Science, Arts, Belief, Right & Wrong...

[Lord Botta]

Wrong. Atheism makes no claim on how the universe came into existence. Its simply rejection of the claim that a God exist due to insufficient evidence for that claim.

I mean really? Atheism was once a philosophical pretension and when it was that , all of the atheistic philosophers like David Hume , Russel et al insisted on the eternity of the universe as they knew that a time finite universe shall obviously make a Creator inevitable.
Ever since Edwin Hubble , the question of eternal/time-finite universe became essentially a scientific question , the atheistic scientists have tried to explain away the question with various models of singularity which essentially try to take Creator out of the equation. I would substantiate my premises with examples which I have avoided for now assuming that you already know about them

 

[Vitamin_C]

Our parents

these are the very first few lines of discussion betweein an atheist and theist..
do we really need to start from here ?

okay a very simple question and i would really want a simple answer please...im really tired now

who/what created human

 

[Lord Botta]

valid point
but how do they come to this conclusion that Creator does not exist

He is squarely wrong on that. He simply wants to shun away the question of the origins of universe to avoid the onus of proof.
All notable atheists from the past like Hume , Russel , Nitche have insisted that the universe is eternal and hence uncreated. Almost all of the present notable atheists like Dawkins , Krauss , Haris , Hawkins et al insist on the same. The only difference is that the modern day atheists have to explain away the big bang singularity to prove that the universe is uncreated. Hawkins latest book "The grand design" is an effort at it. Lawrence Krauss has also come up with a model albeit very funny , to explain how the universe self created itself

 

[Vitamin_C]

Doesn't matter what a particular atheist believes. Some atheists believe in aliens and chupacabra. I was referring to definition of atheism. We cannot categories people based on common disbelief, because these people may have a diverse range of beliefs on other things. Which is why I say atheism has nothing to do with the question about origin of universe.

I mean really? Atheism was once a philosophical pretension and when it was that , all of the atheistic philosophers like David Hume , Russel et al insisted on the eternity of the universe as they knew that a time finite universe shall obviously make a Creator inevitable.
Ever since Edwin Hubble , the question of eternal/time-finite universe became essentially a scientific question , the atheistic scientists have tried to explain away the question with various models of singularity which essentially try to take Creator out of the equation. I would substantiate my premises with examples which I have avoided for now assuming that you already know about them

 

[Vitamin_C]

Onus of proof is on the person claiming that the universe was created, not on the person rejecting it.

You do not have to provide an alternative in order to reject God. That is a logical fallacy.

He is squarely wrong on that. He simply wants to shun away the question of the origins of universe to avoid the onus of proof.
All notable atheists from the past like Hume , Russel , Nitche have insisted that the universe is eternal and hence uncreated. Almost all of the present notable atheists like Dawkins , Krauss , Haris , Hawkins et al insist on the same. The only difference is that the modern day atheists have to explain away the big bang singularity to prove that the universe is uncreated. Hawkins latest book "The grand design" is an effort at it. Lawrence Krauss has also come up with a model albeit very funny , to explain how the universe self created itself

 

[Prince of Dhump]

Our parents

classical

 

[Prince of Dhump]

He is squarely wrong on that. He simply wants to shun away the question of the origins of universe to avoid the onus of proof.
All notable atheists from the past like Hume , Russel , Nitche have insisted that the universe is eternal and hence uncreated. Almost all of the present notable atheists like Dawkins , Krauss , Haris , Hawkins et al insist on the same. The only difference is that the modern day atheists have to explain away the big bang singularity to prove that the universe is uncreated. Hawkins latest book "The grand design" is an effort at it. Lawrence Krauss has also come up with a model albeit very funny , to explain how the universe self created itself

i know but i didnt want to give up ?

 

[Prince of Dhump]

Onus of proof is on the person claiming that the universe was created, not on the person rejecting it.

You do not have to provide an alternative in order to reject God. That is a logical fallacy.

no one want u to prove or disprove Creator
we are just asking for ur perspective how did human (or universe) came into existence
thats not a fallacy right
asking for ur perspective

 

[Lord Botta]

Doesn't matter what a particular atheist believes. Some atheists believe in aliens and chupacabra. I was referring to definition of atheism. We cannot categories people based on common disbelief, because these people may have a diverse range of beliefs on other things. Which is why I say atheism has nothing to do with the question about origin of universe.

Atheism is the position that given the empirical data and other rational evidences , God does not exist. One of the central tenant of Theism is the "createdness" of universe. Therefore , for an atheist to be an atheist , he must have a model of the origins of universe that does not have a creator in it. Roughly all atheists of the past and present have held this position. I feel the likes of Richard Dawkins , Stephen Hawking , Lawrence Krauss , Sam Haris etc have more of a right to claim what an atheist is and what an atheist is not as they are the brand ambassadors of atheism globally and all of them have donated large parts of their books and lectures to the question of the origin of universe. Look more into it.

 

[Citizen X]

Its pretty standard. You can study the fur of a dog in a lab and conclude it is infact a dog and not a bear no matter which lab you test it in.

If someone created the entire universe, the evidenxe for this should be everywhere and yet there is none?

Evidence is everywhere, this whole earth, solar system and the universe. I have a car, where is the evidence of who made it? Other than labels and lettering put their by the manufacturer, How can you tell it who made it?

Don't you think a superior being wouldn't be as petty as putting a made by god mark on his creation?

Saying all this happened on its own is like saying somewhere in the desert sand by mere chance and the right conditions turned into a microchip on its own. You say you believe in maths and numbers since they don't lie. Then what is the probability of this happening?

Now if you think scenario is ridiculous and the probability so low that its not even worth mentioning then probability of life and intelligent life happening all on its own is billion trillions times more unlikely. And the scenario even more ridiculous.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Belief vs Disbelief
I think you are misunderstanding what atheism means and what belief means. Atheism is not a belief, its a position of disbelief.
Religious morality vs Secular morality
I think what you mean by atheistic morality is secular morality. Secular morality doesn't have anything to do with atheism. Its different ideas on morality from non-religious writers such as Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Frederic Nietzsche. Secular Morality is considered for law making in Developed countries rather than religious morality and is considered vastly superior to religious/absolute morality.

Alright Doc, lets give it another try.

Let us focus on the word "Morality" here as a discussion topic.

To be honest, I am not concerned with what you take for your ownself as a belief (or disbelief). My question has the premise of what you do with the mind, matter and energies around you? it is how you manifest yourself in the dimensions of time and space. Its about how you justify yourself for the right of living, killing and/or dying.

I simply have not asked you that have you met the God or not yet? have you shaken hands with him to satiate your sense of touch, in order to believe that the God you met was the Real God or not? Do you have his address please????? No.... I am sorry, I am sorry that I had been a naive in setting up the tone of my argument, yet.

But lets talk about morality. Do you have a position in it somewhere? Do you believe that stealing should be classed as a crime? why not apply here the equation of Might is Right?

 

[Sohail Shuja]

no one want u to prove or disprove Creator
we are just asking for ur perspective how did human (or universe) came into existence
thats not a fallacy right
asking for ur perspective

Yes... To be or Not To be is not the ultimate question here.... :D
The question is "How it should be then"?

 

[Vitamin_C]

No its not. Dont make your own defintion.

Atheism is the position that given the empirical data and other rational evidences , God does not exist. One of the central tenant of Theism is the "createdness" of universe. Therefore , for an atheist to be an atheist , he must have a model of the origins of universe that does not have a creator in it. Roughly all atheists of the past and present have held this position. I feel the likes of Richard Dawkins , Stephen Hawking , Lawrence Krauss , Sam Haris etc have more of a right to claim what an atheist is and what an atheist is not as they are the brand ambassadors of atheism globally and all of them have donated large parts of their books and lectures to the question of the origin of universe. Look more into it.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Atheism is the position that given the empirical data and other rational evidences , God does not exist. One of the central tenant of Theism is the "createdness" of universe. Therefore , for an atheist to be an atheist , he must have a model of the origins of universe that does not have a creator in it. Roughly all atheists of the past and present have held this position. I feel the likes of Richard Dawkins , Stephen Hawking , Lawrence Krauss , Sam Haris etc have more of a right to claim what an atheist is and what an atheist is not as they are the brand ambassadors of atheism globally and all of them have donated large parts of their books and lectures to the question of the origin of universe. Look more into it.

Actually, we sometimes fail to understand the position of Science in its operation. In order to understand a nature's little secret (Causality), one has to keep a God out of the equation. If you set fuel to fire... it will burn. Repeat it numerous times, and it gets the same results.

So the only explanation of a Creator in Science is that "Even if there is God, He has nothing to do much, scientifically". He has just set things in motion once, and since then they are just moving.

Now here lies the basic flaw of science. It looks for an "order" in everything which may be cast in a formula. One may ask, why is then they are looking for an "order"? a proportionate symmetry? if they believe in an uncontrolled system?

Now there are some higher faculties of human mind, to interpret things above knowledge. Because reasoning does not depend on science alone to prove or disprove anything.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Your car was made by human engineers because I have witnessed human engineers make cars before. But the engineers didnt make the car out of nothing, they rearranged existing materials to make it.

On the other hand no one has witnessed Gods make a universe and no one has ever observed anyone make anything from nothing.

There are something that we know about and there are something we don't know about. The origin of universe is something that we don't not understand very well and its better to hold judgement until we have real answers. Human beings like to make up answers to fill in the gaps of our lack of understanding such as superstitions revolving causes of earthquakes etc. Lets not be superstitious and wait for actual evidence before making conclusions.

Evidence is everywhere, this whole earth, solar system and the universe. I have a car, where is the evidence of who made it? Other than labels and lettering put their by the manufacturer, How can you tell it who made it?

Don't you think a superior being wouldn't be as petty as putting a made by god mark on his creation?

Saying all this happened on its own is like saying somewhere in the desert sand by mere chance and the right conditions turned into a microchip on its own. You say you believe in maths and numbers since they don't lie. Then what is the probability of this happening?

Now if you think scenario is ridiculous and the probability so low that its not even worth mentioning then probability of life and intelligent life happening all on its own is billion trillions times more unlikely. And the scenario even more ridiculous.

 

[Vitamin_C]

My position on morality is that morality has existed for thousands of years before religions. We are social animals that live together in groups therefore we have to behave in a way to facilitate that living.

The point of doing good is not the allure of a heaven or the fear of a hell. You do good things because you want other to do good things to you. You pursue your happiness without hurting other people because thats what you want others to do to you as well.

You take care of your elderly parents because they did the same for you when you were an infant. You give to the poor and destitute because when you or someone close to you is in their position, you want someone to do that as well. Also charity gives you a mindset of abundance.

And then if something is still unclear, you come together, have a discussion and argument and make rules based on what is most ethical and fair to everyone.

If you are an atheist then you believe that this is the only life you will get, you want to make the world as good a place as you possibly can and you want to make people around you as happy as you can.

Other than that we have natural tendencies to do good things because it ensured our survival as a species. We have a natural instinct to take care of our children and our tribe/family. There maybe some psychopaths here and there but traditionally they were either killed or ostracized from the tribe (which almost always meant death).

Alright Doc, lets give it another try.

Let us focus on the word "Morality" here as a discussion topic.

To be honest, I am not concerned with what you take for your ownself as a belief (or disbelief). My question has the premise of what you do with the mind, matter and energies around you? it is how you manifest yourself in the dimensions of time and space. Its about how you justify yourself for the right of living, killing and/or dying.

I simply have not asked you that have you met the God or not yet? have you shaken hands with him to satiate your sense of touch, in order to believe that the God you met was the Real God or not? Do you have his address please????? No.... I am sorry, I am sorry that I had been a naive in setting up the tone of my argument, yet.

But lets talk about morality. Do you have a position in it somewhere? Do you believe that stealing should be classed as a crime? why not apply here the equation of Might is Right?

 

[Vitamin_C]

The idea of creating a car and micro chip is not the same as universe. Micro chips and cars are made out of rearranging already existing materials. When we are taking about universe we are talking about matter coming into existence from nothing. They are not the same. Also cars and microchips are man made objects, you have seen humans make those objects same as you have seen bees make honey thats why if we see those in a desert, we know they didn't come out of nothing. But what about rivers, mountains and oceans? (Have you ever witnessed a God make those things or make the universe?)Do you ever wonder when you see a mountain that someone put it there? No because we know they are formed by naturally occurring processes. So we cannot compare artificial objects to natural ones as it will make it a false analogy.

No one is saying that it happened on its own. We know that everything we observed after the big bang has natural explanations and all the matter was rearranged by natural processes to form galaxies and stars. But what happened before big bang we do not know. We just have ideas about what may have happened but we do not know for sure.

Also there is a major flaw in the argument that if something is complex therefore it has a creator as this will create an infinite loop of creators and creations and there is no way out of it without special pleading which is also a fallacy.

Evidence is everywhere, this whole earth, solar system and the universe. I have a car, where is the evidence of who made it? Other than labels and lettering put their by the manufacturer, How can you tell it who made it?

Don't you think a superior being wouldn't be as petty as putting a made by god mark on his creation?

Saying all this happened on its own is like saying somewhere in the desert sand by mere chance and the right conditions turned into a microchip on its own. You say you believe in maths and numbers since they don't lie. Then what is the probability of this happening?

Now if you think scenario is ridiculous and the probability so low that its not even worth mentioning then probability of life and intelligent life happening all on its own is billion trillions times more unlikely. And the scenario even more ridiculous.

 

[Vitamin_C]

If you are asking before the big bang then I don't know. Infact, no body knows including yourself.

If you are asking after big bang then we very well how universe and humans came into existence.

no one want u to prove or disprove Creator
we are just asking for ur perspective how did human (or universe) came into existence
thats not a fallacy right
asking for ur perspective

 

[Lord Botta]

No its not. Dont make your own defintion.

Its you who is making up his own definition to suit his whims , I have quoted the most notable atheists to substantiate my claim

 

[Vitamin_C]

No I am not, I am taking mine from oxford dictionary. Atheism is simply lack of belief in God. It is not a claim that a God does not exist. That claim would be illogical as it is not possible to disprove a non falsifiable proposition. Don't be dishonest.

It doesn't matter what some atheists say, every atheists has different beliefs as I keep repeating you cannot group people based on common disbelief. Some atheists believe in Aliens so does it mean all atheists believe in Aliens?

atheism
NOUN
mass noun

• Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Its you who is making up his own definition to suit his whims , I have quoted the most notable atheists to substantiate my claim