Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

Besides abortion give me another example of how your religion makes your values different than mine. Did you wait to be married before you had sex? Did you divorce? Ever cheat? Lie? Steal? These are all things I know are wrong but many Christians do these things

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?

That is a deep question with significant implications.

Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.

Are they anything like lipstick liberals?

Sorry I don't believe your ancient religion or the 999 other ones and I don't believe in ghosts or fortune tellers either. Do you?

I haven't said what I believe or don't believe. That isn't the point. The point is that Atheism as a philosophy represents no actual evolution or advancement of thought itself. Humanity has more information to work with and thus more knowledge than it did when Bronze Age religions were formed. However, there exists no evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are any smarter than they were tens of thousands of years ago. Thought patterns and processes that determine human behavior haven't changed. People are no more or less intelligent overall. Small wonder that people naturally continue to believe that the most recent discoveries and revelations are always correct and true.

Agreed. We know more, but I wonder if our reliance on technology has not made us dumber.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Did your moral values evolve in isolation?

That is a deep question with significant implications.

Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.

Are they anything like lipstick liberals?

Sorry I don't believe your ancient religion or the 999 other ones and I don't believe in ghosts or fortune tellers either. Do you?

I haven't said what I believe or don't believe. That isn't the point. The point is that Atheism as a philosophy represents no actual evolution or advancement of thought itself. Humanity has more information to work with and thus more knowledge than it did when Bronze Age religions were formed. However, there exists no evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are any smarter than they were tens of thousands of years ago. Thought patterns and processes that determine human behavior haven't changed. People are no more or less intelligent overall. Small wonder that people naturally continue to believe that the most recent discoveries and revelations are always correct and true.

Agreed. We know more, but I wonder if our reliance on technology has not made us dumber.

There have been studies that show overall human intelligence decreasing worldwide. I'm not sure what the basis for that is though.

 

[ding]

That is a deep question with significant implications.

Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.

Are they anything like lipstick liberals?

Sorry I don't believe your ancient religion or the 999 other ones and I don't believe in ghosts or fortune tellers either. Do you?

I haven't said what I believe or don't believe. That isn't the point. The point is that Atheism as a philosophy represents no actual evolution or advancement of thought itself. Humanity has more information to work with and thus more knowledge than it did when Bronze Age religions were formed. However, there exists no evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are any smarter than they were tens of thousands of years ago. Thought patterns and processes that determine human behavior haven't changed. People are no more or less intelligent overall. Small wonder that people naturally continue to believe that the most recent discoveries and revelations are always correct and true.

Agreed. We know more, but I wonder if our reliance on technology has not made us dumber.

There have been studies that show overall human intelligence decreasing worldwide. I'm not sure what the basis for that is though.

Over reliance on technology would be my guess. The brain needs to work to get stronger. If we supply our body with an outside supplement that it naturally produces our body will shut down that function. I don't see why the grain would be any different. In fact, studies have shown that watching television shuts down the reasoning portion of our brain. Whereas other studies have shown that when we engage our brains in random acts of kindness, being thankful and being reflective our minds become trained for happiness. Dopamine serves two purpose; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of our brain and improves our performance in everything. It seems that success does not lead to happiness; happiness leads to success.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Pop culture atheists apparently believe that systems of morality evolve independently without historic or cultural influence.

Are they anything like lipstick liberals?

Sorry I don't believe your ancient religion or the 999 other ones and I don't believe in ghosts or fortune tellers either. Do you?

I haven't said what I believe or don't believe. That isn't the point. The point is that Atheism as a philosophy represents no actual evolution or advancement of thought itself. Humanity has more information to work with and thus more knowledge than it did when Bronze Age religions were formed. However, there exists no evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are any smarter than they were tens of thousands of years ago. Thought patterns and processes that determine human behavior haven't changed. People are no more or less intelligent overall. Small wonder that people naturally continue to believe that the most recent discoveries and revelations are always correct and true.

Agreed. We know more, but I wonder if our reliance on technology has not made us dumber.

There have been studies that show overall human intelligence decreasing worldwide. I'm not sure what the basis for that is though.

Over reliance on technology would be my guess. The brain needs to work to get stronger. If we supply our body with an outside supplement that it naturally produces our body will shut down that function. I don't see why the grain would be any different. In fact, studies have shown that watching television shuts down the reasoning portion of our brain. Whereas other studies have shown that when we engage our brains in random acts of kindness, being thankful and being reflective our minds become trained for happiness. Dopamine serves two purpose; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of our brain and improves our performance in everything. It seems that success does not lead to happiness; happiness leads to success.

Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival. Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc.

 

[ding]

Are they anything like lipstick liberals?

Sorry I don't believe your ancient religion or the 999 other ones and I don't believe in ghosts or fortune tellers either. Do you?

I haven't said what I believe or don't believe. That isn't the point. The point is that Atheism as a philosophy represents no actual evolution or advancement of thought itself. Humanity has more information to work with and thus more knowledge than it did when Bronze Age religions were formed. However, there exists no evidence of any kind to suggest that humans are any smarter than they were tens of thousands of years ago. Thought patterns and processes that determine human behavior haven't changed. People are no more or less intelligent overall. Small wonder that people naturally continue to believe that the most recent discoveries and revelations are always correct and true.

Agreed. We know more, but I wonder if our reliance on technology has not made us dumber.

There have been studies that show overall human intelligence decreasing worldwide. I'm not sure what the basis for that is though.

Over reliance on technology would be my guess. The brain needs to work to get stronger. If we supply our body with an outside supplement that it naturally produces our body will shut down that function. I don't see why the grain would be any different. In fact, studies have shown that watching television shuts down the reasoning portion of our brain. Whereas other studies have shown that when we engage our brains in random acts of kindness, being thankful and being reflective our minds become trained for happiness. Dopamine serves two purpose; it makes us feel happy and it turns on all the learning centers of our brain and improves our performance in everything. It seems that success does not lead to happiness; happiness leads to success.

Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival. Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc.

That reminds me of an except from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address:

"I hope that no one present will suspect me of expressing my partial criticism of the Western system in order to suggest socialism as an alternative. No; with the experience of a country where socialism has been realized, I shall not speak for such an alternative....

But should I be asked, instead, whether I would propose the West, such as it is today, as a model to my country, I would frankly have to answer negatively. No, I could not recommend your society as an ideal for the transformation of ours. Through deep suffering, people in our own country have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive. Even those characteristics of your life which I have just enumerated are extremely saddening.

A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human personality in the West while in the East it has become firmer and stronger. Six decades for our people and three decades for the people of Eastern Europe; during that time we have been through a spiritual training far in advance of Western experience. The complex and deadly crush of life has produced stronger, deeper, and more interesting personalities than those generated by standardized Western well-being. Therefore, if our society were to be transformed into yours, it would mean an improvement in certain aspects, but also a change for the worse on some particularly significant points.

Of course, a society cannot remain in an abyss of lawlessness, as is the case in our country. But it is also demeaning for it to stay on such a soulless and smooth plane of legalism, as is the case in yours. After the suffering of decades of violence and oppression, the human soul longs for things higher, warmer, and purer than those offered by today's mass living habits, introduced as by a calling card by the revolting invasion of commercial advertising, by TV stupor, and by intolerable music.

All this is visible to numerous observers from all the worlds of our planet. The Western way of life is less and less likely to become the leading model.

There are telltale symptoms by which history gives warning to a threatened or perishing society. Such are, for instance, a decline of the arts or a lack of great statesmen. Indeed, sometimes the warnings are quite explicit and concrete. The center of your democracy and of your culture is left without electric power for a few hours only, and all of a sudden crowds of American citizens start looting and creating havoc. The smooth surface film must be very thin, then, the social system quite unstable and unhealthy.

But the fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future; it has already started. The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?

How has this unfavorable relation of forces come about? How did the West decline from its triumphal march to its present debility? Have there been fatal turns and losses of direction in its development? It does not seem so. The West kept advancing steadily in accordance with its proclaimed social intentions, hand in hand with a dazzling progress in technology. And all of a sudden it found itself in its present state of weakness.

This means that the mistake must be at the root, at the very foundation of thought in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world in modern times. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was born in the Renaissance and has found political expression since the Age of Enlightenment. It became the basis for political and social doctrine and could be called rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the pro-claimed and practiced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of all.

The turn introduced by the Renaissance was probably inevitable historically: the Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, having become an intolerable despotic repression of man's physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. But then we recoiled from the spirit and embraced all that is material, excessively and incommensurately. The humanistic way of thinking, which had proclaimed itself our guide, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man, nor did it see any task higher than the attainment of happiness on earth. It started modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend of worshiping man and his material needs.

Everything beyond physical well-being and the accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtle and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any higher meaning. Thus gaps were left open for evil, and its drafts blow freely today. Mere freedom per se does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and even adds a number of new ones.

And yet in early democracies, as in American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted on the ground that man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. Such was the heritage of the preceding one thousand years. Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual be granted boundless freedom with no purpose, simply for the satisfaction of his whims.

Subsequently, however, all such limitations were eroded everywhere in the West; a total emancipation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice. State systems were becoming ever more materialistic. The West has finally achieved the rights of man, and even excess, but man's sense of responsibility to God and society has grown dimmer and dimmer. In the past decades, the legalistic selfishness of the Western approach to the world has reached its peak and the world has found itself in a harsh spiritual crisis and a political impasse. All the celebrated technological achievements of progress, including the conquest of outer space, do not redeem the twentieth century's moral poverty, which no one could have imagined even as late as the nineteenth century.

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that "communism is naturalized humanism."

This statement has proved to be not entirely unreasonable. One does not see the same stones in the foundations of an eroded humanism and of any type of socialism: boundless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility (which under Communist regimes attains the stage of antireligious dictatorship); concentration on social structures with an allegedly scientific approach. (This last is typical of both the Age of Enlightenment and of Marxism.) It is no accident that all of communism's rhetorical vows revolve around Man (with a capital M) and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.

The interrelationship is such, moreover, that the current of materialism which is farthest to the left, and is hence the most consistent, always proves to be stronger, more attractive, and victorious. Humanism which has lost its Christian heritage cannot prevail in this competition. Thus during the past centuries and especially in recent decades, as the process became more acute, the alignment of forces was as follows: Liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The communist regime in the East could endure and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who (feeling the kinship!) refused to see communism's crimes, and when they no longer could do so, they tried to justify these crimes. The problem persists: In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. And yet Western intellectuals still look at it with considerable interest and empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East.

I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Might have been more interesting if he could even begin to examine his own thought processes.

I know, he seems to be set in the position that unless God reveals himself on CNN or can be examined under a microscope in a laboratory he must not exist..

Pretty stupid for someone who likes to think that he is smarter than everyone else.

I know. How stupid to expect evidence to accept the existence of a thing. Now, excuse me while I ride off on my pink unicorn, to go have lunch with queen of the fairies, and the Bandersnatch, with Harry, Hermoine, and Ron.

If you want evidence of God you have to become a creature capable of perceiving God. The way is clear. Follow the instruction given in the law knowing that the words are figurative, the subjects hidden. Its easy. You probably are already doing much of it naturally. Do this, don't do that. Don't bow down and worship the work of human hands. Do not speak falsely in the name of God. Do not mislead others through religious deception. Do not eat the vile and contaminating teaching of unclean creatures that do not ruminate, think deeply. Do not mix dairy with meat meaning do not mix what is taught to sustain children with what is taught to adults who have teeth., etc., How hard is that?

Cleanse your thoughts. Purify your consciousness, what the ancients called the soul, and be refined, then diligently stand guard over the purity of your own mind for the rest of your days. Would you have a problem with that?

Do it and God will make himself known to you and you will have far more evidence than you can handle... If you apply an additional effort, you might even see the kingdom of God in power and find out what eternal life is before you die... .

You have something better to do?

Than waste my time searching for a god that no one can find scientific evidence of? Yeah I have plenty of better things to do

But we do have evidence. What He created can be used as evidence. You keep confusing proof for evidence. Clearly. if at a later date you meet God, He will point to what He created as evidence for His existence, right? Your problem is that you don't accept this evidence as proof, but you keep illogically believing that there can be no evidence. If you start with the belief that everything is connected to reach a goal or serve a purpose, then you must evaluate everything as evidence before a finding of fact (i.e. proof) can be made. You are intellectually dead because you make no effort to do so. You just dismiss it all.

The natural world is only evidence of a god if you assume a god created it

I assume no such thing

 

[Skull Pilot]

Our best understanding may not be that good you know.

It is arrogance to think we are even capable of understanding everything in the universe. We do not fully understand the human brain either.


Just like it is arrogance to believe we are created in the image of some god

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

That's not what I asked. I asked you if you understood the evidence behind the belief that the universe had a beginning. Yes, the big bang is widely accepted as the beginning. What evidence supports this? Are you even aware of this evidence?

I answered that.

The BB is only a theory. It is a theory that fits with our observation of the universe. It has not been conclusively proven

But a theory is all it is

God is a theory as well

 

[Skull Pilot]

Our best understanding may not be that good you know.

It is arrogance to think we are even capable of understanding everything in the universe. We do not fully understand the human brain either.


Just like it is arrogance to believe we are created in the image of some god

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

Let me re-phrase my question for you. Scientific evidence exists for the belief that the universe began through an event called the big bang. Do you know what this scientific evidence is? Yes or no? Now do you understand the question?

Once again you assume the big bang is a proof it is not it is a theory derived from our observations of the universe. There is no actual proof the big bang ever happened

 

[Skull Pilot]

Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.

Your problem is that you need to greater simplify the question in order to hold your view. The fact is we are here. The universe exists. You have no answers and can only quote various theories. All are potential possibilities to the atheist, except god. Atheists are among the most fundamentalist believers out there.

Not true. God is absolutely a possibility. It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.

How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.

an agnostic can also say they have science on their side as well since there is no scientific proof that a supreme being exists an agnostic reserves making a judgement until such evidence is provided

 

[Skull Pilot]

I see. And your proof for this is what?

.

I see. And your proof for this is what?

ask the gunnery sargent, trajectory in a vacuum from a spherical expulsion .... how about it engineer, is all matter traveling in a straight line or en/mass accelerating to reconvene in unison 0.5(X)APEX (finite angle). the universe within the Cosmos.

.

.

That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?

.

That doesn't sound like proof. Do you have any proof?

maybe an image will help you


View attachment 104783


Isaac Newton had the same problem, with people like you bing.

without garavity, the above example the trajectory traveling at a finite angle will eventually return to its origin and reload itself in the guns breach. the same for the celestrial bodies from the moment of Singularity.

.

Ummmm... that isn't proof, dumbass, that is theory. Do you have any fucking proof? The only proof we have is for the beginning. Do you need for me to show it to you so that you can understand the difference between proof and theory?

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as you are going to get to a fact. God isn't even a common theory because there's zero evidence. God is a hypothesis at best

No theories are disproved quite often

Some have neither been proven nor disproved yet and exist as a best explanation of observable phenomena but they are still merely theories nonetheless

 

[Skull Pilot]

We don't know who or what created the universe or if it was created at all for that matter

The existence of a thing is not proof of anything but that it exists.

Our best understanding of the data tells us that it did have a beginning. We live in a universe which has never had an uncaused event. Therefore, there was a cause for the beginning. We know that the universe is a self referential system and in many ways behaves like a brain. We know that the laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions that beings that know and create will eventually arise. We know that that potential existed when space and time cane into existence. We know that everything that has happened since space and time came into existence was required for beings that know and create to arise. We know from our own experiences that when we create something that it can be used as evidence to learn things about us. For the life of me I have no idea of what evidence you have that something came from nothing without a cause or what you could possibly attribute that cause to. Do you?

Our best understanding may not be that good you know.

It is arrogance to think we are even capable of understanding everything in the universe. We do not fully understand the human brain either.


Just like it is arrogance to believe we are created in the image of some god

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

We can never know what was before the big bang. What we do know is either time and space are infinite. Either thats true or there is no infinite God either.

Our universe is but one little universe. Our sun is but one little star. Our planet is just one little planet.

There was a time not too long ago we didn't know we were just one planet surrounding one sun. We thought we were special and that there must be a purpose. There is. Live well and prosper

we don't even know for sure there was a big bang

 

[Mudda]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

CA: Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival. Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc.

Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought ...


that does not exist -

what has that to do with your OP's video in praise of christianity, their 4th century book and concludes atheism represents only 16% of the worlds population as being a vacuous influence ... just maybe the reformations never went far enough is why the OP is left seemingly Spiritually dead and the real reason for atheism existence.

.

 

[sealybobo]

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

Let me re-phrase my question for you. Scientific evidence exists for the belief that the universe began through an event called the big bang. Do you know what this scientific evidence is? Yes or no? Now do you understand the question?

Once again you assume the big bang is a proof it is not it is a theory derived from our observations of the universe. There is no actual proof the big bang ever happened

Just evidence that suggest a bb happened. Theists go one step farther. They assume a God was behind the bb. God of the gaps. We just haven't filled in that gap get.

Maybe eventually black holes start universes? We don't know what's on the other side of a black hole or that black holes are really what we think they are. Just a lot of science behind them. Maybe that's where heaven is. Or where God lives.

Are we talking to believe God impregnated Mary or a theist who believes in a generic creator.

 

[sealybobo]

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

That's not what I asked. I asked you if you understood the evidence behind the belief that the universe had a beginning. Yes, the big bang is widely accepted as the beginning. What evidence supports this? Are you even aware of this evidence?

I answered that.

The BB is only a theory. It is a theory that fits with our observation of the universe. It has not been conclusively proven

But a theory is all it is

God is a theory as well

God is not a theory at least not a scientific one. He's a hypothesis

 

[sealybobo]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

That's why I'm an agnostic atheist

 

[sealybobo]

What evidence that the universe had a beginning do believe our best understanding is based upon?

We don't really know how the universe began
We may never know simply because we are incapable of understanding it. Just like dogs can't understand calculus

This Is What We Don’t Know About The Universe

That wasn't my question and you didn't answer it. Do you know what evidence exists for the widely held belief that the universe had a beginning? Yes or no?

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

That's not what I asked. I asked you if you understood the evidence behind the belief that the universe had a beginning. Yes, the big bang is widely accepted as the beginning. What evidence supports this? Are you even aware of this evidence?

I answered that.

The BB is only a theory. It is a theory that fits with our observation of the universe. It has not been conclusively proven

But a theory is all it is

God is a theory as well

Did ding tell you atheists are naturally socialists and commies?

 

[Czernobog]

Not true. God is absolutely a possibility. It is just a possiblity that requires evidence.

How so? People can believe anything they want. No one is obliged to prove their beliefs to anyone else. If god is a possibility then the correct term is agnostic. The atheist goes further, states a belief that they can't support either. The difference is the atheist claims science is on his side.

You're right. I thought you were talking about the point of view of atheists. If no proof of God is necessary for you that's fine. However, your contention was that atheists are unwilling to concede to the possiblity of God for atheists. I am merely correcting your misunderstanding of the position of atheists for atheists. The atheist will not simply concede God, and then look for evidence to support that preconception. The atheist will concede the possiblity of the existance of God, but requires objective evidence to move that possiblity to probability, or certitude, for the Atheist.

I said in the beginning that the theist was honest about their position and made a statement of faith. And that the atheist was dishonest by making a statement of faith and calling it science. Now if the individual says god is possible then they are an agnostic. Atheism refers to a different belief system. These are well established words and we can't let individuals redefine terms for the rest of us.

The problem is that you are being overly simplistic:

An "Agnostic" is njust an atheist who is trying to be diplomatic. Atheists, whether they are an agnostic atheist, or a Gnostic Atheist, are still atheists. They're default position is that there is no God, and requobjective evidence to be persuaded to nmove from that position. You seem to think that Atheists are absolute, and immovable in teir position. They're not.

Welll...I mean, most of us are, but only because ini the some 3-million-year history of the existence of man, no objective evidence has yet been provided to prove the existence of divinity. So, it's not that we are unwilling to be moved from our position by objective evidence; rather it is that we have a well-earned skeptisicm that such evidence will ever be forthcoming.

However, we atheists, whether gnostic, or agnostic, are more than willing to assess any objective evidence when provided. We're just waiting for that objective evidence. I am an atheist. I am also more than willing to concede that I was mistaken about my atheism, just as soon as someone provides me with actual objective evidence of the existance of divinity.

That is an overly complex rationalization. The only real belief is of if there is a higher power. Different faiths do not matter.

That's kind of the point I'm making. Iceweasel wants to try and draw a distinction between agnostics, and atheists, and I am pointing out that there really isn't one.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

.

CA: Modern societies are increasingly detached from basic realities of life and death and the instinct for survival. Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought have evidently led to the kind of enlightenment that provides justification allowing us the ability to completely destroy ourselves with nuclear weapons, overfishing and pollution of the oceans, etc.

Our new, highly evolved, systems of thought ...


that does not exist -

what has that to do with your OP's video in praise of christianity, their 4th century book and concludes atheism represents only 16% of the worlds population as being a vacuous influence ... just maybe the reformations never went far enough is why the OP is left seemingly Spiritually dead and the real reason for atheism existence.

.

Where in the OP was there a praise of Christianity or anything else? Do all you pop culture atheists have this problem with constant uncontrollable knee jerk?

 

[Czernobog]

Well that question wasn't very well phrased now was it?

The most widely accepted theory, the big bang, is based on the observable movement of galaxies.

But then again our "universal laws " of physics are not universal by a long shot

Let me re-phrase my question for you. Scientific evidence exists for the belief that the universe began through an event called the big bang. Do you know what this scientific evidence is? Yes or no? Now do you understand the question?

You are quite right. There is such evidence. Unfortunately, there are also phenomena, and inconsistencies in the cosmos for which the Big Bang does not, and cannot account. Which is why The Big Bang Singularity is beinbg replaced by the Quantum Gravity Loop theory. Do you know what these inconsistencies are, and why the Big Bang theory was insufficient?

No, and I don't care to know because it does not change the fact that the universe had a beginning. It is the beginning and all that has happened since the beginning that is the evidence. Not what happened before it. None of our equations will ever be able to prove what happened before the 1st trillionth of a billionth of a second. No observations we ever be able to tell us what cause the beginning. All that we know is that there was a beginning and that that beginning has not been eternal or infinite in time. There is a finite expansion of the universe at this point in time.

Uh, no it didn't, that is rather the point. No beginning, no need for God.

In the context of evidence for the existence of God, it most certainly does matter.

That's the point. Your entire cosmological argument for the existence of God is "There was a beginning, therefore there must have been a God to begin the universe. However, with the Quantum Gravity Loop there is no actual beginning. So, with no actual beginning, there is no one to "begin" the universe, now is there?