Do you question your religious beliefs? Would you like to?

[Undone]

this could not be further from the truth. and there are a lot of scientists (or philosopher), whether religious or not, who are searching for that answer and motivated passionately and solely by science (or truth).

This is a legitimate question. Since scientism tells us that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven, what about that very proposition itself? Is it not self-refuting? How can I trust the very creed that scientism sets forth?

 

[Conga3]

To an atheist the BIG ANSWER is .... 'because...no big deal'.

this could not be further from the truth. and there are a lot of scientists (or philosopher), whether religious or not, who are searching for that answer and motivated passionately and solely by science (or truth).

...but I'l be honest, I haven't had big time discussions with practiced atheists before.

what is a 'practiced atheist'?

How bout this...

Are you an atheist?

If so, why do you exist? Is this something you enjoy considering? Or do you generally find the question irrelevant?

Depending on your answer will determine if you're a 'practiced atheist' or not.

 

[zoogs]

'atheism' as a descriptor is a little unfair. it sets out that 'theism' is the standard and 'atheism' and the anomaly or antithesis. therefore, 'atheists' are still being defined by 'theism' as the rejection of that. i would assume most 'atheist' would rather be described by what they believe rather than what the do not. i think most would prefer terms like 'rationalist' (not saying faith is irrational, but faith, by definition, asks you to believe in that which can not be proven. and the stronger the faith in the more irrational, the better), or 'naturalist'.

I think it's a completely fair descriptor. It doesn't ascribe to you any beliefs, teachings, ideals, whatsoever. It doesn't define you. If you'd like to be defined in another way - such as rationalist - then you can, but that isn't something exclusive to atheism.

To an atheist there is no given answer to the big questions. There are no big answers; only an entire vast scope of possibilty.

The very opposite of limiting.

Since scientism tells us that we should not believe any proposition that cannot be scientifically proven, what about that very proposition itself? Is it not self-refuting? How can I trust the very creed that scientism sets forth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

http://en.wikipedia....ientific_method

By the way, "scientism" doesn't tell us what to believe or not to believe. It's the only objective, repeatable process by which to model our universe and its parts.

If you can demonstrate that the physical laws which govern our world are arbitrary and inconstant, though, you may have struck a big blow at the scientific method as it's practiced. Otherwise, you're only hoping you have a sound argument, and hoping is a very important distinction.

 

[bennychico11]

T0 or T=0 is how a theoretical physicist would describe the event prior to the big bang - when time was zero.

Wouldn't that be time AT the Big Bang then? Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.

If we ask 10 atheists to describe what it means to be atheist... might we get 10 different versions? But the bottom line is you do not believe a 'god' created our universe with design or purpose in mind....correct?

Not quite. Again, it's only a response to a claim, "God X exists!" Being an atheist only means I don't believe in god X. It has nothing to do with design on the universe, purpose of my life, etc.

Now, as a result of my atheism (or response that I don't believe in god X)...it also may lead to not believing god X created the universe with design or purpose in mind. This is only because of the first premise; I don't believe in god X. It's much like how many theists might believe in a god, but believe he had no part in the creation of the universe. Or if he did, he just set the wheels in motion and there really is no purpose or design in mind.

Of course, it could get tricky by how you define "god."

To an atheist the BIG ANSWER is .... 'because...no big deal'.

I guess I'd have to ask what the BIG QUESTION is first before I respond with that. I don't see that you have asked me one yet. And not all atheists are going to give you the same answer.

I'm sure I could have an enjoyable conversation with someone about science and the origin debate who happens to be an atheist... I just find the fervent "belief" in the non-belief to be....well, boring and lacking imagination.

...but I'l be honest, I haven't had big time discussions with practiced atheists before.

Again, it's a belief in the non-belief. It's just a simple rejection of a single claim. I believe in all sorts of other things. Of course, as a skeptic too I reject claims about aliens visiting Earth, Lochness Monster, ghosts, a soul, etc. But doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I believe in a god. Many theists reject those same claims too.

 

[bennychico11]

what is a 'practiced atheist'?

How bout this...

Are you an atheist?

If so, why do you exist? Is this something you enjoy considering? Or do you generally find the question irrelevant?

Depending on your answer will determine if you're a 'practiced atheist' or not.

Are you an atheist? yes

If so, why do you exist? I exist because my parents had sex and through natural processes, I was born. Do you exist from a different process?

Is this something you enjoy considering? lol, I don't generally like to enjoy thinking about my parents having sex, no.

Or do you generally find the question irrelevant? I have a feeling you were meaning something different than "why do you exist", then...yes?

The word "practiced" typically defines someone who is an expert or customarily performs something....as in a practicing Catholic (one who follows the rules, customs, dogma of that particular faith). However, there are no tenants, rules, dogma to atheism. So to really say I'm a practicing atheist doesn't make sense to me.

 

[sd'sker]

'atheism' as a descriptor is a little unfair. it sets out that 'theism' is the standard and 'atheism' and the anomaly or antithesis. therefore, 'atheists' are still being defined by 'theism' as the rejection of that. i would assume most 'atheist' would rather be described by what they believe rather than what the do not. i think most would prefer terms like 'rationalist' (not saying faith is irrational, but faith, by definition, asks you to believe in that which can not be proven. and the stronger the faith in the more irrational, the better), or 'naturalist'.

I think it's a completely fair descriptor. It doesn't ascribe to you any beliefs, teachings, ideals, whatsoever. It doesn't define you. If you'd like to be defined in another way - such as rationalist - then you can, but that isn't something exclusive to atheism.

it does define you, by what you do not believe in and it presumes that 'theism' is the standard. 'theism' is the thesis and 'atheism' is the antithesis. theism is, then, a natural component to your dialectic, but atheism does not solely exist to contradict or argue with theism. i know it is semantics, but it does frame the issue.

 

[Conga3]

Wouldn't that be time AT the Big Bang then? Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.

No. T=0 represents "no time" or "before time", before the moment of the big bang. T as in "time" doesn't exist - as in "0"

=======================

We should dispel this notion that the label "atheist" only exists to distinguish them from "theists".

It's human nature to question what the heck is going on around here. Think about it...test, and find answers for those questions.

Regardless of your belief in a Deity, we can all agree that we exist in this universe. If you don't agree - go away.

Everyone's path is a bit different. We use different words, and emphasis different parts of our discoveries, but one thing remains true for all of us.

At some point, we are presented with a Question we cannot Answer.

There is no single BIG QUESTION to ask, because it's a bit different for all of us, based on how we get to it.

The same goes for our BIG ANSWERS.

But they all fall into the same realm... and that is represented with words and concepts like genesis/origin/t=0...etc.

----

My original point was atheists are boring and lack imagination. I meant it as a playful jab the the atheists who frequent the board.

bennychico11 helps me to illustrate that point by saying,

'Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.'

---

To me, I think there are only two sides of the fence you can eventually fall on in regards this.

You either entertain the idea (with varying degrees of certainty) of a Deity (theist) and continue to contemplate the significance of your role in this grand experiment ...

or you reject the concept of a Deity outright (atheist) and simply stop thinking about the unobservable how and the why altogether.

 

[sd'sker]

or you reject the concept of a Deity outright (atheist) and simply stop thinking about the unobservable how and the why altogether.

i just find it hard to believe that you think a person who does not believe in a deity could not be in absolute awe of the observable world and the history of existence. or be mesmerized by the meaning of life. or gleefully challenged at discovering their own belief system, moral code, and value system through intense study and introspection.

 

[Undone]

I agree with that post, Conga.

Nice to see others who see it that way.

"Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical" is an un-clever way of dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself. It needs an answer, at least to me anyway. But apparently millions are content not to ponder it.

That interests and confuses me greatly.

 

[sd'sker]

I agree with that post, Conga.

Nice to see others who see it that way.

"Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical" is an un-clever way of dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself. It needs an answer, at least to me anyway. But apparently millions are content not to ponder it.

That interests and confuses me greatly.

do you wonder what was before god? what created god? why is there a god? or are you dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself?

 

[Undone]

I agree with that post, Conga.

Nice to see others who see it that way.

"Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical" is an un-clever way of dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself. It needs an answer, at least to me anyway. But apparently millions are content not to ponder it.

That interests and confuses me greatly.

do you wonder what was before god? what created god? why is there a god? or are you dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself?

Yes, yes, yes, and no.

You'll not hear me say that that question is equally perplexing. I was commenting on bennychico's response.

 

[sd'sker]

I agree with that post, Conga.

Nice to see others who see it that way.

"Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical" is an un-clever way of dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself. It needs an answer, at least to me anyway. But apparently millions are content not to ponder it.

That interests and confuses me greatly.

do you wonder what was before god? what created god? why is there a god? or are you dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself?

Yes, yes, yes, and no.

You'll not hear me say that that question is equally perplexing. I was commenting on bennychico's response.

fair enough.

 

[zoogs]

It's human nature to question what the heck is going on around here. Think about it...test, and find answers for those questions.

Yes.

And either acknowledge there is something that is unknowable, or use imagination to fill in the gaps. Your black & white sides of the fence is incorrect. It's possible to be curious without leaping to unsupportable conclusions of convenience. Millions are content not to ponder it? Hell of a broad stroke. Millions are content not to simply create an answer when we don't have the tools to observe one. Science is really the pursuit to answer the great mysteries that we ponder.

I'll say this, if the universe was created by a higher power, it is extremely unlikely to be a human-centric one.

 

[Conga3]

or you reject the concept of a Deity outright (atheist) and simply stop thinking about the unobservable how and the why altogether.

i just find it hard to believe that you think a person who does not believe in a deity could not be in absolute awe of the observable world and the history of existence. or be mesmerized by the meaning of life. or gleefully challenged at discovering their own belief system, moral code, and value system through intense study and introspection.

You misread or I failed to make that point clear.

Unobservable. I know it's technically not a word...but you get my meaning hopefully.

 

[Conga3]

It's human nature to question what the heck is going on around here. Think about it...test, and find answers for those questions.

Yes.

And either acknowledge there is something that is unknowable, or use imagination to fill in the gaps. Your black & white sides of the fence is incorrect. It's possible to be curious without leaping to unsupportable conclusions of convenience. Millions are content not to ponder it? Hell of a broad stroke. Millions are content not to simply create an answer when we don't have the tools to observe one. Science is really the pursuit to answer the great mysteries that we ponder.

I'll say this, if the universe was created by a higher power, it is extremely unlikely to be a human-centric one.

I would argue an atheist who is curious about the unobservable and entertains the possibility of a Deity when considering - without picking one as a convenient question filler-, is not an atheist.

...but words are hard and I could be wrong wrong wrong.