Atheism

Originally posted by Terrormaster
Ok, lets look at this a little more scientifically. You say there's no such thing as random, that everything has a cause. You use that for your argument that there is a creator. So given that fact lets look at it this way. If everything has a cause then what caused the creator? What actions caused the creator to come into being? Then what actions caused that action and so on?

The most common answer from theists is that the creator just was, always has been and always will be. So if the creator doesn't need to have a cause then why does the universe? Why do so many theists so readily believe that there is no way for the universe to have always been so some magic invisible man in the sky must have created it. But in the same breath you aren't allowed to apply that same logic to the magic invisible man himself? Does not compute.

God is the only un-caused cause. If you want to use the logic, what caused God, what caused you? Doesn't it make more sense that there is one self existant being that caused all of creation then to say there are billions or trillions beings that just appeared?

It happens when those that claim a label twist their adopted label. Semantic counterstrikes ensue. Need we go over the dictionary definition again?

Originally posted by UB2120
I think the same could be said to prove the universe was not designed. What in the universe shows randomness? Is math random? Is physics? Is chemistry? We live in a universe of law and order. We are a tiny speck in this vast cosmos and just because things don't seem right here doesn't mean the universe is random. To me creation reeks of design. Most Athiests want something that can never be had, proof of a spiritual God. As it was said in the movie contact, prove that you love someone. The only proof that can be imparted is the personal experience of one person to another.

There's a huge difference between proving you have a feeling and proving the existence of an entity that has the power to create a universe.

To claim the universe "reeks of design" is a curious position. Everything that we have observed in the universe is attributable to natural processes and nothing observed in the universe so far has been discovered to be the result of a design.

And most importantly, effectively establishing a stance that it was designed takes a lot more than claiming it must have been designed because, say, randomness doesn't exist. If we are to believe it was created, produce the creator.

Originally posted by UB2120
God is the only un-caused cause. If you want to use the logic, what caused God, what caused you? Doesn't it make more sense that there is one self existant being that caused all of creation then to say there are billions or trillions beings that just appeared?

There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause". That's a post hoc explanation for the problem of infinite regress that results from the created-universe hypothesis.

Just because it makes more sense to you that a magic man made everything rather than to understand and digest the complexity of the universe does not make it true.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

As I said before, these behaviors are NOT because they are atheists, it's because of their personalities

.

Could not the same be said of religious followers?

No. Because there are religious tenets (I'm speaking particularly of Christianity because that's the one I know about) that are shared, regardless of personality.

The sacred text is the bible
The bible is the inspired word of God
There is only one God
We are all sinners
Jesus Christ is God's son and died to save people from sin
He arose from the dead
Eternal Heaven and Hell
Prayer and worship of God

Originally posted by Leahn
And as per your question to why there must be an iteration zero, I have already told you. A small portion of entropy survives the cycle. In other words, if Universe 0 has 100% energy at the start, Universe 1 has 99.99999% of energy. Universe 2 has a bit less than 1. Universe 3 has a bit less than 2, and so on. Entropy accumulates slowly between cycles and therefore we cannot be past infinite, as at some point during the iterations, entropy would be maxed, or at least high enough to prevent a big bang from happening.

My physics is a bit rusty but it sounds like you're referring to Tolman's study which shot down Einstein's model because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ie: heat death due to entropy). However, if memory serves me correct the newer Baum–Frampton model of a cyclic universe theorizes that due to dark energy in the equation before and after the Big-Rip there is zero entropy. So using that model entropy becomes a moot point.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thank you, just as the opposite of their stance does. Or do you deny that there are atheists every bit as fanatical and who want their basis idea to be as all pervasive as some theists do?

Originally posted by ButterCookie
As I stated recently in a thread about AAT:

Attempts at debunking the AAT are done by three groups of people:

AAT does not need debunking. Those who believe in it must provide evidence supporting it.

You closed out your post by claiming an "overnight appearance" of humans. Employing such exaggerations is telling.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Not exactly. There are sects and individuals that do not share all of thoses. For example. There are, after all, Biblical Scholars who will tell you the Christian Bible is 100% allogory while affirming their belief as theists?

They'll argue that religion is evil and causes wars, blah blah blah. Truthfully, I hate organized religion. Truthfully, I'm smart enough to realize that the Crusades, the Burning Times, etc. weren't about religion; they were about the Catholic Church gaining/retaining political power. If it wasn't religion, it'd have been race, ethnicity, or bananas. Religion isn't the reason for evil; it's simply the easiest tool.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


The difference is that religion dictates these tenets. Atheism does not. We don't have a book that lists beliefs, values, philosophies, that we all share. Religions do.

All atheists have ONE thing in common. ONE thing only. Any other beliefs that atheists hold in common are based on something else, NOT atheism.

The beliefs that the religious have in common are based on their religious texts.

Originally posted by UB2120
God is the only un-caused cause. If you want to use the logic, what caused God, what caused you? Doesn't it make more sense that there is one self existant being that caused all of creation then to say there are billions or trillions beings that just appeared?

My parents procreating caused me and that's enough for me. Why does there have to be a meaning of life? I don't need have a reason to exist, I just am. I never understood that argument. If God doesn't need a reason to exist then why do we? Why does the universe? Why does life? Why does there need to be a creator just because there are things in the universe we don't understand yet and may never understand. Just because science hasn't found the answer yet (or ever will) for a lot of things doesn't automatically preclude that a divine being is the answer to those. Just because something defies current explanation or logic does NOT by definition make it supernatural, spiritual, or magical - we just don't understand it yet.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ButterCookie
As I stated recently in a thread about AAT:

Attempts at debunking the AAT are done by three groups of people:

AAT does not need debunking. Those who believe in it must provide evidence supporting it.

You closed out your post by claiming an "overnight appearance" of humans. Employing such exaggerations is telling.

from Sitchin's "The 12th Planet"

" The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after Homo Erectus and some 200,00 before Neanderthal Man is absolutely implausible. It is also clear that Homo Sapiens represent such an extreme departure from the slow evolutionary process that many of our features, such as the ability to speak, are totally unrelated to the earlier primates."

Do you disagree?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Couldnt the exact same be said for atheists, except from a counterpoint perspective?

Or are there atheists who do subscribe to one or more of those contexts?

Either way, not all christian sects believe those things, so which ones are you referring to specifically?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by UB2120
I think the same could be said to prove the universe was not designed. What in the universe shows randomness? Is math random? Is physics? Is chemistry? We live in a universe of law and order. We are a tiny speck in this vast cosmos and just because things don't seem right here doesn't mean the universe is random. To me creation reeks of design. Most Athiests want something that can never be had, proof of a spiritual God. As it was said in the movie contact, prove that you love someone. The only proof that can be imparted is the personal experience of one person to another.

There's a huge difference between proving you have a feeling and proving the existence of an entity that has the power to create a universe.

To claim the universe "reeks of design" is a curious position. Everything that we have observed in the universe is attributable to natural processes and nothing observed in the universe so far has been discovered to be the result of a design.

And most importantly, effectively establishing a stance that it was designed takes a lot more than claiming it must have been designed because, say, randomness doesn't exist. If we are to believe it was created, produce the creator.

Why do you think atomic structure is the same as galactic structure? Look up the design of bateria flagellum, its a rotary motor that is 30nm. What is the origin of motion? What is gravity? What is energy?

It's funny to me that there are 8 pages about this. Just another division is how I see it. Lets look at things differently, shall we.

I'm sure everyone will agree on this. There are many atoms in a molecule, right? Many molecules in the human body, which know exactly what their purpose is and work together to achieve that purpose. So the human body is pretty amazing, right? Well, there are also many human beings on the planet, many planets in the solar system, many solar systems in the galaxy, many galaxies in the universe. Are you still with me? Does everyone agree so far? All of these are organized systems that work together, EXEPT human beings!!!

All I can say is maybe it's time we stop dividing ourselves by beliefs and religions. Maybe we should stop warring with one another, stop being greedy little selfish bastards and work together as the organized team that we are. (Or that were meant to be.) There's soooo much we could accomplish!! Just look at bees in a hive or ants in their colony. They work together! So it's time to grow up people! We could be so much more than we are! It doesn't matter what you believe (or don't believe)! We are intellegent beings right? We sure don't act that way, but I have faith in something....and that's us! I have faith that we'll wake up to the collective distruction we've caused to ourselves and come together to bring a beautiful change to our planet!

Namaste!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


All due respect. And you should know I do respect you. If you remember me that is. Do you not see the special case your applying here? Atheism is no more or no less a worldview than theism is. It does not matter the crap that is or is not tacked on. Atheism and theism are dualistic opposite terms.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by UB2120
God is the only un-caused cause. If you want to use the logic, what caused God, what caused you? Doesn't it make more sense that there is one self existant being that caused all of creation then to say there are billions or trillions beings that just appeared?

There is no such thing as an "uncaused cause". That's a post hoc explanation for the problem of infinite regress that results from the created-universe hypothesis.

Just because it makes more sense to you that a magic man made everything rather than to understand and digest the complexity of the universe does not make it true.

Just because something is beyond finite comprehension doesn't mean its not true. Infinity and eternity are concepts the finite mind can never fully grasp. To the finite mind there must be a beginning.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
from Sitchin's "The 12th Planet"

" The appearance of modern man a mere 700,000 years after Homo Erectus and some 200,00 before Neanderthal Man is absolutely implausible. It is also clear that Homo Sapiens represent such an extreme departure from the slow evolutionary process that many of our features, such as the ability to speak, are totally unrelated to the earlier primates."

Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree with Sitchin's argument from ignorance based upon his assertion of implausibility.
.

Originally posted by UB2120
Just because something is beyond finite comprehension doesn't mean its not true. Infinity and eternity are concepts the finite mind can never fully grasp. To the finite mind there must be a beginning.

And a rational mind cannot grasp an "uncaused cause", except to recognize it for an excuse to overcome the problems of infinite regress.

I think that humans have a hard time conceiving that the universe doesn't need either a beginning or a designer.