Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Muhammed]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.

Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ?? Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began? What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!

It had to happen eventually. In a an infinite universe strange things necessarily happen.

I believe that you have just proven the premise of the OP, lol.

ReallY??


Please tell me more!

Pretty pleeeesse with a cherry on top!.

 

[ding]

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.

Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ?? Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began? What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!

It had to happen eventually. In a an infinite universe strange things necessarily happen.

I believe that you have just proven the premise of the OP, lol.

ReallY??


Please tell me more!

Pretty pleeeesse with a cherry on top!.

Why? You just proved the point all on your own. I could not do more to expose your intellectual shortcoming than you just did.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

for one thing the BB is just the most accepted theory that fits our observations of the Universe it is not a 100% proven fact yet if it ever will be.

Have you ever considered that people may not have the capability to completely understand the universe much like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra ?

Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life. At the very least he needs Philosophy. And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself? If it can than IT is GOD.

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

 

[turzovka]

There are several spiritual systems in effect in our world.

They are:

1 - Theism (God watches over me)

2 - Deism (God exists but is distant from me and I am on my own)

3 - Atheism (there is no God)

4 - Agnosticism (I don't know if there is a God or not -- show me a sign)

5 - Science as a religion (the Big Bang is my God and I don't think it needed a God to create it -- it happened all by itself)

Each of these is a belief system of some sort.

Modern Catholicism is theistic science. The Vatican now does lots of its own pure science including astronomy since They got it all wrong with Galileo.

I can't speak for other religions.

Atheism is simply a belief system which postulates a negative. This negative however cannot be proven, just as the positivist Theist/Deist systems cannot be proven either.

This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.

Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.

Nice try to summarize, but I, myself, have some real disagreements on certain points.

>> Science as a religion (the Big Bang is my God and I don't think it needed a God to create it -- it happened all by itself)
That’s effectively atheism or you might call it indifference. If science (or a scientist) is not interested in trying to understand if God exists or not, then that science or endeavor is of very minor importance to mankind, compared to theology. Purpose of existence and what happens after the grave trump simple knowledge of things.

>>Modern Catholicism is theistic science. The Vatican now does lots of its own pure science including astronomy since They got it all wrong with Galileo.
The Catholic Church since the earliest centuries a.d. has been very much into scientific discovery and advancement --- more than any other body in Europe at a minimum. Very few people truly understand what took place with Galileo, it is nothing like the secular unchurched world is so eager to share. The Catholic Church honored Galileo before and after in many ways and treated him quite nicely as a house prisoner. But the larger point is, the Church was very much interested in Galileo’s work and many other Catholic scientist just like he.

As far as “modern Catholicism” goes, that is a new phrase I never heard. But it is critical (for me) to note that the Catholic Church has no formal teaching or doctrine on evolution and similar concerns. Yes, there are many scientists in the clergy now teaching evolution but it is not widely accepted nor is it promoted to the faithful. I wish they would back off on it though, it bothers me. I think the fossil evidence (and other evidence) for evolution is so lacking that it becomes evidence for creationism.

>>Atheism is simply a belief system which postulates a negative. This negative however cannot be proven, just as the positivist Theist/Deist systems cannot be proven either.
That’s your position. As far as I am concerned, God has proven Himself with empirical evidence a thousand times over. I have no need for faith or the Bible to assure me of that.

>>This is where FAITH comes in. You pick a belief system and then you simply have FAITH in it. If it works for you then through its utility that is valuable to you as an individual.
No. That is not where faith comes in for Catholics like me. We know God exists through historical and empirical evidence and through reason when you consider all the evidence together. It is beyond any doubt. Faith comes in not with core dogma but with other promises of the Bible or revelations through the years. Such as, I have faith my prayers will be answered. I have faith that God’s mercy will save many, many people who have rejected their Savior or never knew of Jesus. I have faith God is going to get me through a certain trial. Etc. Big difference than saying I have faith Jesus exists and is the Son of God. That, we know.

>>Pushing your own beliefs onto others is pure blasphemy.
Where did you ever come up with that? What could be more important than wanting your family and those close to you to be in heaven for all eternity? Why would I leave my child or others to the wiles of the devil when I know God has revealed Himself to me so that I may be a witness for God to others? Nothing is more important than God and eternal matters.

 

[hobelim]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

for one thing the BB is just the most accepted theory that fits our observations of the Universe it is not a 100% proven fact yet if it ever will be.

Have you ever considered that people may not have the capability to completely understand the universe much like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra ?

Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life. At the very least he needs Philosophy. And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself? If it can than IT is GOD.

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

I believe that yours is the most sensible and intellectually honest approach.

That being said, what would suffice as proof?

What if seeing no evidence of God is only evidence of your inability to see?

Are you open to that possibility?

What then? What would be the only right course to take?

 

[Wuwei]

I never understood why people make such a big deal about the BB and God creating it. Science pushes the envelope of understanding the beginnings of the universe deeper and deeper. There is always a point that science doesn't understand this year, but maybe it will next year. If you want to say God created that point, fine. So what.

I am puzzled why people make the leap that we should worship that sort of God, and pray, and assume that universe creator, God, micromanages our lives.
If you want to be religious about it, I think studying science is the greatest and ultimate liturgy. Idolizing the point of origin of the universe is a waste of time.

 

[hobelim]

I never understood why people make such a big deal about the BB and God creating it. Science pushes the envelope of understanding the beginnings of the universe deeper and deeper. There is always a point that science doesn't understand this year, but maybe it will next year. If you want to say God created that point, fine. So what.

I am puzzled why people make the leap that we should worship that sort of God, and pray, and assume that universe creator, God, micromanages our lives.
If you want to be religious about it, I think studying science is the greatest and ultimate liturgy. Idolizing the point of origin of the universe is a waste of time.

Not only that, the story of Genesis is not even about the beginning of the universe, the solar system, the earth, the first plants, animals, or human beings.

Believers profess to believe in what the story is not about, unbelievers cite scientific discoveries that prove false what the story is not about, each caught up in an eternally unreconcilable enmity. Talk about a waste of time!


What it is actually about, what ancient nomadic people were actually teaching their children through well known instructional literary techniques, remains hidden and above the grasp of the believer with the greatest faith or unbeliever with the highest I.Q., even when openly revealed in full view of believers and unbelievers alike..

Astonishing!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism not at all is an intellectual dead end.

However, it can be a spiritual and emotional dead end, yes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

for one thing the BB is just the most accepted theory that fits our observations of the Universe it is not a 100% proven fact yet if it ever will be.

Have you ever considered that people may not have the capability to completely understand the universe much like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra ?

Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life. At the very least he needs Philosophy. And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself? If it can than IT is GOD.

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

I believe that yours is the most sensible and intellectually honest approach.

That being said, what would suffice as proof?

What if seeing no evidence of God is only evidence of your inability to see?

Are you open to that possibility?

What then? What would be the only right course to take?

I am of course open to not the possibility but to the certainty that humans will not be able to understand everything because of the physical limitations of our intellect and sensory capabilities which does indeed create the conundrum you just outlined

As yet I have no solution to that particular puzzle but continue to reflect on it

 

[rightwinger]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

I guess spiritually dumb is the best answer

It just makes no sense to me. I hear explanations of what you believe in and that voice in my head says....This shit makes no sense

You believe a virgin had a baby and that baby had magical powers and was tortured and killed and came back to life....Yea.....makes a hell of a lot of sense to me

Then you believe there is a magical being who watches over us and rewards the good and punishes the bad......Oh wait...That's Santa Claus

 

[hobelim]

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

for one thing the BB is just the most accepted theory that fits our observations of the Universe it is not a 100% proven fact yet if it ever will be.

Have you ever considered that people may not have the capability to completely understand the universe much like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra ?

Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life. At the very least he needs Philosophy. And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself? If it can than IT is GOD.

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

I believe that yours is the most sensible and intellectually honest approach.

That being said, what would suffice as proof?

What if seeing no evidence of God is only evidence of your inability to see?

Are you open to that possibility?

What then? What would be the only right course to take?

I am of course open to not the possibility but to the certainty that humans will not be able to understand everything because of the physical limitations of our intellect and sensory capabilities which does indeed create the conundrum you just outlined

As yet I have no solution to that particular puzzle but continue to reflect on it

My solution was to assume that my mind had been defiled and contaminated since birth by thousands of years of misunderstanding and confusion. I didn't need proof that I couldn't make sense out of anything. 'Life's a bitch and then you die', or, 'shit happens' wasn't a good enough answer for me.

If the mind is the only tool a human being has to process information gathered from observing and living life, purifying and cleansing the mind would seem to be the only logical first step to take for anyone who would want to apply their mind to learn and know the unadulterated truth...

 

[Iceweasel]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

There is no conclusive evidence that the "big bang" ever happened in the first place.

Ok fine.

So you don't believe in the BB ?? Is that what you are asserting ??

Then if not how did you get here, and your peoples before you, all the way back to the first DNA strand in the primordial soup where life on Earth began? What caused that ??

Tell us what your own Science tells you ?!

It had to happen eventually. In a an infinite universe strange things necessarily happen.

You have WAY more faith than I could ever muster. The universe being infinite is not even known but everything happened because it eventually would have?

My experience with atheists is that they will believe anything is possible but god.

 

[rightwinger]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

 

[Czernobog]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

That's easy. There wasn't one. "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories. In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop. With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics. We're learning neat new stuff every day.

 

[Iceweasel]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

That's easy. There wasn't one. "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories. In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop. With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics. We're learning neat new stuff every day.

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

that's the peace religion and mythology offer

we as a species hate a mystery

 

[Czernobog]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

That's easy. There wasn't one. "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories. In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop. With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics. We're learning neat new stuff every day.

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

 

[Skull Pilot]

for one thing the BB is just the most accepted theory that fits our observations of the Universe it is not a 100% proven fact yet if it ever will be.

Have you ever considered that people may not have the capability to completely understand the universe much like a dog is incapable of understanding algebra ?

Oh I agree with you Skull Pilot on that.

But it is just that there are both a whole lot of amateur scientists and also a few professional ones who have made Science their Religion.

That's my point.

If Muhammed digs deeply enough into his own Philosophy to deal with the dilemma of who created his BB then I think he will see he needs more than just Science in his life. At the very least he needs Philosophy. And this will lead him at least to Deism I think.

How could the BB create itself? If it can than IT is GOD.

God is a man made concept.
We don't know if the BB even happened. It's all conjecture at this point. It's the best explanation we can come up with based on what we observe and understand.

I personally will reserve judgement on a supreme being there is not enough evidence one or the other at this point

I believe that yours is the most sensible and intellectually honest approach.

That being said, what would suffice as proof?

What if seeing no evidence of God is only evidence of your inability to see?

Are you open to that possibility?

What then? What would be the only right course to take?

I am of course open to not the possibility but to the certainty that humans will not be able to understand everything because of the physical limitations of our intellect and sensory capabilities which does indeed create the conundrum you just outlined

As yet I have no solution to that particular puzzle but continue to reflect on it

My solution was to assume that my mind had been defiled and contaminated since birth by thousands of years of misunderstanding and confusion. I didn't need proof that I couldn't make sense out of anything. 'Life's a bitch and then you die', or, 'shit happens' wasn't a good enough answer for me.

If the mind is the only tool we have to process information gathered from observing and living life, purifying and cleansing the mind would seem to be the only logical first step to take for anyone who would want to apply their mind to learn and know the unadulterated truth...

I never said we couldn't make sense out of anything
We obviously can. We know the why and how of many things.

My contention is that there are as many if not more whys and hows that we will never understand because of the limitations of our intellect which is a physical entity derived from our organic selves

I hate to keep using the dog and algebra analogy but it most succinctly sums it up

 

[Iceweasel]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

Ok so how do you explain the origin of the Big Bang then?

Apparently you are not a very good philosopher.

That's easy. There wasn't one. "The Big Bang" supposes that the Universe "began" with an exploding singularity. However, with the advent of quantum mechanics, a whole new way of looking at the universe is possible.

Ahmed Farag Ali, and Saurya Das, from the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have introduced an entirely new model that replaces the classic geodesics with corrected Bohmian trajectories. In doing so, the new model eliminates singularities, because, unlike geodesics, Bohmian trajectories never cross, which was the source of the theoretical singularities.

In pother words, there was no "Big Bang" the universe simply never "began"; it's a constant closed loop. With no beginning, and no end, no need for a Prime Motivator.

Gotta love Quantum Physics. We're learning neat new stuff every day.

You are badly confused. Proposing a theory isn't discovering a fact.

You're right. So, presenting the challenge of "finding the origin of the Big Bang", as if the "Big Bang" were fact, rather than a theory is rather silly, isn't it? The fact is that there is a theory to the universe that negates the necessity of a "Big Bang", and thus the need for your "God". One, incidentally, that fits rather nicely with the known elements of the universe.

I said nothing about the Big Bang, you can't read. There are many theories out there but NO facts regarding origins. You can twist yourself into a rope but it changes nothing.

 

[Czernobog]

Spirituality does have one advantage over atheism..

It provides all the answers:

Where do we come from? God made us
Why does bad things happen to good people? God wants it that way
Why does the sun rise in the east? God wants it that way
Why is the sky blue? Because God made it that way

They might not be the right answers...but you get an answer

Ask an atheist and he will say....How the hell do I know?

And that is the advantage of Atheism. When one has all of the answers, there is no need for further exploration, or discovery, is there?

But, when one must respond with, "I don't know", that rather paves the way for the logical response of "Let's find out!", now doesn't it? I rather prefer a path that offers questions to explore, rather than answers to be accepted. Don't you?