The Faith of Atheism

[Acriku]

Please emprworm, once again putting words in my mouth ::) I never said I put my "faith" into this theory, I've read about the theory, and I've found it worthwhile to read further into it, so before you say anything about me - try to ask what I do or think, because otherwise you will just look like a fool.

[emprworm]

like usual, Acriku, you refuse to engage the issue. you engage the evolution debate, but you skirt and slime your way around this one.

three options for the universe, you call 1 irrational, which leaves you with two left. Options 2 and 3 you purport as 'rational' above option 1 (which is most inline with natural laws). You put blind faith in some whacked out "fourth option" which violates logic itself- let alone your ability to even explain a POTENTIAL fourth option (forget about an actual one), leaving you with the equivalent faith of the subcontinent of India.

[Acriku]

What? You make yourself look like a fool, then try to change the subject that was being discussed to the current one so you don't have to acknowledge your mistake, ok emprworm lol. And it isn't blind faith, it is an open mind to other possibilities.

[emprworm]

What? You make yourself look like a fool, then try to change the subject that was being discussed to the current one so you don't have to acknowledge your mistake, ok emprworm lol. And it isn't blind faith, it is an open mind to other possibilities.

the subject is found in my first post, it is you changing the subject.

three options to the universe. you dismiss the only option that is faithful to natural laws of the universe. You actually call it an irrational position (amazingly enough). By doing this, you DEFAULT to the 2 remaining options. Yet you commit an intellectual cop-out by trying to stay "neutral" professing that "i don't know...i dont put my faith in either of them" yet by dismissing one of them you indeed ARE believing in the others- which one in particular is irrelevant. Your faith is not that option #2 is the TRUTH, your faith is that options 2 and 3 are more likely to be true than option 1.

[SurlyPIG]

Any atheist that proposes the theories Nema proposes is no different than theism.

The least you could do is not misquote people emp. You exploded on me for doing so once (by accident no less).

theism (according to Merriam-Webster): belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world

You claim Nema said God created the universe? WTF ??? Let's see the quote, emprowm. 'Cause I sure didn't see that.

Each is proposing an origin to the universe that is supernatural (cannot be accounted for through natural law) with one exception: theism is more inline with the natural laws of the universe than atheism. Reason?

Last I checked mine was perfectly in line and didn't even fit in with your silly little oversimplified "possible origins" (and I use the term loosely). I wonder why you havn't responded to it...unless you missed it entirely or the thread is bugged up again. But I can't speak with other atheists and you can't speak for other theists.

Atheists claim the universe itself does not need a cause

I'm sick of your generalizations. If I were to say all Christians murdered abortion doctors, burned "witches" at the stake and condoms in the street you'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? I don't want your pathetic little label. SO GET RID OF IT! Unless you want to become the new Navaros, why don't you actually find the NAME of the theory you're bashing (the one you claim all atheists support) and name IT instead of saying "the stupid atheists think..."

Pfft.

Theism states: "The finite set of changing things that require a cause also require a cause. There is no exception to natural law for natural things". This is a default position. The burden of proof is on the atheist.

HAH! No, theism states God created the world and mankind. Not even the universe. You are not defending the position of technical theism as you claim God created the universe, everything preceeding the universe (if there was one), all matter, and energy, life, etc. Essentially everything. This is not in the bible and it's not part of theism.

Theists often share your theory. Atheists, however, are extremely varied in how they conceptualize the origins of the universe. Some believe in the supernatural, some don't. Some are man enough to admit they CAN'T know for certain how and why the big bang occurred, if there was one.

[emprworm]

"Any atheist that proposes the theories Nema proposes is no different than theism."

The least you could do is not misquote people emp. You exploded on me for doing so once (by accident no less).

but that is a commentary, Ace, it is not a quote. And it is one that is true. If you believe that matter and energy can come into existence uncaused, you are no different then any supernaturalist, in fact, I would argue that your supernatural postulation is far more outlandish than most earthly religions. You most certainly do not have any science or logic on your side when you purport crazy things like that.

theism (according to Merriam-Webster): belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world

lol, that is a terrible definition. theism is simply belief in one or more deities. if mirriam defines theism like that, I guarantee you the Oxford dictionary wont have such a stupid definition.

You claim Nema said God created the universe? WTF Let's see the quote, emprowm. 'Cause I sure didn't see that.

really? I don't remember that.

Last I checked mine was perfectly in line and didn't even fit in with your silly little oversimplified "possible origins" (and I use the term loosely). I wonder why you havn't responded to it...unless you missed it entirely or the thread is bugged up again. But I can't speak with other atheists and you can't speak for other theists.

lol, talk about a dodge. The only post I see you made in this thread is this one

and it says nothing about my original post. And you call my possible origins oversimplified, they are not. they are absolute inescapable logical constructs that cannot be denied. not by you, not by anyone. to deny them means you must deny logic itself. and before you spurt off a denial, its time you engage this argument and specifically cite which option is illogical. be warned! This will be an argument you cannot win.

Atheists claim the universe itself does not need a cause

I'm sick of your generalizations. If I were to say all Christians murdered abortion doctors, burned "witches" at the stake and condoms in the street you'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? I don't want your pathetic little label. SO GET RID OF IT! Unless you want to become the new Navaros, why don't you actually find the NAME of the theory you're bashing (the one you claim all atheists support) and name IT instead of saying "the stupid atheists think..."

* yaawnnn *

that post was one big dodge. either engage the specifics of my original post, or even dont bother.

Pfft.

And I do want to reiterate here:

Theism states: "The finite set of changing things that require a cause also require a cause. There is no exception to natural law for natural things".

[Dude_Doc]

Not to be rude or anything, but what do atheists believe in? From my point of view, a theist is a person belieaving in one or more gods... Any answer?

[SurlyPIG]

but that is a commentary, Ace, it is not a quote. And it is one that is true. If you believe that matter and energy can come into existence uncaused, you are no different then any supernaturalist, in fact, I would argue that your supernatural postulation is far more outlandish than most earthly religions. You most certainly do not have any science or logic on your side when you purport crazy things like that.

Now you're chaning your story. First you said "anyone who believes in this is a theist" now it's "anyone who believes in this is a supernaturalist". Try to be consistent emp. You'll look like less of a hypocrit that way.

lol, that is a terrible definition. theism is simply belief in one or more deities. if mirriam defines theism like that, I guarantee you the Oxford dictionary wont have such a stupid definition.

Funny, I've seen you use m-w before. It's the most reputable online dictionary there is. Oxford is big but it's no good. I mean they even put d'oh in there for Pete's sake.

You claim Nema said God created the universe? WTF Let's see the quote, emprowm. 'Cause I sure didn't see that.

really? I don't remember that.

I'd be happy to refresh your memory...

Any atheist that proposes the theories Nema proposes is no different than theism.

There, you directly called him a theist.

lol, talk about a dodge. The only post I see you made in this thread is this one

WTF did you think I was talking about. I'm talking about my post in the creation/big bang thread. Notice how I didn't refer to this thread...didn't say "earlier post". I assumed you would figure it out. Guess I was wrong...

and it says nothing about my original post. And you call my possible origins oversimplified, they are not. they are absolute inescapable logical constructs that cannot be denied. not by you, not by anyone. to deny them means you must deny logic itself. and before you spurt off a denial, its time you engage this argument and specifically cite which option is illogical. be warned! This will be an argument you cannot win.

Actually it is, because I'm not claiming that the universe popped out of nowhere. And parts of my idea fit into all three of those "absolute inescapable logical constructs" as you call them (hehehe).

that post was one big dodge. either engage the specifics of my original post, or even dont bother.

WTF??? Exactly how is my asking you not to generalize all atheists a dodge. I'll spell it out for you, because it seems you're too dense to see it (or maybe you just don't want to)

I DO NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, SUPPORT OR CONDONE THE IDEA THAT THE UNIVERSE POPPED OUT OF NOTHING. TO SAY I DO IS TO TELL A LIE.

Like I've said at least a half-dozen times, don't assume atheists share the same opinions on everything. There is no structure or construct for atheism.

Theism states: "The finite set of changing things that require a cause also require a cause. There is no exception to natural law for natural things".

Oh really? Because earlier in that very post you said "theism is simply belief in one or more deities." Not all theists share you opinions emp. Believing in a deity doesn't mean you believe he created everything like you claim is standard. Unless of course you've asked all 5.7 billion+ theists in the world whether or not they agree with your theory. That's how dumb your generalizations look dude.

[SurlyPIG]

Not to be rude or anything, but what do atheists believe in? From my point of view, a theist is a person belieaving in one or more gods... Any answer?

That's insane. This should be self explanatory. An atheist is anyone who denies the existence of God(s). Other than that, we share no common characteristics as, say, Judaism does. There is no atheist bible, no atheist church, association, etc.

I've said this so many times I can't keep count anymore, but do NOT attach the generalizations you would normally associate with other religous groups with atheism. The only generalization you can accurately make is that they don't believe in any form of deity.

[Edric O]

There is no atheist bible, no atheist church, association, etc.

Wrong.

http://www.atheists.org

[SurlyPIG]

Let me put that another way; there is no universally accepted doctrines or standards by all atheists about the subject of atheism. There often is for religions - not always, but often ie the Bible, Qur'an etc. So making generalizations about all atheists (other than that they don't believe in God) is inaccurate and unfair (not to mention frustrating for the exceptions of common generalizations).

[emprworm]

Now you're chaning your story. First you said "anyone who believes in this is a theist" now it's "anyone who believes in this is a supernaturalist". Try to be consistent emp. You'll look like less of a hypocrit that way.

Lets see what I said in that post.

supernatural means simply "not according to natural law". Any atheist that proposes the theories Nema proposes is no different than theism. Each is proposing an origin to the universe that is supernatural (cannot be accounted for through natural law) with one exception: theism is more inline with the natural laws of the universe than atheism. Reason?

the statement meant that atheism is no different than theism in its supernaturalist and faith-based proposition. It wasn't meant to say that an atheist professes in deities. but since you want to focus on a red-herring (in order to change the topic I assume), I am going to stop here.

<rest of Ace's irrelevant post snipped>

When you are ready to engage the subject of the debate, I will respond. until then any further irrelevance will be unaddressed by me.

[SurlyPIG]

The rest of my post was very relevant. I find it funny how you get pissy at acriku for allegedly dodging your questions yet you have now twice ignored my reference to the creation/big bang thread. Gee...I wonder why you refuse to read my post in there...

[emprworm]

the topic of this post is the faith of atheism regarding the origins of the universe and my argument i posed in the beginning. the only person that has actually engaged me in this has been Nema. Acriku did for a couple posts, and you haven't done so at all.

go back, read post #1 and feel free to respond.

[SurlyPIG]

If you need me to baby you and copy the post I can do that too...

Like Nema pointed out, we might trace the universe all the way back to microseconds after the big bang, but what, if anything, preceeded the big bang, cannot be known. But I can guess...(I would like to clarify that in know way to I readilly practice this and in know way do I put any faith into it)

My best guess is that a different natural universe preceeded the current one. For whatever reason, that universe converged at a definate point, and there was a massive exposion, the big bang, forming a new universe with new laws of physics and rules of engagement. Perhaps new substances too. Perhaps changed. Perhaps the same. Maybe the laws of thermodynamics and conservation were different. Maybe they were inversed.

Naturally impossible you say? Absolutely. In a way, it belings in category number one because it was "caused" by what is currently natural.

In another way, it belongs in category two because the universe is different from the one preceeding universe in its laws and its realm of possibility.

In yet another way, it belongs in category three because one might argue that it is essentially the same universe cyclically repeating itself in different ways. So in a way it is enternal

However such a wild theory is baseless and should NEVER be assumed as fact as many assume their theories to be true. The creationist theists with their ID, and that wacko atheist universe popcorn guy. Jumping to assume the supernatural has proven foolish, and those to jump are made to look foolish by history (and I'm not picking on theists - that atheist guy's popcorn theory is supernatural too in my books). For instance, people in early times believed that disease was the act of God punishing sinners and sinning communities and cultures. A priest said that what happened on 9/11 was the USA being punished for becoming morally decadent, tolerating homosexuality and other religions etc. He was justly and publicly scrutinized in a humiliating fashion and his reputation took an appropreate beating. We must not be so quick to jump to supernatural conclusions for things we cannot yet explain in the world around us.

[TMA_1]

I stopped awhile ago. These kind of debates shouldnt be taken so seriously. Nema is the only one that is actually good at debating, the rest of you guys are just arguing.

[emprworm]

If you need me to baby you and copy the post I can do that too...

please do. in this thread i see only 6 posts from you...all of them on page 3. nothing on pages 1 or two, so yea, quote for me the post then.

Like Nema pointed out, we might trace the universe all the way back to microseconds after the big bang, but what, if anything, preceeded the big bang, cannot be known.

which is why it is a faith-based proposition untouchable by science. to say the big bang "effected" itself is also a faith based proposition untouchable by science. it is all option #2 as I so clearly stated in my opening argument.

My best guess is that a different natural universe preceeded the current one.

anything existing outside our universe is supernatural. there is no such thing as a different "natural universe". To whatever exists beyond our universe, the term could be applied to that thing only from its perspective. (i.e. if God exist, then God is natural to Himself, but not natural to our universe.).

So your postulation that there is a multiverse is totally grounded in faith...it is a supernatural claim and cannot ever be proven by science.

For whatever reason, that universe converged at a definate point, and there was a massive exposion, the big bang,

lol, this is the part i like...."for whatever reason". There is no science...no logic...that can explain how our universe came into existence on its own. Here you are saying that it was caused. When you say "for whatever reason" you are postulating option #1. But that is the theist option as well. Anyone who postulates a caused universe is also postulating supernatural existence. Now I don't have a problem with that except that such an individual has no rational basis upon which to discredit theism in the name of science, lest he be a hypocrite.

forming a new universe with new laws of physics and rules of engagement. Perhaps new substances too.

this is nice...its pure faith...pure religion, untouchable by science. supernatural and faith-based. do i have a problem with it? Nope. to each human, his own faith and belief. just don't start calling it science and then excercising a double standard by putting down theism in the name of science when you hold to even a fuzzier supernatural soup.

We must not be so quick to jump to supernatural conclusions for things we cannot yet explain in the world around us.

but you just did with every single possibile origin for the universe that you cited. THe only origin for the universe (of the three possible ones) that is most in harmony with natural law is option #1, which is the one I hold to, and also the most simplistic one, btw.

[TMA_1]

proved my point empr. ;)

[emprworm]

proved what point?

[Acriku]

That you've stopped debating, and started childish arguing. TMA told me this and I just realized it, you aren't making a debate emprworm, you are arguing and going in circles a lot of times. And I had to stoop to arguing when I was posting in here as well, which is why I haven't posted in here for a bit. When you're ready for a debate emprworm, I'd be glad to try.

[emprworm]

That you've stopped debating, and started childish arguing. TMA told me this and I just realized it, you aren't making a debate emprworm, you are arguing and going in circles a lot of times. And I had to stoop to arguing when I was posting in here as well, which is why I haven't posted in here for a bit. When you're ready for a debate emprworm, I'd be glad to try.

dodge. thats all irrelevant. Ace's last point was back on the mark. He is a fine debator and his last post addressed the issues. something you haven't done much of, while TMA just likes to stir the pot, he shouldn't post here if he doesn't contribute. but accusatory comments in an attempt to dis-suade the topic is irrelevant, so they will be ignored.

[Acriku]

Any post that doesn't reply to the first post is a dodge? Anyways, emprworm read your posts - they are getting irate and repetitive. It is clear that this is straying from being a good debate.

[emprworm]

my response:

For anything that exists, we know the following:

It began or it did not.

If it began then it was caused or it was not.

In reference the universe the same holds true. The universe is not a mythical exception for natural things that exist, since it too is a natural thing that exists. Therefore the inescapable undeniable logic still applies to the universe:

It began or it did not.

If it began then it was caused or it was not.

thus, three...and only three....possiblilities. When atheists call one of them irrational they take upon themselves the burden of proof as to why they can single out one and call it irrational while promoting the other 2 as more rational.

[Acriku]

Now you may not remember this, but I've said before that I agree that those 3 options look logically sound. But I do not hold all the information, in which may lie another possibility. Many things can be logical to someone who is lacking the information to find out that it is actually illogical. Do you agree with this?

[TMA_1]

well you proved one of them. You dont listen or think before you act. It took you about two minutes to respond.

You also try to intimidate people and back them into corners. This can be seen as rude and uncouth.

"Logic is more fundamental than science. Science assumes logic before it can even begin": Not always true empr, quantum

mechanics and other abstract sciences show that they way the lord made things seem vary illogical to us, but in reality are perfect for each setting and place. We dont always know the lord's logic.

"lol! ROFL! Something coming into existence without a cause is and forever will be supernatural": debates are not won by laughing at your apponent.

"like usual, Acriku, you refuse to engage the issue.": Again, not a way of winning, slandor is a cheap debate tactic."

I pick out you because you are the most opinionated. We both are believers in christ but we cant argue our faith into them. You take it too seriously. If it was just light banter than I would agree. even if it was a slip up, but you do it all the time! many people do on this site. Debate is never found in the fed2k forums.lol