, and who cares anyway?", there need be no compulsion to reach certainty on alternative explanation to theistic ones, about origins - that is, (a)theism - the absence of theism, but not the presence of anything specific at all in its place.

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

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

But atheists constantly mention science is the answer.

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?