Why atheists must believe in God

[Saint Kitten]

Do you know exactly what atheist means?

lack of belief in a deity

Excellent. One star for you
Now, do you know what Buddhist believe in (or the lack of belief in)

[Phoenixfox]

I know what the Big Bang was. It claims the Universe started as a dense, microscopic singularity which rapidly expanded creating the universe as we know it today. But where did this matter originate from?

To claim it was "just there" is no more logical than my claim that God was always there

A scientific process is far more believable than the sudden appearance of a sky wizard with endless magic powers.

There was no "sudden appearance" of God. He is an eternal, timeless entity. His "powers" that you mock are no different than the laws of science that you abide by. He controls those laws, that is his power...he CREATED those laws

[Xirtam]

Because that's only in your fantasy land. Some of them argue about what "started" the big bang, and if/how the big bang will "end" (see: universal tear, big snap, etc. etc.), but none of them dispute the big bang's "happening."

You say it's in my fantasy land because you refuse to believe the scientific community as a whole doesn't accept you magical belief that the universe appeared out of nowhere with its laws of physics, time, and space. That still doesn't explain why there are many atheist scientists who continue to dispute the claim the Big Bang's origins are correct. And never did I say they didn't accept the Big Bang happened, but that they didn't agree "how" it happened. The subject was that something came from nothing, but even other scientists disagree with this notion. So this belief that it is a solid argument exist in your fantasy land.

Science disagrees with these so called "scientists".

[Philosophii]

Because that's only in your fantasy land. Some of them argue about what "started" the big bang, and if/how the big bang will "end" (see: universal tear, big snap, etc. etc.), but none of them dispute the big bang's "happening."

You say it's in my fantasy land because you refuse to believe the scientific community as a whole doesn't accept you magical belief that the universe appeared out of nowhere with its laws of physics, time, and space. That still doesn't explain why there are many atheist scientists who continue to dispute the claim the Big Bang's origins are correct. And never did I say they didn't accept the Big Bang happened, but that they didn't agree "how" it happened. The subject was that something came from nothing, but even other scientists disagree with this notion. So this belief that it is a solid argument exist in your fantasy land.

"scientists don't believe in the big bang!"
examples please

[America Libertaria]

Wow. Another 3 paragraphs of spewed, concentrated religious bullshit.

[Phoenixfox]

lack of belief in a deity

Which is Buddhism.

I thought they considered the ideal blissful state of Nirvana their "god"

[Mkuki]

lack of belief in a deity

Excellent. One star for you
Now, do you know what Buddhist believe in (or the lack of belief in)

Depends on the Buddhist.

[Divair]

Which is Buddhism.

I thought they considered the ideal blissful state of Nirvana their "god"

No.

[Vashta Nerada]

You say it's in my fantasy land because you refuse to believe the scientific community as a whole doesn't accept you magical belief that the universe appeared out of nowhere with its laws of physics, time, and space. That still doesn't explain why there are many atheist scientists who continue to dispute the claim the Big Bang's origins are correct. And never did I say they didn't accept the Big Bang happened, but that they didn't agree "how" it happened. The subject was that something came from nothing, but even other scientists disagree with this notion. So this belief that it is a solid argument exist in your fantasy land.

Science disagrees with these so called "scientists".

Science is only science when most scientists agree with the science. Most scientists do not agree on a single origin theory for the Big Bang. So scientists disagrees with this so called "science".

[Sun Wukong]

My point was that they appear uncased. If you want evidence of something occurring in absence of everything, then obviously that would, by definition, be impossible to produce.

Which makes it rather silly to bring up.

It's not really silly to bring up if you're talking about whether everything needs a cause or not. You just need to investigate it using an approach not based on observation (i.e. something other than science). Plus, of course, when someone asks for evidence of something appearing from nothing, what they're really saying is "Don't claim something can come from nothing if you can't back it up". They're not seriously expecting evidence.

You're conflating two different concepts: something coming from nothing, and causation.

These may appear the same, but you drew a distinction, which means that the former is no longer relevant to the latter. It becomes pointless to talk about at that point.

[Philosophii]

Science disagrees with these so called "scientists".

Science is only science when most scientists agree with the science. Most scientists do not agree on a single origin theory for the Big Bang. So scientists disagrees with this so called "science".

Sorry, but you don't know what science is.

Science is true whether or not you believe in it, science does not bend for your personal beliefs.

[Pyke and the Iron Isles]

A scientific process is far more believable than the sudden appearance of a sky wizard with endless magic powers.

There was no "sudden appearance" of God. He is an eternal, timeless entity. His "powers" that you mock are know different than the laws of science that you abide by. He controls those laws, that is his power...he CREATED those laws

That makes no sense, far less sense than the Big Bang theory. "He was just there" is a pathetic cop out answer.

And why not mock his "power"? I haven't seen him so shit with them, and my apparent mockery is not being silenced or disproven.

[Sun Wukong]

Which is Buddhism.

I thought they considered the ideal blissful state of Nirvana their "god"

Nope.

[Pyke and the Iron Isles]

Which is Buddhism.

I thought they considered the ideal blissful state of Nirvana their "god"

[Mkuki]

Science disagrees with these so called "scientists".

Most scientists do not agree on a single origin theory for the Big Bang.

Proof, please.

[Shnercropolis]

um....no.... humans study themselves. The universe isn't conscious, as far as we know.

Ah. but if we are a part of the universe, and not put here from a source outside of it, then yes, we are the universe. A leaf is part of a tree because it grows off of it.

Yes, a part, but not the whole thing.

um....no.... humans study themselves. The universe isn't conscious, as far as we know.

If the Universe were conscious, then we'd be talking about the most uncaring entity to have ever lived.

Well, it would have no reason to care. It's got four forces and (possibly) infinite space to take care of, it doesn't have time for that negligible little lump of matter floating around another, higher-energy lump of matter, and especially not for the infinitesimal variations in matter and energy distributions on the surface of that lump of matter.

[Phisych University]

I'm Catholic and I don't know what I just read...

I love this argument so much.

"We can't be sure if anything exists. Therefore, people who believe in science must believe in God in order for anything to exist."

If we're not sure anything exists, how can believing God exists ensure that everything actually exists?

Wouldn't the logical conclusion be "We're not sure if reality actually exists. That means the odds of God existing are all the more infinitesimally smaller because even when assuming reality exists, there is little evidence of God's existence."

He's pulling a Descartes, stating that we can't be sure reality (what science observes) exists. As such, God must exist because believing in God provides absolute truth to reality, making science legit.

The problem to this hypothesis is presented by Descartes absolute truth "I think therefore I am". That is the only thing we can truly be certain of. Everything else, including God, is uncertain.

[Charellia]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

It does not make a lot of sense. It makes very little sense for one simple reason. Absolute truth can exist without the need for god. Gravity is an absolute truth independent of any other truth.

[Saint Kitten]

Which is Buddhism.

I thought they considered the ideal blissful state of Nirvana their "god"

Incorrect *takes away star*
Buddhists do not believe in any god. They believe that Nirvana is freedom from suffering. Which is not even close to some physical "god". It's more like a state-of-being or some term that could define it better but I can't think of it.

[Vashta Nerada]

Science is only science when most scientists agree with the science. Most scientists do not agree on a single origin theory for the Big Bang. So scientists disagrees with this so called "science".

Sorry, but you don't know what science is.

Science is true whether or not you believe in it, science does not bend for your personal beliefs.

No. It bends to other science. I'm very well aware what science is and how it is expanded upon by those who study it. Your adamant desire to believe that all scientist agree that the Big Bang theory in its current explanation is sad. There are still thousands of scientists still arguing over a theory that doesn't make any sense to begin with. Your beef is with them, not with me.

[NERVUN]

Buddhists aren't atheists

I would argue all of the atheists in this thread reject all religions. How is that any different than my rejection of other religions?

Buddhists don't believe in any gods. Thus, they are atheists.

Psst, depends on the Buddhist sect.

Trust me, it's even MORE confusing than the various beliefs in Christianity.

[Respubliko de Libereco]

Ah. but if we are a part of the universe, and not put here from a source outside of it, then yes, we are the universe. A leaf is part of a tree because it grows off of it.

Yes, a part, but not the whole thing.

If the Universe were conscious, then we'd be talking about the most uncaring entity to have ever lived.

Well, it would have no reason to care. It's got four forces and (possibly) infinite space to take care of, it doesn't have time for that negligible little lump of matter floating around another, higher-energy lump of matter, and especially not for the infinitesimal variations in matter and energy distributions on the surface of that lump of matter.

If the universe was conscious, I doubt it would have to "take care" of the four forces any more than we humans need to consciously take care of the various organelles in our cells.

[Wurcafsia]

I see no reason as to why we must believe in an astro theological deity. Watch Zeitgeist part 1. Please.

[Vashta Nerada]

Buddhists don't believe in any gods. Thus, they are atheists.

Psst, depends on the Buddhist sect.

Trust me, it's even MORE confusing than the various beliefs in Christianity.

At least with Christianity there is a single common theme. God is real, Jesus died for us all, and we all have a Bible. I don't even know where to begin with Buddhism.

[Philosophii]

Sorry, but you don't know what science is.

Science is true whether or not you believe in it, science does not bend for your personal beliefs.

No. It bends to other science. I'm very well aware what science is and how it is expanded upon by those who study it. Your adamant desire to believe that all scientist agree that the Big Bang theory in its current explanation is sad. There are still thousands of scientists still arguing over a theory that doesn't make any sense to begin with. Your beef is with them, not with me.

"there are thousands of us!"
but you still can't provide an example.

fucking thousands, man!