use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
~42 users here now
This subreddit is archived and no longer accepting submissions.
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. reddit learns what you like as you vote on existing links or submit your own!
I can't even. This is not Atheism. (i.imgur.com)
submitted 1 year ago by Grommett
[–]Theninjapirate 14 points15 points16 points 1 year ago
As a Christian, I am saddened of most of the way people try to refute atheism.
[–]justanothercommenter 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
How do Christians refute atheism?
[–]Theninjapirate 8 points9 points10 points 1 year ago
First of all, I think we can all agree that neither atheism nor deism can be refuted, in the typical sense. I can't speak for all Christians, much less for everyone who believes in some form of deity, but for me it all comes down to a question of faith. Everyone puts faith in something. For atheists, it is a faith in the ability of human intelligence and sensory perception to perceive and understand the totality of reality. Christians put their faith in a transcendent reality which is unknowable through physical means.
I'm not looking for a debate, but hopefully that provides a reasonable explanation.
[–]madame_gaston 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Christians put their faith in a transcendent reality which is unknowable through physical means.
Why isn't it enough to just say "there are things we don't and can't understand"?
[–]Orinthopter 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Because that is essentially Agnosticism.
[–]justanothercommenter 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I was just curious. I'd never heard of a Christian desire to "refute" atheism.
[–]P-Rickles 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I wish all Christians were as level-headed in their analysis of atheism as you are. Well said.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I hate to break it to you pal, but you just gave the definition for agnosticism.
[–]shamansblues 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Atheism usually means you just don't believe in a god because if there was one he'd be too much of an asshole to earn respect from someone who at least has respect for himself.
[–]BZenMojo 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Deism != theism. Leave us Deists out of this shit.
[–]SecularMantis -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
I don't think atheism includes "faith in the ability of human intelligence and sensory perception to perceive and understand the totality of reality". Atheism is a lack of belief in gods; while some atheists may indeed feel as you describe, it would be silly to assume all do.
[–]Conchobair 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Technically it is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities, not just the lack of a belief. For one to be an atheist, they must make the concious decision themselves to not believe. I know a lot of athiests on reddit would argue against this, but it is how the word is defined in almost every major depositry of knowledge and is supported by well known intellectuals within the atheist community.
[–]SecularMantis 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I disagree- consider this: a child is born and raised in a tribal community with no concept of deities of any kind. He, like all of his kin, does not believe in the existence of a god, because he has no awareness of the concept of a god. He is, then, an atheist, for he doesn't believe in the existence of gods, but he has not made a conscious decision to do so- it is merely the result of his culture's lack of beliefs on the matter.
[–]Conchobair 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
You would be technically incorrect. Atheism is not that inclusive. The prevailing view is that a child would neither be an atheist or a theist. Richard Dawkins and many others have stated very clearly that a child is neither becuase they have not made the concious decision. This is how atheism is defined and understood in academic terms.
Interesting, what would that child be considered then? I should also point out that my criticism of OP stands, regardless of the apparent inaccuracy in my definition of atheism.
[–]billyup -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
what would that child be considered then?
A child.
[–]Defarstod 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Wonderful string. It seems there are agnostics here that think they are atheists. Atheism is a belief structure, and ignorance is not. A child that has never been introduced to a particular concept is ignorant- I know the word has negative connotations, but as has been established, we are working within the confines of linguistic definition in this argument. I don't know how so many people seem to believe atheism is the pragmatic and scientifically based stance on metaphysics, as the pragmatic and scientific stance on metaphysics is to have no stance- not to say there is no such thing, as there is no data to study in relation to metaphysics. Anyone that is an atheist is making a conscious determination that they believe there are no deities. An agnostic is choosing to opt out of the argument for lack of empirical data.
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
Faith is so part of your world view you find it difficult ot understand how someone could live without it, or while actively trying to perceive and rid themselves of their biases.
[–]biriyaniguy 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
As a christian, I actually believe that everything came from nothing
This might make more sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Kabbalah
About as effective a discourse as zombie Jesus.
[–]Sysiphuslove 80 points81 points82 points 1 year ago
Frankly, r/atheism has made a career out of ludicrously oversimplifying religious ideas in order to knock them over with insufficient reasoning, so I guess you could take this as an object lesson in what that really looks like.
[–]The_Lonely_Angel_ 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago
Yes...don't dish out what you can't take.
[–]Nickdanger3rdEye -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
....I dunno, I'm pretty sure that was not anywhere close to simple...
[–]affluenza -6 points-5 points-4 points 1 year ago
I don't think anyone is saying the universe came from nothing. No one rational is saying that anyway. Surely there was something before the big bang, humanity just doesn't have all the facts yet.
That's what religion does, fill fact voids with fantasy in order to offer comfort against the unknown. Religion is the enemy of reason.
If religion makes an unstoppable comeback, humanity WILL be thrust back into the dark ages, for who knows how long.
Atheism is simply about not filling in gaps of human knowledge with nonsense. Basically, an atheist takes the stance "let's not jump to conclusions till we have all the facts".
That's it, in a nutshell. Pure reason. I dare you to counter that. There just simply isn't a rational retort.
[–]Sysiphuslove 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
If an atheist is taking the stance that jumping to conclusions is wrong, how are they justified in abusing someone religious for believing as they do? No one rational is talking about goddamn sky wizards either.
I personally think you're filling a void with false certainty in order to offer comfort against the unknown, and I don't know how that's any better. It's not exactly the pinnacle of reason to deride others as delusional or ignorant when you don't know any better than they do, and ostensibly are trying to be objective.
Religion is not the enemy of reason, and making enemies out of people who don't agree with you is the impulse that lies at the root of all extremism. That is the enemy of reason.
[–]Defarstod 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
I am agnostic, and I truly envy the happy devoutly religious. There is no comfort in the lack of knowledge, or for me, in the lack of belief. I say I envy the happy devout, because I see plenty of bad that religion does, too.
[–]affluenza 0 points1 point2 points 12 months ago
Ok so in 1692 Massachusetts, when people were being wrongfully accused and murdered because others believed they were witches, then there is nothing morally wrong in that situation? The people in charge believed the victims were witches, so we should respect their beliefs.
The whole point of scientific theory and the age of reason is to shed light on this tendency for human hubris and go on hunches, intuituin, faith, etc.
The point, and this is extremely important, is that faith is a phantom. It offers no tangible substance with which to plot the course of our lives and to weigh evidence against.
When people start talking faith this, religion that, that's when I start to fear for my life and the lives of generations to come.
[–]Ishaar -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
Believing something without any proof is what religion is all about, and I hate to be "that guy" here, but that flies in the face of what reason is. I usually try to construct a scenario to get across my points, but I'm not sure that's even useful if you can't see it. Belief without proof is the enemy of reason.
Believing there is nothing is still believing. I would rather believe in something, than believe in nothing, however it is the case that I don't believe anything that has zero empirical evidence, which is something both sides of the argument lack.
[–]Ishaar 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I think you've run smack into a false dichotomy: the other side of belief is disbelief, not another kind of belief.
The belief in the lack of a deity is a belief. Atheism is not a lack of belief, that is agnosticism. I am not functioning under a false dichotomy, check your definitions. Believing something doesn't exist is a belief.
a·the·ism/ˈāTHēˌizəm/ Noun: The theory or belief that God does not exist. ag·nos·tic/agˈnästik/ Noun: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
I think we're getting bogged down in the fact that belief has multiple definitions, some of which are specific and some of which are broad. Belief in a deity, and belief that there is no such thing, are not the same type of beliefs. It is the same problem you find when people try to use theory as being synonymous with scientific theory. There are subtle but important differences.
Just for clarification: I'm deist, so I'm not taking a side here. Even though I believe in a higher power, I find it hard to try and lump atheists together with theists as having a belief in something. I think atheists are the base case, they exist as the state we're born in. A baby does't know about gods, a child doesn't until someone feeds them that information. They exist that way until someone offers them sufficient proof that it's true. For children that doesn't require much.
I am agnostic, which is to say, there is too little evidence for me to say there is or isn't a god, and I don't act on my gut when talking about such things. My point is just that when talking about belief in god, we are not talking about belief, we are talking about belief in god, and if we are going by the different definitions associated with religion, atheism is a belief that there is no god, not a lack of belief one way or the other. That has another name, which is agnosticism. I agree belief there is no god and belief there is one are not the same types of belief, but they are both religious beliefs, whereas agnosticism is a lack of belief, which it seems a lot of people are confusing for atheism.
Also, as for a newborn, they are in a state of ignorance, if they were born atheists that would mean they had put thought into the topic and made a decision about what they believe. Agnosticism is also like ignorance, but it is acknowledged ignorance- I have thought about it, but I have too little information to make a decision.
I guess what I'm trying to get across is that you're born without belief -- you don't believe in god by default. How can you term that belief?
[–]darngooddogs -8 points-7 points-6 points 1 year ago
Religion IS the enemy of reason, and it IS about an invisible sky wizard.
[–]czhang706 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Counter:
Have you ever been to r/atheism?
[–]waterinabottle 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
i once trolled them for like 4 hours just by making a post that said "cut down on the rhetoric, you are all militant atheists". not sure why, but that got em going. you should just go do it now. they are so excitable.
[–]Defarstod 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
You're talking about agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism says there is no god, agnosticism says we just don't know. Atheism is still a belief structure, whereas agnosticism is lack of belief for lack of evidence.
I don't believe in anything. There is not structure at all. Period. I am not claiming to believe in anything. That is the distinction. Atheism has nothing to do with belief. The fact that you allude to such shows your lack of understanding of what Atheism actually is.
[–]Defarstod 0 points1 point2 points 12 months ago
Look in a dictionary at atheism and agnostic.
To say there is not structure at all is stating a belief. Please, stop talking about what atheism is to you, and look it up. It is not an absence of belief, it is a rejection of belief, and it is disbelief, both of which are to say, you believe there is no...
[–]brouzouf 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
So saying "You're wrong because I don't believe in the same things you do" is reasonable? And how do we exactly know whats going on in the whole universe? Maybe theres a God and maybe not, I don't know. You're right that we don't know all the facts, and there are extreme religious people and atheist people also, but "let's not jump to conclusions till we have all the facts" means being open to the possibilities of anything, not trying to humiliate and mock others for things you don't agree with.
I don't believe in anything. See the difference?
[–]brouzouf 0 points1 point2 points 12 months ago
saying you don't believe in anything versus saying the whole human species will go back to the goddamn dark ages over religion is indeed a big difference.
[–]affluenza -1 points0 points1 point 12 months ago
No. you still don't get it. Stating that the human race will descend into the dark ages as a result of religion is not a belief. It's a bloody fact. The crusades. The inquisition. The systematic destruction of knowledge in order to keep people ignorant (burning of the library of Alexandria, torching the entire set of records kept by the Mayan civilization). Get. A. Clue.
Yes, clearly thousands of years of knowledge and world experiences will go out the fucking window because of people believing in God. We have a fuckton more powerful ordinance than they did thousands of years ago. Nobody will go to war, I can fucking guarantee it. Oh and about knowledge being kept from the masses? That's pretty much impossible, thanks to something called the Internet. Fuck you and your conspiracy theory bullshit.
Ha! All I can do is laugh at your response. There are plenty of concrete examples of what you describe as impossible happening TODAY.
Here is just ONE example found in seconds with a little Googling. It's dated July, 2009. That's 2 years ago, NOT thousands. You sir are a certified moron.
Are you....are you fucking stupid? OF COURSE THEY HAVE BETTER ORDINANCE IN 2009 COMPARED TO THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO.
Maybe you can understand better if it's in big shiny capital letters for you.
[–][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 1 year ago
to the top
[–]cormega -16 points-15 points-14 points 1 year ago
This.
[–]houseofbacon 10 points11 points12 points 1 year ago
I didn't think Atheism and magic were best buds like that.
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
well, where I'm from science and magic are the same thing.
[–]ReyesX 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
FOR ASGARD! BY ODINS BEARD!
just watched it yesterday. It was irresistible to make that comment. good movie IMO. I love me that gatekeeper. I wish someone would post an analysis of why we love characters like that.
[–]Cheddarwurst -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
Did anyone else wonder about the asian guy? Where did he come from?
[–]knylok 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Actually, there's nothing saying they cannot be. All non-religious people are atheistic, but all atheists are not necessarily non-religious. All that one has to do to qualify as an atheist is to have their faith not feature a central deity. See: Buddhism for example.
In this context, aren't atheist and non-religious synonyms of each other?
[–]knylok 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Not when we consider houseofbacon's comment (which was what I was replying to). HoB's comment makes it plain that he didn't think "magic" and "atheism" went together. In fact, there's no reason why they cannot go together. Our theism (atheism, monotheism, polytheism) simply identifies the quantity of deities in our religion. So a religion without a deity is atheistic, with it's members being atheists. So in the context of HoB's comment, I was clarifying that there is no reason why Atheism and Magic couldn't be best of buds. Or even Atheism and an afterlife.
Thanks for the clarification, now your comment makes sense to me.
[–]momsarev 12 points13 points14 points 1 year ago
think the point is that this sounds to atheists like many of the misguided generalizations hurled at theists sound to us.
[–]jagacontest 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Do you have any examples of these "misguided generalizations hurled at theists"?
[–]FoozleMoozle 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
Well, much of Reddit seems to clump the entirety of Christianity into either Mormons or generic Protestants (usually ignoring Catholicism), blanketing everything any single group believes into what every Christian believes.
If you want a specific example, you can look at just about any debate on this site centering around Christianity or Christians. You might not recognize the generalizations when they occur though, as they probably don't really seem like generalizations to you.
[–]Cha05_Th30ry 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
As a Christian I would disagree in that I believe even Atheist Redditors would not lump WBC in with the rest of Christianity. Though there are some who might, but I have never seen it. Also, I would say that there are a some ignorant Christians out there who do speak before thinking.
[–]jagacontest 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
You might not recognize the generalizations when they occur though, as they probably don't really seem like generalizations to you.
Which is why I asked you for examples of what you thought these generalizations would be.
[–]LittleSambo 9 points10 points11 points 1 year ago
Christian here.
Generally speaking, Athiests group theists into one of the "big 3" - Christian, Muslim, Jew - largely focusing on these, the monotheists. After all, these are probably the largest groups and also the most aggressive.
I perceive two major attacks from here.
Attacks on inter-"religious" relations (i.e. Muslims killing Christians and vice versa in the name of God.)
Attacks on all three in the name of "science" (i.e. Christians are filthy bastards for teaching their children the creation theory).
So the generalizations I hear most from each category are as follows:
1.a. All Christians hate Muslims and want them dead (and vice versa). 1.b. All Christians love war and death for infidels and sinners. 2.a. All Christians believe the same way as Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin. 2.b. All Christians are ignorant of the scientific method (or science in general).
Incidentally, I don't believe I've ever heard any atheist give a remotely accurate description of a historical protestant reformed Christian. I imagine it's because straw men are more easy to tear down if they resemble Sarah Palin.
EDIT: I should add that I enjoy good friendships with atheists and I hope this post is received without sounding aggressive in any way. I would prefer to keep things friendly.
[–]cyco 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
As an atheist, I do sympathize, but let me explain that it's hard for us to tell what is acceptable to "generalize" about Christianity. It's fair to say that all Christians accept Jesus as their lord and savior, right? What about that Christianity disparages gay people? What about that those who accept Jesus go to heaven while nonbelievers go to hell?
The problem is, just like atheists (and all people, really), Christians pick and choose which tenets conform to their own personal moral philosophy. I've had people tell me that they are "Christian" but do not believe in hell, or that Jesus is the son of God -- at which point the label become meaningless.
So, for all the pro-science, anti-homophobe, loving and tolerant Christians, I say -- awesome! We have a lot in common. But you have to admit that you are not following the Bible very strictly. What's more, you are not the people doing horrible things to society in the name of Christ, which is the real issue. Liberal Christianity is a weak to negligible influence in America, so IMO it doesn't make sense to carve specific exceptions into every discussion when generalizations, while imperfect, get the point across well enough.
[–]LittleSambo 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
But here in your comment is a very specific example of a generalization that paints a straw man.
I am a pro-science Christian who believes in a Creator God. I have nothing against science and I certainly don't fear it. I simply believe that in many cases the evidence has been driven to a different conclusion than the answer the Bible gives. I actually very much enjoy studying science - astronomy especially. I have many friends and family who are the same way. We all strive to be intelligent in our understanding of the universe.
I am persuaded that Scripture condemns the practice of homosexuality, but I am no homophobe. I love gay people and I love straight people - just as I love atheists and Christians alike. I am all for equal civil rights to everyone as human beings. Scripture backs me up in this. Christ regularly befriended the men and women who were living in violation of Biblical law. The whole point of the Bible is to draw every man's attention to his own sin - not the sins of others. This is what every Christian should think. Homophobia is gay. Again, I'm not alone in this.
As for love and tolerance. When it comes to people, we have no excuse to not love. There are certain behaviors that we cannot tolerate in our own families, churches, and other jurisdictions, but that intolerance shouldn't affect our love for people or basic human rights.
None of the above contradicts Scripture, so I'm sad to say that perhaps these generalizations are the result of poor Christian living on the part of my fellow Christians.
I've always felt that these generalizations speak less to the credibility of Christianity and more to the credibility of specific "Christians".
[–]cyco 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I appreciate your response, but I don't think I was drawing a straw man. A straw man is summarizing the other side's argument incorrectly in order to strike it down -- however, there's no denying that there are a significant number of self-identified Christians who do preach hate, intolerance, and ignorance. Glad to hear you're not one of them.
I am persuaded that Scripture condemns the practice of homosexuality, but I am no homophobe.
Would you agree that embracing a holy book which unabashedly condemns homosexuality makes it more difficult (but not impossible) for the religious to love all people equally? Even beyond homophobia, I think there are real problems with the Bible's approach to sexuality in general. Sorry, but some things about Christianity are ingrained in its philosophy rather than merely misinterpreted or ignored by its followers.
To your question: In some sense yes. Although I think loving a homosexual is much easier than loving a murderer or a rapist.
I would also argue that the Christian philosophy has been quite maimed over the last 200 years by some absolutely terrible exegesis. Particularly in American theologies.
It is true that the Christian philosophy has a rather restrictive approach to sexuality, but I don't find it oppressive from my point of view. I'm actually quite satisfied, if you catch my drift. I realize that this doesn't make up for the pain that a homosexual endures as he is hated and treated as lower-class, but I do believe that much of this pain is the unnecessary result of a Christian failure to love his neighbor - not the wrath of an angry God.
[–]sirnickerton 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
ummmm try almost everything found in /r/atheism
[–]iRideDragons -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
Most people that say insults aimed towards Christians saying "Oh so gays are Satan's breed" and stuff like that, have never read the bible. And take the protests and annoyances of large organizations that claim to be christian as "proof" of what all Christians believe. So they are misguided as being never read the bible and thus have no clue what they are saying being so wrong, it's painful to hear, and generalizations being pretty self-explanatory. I can handle being insulted for being a Christian, but I can't handle it when someone says it wrong and thinks it's true.
[–]gullale 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
I mean no disrespect, but if you do read the Bible and follow all of it, you're going to jail for murder.
[–]darngooddogs 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I have read the entire bible twice. It does give plenty of reasons to hate gays.
[–]Cha05_Th30ry 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I think if you look at the OT you can definitely come to that conclusion however, the OT is God's way of showing man that we can't measure up no one: gays, straight, black, white, etc. Then Christ comes and makes the way for everyone who chooses to believe. If you read the whole book of Romans Paul does speak out against homosexuality (among other things) but in the very next chapter says "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Rom. 2:1 It is not a Christians place to judge others that's Gods place. The only time Christians should pass judgement is within the church when a member does something the church deems sinful and wrong is not willing to stop. All Christians are to show love the way Christ did which sadly does not happen often in America and other parts of the world.
[–]momsarev -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
take a look at shematic's reply, above.
[–]shematic -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
Perhaps, but this sort of overlooks the fact that some rather unpleasant things have been done in the name of "God." Can you name something that has been done in the name of "nothing"?
To put it another way: theists don't get the moral high ground.
To put it yet another way: the burden of proof is on those who say something exists, not on those who say it doesn't.
[–]justanothercommenter 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago*
this sort of overlooks the fact that some rather unpleasant things have been done in the name of "God."
Lots of good stuff has been done in the name of God too, but you've conveniently forgotten to mention that. Almost like you have an axe to grind.
The proof that God exists is the universe. That's my proof. God created physics ... out of NOTHING.
Now ... you prove I'm wrong. You must now come up with a theory that explains the universe without a God, but you haven't been able to. That's YOUR failing, not ours.
[–]shematic 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
It is true good stuff has been done in the name of God. But lots of good stuff has been done without the name of God. Consider the large number of atheists in the scientific community. These people invented things like antibiotics and polio vaccines. You and/or your children have likely benefited from our work.
And the fact that physics has yet to explain the big bang does not in any way "prove" god. Surely you must have dueled with enough of us heathens to have been told this before.
FYI: You want an acceptable proof of God? Have your man Yahweh take some time out of his busy day and drop by CNN for five minutes. I guarantee you churches will be packed from now 'till Gog and Magog show.
[–]justanothercommenter 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago*
Consider the large number of atheists in the scientific community. These people invented things like antibiotics and polio vaccines.
They also invented H-bombs, cluster munitions and land mines.
the fact that physics has yet to explain the big bang does not in any way "prove" god.
My theory (scientific theory, which is a statement of observable fact) is that God exists and that his purpose was to create the universe. My proof that God exists is the observable presence of a universe that could not have been created any other way except by divine intervention.
If you wish to disprove my scientific theory, please be my guest. But it hasn't been done yet.
[–]Ishaar 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
The problem with your scientific theory is that if any other theory about the origin of the universe exists, your entire theory is invalidated (could not have been created any other way falls in the face of any other plausible explanation.) Since the Big Bang theory does explain the origin of our known universe. This is the point at which you have to either revise your theory, or concede that it is a belief rather than a theory.
Nothing wrong with believing something -- everything wrong with trying to pass it off as science.
Since the Big Bang theory does explain the origin of our known universe.
My scientific theory is that (a) God exists and that his purpose was to create the universe and he did so with matter he possessed and that he did so through a process humans call The Big Bang. My evidence is the presence of the universe and all the matter in it.
This theory is, in all important respects, no different than the theory of evolution.
But more importantly, I can never prove my theory to your satisfaction because you have a bias. Your bias is that you don't believe there can even be a God or that it could have happened this way. So you start out with a bias that precludes my ever being able to prove to your satisfaction that my theory is correct.
Good scientists don't start looking for answers with a preconceived bias. They lead where the evidence takes them. But you have a bias.
With all due respect, you do not understand the meaning of the term "scientific theory," which is quite different than the common usage of the word "theory." A scientific theory is an attempt to explain observable processes using evidence and experimentation -- in other words, one starts with the evidence and then works toward a theory that adequately explains it. You seem to be starting with a theory and then challenging people to disprove it.
Semantics aside, here's the crux of the issue: your 'theory' cannot be disproved.' God is outside of the observable universe and, due to his claimed omnipotence, outside of any conceivable laws of physics. Therefore, much as your posts have just done, any valid scientific theory (like the Big Bang) can be said to have been caused by God, and there is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion.
So please, do not try and couch your personal beliefs, which are perfectly fine and your own business, in scientific terms. It's disingenuous and does not help persuade anyone versed in science. Perhaps more relevant for you, it actually debases the idea of God by trying to "prove" what is ineffable, beyond human comprehension, whose very name we are not fit to know. In addition, since you seem perfectly willing to accept theories such as the Big Bang and evolution, there is no reason to confuse the issue by adding God into the mix. These theories have enough evidence on their own without needing supernatural help.
[–]Marokeas 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Most of this is true. The difference between what is now the theory of evolution and/or the big bang theory and a theory you come up with to explain the beginning of the universe are quite different. However, atomic theory (now having evidence to support it) used to be quite the scientific debate before it was proven correct. It was a theory that fit all the rules and didn't go outside the realm of logic. Even without proof it was a valid scientific theory that many people believed and many didn't. My biggest problem with most atheists that I have run into is that they claim the theory that God created the universe is scientifically invalid. When it is not.
Sorry, it is still scientifically invalid (which is not to say untrue) because there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god, since by definition they are outside of the observable universe.
The analogy to atomic theory does not hold -- while some philosophers came up with the idea of the atom well before their time, they lacked the experimental infrastructure to prove its existence. In hindsight they may have been on to something, but they were also wrong in many important ways, so I don't blame older generations for being doubtful.
Meanwhile, there is no conceivable technology that could prove an omnipotent being, so the God question will forever be debated.
From what natural principles are you deriving God? Your entire argument is a projection: you have a preconceived notion of God that you base your theory on, and then you claim that I have some preconceived notions that I'm basing my argument on.
As you whether or not I believe in God -- I'm deist, not atheist. I happen to also believe that a god (or something that resembles our idea of a god) set off the Big Bang. The difference between you and I is that I can draw the line between what is a scientific theory, and what's a personal belief. Take it from me, what you have is a belief not a theory.
Either you don't understand how a scientific theory works, or you're trolling. I can't tell which, and I'm not going to extend the argument any further.
[–]justanothercommenter -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
The definition of a scientific theory is:
"A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts."
This definition does not rule out God, or other abstractions of observable phenomena.
My scientific theory of God is that he is an entity (or abstraction if you will) that had some matter in his pocket and one day before there were days decided to create the universe and so he set off The Big Bang. My evidence is the presence of a universe that could only have been created in this way.
Now if you have a competing theory ... I'd love to hear it. But my theory is sound scientifically in the same way that the theory of evolution is sound.
Now you are just changing what is stated in the bible to fit your argument.
The bible does not state that god created the big bang... it states that he created the world in 7 days. The bible also says that the earth is only several thousand years old, when science has proven that it is closer to 5 billion years old.
[–]justanothercommenter 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
*The bible does not state that god created the big bang... it states that he created the world in 7 days. *
The bible actually says that on the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth. So, that took one day. Doesn't say how much of that day it took. Could have been an instant and he rested for 23 hours, 59.9 seconds.
But my theory doesn't depend on anything in the Bible being true or not.
The bible also says that the earth is only several thousand years old
It does not; so I defy you to cite the chapter and verse where the Bible says this. I maintain that you don't know enough about the Bible.
They didn't invest those in the name of god, and the people who did that didn't do so *for atheism.
Last I checked, the 9/11 attacks (as a recent example) were pretty much entirely motivated by religion.
I got no problem with religious people, but at least try and make your arguments logical, because right now you just sound really stupid.
[–]justanothercommenter -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago
I think your comment speaks for itself. I'm just going to leave it at that.
[–]momsarev 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
ask any of the people put to death in the name of "Reason" during the French Revolution, or for practicing religion of any kind in Soviet Russia or Communist China in the last century.
People will behave badly whenever they are given the power and the opportunity, whatever their professed beliefs. We all need to learn to live by Vonnegut's One Rule: "Dammit, you've got to be kind."
[–]shematic 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I have seen this argument before - the Soviet Union in particular. It is true Stalin killed millions. It is true Stalin was an atheist (although he trained as a priest, as you probably know). But Stalin didn't kill millions because he was an atheist. He killed millions because in his view they threatened his hold on power. He killed millions because he was a madman.
Contrast this with acts done in the name of God. The Crusades, for example, were literally justified (perhaps "excused" is a better description) using the name of God: Deus vult (God wills it).
It is the difference between correlation and causation.
[–]momsarev 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago
"were literally justified (perhaps "excused")
q.e.d.
justification =/= causation, either.
[–]Flubb 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Yet state atheism has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities as well.
[–]BowlerNerd -7 points-6 points-5 points 1 year ago
I think the point is to mock atheists. I also think they failed.
works moderately well as a conversation starter, though--which might also be considered "the point"
[–]Lurk4r 6 points7 points8 points 1 year ago
Whoever made that is trollin'.
[–]Pumpkinpopkin 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I think this is either a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Monty Python's Meaning of Life quote... So, you know, it's just someone being British and sarcastic, I think.
[–]Serendipitee 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I think this is pretty obviously a response in kind to this. Really no big mystery here.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Nope that is exactly what the Religion of Athiesm is to people living in the real world.
[–]dd63584 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Ridiculous, just because science has not yet found all the answers yet doesn't mean that they have such a simplistic ignorant view of things. One thing is certain though, explaining things that have not yet been discovered with a magical sky daddy is not the answer.
[–]ElliottRed 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
Yeah, that's what happened. What doesn't make sense?
[–]numbakrunch 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago
The beauty of the Internet is anyone can say anything at all. The problem with the Internet is anyone can say anything at all.
[–]less_evolved 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago
Replace "Nothing" with "God". Makes perfect sense now?
[–]iRideDragons 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
That's so wrong. Please, don't insult things if you can't even insult them correctly.
[–]qquicksilver 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago
I dont understand what you mean by this. Could you pleased explain ?
[–]enoughsaid2 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
So saying that organisms started out how they started out because of a very small chance of mixing different compounds is made out of nothing?. I'd believe that over god made everything.
Edit: I don't believe in god, but I do believe there is something there but most likely not the god we are told to believe in.
[–]siouxsie_sioux 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
I think atheists and religious people can agree that something happened.
[–]corby_tender 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
What made you feel the need to respond to an anonymous image that is clearly lacking any sort reasonable argument?
[–]bwill323 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Magic and Atheism are basically contradictory. This is stupid. I would say nice try, but it wasn't even a good try. Once again, this is stupid.
Magic and atheism are not contradictory at all.
[–]ianweller 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Oh look, a picture of text
[–]Thundercleese5 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Christianity: a belief that eating flesh and drinking blood makes all the bad inside you go away.
[–]Barrylicious 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago
Keep it to /r/atheism please
[–]duckandcover -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago
Just ignorance.
1) Quantum physics allows the creation of something from "nothing" all the time vis-a-vis virtual particles which come about through the concept of negative energy. They pop into existence for brief periods of time and then go away. This has been verified. I essence, nothing can be thought of as zero being the sum of a negative and positive quantity.
2) So, then the question is what happened first; what started it all but then that all implies causality which is a function of time but time is a function of existence and so the question is nonsensical. Nothing happened before because there was no before and so there is no causality.
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1-1.html
[–]animator01 -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago
Creationism guy created universe / murderers / disseases / pleagues / tornados / eartquakes etc.. and left us with this on our own yeah ok that makes perfect sence.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]Theninjapirate 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–]justanothercommenter 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Theninjapirate 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]madame_gaston 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Orinthopter 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]justanothercommenter 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]P-Rickles 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]shamansblues 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BZenMojo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SecularMantis -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Conchobair 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]SecularMantis 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Conchobair 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]SecularMantis 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]billyup -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]Defarstod 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]biriyaniguy 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]BZenMojo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Sysiphuslove 80 points81 points82 points ago
[–]The_Lonely_Angel_ 11 points12 points13 points ago
[–]Nickdanger3rdEye -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]houseofbacon 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]ReyesX 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Cheddarwurst -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]knylok 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Ishaar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]knylok 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Ishaar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]momsarev 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]jagacontest 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]FoozleMoozle 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Cha05_Th30ry 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]jagacontest 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]LittleSambo 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]cyco 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]LittleSambo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cyco 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]LittleSambo 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sirnickerton 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]iRideDragons -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]gullale 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]darngooddogs 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Cha05_Th30ry 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]momsarev -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]shematic -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]justanothercommenter 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]shematic 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]justanothercommenter 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]Ishaar 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]justanothercommenter 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]cyco 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Marokeas 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cyco 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Ishaar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]justanothercommenter -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]justanothercommenter 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]justanothercommenter -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]momsarev 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]shematic 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]momsarev 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Flubb 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Lurk4r 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Pumpkinpopkin 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Serendipitee 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dd63584 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ElliottRed 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]numbakrunch 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]less_evolved 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]iRideDragons 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]qquicksilver 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]enoughsaid2 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]siouxsie_sioux 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]corby_tender 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bwill323 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Marokeas 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ianweller 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Thundercleese5 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Barrylicious 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]duckandcover -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]animator01 -3 points-2 points-1 points ago