Definition of Atheism
Ran across this "Definition of Atheism" and found it pretty interesting.
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
haha! It was kind of confusing when I first read it.. too many nothings. I don't think it is a very good definition though. Just because some one believes there is no God, or gods, doesn't automatically mean they think the "Big Bang" or evolution is truth.
Come on, dont get your panties in a bunch. As it states - it makes perfect sense.
Not off to a good start. How can something (aka everything) come from absolutely nothing? this is stupid reasoning and thus inaccurate to an atheistic 'belief'.
even the most entrenched religious freak is aware of the 'big bang'. and so this is purely a facetious effort to insert 'nothing' to replace mere 'ignorance'.
'magically', to suggest a childish wonder to explain the unexplainable, as if Harry Potter (aka baby jesus) made it so.
'exploded', to suggest it was all instantaneous (or at least took the better part of 6 days, ahem) when the geological record for starters, illustrates this is not anywhere close to reality.
'reason', as if principles of physics needs a reason. whatever next? gravity doing what it does for a preconceived agenda?:laugh:
the only piece of this lamentable 'definition' with any validity, is 'rearranged' and 'self-replicating'. these two words at least illustrate some kind of intellectual comprehension.
'rearranged' shows an appreciation of genetic mutation and thus evolutionary, adaptive radiation.
'self-replicating' showing a knowledge of the fact, that for everything we see in this world today, it took just one simple occurence of a self-replicator to arise over countless eons of time, within countless molecules inter-mingling with one another.
myke, if you genuinely did find this 'definition' to be 'pretty interesting' then you have my sympathies. it is shit.
On a lower scale of credibility, there are the various religious beliefs about the origins of life, the universe, and everything. Fundamentalism is unique only in that fundamentalists think it's a two-party fight and that they're one of the two.
For all the flaws, shortcomings, and unknowns in scientific theories, you still have the following very important differences between them and fundamentalism (or any superstition):
- Scientists try to fit the theory to the facts. If the theory comes up short, they change the theory. Fundamentalists simply declare the facts to be different.
- Scientists freely admit they don't have all the answers, but intend to find them. Fundamentalists insist they have all the answers, despite all evidence to the contrary, and insist you stop looking.
- Scientists try to construct theories that are falsifiable, and able to make predictions. Fundamentalists couldn't care less, and in fact view the whole concept of verifiability with contempt, when they even bother to acknowledge it.
On the last point, here are three things that evolutionary theory predicted (successfully) long before they became mainstream science:
1) Nuclear fusion
2) Continental drift
So, Clubmyke, let's hear what falsifiability tests creationism has passed (I'm not holding my breath).
Haven't we been through this before?
First off, this is not a political discussion, wrong section of the forum.
Second, let's save a lot of time an effort and just summarize what's going to happen in this thread:
1) You say god exists.
2) Nearly everyone else here disagrees with you.
3) You claim we have no proof your god doesn't exist while offering no proof that he does exist and no proof that other deities don't exist.
4) We point out the double standard.
5) You ignore any good points, good questions, or citations noting the big giant gaping holes in your logic while at the same time calling people names and saying how stupid they are (even as you misspell the sentence in which you call them stupid). You try to act like an intellectual (fooling nobody) and offer up the titles of several books that anybody who has seen your posts has a hard time believing you actually read.
6) I laugh at you and ask how you tie your shoes by yourself.
7) You go WAY off topic, tell us the problem with our logic is obvious, but refuse to actually identify the problem. Then you tell me my posts are obscene while ignoring your long history of personal attacks and childish posts here.
8) Paolo comes along and confuses you with his big words.
8) You claim debate victory, willfully or woefully ignorant of the fact that you are the only one claiming it and that you have just dumbfounded everyone reading this thread with such a claim.
10) We don't hear from you for 5 more weeks until you come back to troll this atheism vs. religion subject matter again.
So why do we keep responding?
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
CM may be just doing this to pass the time, but there IS unfortunately an organized, concerted effort by fundies to shove their fairy tales down our throats. It's a game of perception. All we have to do is relax once, and they'll be all about "See! We win! They have no answers!". As irritating and time-wasting as it is, the only way superstition will ever be kept at manageable levels is to pound away at it whenever it appears.
Mr Munky, i did enjoy your eighth point :D
Why do i bother? tis a good question.
i think i bother because i would wish for the creationist theories to be true!:eek:
i shit thee not! and why not? it is of significant comfort to think that there is an all powerful thing up in the clouds, who is waiting to satisfy my personal preferences, by punishing those i consider naughty and re-uniting me with anyone i ever cared a bit about.
but as is the scientific nature, which i think is inherent in all humans (even mykes) as intelligent beasts, there is the need to find out 'why?'.
i have heard the religious speech and conclude bollocks.
i have heard the scientific speech and conclude it plausible but ultimately less than reassuring.
i have heard dawkins and have found his zealotry to be compelling but perhaps one step beyond.
i sit on top of the fence called agnostica. but if pushed to one side or the other, i would say that probability fails to endorse anything close to the creationist mentality.
but i guess i am lucky; i am content with my own ignorance and continue to enjoy learning. unlike some, i KNOW that i do NOT KNOW.
I understand that the whole "first there was nothing" thing is hard to comprehend. Impossible maybe. But saying, "Well, musta been God" is not the solution to me.
Just because we can't grasp the idea of the creation of the universe doesn't mean that we need to apply omniscience to an entity and credit him with everything we can't figure out. If you think that humans SHOULD be able to comprehend the creation of the universe, you're giving our species way too much credit.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2