Athiest theories? (Buddhism, atheist, God, Atheism, Articles)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Pah

There is evidence from socio-evolution that lends credence that God - all divinity - is a man-made arrtifact.

That man imagined God is not evidence against God. Imagination, not deduction, seems to be the motive force of scientific discovery, and members of our species have imagined any number of things that proved substantive.

[michel]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

Even though I'm a theist, I think I would agree with the others. The burden of proof is on the theists, not the atheists. After all, we're the ones that are suggesting that something that can't be proven exists. As Pah mentioned, there'sevidence that our cultures are the thing that make up a perception of diety. I believe I read something awhile back about how, as we were evolving, the hemispheres of the brain didn't work together, as they do now. Thus, people would hear voices in their head, and it's only natural that (in order to cope) they attributed it to other, perhaps divine, creatures. I don't know if this was the reason for the establishment of religion, but it sounds like it might've been. So if a theist is arguing the 'I'm right' position, they must prove that there's a god in order to try to disprove the other person. An atheist, in my mind, doesn't have to prove that there's no god, since there's no concrete evidence that there is one.

I feel like I'm betraying the theists...

Of course you are not, Feathers, I have already said it myself in this thread; the least we can do is to be honest. You are quite right, the onus is on us..........

[C&N]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

Even though I'm a theist, I think I would agree with the others. The burden of proof is on the theists, not the atheists. After all, we're the ones that are suggesting that something that can't be proven exists. As Pah mentioned, there'sevidence that our cultures are the thing that make up a perception of diety. I believe I read something awhile back about how, as we were evolving, the hemispheres of the brain didn't work together, as they do now. Thus, people would hear voices in their head, and it's only natural that (in order to cope) they attributed it to other, perhaps divine, creatures. I don't know if this was the reason for the establishment of religion, but it sounds like it might've been. So if a theist is arguing the 'I'm right' position, they must prove that there's a god in order to try to disprove the other person. An atheist, in my mind, doesn't have to prove that there's no god, since there's no concrete evidence that there is one.

I feel like I'm betraying the theists... [img]images/smilies/frown.gif[/img]

You are totally right, the burden of proof should be on the theists, because asking an atheist to find the "Not-Proof" would not be possible. But I will say this, just because we can't see radiation, for example, doesn't mean it isn't there. We have machines that detect them, so until we make a machine or something that can detect god, whatever substance he may be, we will never know. Now if we can all agree that the state of human technology is not at it's peak, then we it is safe to say that we just haven't built this "God" machine yet, so until we do, through reason is where we must make decisions, which leads me to the creation of the universe. If there is ever a place I look to for knowing that there is a God, it is the creation. I don't know if the big bang theory is still "The Theory" that they all use, but I can say these two things about it (I assume that atheists generally accept science as their creation).

1) It was originally a christian concept.

2) Where did that extremely dense ball or whatever come from that exploded one random day that made the universe as we know it?

Since the basis of that belief to me is faulty, I don't really care about the rest of it (unless somebody later on cares to explain it in detail, or point out an error which i may have made). Now I can't prove the existence of god, because I don't have a God machine, and my reasoning skills are garbage, but at least I can find the "Not Proof" of the big bang theory. Sure there is still apparently radiation in space that is evidence of an explosion of extreme magnitudes, but that radiation can be from other sources too, maybe when god created the universe, there was some waste or something left behind. I don't really know.

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

One theory athiests like to use is called common sense... I know this is just a theory to the theists, but its a great one and they should try it sometime! =)

But on a more serious note.... I think most people who are athiest aren't athiest because of any certain theories, but more because of a lack of theories. More percisely a lack of proof...

Where is the logic in the big bang theory, or any other scientific theory of creation? I know science is logic based, but the screwed up somewhere around this area. I was going to go into evolution on this post too, but I think i am already too off topic to go there, unless somebody wants it to go there ( the reason that I mentioned evolution is that the Genesis version of creation and evolution mix together pretty well).

Also, you mention a lack of proof. So do you just float around day after day without a care on how you came to exist, or can you logically explain to everyone your version of how we came to be, or why the existence of God is not logical.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by C&N

I don't really care...my reasoning skills are garbage... I don't really know.
.

I agree with these points.

C&N, laziness is no excuse for ignorance. Please post again once you have finished your homework.

[C&N]

Originally Posted by westifer

I would like to know some of the theories athiests use to disprove the theory that there is a God. If you could post info or give me a good site I would be grateful.

That is what the topic of the thread is, and I basically asked how atheists think the world was created (I know a lot of atheists that don't care much for science, and are just undecided), and you come out with a stupid post that has no relevence of anything, trying to make me look like a fool.

[C&N]

So what do you want me to clear up exactly, unless you just were trying to be funny

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by C&N

2) Where did that extremely dense ball or whatever come from that exploded one random day that made the universe as we know it?

Faint meant do your homework on this statement... Its just completely wrong. Search the forums for threads on the big bang... The theories are stated there.

Originally Posted by C&N

Where is the logic in the big bang theory, or any other scientific theory of creation?

Lets see.... theres evidence that supports the scientific theories.... There is no evidence that supports the creation theory (ok, scientific evidence) So what would be more logical to believe in your eyes?

Originally Posted by C&N

Also, you mention a lack of proof. So do you just float around day after day without a care on how you came to exist, or can you logically explain to everyone your version of how we came to be, or why the existence of God is not logical.

Once when you read up on the big bang theory I will address this... Until then I'll just point out that you made this comment out of ignorance.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by C&N

You are totally right, the burden of proof should be on the theists, because asking an atheist to find the "Not-Proof" would not be possible. But I will say this, just because we can't see radiation, for example, doesn't mean it isn't there. We have machines that detect them, so until we make a machine or something that can detect god, whatever substance he may be, we will never know.

Don't you see the irony of this statement? You are saying that man cannot detect God yet man has a personal relationship with God.

[Feathers in Hair]

Perhaps, if we wish to debate the validity of either position, we might start a new thread in another section? (I'd be happy to start a thread, if that's what was wished.) It was probably a mistake for me to post in this thread, as westifer seemed to have been looking more for the theories of atheists, and I apoligize if I set a bad precedent by doing so.

[C&N]

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

Source: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

to begin...

"Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe". That doesn't defy any laws of physics or chemistry... And its funny how in the bible God just makes the universe one day, like your little belief. The two so far go hand in hand (except switch the "nothing " with God in "Prior to that moment there was nothing") The difference is that science