Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why be an atheist???

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why be an atheist???

    "Every detail in the universe has been carefully arranged to make human life possible" (Anthropic Principle: from book Universe Harun Yahya)

    "If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?" (Paul Devies, Professor of Theoretical Physics)

    "In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously synchronize the beginning of their expansion? Who gave the command?" (Andre Linde, Professor of Cosmology)

    "There is a mind and purpose behind the universe. There are hints of that divine presence in how abstract mathematics can penetrate the Univese's secrets, which suggests that a rational mind created the world. Nature if find tuned to allow life and consciousness to emerge" (John Polkinghorne, British Physicist)

    In this forum we mostly have a discussion with a beforehand assumption that "God is the mightly creator of the Universe". I think most of us can't think of the world not been created by God, but being a product of blind chance...

    I want to ask what the arguments are for being an atheist. What is the reasoning behind not believing in God?



    #2

    Does believing in God really solve the mysteries of the origin of the universe? Or does it just give it a mystical angle and push the issue to beyond questioning (Where did God come from?) ?

    I believe the latter is the case. God thrives where free thought ends. Wake up, "believers".
    Simple ain't easy.

    Comment


      #3

      Oh and i forgot to ask, who are all these people you quote? What age did they live in, and what contributions did they make to science? (plenty of not-so-bright people are professors too).

      from the googling i did, i got no hits on a "Paul Devies". Andre Linde is someone who has been accused of practicing something thats not science. John Polkinghorne is a Reverend. And Harun Yahya is a well known propaganda writer. These are not people with an unbiased view of science and God.
      Simple ain't easy.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by queer:

        Does believing in God really solve the mysteries of the origin of the universe? Or does it just give it a mystical angle and push the issue to beyond questioning (Where did God come from?) ?

        believing in God does solve the problem: because there isn't any other solution to the problem.

        Just follow this argument:

        1. everything in this world/universe has a cause. that's a fact! you cannot mention one thing in the universe which doesn't have a cause.
        2. modern scientists too believe nr.1 and have postualted the theory of the Big Bang; and there is more and more proof that that theory is true.
        3. but even the Big Bang must have had a cause: there must have been something/someone which caused the Big Bang to happen
        4. That something/someone itself mustn't have a cause, because if it had a cause then its cause mustn't have a cause and so on: in the end we can say that there's something which in itslef doens't have a cause
        5. if something doesn't have a cause, it doesn't have a beginning
        6. if something doesn't have a beginning it doens't obey the laws of nature of space and time: no beginning automatically means no end!
        7. So here we have it: there is something which existed before tha Big Bang which doens't comply to the laws of nature and which will never cease to exist; instead: it itself governs the laws of nature!!!!!
        8. and now it's just a matter whether you call that something/someone Allah or God or something else, but there's no room for atheism
        Why so serious ... ?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by NeSCio:
          believing in God does solve the problem: because there isn't any other solution to the problem.

          Just follow this argument:

          1. everything in this world/universe has a cause. that's a fact! you cannot mention one thing in the universe which doesn't have a cause.
          2. modern scientists too believe nr.1 and have postualted the theory of the Big Bang; and there is more and more proof that that theory is true.
          3. but even the Big Bang must have had a cause: there must have been something/someone which caused the Big Bang to happen
          4. That something/someone itself mustn't have a cause, because if it had a cause then its cause mustn't have a cause and so on: in the end we can say that there's something which in itslef doens't have a cause
          5. if something doesn't have a cause, it doesn't have a beginning
          6. if something doesn't have a beginning it doens't obey the laws of nature of space and time: no beginning automatically means no end!
          7. So here we have it: there is something which existed before tha Big Bang which doens't comply to the laws of nature and which will never cease to exist; instead: it itself governs the laws of nature!!!!!
          8. and now it's just a matter whether you call that something/someone Allah or God or something else, but there's no room for atheism
          Queer and NesCio Thanx for posting...The reasoning NesCio points out is the same reasoning I agree upon. Could someone come up with other agruments for not believing...

          Queer: I am looking for background information on those people (I had found those quote's in a book), but apart from this my question still remains:

          Help me construct the reasoning behind not believing in God as creator of the Universe.

          [This message has been edited by Chanel (edited May 14, 2002).]

          Comment


            #6
            Couple of fallacies i noticed in the argument.

            >>if something doesn't have a beginning it doens't obey the laws of nature of space and time:<<

            How is that? Why wouldnt something that has been around forever not need to obey the laws of space and time?

            >>instead: it itself governs the laws of nature!!!!!<<

            Again, how can you make such a conclusion? Any particular reasons?

            The Big Bang doesnt imply there was nothing before it. It is quite likely that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are alternating phenomena that have been going on since forever, a simple oscillatory behavior, creating and destroying an entire universe each time they occur, mashing parameters like time and space into meaningless entities.

            Man brings in God because he fears the unknown, and would like to have someone in his favor in the murky areas - the reason people today believe in the Creator is the very same as why stone age man worshipped fire.
            Simple ain't easy.

            Comment


              #7
              The way some Most Religions interpret it, God becomes an expression of the fear of the unknown.
              The most notable thing about Motheistic Religions is how like a political party they are!!!!

              That is, if you believe THEIR concept of GOd and THEIR Prophet and join them all is forgiven!!!

              Atleast in Hinduism you can sit and debate these things if you want to!!

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Chanel:


                I want to ask what the arguments are for being an atheist. What is the reasoning behind not believing in God?


                There is no reasoning behind not believing in God. There is also no rational reasoning TO believe in God.

                Comment


                  #9

                  You grant that God is a Creator and then you ask about who created Him, making Him both Creator and created in the same sentence. Which is a contradiction!

                  The other side of the questions meaningless is that you imagine the creator as being subject to the laws which govern his creatures.

                  Causation is a Law for us who live in space and time. God, who created space and time, is necessarily transcendent in relation to both and it is an error on our part to think that he is bound by either by them or by their laws. It is God who created the law of causation and we cannot consider Him as subject to the Law he Created.

                  In this sophistry, you are like those dolls that, seeing they move by springs, imagine that the human who made them must also derive his motion from the action of springs!

                  If they were told that he is self-moved, they would retort that it is impossible for anything to move spontaneously since everything in their world is moved by a spring.

                  Just like them, you cannot imagine God exists in His own Essence, with no need of an efficient cause; and this is because you see everything around you in need of such a cause!

                  The mind cannot comprehend infinite realities and that it is by nature fitted only to apprehend particulars.

                  God was known by conscience, not by reason.

                  Just as our thirst for water is a proof that it exists, our yearning for justice is proof to us that a just Being exists.

                  It is the same as saying that light indicates day and it would be a lopsided argument to claim that day proves the existence of light!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Buddhists do not consider God essential or relevent for 'Nirvana', and because of that it is sometimes called athesitic. There are an awful lot of buddhists. Also most Chinese do not consider God essential or relevent. I wonder why?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by queer:
                      Couple of fallacies i noticed in the argument.

                      >>if something doesn't have a beginning it doens't obey the laws of nature of space and time:<<
                      How is that? Why wouldnt something that has been around forever not need to obey the laws of space and time?


                      according to Einstein's theory and the superstring theory: time was created toghether with the Big Bang: if there was something before the BigBang it per definition doesn't follow time! and thus space
                      every law of nature was "created" with the BigBang: before that there weren't any laws of Nature, at least no law as we know it today. So, any thing existing before the BigBang doesn't comply to these laws

                      >>instead: it itself governs the laws of nature!!!!!<<

                      Again, how can you make such a conclusion? Any particular reasons?


                      If the thing before the BigBang caused the NigBang it invariably must have also been the cause of everything which was a consequense of the BigBang: and one of the consequenses of the BigBang was the creation of the Law of Nature

                      The Big Bang doesnt imply there was nothing before it. It is quite likely that the Big Bang and the Big Crunch are alternating phenomena that have been going on since forever, a simple oscillatory behavior, creating and destroying an entire universe each time they occur, mashing parameters like time and space into meaningless entities.

                      even then there must have been a "first" time

                      [/B]
                      Why so serious ... ?

                      Comment


                        #12
                        There is A god. Why need to proove it? I dont argue with people about the basis of god. If Allah really wanted people to know about him, he would do something drastic. But then again, Allah doesnt need us tiny beings, but we surly need him.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Queer has hit the nail right on the head.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            On God, let me narrate the following scenario from one of the Dramas in Telugu Literature.
                            The character makes the following argument.
                            He is supposedly in the presence of God(Like Judgement Day for Muslims and Christians) and here's what he says..

                            "Oh GOd I accept you caused the creation of everything including me. I have a question however.

                            Was your act of creation conscious or unconscious?
                            If it was a conscious act, since you created me the way I was, I am not responsible for my acts. YOU are!!!!

                            If it is NOT a conscious creation, then you have no reason to hold me accountable for my actions because you were not responsible for the act of creation. It happened despite you!!!"

                            What is the fallacy in the above argument?

                            [This message has been edited by Andhra (edited May 15, 2002).]

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Who made God?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X