Over my short time here at AG I've noticed that almost all threads dealing with religion end the same way: Does God exist? I've decided to create a thread dealing strictly with that debate. In saying/supporting either side be specific, and you may be as broad as including every religion to as specific as reading a sentence out of the bible. Atheism areas to consider: -Big Bang theory -Evolution -Dinosaurs -Aliens(?) Religion areas to consider -Anything that makes people believe in something religious.
No, atheism is NOT a philosophy. What is so impossible for you people to understand about atheism?
If you do not believe that Godzilla is real then do you follow a particular philosophy called agodzillaism? Or if you don't believe the moon is made of cheese then is there a particular philosophy of alunarquesonessism? No, you simply do not assert as a fact something which has no proof. If you want to call THAT a particular 'hilosophy' then fine, it's 'natural philosophy' aka science.
Did I not understand correctly? If I did, did you mean to say baldness is to hair?
Basically, what I think he's saying is that, if different religions are different hair colors, then atheism is being bald, rather than being its own hair color. It is the absence of a religion, not a religion.
Oooh are we talking about Punnet Squares? Wait, no you're not. Dang, that would be interesting talk. Well, at any rate, it would be highly inaccurate to assert that Atheists belong in a group, much less being a part of a cult or philosophy. Yes, we all assert that there is no such thing as a deity, to a point, but it's not like we all have the same notions. We are independent people, though we have to correct ourselves every once in a while.
You could put all the people in the world that are not reading a book at the current time in a group, you could also put all the people that are not driving in a group. Same goes with the people that do not believe in a god can be classified, and it's called atheism.
Now here is the thing. All the people that are not reading a book are not only playing video games. Some are taking a walk, some are eating, some are watching tv, some are even sleeping.
So yea, if you guys understand my metaphor you will know that what I mean is that if your an atheist, it doesn't mean you have to go with the first alternative like the big bang or evolution, most do, because it's one of the only logical answers out there, but some don't.
Take me, I personalty don't believe in the Big Bang, but in an other theory that has some resemblance to it.
Take me, I personalty don't believe in the Big Bang, but in an other theory that has some resemblance to it.
May I ask you what you believe? Today I heard something on television. It was about the string theory. One guy said that the Big Bang could be the result of two branes colliding (because they are attracted by a weak force). So the kinetic energy of the branes became radiation (and other energy forms like mass). And that was the Big Bang. According to them this happens about all trillion years or something like that. That means that there are several universes.
Here's something on Wikibut it's not very long and not really detailed. Oh look, we're back on topic^^
As pointed out there are even atheist religions, so atheist vs. religion doesn't work. We could do Atheism vs. Theism (lack of belief in a god or gods vs. belief in a god or gods)
Recent observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating or speeding up, like the graph's red curve, which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the âdark energyâ. Unlike gravity which works to slow the expansion down, dark energy works to speed the expansion up. If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever. There is a growing consensus among cosmologists that the total density of matter is equal to the critical density, so that the universe is spatially flat. Approximately 3/10 of this is in the form of a low pressure matter, most of which is thought to be ânon-baryonicâ dark matter, while the remaining 7/10 is thought to be in the form of a negative pressure âdark energyâ, like the cosmological constant. If this is true, then dark energy is the major driving force behind the fate of the universe and it will expand forever exponentially. Source
I did not know that grimml, it makes the Big Bounce indeed unlikely, but would the Universes that existed in the past have that kind of energy? But it is true that in a default position, I could not assume that, and the Big Bounce theory would be unlikely, if not impossible.
I did not know that grimml, it makes the Big Bounce indeed unlikely, but would the Universes that existed in the past have that kind of energy? But it is true that in a default position, I could not assume that, and the Big Bounce theory would be unlikely, if not impossible.
You might want to watch "A Universe from Nothing" by Dr. Lawrence Krauss. You can find it on youtube. It covers the formation and make up of our universe, and also illustrates why, given our current understanding of our universe, the 'big bounce'/'big crunch' are not possible.
Thanks Mage. I was doing too many things at once and submitted before I put up the link. I blame medication, because there is no way that I am that forgetf... what were we talking about again?
OK how about a theist tries to prove their God now and everyone points out that they don't have an argument and that their faith has no proof what-so-ever.
