Problems w/ Atheism

[srferdave]

We have some good explanations based on what we’ve figured out so far, and it’s amazing that we know so much: for example, we know how the diversity of life developed on this planet, and we know that we live in an expanding universe that began expanding with an event called the Big Bang.

We have no evidence of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory that has not been proven. However, even if the Big Bang did happen that doesn’t prove God’s non-existence.

Anyone who claims to know is just making stuff up or speculating. Just because we don’t know the answer to something doesn’t mean that the answer is any more likely to be, “A god did it,” any more than it means that the answer is more likely to be, “A unicorn did it.”

It could very well be that something natural is behind the universe, something we don’t understand. Or it could be that the “stuff” that preceded the Big Bang has always existed. Or it could be some other completely natural explanation of which we have no idea right now.

Your understanding of God is as if God is human. God IS. There is no someone or something that started it all. God is outside time. There is no beginning or end to Gods existence. I suggest you change your perspective.

Well, first of all, this isn’t evidence at all. It’s a pretty clumsy appeal to emotion.

This is actually evidence. You either don’t understand or choose not to accept this as evidence. There is no such thing as morality without God. All of Gods commands lead us to a better life. This can easily be seen throughout history.

 

[AntiTheist]

We have no evidence of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory that has not been proven. However, even if the Big Bang did happen that doesn’t prove God’s non-existence.

You make the common mistake of assuming that a scientific “theory” is the same thing as the colloquial definition of the word “theory” (a hunch or a guess). It’s not.

In science, a theory is a well-substantiated (supported by evidence) model that explains observed facts. There’s the theory of gravity, germ theory, etc. To be a theory, there needs to be evidence and usually predictive power.

In the case of the Big Bang, the cosmic background radiation predicted by the hypothesis was confirmed decades later. In addition to this, we have confirmed that the universe is indeed currently expanding.

Now, you’re right. This doesn’t “prove God’s non-existence.” No one can do that, any more than someone can “prove Bigfoot’s non-existence” or “prove the Hindu gods’ non-existence.” All we can do is observe that no one has any evidence for the existence of any of those beings.

Your understanding of God is as if God is human. God IS. There is no someone or something that started it all. God is outside time. There is no beginning or end to Gods existence. I suggest you change your perspective.

You’re arguing on the basis of pure assertion here. You’re just saying that things are so and expecting me to accept it. Honestly, I don’t think you even have a good idea of what you’re talking about. That first link you sent me before, for example, was attempting to argue that God is existence itself (the “esse”).

Look, if “god” is just your label for existence, then sure, I believe existence exists. But I have a feeling that “god,” for you, isn’t just a word for existence, but refers to a non-physical intelligence that is also omni-benevolent. I don’t see any justification for thinking that existence itself is intelligent or omni-benevolent. Maybe you could shed some light on your thought-process there.

There is no such thing as morality without God.

Actually, I agree. I don’t think that “morality,” understood as a set of rules that everyone at all times has to obey, exists.

I do think that people have good reasons for helping other people out, completely natural reasons that I’ve already explained. As an additional illustration, we see some social animals exhibit behavior in which they help one another out; some animals that are normally solitary we can breed into social versions of the animal, and the social versions acquire a tendency to be friendlier and aid others.

In other words, what you call “moral” behavior is natural and doesn’t require supernatural explanations.

All of Gods commands lead us to a better life. This can easily be seen throughout history.

Well, “better” is largely a matter of definition.

But even if you could demonstrate that every single person who believes in a god is happier than every single atheist, it wouldn’t prove that your claim is true. False beliefs can make people happy and improve people’s lives as well.

 

[srferdave]

You make the common mistake of assuming that a scientific “theory” is the same thing as the colloquial definition of the word “theory” (a hunch or a guess). It’s not.

A scientific theory is a “theory” in the field of science. It is not proof of the Big Bang.

I don’t have time right now. But when I come back i will respond to the rest.

 

[zz912]

In the case of the Big Bang, the cosmic background radiation predicted by the hypothesis was confirmed decades later. In addition to this, we have confirmed that the universe is indeed currently expanding.

Something interesting about atheism that most atheists don’t realize. Atheism is based on a MASSIVE presumption (rising to the level of a miracle) that must be believed to be logical and true, but offers NO proof or evidence to back up this belief in a miracle.

Simply put, atheists assert as fact that the laws of physics were broken before the Big Bang, with no outside higher power. The most specific law of physics is the law of conservation of energy. (i.e. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only be turned into energy.) At some point, matter came into existence, violating this law of physics.

So I would like for you to please bring some proof or evidence for how this miracle happened. Especially since your whole system of non-belief is founded on this principle. It is unfair that you demand proof or evidence of God from believers while you do not provide the proof or evidence of the foundation of your non-belief.

 

[cantheist]

Something interesting about atheism that most atheists don’t realize. Atheism is based on a MASSIVE presumption (rising to the level of a miracle) that must be believed to be logical and true, but offers NO proof or evidence to back up this belief in a miracle.

Simply put, atheists assert as fact that the laws of physics were broken before the Big Bang, with no outside higher power. The most specific law of physics is the law of conservation of energy. (i.e. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only be turned into energy.) At some point, matter came into existence, violating this law of physics.

So I would like for you to please bring some proof or evidence for how this miracle happened. Especially since your whole system of non-belief is founded on this principle. It is unfair that you demand proof or evidence of God from believers while you do not provide the proof or evidence of the foundation of your non-belief.

Science douse not work like that. Science is proving something or not even the proof but compiling facts and facts and facts. Science looks at everything with a open mind and looks to prove a theory. The church only looks at the bible and throws away all facts that contradict its bible this is not seeking truth facts or science but promoting a theory.

I do not demand proof of god but I will not say everything that is unknown is god. Science is finding out more and more every day.

How old is the universe? Have you heard of deep space hubble? If a star is 1 million light years away how long would it take for the light to reach us? So is the universe that old? If not how can we see the light?

 

[AntiTheist]

Something interesting about atheism that most atheists don’t realize. Atheism is based on a MASSIVE presumption …] At some point, matter came into existence, violating this law of physics. …] your whole system of non-belief is founded on this principle.

Well, as it so happens, my “whole system of non-belief” is not founded on that principle. I do not know what happened before the Big Bang. I have no idea if “matter came into existence” – I assume that by “matter” you mean the stuff that preceded the Big Bang – or if that stuff always existed.

I have no idea if our current expanding universe is the first expansion of the stuff that preceded the Big Bang or if that stuff has expanded and contracted numerous times. I have no idea if the cause of the Big Bang was natural, supernatural, or something else entirely.

No one knows.

My non-belief isn’t based on this assumption because I do not assume that matter started to exist.

So I would like for you to please bring some proof or evidence for how this miracle happened.

Again, I’m not the one making a claim.

 

[AnAtheist]

You claim that God does not exist. You claim one thing, I claim another. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. I showed you proof. Now show me yours. In other words convince that you are right. Don’t tell me you are right because I have no evidence. I showed you evidence and you choose not to believe it.

Mankind has developped a method to solve those problems, i.e. what explanation for observable phenomena ist the best. It is called “science”. You observe the world, come up with a theory, and then test this theory with more observing. Repeat ad infitum to gather knowledge how the world works.

Now, with “God” we must first decide, are we talking about an observable phenomon or about an explanation, how some things in this world work or happened (like the origin of life, of matter, why things fall down, how a rainbow comes into existence, …).

As much as you will insist that your God actually is an observable phenomon, you have to admit that he mostly evades direct (!) observation.
To see Him in other things, which is basically the same as treating Him as an explanation for those things, is of course some kind of theory, but it usually lacks a proper way to test it.

So, having no direct observation and no valid theory explaining certain things (but a lot of valid theories that do the explanation more or less well), there is no rational reason to

1. believe in God
2. believe in a certain god or gods with distinct features
3. worship any of those gods
4. worship any of those gods in a certain way that a religion/denomination demand like praying five times a day facing Mekka

To have FAITH, you have to make a leap of faith, there is no way to deduce a god from the observable world. And what fiath you get greatly depend on circumstances like your parents, the time, culture and country you’re born into, the education you get, the people you meet in your life. Atheists just don’t do that leap of faith, which of course greatly depend on the very same things mentioned above.

 

[AnAtheist]

Simply put, atheists assert as fact that the laws of physics were broken before the Big Bang, with no outside higher power. The most specific law of physics is the law of conservation of energy. (i.e. Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only be turned into energy.) At some point, matter came into existence, violating this law of physics.

That is not true. Gauge the total energy of the universe to 0, which perfectly inline with the laws of physics, and the energy conservation law is not broken. Besides, a local breach of that law is also a law of physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: ∆t·∆E > h

So, there is no “massive assumption” of some unphysical act, the theories about the universe’s origin are all well within the laws of physics.

 

[zz912]

That is not true. Gauge the total energy of the universe to 0, which perfectly inline with the laws of physics, and the energy conservation law is not broken. Besides, a local breach of that law is also a law of physics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: ∆t·∆E > h

So, there is no “massive assumption” of some unphysical act, the theories about the universe’s origin are all well within the laws of physics.

Thank you for reminding me, it also violates the first law of motion as well!

 

[zz912]

Science douse not work like that. Science is proving something or not even the proof but compiling facts and facts and facts. Science looks at everything with a open mind and looks to prove a theory. The church only looks at the bible and throws away all facts that contradict its bible this is not seeking truth facts or science but promoting a theory.

I do not demand proof of god but I will not say everything that is unknown is god. Science is finding out more and more every day.

How old is the universe? Have you heard of deep space hubble? If a star is 1 million light years away how long would it take for the light to reach us? So is the universe that old? If not how can we see the light?

You didn’t answer the question. You threw out an unrelated tangent to redirect the conversation.

 

[zz912]

Well, as it so happens, my “whole system of non-belief” is not founded on that principle. I do not know what happened before the Big Bang. I have no idea if “matter came into existence” – I assume that by “matter” you mean the stuff that preceded the Big Bang – or if that stuff always existed.

I have no idea if our current expanding universe is the first expansion of the stuff that preceded the Big Bang or if that stuff has expanded and contracted numerous times. I have no idea if the cause of the Big Bang was natural, supernatural, or something else entirely.

No one knows.

My non-belief isn’t based on this assumption because I do not assume that matter started to exist.

Again, I’m not the one making a claim.

Are you sure you understand the definition of “supernatural” and “atheist”? As to your point of expanding and contracting numerous times, let’s assume that and start BEFORE that point. Explain the nothingness suddenly being filled with everything.

 

[srferdave]

Science douse not work like that. Science is proving something or not even the proof but compiling facts and facts and facts. Science looks at everything with a open mind and looks to prove a theory. The church only looks at the bible and throws away all facts that contradict its bible this is not seeking truth facts or science but promoting a theory.

False. The Church looks at science, the Bible and the Church. And so far none of these have ever contradicted each other. Science has never proven any of our teachings to be false. Everything that has been found out through science is very much in line with the Church. It makes perfect sense, being that God created science.

 

[A_Dancer_Whirls]

False. The Church looks at science, the Bible and the Church. And so far none of these have ever contradicted each other. Science has never proven any of our teachings to be false. Everything that has been found out through science is very much in line with the Church. It makes perfect sense, being that God created science.

Science has proven many of the stories in the bible to be incorrect, like genesis or noah’s ark.

 

[srferdave]

Science has proven many of the stories in the bible to be incorrect, like genesis or noah’s ark.

If you believe that than you either do not understand the stories or do not understand science.

If you still think that you have a 100% accurate understanding of both, point me to your proof.

 

[Dokimas]

Empathy, and the propagation of a cooperative society.

But why prosecute a mass murderer if he’s just evolved that way? He’s no less moral.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas:
Well, you don’t have to, of course. But we are on a discussion board, and presumably you think I should agree with you. Since you’re the one making the claim that a god exists, it’s up to you to supply evidence if you think others should believe your claim (i.e. if you believe your claim is something reasonable, and not just something you choose to believe because it makes you feel good).

Well, first of all, this isn’t evidence at all. It’s a pretty clumsy appeal to emotion.

But second of all, I’ll answer your question. People’s actions come from values, the things that we attach value to, and those values come from a lot of different sources, including biology, reason, tradition, society, and probably other sources we don’t know yet.

Based on those values – things like valuing a good society, the company of others, the good feeling it gives you to help people, the sense of obligation that you owe to a society that has benefitted you in numerous ways – people have plenty of rational reasons to help each other out. In fact, I know quite a few atheists who give their time and money to help others – one of my atheist friends, for example, volunteers at a local library to tutor a child every week. I know another atheist who volunteers at a soup kitchen. There are secular charities and atheist philanthropists like Bill Gates.

And seriously, the religious people who do charitable things – if I could prove to them that god doesn’t exist, do you seriously think that most of them would stop doing charitable things? I am quite confident that most of them would go along doing what they’re inclined to do by their values.

The final point on this is that I personally – and this isn’t all atheists – I personally do think that “morality,” in the sense of rules that must be obeyed, is nonsense. There’s no such thing as behavior that is intrinsically “good” or “bad”; there is only each individual’s actions, motivated by values, and each individual’s personal judgment of others’ actions based on his or her own values. So I wouldn’t consider you “wicked” for killing your neighbor; I’d consider you dangerous to society, and I’d want you locked up or at least kept as far away from me and my family as possible. Luckily, most everyone else in this society would agree with me.

A person values stealing. Why is that wrong? or is it?​

Why should I be locked up for doing what I feel like doing? Do you lock up bears or lions just because they kill things (including young of their kind)?

 

[Dokimas]

Antitheist, does science say all the stars in our universe is moving at the speed of light away from the Big Bang?

 

[cantheist]

You didn’t answer the question. You threw out an unrelated tangent to redirect the conversation.

Just because I do not know the origin of matter douse not prove the existence of god. How is it more logical to say “god has always existed” than to say “matter or energy has had always existed”

There is 1 way to prove the if god exists we just need some poison a snake and a believer any volenteers put your money where your mouth is, or some poison in it.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

[srferdave]

Just because I do not know the origin of matter douse not prove the existence of god. How is it more logical to say “god has always existed” than to say “matter or energy has had always existed”

There is 1 way to prove the if god exists we just need some poison a snake and a believer any volenteers put your money where your mouth is, or some poison in it.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Being so “knowledgeable” about the Bible, I would assume that you know what Jesus was referring to when he said this. Guess not.

 

[cantheist]

But why prosecute a mass murderer if he’s just evolved that way? He’s no less moral.

We allow murder in war but not to take a life of someone who has greatly harmed your loved ones.
Capitol punishment, abortion, youth in Asia, and look at China population control tactics. I do not think are morals have evolved at all.
Do you think you just because someone douse not believe in god they have no morals?
If I give to the poor I do it because I am a good person. If you give is it to please god or is it because you are kind?
If you give to please god you are not as noble as an atheist that gives the same thing. So who would have more morals?
I can also give to people who really need it like the hungry not to the catholic church worth billions of dollars.