Atheism Vs. Anti-Theism

[whitelye]

1)
Hmmm....three possible theories to believe on this:

A) All of the matter in the universe was condensed into a ball on the microscopic level until its own instability caused it to explode. Evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, and the life on them occurred primarily by chance and filtered through natural selection or cataclysm until the human being (with no claws, no real teeth, no natural weapons or means of defense) proclaims itself "King of the Universe". Kinda hard to swallow (gravity may be a law, conservation of energy may be a law, but even if science manages to re-create "Big Bang", that would mean that outside assistance was necessary, wouldn't it?)

B) All of the matter in the universe was condensed into a ball on the microscopic level until some unknown part of the universe (undiscovered as yet by science) caused the universe to explode. Evolution of galaxies...you get the drill. Still means that an external source for BB was necessary.

C) Some cosmic Dude with a clapper decided to say "Let there be light" (and has been guiding the paths of creation of the universe to this day). He shortened the lifespan of mankind to counter balance the ability of mankind to utilize creative imagination. He allows free will and curiosity to fuel mankind's quest to understand the universe around him, yet always gives us enough within the world to keep wondering. He constantly is irritated at the fact that we declare Him bogus simply because mortal humans don't have the capability to conceptualize such a being.

Yet His existence may be PROVEN if science can re-create Big Bang because it would prove that a source outside of the known universe was necessary. So I'll choose (using the God given right of FREE WILL, not as an "Indoctrinated Sheep").........letter C.

There is always the possibility that the universe wasn't created. That it's always been, constantly expanding and contracting like a beating heart.

 

[Trace2010]

Whitelye,

I haven't heard that theory yet...you have a source I can research?

 

[whitelye]

You know, I don't think I've heard this theory out of a legitimate source before. It just seems like an attractive idea. It bypasses the whole argument about creation and what not, though most people would argue that it's a bit of a cop out. The whole "God works in mysterious ways" argument comes up but it is an interesting philosophical point to explore. Being the finite beings that we are, is it even possible for us to make sense of some things in the universe.

My favorite question to ask is "What is nothing? Can you think of or describe nothing?" or my buddies favorite, "Think of a color you've never seen."

 

[glambo]

i dont know that god's existence could be proved or disproved. on the other hand, the lack of a god cant be proved or disproved. each person makes his own choice on what to believe, and are free to hate spew all over themselves and others about the subject. in my country we enjoy the right to freedom of religion (for now), or lack thereof, and i will take full advantage of that freedom. but, if i attempt to forcibly push my values and beliefs on everyone i meet, regardless of what those beliefs are, it wont be easy for me to make any friends. if you dont mind annoying everyone that doesnt have the same exact outlook as you, spew away!

 

[ianuam]

Anti-Theist and Atheist, depends on the person i'm debating with. I'll respect your faith if you don't try to convert or save me, or rant about how x is evil, society's immoral blah blah blah etc. If you do however.. that's when i have my fun ;-), nothing like pure, cold logic to rip someone's belief systems apart.

 

[whitelye]

Anti-Theist and Atheist, depends on the person i'm debating with. I'll respect your faith if you don't try to convert or save me, or rant about how x is evil, society's immoral blah blah blah etc. If you do however.. that's when i have my fun ;-), nothing like pure, cold logic to rip someone's belief systems apart.

It's kinda like ripping a phone book apart, isn't it. Those people and all their crazy morals and ethics related to some divine being. Always making a fuss.

 

[Uncompetative]

...why should he want us to belive in him?

...If God realy was that great he wouldn't have left a trace and left his son out of the ordeal so that nobody would ever belive in anything.

Firstly, I didn't suggest that 'this God person' would. It is a bit presumptuous to think you know what he wants when no one is sure he even exists. Please note that I did take care in my post to use the phrase: "create a Universe with flora and fauna and men and women to freely marvel at it". Therefore, a God who sets things up in such a way that there can be evolution through natural selection and a 'tipping point' of complexity into conscious awareness, introspection, curiosity, language and the acquisition of knowledge and retention of wisdom may expect some of his creations to presuppose that if they have a soul then so does a tree, etc. Polytheistic belief systems yield to Death oriented cultures, such as the ancient Egyptians who were merely asking the next obvious question: "Where does my soul go when I die?"

"Where was I before I was born?" yields Reincarnation like belief systems, whilst "How did I come into being?" requires an appreciation of the biology of human reproduction and neuroscience - i.e. at some point you have an unfertilized ovum and then you have conscious living thing, but at some point in between when the foetus has a brain and can probably feel pain it is too underdeveloped to support the higher brain functions required for consciousness, so it is more animal than individual - although, exactly when this boundary is crossed is a very touchy subject due to the abortion issue.

"Was the universe made for us?" yields faith in some sort of creator. Yet, Darwin has established that there is nothing special about us being here, we just fit our ecological niche (well, we used to in primitive times, The Greenhouse Effect is the only environment factor we have had to adapt to in millenia and increased skin cancer from UV radiation is changing cultural habits rather than influencing natural selection), you can then question why we have evolution, how did life originate on Earth, how did the solar system form, why are the laws of physics and physical constants seemingly the right values to support a universe that would support life. Yet, if the universe were another way we would either not be asking that question, or be another lifeform asking "Was the universe made for us?" Is emergent complexity in some way suspicious?

I don't know and I suspect no one will ever know. Probably because we will never be in a position to measure higher dimensions/strings.

So there's still plenty of room for a God to kick things off if you are into that. Is the universe part of an intelligent design engineered with great foresight to yield evolution and sentient beings who have free will to believe in an intelligent design if they so choose? I can't prove it isn't. However, I don't personally believe it is.

This God person's motivations could be inferred from the story of the life of Jesus (if you are so inclined), but one way to look at it from a theological perspective is that after Adam and Eve were expelled from The Garden of Eden and given free will they made so many mistakes that God took pity on us and forgave us for the whole Apple business.

Jesus could then be viewed as an exemplar, a simple man, not a rich or powerful man, who came at the right time and spoke the right things to the right people to demonstrate that there was another way to live. Even if it were impractical to follow his example exactly, he was a man and an aspirational role model. For this reason I don't think there were any miracles (or even a resurrection, indeed I don't think he even existed, or if he did he was merely some scholarly disenchanted Jew, Baptist convert, who was borderline Schizophrenic and felt he was a son of God, and a prophet out to reform Judaism which he found to be corrupt/moribund - remember the public disorder incident when he gets upset at the Pharisees allowing the Synagogue to be used as a covered market: e.g. "my Father's house!" doesn't strictly imply that he thought that he was the son. Notoriety, charisma, oratorical skills and deep knowledge of the Torah got him audiences as he began his evangelism, the disciples may have stabilized him as his illness became heightened, the time he spent in the wilderness talking to the devil sounds like a nervous breakdown, after which all bets are off. If Pontius Pilate asks you to deny you are the son of God and you have built up a surge of followers who all think you are the next King of the Jews you would be have mad not to back down unless you thought your Father would approve of some angelic intervention, after all, what is another miracle? The telling point is the "Father, why have you forsaken me!" bit which kind of implies that Jesus was either lacking in faith or regaining some lucidity).

Anyway, the point of this 'alternative history' is not to offend. I'm not saying that is what really happened, just that it may be that The Way was revealed to humanity through the life of a man with religious mania who performed no miracles. I've never understood why he had to suffer on the cross, die, go into hell, get Adam (symbolically saving humanity from damnation), be resurrected, visit some friends who didn't recognize him at first and then leave. Weird.

It does nothing to attract me to the faith.

By the way, to end on a lighter note here is a joke:

GOD: My son it is 2008. What happened about the Second Coming that was arranged for the Millennium?

JESUS: I'm sorry, father. I look down and I see Churches and Cathedrals in the form of crosses and instruments of torture about their necks.

GOD: I see. So when will you be prepared to go?

JESUS: When everyone is wearing the little fishes.

 

[joytex]

Thats a very interesting theory Whitelye as far as I know (and I could be wrong) the only evidence for the big bang is that the universe is expanding outwards, but I dont think we've been able to observe the universe long enough to reach any conclutions of its origin and my general reply is what made the bang?

There are theory's suggesting that time doesnt flow at the same rate everywhere (again not sure but einstien may have supported this) and that time would be described as more of a sphere than a straight line, without start or finishing points. but time for us is impossible to comprehend as it is 4th dimensional and going back to the think of a colour thing, the human mind is incapable of true original thought and so withought a point of reference we cant hope to understand time of, as we cant imagine a lack of it

That generally baffles people who's argument is about how things must have starting point

(although I am christian, I just like to see a more logical view of things)

 

[Fireandice]

i suppose i would consider myself as an agnostic although i tend to lean towards atheism. like many of you i respect people's choice of beliefs so long as they do the same to me. even if someone does try to shove their religion down my throat i generally won't react aggressivley towards their beliefs unless they really provoke me (even then, it's more or less just saying that i have my own ideas/beliefs(or lack thereof)).

 

[Alex_P]

3) Gravity is scientific LAW, not theory (it has been proven and accepted)

You've got your science backwards, chief.

A theory is an explanation, a testable model for how stuff works. A good theory says a lot about the why and how being some phenomenon.

A law is closer to an observation. Pretty much any empirical observation can be a law if you can generalize it sufficiently. A law doesn't have to say anything about how or why something works.

General relativity isn't a "theory" because it's untested. It's a "theory" because it says a lot more about the nature and mechanisms of gravitation than F = (g m1 m2) / (r^2) (that's Newton's law of universal gravitation, FYI) ever did.

-- Alex

 

[Ultrajoe]

3) Gravity is scientific LAW, not theory (it has been proven and accepted)

You've got your science backwards, chief.

A theory is an explanation, a testable model for how stuff works. A good theory says a lot about the why and how being some phenomenon.

A law is closer to an observation. Pretty much any empirical observation can be a law if you can generalize it sufficiently. A law doesn't have to say anything about how or why something works.

General relativity isn't a "theory" because it's untested. It's a "theory" because it says a lot more about the nature and mechanisms of gravitation than F = (g m1 m2) / (r^2) (that's Newton's law of universal gravitation, FYI) ever did.

-- Alex

Like Evolution. Many people say it's just a theory when this is a thing in its favor.

They confuse theory with hypothesis.

That said, this thread needs to die.

 

[Jobz]

Like Evolution. Many people say it's just a theory when this is a thing in its favor.

They confuse theory with hypothesis.

That said, this thread needs to die.

Indeed it does. It seems to have gone way off topic at this point.

 

[Moloch-De]

That said, this thread needs to die.

Oh i think its gotten some rampaging offsprings that i enjoy to watch developing

On the intelligent design issue: If god made all that efford to conceal his actions behind an self evolving system of creatures and Heisenbergs uncertainty it dosn't fit his profile to do such bold move as sending his mirracle sparkling Son to save us.
If Jesus did not preform mirracles i would have to evalluate the truth of his teaching by other factors but he dosen't get a great score:

-First: Many Prophets did the trick earlier so i would rather follow the first person to claim to be gods son or god himself since they are authentic and jesus would break copyright in modern days ->f
-Nothing groundbreaking: There is no book like the bible. Not exactly like the bible at least but it is far from beeing the first holy book and i don't see many concepts in it that were realy new. Turn the other cheek is kind of an controversial in his days but that is only since the cheek turners bevor that time end up as slaves quicker than they could cal for their savior. ->d
-Not nice: If i would choose a religion i would go for one that focuses less on hell but on the bright sides of afterlive. ->c
-Choosing a representativ of god on earth who will prove himself an idiot throughout most centuries (Pope) ->f

I think the Jews will score a whole lot better for having achived everything the cristians did but earlier on the other hand they might collect penelty points for the loss of a foreskin.
Odin gets points for style and very cool, coulorfull storys . Budhists even though they are not considered a religion have at least the best score in being most compatible with scientific discoveries; If you read some views of their old masters written hundreds of years ago you would have thougt they made refference to quantum physics


Now something on the origianal topic

i suppose i would consider myself as an agnostic although i tend to lean towards atheism. like many of you i respect people's choice of beliefs so long as they do the same to me. even if someone does try to shove their religion down my throat i generally won't react aggressivley towards their beliefs unless they really provoke me (even then, it's more or less just saying that i have my own ideas/beliefs(or lack thereof)).

I agree but in some cases there would be a social responsibilety to act as well. Maybe some christians have no intention on annoying you but chose a minority to supress like gay coupples or Girls who choose to have an abbortion. I belive (my Morals suggest) that there is a responsibilety to help the weak. That dosn't mean that i go around trying to shater peoples belive,. Exaption: in a Forum like this one where only those kinds of persons are forced to listen to me who chose to read a thread destined to become controversial.

Edit: I have corrected a horde of mistakes but there might be a whole lot left. English is not my mothers thounge but if i construct sentinces to obscure and wrong to comprehend please notify me.

 

[ceeqanguel]

Dear Signa:
While I agree with you that dialogue is (a little) better than screaming "you're wrong", I'll have to politely disaggree with you on three points:
First: I have no rage in me, just utter contempt, disgust and...(ok i don't know how to translate 'mépris') and maybe just a little pity... but not a lot, against people who believe things without evidence.

Second: people are dumb. plain and simple. And while I'll always allow people to make mistakes (as I do often) at one point you tell yourself: "screw him/her, he/she is just plain dumb and not worth MY sacrifice of time money or care." (add 'blood' to that)

Third: Why do I care what people think?
Because I want my beliefs to turn out true.
Because science works. And the more people put into science, the lesser problems in the world.
Because I want justice for all, while right now, pedophiles priests go free, are backed by, and relocated by the vatican.
Because you stop being polite to a repetetive offender at some point.
Because next american elections will determine if I go get killed in some desert
Must I go on?

 

[LewsTherin]

Hmmm... My view on Anti-Theism would be similar to an Athiests view on a Bible-thumper trying to shove their beliefs down their throat. I've made my decision and I would very much like you to respect it.

I don't pay attention to up-in-your-face evangelists/whoever screaming fire and brimstone and I don't pay attention to angsty children who think it's "cool" to be condescending and offensive to people who have a different belief than they do.

Hate is hate, no matter what flavour it is; it's still wrong.

Really people, we're all mature individuals here and can coexist peacefully.

Immature posters may leave now. Get out of my Intrawebs.

 

[ceeqanguel]

Hey wait a minute: we are ALL atheists, come to think of it!

Does anyone believe in Thor, Mithra or Élune (from Warcraft lore)?

Ohh oh wait: Sune: goddess of love, sex, beauty and passion from Forgotten Realms, now I'd kneel to that! *wink*

No one does believe in those gods but why? Surely they are positive models for the world? Any theist answering "because they are imaginary" wins a candy

 

[Redlac]

...because they are imaginary. I'll take one of the red candies thanks. ;P

 

[Vigormortis]

Science does not adequately explain the existence of the universe or its inception. Nor does it explain the existence of physical law and natural order.

Neither, in my opinion, does it explain the purpose of Love, Beauty, or Creativity.

Chaos, is in itself, a form of order. Abstract, yet theoretically predictable.

These concepts provide evidence, but NOT proof, of some form of god.

There is no evidence or proof of the non-existence of god.

Therefore it becomes a matter of incomplete information. Mankind literally CANNOT determine whether god exists, or not.

Most people just can't accept this. Humans need to feel in control, and to do that they need to believe they have all the information. They CHOOSE to believe that god exists, or they CHOOSE to believe that god does not exist.

Very few are willing to accept the simple truth that they do not know the answer.

Actually, I choose to not believe in a deity of any kind BECAUSE I don't know the answers. Religion, and deities in general, were the creations of ancient minds as a way to familiarize and rationalize the world around us. Ancient people couldn't explain where the world came from, why the sun burned so brightly and stayed aloft, or why those strange, yellow-white streaks came crashing down from the sky with a thunderous boom. They created these ideas of deities that, in 99.9% of the cases, looked almost exactly like us and had miraculous powers to shape the world as they saw fit. All religions are based off of these very old, very primitive ideas. Whether it be Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Catholicism, Muslim, or what have you. They all stem from this desperate need by the average person to come to grips with the world around them and put a familiar, safe face on it. This does not, however, mean that I think there are no "superior" beings out there. I'm convinced there's other life out there, the universe is too large for there not to be, and chances are there's a least one species out there that's eons ahead of us technologically and mentally. Likewise, for all I know life was started on this planet as some grand experiment by a group of beings billions of years ago. I will not, however, ever entertain the idea that there's some mystical, all-knowing, all-seeing being out there, watching over us, controlling our world and passing judgment on us. That is nothing but a diluted and narcissistic idea from the feeble mind of humanity. As someone who considers his self to be open-minded scientifically, I'm open to any possibility, except for those whose only evidence and merit come from the minds of people hundreds of years ago and have never once had any solid, physical or scientific, evidence to back up their claims. At best, one could call every religion a theory. One that's still working it's way onto the drawing board and loses ground as other theories (actual scientific theories) are proven.

So, I've accepted the truth from the moment I could rationally think. I simply don't know all of the answers. However, unlike what you've stated, this doesn't mean we can't prove or disprove God's existence. In fact, our search for the answers had us finding more and more proof that there really may very well not be a deity or deities watching over us. The brilliant astronomer and author Arthur C. Clarke said it best:

?Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now.?

The fact is, as time goes on, new religions will rise and the old will falter. Gods will come and go just as fashions do. We may, one day, finally realize that it was not God that created us, but rather that we created God.

Oh, and one last thing. Science may not be able to "adequately" explain all aspects of the universe, but it at least tries to find the answers. Science asks the questions and searches for the answers; religion creates an answer and tries to modify the questions to fit. If an unknown shows up, science modifies it's approach and starts over to try to figure out what this unknown variable means. Religion just ignores that unknown variable and says to even mention it is blasphemy. You tell me which one seems to have a better chance of explaining the universe now.

 

[ceeqanguel]

No need to proof the non-existence of something, just use your brain.

Here's the thing about proving if god is true or not, try describing god.

Imagine yourself trying to describe a butterfly to someone from, say,the north pole.
No way he could ever have seen a butterfly, but still you can describe it to him and come to a pretty good common accord about what a butterfly is. You may describe an insect, with large colored wings, six thin legs, two large eyes that , when you put it in your microscope (scientists did, as did I, so let's call that peer review), look like a mass of tiny eyes.
Wanna hear something FAR OUT? These insects actually share a common ancestor with us humans. (no, evolution doesn't say we come from apes, people who didn't study evo say that) Heck i can even PROVE they exist if i bring you pictures or if i invite you south with me.
You'll get your proofs they exists.

Now for something imaginary: Spiderman, AWESOME fictionnal character from Marvel comics, who can climb walls, stick to walls and has a 6th 'spider sense' that warns him of danger. He was invented By a guy named Stan Lee. Heck I'll bring you a copy, you'll love it!
You won't need faith in me to believe in the existence or non-existence of Spiderman, You'll get your proofs he doesn't.

Now god... is some being... euh euh euh loves you... euh ...wants you to believe in him or he'll torture you for eternity

is backed by a series of fraudsters (kent hovind), is backed by botched science (ray comfort), is backed by the dead sea scrolls (hidden away for almost 40 before peer review), is backed by miracles (all of which, when you think a little...are hoax at worst, misunderstood normalcy at best), is backed by faith (which is the belief any claim is true without evidence)
And requiers you to believe in him because he is both described as a mass murderer... but loves you.
Oh yeah, and his religion is led by a child-rapist-relocator who is above the law.

check cdk007, thunderf00t (with two zeroes), AronRa, DonExodus2 and AndromedasWake work on youtube. they teach you about real science with evidence and why you don't need bronze age superstition to be happy.