You might be conflating atheism with faith in the scientific process and the results it produces. You’re right to question the legitimacy of the big bang theory though, many other assumptions have been confidently built on top of it, and if it is flawed, then so are they by proxy. The visible cosmos is expanding and things seem to be moving away from each other, but what we can observe might be a tiny insignificant portion of the entire universe and essentially explain nothing beyond what we can observe immediately around us. I don’t like it when science performs mental gymnastics and the judges’ score is passed off as indisputable fact.
2 Likes
Starfire87:
I’m saying God is a type food and all you have to do is try him.
K: One of the things that confuse me about Christians,
is their cannibalizing religion… for example, Jesus,
at the last supper:
Now as they were eating, Jesus took the bread, and
blessed, and broke it and gave it to his disciples and said,
''Take this; this is my body." and he took a cup, and when he had
given thanks, he gave it to them, saying ‘‘Drink of it, all of you,
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured
out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I shall
not drink again of this fruit of the vine, until that day when
I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom’’
K, what is up with Christians and being cannibals?
for we are supposed to take this eating of bread as
being Jesus seriously, and the drinking of wine,
as drinking the blood of Jesus… that is kinda sick
if you think about it… but reflection is not the strength
of the religious…
Kropotkin
1 Like
I’m not conflating it. Atheists have trouble with the fact that the Big Bang has not been proven and they defend it blindly. Which is a problem and nearly the same as a religious fanatic. Defending something not proven as fact, is called faith. I’m not saying the Big Bang is atheism. I’m saying a majority of atheist mentality is flawed and could be considered blind faith.
2 Likes
I have no problem with atheists whatsoever. Whether they believe in God or not is completely irrelevant to me, and I suspect, completely irrelevant to God. What does annoy me though, and what I suspect annoys you too, is when they hide behind and quote unproven and perhaps unprovable scientific theories as solid defence for their beliefs. It must be true, after all, science proclaimed it, and popular media agrees with them, so there.
2 Likes
The Big Bang (the science of the physical universe) is neither atheist nor theist. However, since the physical universe had a beginning, one can ask… what caused it?
Science doesn’t “prove” anything, but it does give degrees of probability, and so far the standard model is holding.
…and now we’re back here:
1 Like
“However, since the physical universe had a beginning, one can ask… what caused it?”
Lol, i was just watching Hitchens earlier, and he’s going on about how theologians annex whatever theory prevails in the end of an investigation.
Prior to knowledge of a big bang, metaphysicists might deny it - no, Cleetus-Awreetus. There was always chaos, and out of it emerged the gods, order, etc. There was no such thing as a beginning… something from nothing is impossible, etc. This we hear from every metaphysician prior to copernicus.
Then, when the science shows the possibility of a big-bang model centuries later, theists run in, grab it, and now declare, “See? I told you! There has to be a first cause if the universe began at some point, etc.”
Not how he put it, but you get his point. He said religion piggy-backs on science.
No matter what kind of cosmology model you come up with, ‘god’ will be fudged into it and play a role in it somehow, by philosophers and theists.
1 Like
Listen, I didn’t mean to say that.
1 Like
Couldn’t you say that, no matter what cosmological model is supported by the arguments & evidence, both the atheist or the theist is going to have plenty to fall back on from the rest of their web of belief? (just trying to steel man it for you before I knock it down)
1 Like
No one said it was an atheist or theist concept. The fact is, atheists defend it with blind faith. Which is the entire point of my post.
1 Like
There are a lot of people who are hopeful there will be evidence that challenges the standard model because they don’t like that there is a beginning that they have to say just happened. They think that they get out of that problem by having a self-sustaining universe (without a mind). The mental gymnastics of the various competing theories are rather comical.
1 Like
Artimas:
No one said it was an atheist or theist concept. The fact is, atheists defend it with blind faith. Which is the entire point of my post.
K: and that is the point that we ‘‘don’t defend it with blind faith’’
it doesn’t take faith to say there is no god… it takes some
understanding that there is no evidence, no proof that
there is a god… and this has nothing to do with faith…
just a simple understanding that there is no proof, and
for the 1027 time around here, I ask you or anyone if
there is any type of proof or evidence for a god?
and of course, there isn’t any… now how does this suggest
that the Atheist is defending being an Atheist with blind faith
when there is no proof or evidence and it doesn’t take blind faith
to accept there is no proof or evidence for a god, any god…
Just intelligence and some honesty, something lacking in
believers…
Kropotkin
1 Like
What kind of proof are you asking for? What do you define as proof, that there is a god?
You can say it’s proof that expansion and radiation is of a “big bang” but you can’t say there is proof in the synchronicity and vastness of everything coming to existence as it is now, is god… right?
Make it make sense.
Only a fool would think that there is not something greater than he.
1 Like
“There are a lot of people who are hopeful there will be evidence that challenges the standard model because they don’t like that there is a beginning that they have to say just happened.”
In fact, it is harder for me to say an all-powerful immaterial being with intelligence and feelings just happened, and that one day (well, seven), this thing created a universe.
Anyone who thinks that is easily accepted as something that ‘just happened’ is a moron or a liar.
With christians, though, when their wheels get rollin’, they tend to lose any sense of logical direction. It’s a kind of drunkeness of the intellect. They stagger around in philosophy and science as if they can find sanctuary there. Lol. Never let a christian do science after the 19th century.
1 Like
Artimas:
What kind of proof are you asking for? What do you define as proof, that there is a god?
You can say it’s proof that expansion and radiation is of a “big bang” but you can’t say there is proof in the synchronicity and vastness of everything coming to existence as it is now, is god… right?
Make it make sense.
Only a fool would think that there is not something greater than he.
K: several thoughts come to mind in reading this post:
As an Atheist, I only say, there is no god or supreme being…
There is no other obligations beyond that…finding proof,
that isn’t my problem, that’s yours… as for ''synchronicity
and vastness of everything coming into existence as it is now,
is god" that is a massive assumption on your part that
has no basis in fact… my handy dandy dictionary says:
‘‘Synchronicity: the simultaneous occurrence of events
which appear significantly related, but have no
discernible causal connection…’’
Which is Jungs concept of meaningful coincidences
where unrelated external events align with inner thoughts/
feelings, SUGGESTING, a deeper connection beyond
cause-effect, like thinking of a friend just before they call…
there are always connections and coincidences, it
is the nature of existence, but it doesn’t suggest or
say, there is a god, I don’t see how coincidences
and/synchronicity implies the presence of god…
the universe, as far as I am concerned, is more,
much more about randomness and chance,
we live in a random universe… that is much clearer
to me than any other factor of existence…
and I see coincidences and synchronicity as
simply another aspect of the randomness and
the probability of the universe…
a random universe doesn’t negate any of the rules that
govern the universe… the laws of gravity, thermodynamics,
entropy… laws which are part of the universe exists the
way it does… without gravity, the universe does not
and cannot exists… that is a fact jack… without entropy,
the universe cannot grow and become something different,
and we can explain both gravity and entropy without reference
to god, or a divine being…
and to change your last statement,
Only a fool would assume that there is something greater
than he…
Kropotkin
1 Like
I once did synchronicity. Carl Jung, right?
1 Like
Why do people ask stupid questions? So-called ‘atheists’ only have an absence of belief in ONE particular thing. How ridiculous these days for there to even be a word for it. What do you call someone who doesn’t believe in Bigfoot? Or fairies? Are there special words for THOSE? Take your stupid, out-dated label and shove it. Just because someone doesn’t believe in one particular thing doesn’t mean they don’t believe in other nonsense like astrology, or alien visitation, or ‘The Jews’ rule the world conspiracy bs etc. etc…
1 Like
Atheist is a nice word. Be nice to to nice words. They’ll be nice back to you.
I’m yet to find a functioning brain on this site. I’m still holding out hope. It’s like a jungle of idiocy.
1 Like
Are you one of those pure materialism kind of guys opposed to spirituality and religion?
Didn’t know you are an atheist, interesting.
Explains quite a bit more about your political worldview.