The god of the atheists.

[Jonluw]

Congratulations on discovering deism, I guess?

Of course, there's the whole issue of "there is no such thing as 'before the big bang'".
The big bang allegedly created both space and time, so the question of what happened before it is meaningless.

Such a creator would have to exist in a separate spacetime. This creates the possibility of our spacetime existing within a different spacetime populated by at least one creator.

But all of this is just meaningless, unfounded speculation. Which is why I don't take god-claims seriously.
Let's save examining the implications of the existance of a divine being to when we have learned that such a deity exists. (i.e. never)

 

[ShadowStar42]

Not all-knowing, not omnipotent or omnipresent?

It's not a God, no matter how powerful. We humans made nukes, but we are no God.

Um, the majority of gods throughout history have lacked these qualities, the the creation of matter from nothingness would be vastly different feat that the manufacture of nukes. There's plenty of good arguments for the OP being not quite right about his assertions (that his is an Atheist position), we don't need to bring bad arguments into this.

 

[ShadowStar42]

I'm not sure what I am at this point, as I've seen a ridiculous number of explanations of what an atheist/agnostic/etc is.

I have no idea what is out there.

I don't not care in the slightest how the universe was started.

I do not believe that whatever may be out there is anything remotely resembling any man made notion of a "god" or "deity".

I know for a fact that "God" does not exist, because the very idea of it was created by man. This is basic historical fact. Although it is completely reasonable that we would have come to this conclusion at some point in our history of trying to figure things out.

I believe that people who believe in God, or follow a religion, are suffering from some kind of "mental disease". Much like alcoholism. Something that is a result of a combination of genetic predispositions and childhood environment.

You are an Atheist, the diffinitions aren't that confusing as the make this position suspect. You are also however, wrong.

You believe that "God" does not exist, you don't know it for fact, that the name and perhaps many or even all of the concepts surrounding god are man made doesn't prove it's non-existence, just like the theories and hypotheses surrounding the Higgs Boson don't prove it's non-existence.

 

[Jonluw]

I'm not sure what I am at this point, as I've seen a ridiculous number of explanations of what an atheist/agnostic/etc is.

Okay, let's look at the claims you make and try to figure it out.

I have no idea what is out there.

Typical "weak" atheist stance.

I don't not care in the slightest how the universe was started.

Apatheist, but also apathetic towards science, appararently.
Note that apatheism fits under the definition of atheism that actual atheists use: Lack of belief in gods.
Also note that many theists and agnostics in particular don't like to acknowledge this definition.
Basically: If your answer to the question "Do you believe one or more gods exist" can be summed up as "no", you're an atheist by most atheists' definition.

I do not believe that whatever may be out there is anything remotely resembling any man made notion of a "god" or "deity".

Atheist, but acknowledging the possibility of there being "something out there", however faint: Agnostic atheist.

I know for a fact that "God" does not exist, because the very idea of it was created by man. This is basic historical fact. Although it is completely reasonable that we would have come to this conclusion at some point in our history of trying to figure things out.

Strong atheist stance towards certain god-claims.
Watch this, you appear to mirror his stance in some respects:

[sub]Relevant bit from 02:35 and out, but I recommend you watch it all. It's a good video.[/sub]​

Spoiler: This one is good as well by the way

I believe that people who believe in God, or follow a religion, are suffering from some kind of "mental disease". Much like alcoholism. Something that is a result of a combination of genetic predispositions and childhood environment.

Strong/militant atheist stance.

It is indeed hard to identify yourself with one specific label. Don't worry though: this is natural.
We humans love to categorize and label things to make them more manageable. Nature is more of a fluid state however, and does not always align itself so readily with the categories we people like to create for it.
Ask a biologist what exactly is the difference between living and non-living. Or ask a taxonomer about the differences between two closely related species.
The answer you'll get in both cases will most likely be something along the lines of "Eh, it's a bit fuzzy".

Spoiler: You can always consult this chart as well.

The exact middle of this chart being the apatheist stance.

 

[The Cheezy One]

I believe that people who believe in God, or follow a religion, are suffering from some kind of "mental disease". Much like alcoholism.

I try not be harsh on forums, but this is literally the least fair thing I have ever seen on a forum. If you are an atheist, how can you even pretend to know what is going through theists minds? By definition, you have written off anything to do with religion in the first place.

Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hard_Townes#Science_and_religion

Nobel prize winner, and Christian. Mental disease?

In fact, look at this too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

And this is just Christians. Consider other religions, and their inputs to science.

 

[omega 616]

I have been watching a tonne of anti atheist videos on youtube and to be honest most are the funniest videos I have ever seen! A lot of the are named things like "1 question all atheists cannot answer" and they are super easy to answer, I think the funniest one is this guy!


Which came first god or nothing? If god came first who made god, if nothing came first where did god come from ....

Funny in a ... wow that person is really missing the point? Because ... that video made me slam my face on my desk. Oy.

Don't say this very often but sorry for your face ...

I just pray to god (see what I did there?) that it's satire, if not I weep for mankind.

 

[HardkorSB]

What I'm saying is that the big bang throws up so many questions. Many questions that can be answered with complicated physics, so whats to stop the physics bringing up an answer like my theory? That a being started the big bang. It's not impossible, no matter how atheist you are. And remember, this being that created the universe probably would have no influence over it what so ever, that's to say if it even exists in the universe anymore, it could be in a totally different dimension!

So what do you think escapists, do you think this theory could hold up? Just a little thought I had a while ago.

All that we know for sure is that this universe is the result of a giant explosion. The remains of that explosion were flying through space for so long until life emerged on it.
Now what if every explosion creates a microscopic universe and what if our Big Bang was just a grenade exploding in some universe? That would mean that a being created the universe but if wouldn't be anything that we could call god. It could have even been a dumb fuck who blew off his leg while playing with explosives.
Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

[Jonluw]

Anyway, there's still a lot of blanks in our knowledge regarding physics, such as what exactly is dark matter and what does it do, aside from feature in video games? Our space technology isn't advanced enough yet to go out there and have a look or perform tests...

This point may be pedantic, but I think I'll point it out either way:
Dark matter/energy isn't "Out there". It's pretty much everywhere. We're doing our best to detect it here on earth right now.

[sub]The relevant part starts 29 minutes in.[/sub]​

 

[Twilight_guy]

Actually all the major physicists tend to subscribe to the "don't ask" principle where we really don't know what happened during or before the big bang so we only worry about what happens afterwards. At least that's how it's been told to me. So the answer is that there is no answer.

 

[GLo Jones]

The big bang created space, but it also created time.

Before the big bang, there was no time.

There was no period of time at all before the big bang. Nothing caused it, because nothing came before it. If somehow there is some kind of god, then he merely came to be at the same time as the universe, he didn't create it.


Why can't people accept that there simply wasn't a cause?

 

[The Heik]

So what do you think escapists, do you think this theory could hold up? Just a little thought I had a while ago.

I don't think your theory would hold up, mainly for one distinct reason (though this is also directed at those who believe in the Big Bang Theory), and has to do with the Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that all matter and energy in this universe cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed into new forms. Therefore the whole universe creation thing simply can't happen because you quite literally can't get something for nothing.

What many don't seem to understand is that the Big Bang Theory actually does explain pretty much everything about how our current form of the universe came to be, it's just that it didn't explain it all the way. The Big Bounce Theory as its called is pretty much the Big Bang, but makes the additional addendum that when all unlocked matter and energy has dissipated (which is going to happen due to universal entropy), the Law of Gravity will effectively take affect. Eventually all matter will be pulled into a common location by the gravity wells of the various masses in the universe (black holes have pretty much held our cosmos together, and they will eventually pull everything back), and that will cause a critical singularity, thereby starting the whole process all over again. It accounts for pretty much everything we currently know about the state of the universe that we can see, and it also plays into the one constant in the universe: change.

So yeah, I doubt that a superbeing took part in any macrocosmical creation, as the universe pretty much takes care of itself.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

If it doesn't sit in the scientific method it is NOT science. Religion does not... big bang theory does NOT... lot of the quantum stuff we are just starting to perceive does NOT. None of this stuff should be taught in the science class room, as it is not science. Till we have a way to test for all these things we have to consider them what they really are: Philosophy.

PS: Atheism is NOT scientific, it doesn't hold to the scientific method. I will leave you to get over that little self-existence puzzle.

What.

Yes, science is well.. scientific. We provided a hypothesis and then compared what the hypthosis predicted with the data we have gathered. If it correlates, we have evidence towards it being as correct as we can ascertain. Yes, the 'quantum stuff' follows the scientific method.

OT: Atheism is the belief of no gods. You are describing deism.

Provide for me the experiments you carried out which would definitively test for the presence of god and show me the results of it's failure. Your line, data we have gathered, is the weak point of your argument as we have no data in this field at all. This is because we have a noticeable lacking of 'god tests' that are definitive in nature. This is why the whole debate exists; we simply do not have the means to test the theory that god does or does not exist.

With no means to test, you do NOT have science.

Quantum is the same way right now: We don't have the means to test the vast majority of these theories, some of them yes but even these tests are lacking in definitive nature... they are just trying to observe more so we can make better defined theories. We are a long way from having tests that can prove the theories we have as definitive as necessary to be considered scientific experimentation.

That being said we have tested, and interestingly failed to provide evidence for, a few quantum theories. I really had high hopes for the Higgs Boston. This still highlights the fact we are only in the realm of philosophy when it comes to quantum theories as well. I do know this: we will figure out the quantum before we have a means to test for a god.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

I'm sorry? The Large Hadron Collider is just there to test "philosophy" of quantum "stuff"(as you so eloquently put it)? No-no sir. That's 17 miles of testing apparatus providing dick-slapping evidence via extensive testing. You have no idea what you're talking about.

And the cosmological model for the Big Bang is extremely well-tested(http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence) and constantly evolving as knew evidence emerges, like a proper scientific model. Apparently you forgot the rinse-and-repeat part of the scientific method, where testing is continued, while you were busy preaching about it.

Nice flow chart, was a more expanded version of what I was putting forth. Notice also testing the theory happens to be a MASSIVE part of your flow chart so I say again: Where is the test for god that you had to have so thoroughly carried out to come to the conclusion god does not exist? If you are going to support the argument that Atheist = scientific you need to bring forth these tests that back you up within the scientific method.

Agnostics are the only one that have a founded, logical, stance when it comes to this debate: They admit they don't know.

As for The Large Hadron Collider, it is a very high tech version of a microscope. It was never designed to prove that every quantum theory out there is accurate, but simply to be a tool we could use to make better observations at the quantum level. Even if it was successful in detecting the presence of a Higgs Boson, which I have to point out they are still looking for as it would be the first step to experimentation, it wouldn't of meant the theory was correct; just that we may be on the right track. It would of taken thousands of experiments using the collider, observing EVERY theoretical effect on the partials themselves over and over, before we would of had enough data to even compare to the theory. Let alone proven we have the mathematical equation on how these partials act down pat.

If you disagree, show me the test that proves string theory is fact... This theory is the very backbone of quantum as it is the only way (That we know of right now) in which our universe can mathematically exist should all other theories about quantum be correct.

 

[Loonyyy]

It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. And unless you have a way to test it, a worthless and unscientific one. More importantly, it's derived from the causality and reliance on tradition that religion is. I used to be open to that suggestion, but then I realised: Why do I always jump to a god? Is it by any chance, because I'm biased to one, from hearing of it all my life? Like how if I saw a mystical cloud in a room, I might think ghost, or an object moving by itself, and think poltergeist?

Moreover, in the realm of Quantum Physics (Which is applicable to most of the Big Bang cosmology) things don't need a cause. They happen spontaneously based on probability. The decay of an unstable radioactive isotope is determined not by a cause and effect, but by random chance. The same physics could be the trigger for the Big Bang. So while there may be a space for an explanation, an explanation would need to be testable and falsifiable, to be of any real use.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

But what if something happened before this so called "Big bang"
What if there was a war amoungst multiple races of super beings who had a war that ended up destroying the universe, but one had a so called "Back up floppy disk" and restarted the universe in there image? And what if humanity is like a glitch in the program and we just fuck up everything by killing things?

 

[InquisitorGeneral]

Nice flow chart, was a more expanded version of what I was putting forth. Notice also testing the theory happens to be a MASSIVE part of your flow chart so I say again: Where is the test for god that you had to have so thoroughly carried out to come to the conclusion god does not exist? If you are going to support the argument that Atheist = scientific you need to bring forth these tests that back you up within the scientific method.

I'm going to do no such thing, because I support no such argument(nor did I say anything to indicate otherwise). There you go putting words in my mouth.

As for The Large Hadron Collider, it is a very high tech version of a microscope. It was never designed to prove that every quantum theory out there is accurate, but simply to be a tool we could use to make better observations at the quantum level.

Oh look, ANOTHER thing I never mentioned, paired with something I did.

Even if it was successful in detecting the presence of a Higgs Boson, which I have to point out they are still looking for as it would be the first step to experimentation, it wouldn't of meant the theory was correct; just that we may be on the right track. It would of taken thousands of experiments using the collider, observing EVERY theoretical effect on the partials themselves over and over, before we would of had enough data to even compare to the theory. Let alone proven we have the mathematical equation on how these partials act down pat.

I was never talking about the LHC in direct relation to the Big Bang theory, but to quantum "stuff". You, sir, really need to stop seeing things that aren't there.

If you disagree, show me the test that proves string theory is fact... This theory is the very backbone of quantum as it is the only way (That we know of right now) in which our universe can mathematically exist should all other theories about quantum be correct.

You and I seem to be talking to two different people about two different subjects. You see, the way I recall the conversation going was you saying something along the lines of:
"This shit shouldn't be taught in schools, none of it follows scientific method."
To which I retorted,
"Whoa, slow down there slick, it most certainly does follow scientific method."
To which you now respond,
"WELL PROVE EVERYTHING PROPOSED ABOUT THESE SUBJECTS SINCE EVER IS TRUE."

Why on earth would I do something like that? I have no interest in doing such. I addressed your claim that they follow the scientific method, and as this was seemingly your only complaint as to why they shouldn't be taught in schools, I proposed they should thus be taught in school. In my opinion, they provide valuable knowledge and still need heavy research, which is more effective when you have, oh, I don't know, students learning about it so they can study it in their careers. You, it would seem, haven't been very audible about a very different reason as to why they shouldn't be taught in school, namely that they haven't been proven(or, at least, it would seem as much, as you are requesting proof from me).

 

[BehattedWanderer]

And here I was, hoping this was a Futurama thread. All hail Atheismo!

Though, really, your conception of god is extremely narrow. There are many, many more ideas of gods than just the Judeo-Christian example. There's personal gods, and impersonal gods. There's gods that are aware of everything, and absentee gods that did their job, then ran off to the celestial Bahamas, to drink banana daiquiris on an everlasting existential beach. You're playing with the idea of deism, son, and potentially antitheistic, which is fair enough, but with such a narrowly presented perspective, I'm hesitant to believe your cries of atheist. There's a lot more to cosmology and deitic constructs than just the varied interpretations of one god as presented by Islam/Christianity/Judaism.

OH, and this is an important afterthought, You might want to look into the COBE mission results. Mathematical modelling exactly matching observable results for what happened after the big bang. Here, I'll even link you some quick reads on it, which providing someone else's succinct summary of how well such things work.

Spoiler: COBE Mission and it's results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE

First of all, shouldn't this have gone in R&P?
Snip

I lol'd. Thanks for that.

 

[Ben Agar]

All hail Athe!
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=798

SMBC are the shit.

I'm pretty sure damned there isn't a god, why? Well I'm no scientist and neither can I claim to be all that wise or philosophical but to me the greatest thing wrong with religion isn't them clinging to the "how did the world begin" arguement it lies within their own faith, I'll let this explain why...

http://adrassil.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d49espe