Opinions of atheism
-
I'm interested to hear views and opinions of atheism as I've found many portraying atheism as a negative belief and atheists as a radical group out to defame religious groups. What's your take?
-
For those who are interested to know how we atheists think, a good book to read is Atheism: A Very Short Introduction by Julian Baggini.
-
alot of religions find other belief system of other religions radical oso.. even if they don't spell it out. its juz dat atheists kana finger from everywhere.
but nowadays dun haf la.
the trendy radicals are holed up in middle east. -
I am atheist.
-
I am Atheist too.
-
How do atheists think the world was made? Do you guys subscribe to Professor Hawking's "big bang" theories?
-
Is big bang rational?Originally posted by iveco:How do atheists think the world was made? Do you guys subscribe to Professor Hawking's "big bang" theories?
Big bang contridicts with science.
Science exists becos the earth follows a pattern or system.
If any elemets and energy can bang together and form stuffs, ahem.......... -
I am also curious about what kind of funerals atheists are going to have. No offence intended.
-
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=209042
It'll be interesting to hear from supposed atheists here of how they grapple with the 4 issues raised in the talk. -
--Continous creation(steady-state)
basically tells us that the galaxies moved farther away from each other, new galaxies were formed in between, out of matter that was continually created. The universe would therfore look more or less the same all the times and its desity would be roughly constant. This projectedmodel suggests matter(in the form of hydrogen) is always being created from nothing, and comes about in order to counteract the delution of material which occurs as the galaxies drift away from each other.
--A second explaination is called the osicilating model. This says that the universe is like a spring, expanding and contracting, repeating the cycle indefinitely. The basis of this theory is that the universe is closed, that is, no new energy is being put into it. The expansion of matter would reach a certain point and the force of gravity would pull everything together b4 expanding again. However, all evidences refutes this position; the universe is clearly losing density with no sign that the persistant expansion ever has or will reverse, and thus is not closed.
Dr.William L.Craig gives his conclusion about these two models with:"Both fail to fit the facts of observational cosmology."
--At last, the big bang,.....Dr Edwin Hubble plotted the speeds of the galaxies and confirmed that all galxies are moving apart from us and one another.Theres the law: the farther away the galaxy is, the faster it moves.
The implication of this is that at one time during 'creation' all matter was packed inside a dense mass of temperature of trillions of degrees. Scientists observed this phnomenon and infered that the universe resembled a white fireball and "BANG"!! Then in 1965 two physicians made a discovery that the earth was bathed in a faint glow of radiation. This exact pattern follows the wave lenth of what is expected in the Big Bang.
So skyfoo, sometimes Christians may know some atheism too
or maybe more than you do -
ATHESISTS, HOPE YOU SEE CLEARLY THAT CHRISTIANS DONT USE BLIND FAITH AS YOU HAVE SAID. tHEY ALSO HAVE EVIDENCES. aN I ALSO HAVE fACTS REGARDING THE TRUENESS OF THE BIBLE OVER MORE THAN 2000 YEARS OF STRUGGLE, THE BIBLE REMAINS.
-
Why is the Big Bang not rational?Originally posted by davidche:Is big bang rational?
Big bang contridicts with science.
Science exists becos the earth follows a pattern or system.
If any elemets and energy can bang together and form stuffs, ahem..........
Only someone who dunno science will say Big Bang contradicts with science. -
See my signature. Exact words extracted from an atheist.Originally posted by skyfoo:I'm interested to hear views and opinions of atheism as I've found many portraying atheism as a negative belief and atheists as a radical group out to defame religious groups. What's your take? -
The universe is orderly. It operates according to a pattern, and therefore can be examined and its behavior can be predicted. This would include the uniformity of our world and it will continue as it is presently, For example, apple will always fall down, not up.Originally posted by Icemoon:Why is the Big Bang not rational?
Only someone who dunno science will say Big Bang contradicts with science.
Objective truth exists and is knowable. If the object of the scientist's study were solely materialistic and naturalistic like the big bang, all of the effort would be confined to those naturalistic phenomena.
Thanks
Hope it answers your question. -
Actually I don't know what you are talking about. Either your english too good or mine too poor.Originally posted by davidche:The universe is orderly. It operates according to a pattern, and therefore can be examined and its behavior can be predicted. This would include the uniformity of our world and it will continue as it is presently, For example, apple will always fall down, not up.
Objective truth exists and is knowable. If the object of the scientist's study were solely materialistic and naturalistic like the big bang, all of the effort would be confined to those naturalistic phenomena.
Thanks
Hope it answers your question.
Your first paragraph is a naive view of science. I suggest you go read up on the Young's Diffraction experiment first. It was my physics syllabus during A levels. -
LOL, using science to explain something outta science.Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually I don't know what you are talking about. Either your english too good or mine too poor.
Your first paragraph is a naive view of science. I suggest you go read up on the Young's Diffraction experiment first. It was my physics syllabus during A levels. -
It is not out of science.Originally posted by davidche:LOL, using science to explain something outta science.
Show me how it is out of science? -
I believe there's a misconception that atheists alway subscribe to science against religion. For me, I'm not really convinced of the evolution theory or the big bang, there's not enough evidences to convince me. As an atheist, I only subscribe to what's logical and which has evidences to back them up. So please don't assume that all atheists are pro-science.
-
if not evolution, then what's left? Creationism?Originally posted by skyfoo:I believe there's a misconception that atheists alway subscribe to science against religion. For me, I'm not really convinced of the evolution theory or the big bang, there's not enough evidences to convince me. As an atheist, I only subscribe to what's logical and which has evidences to back them up. So please don't assume that all atheists are pro-science.
or alien seeding.
-
i guess u're one of those low-class malays from ITE jealous of ppls like me taking a lvl and a chance to go to uni. and i bet u're one of those dumb idiots who are fucking horny and go around screwing those indecent friends of urs and now fathering a 1yr old kid. allah bless u boy.Originally posted by A dot dot B dot dot:See my signature. Exact words extracted from an atheist. -
u better brush up ur english and knowledge on chrisitianity before u come and talk atheism with meOriginally posted by davidche:--Continous creation(steady-state)
basically tells us that the galaxies moved farther away from each other, new galaxies were formed in between, out of matter that was continually created. The universe would therfore look more or less the same all the times and its desity would be roughly constant. This projectedmodel suggests matter(in the form of hydrogen) is always being created from nothing, and comes about in order to counteract the delution of material which occurs as the galaxies drift away from each other.
--A second explaination is called the osicilating model. This says that the universe is like a spring, expanding and contracting, repeating the cycle indefinitely. The basis of this theory is that the universe is closed, that is, no new energy is being put into it. The expansion of matter would reach a certain point and the force of gravity would pull everything together b4 expanding again. However, all evidences refutes this position; the universe is clearly losing density with no sign that the persistant expansion ever has or will reverse, and thus is not closed.
Dr.William L.Craig gives his conclusion about these two models with:"Both fail to fit the facts of observational cosmology."
--At last, the big bang,.....Dr Edwin Hubble plotted the speeds of the galaxies and confirmed that all galxies are moving apart from us and one another.Theres the law: the farther away the galaxy is, the faster it moves.
The implication of this is that at one time during 'creation' all matter was packed inside a dense mass of temperature of trillions of degrees. Scientists observed this phnomenon and infered that the universe resembled a white fireball and "BANG"!! Then in 1965 two physicians made a discovery that the earth was bathed in a faint glow of radiation. This exact pattern follows the wave lenth of what is expected in the Big Bang.
So skyfoo, sometimes Christians may know some atheism too
or maybe more than you do -
To me, it's just a mystery no one can claim to know yet. If no one was 100% sure how this world is created, why not leave it as a mystery instead of coming up with stories and beliefs to confuse the world?Originally posted by Icemoon:if not evolution, then what's left? Creationism?
or alien seeding. -
you are in university?Originally posted by skyfoo:To me, it's just a mystery no one can claim to know yet. If no one was 100% sure how this world is created, why not leave it as a mystery instead of coming up with stories and beliefs to confuse the world?
go take a module on semiotics. Read up on Roland Barthes. -
I'm not in university. But semiotics is about signs right? What does it have to do with my point?Originally posted by Icemoon:you are in university?
go take a module on semiotics. Read up on Roland Barthes. -
but your intelligence is on par with nus superstar leh ..Originally posted by skyfoo:I'm not in university. But semiotics is about signs right? What does it have to do with my point?
Semiotics is about signs, yes, and I used it for a lack of a better word. After all Roland Barthes is a semiotician also.