Forums → WEPR → Who else is an Atheist?

Hopefully, even though you are all inferior beings, you all understand the meaning of "Atheist". An atheist is ANTI-RELIGION, like myself, while an AGNOSTIC is "I don't give, it does not matter, etc."

I hope you realize that this idiotic topic is extremely insulting to REAL Atheists and religious people.

sigh @woody707

If your going to try to argue with somebody on a scientific level at least get your facts right. First off you failed to address my main point which was that we are finding HIGHER LEVELS of redshift. Since you apparently don't understand the dopler effect, I'll try to put in in layman's terms. Stuff is moving away from us faster. From this it can be drawn that the universe's expansion is accelerating. If the "Big Bang" did happen that would mean that the largest acceleration would be experienced at the moment of the Big Bang, NOT several billion years afterwards. Now the observed data proves that the "Big Bang" is wrong... so instead of scraping the theory, the powers that be simple created "dark matter" and "dark energy" to cover up an obviously flaw in their theory. Also in addressing your point, scientists have already become VERY VERY close to seeing the creation of the universe. They can see up to (correct me if I'm wrong its been awhile since I've seen the figure) 3/1000ths of a second before it happened. Now if the Big Bang did happen, simply waiting 3/1000ths of a second would allow us to "see" it, which we can't, there appears to be a "wall" blocking us from seeing any deeper. Once again logic says that the "Big Bang" DIDN'T HAPPEN and that the universe was created by other means, however the powers that be STILL cling to this theory, even though so many facts point to that fact that its wrong.

I am not picking a side, I need more facts, but...
donosld-
1- your assertion that objects are moving faster needs evidence for you to show and also it could be that we have stronger telescopes than in preceding decades which allow us to see more distant object which would also be moving away faster. Imagine a ripple of water representing mass and energy being flung from the Big Bang, choose a random point on it and another near by. Now imagine them slowly separating. Then repeat this while choosing the second point being near the opposite end. They spread much faster.
2- Where do they have this 3/1000 of a second, need evidence
Woody- a stronger, more powerful telescope would be more useful than one sent farther into space to prove or disprove the Big Bang theory
Killertron- how is this topic insulting?

@necromancer

The information was gleaned off of posters and such that physics professors at my university had posted up on the walls in their building. Sorry I don't really think I'll be able to find these poster's online, but if you wish to find the information, a trip to Texas A&M university and a visit to the second floor of Heldenfels will show you my sources.

@killerton
rethink atheist- "a"-without "theist" (greek:theos)-a god
not anti-religon but without a god (or without belief in a god)

@Donosld

I'm open to new knowledge prove to me the big bang is false, then i'll believe you but personally i don't think what you said disproved it, since there is no friction it space it could be gaining inertia, or maybe the dark matter got shot far out and it's dragging the planets to go further.

Even if there was no friction, in order for mass to gain inertia (ie accelerate) it would have to be propelled by a force (F=ma). Also little known fact, THERE IS FRICTION in space. Space is not a "void" in the literal sense of the word, it does in fact contain a predicted 2 or 3 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter. (comparatively NOTHING to the density of atoms on earth but still, its there) Now we have attributed the force needed to accelerate the universe to "dark matter" and "dark energy". According to mainstream science if we convert all matter to energy with the equation E=mc^2, ALL of the observable universe, is 4% of the total "energy." 22% is energy in the form of "dark matter" and the remaining 74% is "dark energy". We have predicted that the universe's expansion is accelerating due to this "dark matter" and "dark energy." And just a sidenote to necromancer the majority of the scientific community agrees that the universe's acceleration is expanding thats why they came up with dark matter and dark energy to begin with, I really shouldn't have to cite my source for that. We just came up with a theory that defies ALL logic, saying that EVERYTHING that we can see experience IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE is about 4% of the total... now I've heard some stupid stuff in my day but... Anyways I'm just saying that "dark matter" and "dark energy" have about just as much physical proof as the Creator. Neither can be seen, touched or experienced in any way other than the effects that they have on other things. Evidence for dark matter/energy is that something of the sort is necessary to explain why the universe is expanding. Evidence for the Creator is that something of the sort is necessary in order to explain why we are all here. Same amount of &quotroof" on both sides.

whew took the words outta my mouth

.............. I am christian and where i live there are a lot of people who dont like me cause i am christian so i have it hard

i am a muslim.

and i was wondering what is a "atheist"

ehh, I have no religion, people sometimes complain about it since I'm agnostic (believes what i want to believe) but its kinda wrong for people to try and "convert" people into a religion

@sokumon
atheist- "a"-without "theist" (greek:theos)-a god
put the two together we have, without a god (or without belief in a god)

(yes i am repeating myself, but its a post to tell him to look either way)

<------ CHRISTIAN (one of the few smart people on AG -.-)

I'm a mild atheist.

More of an Agnostic.

Need to see proof before I go basing my life on something / someone.

@redbedhead
Seriously? I think you should adress your issue of conceit, before destroying the christian image, its already tattered as it is.