Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No time for something to happen...no place for something to happen.
And then the universe expanded from a singularity.
The universe "created" space.
The universe "created" time.
What is it now about 13 3/4 billion years ago? From where we are in now the universe, since everything is relative.
Uranium decays into lead in a little over 3 billion years?
If we were closer to where the event happened the universe wouldn't be so old would it?
Is it older for something further away from where the "event happened?
I think your logic has holes in it.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that neither atheism nor science claims the universe came from nothing? Your whole critique is a strawman. Atheism/science say we don't currently know the answer because there is no evidence that explains how it did happen.
Straw man? I didn't state that it came from nothing. I stated that there was no time for it to happen and no place for it to happen. Not to mention why it happened when it did!
Why didn't it happen 3 billion years earlier? Any thought in this line and you think in circles.
Why is it that creationists say that atheism is illogical because something can't come from nothing? Neither atheism nor science say we came from nothing. They say we don't currently know how the universe began.
Creationists (whichever creationists it is that you speak of here) are probably reasoning quite logically that there are only two other alternatives to creation.
The universe is eternal or the universe is self created.
While science cannot explain the beginning of the material universe, it very clearly militates against both alternatives.
"Whatever begins to exist, has a cause."
Also, neither atheism nor science "say" anything because neither one is able to speak. The term atheism is self contradictory because, by it's very definition, a claim is made that cannot be logically or reasonably deduced.
The definition of Atheist:
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
That means that to be considered an Atheist the person denies or disbelieves in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Contrary to what you would like to believe, one must believe something to either deny or disbelieve. Atheism is indeed a belief system which asserts that God does not exist.
Whoa thee, big fella! You're wholly, totally, incomprehensibly wrong.
Atheists SIMPLY don't believe in god(s). This seems to be intellectually elusive to you. Atheists may, can and do, believe in an uncountable array of other things unrelated to theism. But as regards the existence of a singular, specific unproven, illogical and implausible deity, or of other Zeusian or Tribal generalized deities in general, it's a no-go, given the stunning paucity of evidence.
There. Got it now, S&L? I know you'd desperately like to attribute a set of ethically rudderless behaviors to "us" pigeon-holed atheists, sorry. No sale; no such group.
So. What else yah got?
Acts of violence or oppression do not have to be carried out in the name of something or someone for us to understand that a person’s worldview is instrumental in their decisions and governmental policy. Atheism is very influential in shaping a persons worldview.
Since it's not a vigorously demanding set of laws to be obeyed by the high church (or else!), atheism has not specifically led to any acts of violence. Rather, specific people have, but as far as religion-related violence, the insistence of the church on mindless, rote-chanting obedience has fomented countless violence within theocratic thuggocracies.
You can't blame atheism for Stalin's outrages. Hirohito and Tojo were Shinto, but their grand plans had nothing to do with atheism. Hitler was a Christian, but it had little to do with his outlook. But now, The Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The Salem witch hunts? The current outrages by the Kansas Board of (pseudo) education? All Christian-fomented lunacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt & Light
Of course you agree, denial is a primary component of your belief system.
Again, what belief SYSTEM? A system has defined limits, goals, structure, disciplinary actions, etc. Atheism? Show or list them for me please. Oh please. 'Cause apparently I missed that part during my indoctrination.
Simply denying and then ignoring the evidence does not change the facts.
Oh boy, do you ever have that right, S&L. You oughta know!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt & Light
Claiming that Atheism is not a belief system is the popular assertion of Atheists.
Yep. We like to assert the truth!
If you don’t believe that Communist governments are murdering people because of their faith please explain North Korea and/or Burma. Who perpetuates lies? You wouldn't suggest that the governments of these countries don't attempt to cover up truth; would you?
Absolutely nothing to do with atheism, but then, no-one's gonna convince you of anything. You should learn to recognize simple thuggery when you see it. Sadly you do not.
Creationists (whichever creationists it is that you speak of here) are probably reasoning quite logically that there are only two other alternatives to creation.
The universe is eternal or the universe is self created.
While science cannot explain the beginning of the material universe, it very clearly militates against both alternatives.
"Whatever begins to exist, has a cause."
Also, neither atheism nor science "say" anything because neither one is able to speak. The term atheism is self contradictory because, by it's very definition, a claim is made that cannot be logically or reasonably deduced.
I'd have to disagree. You're making the either-or fallacy. What if the multiverse hypothesis is true? While something caused the Big Bang, that doesn't mean that thing was anything more natural processes.
The term atheism isn't self contradictory. Atheism is just the lack of belief in gods just as theism is the belief in god/gods.
Atheists are lack of believing in God -- religious God, to be specific.
Theists have made so many proposals -- a big guy in the sky did this and that, but failed to provide any credible evidence (instead just keep saying "it's your faith against my faith, we're equal"). Theists made atheists -- that's why there are people who heard enough of it and became atheists ("this is all bull!").
I'd have to disagree. You're making the either-or fallacy. What if the multiverse hypothesis is true? While something caused the Big Bang, that doesn't mean that thing was anything more natural processes.
So what if the multiverse hypothesis is true? Either the material universe is created, is self created or is eternal. That would be three choices that I know of - feel free to point out any other alternatives that I may have overlooked.
Would your supposed big bang causing "natural process" be eternal, self-created or simply created?
Quote:
Originally Posted by agnostic soldier
The term atheism isn't self contradictory. Atheism is just the lack of belief in gods just as theism is the belief in god/gods.
How many countless times is the definition of atheism going to be discussed in this forum? I think this one's been beaten to death.
Feel free to chalk it up as my opinion and we will agree to disagree.
So what if the multiverse hypothesis is true? Either the material universe is created, is self created or is eternal. That would be three choices that I know of - feel free to point out any other alternatives that I may have overlooked.
Would your supposed big bang causing "natural process" be eternal, self-created or simply created?
Abiogenesis would probably be a good thing to study if one is interested in the various possibilities. I haven't done much research into the discipline though.
Abiogenesis would probably be a good thing to study if one is interested in the various possibilities. I haven't done much research into the discipline though.
What would "Abiogenesis" have to do with providing possible reasons for the existence of the material universe?
If only two objects existed in the universe and one could not detect the other you could say that for all practical puposes there were two universes.
The problem is one could not prove that the other existed, and what is science without proof?
Therefore that argument is moot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wrong on so many levels.
