Atheism starts with an illogical premise

Really? really? That logic is so...NOT logic!

I lack belief in god= I do not believe in god= To me god does not exist.

It is an issue that needs to be asserted because the majority of religious belief is holding the rest of the world back.
Where once believing in god was the norm, it needs to be stated that you do not believe or many people will assume you do.

reply to post by 547000

The OP states that we are acknowledging the existance of god in order to deny the belief in god. I only acknowledge your labeling of the idea so we could talk about it. Everything from that point on are word games.

Originally posted by 547000
What if God is the primary cause of all things? No causes before God since God is the root of the event tree, by definition. "I am the Alpha and the Omega."

Then the cause argument falls apart since an uncaused god becomes the fallacy of special pleading.

How can time ever begin? Only measurements of time relative to a reference event can be measured. How can we absolutely measure time and not relatively to material singularity?

You might also ask, "how can space begin?". Both began with the Big Bang.

Do you think the universe is a closed system and is only material in nature?

We don't know if it's a closed system or only material in nature. What we do know is that so far nothing in the universe has revealed or required supernatural causation. We also know that things and events previously attributed to god(s) have been discovered to have natural sources. I have no reason to suspect that the Big Bang would be different.

I mean really this is just nitpicking. Every time I explain I am Atheist do I have to say "I acknowledge that i lack a belief in a spiritual construct (In this case gos) born purely of human imagination that is otherwise widely believed by religious types."?

IS THAT specific enough for you?!? Sorry I am just going to say that I do not believe. That is simple enough for people without an agenda to get.

OP.... this thread makes absolutely no sense.

One can be taught to believe or have faith in anything at a young age. Some stick with those beliefs to satiate those around them and some truly WANT to believe... just in case. Others take a different approach. There's no hypocrisy necessary...

reply to post by Matrix Rising


No, theism starts with a false premise: that there is some Giant Invisible Friend somewhere who, if you offer Him/Her/It/Them enough praise and whatever else demanded will respond with goodies. Sorry, but only young children believe in such stuff. The rest of us know there is no such thing as a free lunch.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Atheists pro port history included in pages like dead sea scrolls and cuneiform tablets needs heavy editing and is either symbolism or worse a deliberate fabrication of facts designed to enslave people into bowing down to some false God. Big leap to say such a percentage of the world is was lying or misled. Approximately 80%.
en.wikipedia.org...

The demographics of atheism are difficult to quantify. Different people interpret "atheist" and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, discrimination, and persecution in some countries[1], or, in cases where the situation is reversed, religious people may keep their beliefs secret in pro-atheist societies.[2] Despite these problems, one study classified 2.5% of the world's population as atheists, and a separate 12.7% as non-religious.[3]

The concept of a Unicorn exists as it was created by mankind. An actual real-life Unicorn does not. So, I can say that I don't believe in Unicorns [as in, a real and existing manifestation of them, not the idea of them] and it's still perfectly logical.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


First, I appreciate your response and that it didn't turn into name-calling and insults.

"Infinite regress is impossible to avoid if one invokes creationism as an answer to universe origins."

To accept that something as infinitely complex as the universe can suddenly appear for no reason, means that its equally possible for a 3 eyed unicorn with diamond for skin to suddenly appear in a field since that would be vastly inferior. Why don't we observe things randomly popping into existence now since by what is being implied, its totally possible? Was there a time limit for spontaneous appearance of matter?
As I see it, 0+0 ≠ 1 and I see no way around that. An infinitely empty nothing should have remained that way.

"Since time began with the Big Bang, there really can be no 'before the Big Bang'."

How can you establish that though? Is that not like saying there's a limit to how high a number you can count? Maybe the "before" is completely beyond our comprehension but when presented with two choices:
1. Some form of entity gave way, by some means, to everything that exists.
2. Nothing upon nothing upon nothing, suddenly, randomly, and unexplainably materialized into something tangible out of nowhere that could then be "exploded" by some unknown, equally mysterious catalyst, into everything.
I have to go with the one that makes the most sense, to me anyways, of the two.

To even say, there was no "before the Big Bang" isn't that the establishment of a rule? And how can there be a rule in a total nothing? Would that not be like saying, "There was no party at the club lastnight, but the dress code for this non-party required a collar'ed shirt and slacks"?

"It sounds as if you're invoking the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. Though I don't believe you've substantiated your claims."

I'm not a physicist or science wiz by any means so if I have fallen short in my explanation please forgive me, I'm just giving my view and beliefs on existence. Maybe I should have stated that. I don't mean to pass anything that I say off as fact, I wouldn't dare be that arrogant, these are strictly my beliefs and reasons for believing what I do.
...but what I'm asking is, how could the greatest explosion to have ever happened cause everything that exists to perfectly(down to the sub-sub-atomic level) organize from what could have only been the equally greatest, most mind-exploding chaos ever. If a nuclear explosion, which doesn't even qualify as a fraction of the Big Bang's blast is only capable of destruction, how can an explosion that was a "bajillion" times greater in force have the finesse to allow for the formation of all that there is and result in creation? And would that mean that if I could search back far enough along humanity's "family tree", I'd see that our great great to the bajillionth power grandfather was some atom spewing solar flare somewhere in space?

"Black holes exist and "make sense" to the laws of physics."

I'm sorry but I don't buy this. To my understanding, when Einstein did the calculations that demonstrated the possibility of black holes, the related equation ended with an "infinity", which is total nonsense in physics. If there have been new findings, forgive my ignorance but as far as I know at the moment, black holes go completely against the established and accepted rules.

"Healing and behavior changes have explanations other than supernatural miracles."

Behavior changes, ok Ill accept that. A spinal connection suddenly repairing only AFTER prayer after extended paralysis without any sort of recent rehab work, I have to give that up to a higher power. I will try to track down examples of miracles because I do understand that I need to show tangible evidence of what I'm saying.

"Actually it's because it's irrational to believe in the existence of something which has no evidence whatsoever to establish its existence."

That is an opinion which you are entitled to.

"There is no logic to believe that atheists actually secretly believe in a posthumous justice deity, but they just pretend not to believe in it so they can sin."

That was my opinion, based on conversations I've had with atheists while attending VCU.

"Perhaps the problem is that you're trying to interpret atheism from the experiences of a 5 year old."
I was trying to convey in simplest terms the logic behind why I said what I said about atheists non-belief. No one wants to believe that they are in the wrong, think about how often you've tried to justify to yourself something wrong that you've done. Its usually only in the face of inescapable justice or evidence that we were in fact the wrong ones that we will fully accept blame for something we've done. The wife-beater blames the wife because she did a, b, c, d which provoked him. The thief steals because they feel their desire for the item is more important than the law. We break the speed limit because we think we're good drivers and are in a hurry.
Belief in God doesn't leave room for those self-imposed exceptions that we are ALL guilty of, thats what I was trying to say... but that too is my opinion.

Once again, if I've offended anyone, I am sorry, I'm not trying to judge anyone's beliefs. Everyone is on their own path in life, I was just giving my thoughts on the subject. Have a nice day

Can we all just Row our boats, gently down the stream? I wish to merrily do so, since life is but a dream!

I don't believe in santa claus

I don't believe in the tooth fairy

I don't believe in the easter bunny

I don't actually know if there is a god

But your "logic"(imagine the grandest gesture of quotations ever) still sucks more than a black hole OP.

The thread was summed up for me when the OP compared God, Santa Claus, Tinkerbell, and the Tooth Fairy.

Originally posted by Furbs
The thread was summed up for me when the OP compared God, Santa Claus, Tinkerbell, and the Tooth Fairy.

I'm a Christian and I did a at that one lol

I usually just read and laugh, read and shake my head, go on about my day and stay neutral, but some of the atheists on this site have this '' I know everything '' attitude lately that just gets under the skin, just a bit.

You shoot out claims of not believing in anything. You don't even try, you just know. Congradulations, you showed sure showed us, let us bow down unto thee.

Hey I get it, all I can say is our next generation is #ed. You think it will be good cause of technology, but we are turning into a world of spoiled, greedy, wasteful beings that has no faith in anything but your apps.

And that is just a fact and thats not good for those on both sides of the arguement.

I actually feel sorry for some. But hey, whatever cooks your chicken, everybody likes chicken.

Originally posted by Watts
To accept that something as infinitely complex as the universe can suddenly appear for no reason, means that its equally possible for a 3 eyed unicorn with diamond for skin to suddenly appear in a field since that would be vastly inferior. Why don't we observe things randomly popping into existence now since by what is being implied, its totally possible? Was there a time limit for spontaneous appearance of matter?
As I see it, 0+0 ≠ 1 and I see no way around that. An infinitely empty nothing should have remained that way.

I'm not sure anyone is claiming that the universe appeared for no reason. Theists often claim this is what atheists believe, though I don't and I've never met another who believes such a thing. We don't know the cause with any certainty although several hypotheses exist - none of which involve deities.

How can you establish that though? Is that not like saying there's a limit to how high a number you can count? Maybe the "before" is completely beyond our comprehension but when presented with two choices:
1. Some form of entity gave way, by some means, to everything that exists.
2. Nothing upon nothing upon nothing, suddenly, randomly, and unexplainably materialized into something tangible out of nowhere that could then be "exploded" by some unknown, equally mysterious catalyst, into everything.
I have to go with the one that makes the most sense, to me anyways, of the two.

Well, I didn't establish it - it's the work of physicists. Time and space both began with the expansion event of the Big Bang. I am with you in that it's difficult to ponder, though the presumably easier explanation of a deity zapping it into existence seems implausible, untestable and unsatisfying (to me).

To even say, there was no "before the Big Bang" isn't that the establishment of a rule? And how can there be a rule in a total nothing? Would that not be like saying, "There was no party at the club lastnight, but the dress code for this non-party required a collar'ed shirt and slacks"?

Again, it is difficult to fathom, but since time as we know it did not exist prior to the B.B. there really can be no "before" as we know it.

I'm not a physicist or science wiz by any means so if I have fallen short in my explanation please forgive me, I'm just giving my view and beliefs on existence. Maybe I should have stated that. I don't mean to pass anything that I say off as fact, I wouldn't dare be that arrogant, these are strictly my beliefs and reasons for believing what I do.
...but what I'm asking is, how could the greatest explosion to have ever happened cause everything that exists to perfectly(down to the sub-sub-atomic level) organize from what could have only been the equally greatest, most mind-exploding chaos ever. If a nuclear explosion, which doesn't even qualify as a fraction of the Big Bang's blast is only capable of destruction, how can an explosion that was a "bajillion" times greater in force have the finesse to allow for the formation of all that there is and result in creation? And would that mean that if I could search back far enough along humanity's "family tree", I'd see that our great great to the bajillionth power grandfather was some atom spewing solar flare somewhere in space?

Firstly, the Big Bang was not an explosion, but an expansion event. What we see as a perfect creation or unfathomable order seems to be an illusion created by matter and energy's adherence to natural physical laws playing out over an enormous length of time. Also, if you're searching the "family tree" you're really more so exploring the theory of evolution than big bang cosmology.

I'm sorry but I don't buy this. To my understanding, when Einstein did the calculations that demonstrated the possibility of black holes, the related equation ended with an "infinity", which is total nonsense in physics. If there have been new findings, forgive my ignorance but as far as I know at the moment, black holes go completely against the established and accepted rules.

There were lots of thing Einstein thought impossible that turned out to be incorrect. Black holes are established fact, from Cygnus X1 to the "super black holes" found at the centers of all galaxies, including our own. The physics get weird, particularly around and beyond the event horizon, and we must look to theoretical physicists such as Hawking to work out those difficult details.

Behavior changes, ok Ill accept that. A spinal connection suddenly repairing only AFTER prayer after extended paralysis without any sort of recent rehab work, I have to give that up to a higher power. I will try to track down examples of miracles because I do understand that I need to show tangible evidence of what I'm saying.

Well, if you give such things up to a higher power you've now made the mystery twice as hard, because you're answering a mystery with another mystery. There may be immediate satisfaction in accepting deities as an explanation but intellectually the problem is compounded.

"Actually it's because it's irrational to believe in the existence of something which has no evidence whatsoever to establish its existence."

That is an opinion which you are entitled to.

Thank you. I thought my statement was more based on fact than opinion, but it remains uncontested so no harm here.

"There is no logic to believe that atheists actually secretly believe in a posthumous justice deity, but they just pretend not to believe in it so they can sin."

That was my opinion, based on conversations I've had with atheists while attending VCU.

Really? There were actual atheists who really believed in a god but pretended they didn't so they could do sinful things? I would say such people don't qualify as atheists in the first place. They're simply rebels.

I was trying to convey in simplest terms the logic behind why I said what I said about atheists non-belief. No one wants to believe that they are in the wrong, think about how often you've tried to justify to yourself something wrong that you've done. Its usually only in the face of inescapable justice or evidence that we were in fact the wrong ones that we will fully accept blame for something we've done. The wife-beater blames the wife because she did a, b, c, d which provoked him. The thief steals because they feel their desire for the item is more important than the law. We break the speed limit because we think we're good drivers and are in a hurry.
Belief in God doesn't leave room for those self-imposed exceptions that we are ALL guilty of, thats what I was trying to say... but that too is my opinion.

As above, if someone believes there is a posthumous justice deity (but are avoiding it), they do not fit the definition of an atheist. Atheists simply don't believe such a thing exists, therefore, their desire to "sin" cannot be considered a factor in their decision. Plus, I think you'll find that atheists are generally good for the sake of being good, and not because of a fear of divine justice.

Thanks for the interesting conversation and respectful discourse. These conversations can be a lot of fun.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

No, he is not pulling a strawmen nor is he begging the question. There is sufficient evidence that many atheists claim lack of belief rather than disbelief when backed into a corner. There is sufficient evidence for this and I don't think his premise is based on insufficient evidence. You can peruse google and find that many people define atheism as a lack of belief in God. You can get involved in many debates on the nature of atheism and see for yourself the premise is not so far-fetched. Perhaps you should do that and get back to me. I presumed nothing about you, but you falsely accused me of that. Obviously he doesn't mean all atheists but you are treating it like that is what he meant. Who is playing word games now?

Nice strawman, but that is not what I meant about google, and you know it, but you are misrepresenting my argument.

And you should know that most athiests don't say "I acknowledge god exists, but still don't believe". It doesn't matter if they say they "lack belief' or "Disbelieve". They are saying the same thing. If one acknowleges a god exists, they aren't really athiest. If one believes in some form of god, just not specifically one from the organized religions, that also isn't athiest.

My strawman was intentionally misrepresenting your argument. Just as the OPs argument misrepresented what people meant with "Lack of belief".

This logic of the OPs, doesn't have to do with atheism. Nor the thought process of most athiests. If you want to say it applies to the very small amount of people who disbelieve but actually do believe, go ahead. The OP treated that like it applied to Atheism as a whole, which would spread to all atheists.

If I made a comment on the logic behind christianity, it would encompass most who considered themselves christian. You keep acting like people with flawed logic represent atheism. Fall back on the technicality when pressed, but act like it's about the whole when not.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Well, I didn't establish it - it's the work of physicists. Time and space both began with the expansion event of the Big Bang. I am with you in that it's difficult to ponder, though the presumably easier explanation of a deity zapping it into existence seems implausible, untestable and unsatisfying (to me).

You speak of big bang with such authority, regardless of what we think we know for SURE happened, it still is just a theory. It's difficult to ponder because it truly is out of our own comprehensions, it doesn't matter how genius one may be. Thats what makes most confused on both ends IMO, because they just cannot comprehend how all this came to be, how it all came to be, so they defend what they believe in because it is really all you have in the end to hold onto.

I don't get to far into the numbers and science when it comes to my belief, it's a long dark road, and science isn't perfect either, you'll still have questions in the end.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Likewise, cheers for the discussion. I now have some new things to explore. I can't wait to see what new things develop in science in the coming years. These are exciting times!

Originally posted by JAGx1981
You speak of big bang with such authority, regardless of what we think we know for SURE happened, it still is just a theory.

You are aware that a scientific theory is not the same thing as the common term for theory? A scientific theory is a collection of facts that provide explanations and allow for predictions. To claim that a scientific theory "is just a theory", as in simply a clever idea, is not accurate. The Big Bang did happen. At this point we don't know all there is to know about it (same with the theory of gravity), but we know enough about it to make true, factual comments.