+297

It's irritating how some religious people find atheism such a radical idea. There are 720 established religions in the world. Rejecting hundreds of gods to believe in none is not that different from rejecting hundreds of gods to believe in one. Amirite?

88%Yeah You Are12%No Way
Loopss avatar
Share
17 38
The voters have decided that Loops is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Note how I said some religious people.
As in not all.
As in not everybody.
As in this-is-not-a-generalized-statement-you-flaming-fags.

Loopss avatar Loops Yeah You Are +17Reply

NOT trying to touch off an argument here, but it seems a tad strange how many people dismiss all of those other gods out of hand but passionately beleive in their own god even though the same reasons they dissmiss those other gods could just as easily apply to their own.

@Take2 NOT trying to touch off an argument here, but it seems a tad strange how many people dismiss all of those other...

I think a small point is being missed here. Out of all those religions many of them believe in the same god. They just have different practices. Like Baptist and Church of Christ. You can't get two of them to co-exist. But yes there are hundreds of gods but usually it's views and practices being rejected.

@Angry_Muffin I think a small point is being missed here. Out of all those religions many of them believe in the same god. They...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." – Stephen Roberts

I've always liked this quote, and I think it's pretty germane.

@Take2 "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you...

It was always explained to me (by the Internet) that atheist "did not believe". There is actually another religion where one recognizes there is a god but chooses not to follow.

It's irritating how some atheist think that religion is such a radical idea too though.... Just saying. Not trying to start any flame war.

@Magestic_merman It's irritating how some atheist think that religion is such a radical idea too though.... Just saying. Not trying...

I don't want a flame war either, just a discussion. I think it's worth pointing out that atheism is the "default" for humans. People are born as implicit atheists and know nothing of religion until they're indoctrinated by their parents and society. Looking at it from that perspective, religion is more radical, not to mention the lack of physical proof.

@Take2 I don't want a flame war either, just a discussion. I think it's worth pointing out that atheism is the "default"...

But how can you prove we are implicit atheists? How do you know some people aren't born with an innate faith in a higher power, especially when you meet those people who just have that certainty of belief about them? It's a difficult topic since you can't really just ask a baby fresh from delivery.

Wynauts avatar Wynaut Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Wynaut But how can you prove we are implicit atheists? How do you know some people aren't born with an innate faith in a...

Locke. Tabula Raza. Babies aren't born with any innate knowledge, it is all learned. If you took a baby and raised it in isolation and taught it that the universe was created by a bisexual centaur in a fedora, then they would passionately believe that.

@Take2 Locke. Tabula Raza. Babies aren't born with any innate knowledge, it is all learned. If you took a baby and raised...

Well, I don't know if they'd passionately believe that, but I het the concept and thanks for reminding me about Locke. That makes more sense.

Wynauts avatar Wynaut Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Wynaut But how can you prove we are implicit atheists? How do you know some people aren't born with an innate faith in a...

People aren't really born with any knowledge. We aren't born believing in anything, so by definition we are atheists.

Anonymous +1Reply
@People aren't really born with any knowledge. We aren't born believing in anything, so by definition we are atheists.

But babies aren't just brain dead or anything...I don't know. I just feel like it's impossible to really decide that everyone is atheist by default, when atheism is specifically not believing in any form of theism. But that could just be me being stubborn.

Wynauts avatar Wynaut Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Take2 I don't want a flame war either, just a discussion. I think it's worth pointing out that atheism is the "default"...

You can't really have physical proof of a supernatural being, unless he wants to create some, which clearly he doesn't. I don't know why he doesn't; we're supposed to go along with it, because he's got this big plan that is bigger than we can comprehend.

Anonymous 0Reply

Umm.. no god and then having God are HUGE steps... -__-

Anonymous +1Reply

Preach.

detectivenerds avatar detectivenerd Yeah You Are 0Reply

Same goes for athiests too.

@Slenderman Same goes for athiests too.

@1331210 (Slenderman): ...what is that even supposed to mean?

@Take2 @1331210 (Slenderman): ...what is that even supposed to mean?

As the post says, "Rejecting hundreds of gods to believe in none is not that different from rejecting hundreds of gods to believe in one." because it's not that different, it also should be directed towards athiests. Now while I respect different beliefs, I'm tired of athiests posting about the bad things about Christians (and yes I know it says "some" christians.)

@Slenderman As the post says, "Rejecting hundreds of gods to believe in none is not that different from rejecting hundreds of...

most atheists dont even hate on christians. its mostly catholic people that go on ranting about atheism is bad.

Anonymous +1Reply
@most atheists dont even hate on christians. its mostly catholic people that go on ranting about atheism is bad.

Why is that getting downvoted? I go to a Catholic school, and he's right, they do.

Unicornss avatar Unicorns Yeah You Are +4Reply
@Unicorns Why is that getting downvoted? I go to a Catholic school, and he's right, they do.

Well yeah (I wasn't one of the downvoters) but honestly, even though people think it's mostly Christians hating on atheists, if you look at this site, it's mostly atheists hating on Christians.

@Slenderman Well yeah (I wasn't one of the downvoters) but honestly, even though people think it's mostly Christians hating on...

No, I don't think it's mainly atheists hating in Christians, I think it's about half and half. Actually, no, the majority of people who hate on atheism and religion are trolls.

Anonymous +3Reply
@No, I don't think it's mainly atheists hating in Christians, I think it's about half and half. Actually, no, the...

Well you can say that, but there are indeed more atheists hating on Christians. The thing is that all these atheists are telling Christians to stop hating on them even when there aren't many. I'm not saying that one belief is better than the other. There really are more atheists hating on Christians on this website.

After all, isn't one "none" with an n in front?

Though I concede there is not a numerically large difference between 0 and 1, I think the radical idea lies in the fact that many atheist believe the universe just came into being, as in it was caused but there is no scientific evidence for said cause. Science states that for anything to come into being there must be a cause, while religion asserts that an uncaused transcendent being happens to be this cause.
I think both view points are mutually unprovable, but that's just me.
Sorry if I came across as forward or rude, it was not my intention. I also apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors as I am on my iPhone.

@ckwbeliever Though I concede there is not a numerically large difference between 0 and 1, I think the radical idea lies in the...

Yeah, I agree that right now both are unprovable. It takes faith to be an atheist just as it takes faith to believe in a God. Atheists just see the idea of a supernatural "sky daddy" as very implausible because it seems harder to believe in than scientific uncertainty. They also don't want to be held accountable for their actions by a higher power and are usually not crazy about the whole mass amounts of people going to hell thing

Joe_Larsons avatar Joe_Larson Yeah You Are +4Reply
@Joe_Larson Yeah, I agree that right now both are unprovable. It takes faith to be an atheist just as it takes faith to...

Well, to be fair, I'm not crazy about the he'll idea either, and I'm not atheist XD

Wynauts avatar Wynaut Yeah You Are 0Reply
@Joe_Larson Yeah, I agree that right now both are unprovable. It takes faith to be an atheist just as it takes faith to...

Well, if there is a God, then not believing in him is not going to prevent you from going to hell. Also, anyone who is sorry for their sins will be forgiven. And no, it doesn't take faith to be atheist. It takes faith to live your life and believe there is someone who loves you and is looking out for you always. It does not really take faith to believe that there isn't someone like that.
Like that first person said, everything in the universe must have a cause, which includes the creation of the universe. God existed before the universe did (assuming he existed), and he created the laws of physics, logic, and everything else, so he doesn't need to have a cause.

Anonymous -2Reply
@Well, if there is a God, then not believing in him is not going to prevent you from going to hell. Also, anyone who...

I'm sorry, but you do realize that you actually have to accurately demonstrate that creatio ex nihilo is possible first before you can even make that claim, right? Can you please explain how a god can create something without there anything to be affected in the first place? Everything ever seen in effects of causality have had a 1, 2, and 3. A god supposedly skips '2' altogether, and if there is no argument in which to prove how such a thing is possible why should the claim even be taken seriously? As it stands, we haven't a good idea of how the universe was started anyway, or weather it's even coherent to say that the universe "came into existence", yet these are still very common and misinformed assertions convenient only for theistic arguments.

Unicornss avatar Unicorns Yeah You Are +2Reply
@Unicorns I'm sorry, but you do realize that you actually have to accurately demonstrate that creatio ex nihilo is possible...

Also, i'd like to add that the amount of answers for the origin of the universe does not boil down to there only being 2 options, mainly 'a god did it' and 'it just came into existence'. It's not like it's a multiple choice test where the answers are fixed, and right in front of us.

Unicornss avatar Unicorns Yeah You Are +2Reply
@Take2 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs...y/bigbang.html "no scientific evidence" my ass.

The universe was created by an exploding singularity. A singularity contains craptons of matter and potential energy which are now being used in the universe. What created that singularity? No process that follows the laws of physics can create or destroy energy, so only a being that overrules the laws of physics could have done that.

Anonymous 0Reply
@Take2 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs...y/bigbang.html "no scientific evidence" my ass.

send things like that all you'd, but at least do it in a respectful manner as I did.

In response to what you said, There is no law of physics that can create or destroy energy, which is scientific fact. So, for energy to come into existence it must be something that is outside the realm of science.
Not to mention that at one point in time space was a vacuum with nothing in it. Using scientific facts, I would like you to explain how an entire universe so finely tuned as the one we are blessed with came into existence.

@ckwbeliever send things like that all you'd, but at least do it in a respectful manner as I did. In response to what you...

You said there was no scientific evidence for the big bang theory. That is completely incorrect. Generally, when people use absolutes like that, they don't deserve much respect. There is an abundance of evidence for the BBT, and information in that link directly addresses everything you say in a more succinct way than I could ever hope to. You, on the other hand, have no physical evidence to back you up. You assert without proof that some sort of God created the universe, and what is asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof, although I deigned to give you some anyways. The most prominent problem with your idea is that you state that everything must have a creator and then fail to explain how He was created.

@Take2 You said there was no scientific evidence for the big bang theory. That is completely incorrect. Generally, when...

Science states that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. I, along with people believing in God assert that God was not caused and is transcendent, thus he has always existed and does not need a cause, and please don't say that I am making an exception for God, because Atheist used to assert that the universe was eternal and uncaused.
As a person ascribing to the BBT you have to forgo some of your scientific beliefs to take it as believable. If you assert that the universe is finite, you must also assert that it came in to being, but from what you are saying. Something (the universe) came from nothing and by nothing.
Scientist Sir Arthur Eddington was quoted "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural"

@Take2 You said there was no scientific evidence for the big bang theory. That is completely incorrect. Generally, when...

Reasons why I am skeptical of the BBT:
1. Stephen Hawking cited that"if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the BB had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed into a fireball
2. British physicist P.C.W. Davies concluded the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for the formation of stars- a necessity for plants and thus life- is a one followed by at least a thousand billion billion zeroes.
Davies also estimate that if the strength of gravity, or of the weak force were changed by only one part in a ten followed by a hundred zeroes, life could never have developed.

I am not saying that the universe isn't the result of rapid expansion or the BBT, what I am saying is the odds, from what I have researched are too high for the universe's cause to be chaotic and not have an intelligent being behind it.

@Take2 You said there was no scientific evidence for the big bang theory. That is completely incorrect. Generally, when...

I feel like I've given you ample time to respond and you've chosen not to, which is okay. But I feel that you must realize something.
My point was about the cause of the universe, the BBT does NOT pertain to the cause of the universe.

Did you take the time to ready the link you posted?
I don't think you did because it says, under "common misconceptions about the BB" and I quote "The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time."

Never did I assert that there is no scientific evidence for the BBT, you thought the BBT was an explanation for how the everything came into being.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.