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.
I'm not even going to try to answer that one for the MinivanDriver.
What I DO see is atheists constantly refuting their own caricature of religion and faith and God. They want logical, observable, tangible proofs--- which they already know cannot be provided in the case of religious belief, and particular doctrines. So, convincing them that there is merit and truth to religious belief in God is just not going to happen.
But Science will only take you so far. And it applies only to what is physically observable, able to be measured. I marvel at the outer space discoveries and the pictures from the telescopes. The distances involved boggle my mind. And science appropriately does not seek to answer questions about WHY things are the way they are. Science cannot "get behind" the Big Bang.
Here's a thing: Everything we can see and touch is physical and finite. Everything put together falls apart. (Paul Simon.) Therefore the physical universe must have had a beginning: The Big Bang. Even "dark matter" has been theorized, and we can see its effects.
So, how did it all begin? Not by itself, by definition. There must therefore be something or someone greater than ourselves, somewhere. And by "somewhere, I do not mean WITHIN the physical universe.
Voltaire: "If God did not exist, we should have to invent him."
Why would science have to "get behind" the Big Bang?" What did you mean where you said "Science cannot "get behind" the Big Bang." I mean, the expanding universe is observable, so taking things backward, the universe was smaller and smaller. Although it is not observable (as far as I know), the Big Bang seems logical.
What do you mean "by definition" where you said "So, how did it all begin? Not by itself, by definition."
I agree with you that we are for the most part bound by the religion we were born into. But it is not a prison. We can find spirituality within whatever religion we are in. Many have done so. It requires effort and a need and want to find it.
At one time I did not think religion had a value. Until I started a serious study of texts that comprise the philosophy and theology of Advaita Vedanta. The thoughts expressed in them are timeless and if not for Hinduism it would not exist. Similarly all religions have texts that inspire people to follow a path to spirituality. The essence of it, that the truth of our being is Divinity, is the same in all of them. What I study in Advaita I see echoes of it in all religions.
Sorry I missed this thread. I will admit I am not very well read in various religions. I see a lot of outdated and judgemental text in many of them, that it was enough to turn me off. I didn't grow up in a religious family nor did I have strong peer pressure to join one so I am sort of doing my own thing. This isn't to say i'd never be open to it, but I think i'll just take my own path.
You are being more than a little ridiculous and stubborn as you insist on somehow ignoring or refusing to recognize past events as facts and truths. All that has occurred in the past. Apparently as part of your weird notion about being "in the now." I believe in living in the now too, but you seem to be taking that goal to the outer limits, and just like that you got rid of a whole lot of historians, history teachers and history books! Along with a whole lot of old calendars, journals and memoirs...
Just today the New York times revealed that the Regan campaign had made a deal with Iran to hold the 52 Americans held as hostage and not release them so Carter would lose the election. Regan won by holding Americans as hostage and making a deal with the enemy to do so. Today History got rewritten. To look for truth in History is for the naïve and the easily duped. To look for truth in science is for those who do not understand science.
Truth does not get rewritten, does not change, and the only certainty is here and now. Those who do not understand this and throw a tantrum over it are destined to remain ignorant.
Just today the New York times revealed that the Regan campaign had made a deal with Iran to hold the 52 Americans held as hostage and not release them so Carter would lose the election. Regan won by holding Americans as hostage and making a deal with the enemy to do so. Today History got rewritten. To look for truth in History is for the naïve and the easily duped. To look for truth in science is for those who do not understand science.
Truth does not get rewritten, does not change, and the only certainty is here and now. Those who do not understand this and throw a tantrum over it are destined to remain ignorant.
And yet you have been telling us about the history of Gandhi, the Partition of India, and the history of the British in India. Perhaps you are naive and easily duped. (And, btw, it's Reagan).
As I understand it, atheism is the belief that there is/are no God/gods, or conversely the lack of belief in any God(s). A system consists of multiple components working together to form a unified, more complex whole.
What do you think are the components are that make atheism a belief "system?"
You are arguing against atheism as a "religion" (religious belief system) that contradicts you with the Supreme Court. However, the primary issue is that your beliefs are such an integral part of your life that they are ALL taken as a given and not examined as beliefs, per se. Whether or not you are willing to recognize it specific non-beliefs ARE BELIEFS that you hold. That makes them automatically part of a complex system of beliefs that guide and drive your life.
I think the ironies of atheism is that it is a belief system in and of itself, existing without evidence.
It is a belief (but not a system) based on the (conscious or subconscious) evidence we do have, and the lack of evidence for an intelligence behind it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver
Just as faith systems such as Christianity and Judaism and Islam are based on a mix of oral traditions and various testimonies that often conflict (See how often the Synoptic Gospels disagree on some pretty important events in Christ's life), atheism is based on a line of syllogisms that may or may not be true. Neither theism or atheism can ever have actual empirical evidence attached to them.
My atheism is based on empirical evidence. What the theists need to do is provide empirical evidence for their claims, which at the end of the day boil down to assertions and 'we do not know, therefore maybe ...".
Atheism has met the burden of proof. It is the theists who need to provide the extra evidence.
I'm not even going to try to answer that one for the MinivanDriver.
What I DO see is atheists constantly refuting their own caricature of religion and faith and God. They want logical, observable, tangible proofs--- which they already know cannot be provided in the case of religious belief, and particular doctrines. So, convincing them that there is merit and truth to religious belief in God is just not going to happen.
A long way of admitting you have no evidence. That is not a caricature, that is how people think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitonmywhat
But Science will only take you so far. And it applies only to what is physically observable, able to be measured. I marvel at the outer space discoveries and the pictures from the telescopes. The distances involved boggle my mind. And science appropriately does not seek to answer questions about WHY things are the way they are. Science cannot "get behind" the Big Bang.
There are several theories, all based on evidence, and none of them require a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitonmywhat
Here's a thing: Everything we can see and touch is physical and finite. Everything put together falls apart. (Paul Simon.) Therefore the physical universe must have had a beginning: The Big Bang. Even "dark matter" has been theorized, and we can see its effects.
So, how did it all begin? Not by itself, by definition. There must therefore be something or someone greater than ourselves, somewhere. And by "somewhere, I do not mean WITHIN the physical universe.
Voltaire: "If God did not exist, we should have to invent him."
As you are ignoring something from nothing (and absolutely nothing includes gods), you are arguing for a something. I agree. the question is what that something is? But as you are arguing there must logically be something, you are admitting no god is required to explain this, it is a logical necessity that something exists, regardless of what that something is.
And as we know natural forces can create complexity without the need of intelligence to guide it, then you need to provide evidence for an alleged intelligence behind it all, and how this intelligence just knows things.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 03-21-2023 at 01:07 AM..
Why would science have to "get behind" the Big Bang?" What did you mean where you said "Science cannot "get behind" the Big Bang." I mean, the expanding universe is observable, so taking things backward, the universe was smaller and smaller. Although it is not observable (as far as I know), the Big Bang seems logical.
What do you mean "by definition" where you said "So, how did it all begin? Not by itself, by definition."
The Big Bang is logical in that it is a tacit recognition that the universe had a start, a beginning. No matter its size at any given time, it was not in existence eternally. Finite things by definition do not live forever. Such things are not eternal. There is a beginning to them. On the other hand things eternal are by definition not limited by time and space. It's not fancy, it's just definitions. English language definitions, so that we can communicate intelligently.
Science can't "get behind" The Big Bang, because that event is the occasion of the entire raisond'etre of science: the beginning of the physical universe. Without a physical universe, what need would there be of science? Without a physical universe, we would not be here, either. Science appropriately starts and limits itself to what can be discovered, measured and explained about the physical universe.
Science rightfully does not try to go answering the equally valid questions which other disciplines investigate: Who created us? Who put us here? Why are we the way we are? Matters regarding origins, ethics, our purpose individually and as a race. The meaning of it all. Those are legitimate questions which philosophy and religion get into, deeply. Those questions have been around for as long as humans became self-aware and could think and wonder about stuff. Those are questions that are not so easy to definitively answer because they pertain to what is deepest within us, the most vital questions of all. Because if there is no meaning and no purpose, why bother with anything? Even if, as the Existentialists assert, we each must come up with a purpose for ourselves, individually, because no prior or universal explanation is going to fit every one of us. In fact, the Absurdist Existentialists posit that there is no meaning at all to life, so we HAVE TO come up with our own.
Again, from Voltaire: "If God did not exist, we should have to invent him."
Last edited by sitonmywhat; 03-21-2023 at 02:53 AM..
As I understand it, atheism is the belief that there is/are no God/gods, or conversely the lack of belief in any God(s). A system consists of multiple components working together to form a unified, more complex whole.
What do you think are the components are that make atheism a belief "system?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You are arguing against atheism as a "religion" (religious belief system) that contradicts you with the Supreme Court. However, the primary issue is that your beliefs are such an integral part of your life that they are ALL taken as a given and not examined as beliefs, per se. Whether or not you are willing to recognize it specific non-beliefs ARE BELIEFS that you hold. That makes them automatically part of a complex system of beliefs that guide and drive your life.
Pay attention. What the Supreme Court said applied to the military in regards to a member's designation of a religious affiliation and had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. What I said was that atheism is a single belief statement, so I asked why it was being described as a "system," a term that requires multiple components. I asked what those components are, which is something that your post failed to address.
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.
