1.6% of the North American population says that 1.6% is too low an estimate of their numbers. Because research results show that’s almost exactly the number of people who adhere to their illogical, absurd and incoherent belief system (1.6% plus Hugo in Canada), atheists try to inflate their numbers by including agnostics and those who don’t go to Church as being of the same mind-set. One atheist even tried to run the number up to 15% of the population by saying all these people belong to the same group.
Ask an atheist if he is an agnostic (that God might exist) and he will of course say no.
Ask an agnostic if he is an atheist (knows that God doesn't exists) and he will of course say no.
Saying, “God might exist. I don’t know,” does not make someone an atheist.
Not attending Church does not make someone an atheist.
Yet, atheists try to lump them all into the same group for number’s sake.
Most people would never agree that:
Some things (eg. the first universe) can begin to exist without a cause
There can be an infinite regress of cause (Material infinite cannot exist)
Matter has existed for ever (2nd Law of Thermodynamics refutes this)
Everything (space, time, matter and energy) came from nothing by nothing.
Even though the less evidence you have for your position the more faith you have to have to believe it, atheists have staked their eternity on the above premesis.
"It can be said with absolute confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
. As repeatedly verified in its predictions, As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
. As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
. As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model."
Yet, because of the metaphysical implications of a universe that came from literally nothing, this 1.6% of the population is forced to reject the findings of science.
Talk about irony!
Atheists ask questions like, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” or “What caused an eternal being to begin to exist?” and think it makes them sound clever.
These are just a few of the things that make people shy away from even considering atheism. This 1.6% of the population have to pad the numbers because to accept that the vast majority of people see their world view as pathetic and stupid may cause them to reconsider.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hehe, I did told you that we do not agree on the various definitions. :)
ReplyDeleteAsk an atheist if he is an agnostic (that God might exist) and he will of course say no.
Yes a god might exist, but certainly not God with a big G, i.e. the Christian God. So am I an agnostic or atheist according to you?
Ask an agnostic if he is an atheist (knows that God doesn't exists) and he will of course say no.
Of course, nobody KNOWS, that's why we are all agnostic. Gnosticism concerns knowledge, not beliefs.
Saying, “God might exist. I don’t know,” does not make someone an atheist.
Actually yes, it does, because the person says that he/she does not believe the god in question to exist, i.e. non-belief, i.e a-theist, i.e. atheist. That's it.
If that person happens to believe that there is no god, then that would be what people call strong atheism, or Atheism with a big 'A'. But even then, I am not aware of any Atheists with a big 'A' that will claim to KNOW that there is no god. Anyway I would consider that foolish and I consider myself an atheist, so that's just weird...
"As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model"
ReplyDeleteLet's think about what that may mean exactly... "philosophically coherent"; a curious phrase. Basically what it means is that, since it makes sense to mak, It's common sense, it's philosophically coherent. (Creation that is, not big bang cosmology) The reason it's "philosophically coherent, is because mak cannot detach himself away from his "scientific" contention that everything must have a cause. And by the way, there is no such thing as the "standard big bang creation model" adding words into a theory, doesn't grant your beliefs permission to hitch a ride on the success of another theory.
Mak fails to realize that a cause, with respect to anything "beyond" space/time, is only an anthropomorphic idea that holds no value, and cannot be applied without an understanding as to what beginning means, in a model void of time. Unless you have an actual theory that supports it, and big bang cosmology, makes no claims on a beginning.
So Mak says, "because anything that begins, must have a cause" But what does begin mean, with respect to the singularity? with respect to a model of inflation? with respect to theories about quantum gravity?
Christians are quick to make assumptions. We first need sufficient reason to think our concept of "begins", applies to the universe. Now certainly, I dare not argue with big bang cosmology, that is not in dispute. But unlike what Mak seems to think, big bang cosmology does not suggest that "existence" began, just that it expands, just that it was once together. How do we go from condensed energy to creation?
Like Hugo said in a previous post,
"Give me ONE example of something that was created. Just one."
"Yet, because of the metaphysical implications of a universe that came from literally nothing, this 1.6% of the population is forced to reject the findings of science."
umm... no, what science? you mean, when you say everything must have a cause? are you referring to that "science"? And what metaphysical implications are you referring to? don't you really mean, the metaphysical influence our view has, CONTRASTED against yours? Because there are no metaphysical influences, except against the metaphysical, which isn't real.
By the way, all the fuss about atheism being a minority... what is the big deal? does a high percentage necessarily grant truth to a claim? because there are several countries where Christianity might be 1.6 percent. Perhaps Christianity is not true over there? I heard somewhere that the fastest growing belief is non-belief (in the U.S. and Brittain). I would not doubt that to be the case. maybe one of you can tell me whether thats true or not.
"Most people would never agree that:
ReplyDeleteSome things (eg. the first universe) can begin to exist without a cause
There can be an infinite regress of cause (Material infinite cannot exist)
Matter has existed for ever (2nd Law of Thermodynamics refutes this)
Everything (space, time, matter and energy) came from nothing by nothing."
Once upon a time most people would never have agreed that:
God doesn't create rainbows.
God doesn't cause earthquakes or hurricanes.
God doesn't cause disease.
The earth isn't flat.
The earth is considerably more than 6000 years old.
Humans evolved from another species.
All animals evolved from other species.
The earth revolves around the sun.
The earth is not the center of the universe.
There are billions of other galaxies in the universe.
Time slows down the faster you go, and you don't have to be anywhere near the speed of light to prove it.
Etc.
Many theories initially appear ludicrous. Eventually such theories are either proven false, revised based on additional data and experimentation, or proven true and accepted by the general public.
The alternative "God did it" theory, however, has never been proven true. Whenever a naturalistic cause is found for something previously attributable to God, another portion of the Bible moves from the literal to the figurative category, and God moves a little further upstream in the chronology of the universe. He's so far upstream now that science is having a hard time pushing him back further, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. It just means this push may take awhile.
Interesting that you only commented on what you think I mean by philosophically coherent and COMPLETELY ignored:
ReplyDelete. As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
. As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
. As concordant with empirical discoveries,
Are those things not important to you or just too risky to include?
"To begin" means exactly what you and I and everyone else knows that it means:
. It did not exist
. Now it does exist.
Name one thing? I'll name five:
1) Energy
2) Time
3) Matter
4) Space
5) Material life.
Throwing out the term anthropomorphic does nothing to change the fact that at one point, space, time, matter and energy did NOT exist, and now they do exist.
The question that you avoid is, "If God does not exist, why does anything exist?"
You actually need to put some thought into that. It's important.
At one point there was nothing material in existence. Did nothing decide to make everything come into being?
Okay Mak, try to pay attention...
ReplyDelete"Interesting that you only commented on what you think I mean by philosophically coherent and COMPLETELY ignored:
". As repeatedly verified in its predictions,"
". As corroborated by attempts at its falsification, "
". As concordant with empirical discoveries,"
"Are those things not important to you or just too risky to include?"
...Nope. It's not risky at all, given that I completely agree with big bang cosmology, and your conditions are merely describing that theory... sort of. Actually, what your trying to spin is your big bang "CREATION" model, that you sadly, just made up. I would never argue that big bang cosmology is not reliable as a predictive device. I didn't mention those things, because I don't disagree with them.
...Look, you seem to be confused about what the big bang theory is... or rather, what it is not. It IS NOT a theory about the initial state of the universe. IT IS a theory about the evolution of the universe from the point where we can describe its expansion under the laws of relativity. So praise and retort all the big bang cosmology you want, but the theory has nothing to do with your religion, it has nothing to do with "creation", whatsoever. Of course, for you, it was certainly a step up from the steady state models. lol.
"To begin" means exactly what you and I and everyone else knows that it means:
". It did not exist
". Now it does exist.
"Name one thing? I'll name five:
"1) Energy
"2) Time
"3) Matter
"4) Space
"5) Material life.
"Throwing out the term anthropomorphic does nothing to change the fact that at one point, space, time, matter and energy did NOT exist, and now they do exist"
...Well, numbers 1 through 5 are all different forms of the same thing. Since it all boils down to energy, I'll answer your question with a question. When did energy begin?
"The question that you avoid is, "If God does not exist, why does anything exist?"
...The question is nonsensical, it assumes that a reason is applicable to space/time. Ergo, it assumes the validity of a contention only valid under the ideologies that subscribe to theological "meaning".
If magic ain't real how come the universe exists?
ReplyDeleteAnd how do magnets work?
MAGIC.