Why Atheism is fundamentally flawed

[Colin]

Firstly i suggest watching this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnZa6uawBc&mode=related&search=

Personally i think this guy takes it too far and he is narrow in his beliefs but he makes a good point about the Big Bang.

NOBODY, i repeat NOBODY, has once, EVER put up as much as a credible theory as to how the Big Bang initiated. I.E. Where did all the 'matter' come from? Or hydrogen if thats what is it. Where did it come from? Science suggests 'nothing' basically, but yet havent came EVEN CLOSE to making any sense of this, even by its own standards. Here science fails dramatically, and i would guess it will ALWAYS fall short.

That means, the atheism belief of the big bang etc, and no God in existance, carries with it THE BIGGEST ASSUMPTION OF THE LOT. That all this 'matter' somehow came from nothing.


Ingenious eh.


I personally believe in evolution, the big bang and God all together [with the big bang theory the most questionable]. I know i cant bring them all together perfectly, nor can anyone, but i would assert they sure arent mutually exclusive. At worst, it could be said God is behind the big bang.

For an Atheist to say 'no i dont believe God exists' but yet avoid the glaring question of how the big bang ever came around (ie-where did the matter ever come from?) is ridiculoulsy niavve and ignorant. Altleast Christians try and answer such a question - atheists ignore it!!

So the big bang theory itself only provides 1% of the answer, the real questin of where it all came from is surely the most fundamental in deciding where everything REALLY came from.

Bottom line: For atheists to believe that the 'matter' came from nothing, is a belief that is atleast, and id say far more unfounded, than the belief in God. As this belief goes against just about everything we've ever had proof off - ie. that everything has a creator.


I would love to see some balanced and informed answers here..

 

[minute bull]

I don't have an answer to whatever question you were asking, but I've got a question of my own:

So what if there is a God? What's the big fuss?

 

[RichC123]

Believing in the Big Bang and believing in God are to totally seperate things.

You are the first person I have seen directly correlate the Big Bang to Atheism.

Atheism: (from Webster's Dictionary)

-a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Doesn't say anything about the Big Bang, does it?

Proving the Big Bang Theory false in no way proves the existance of God. It would just mean that the Big Bang is false, regardless if there is a god or not.

 

[JMax]

Bottom line: For atheists to believe that the 'matter' came from nothing, is a belief that is atleast, and id say far more unfounded, than the belief in God. As this belief goes against just about everything we've ever had proof off - ie. that everything has a creator.

The current thought on matter is that it was already there before the big bang. Matter did not "come from nothing" it was just there. i.e. There was no creation of matter. You also claim that everything has a creator, but what creates the clouds or the mountains? Are you asserting that there was an intelligence behind the formation of the rockies?

 

[Colin]

The current thought on matter is that it was already there before the big bang. Matter did not "come from nothing" it was just there. i.e. There was no creation of matter. You also claim that everything has a creator, but what creates the clouds or the mountains? Are you asserting that there was an intelligence behind the formation of the rockies?

exactly. the matter 'was already there'. How? Magically? Surely it came from somewhere? I just think the assumption that the matter 'just happened to be there' completely explanatory and is itself based on belief.

Believing something just happened to be there out of nothing is no less hard to conceptualize as is to imagine a supreme being in existence!!


-------------------

as for correlating the big bang to atheism, i think there is logic in this. Atheists basically don't believe in anything without evidence. Well, by that very definition no one is truly an atheist as there is no evidence on where the all important matter originated from. Atheists almost always use the big bang, and more so evolution, as a foundation for argument to disprove God. I'm simply pointing out the fundamental flaw that neither disproves God, they aren't mutually exclusive at all!!

I guess im targeting those specific atheists actually.

 

[minute bull]

Don't you think if you're demanding balance and information from your "opponents," oughtn't you be balanced and informed as well?

It's not that atheists don't believe in anything without evidence -- I've always taken atheism to be religion-centric. Atheists don't believe in God; not "anything."

If you're going to say atheism is flat-out wrong, that's legitimate. It's just that you're not making things easier on yourself by tackling the Big Bang theory. Two reasons, and both of which you've cited yourself. Big Bang theory is about as provable as it is nonprovable, which is about where God stands.

Which brings me back to my original question: What difference does it make whatsoever?

Philosophically, we could be here all night, but we could discuss the philosophy of nipple hair all night as well. Doesn't mean we should. One thing I do know: we definitely won't get anywhere, as a discussion or as a society, if we keep selling each other short when it comes to beliefs and methodologies. Instead of cutting at the kneecaps and ridicule, maybe we should simply accept and let live.

 

[Reaper Man]

From Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest logicians and epistemologists ever to live, and his essay "Why I am not a Christian".

"The First-cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. "

 

[minute bull]

I've always liked Stephen King's wrinkle to that story, where an old lady says shrewdly, "You can't fool me! It's turtles, turtles, turtles. All the way down."

 

[Reaper Man]

I've always liked Stephen King's wrinkle to that story, where an old lady says shrewdly, "You can't fool me! It's turtles, turtles, turtles. All the way down."

A lot of people say that was Bertrand Russell giving that lecture.

 

[Sinister]

Atheism is fundamentally flawed because it's every bit as assumptive as Christianity or any other doctrine. Saying there is nothing, is just as bad as saying there is something. The truth? No one knows, and apparently no one should given the way people act when they even THINK they know.

 

[Colin]

Three Gun Fish i think its worth the discussion because its an interesting topic which most people approach with ignorance and narrow-mindedness! Also because i believe there is an after life, even though my faith has waivered the past few years i still have that faith deep down

The First-cause Argument is pretty much awful imo

The very nature of God would is that he is the supreme-being with a cause upon his self, saying he would require a 'cause' to exist as a means to disprove him is fallious. I not saying everyone should believe that but what i am saying is the The First-cause Argument fails to even consider the possibility of this, showing very limited imagination, just as he describes it as 'poverty' of our imagination

 

[Colin]

Atheism is fundamentally flawed because it's every bit as assumptive as Christianity or any other doctrine. Saying there is nothing, is just as bad as saying there is something. The truth? No one knows, and apparently no one should given the way people act when they even THINK they know.

EXACTLY

ANY belief is based upon a set of unproven assumptions.

My reason for making this thread is that i just read and watched alot of Richard Dawkin interviews and he's completely biased so as to say theres no chance of God existing yet he bases things that dont actually disprove anything, let alone prove his thesis. The fact that even a leading expert in Atheism is so narrow-minded is really staggering in my opinion

conversely however i was watching that guy on youtube 'Scientific Creation' [see my first post] who firmly believes in the bible literally (ie. that the world was made 6,000 years ago etc) which i found to be an insulting representation of Christians, as that guy showed absolute ignorance to facts insofar as it discredited everything he said. Id imagine such a guy would get fun poked at him by atheists.

Thing is, there are 2 extremes and each are equally blind imo. The fact that they both start with the belief that evolution etc is mutually exclusive to God is the premise behind this problem. What a silly silly starting point

 

[Sinister]

If you really want to chap the asses of the ignorantly religious explain to them that they're not really religious at all. What they are is agnostic theists. By the definition of the term:

An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of certain claims, particularly existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this. There are contrasting views of the term.

When they object to this (because they will), then further explain to them that they cannot identify the species or manner of being of the diety they believe in. Being that to even question so can be viewed as blasphemy, they inherently MUST accept that they believe in an altogether unknown quantity, thus making them agnostic theists.

 

[killbot_9]

Don't you think if you're demanding balance and information from your "opponents," oughtn't you be balanced and informed as well?

It's not that atheists don't believe in anything without evidence -- I've always taken atheism to be religion-centric. Atheists don't believe in God; not "anything."

If you're going to say atheism is flat-out wrong, that's legitimate. It's just that you're not making things easier on yourself by tackling the Big Bang theory. Two reasons, and both of which you've cited yourself. Big Bang theory is about as provable as it is nonprovable, which is about where God stands.

Which brings me back to my original question: What difference does it make whatsoever?

Philosophically, we could be here all night, but we could discuss the philosophy of nipple hair all night as well. Doesn't mean we should. One thing I do know: we definitely won't get anywhere, as a discussion or as a society, if we keep selling each other short when it comes to beliefs and methodologies. Instead of cutting at the kneecaps and ridicule, maybe we should simply accept and let live.

AGREED! Nicely put by the way, that is exactly how I feel. I'm not a theist or an atheist so I guess that makes me a skeptic. Except the bible is a lie, that I think we can all agree on.

 

[Colin]

the bible is a lie, that I think we can all agree on.

sorry man but thats a silly thing to say. Parts of the Bible are certainly untrue. Most of it pronounces the same message however, remember that. And also remember it has many different authors so its hardly all going to be completely consistent

the real question is, is the general theme of the bible true or not.

I hate people bashing the bibles credibility on a few smaller inconsistencies, i think thats misguided

 

[killbot_9]

sorry man but thats a silly thing to say. Parts of the Bible are certainly untrue. Most of it pronounces the same message however, remember that. And also remember it has many different authors so its hardly all going to be completely consistent

the real question is, is the general theme of the bible true or not.

I hate people bashing the bibles credibility on a few smaller inconsistencies, i think thats misguided

Abuh? I didnt say it had no moral implication, I said it was a lie. You know the whole Noah's ark thing, the adam and eve thing, miracles, jesus, stoning children, killing those that dont believe in god, gays are sinners, the flood, parting the red sea, a loving god (just kidding about that one), a 6000 year old planet, unicorns, dragons, and a virgin birth... just to name a few minor "inconsistancies".

 

[Mens Rea**]

First, let's define atheism.
I'm as certain of your god not existing as you are about zues not existing. You are atheist toward hundreds of dead gods; I just go one god further. What does this say about cosmology? Nothing.

When you say that nobody has ever put forth a credible theory for the big bang, are you just ignorant? Is it that nobody has said anything that you've heard? It's not on Fox news? There are plenty of theories, are they just not credible to your mind? What exactly is your physics background? Can you name any theorists in the field of cosmology?

Do you understand that the idea that "everything needs a cause" is ultimately unprovable?
Did you know that subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence, and perish, by virtue of spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum? What causes this? Also god?

Do you understand that you're putting temporal limits on issues beyond space and time?
Asking "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.

What if the universe always existed? If we're going to apply occam's razor, the idea that the something always existed is much more simple than your idea that god always existed who then created a universe. God would have to be even more complex than his creation.

Many physicists do not discount the possibility that the stochastic processes that govern the early evolution of the universe actually cause the universe to be eternal, singularity be damned. We have no idea what the universe was like prior to 1 planck time. Prior to the manifestations of the 4 fundamental forces in the universe (1 plank time), we cannot say what things were like.

But let's say that the universe, or something, has not always existed. If everything needs a cause why doesn't god need a cause? And why does this first cause have to be divine? If it is a god, why is it a personal god as opposed to a deist god?

Maybe we exist on as a simulation running on an alien supercomputer? Maybe those aliens come from an eternal universe. You have simply named the first cause 'God' without proving that the cause is divine.

Here's an interest read, it's just two pages and it discusses why there is something rather than nothing. You should educate yourself: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Something.pdf

Lastly, what you've done is the ultimate god-of-the-gaps argument. Neither atheists or physicists claim to have the answer to everything. Atheists are not married to the idea of the big bang, many of them don't even think about it. But congratulations, you found an unsolved problem is modern physics and managed to cram your god in there. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Here's the rub: You don't have an answer either.

All you've done is attempt to explain an unknown with an even bigger unknown.

I cannot explain the universe, neither can you. Cosmology is something that christian, hindu, muslim, and atheist physicists work on. This is an issue for everyone, not just atheists. You have the bigger problem of not being to explain god.

 

[chuck#1]

Abuh? I didnt say it had no moral implication, I said it was a lie. You know the whole Noah's ark thing, the adam and eve thing, miracles, jesus, stoning children, killing those that dont believe in god, gays are sinners, the flood, parting the red sea, a loving god (just kidding about that one), a 6000 year old planet, unicorns, dragons, and a virgin birth... just to name a few minor "inconsistancies".

You mention Jesus in there, what about him?

 

[ShawBrother]

You mention Jesus in there, what about him?

There is evidence to support that he was a human being. Taken into context, these scriptures were written at a time when the world was flat, sea dragons ruled the sea etc...whether you believe he was the son of "god" or not is subjective.

 

[Cow Pie]

First, let's define atheism.
I'm as certain of your god not existing as you are about zues not existing. You are atheist toward hundreds of dead gods; I just go one god further. What does this say about cosmology? Nothing.

When you say that nobody has ever put forth a credible theory for the big bang, are you just ignorant? Is it that nobody has said anything that you've heard? It's not on Fox news? There are plenty of theories, are they just not credible to your mind? What exactly is your physics background? Can you name any theorists in the field of cosmology?

Do you understand that the idea that "everything needs a cause" is ultimately unprovable?
Did you know that subatomic particles such as electrons, positrons, and photons, can come into existence, and perish, by virtue of spontaneous energy fluctuations in a vacuum? What causes this? Also god?

Do you understand that you're putting temporal limits on issues beyond space and time?
Asking "What was there before the universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.

What if the universe always existed? If we're going to apply occam's razor, the idea that the something always existed is much more simple than your idea that god always existed who then created a universe. God would have to be even more complex than his creation.

Many physicists do not discount the possibility that the stochastic processes that govern the early evolution of the universe actually cause the universe to be eternal, singularity be damned. We have no idea what the universe was like prior to 1 planck time. Prior to the manifestations of the 4 fundamental forces in the universe (1 plank time), we cannot say what things were like.

But let's say that the universe, or something, has not always existed. If everything needs a cause why doesn't god need a cause? And why does this first cause have to be divine? If it is a god, why is it a personal god as opposed to a deist god?

Maybe we exist on as a simulation running on an alien supercomputer? Maybe those aliens come from an eternal universe. You have simply named the first cause 'God' without proving that the cause is divine.

Here's an interest read, it's just two pages and it discusses why there is something rather than nothing. You should educate yourself: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Something.pdf

Lastly, what you've done is the ultimate god-of-the-gaps argument. Neither atheists or physicists claim to have the answer to everything. Atheists are not married to the idea of the big bang, many of them don't even think about it. But congratulations, you found an unsolved problem is modern physics and managed to cram your god in there. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Here's the rub: You don't have an answer either.

All you've done is attempt to explain an unknown with an even bigger unknown.

I cannot explain the universe, neither can you. Cosmology is something that christian, hindu, muslim, and atheist physicists work on. This is an issue for everyone, not just atheists. You have the bigger problem of not being to explain god.

I was correct, Sam Harris is your god. You use his ideas and his arrogant posturing.


I don't know what scientists repeatedly ask who created God. Maybe he should follow his own reasoning....."The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

Do you believe that science will have the answer to all of life's questions?