Atheism requires just as much faith as Religion.

[chewbachman]

So, you can definitively prove that the universe, which has a “manufacture date” so to speak, spontaneously occurred with a functional and logically functioning physics system despite the fact that if our universe’s parameters were slightly off our understanding of physics (and the building blocks required to create intelligence) would cease to function?

Wouldn’t the belief that the entirety of the universe burst forth out of nothing with stable enough physical interactions to produce life that could contemplate such things require a little bit of something called… faith?

I understand the agnostic position but Atheism requires as much faith as having a religion does.

[joe schmoe]

God is the answer to Einstein's Unified Field Theory......i assume you know what that is

[Maria]

Publicado originalmente por chewbachman:

Wouldn’t the belief that the entirety of the universe burst forth out of nothing with stable enough physical interactions to produce life that could contemplate such things require a little bit of something called… faith?

I understand the agnostic position but Atheism requires as much faith as having a religion does.

There is a huge difference between believing that life just happened by chance and believing that there is someone, a being, a deity, up there who created us, loves us, and therefore wanted to test and see how faithful we are by throwing trial and tribulations to our face every day.

It is plain as day which is easier to believe for most people. You are giving those who believe in religions far less credit.

[apathy]

^You're wasting your time Maria, OP is just being a troll and doesn't care what atheism is.

Publicado originalmente por Blunt Raps:

I dont comprehend your definition of atheism. It is at odds with the traditional definition.

I'm not surprised if you're getting your answers from Christian apologetics sites like gotquestions.org, I get this all the time from theists, you actually need to read articles and books on the subject, especially if you refuse to accept what I'm telling you at face-value.

Lacking a belief in god doesn't mean I believe in them. You do know there's thousands of gods in mythology yeah? I don't know all of them. My lack of knowledge and belief in all of them makes me an atheist in that regard.

At the end of the day, you telling me about god x doesn't change the situation, that's confusing the map for the location - I only have your words to go by when discussing truth claims, and still cannot prove for myself this god x actually exists, therefore, I still know no god, and remain a non-believer in all gods.

If you lack confidence in Joe Biden to put America first, does that make you Joe Biden's #1 supporter? Obviously it does not.

[Xero_Daxter]

Publicado originalmente por apathy:

If you lack confidence in Joe Biden to put America first, does that make you Joe Biden's #1 supporter? Obliviously it does not.

Damn.

[joe schmoe]

according to einsteins unified field theory, all the physical laws of the universe like energy decay and entropy and gravity and whatnot have their foundation in a single all powerful force field and the math for it boils down to Theta/Zero representing Speed/Time....the answer is infinity. At an infinite speed you are everywhere at once and so he called it Godspeed. but for the laws of physics to hold true, the Law of Biogenesis must hold true because it is not a theory but a LAW of physics and the law of biogenesis states that life must come from life it cannot spontaneously generate. And so for this to hold true that means that 'something' living gave birth to the universe in order for there to be life.

[joe schmoe]

also the odds of a single amino acid forming randomly in labratory conditions, let alone the chaos of the so called primordial soup, was calculated at being over 1 in 800 octadecillion and yet this supposedly happened not once but trillions of times for complex poly peptide chains to form randomly and blah blah blah atheists hang their souls on the belief that this was random.

[Blunt Raps]

Publicado originalmente por apathy:

^You're wasting your time Maria, OP is just being a troll and doesn't care what atheism is.

Publicado originalmente por Blunt Raps:

I dont comprehend your definition of atheism. It is at odds with the traditional definition.

I'm not surprised if you're getting your answers from Christian apologetics sites like gotquestions.org, I get this all the time from theists, you actually need to read articles and books on the subject, especially if you refuse to accept what I'm telling you at face-value.

Lacking a belief in god doesn't mean I believe in them. You do know there's thousands of gods in mythology yeah? I don't know all of them. My lack of knowledge and belief in all of them makes me an atheist in that regard.

At the end of the day, you telling me about god x doesn't change the situation, that's confusing the map for the location - I only have your words to go by when discussing truth claims, and still cannot prove for myself this god x actually exists, therefore, I still know no god, and remain a non-believer in all gods.

If you lack confidence in Joe Biden to put America first, does that make you Joe Biden's #1 supporter? Obliviously it does not.

My definition was a screenshot of the widely accepted definition by search engines. Top result, before any links.

You have not provided an equivalent. You are telling people that their definitions of these words are wrong. But yours is the one that seems to contradict the words widely accepted definition.

[saranacX]

For those wanting an official definition of atheist or agnostic, refer to this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

[Not Big Surprise]

Publicado originalmente por joe schmoe:

also the odds of a single amino acid forming randomly in labratory conditions, let alone the chaos of the so called primordial soup, was calculated at being over 1 in 800 octadecillion and yet this supposedly happened not once but trillions of times for complex poly peptide chains to form randomly and blah blah blah atheists hang their souls on the belief that this was random.

spreading the chances across any and all planets, the chance of at least one of them forming the most basic building blocks of carbon-based life is clearly much higher than it is in any specific place

[joe schmoe]

and you'll bet your soul on it?

[Azza ☠]

Yes, Athiesm is based upon a faith, much like anyone who believes any theory - big bang, or evolution, etc.

Agnosticism is the one which denies all faith, ignoring creation, etc.

[apathy]

Publicado originalmente por joe schmoe:

according to einsteins unified field theory, all the physical laws of the universe like energy decay and entropy and gravity and whatnot have their foundation in a single all powerful force field and the math for it boils down to Theta/Zero representing Speed/Time....the answer is infinity. At an infinite speed you are everywhere at once and so he called it Godspeed. but for the laws of physics to hold true, the Law of Biogenesis must hold true because it is not a theory but a LAW of physics and the law of biogenesis states that life must come from life it cannot spontaneously generate. And so for this to hold true that means that 'something' living gave birth to the universe in order for there to be life.

Okay now we're going into science. Unified Field Theory is about the fundamental forces of our universe, which has nothing to do with the Law of Biogenesis, and this itself does not explicitly address the question of the origin of life or how life began. The universe is not dependant on life. Life is dependant on conditions being satisfied within the universe.

You're actually talking about Abiogenesis theory, by which life has arisen from non-living matter.

But even if your claims held true, why do god claims always stop at the first cause (god)? Why does the universe which existed before time and space need an origin but god never needs that same requirement? Notice theists never argue god is a vicious little gamer who has parents and keeps getting banned from Steam? Quite the confirmation bias theists have there.

[apathy]

Publicado originalmente por Blunt Raps:

You have not provided an equivalent.

ITS IN THE F**KING OXFORD DICTIONARY.

atheist
/ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

[chewbachman]

I have returned. Much to Apathy’s chagrin.

Here we are talking about the definition of atheism over and over again and how atheism doesn’t postulate anything about science or the creation of the universe. Just the single issue of God or gods. The answer is no according to them btw.

The problem is, we live in a world that exists according to a number of principles that are fine tuned to our existence. To ignore that and just state, there is no god, while not making an implicit statement about the creation of the universe sounds very much like fence sitting.

The anthropic principle suggests that the existence of a multitude of universes, each with different physical laws, could explain the fine-tuning of our own universe for conscious life. This however is just a hypothesis and is not widely accepted.

What is accepted is that we live in a universe within a razor thin margin of physical constants that allow our existence. This alone, not accounting for the multiple shot to the bullseye that our planet is, is enough to make any definitive statement difficult.

If you can make the statement, there is no god. There is unfortunately some scientific baggage to deal with. These require certain “leaps” of logic on their own. Agnosticism is a rational middle ground. Just too many variables that are ‘just right’. Theism is a matter of faith, and is just as much as a leap as atheism and whatever the opposite version of faith would be called. Apathy’s version of atheism sounds more like his username.

To not ask questions about the science or the cosmological principle or pursue any of these thoughts to an end goal and to still make no definitive statements about the Universe we live in sounds less like atheism and more like apathy. (The actual word, not the appropriately named user)

[saranacX]

Publicado originalmente por Azza ☠:

Yes, Athiesm is based upon a faith, much like anyone who believes any theory - big bang, or evolution, etc.

Agnosticism is the one which denies all faith, ignoring creation, etc.

Agnosticism is a confession of ignorance. The only propositional content agnosticism contains is whether or not it's possible to know one way or the other.