The big bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2012, 03:39 PM
RE: The big bang
It entirely depends on how you define stuff WeirdKid
The first thing you need to do is define the concepts you want to debate: Like let’s say: define God (don’t try to answer that question, It's a trap)

here's my view on my atheistic position:
I don't believe there is a God or deity. (note: I haven't said there IS no deity). There are several reasons why I've taken this position but the main reasons are: Lack of indisputable proof that there is such a being and/or the inability of such being to provide its creation with an indisputable way to worship it. I don't worship deities for the same reasons I don't regard to a hypothetical invisible infinite ham in my fridge as being "lunch".

What do I mean with the last sentence? I might refer to that ham as: reminder of groceries to buy, Inspiration to something tasty or something similar but if I want to REALLY eat something, that ham won't be it!

In the same sense, God/Allah/whoever is useless to me.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2012, 03:40 PM
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 03:35 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  So then you don't believe in it but if someone were to find evidence you're not closed off to listen? See, I've never heard this. I thought all atheists were closed off to the notion of a God. Basically, you are still searching for the truth and are skeptical then? I apologize if I misunderstand yet again.

Now you understand better.
You've been lied to about the nature of atheism and atheists. Who told you this crap? What other untruths are you being told?

As I have said in another post, it is not books that give us knowledge, but evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2012, 03:47 PM
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 03:35 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  
So then you don't believe in it but if someone were to find evidence you're not closed off to listen?

Spot on!

For me, it would even take surprisingly little evidence. I'd consider a worldwide consensus about how we need to worship a God already enough. If there was something good and God-like that had an important message for us, it would be clear and pre programmed in our minds. You would be born with that idea, and not being told by someone.

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Observer's post
10-01-2012, 03:53 PM
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 03:35 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  So then you don't believe in it but if someone were to find evidence you're not closed off to listen? See, I've never heard this. I thought all atheists were closed off to the notion of a God. Basically, you are still searching for the truth and are skeptical then? I apologize if I misunderstand yet again. Haha.[/b]

No I found my truth. The agnostic bit is just really a logical position since it's impossible to know with certainty (this I know with certainty Tongue ). I no longer search for God - now I have much more fun reading science books.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2012, 04:00 PM
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 03:47 PM)The_observer Wrote:  
(10-01-2012 03:35 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  
So then you don't believe in it but if someone were to find evidence you're not closed off to listen?

Spot on!

For me, it would even take surprisingly little evidence. I'd consider a worldwide consensus about how we need to worship a God already enough. If there was something good and God-like that had an important message for us, it would be clear and pre programmed in our minds. You would be born with that idea, and not being told by someone.

This. I might require slightly more significant evidence though. It would only need to happen once. Let a man part a sea, or even a creek so that the bottom is visible. I'll gladly accept the bible and JC. I'm going to need to see something I find 'magical' because things deemed 'miracles' are often explained with logic. My brain might not let a legit miracle convince me.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2012, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2012 04:15 PM by Thatweirdkid.)
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 03:23 PM)kineo Wrote:  
(10-01-2012 03:17 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(10-01-2012 03:00 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  So atheism is not a religion. Because you don't just believe their is no God, you know this is true.

You are slightly misunderstanding. Knowing that there is no god is gnostic atheism. I, and most atheists, are agnostic atheists. We (most) dont' claim to know that there is no god. We just don't believe there is one because there is no evidence to suggest a god. And there is also overwhelming evidence that gods of religion don't exist. There is a difference in not believing in something and knowing that it doesn't exist.

Yep, very true.

Weird Kid, you're entering into the finer points of understanding atheism and this is important. It may seem like semantics, but it's not.

You've probably got a solid handle on it, but just in case, here's a chart that helps. There's a better one out there, but I can't seem to find it so this will do.

[Image: Atheist+Chart.jpg]

Is this the picture you were looking for?

[Image: final6.jpg]

I'm not sure if I attached this right. First time and all..
(10-01-2012 04:00 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(10-01-2012 03:47 PM)The_observer Wrote:  
(10-01-2012 03:35 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  
So then you don't believe in it but if someone were to find evidence you're not closed off to listen?

Spot on!

For me, it would even take surprisingly little evidence. I'd consider a worldwide consensus about how we need to worship a God already enough. If there was something good and God-like that had an important message for us, it would be clear and pre programmed in our minds. You would be born with that idea, and not being told by someone.

This. I might require slightly more significant evidence though. It would only need to happen once. Let a man part a sea, or even a creek so that the bottom is visible. I'll gladly accept the bible and JC. I'm going to need to see something I find 'magical' because things deemed 'miracles' are often explained with logic. My brain might not let a legit miracle convince me.

I see where you are coming from. So if I believe that God exists as Creator and yet cannot (well I will say has not) be/been proven does that make me agnostic theist??
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 03:35 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  So then you don't believe in it but if someone were to find evidence you're not closed off to listen? See, I've never heard this. I thought all atheists were closed off to the notion of a God. Basically, you are still searching for the truth and are skeptical then? I apologize if I misunderstand yet again. Haha.[/b]

This is true, but some people have different (incorrect) definitions of "evidence". By that I mean, some people use their past experiences as evidence. Other people use unexplainable incidents as evidence (ghost stories, miracles, etc.). Some use the same logic you have as "evidence"; that is, "how can something so complex come from nothing"? Some use the Bible itself as evidence that the Bible is the Word of God.

Evidence needs to be solid fact: unfalsifiable, observable, and testable.

If it's a personal experience that you cannot prove then it's not evidence. If it's a ghost story, then it's not evidence simply because you can't explain it. If it's a logical or theological quandary, that is not evidence either. If it's a circular-based argument, it's not evidence (the Bible says that the Bile is the Word of God, therefore the Bible must be true).

The_observer has a pretty good idea of what would be good evidence to me also. It's difficult for me to really pin down what I would consider for good evidence, but I think that if God existed there would be no question about whether there was evidence, because it really would be clearly known to all with no confusion.

Think about the fact that you've listed surviving a car crash as evidence for the existence of God to you. Now zoom out from focus on your individual story and consider also that there are many people who do not survive car crashes every day. Your crash was one of many car crashes that day, some of them fatal and some not. These car crashes would range in severity from fender benders to tragically fatal multi-car pile ups. On that line of severity, yours was probably somewhere in the middle or lesser end where there was a danger of your own death (just guessing here). There were probably many others in that same range of severity. Some of those people died, and some of them didn't. When I look at it like this, I don't see God's hand in determining who lived and who died, I see that each accident had a varied chance of fatality and you happened to be one of the lucky ones. The chances are that of all the accidents that occur on any given day some of them will be fatal and some will not be. Then you start including the fact that engineers and scientists have been working for years to decrease the fatality rates. Each safety measure adds to the chances of your survival- but it doesn't guarantee it.

Your survival is pretty unremarkable to me (not that I am not glad, I cherish human life and it is good that you did not die), being that I can look at it from a distance and having not experienced the crash myself. You have quite a different point of view, having been there and experienced the terror of it. That leaves quite an imprint. But that is not evidence for the rest of us, because that guy over there in that other accident still died, or someone else still died. That's just chance, and hopefully we've increased the chanced of survival and decreased the chances of death by using the technological advances that humanity has achieved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kineo's post
10-01-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 04:13 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  I see where you are coming from. So if I believe that God exists as Creator and yet cannot (well I will say has not) be/been proven does that make me agnostic theist??
Yes.

By George, he's got it!

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-01-2012, 04:24 PM
RE: The big bang
(10-01-2012 04:13 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  Is this the picture you were looking for?

Nope, I haven't seen that one, but that's a pretty good one too! Big Grin

The point is to illustrated in an easily understandable way the differences in the language, and there are a number of different ways that people try to explain this and they use different language, so it gets confusing.

(10-01-2012 04:13 PM)Thatweirdkid Wrote:  I see where you are coming from. So if I believe that God exists as Creator and yet cannot (well I will say has not) be/been proven does that make me agnostic theist??

Yup! If you acknowledge that you positively believe there is a god but that you cannot know for certain, then you'd be an agnostic theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2012, 04:25 PM
RE: The big bang
I would love to reply more in detail, I only scanned the replies since my reply. My wife and I just got our medical books in for school so I'm too excited to get all technical with Big Bang stuff.

Someone may have pointed this out already.

The Big Bang wasn't really a big bang. Not an explosion. At least this is what I have learned. It was a massive expansion. Imagine something similar to a large deflated balloon being filled with air extremely fast (sort of bad example since it started from the middle of the dense mass). The example gives you a lay person's idea. The reason it was named the Big Bang was because some religious person being a smart ass called it this and they went with it (correct me if I'm wrong on this guys).

The Big Bang Theory is, like nearly all theories, being improved upon. We have much more to learn and they are sending out multiple missions in space to gather more information. Check out NASA and Space.com for mission overviews. I've been keeping up with most of them, especially the mars missions (big 1 ton laboratory rover landing this year).

The problem people have with denying all the big bang theory data is that we are using the exact technology in space now. Every mission to the moon, mars, and all space travel uses the same calculations they use in the theory plus some. Meaning the information and calculations are already being implemented and are working. Data is still required from current and future missions to fill in more theory gaps.

If you do research this information on NASA and other space sites you must keep one thing in mind. When they use the word god or created it does not mean your theological god or being created by god. I have seen too many theists use this as "NASA" says it was created, therefore god created it. NOT what they meant so please don't jump to that conclusion. Many scientists make the mistake of saying this and have had to correct it in the past.

Watch that video posted. It is extremely useful. I hope I explained things without confusion. I have a way of messing my explanation up even though I know the info Sad

Idiot: : a foolish or stupid person
— idiot adjective
See Republican Candidates.

Keeping realism alive, one honest offensive comment at a time!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: