The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Why do atheists not believe in God?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 200
Avatar for Mjcal1
Mjcal1
6
Original post by jonbass3
my personal belief is that hell is not a place of eternal torture or damnation or anything at all for that matter. if you picture the soul as a hard drive then hell is when it gets wiped. not eternal torture, eternal lack of existence, its not even peaceful, its just nothing.

the atheist kind of 'nothing' or are they conscious? Either way, people like Hitler and Stalin get off pretty lightly.
Original post by Mjcal1
the atheist kind of 'nothing' or are they conscious?


yeah, the atheist kind of nothing. no consciousness.

Original post by Mjcal1
Either way, people like Hitler and Stalin get off pretty lightly.


well, it is claimed that he's benevolent and forgiving.
Original post by jonbass3


surely if cyclical expansion is the fate of the universe then its likely also the history? my calling the theory cyclical expansion was not so much me using the name of the theory as describing the main premise of the theory.


Cyclical expansion just means there will be repeated big bangs and big crunches yes. But it doesn't go against the basic tenet of the big bang, where the universe has expanded from the a hot dense "origin"(again I use that word loosely as I'm not a physicist)... the "origin" is not fully not understood yes and cyclical expansion is one hypothesis, but it doesn't say "big bang did not happen".

Original post by jonbass3


personally i wouldn't call the evidence for big bang overwhelming array but then the chances of my having seen all of the evidence are slim. from my (perhaps faulty) understanding, a large part of the evidence for big bang is a backwards extrapolation from the (really quite convincing) evidence that the universe is expanding.

Sure I get what you mean, again I'm not a physicist so I haven't seen all the evidence for or against. However, when you say "backward extrapolation", you're not far off to what we have seen. We have sort "looked back" in time. AFAIK, we have seen cosmic microwave background radiation which shows hot-spots and cold-spots in the early universe which are somewhat (with some ambiguity mind you) consistent with the models of a hot primordial conditions of the universe. Also, we have seen "light" from very distant past which shows that the universe has changed a significant amount. Also, the baryon density and the abundance of elements are also consistent with calculations of the big bang model. There may be more evidence for "big bang", or more for "other theories". But as far as I'm aware, the basic tenets are true. The "origin" is disputed, and the mechanism is disputed, much like evolution.

Original post by jonbass3
its expanding so it must have been smaller, and could probably be expanding from a point".


if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, it may very well be a duck.



Original post by jonbass3
also, heres a BBC documentary on the new theories if youre interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpj-MdLYYPo


Will watch this when I get a chance :smile:

I understand what you're saying, we should be sceptical. But I'm pretty sure there is enough evidence to conclude a change in the universe and an expansion.
(edited 8 years ago)
It's not really a choice. I can't choose to believe that there's a malteser in my drawer - my belief is a function of the information I have about my drawer and maltesers, which I either have or don't.
Original post by Mjcal1
I could make some prediction that could be proved in 500 years....should people start worshipping me??
just go ahead:

from experience, we can tell that it works
Original post by TurboCretin
It's not really a choice. I can't choose to believe that there's a malteser in my drawer - my belief is a function of the information I have about my drawer and maltesers, which I either have or don't.
I think that religion, like our entire personality, is what we do with what was done and is still being done to us
Reply 206
Avatar for JC.
JC.
19
...because imaginary friends are something you grow out of?

The story of the universe has nothing to do with any magic man dreamed up by some long dead cave-dweller.
Original post by chemting

if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, it may very well be a duck.
.


i love this phrase so much. whenever i use it in an argument with my mother she always replies with "yeah but i have a picture of a duck and that's definitely a goose"
I have often quarrelled with this issue myself. I dont claim to know everything but from the basic knowledge I have, to claim there is not God is absurd. Yes, we can't experimentally prove the exisitence of God but that doesn't entirely mean there is no God. To say there is a supernatural being out there, does seems unlogical at first but I pondered whether anything in this universe is logical. Human beigns have invented ideas and concepts to make the universe understandable but are those ideas correct methods?
For example, lets looks at the area of quantum physics, where crazy unimaginable things happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesnt happen.

I think to say 'I'm an atheist' is foolish but to say 'I'm agnostic' is more wiser, imo.
Original post by jonbass3
my personal belief is that hell is not a place of eternal torture or damnation or anything at all for that matter. if you picture the soul as a hard drive then hell is when it gets wiped. not eternal torture, eternal lack of existence, its not even peaceful, its just nothing.


What's the point of calling non-existence, hell?
Simply people wish to stick to some form of thought that whatever they do in life will be praised or shunned and need something greater to acknowledge their action when others aren't around. Personally I wouldn't be surprised to think of modern day religion as stories in a few centuries time just as we perceive the Greek, Egyptian, Norse pantheons etc. to be mythology; plain stories.
Original post by JC.
...because imaginary friends are something you grow out of?

The story of the universe has nothing to do with any magic man dreamed up by some long dead cave-dweller.


Couldn't have put it better myself :lol:

Original post by john_jomcy98
I have often quarrelled with this issue myself. I dont claim to know everything but from the basic knowledge I have, to claim there is not God is absurd. Yes, we can't experimentally prove the exisitence of God but that doesn't entirely mean there is no God. To say there is a supernatural being out there, does seems unlogical at first but I pondered whether anything in this universe is logical. Human beigns have invented ideas and concepts to make the universe understandable but are those ideas correct methods?
For example, lets looks at the area of quantum physics, where crazy unimaginable things happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesnt happen.

I think to say 'I'm an atheist' is foolish but to say 'I'm agnostic' is more wiser, imo.


Yes, there could be a god, but I still find it seriously unlikely. After all, it's all just ideas dreamt up by random humans over the centuries.

Oh, and Quantum Physics actually makes a hell of a lot of sense. It's not 'crazy unimaginable', it's rational and experimentally sound.
Original post by Alexion
it's all just ideas dreamt up by random humans over the centuries.
Yes. Random ideas dreamt up by random humans. Some better, some worse.

Random "revelations", contradicting each other and presented as embodying ultimate "truth". Old legends being endlessly recycled, mythological figures treated as historical ones, claims to miracles and amazing prophecies being circulated and imposed as dogma

Humans (both individuals and societies) using those ideas in order to jockey for power, expand influence, defeat opposition

honestly : nothing to write home about
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
What's the point of calling non-existence, hell?


the idea of everything i am simply ceasing to be is hellish to me, if i were to accept the idea that there is no afterlife i would be forced to create an artificial one.

why what you call it?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Tahira__
Just want people serious answers I am just curious
Why do atheists not believe in God? What do they then believe in?


I believe in the laws of the universe and that we get one life so make it count... rather than trying to score brownie points for your so-called "God"
Reply 215
Avatar for Tahira__
Tahira__
OP
5
Original post by JavaScriptMaster
I believe in the laws of the universe and that we get one life so make it count... rather than trying to score brownie points for your so-called "God"


Really?? But how did this so called 'one life' come to be? How were you created? Everyone of us humans are so unique how is it possible that we do not have a creator?
Original post by JavaScriptMaster
I believe in the laws of the universe and that we get one life so make it count... rather than trying to score brownie points for your so-called "God"


I have a question for atheists.

Its a very common claim from atheists that the universe exists inexplicably - there just is no explanation for why the universe exists.

However, in every corner of science and philosophy, arguments from explicability are used (or EA's).

For example, a common argument from physicists regarding the reality of consciousness, is that if it isn't reduced to physical systems it is essentially inexplicable. We argue things are likely false because they are inexplicable.

Now, suppose we apply an EA to the question: why do things exist? Well that would seem to rule out the common claim by atheists that the universe is a brute fact or the laws of nature are brute facts. Because an EA implicitly entails that these options are false, that an inexplicable options is false.

Ofcourse, atheists may say: well it's meaningless to apply and Explicability argument to that question. Fair enough.

But this seems to leave us 3 options with how to use EA'S.

1) some EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Others - like for why things exist - are not.

2) no EA'S for a conclusion are legitimate.

3) all EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Even for why things exist.

If you are atheist who thinks the universe and/or the laws of nature are brute facts, you cannot take option 3.

It seem option 2 is ruled out by anyone who uses an EA in other contexts, scientific or philosophical. Almost all atheists?

So that leaves 1.* The trouble, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be any non-question-begging way of defending option 1.* For why should we believe that EAs are legitimate in other cases, but not when giving some account of the sheer existence of things?* It seems arbitrary to allow the one sort of EA but not the other sort.* The atheist cannot respond by saying that it is just a brute fact that some kinds of EAs are legitimate and others are not, because this would beg the question against 3, which denies that there are any brute facts.

Interested to know how far explicability arguments go.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by jonbass3
the idea of everything i am simply ceasing to be is hellish to me, if i were to accept the idea that there is no afterlife i would be forced to create an artificial one.

why what you call it?


I just call it non-existence. After all, how can something be hellish if you can't experience it, it's like what it was like before birth.
Original post by Tahira__
Really?? But how did this so called 'one life' come to be? How were you created? Everyone of us humans are so unique how is it possible that we do not have a creator?


Who says we need a creator? If god created everyone, then who created god? if everyone needs a creator like the religious people say.


As for human life, we all started as single-celled organisms, then after a few million years there was a mutation in the genetic code and the organisms became multi-celled and eventually grew appendages for swimming... The Earth was nearly covered in water at this time so in the beginning, we were all fish. Then when land started rising more, there developed more terrestrials (land animals) and birds and now we have millions of different living animals and humans aren't really that special, the only reason we are smarter than the animals is because we were the first to stand up and look at the world in front of us, as opposed to the floor which is what most animals are constantly looking at. Then we started to look at the sky and ask questions about our existence and developed intelligence... we aren't the only species that has developed intelligence but we have gone furthest with it.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I just call it non-existence. After all, how can something be hellish if you can't experience it, it's like what it was like before birth.


I see the points made on either side. I think what he is alluding to is annihilationism. Which is just to say that people aren't raised at all instead of experiencing hell for an Eternity. But it isn't really hell, it's an alternative idea.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you