Atheists, where did the universe come from?

[Remté]

It must have had a starting point, no?

 

[Altfish]

It must have had a starting point, no?

Same place God came from?

 

[Remté]

Same place God came from?

What is that?

 

[Altfish]

What is that?

We don't know - but scientists are working on where the universe came from.

 

[Remté]

We don't know - but scientists are working on where the universe came from.

And that suffices for you?

 

[ratiocinator]

It must have had a starting point, no?

What do you mean by a "starting point"? If we take general relativity seriously, the universe is a four-dimensional object and time is just a direction through it (or directions - it is different for different observers).

I have no idea why the universe exists, if that's what you mean.

Just to point out: adding a god (or gods) doesn't help with fundamental question of existence. A god (or gods) that create a universe is just as unexplained and mysterious as just a universe...

 

[Altfish]

And that suffices for you?

Indeed.
If we knew everything what a boring place it would be. What would scientists do? All research cancelled?

Atheists don't invent explanations, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer rather than "God did it"

 

[ratiocinator]

"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong."

-- Richard Feynman​

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It must have had a starting point, no?

Not necessarily. When talking about the origin of all things - including all natural laws - it's practically meaningless to ascribe presumptions based on natural laws. The most common answer you'll probably get in this thread is "I don't know".

 

[Remté]

"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong."

-- Richard Feynman​

It's certain you believe tens of thousands of answers which might be wrong, whether you find it interesting or not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's certain you believe tens of thousands of answers which might be wrong, whether you find it interesting or not.

It's also certain that there are tens of thousands of questions for which you would answer "I don't know". Why not this one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that suffices for you?

It is the only proper answer right now. God did it is not an explanation for anything. It is no different from saying Pixies did it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's certain you believe tens of thousands of answers which might be wrong, whether you find it interesting or not.

"God did it" has a terrible track record. If one is concerned about being right or wrong that is the last answer that one should embrace.

 

[PureX]

Indeed.
If we knew everything what a boring place it would be. What would scientists do? All research cancelled?

Atheists don't invent explanations, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer rather than "God did it"

Atheists ought to keep in mind that "God" is just an easy way for people to conceptualize the big "I don't knows" in life so that they can deal with/relate to them. There's no need to see theism as an enemy ideology. The "enemy", if we really want to label them, is the blind authoritarianism, and the willful and deliberate ignorance that infects some expressions of theism. And keep in mind that these also infect every other human ideological activity. Not just religious activity.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And that suffices for you?

And if it doesn't, "therefore God"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Atheists ought to keep in mind that "God" is just an easy way for people to conceptualize the big "I don't knows" in life so that they can deal with/relate to them.

But many people don't conceptualize God in that way, and there are many who see God as a literal interventionist entity who provides absolute certainty to their moral values and directly imparts to them objectively true notions of the Universe. I have less issues with people conceptualizing "God" in the way you specify above (although I would question what the point of saying "God" rather than "I don't know" would be, if that's your conception of them).

There's no need to see theism as an enemy ideology.

Theism isn't an enemy ideology necessarily, but it is a belief that ought to be questioned and challenged, and in the specific cases where theism leads to further beliefs, values and actions that we disagree with it is doubly worth questioning and challenging.

The "enemy", if we really want to label them, is the blind authoritarianism, and the willful and deliberate ignorance that infects some expressions of theism.

You don't need to think of someone or something as an "enemy" in order to actively engage in disagreement with it.

And keep in mind that these also infect every other human ideological activity. Not just religious activity.

Agreed, but this is a religious forum where we specifically discuss religious views, so focus on religion tends to be a primary focus. We see an equal amount of this kind of talk in the political sections of the forum, so I don't think there's any general belief amongst atheists that religion is the only means of enforcing authoritarian attitudes or beliefs.

 

[PureX]

But many people don't conceptualize God in that way, and there are many who see God as a literal interventionist entity who provides absolute certainty to their moral values and directly imparts to them objectively true notions of the Universe. I have less issues with people conceptualizing "God" in the way you specify above (although I would question what the point of saying "God" rather than "I don't know" would be, if that's your conception of them).

Many people misconceptualize money as the embodiment of happiness, power, self-esteem, and even sex appeal. How people choose to misunderstand reality is endless. But that doesn't change the facts of the reality they choose to misunderstand.

Theism isn't an enemy ideology necessarily, but it is a belief that ought to be questioned and challenged, and in the specific cases where theism leads to further beliefs, values and actions that we disagree with it is doubly worth questioning and challenging.

They are questioned and challenged, even by theists. But not everyone applies the same criteria for winning or losing that challenge. Everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes reasonable evidence. For most people it's some version of "whatever works in the moment". (That's true of science, as well.)

You don't need to think of someone or something as an "enemy" in order to actively engage in disagreement with it.

Yet MANY (most, I think) atheists see religion as an "enemy" ideology because they don't bother to try and understand why theists choose to conceptualize reality as they do. And instead, they just insist that the theists way is "wrong" because it's not the atheist's way.

Agreed, but this is a religious forum where we specifically discuss religious views, so focus on religion tends to be a primary focus. We see an equal amount of this kind of talk in the political sections of the forum, so I don't think there's any general belief amongst atheists that religion is the only means of enforcing authoritarian attitudes or beliefs.

It's why I bring up the counter-point.

 

[Remté]

And if it doesn't, "therefore God"?

No need to rush ahead - I only asked if he is satisfied to reply the scientists are "working on it". After all by all appearances they will never be done working on it - not to mention during the poster's lifetime.

 

[Curious George]

Yet MANY (most, I think) atheists see religion as an "enemy" ideology because they don't bother to try and understand why theists choose to conceptualize reality as they do. And instead, they just insist that the theists way is "wrong" because it's not the atheist's way.

I think you see this as you want to insist that many (most in your opinion) atheists are wrong because their way is not your way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many people misconceptualize money as the embodiment of happiness, power, self-esteem, and even sex appeal. How people choose to misunderstand reality is endless. But that doesn't change the facts of the reality they choose to misunderstand.

I don't think it's fair to consider other people's conception of God a mischaracterization, unless you have definitive proof of exactly which conception of God is the true and accurate one. To me, the word "God" is generally a label that people can justifiably apply to many different things - I can't justifiably accuse any one of them of "mischaracterizing" God because I have no absolute or definite idea of what exactly "God" means or would be in reality beyond the definitions people present to me.

They are questioned and challenged, even by theists. But not everyone applies the same criteria for winning or losing that challenge. Everyone has their own ideas about what constitutes reasonable evidence. For most people it's some version of "whatever works in the moment". (That's true of science, as well.)

I would say that this is a fair assessment, but that's partly why I objected to your characterization of atheists as a general group.

Yet MANY (most, I think) atheists see religion as an "enemy" ideology because they don't bother to try and understand why theists choose to conceptualize reality as they do. And instead, they just insist that the theists way is "wrong" because it's not the atheist's way.

That is not my experience. Most of the time I observe atheists raising challenges to theist positions which simply aren't met. I'm sure there are plenty of narrow-minded atheists, but I certainly wouldn't say that they constitute "most" atheists.

Also, don't you think this attitude of yours is incongruent with your statement above that many people "mischaracterize" or "misunderstand" God? Is that not an example of your not understanding why people choose to conceptualize God in a way that is different to yours and a dismissal of their thinking just because it's different?