Why must that be the case? One might also suggest that in a multiverse the number of unrealized possibilities rises exponentially.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Athiesm and disproving God
- Thread starter xkatz
- Start date
This strikes me as a bit of a straw man. I suspect that the overwhelming majority of atheists believe, on the contrary, that "God isn't real and science contradicts holy scriptures."
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
You won't really find that. You'll find most atheists, at least the ones who are most likely to come to forums like this, who will say "there is no evidence I have seen for any god, hence I do not believe in one". The clear and unambiguous fact that modern science proves these holy books are factually wrong has little, if anything to do with that.
Reread my post. You clearly did not understand it.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
most, Hoyle principally who coined the term 'Big Bang' in trying to refute Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' theory-
but later atheist theories, steady state, big crunch etc were also of that same explicit rationale: no creation = no creator.
All have been debunked where testable
If photons don't hit your retina, you don't see. If the air pressure against your eardrum doesn't vary, you don't hear. If physical pressure isn't exerted against you, you don't touch. If the receptors in your nose don't take in chemicals, you don't smell.
Every way that you have to take in information about the world involves physical processes.
When you say "atheistic", are you referring to atheists positing theories, or to anyone (both heathens & believers) positing theories which don't involve a god? I ask because even Lemaitre's work needs no god to arrive at the "primeval atom" proposal. Moreover, he started with general relativity, which also had no place for a god, & could be called "atheistic".
Certainly, you'll find some atheists who reject some theories which comport with Xian theology (& also verifiable scientifically), but I question attributing this to atheists in general. Moreover, only recently did the Pope declare the big bang (ne cosmic egg) theory real. I see a more complicated & varied picture than atheists-are-this-way & theists-are-that-way.
It is the future of most (if not all) existing theories to be debunked.
It's how the scientific method proceeds.
Last edited:
Underhill
Well-Known Member
I would say both is actually true for me.
I started down this path for much the same reasons as everyone else. Raised in a christian home I saw so much that made me question the behavior of christians, then as I read the bible I realized that the god of the bible wasn't someone I wanted to follow, even if he did exist.
Since that time, I have educated myself and everything I have found in science tells me that I made the right choice.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
Guy Threepwood said:
That last bit is most critical. Where testable is a misnomer in this case. Very few aspects of origin theory is testable. We know a few important details (we have an expanding universe, etc...) but anything we come up with will at best be a theory and more likely, a hypothesis.
But therein lies the problem also with Christianity. They are attempting to take something that is not just unlikely, but impossible, and claim it as a theory. I long ago realized creation is not a theory, but a hypothesis and even that is stretch as a hypothesis should be at the least an "educated" guess.
Christianity is a belief which requires no evidence. The bible even says so. "Faith is the evidence of things hoped for." It shouldn't require evidence. But that doesn't stop people from trying to shoehorn science into a religious belief. This is one bit of the bible I agree with.
To all atheist who wish to answers this:
How come so many atheist claim God isn't real because science contradicts with holy scriptures (ie The Bible, Koran, etc)? If you claim these scriptures are man-made, doesn't that make the argument of God existing invalid because what is in the scriptures is written by people and cannot be consider evidence of god? Do you get what I am saying? What other reasons do you atheist don't believe in god and why?
(No trolling please)
They are somehow educated so. Modern education excludes God from any education. As a result, people today are educated to be secular.Modern education is the Mark of the Beast.
Which god should schools teach?
I don't mean to say that any God should be taught. I simply point out the fact that today's people are educated to be secular.
Actually, if you are willing to search it's not difficult to identify which God is possibly true.
There are so many which could be true. I even doubt that any could be proven not true.
As a fundie friend (Baptist) once explained his approval of secular education to me, he distrusted having schools teach religion because they'd teach some watered down common denominator politically correct version. Tis better to not do something than to do something half arsched.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Um... none of them?
The problem with humans is that they don't know how a truth is identified (generally speaking).
There are basically 5 kinds of truth in this world. 4 out of the 5 can be conveyed efficiently by human witnessing. Some of them can and can only be conveyed by human witnessing.
If you understand the above, you will notice that Christianity is the only one which delivered from and is emphasized on witnessing. So it all boils down to how much you understand about what witnessing is.
Isaiah 6:9
Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving
Religious witnessing, just like witnessing in the legal system, isn't reliable enuf for me to establish "truth". But even if one believes witnessing meets that standard, all religions have criteria which make their faith the one for them. The impossibility of picking a universal standard makes teaching religion as truth a bad idea for schools which must teach all kids of many different beliefs. So I argue that schools should deal with the secular, & only believers folk should teach their own religion.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I'm talking about atheist theories- presented by atheists to support an atheist view of the universe.
I agree, Lemaitre's theory was not theistic or atheistic- it was scientific. He himself went out of his way to make this point, telling the Pope directly to knock it off with the victory lap. As mentioned elsewhere, Hoyle was not able to make this distinction between his beliefs and his theory, because like many atheists, he refused to acknowledge his belief as a belief at all.
many further atheist theories - again presented by atheists to support an atheist model- big crunch, multiverses. m theory etc etc were/are based on the exact same rationale as previous atheist theories- 'no creation = no creator'
obviously there are exceptions, but there is a clear pattern
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
I would argue that the religious are one group in particular with no clue how "truth" is identified. You cannot find "truth" by being told that something is true. Discovering that something is factually true requires going farther than listening to someone making unsubstantiated claims, laced with emotional invectives. Just because believing a thing makes you feel good, that doesn't prove that that thing is actually true. Religious beliefs are unbelievably shallow, they rely on emotion, not evidence. One only has to look at the kind of things that religions teach to see how ridiculous a lot of it is.
And yes, Christianity and other religions do emphasize witnessing. That is not a strength. That isn't something to be proud of. It's just evidence that the things that Christianity and other religions teach are nonsense. If it wasn't, they'd have more to present and wouldn't have to rely on word-of-mouth retelling of unsupported stories and emotional coddling. We do understand what witnessing is, it's the last stop on the irrationality train when you've run out of other, more intelligent things to say.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Lemaitre's was the only cosmonogical theory that was both testable and validated, the one that the overwhelming majority of atheist academia rejected explicitly for it's biblical implications
that's almost word for word how many atheists described Lemaitre's theory
'pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator'-- 'for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms'
This was far more about shoe-horning academically fashionable atheist beliefs into science, the theistic ones got there in the end the hard way; through scientific method.