Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief (2 Viewers)

[Pokemanzdood]

Okay I am going to reply in laymen's terms because I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Tell me if I understand this correctly.



In the beginning; there must of had a centralized mass or/and energy much greater than what is measured now?



There are many definitions of this. Does it mean "a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume", or "theorems in general relativity theory about when gravitation produces singularities such as black holes". Before I can answer that, I need to have a more specific definition of "signularity".



I need to specifics of your definition os signularity before I can agree or disagree with this statement. BUT... I will say I respect this answer because it sounds logical.

In this case the first definition of a singularity is the correct one "a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume". Where it came from we can't say or prove, I doubt we'll ever be able to. Also the mass or energy at the beginning doesn't necessarily have to be much greater, just greater. Any loss of energy lets the theory be valid.

 

[TripTango]

"Atheism" is a belief. You even said it above. You can have modifications like "agnostic" or "weak atheism" etc. But the true definition of "Atheism" is a belief. Yes?

Well, sure. It's a belief in the same way that I believe my mother loves me and I believe there is no such thing as the tooth fairy. I can't prove either one, but they make sense to me. You believe in God because it makes sense to you -- I can't argue with that. But as soon as you start saying that you have solid evidence that I am wrong, we will have words.

 

[TripTango]

So, again, you're agnostic, not an atheist.

I still don't get why so many agnostics find it so much cooler to call themselves atheist than agnostic. It's what the cool kids do nowadays.

I hesitate to respond to you, because your aggressiveness makes me wonder if you aren't just trying to stir shit, but you are arguing semantics and we've already been over this a dozen times (see #138 above). Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic because I don't claim to know whether or not god exists. I am an atheist because, in my heart of hearts, I don't believe he does. By these definitions (which, I believe, are the closest to their originally intended definitions), I am an agnostic atheist. I don't think it's "cool" to be an atheist -- I think it best describes my belief system.

 

[magnifier661]

In this case the first definition of a singularity is the correct one "a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume". Where it came from we can't say or prove, I doubt we'll ever be able to. Also the mass or energy at the beginning doesn't necessarily have to be much greater, just greater. Any loss of energy lets the theory be valid.

Then according to that definition I would say it's very logical and I will not discredit or deny that statement. But what I highlighted in bold becomes the greater question. Because no one knows where it came from and there hasn't been a logical explanation of the existence of this matter or mass. If you use the mass has always existed; then it does contridict.

And it leads me to believe that there is a design. That the Universe can expand and fine tune. The improbabilities that this happened by chance is mathmatically improbable.

But on a lighter note; you just gave me reason to believe in the "Big Bang". See I do have an open mind about things.

 

[magnifier661]

Well, sure. It's a belief in the same way that I believe my mother loves me and I believe there is no such thing as the tooth fairy. I can't prove either one, but they make sense to me. You believe in God because it makes sense to you -- I can't argue with that. But as soon as you start saying that you have solid evidence that I am wrong, we will have words.

Evidence is what you can test and see. Is this correct? And I am not trying to prove "You are wrong" I am trying to prove the logic of "Atheism" is wrong. We are talking about the true form of Atheism; not the evolved forms. Agnostic is not even close to Atheist, IMO. I am not discounting that belief in this thread.

But as you see, even in this thread, many people have no idea of what true "Atheism" is.

 

[Eastoff]

I just want to point that you're using a description of THERMODYNAMICS to describe motion. Thermo means heat, dynamics means change. So you're using the change of heat, to describe everything in the universe. While that does drive it, there are other rules.

example. Your very, forgive the unintended sounding insult, closed-minded definition of "entropy must win out" would be contradicted by the fact that humanity has not flown away from the earth. Gravity holds us onto the earth. It also holds the rocks to the earth. It also holds the dust to the earth. But the rocks and the dust hold each other together as well.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic because I don't claim to know whether or not god exists. I am an atheist because, in my heart of hearts, I don't believe he does. By these definitions (which, I believe, are the closest to their originally intended definitions), I am an agnostic atheist. I don't think it's "cool" to be an atheist -- I think it best describes my belief system.

So by these definitions, then it is also possible to be an agnostic theist? That is, one who doesn't claim to know whether or not God exists, but believes it is most likely that He does?

 

[TripTango]

We are talking about the true form of Atheism; not the evolved forms. Agnostic is not even close to Atheist, IMO.

Call it what you will -- just be aware that many atheists disagree with your definitions, which may cause confusion.

 

[TripTango]

So by these definitions, then it is also possible to be an agnostic theist? That is, one who doesn't claim to know whether or not God exists, but believes it is most likely that He does?

Yup. Have you Googled that phrase yet?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yup. Have you Googled that phrase yet?

Nope. I wasn't making an argument, just asking a clarifying question. Are there any interesting sites about agnostic theism of which I should be aware?

 

[TripTango]

I just want to point that you're using a description of THERMODYNAMICS to describe motion. Thermo means heat, dynamics means change. So you're using the change of heat, to describe everything in the universe. While that does drive it, there are other rules.

Technically, heat IS motion, just on a molecular scale.

 

[magnifier661]

I just want to point that you're using a description of THERMODYNAMICS to describe motion. Thermo means heat, dynamics means change. So you're using the change of heat, to describe everything in the universe. While that does drive it, there are other rules.

I completely agree that other rules govern the universe and our very existence. But a rule is a rule and cannot contradict. And as the saying goes; if you cut off the head, you kill the snake. And I see a very apparent contradiction here. This is the main reason why I question Atheism as a belief.

example. Your very, forgive the unintended sounding insult, closed-minded definition of "entropy must win out" would be contradicted by the fact that humanity has not flown away from the earth. Gravity holds us onto the earth. It also holds the rocks to the earth. It also holds the dust to the earth. But the rocks and the dust hold each other together as well.

I didn't take it as an insult.

This is not "winning". I don't understand why people think of this as an absolute. I am questioning that Atheism is not a sound belief. I think I have provided evidence to support this claim so far. Hell, I haven't even gotten anything substantial regarding living organisms cannot be created without other living organisms. We are still on my first two arguments.

Just wait until I give my next three later tonight.

 

[Denny Crane]

The big bang doesn't contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all that has to be true is that there is less energy in the system afterwards (through loss of heat). Since we don't have any singularities of mass to test for their energy level we have to theorize that the original singularity had more total potential energy than the current universe. So you can have order from chaos, you just have lost energy from the system in the form of heat. Also, the heat doesn't disappear it just dissipates into space similar to how you could take a blowtorch to the ocean and never perceive a difference on the entirety of the ocean.

We do see the heat. Background microwave radiation.

 

[TripTango]

Nope. I wasn't making an argument, just asking a clarifying question. Are there any interesting sites about agnostic theism of which I should be aware?

Sorry -- I didn't mean to sound snarky, I hadn't Googled it either! My guess (and it's just a guess) is that agnostic theists, in general, just call themselves by whatever faith they have chosen, with the additional caveat that they admit imperfect knowledge of Truth.

 

[magnifier661]

Call it what you will -- just be aware that many atheists disagree with your definitions, which may cause confusion.

But you can see even in this thread the amount of confusion on the actual definition. And in some cases; even you haven't discounted that God can exist. But look at many others in here that think it is impossible for God to exist. There has been no evidence that undeniably supports this belief.

 

[Denny Crane]

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. To believe, there is burden of proof, as in convincing evidence. The tomato is Hitler reincarnated analogy nails it.

 

[magnifier661]

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. To believe, there is burden of proof, as in convincing evidence. The tomato is Hitler reincarnated analogy nails it.

LOL the lack of belief is a belief.

 

[TripTango]

LOL the lack of belief is a belief.

So the absence of a hat is also a form of wearing a hat?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So the absence of a hat is also a form of wearing a hat?

Air hat!!

 

[magnifier661]

So the absence of a hat is also a form of wearing a hat?

No believing there is no hat on my head is the absence of the hat.

 

[Denny Crane]

The lack of money means you have money. Lol.

 

[TripTango]

Air hat!!

Touché! Why can't you say you like my hat?

[video=metacafe;an-Azeb4n27thbb4n/far_and_away_1992_joseph_and_shannon_fight_part_3/]http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Az...1992_joseph_and_shannon_fight_part_3/[/video]

 

[TripTango]

The lack of money means you have money. Lol.

The Blazers not winning means that they are winning!

 

[magnifier661]

The Blazers not winning means that they are winning!

You are missing the point. You are missing that there is evidence that the Blazers aren't winning because we have recorded history, video documentation, and personal account of the existence the Blazers are losing. Not even close to the same principle. But I do like your angle though.

 

[magnifier661]

The lack of money means you have money. Lol.

See my response on Tango.

 

[TripTango]

You are missing the point. You are missing that there is evidence that the Blazers aren't winning because we have recorded history, video documentation, and personal account of the existence the Blazers are losing. Not even close to the same principle. But I do like your angle though.

Not the point. The absence of something is simply an absence. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you believe in trolls? If not, do you identify as an "atrollist" and carry around solid evidence with you at all times that there are no trolls, so that when trollists confront you, you are able to quickly and efficiently prove the absence of trolls? Or do you just simply not believe they exist and leave it at that? What about pillywiggins? You know, flower fairies? I bet you didn't even know that you didn't believe in them, did you? But now you do -- does that mean that I have just turned you into an apillywigginist if you lack belief in them?

The absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief. No more, no less.

 

[magnifier661]

Not the point. The absence of something is simply an absence. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you believe in trolls? If not, do you identify as an "atrollist" and carry around solid evidence with you at all times that there are no trolls, so that when trollists confront you, you are able to quickly and efficiently prove the absence of trolls? Or do you just simply not believe they exist and leave it at that? What about pillywiggins? You know, flower fairies? I bet you didn't even know that you didn't believe in them, did you? But now you do -- does that mean that I have just turned you into an apillywigginist if you lack belief in them?

The absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief. No more, no less.

You proved my point. Because an atheist has been presented different variations of "God" and they refuse to believe "God" exists. It's not like the "idea" of God(s) haven't ever crossed their mind. In fact, I suspect most have had the existence of God pass their mind. Look at all the threads supporting this.

So your "absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief" isn't logical.

EDIT: Oops I meant to say not logical when it comes to the existence of God.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I would add to TT's post that there are many terrestrial things about which it is possible to not have an opinion. For instance, I have no opinion on whether or not Obama will win in November. I neither believe he will win nor believe he will lose. For the "weak" atheist (for lack of a better term), belief in deity is the same.

Essentially, they're fence-sitters.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You proved my point. Because an atheist has been presented different variations of "God" and they refuse to believe "God" exists. It's not like the "idea" of God(s) haven't ever crossed their mind. In fact, I suspect most have had the existence of God pass their mind. Look at all the threads supporting this.

So your "absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief" isn't logical.

So Mags--are you of the opinion that "weak" atheists (again, someone give me a better term!) are simply intellectually dishonest? That they've made a decision one way or the other on the notion of the existence of God, and they're simply unwilling to voice it?

 

[ABM]

The absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief. No more, no less.

I would venture to surmise, though, that most people have at least wondered about how humanity got here in the first place. To me, it's a much more critical topic/issue than, say, the existence of pillywiggins. Or, is it that easy to simply dismiss the equation of our beginnings?

Appears that it's simply been boiled down here to 2 camps: A) Life (in some form or another) has always existed......or B) Life has been created through "some" form of intelligent design function.

Am I incorrect in these conclusions?