Answers for Atheists

a reply to: flyingfish

Come on now fish, why turn around and post something of less
calibur?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
I suppose you're calling this an argument?

A debate on facts. Synonymous with argument. I would say less formal than a debate, because you seem to prefer to attack people and refuse to actually present any valid form of argument.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
Oh really! Where is your proof hombre?

Here you go:

~ Stephen Hawkins on: The Beginning of Time
~ Joseph Silk (2009). Horizons of Cosmology. Templeton Press. p. 208.
~ Simon Singh (2005). Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. Harper Perennial. p. 560.
~ map.gsfc.nasa.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink">NASA's information about Cosmology and the Big Bang
~ Encyclopedia Britannica on The Big Bang Model
~ Expansion of the universe: Big Bang Model
~ Cosmological parameters
~ Guth, Alan H., 1997.
~ Tryon, Edward P., 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? Nature 246: 396-397.


The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:

Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.

The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.

The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.

The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.

The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.

The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.

Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.

Inconsistencies are not necessarily unresolvable. The clumpiness of the universe, for example, was resolved by finding unevenness in the CMB. Dark matter has been observed in the effects it has on star and galaxy motions; we simply do not know what it is yet.

There are still unresolved observations. For example, we do not understand why the expansion of the universe seems to be speeding up. However, the big bang has enough supporting evidence behind it that it is likely that new discoveries will add to it, not overthrow it. For example, inflationary universe theory proposes that the size of the universe increased exponentially when the universe was a fraction of a second old (Guth 1997). It was proposed to explain why the big bang did not create large numbers of magnetic monopoles. It also accounts for the observed flatness of space, and it predicted quantitatively the pattern of unevenness of the CMB. Inflationary theory is a significant addition to big bang theory, but it is an extension of big bang theory, not a replacement.
Link

~ Ferris, Timothy. 1997. The Whole Shebang. New York: Simon & Schuster.
~ Guth, Alan H. 1997. The Inflationary Universe. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
~ Harrison, E. R. 2000. Cosmology: The science of the universe. Cambridge University Press.
~ Evidence for the big bang

Do you need any more evidence? I am more than willing to supply it.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: flyingfish

Come on now fish, why turn around and post something of less
calibur?

You have faith in unevidenced claims of a religion, but you need proof for observable things?
I'm genuinely curious.. How do you deal with this contradiction?

a reply to: Ghost147

You know after all that bullsh!t I've decided something you
can actually present a decent argument against.

I've decided I'm The only smart person on this planet.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

You know after all that bullsh!t I've decided something you
can actually present a decent argument against.

I've decided I'm The only smart person on this planet.

Your punctuation errors make this post paradoxical.

I can't tell if you're denying all the information I just posted, or if you're thanking me for presenting a decent argument.

Considering your history of responses here in this topic I'm going to safely assume it's the former.

If my assumption is accurate, then I would say that you seem perfectly comfortable denying reality without expressing even a remote kindling of cognitive thought upon the subject at hand.

Why even make topics at all if you've already made up your mind on things and don't even bother reading or responding to comments?

You're more than free to reject any and all information we give you, but don't you think it would be more reasonable and honorable to at the very least express why you feel all of it is "bull#"?

If not, all you come off as is a person with such a fragile world view that you literally need to cover your eyes and pretend you never saw it in order to protect such a delusion.

It's a shame, I would expect the 'only smart person in the world' to have more dignity.

a reply to: Ghost147

I tried to throw a bone but I got atracked. Oh well. There is no 'reasoning" I suppose.


For my fellow atheist I did not mean any insult just wanted to try and elevate the conversation with some elements of philosophy and theology from some of histories thinkers rather than the scripture crutch. Just for the sake of having a little bit of thinking go into the discussion of what God could possibly be.

I hope I was not misundersrood as defending this type of arguement

a reply to: luthier

There's nothing wrong with anyone stating that there is in fact reason to accept something as factual. Perhaps one day there will be for a god.

It's just a matter of stating there is a reason when the reason is something not concrete that it becomes an issue.

If there is a reason, a real one that isn't based on speculation, one that actually leads to a specific concept of a god, then I would instantly change my stance on the matter.

The issue is mainly that most people don't really understand what constitutes Evidence, Proof, or anything along those lines. Such as expressed in the OP.

a reply to: Ghost147

I agree. And metaphysics in general is not probable and that's OK....its the thinking that matters. Being told something is true just doesn't cut it.

Hell there are interesting philosophical truths even in the Bible. Right next to lies and bs.

Thinking and reading. Good things.

a reply to: luthier

My argument against fine tuning is that it implies there is a fine tuner, not that the laws of physics have to be a certain way for life to exist. I already know this. I'm just saying there is no logical connection between the laws of physics being the way they are, and the existence of a creator, just as you said. This is where the fine tuning argument in favor of god falls flat on its face.

We are actually in agreement here, don't spoil it

a reply to: randyvs

Don't worry Randy, we still love you.

After all, Jesus taught us to love our enemies.

a reply to: Barcs

No that's cool I am glad to have an olive branch. I am bull headed and difficult. I know.

I also agree it isn't "proof". It's just interesting and worth thinking about. IMO.

Thanks for giving me the space to say what I think. I know every thing I say has philosophical swagger to it. Thats just me.

I really do respect science though. It's just philosophy is what I have spent more time on. The humanities is where we meet I guess.

Anyhow thanks for the olive branch even with our knock down debates. I appreciate it.

PS fine tuning does not imply there is a creator. Philosophers are intellectuals the theists used it as such. Others have said it could be a groups of grad students making a model or a monkey on a typewriter. It doesn't imply a creator it's just one of the hypothesis. Most notoriously religious folks like WLC

NM

a reply to: Barcs

You consider me an enemy?
I could say how much I cherish that just to be an ass.
But being an ass isn't what I hoped to accomplish here.
What I think may be more appropriate is this.

That is a pretty harsh indictment.

a reply to: Ghost147

Your punctuation errors make this post paradoxical.

Then just read the words.

The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time.

Do you even have the slightest idea how utterly stupid that sounds?

a reply to: luthier

PS fine tuning does not imply there is a creator.

I'd like to know what it dsoes imply then?

A fine tuner?

I wonder very seriously how you people actually take yourselves
seriously?

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: JackReyes

Did you just invoke rationality to defend a belief in god?
This is a rather unique use of the word that I was hitherto unaware.

You don't need to be a genius to understand the rational that there is a God.

For example, while many atheists would object to Holy Scripture, it's rational is very easy to understand, and logical:

(Hebrews 3:4) . . .Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Is that not a rational statement? And a rational deduction from reasoning?

In fact Scripture also says a few other things about people who don't believe in God. Such as, they are inexcusable for their attitude, because there is plenty of evidence of his existence:

(Romans 1:20) 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

And that only a fool reasons there is no God:

(Psalm 10:4) In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”

Actually it goes further. It shows the heart condition behind people, whom are shown logic and rational and continue to ignore it. It s not because they want truth, but it is because they are arrogant and haughty.

You're invoking passages from a book that is basically a "how to believe in God" book.

Keep in mind a good number of atheists were believers at one point. You referencing the handbook is like a vacuum salesman referring to his sales handbook on why his model is better than the others with a list of selling points made up by the manufacturer.

There is LITERALLY no proof that the supernatural events in the bible occurred. The only EVIDENCE has been written down in a book that has been modified thousands of times over 2000 years. The only thing atheists would like is proof that a good exists. The fact that children who have never heard of god are raped and tortured and murdered is evidence enough that the all-powerful sky-father that some profess to call god just doesn't exist.

The different between most devout atheists and most devout religious folk is that atheists have the ability to change their mind based on new evidence that comes in. If your religion requires faith in the face of evidence and even proof contrary to your deity and you follow that faith instead of your rational thoughts, then there's no reasoning with you.

If an all powerful being came down and performed a supernatural miracle that was beyond question and spoke to everyone saying that he was the true god and the one true religion was , I'm pretty sure I, a devout atheist would instantly repent and get on the bandwagon. My faith would be based on SOMETHING at that point.

But if someone were to find evidence of a massive religious conspiracy that showed without a doubt that religion has been making up all it's claims, I would bet my "eternal soul" that most of those religious folks would just continue worshiping like they always have because their faith would sustain them. That's not faith, that's ignorance and it's one of the most dangerous things that civilizations have to deal with.

For the most part, you religious folks don't bother me much, but when one of you gets into government and wants to start living my life for me, I tend to get uppity. Enjoy your eternal life though, if you could come down and drop me a line as an angel at some point, that'd be awesome. It might make me question my atheism....

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
Do you even have the slightest idea how utterly stupid that sounds?

No, because the model does actually predict that.

How about just saying "No, that's bull#", "That sounds stupid", "I've decided that I'm the only smart person" you actually reply to the content you've been given.

You're dismissing everything, but why? What is your reason? You claim that these things are obviously not true, but I don't consider it obvious. Why do you? You must have some reason for coming to these conclusions, so instead of just rejecting any and every response you get in this topic, how about you actually respond....

a reply to: randyvs

It could mean a multiverse. It could mean a creator created and died. It could mean we are simply a program. It could mean the universe/nature itself is the necessary being/creator. It could be a monkey on a type writer.

Your the dunce for not thinking there are other possibilities and examining the probability.

If you believe. Fine let it be. That should be enough.... to not try and belittle other people.

a reply to: Klassified

It's only condescending when it comes from an atheist/unbeliever, never when it comes from a religious person.

We are heathen. fair game in their eyes

a reply to: randyvs

by their quest for knowledge they've
lost all touch with their spirituality. They've literally starved their
spirit

On the contrary when one wants to get in touch with their inner spirituality they have to peel away the layers of religious/societal indoctrination -

it takes gnosis (an aha moment) to shed the husks of the false paradigm that keeps us bonded to belief, religious, secular, or scientism defensive positions. I have no fear, I have "seen" "god" in its magnificence and within this universe there is abundance and life.

The very fact that the creator abandoned us speaks heaps to the fact that "it" had faith that we would work it out. We were and are a good end result. We even dared to reach out our hand and enquire as to what glories we could sample in the garden of delights -ie the symbolic Tree of Life & the Tree of Knowledge.

Now the trick is to stop reincarnating into this "earth" but to regain the memories as to why we came here. We've been here before, a block has been placed in front of us so we keep returning, as slaves to the demiurge. It, the demiurge thrives on feeding off our feelings, yearnings, hate, war, misery.

Because their so consumed by their quest for knowledge they've
lost all touch

When you stop the quest, you may as well roll over and die. Knowledge is not the purpose for existence, its definitely not something scientists "do" to upset you; you may see it that way because it gives you a stronger "faith" by perceiving them as Christianitys enemy and the "other" that you must battle. The seeker of knowledge is no different than the seeker of spirituality, both have a yearning. As I said a scientist that stops using their brain is no different than a christian who stops using their intellect and relies solely on scripture as their only basis revelation. The scientist is just as spiritual in yearning for discovery as the artist who looks for meaning in art or the musician who creates music.

Lifes great that we can question, we no longer worship the "idol"; the man from the pulpit giving exegesis. I truly think if there is such a concept as sin; the biggest sin would be ignorance and blind faith.