Atheist Q and A

Original post by TheALevelStudent

😂😂😂
Where did everything come from then? How was the world created?

Creation is the least likely explanation for the origin of mankind and the universe becasue there is absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. However the Big Bang theory is the most plausible as it is supported with scientific evidence. So is the theory of evolution.
For now creationism is just baseless pseudoscience that should be kept within the confines of religious buildings and no where near the scientific/academic community until substantial evidence for its legitimacy is discovered.

Reply 62

shffdnt

Would you say empiricism is faith based?

Reply 63

TheALevelStudent

Original post by leavingthecity

No, there may be a cause and effect argument, which is different, and certainly does not imply the cause as God. Now we are getting into the non verifiable, metaphysical, not worth spending to much time over.

There have been many religious and spiritual people who have verified experiencing God.

Reply 64

Rorschach II

20

My point was that people think science gives their life purpose, or that science has supreme authority over them.

Like there are people who think we have a "duty to try understand things." Since when? That's just bloody creepy. (And it goes against scientific concepts like evolution which is ironic.)

Or that people doesn't consider it a (more logical) explanation to things, but as cold, hard fact.

Maybe it's just my personal distaste, but I find it really unsettling when people think like that. It's like people have transferred their source of purpose from a couple of holy books to the current thing, instead of keeping independence. And then they have the audacity to include me in that "we". They're right in saying that religion doesn't (shouldn't) have authority over our lives, but then they go try dictate my life and other people's lives instead of allowing them to find their own path. I know I've only said this one example, but I'm encountering that view (or views with a similar sentiment) more and more.

Reply 65

TheALevelStudent

Original post by chemting

You mean the universe? Before the Big Bang? There are some hypothesis ... which are more rational and helpful than "God did it". Why does anything need to be "created"... what do you even mean by "created"?

Original post by chemting

What do you mean by "creation"... what factors differentiates between "creation" and "natural"... If any case if everything needs to "created" by a higher power, sure this line of logic follows that the "superficial power" need to be "created". Who created the creator?

Original post by StrawbAri

Creation is the least likely explanation for the origin of mankind and the universe becasue there is absolutely no empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. However the Big Bang theory is the most plausible as it is supported with scientific evidence. So is the theory of evolution.
For now creationism is just baseless pseudoscience that should be kept within the confines of religious buildings and no where near the scientific/academic community until substantial evidence for its legitimacy is discovered.

I am no doubt denying the theory of the Big Bang, I fully beleive it as scientifically it seems correct. I'm a man of logic, and I think logically, so logically something must have cause the Big Bang, what actually was the Big Bang? It was a sound, from that one sound, all was created.

Calling God the creator is extremely simplified, God is no physical thing. God is the force, and by einsteins theory, force can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. So God s force is in the creations, and when we die, the force will return back to God.

Reply 66

Original post by TheALevelStudent

There have been many religious and spiritual people who have verified experiencing God.

I don't think you understand the meaning of verifiable...there have been people who believe they have experienced God. They have yet to verify these claims.

Reply 67

shffdnt

Original post by leavingthecity

I don't think you understand the meaning of verifiable...there have been people who believe they have experienced God. They have yet to verify these claims.

Tbf the principle to verify something can't be verified itself - not that I agree that the testament of religious people having experienced something should be used as evidence...

Reply 68

Original post by XcitingStuart

My point was that people think science gives their life purpose, or that science has supreme authority over them.

Like there are people who think we have a "duty to try understand things." Since when? That's just bloody creepy. (And it goes against scientific concepts like evolution which is ironic.)

Or that people doesn't consider it a (more logical) explanation to things, but as cold, hard fact.

Maybe it's just my personal distaste, but I find it really unsettling when people think like that. It's like people have transferred their source of purpose from a couple of holy books to the current thing, instead of keeping independence. And then they have the audacity to include me in that "we". They're right in saying that religion doesn't (shouldn't) have authority over our lives, but then they go try dictate my life and other people's lives instead of allowing them to find their own path. I know I've only said this one example, but I'm encountering that view (or views with a similar sentiment) more and more.

Can you give examples of science and it's proponents dictating how we should live our lives? I'm not sure what you mean.

Reply 69

typonaut

Original post by morgan8002

Don't you think people can make these decisions for themselves?

Perhaps some people can make that decision themselves, others will need to be shown that there are other view points they can consider.

Reply 70

garfeeled

16

Original post by TheALevelStudent

If your never saw your parents, would you say that they don't exist?

No but there are exceptionally good scientific and logical arguements for good with little to argue against them.

For god it's a bit different given there are arguments for and against. Along with the confusion of specific gods, most arguments for God are general.

To build on your comparison, they say I have a parent but they don't reveal who that parent is.

Reply 71

typonaut

Original post by Lawbringer

How are you so sure there is no god? Surely being agnostic is the best approach to this situation?

If you are agnostic you implicitly support the injustices caused by religion. If you are atheist you explicitly reject these.

Original post by XcitingStuart

Do you think the religion of science, so to speak, is almost as bad as religion itself?

Like imagine if you'd call religion one extreme, than the other extreme is giving authority to science. Do you think or not think that is bad?

Science is based on evidence, or at least the best evidence we can find. Scientists are also no afraid to be wrong, if better evidence comes along. Both religion and science are searching for answers, but that's where the similarity ends.

Reply 72

Original post by HumzaAsad97

Tbf the principle to verify something can't be verified itself - not that I agree that the testament of religious people having experienced something should be used as evidence...

I somewhat see what you are saying, that it is more truthful that probabilities are assigned to statements rather than saying something is an absolute fact. Richard Fenyman described that which had been proven as being very very probable. This feeds the scientists curiosity to discover more.Though talking about verifying the principle of verifying something sounds like a linguistic slippery slope. Still, as I said in an earlier post, we can look to Bayesian Inference to suggest that there is likely no God based on likelihood of the factualness of scientific theory.

Reply 73

typonaut

Original post by TheALevelStudent

😂😂😂
Where did everything come from then? How was the world created?

If you mean "where did everything come from" ultimately, ie how was matter created in the first place?, then I think the answer is that we don't know. Although I think you'll have the same problem explaining god - how did it initially come into being, where is its creator/parent?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 74

Original post by TheALevelStudent

I am no doubt denying the theory of the Big Bang, I fully beleive it as scientifically it seems correct. I'm a man of logic, and I think logically, so logically something must have cause the Big Bang, what actually was the Big Bang? It was a sound, from that one sound, all was created.

Calling God the creator is extremely simplified, God is no physical thing. God is the force, and by einsteins theory, force can not be created or destroyed, only transferred. So God s force is in the creations, and when we die, the force will return back to God.

This is completely inaccurate from a Physics perspective I'm afraid. For example, Einstein did not say that force cannot be destroyed, you are getting force confused with energy and mass energy equivalence.

Reply 75

Dinasaurus

22

When the **** did Einstein say the force cannot be created or destroyed? Shaking my damn head

Reply 76

Original post by Onde

Calling something supernatural a creator when it can not be observed is the very opposite of simplified.

I'd call it a cop-out.

Reply 77

Original post by HumzaAsad97

Would you say empiricism is faith based?

No, would you?

Reply 78

Dinasaurus

22

If God is simply a permeating force of the universe than it is not a God, surely?

With that logic one could say that the big bang itself was god. Or if you're deifying forces, why not call gravity a god as well?

If you say gods don't need to be praised and have no 'human-qualities' than one could just say that science is god. If you're going to twist the meanings of words then it is meaningless, if a god is just an unknowable force that we can't communicate with, why should we bother ourselves with it?

Reply 79

shffdnt