Theism? Seriously? EVERYTHING from NOTHING?

[Waiting4evidence]

In a recent post, a theist grossly mischaracterized the atheist position.

Instead of accepting the simple definition that an atheist is one who does not believe in deities, he just made up the definition that an atheist is one who believes that the entire universe came from nothing.

We do not know how the universe came into existence, and we don't even know if the universe ever came into existence.

We make NO conclusion based on our ignorance of the universe's origin.

We do NOT, as per the theist's allegation, say "We don't know, therefore nothing did it". We just say "We don't know, therefore let's not pretend we know, but rather let's try to find out".

So, I am hoping we can put that bogus accusation to rest.


But there is another ramification of the theist's absurd accusation.

He (rightly) claims that it's wronng - given our current knowledge - to hold the dogmatic belief that the universe came from nothing.

At the same time, he believes that an entity much more complex than the universe exists.

So I can't help but ask. If it's absurd to think that something as complex as the universe can come into existence from nothing, then how do you account for the existence of something even more complex than the universe?

How did God come into existence? "You don't know therefore nothing did it"?

Do you see the absurdity of your position, given that you accuse atheists of holding a fatal flaw in their belief, while in reality they do not hold that belief, but you do?

[Mr. LongView]

It is possible that some atheist may imply the "great nothing" as a cause.

Sometimes beliefs (or lack of) come with baggage? Misunderstandings generally follow.

Wording aside...

If you see a flaw in the idea that life can come from nothing, what should one do?

Imagine the something?

Personally it seems like the lack of how is a meaningful thing to point out.

[Ankhhape]

Waiting4evidence;

Your statement is not entirely true, for the Atheist has made up their mind that there is no god, which is to me, as absurd as someone making up their mind there is one.

Agnosticism is our better choice, I simply admit that I do not know whether there is or is not a god. I weigh the data before me, have my personal ideas and hopes, but at the end of the day I know that I do not really know.

[revelationtestament]

God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips

[Goat]

Waiting4evidence;

Your statement is not entirely true, for the Atheist has made up their mind that there is no god, which is to me, as absurd as someone making up their mind there is one.

Agnosticism is our better choice, I simply admit that I do not know whether there is or is not a god. I weigh the data before me, have my personal ideas and hopes, but at the end of the day I know that I do not really know.

Oh the contrary.. you are also mistating the position of many atheists. Some atheists conclude 'There is a lack of evidence for a god, so until such evidence exists, I do not accept there is one'. I am sure that if someone can provide tangible evidence FOR a God, they will stop being atheists.

[kayky]

As I see it, the problem with the atheist position is that it limits the realm of human knowledge to the scientific method. The scientific method is very effective in performing the job it was designed to do, but its self-imposed limitations are just as effective in doing just that: limiting the realm of human experience it can explore. That is the purpose of art, poetry, myth, and even religion.

[Flail]

kayky wrote:

As I see it, the problem with the atheist position is that it limits the realm of human knowledge to the scientific method

.

I don't agree. I think it's the opposite. Most atheists I know are open minded to the 'possibility' of a God of some sort, but simply refuse to believe in any Gods so far proposed by mankind; finding them to be unevidenced and incoherent. On the other hand, most of the theists I know are Christian and have a very closed minded, narrowly limited view that the one and only God is the BibleGod, despite having absolutely nothing upon which to base that view except dogma and biased propaganda from ancient hearsay human sources.

Kayky wrote:

The scientific method is very effective in performing the job it was designed to do, but its self-imposed limitations are just as effective in doing just that: limiting the realm of human experience it can explore. That is the purpose of art, poetry, myth, and even religion.

Science explores everything and does so honestly by subjecting all notions to peer review and perpetual testing while labeling anything without sufficient evidence as theory or hypothesis. One would hope religion could someday be equally honest and refrain from labeling superstition about supernatural beings as 'knowledge'.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

As I see it, the problem with the atheist position is that it limits the realm of human knowledge to the scientific method. The scientific method is very effective in performing the job it was designed to do, but its self-imposed limitations are just as effective in doing just that: limiting the realm of human experience it can explore. That is the purpose of art, poetry, myth, and even religion.

The problem with the theist position is that it extends the limits of human knowledge to include make believe. The scientific empirical method seeks to extend human knowledge incrementally through observation and experimentation by carefully building on knowledge layer by layer as it is acquired. And proper science is required to accept facts as they become apparent, without prejudice. Theists on the other hand feel free to make it up as they go along, formulating assumptions which seek to support comforting predetermined conclusions that will serve to assuage their emotional wants and to reinforce their personal sensibilities. In other words, make believe.

[kayky]

I don't agree. I think it's the opposite. Most atheists I know are open minded to the 'possibility' of a God of some sort, but simply refuse to believe in any Gods so far proposed by mankind; finding them to be unevidenced and incoherent. On the other hand, most of the theists I know are Christian and have a very closed minded, narrowly limited view that the one and only God is the BibleGod, despite having absolutely nothing upon which to base that view except dogma and biased propaganda from ancient hearsay human sources.

Just as I did not describe all atheists, you certainly have not described all theists.

Science explores everything and does so honestly by subjecting all notions to peer review and perpetual testing while labeling anything without sufficient evidence as theory or hypothesis. One would hope religion could someday be equally honest and
refrain from labeling superstition about supernatural beings as 'knowledge'.

This simply isn't true. Science does not and cannot explore everything. The scientific method is limited to exploring only that which can be physically observed. Just as religion has no right to declare science heresy, science has no right to impose its methods on religion. Science is only a subset of human knowledge.

[cnorman18]

Personally, I see the same problem with both of these threads; extremists on both sides trying to show that theirs is the only acceptable way to think and that those who disagree do not merely disagree, but are irrational, stupid and/or mentally unbalanced. Me, I believe in freedom of thought.

Atheism is a perfectly rational and defensible position; one who sees no evidence for any gods, and thinks that objective evidence is necessary for such beliefs, would logically reject such beliefs until such evidence is presented.

Theism CAN BE perfectly rational and defensible as well. In my opinion, Biblical literalism is neither, but people are still allowed to think that way if they like, so long as they do not insist that others do the same. That said, though, one who regards religious beliefs as matters of ethics, community, metaphor, and heritage, as opposed to matters of objective fact (note my signature) is perfectly free to take that approach -- without, let us hope, being subjected to the criticisms and ridicule of those who insist that literalism and supernaturalism are all that there is or can be to this thing called "religion." That contention is as objectively inaccurate and stereotyped as the contention that atheism entails any beliefs or claims other than the absence of a belief in gods.

As I have said many, many times; there is no such thing as "religion." There are only specific religions, and there is no attribute, practice, or belief that is common to them all. Some have nothing to say about supernaturalism or gods; some regard such beliefs as optional, trivial and matters of individual taste, whether they are held or not.

The single most reliable identifying characteristic of bigotry is, and has always been, the perception that "they're all alike." All atheists are not alike; and neither are all theists. One should take care that one does not become that which one opposes.