Atheists!

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
I would argue that God would be needed to start the Big Bang. Those gases had to originate from somewhere. Gases or anything else for that matter don't just pop out of nothingness.

No matter how you look at it, you needed someone (God) to start it.

There were no gasses around at the big bang. Not until primordial nucleosynthesis did you have any atoms at all.

On topic: we don't need God to start it. And can someone give me some evidence that it is being maintained or "sustained in an intelligent manner" at all?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
[b]When God is removed as the Creator, something else takes His place.


I disagree. You and I live in the same universe Freaky, we inhabit the same planes of existence. I just deny your imaginary friend, on grounds of parsimony. I need nothing to take his place. The existence of God, for example, doesn't preclude the Big Bang. However, the existence of the Big Bang does rather negate the need for a God.[/b]

And once we let go of the notion of the universe as a thing-itself (rather than as the totality), we can, I think, let go of the notion that the universe-itself is an effect in need of a cause. Causality is a feature of the universe, and whatever the cause of the BB, there is neither need nor justification for looking “outside” (ouch!) the universe to find it.

Originally posted by vistesd
And once we let go of the notion of the universe as a thing-itself (rather than as the totality), we can, I think, let go of the notion that the universe-itself is an effect in need of a cause. Causality is a feature of the universe, and whatever the cause of the BB, there is neither need nor justification for looking “outside” (ouch!) the universe to find it.

I feel that "ouch" brother.

I also totally see you point. It's quite subtle though, and definitely not for all minds here.

Originally posted by eagleeye222001
I would argue that God would be needed to start the Big Bang.

Then you don't understand it.

Why not go out and read a book on the subject. Starrman has recently advocated Hawkins' "Universe in a nutshell", which I've only heard positive reviews about.

Originally posted by whodey
Who says God merely started it all and then hid behind a tree? Perhaps he is holding it all together a well?

No, it's the pixies who are holding it together - with the help of leprechauns, of course.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, it's the pixies who are holding it together - with the help of leprechauns, of course.

I didn't make the topic to debate who made the earth! That lies entirely in whether your atheist or not...

Originally posted by Ghettosanta
I didn't make the topic to debate who made the earth! That lies entirely in whether your atheist or not...

I know, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the theist's position.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Then you don't understand it.

Why not go out and read a book on the subject. Starrman has recently advocated Hawkins' "Universe in a nutshell", which I've only heard positive reviews about.

I liked "Universe in a Nutshell" as well, throw another positive review on the pile.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Like Freaky, I'm not so sure about the "trying to explain things in terms of human thoughts and experience" bit, perhaps more of a "trying to explain things within human 'sensibilities' and with human psychology" might be a better description. Thoughts Bill?

Well, yes, perhaps I didn't explain it that well. Personification. A tiger is not a vicious killer - it does what it must, and sentiment, emotion and feelings don't come into the equation. Now in the need to explain and understand the world, life and intelligence, most people try to do so in terms of causality. Which in most cases requires a God, but a God that is understandable and therefore must be somewhat human in thought, feeling and even form. It's very comforting to have a God. It gives us a warm and cocoony feeling to believe in a God that is somewhat like us.

I have a problem with this kind of God as we struggle to even understand the "mind" of the common cat.

Originally posted by Ghettosanta
I didn't make the topic to debate who made the earth! That lies entirely in whether your atheist or not...

I grew up in a largely irreligious family although my mother is something of a believer. In my early teens I explored religion, went to church, got nothing from it and abandoned it, wavering between atheism and agnosticism. In later years I married a woman who felt I needed religion, got dragged off to charismatic churches and Bible study. Needless to say, that didn't last too long and neither did the marriage.
That said, I believe in Christian ethics which are good.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

[b]That is the problem with religion - it attempts to explain things in terms of human thoughts and experience.
This is where you are incorrect. Assuming you have lumped the Bible in with all religions, your characterization fails. While the Bible does accomodate man's understanding in explaining some things, there are many things in which no accomodation is made whatsoever. For instance:
"In beginning, God..."[/b]

The fourth word is "...created..." which lies at the heart of the fundamental human belief that everything must have a cause. And when we run out of causal explanations there is a God which neatly rounds it all off and therefore we don't need to think further.

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
There are too many threads on the definition of nothingness and the existance of reality, etc, so lets not get into that for the moment, although it is my belief that it is explainable without God, and yours that it is not, let us just leave that alone for now.

Give me some examples of how the universe is sustained in an "intelligent manner". I don ...[text shortened]... telligent manner", so that does not need a God to explain it. Give me evidence I'm wrong.

Give me evidence I'm wrong.
Laws, for instance.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Give me evidence I'm wrong.
Laws, for instance.[/b]

Isn't that your interpretation though Freaky?
You look at the laws that govern the universe as manifesting some sort of 'intelligence', I look at them as merely natural processes.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I know, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the theist's position.

You have no proof WHATSOEVER of a higher power. You therefore have no proof of god. We, however, HAVE PROOF. WE BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST and our atheism proves that, with not one thing to tell us there is a god.

Heck, i could go say god told me to write this, and i could lie like that, so how can you prove it.

Science shall prove all.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Give me evidence I'm wrong.
Laws, for instance.[/b]

If by laws you are talking about things like gravity or thermodynamics, they are mathematical representations of how things behave. A law is a description of how things work, it doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't take intelligence to make it so they always hold true, just like you don't need God fiddling around with angles and lengths to make every right triangle fit the pythagorean theorem. It is just a description of how things are, and the purpose of science is to discover why things are that way.

Are you a proponent of Intelligent Falling?