barefootboy is an atheist and liberal/libertarian who has given me permission to challenge his/her beliefs. So, here we go. Know that everything I say is my opinion, but I can back it up. Feel free to tell me what you think, express yourselves, whatever, just keep it nice. At this point, I'm only going to talk about his/her religious tendencies.
First of all, there's a serious difference between atheists and agnostics. Atheists (contrary to popular belief) DO hold beliefs. They believe that there is no God, and it's the norm for them to believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution. Agnostics, on the other hand, believe that there is no way for us to know or prove successfully whether or not God or any gods exist, as opposed to definately knowing that no God exists.
So, let's talk about the Big Bang Theory. According to NASA, "The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance. The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery. Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html)
But I have a question: When you think about explosions, you think about destruction, not creation. Also, where did the "primeval atom" come from?
Evolution, according to The Free Dictionary by Farlex, is the "slow gradual process of change from one form to another, as in the evolution of the universe from its formation to its present state, or in the evolution of life on Earth. In biology, it is the process by which life has developed by stages from single-celled organisms into the multiplicity of animal and plant life, extinct and existing, that inhabits the Earth. The development of the concept of evolution is usually associated with the English naturalist Charles Darwin who attributed the main role in evolutionary change to natural selection acting on randomly occurring variations. These variations in species are now known to be adaptations produced by spontaneous changes or mutations in the genetic material of organisms. In short, evolution is the change in the genetic makeup of a population of organisms from one generation to another. Evidence shows that many species of organisms do not stay the same over generations. The most dramatic evidence of this comes from fossils.Evolution occurs via the following processes of natural selection: individual organisms within a particular species may show a wide range of variation because of differences in their genes; predation, disease, and competition cause individuals to die; individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment are more likely to survive and breed successfully; and the genes that have enabled these individuals to survive are then passed on to the next generation, and if the environment is changing, the result is that some genes are more abundant in the next generation and the organism has evolved.Evolutionary change can be slow, as shown in part of the fossil record. However, it can be quite fast. If a population is reduced to a very small number, evolutionary changes can be seen over a few generations. Because micro-organisms have very short life cycles, evolutionary change in micro-organisms can be rapid. Micro-organisms can evolve resistance to a new antibiotic only a few years after the drug is first used. As a result of evolution from common ancestors, we are able to use classification of organisms to suggest evolutionary origins." (http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Darwin's+theory+of+evolution)
But what's wrong with the Theory of Evolution? Several reasons:
- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has ocurred either in the past or in the present.
- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
- THe supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
- Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually apes/monkeys and not part human at all.
- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
- Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
- THe rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.
(http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm)
If you go to the above website, you can click on the "Evidences" (which are links), and it'll give more details and information on each individual evidence. This will give you a fuller understanding of the evidences.
The Big Bang Theory, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and Natural Selection, are all commonly accepted by atheists as true. Maybe ya'll should take another look at these theories, and look into certain things. For the creationist view, go read Genesis 1-3 (it should only take you about 30 minutes to an hour, if that). I'll post a blog entry on the accuracy of the Bible either later tonight or tomorrow, and we can go from there...
I'm impressed that you mentioned atheists as having beliefs. Hi five.
really enjoyed this. I also question the theory of creationism...
Actually, evolution can be proved. Microevolution (change within a species) has been proven-just look at darwin's study of the finches. They had the genes for their beak to evolve to better suit their environment. However, Macroevolution (one species evolving to another) has not been proven.
Very interesting though.
In addition I would say you have put up arguments against evolution and demonstrated that the big bang theory will never be proven without giving solid evidence of God. Your forgone conclusion is that because these two theories, which have contributed so much to modern atheisms defense, are on shaky ground that God must exist.
I could point you towards several threads on ProU holding debates on both theories that go far above my head and proper understanding. Check out Darwin's Beagle's blog for those. I can say with certainty though that evolution and natural selection DO HAPPEN. Scientists have observed worms and flies becoming different species through natural selection. Now, this isn't worms becoming apes becoming humans, but it does demonstrate that natural selection can result in two populations of previously identical organisms becoming so different over time that they must be considered two different species.
Frankly the beginnings of the universe involve math and ideas that are far to complex for me to feel like writing about right now.
And now, finally, to the basic premise of your argument, which seems to be that because these two scientific theories are falsely held beliefs atheists should belief in God, a true belief. To this I say, were there not atheists before these beliefs? There certainly were. On top of that there are many cultures and religions that are monotheistic, atheistic and shamanic (believing each living thing and object has its own spirit).
Just because many modern, western atheists believe in things like the big bang theory or evolution doesn't mean that by attacking those beliefs that you can attack the actual belief you object to, namely lack of belief in God. There are many evolutionist, big bang theory believers who still believe in the Christian or Abrahamic God. Atheism does not have its roots in evolution and big bang theory. It has its roots in the logical impossibility of any being meeting the requirements of the Christian God. Even a logical argument meant to prove the existence of A GOD almost never proves the existence of YOUR GOD.
You assume that if things like evolution and the big bang theory are wrong then God becomes a more reasonable idea, but such negative arguments make no positive arguments for God. Because you believe and see God as the only alternative for such problems does not mean others will share that view.
In addition to poking holes in these theories you must prove your own theories. In this you have a distinct disadvantage because anybody who believes in these things will tell you that they are theories and as such are being constantly refined and changed and may eventually be thrown out entirely. They are valid only as long as they explain the evidence in the best way possible.
Evolution has holes, so does big bang theory. They may both be complete crap, but they are only theories that support an atheistic, scientific universe. They are not atheistic beliefs and they are not atheism. Remove them and atheism remains, untouched. I can offer a thousand, well half a dozen, credible, by theist standards', atheistic explanations for both the beginning of the universe and the creation of life without the big bang or evolution.
Finally, associating the big bang with a bomb going is a metaphor of convenience, it isn't an explosion as we would normally think of one. It is also invalid to link explosions with destruction. That is all a matter of point of view. A building may be destroyed, or rubble is being created. If your friends are killed by a bomb during a war, you would feel that they were destroyed, where as the enemy would feel that they created more useful corpses.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principals."
Atheists don't claim to believe in nothing. That is nihlism. All that it means is that we think that god does not exist.
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
Thanks for the plug spring_green ;)
Your intro was well-written and caught me a little off guard. There is no subject I have always been more hopeless in than biology. Physics, only slightly better. So I can't offer an impassioned defense of either evolution or the Big Bang. I believe in both those views, but on the same grounds that I believe in the existence of subatomic particles or gravity; that is, because experts have assured us that they exist, and not because I could prove them myself.
Having said that, I should point out what was missing from your entry. There were atheists before the theories of evolution and the Big Bang; and if those theories are someday superseded by something else, there will still be atheists. I think those theories have played a big role in helping popularize atheism, by explaining what had previously often been explained as "God must have done it." But they are not the core of atheism by any means.
Dr. Gonzo did an excellent job pointing out several things I would've pointed out as well. An explosion is only "destructive" from the point of view of a living thing standing beside it. To assume otherwise is to become a victim of a mixed metaphor.
Dr. Gonzo also pointed out, "Even a logical argument meant to prove the existence of A GOD almost never proves the existence of YOUR GOD." Suppose we realized that a higher intelligence did design the universe. Which one would it be? Allah? Baal? Shiva? Thor? Yahweh? Zeus? None of the above? We'd be barely closer to Christian belief than when we started.
Might I add, one of the key things in prompting people to become atheists is the realization that all these early myths are essentially similar and basically interchangeable. The early tribes didn't believe in a distant, philosophical, immaterial God. The men who wrote the Old Testament were tribal warriors who believed in a superman just beyond the clouds that would win their battles for them against their enemies. Of course, their enemies had gods too. As always, the victors wrote the history books, and the victors' god became the "true" god.
As we've advanced, and the human race has become less superstitious and fearful, belief in that sort of God has been replaced by belief in a tame, benevolent God who doesn't exist in our dimension at all. (I must point out, if you had described God that way that to Moses or Joshua he would not have had the faintest idea what you were talking about.) The problem is, there is not a shred more evidence that that kind of God exists than that the early, warrior god of the Israelites does. Yet it seems we will do just about anything to avoid having to give up and accept the obvious.
And that's what it comes down to: there is just no evidence. If there is a God, it seems he wants to keep us ignorant of His existence, because everything in the universe He created argues against it--with or without Darwinism.
Sorry, but yours are the typical comments of a religious myth believer when approaching the concept of atheistism.
Do we have all the answers for a scientific explanation of everything? No. Scientific knowledge advances year by year, over the decades and centuries. Unknowns that Newton ascribed to god because he could not find an answer, we now know scientifically exacly how they work. And a god had nothing to do with it.
Even the scientific knowledge we have can be modified by new discoveries; it is a on going process. Religion is fairy tales, and usually not so pretty ones at that, that can also change radically given the right political incentive, such as the creation of the christian religion in 325 ad from a mixture of paganism, the jewish faith and the christian faith,
There is a reason Pope Paul requested that Stephen Hawking stop thinking.
( Hawking refused,)
How is religion going to react when the last piece of the big bang theory falls into place, and all the world will have to accept that god did not, in fact, create the universe? Obviously Pope Paul thought it would be faith destroying.
Science is what man actually knows, religion is what some men think they know.
Atheists prefer knowledge of facts, to myths of religion.
those theories are commonly believed by atheists...um...I believe them too, I'm not atheist or agnostic :)
"Wealth, however, does have one advantage over looks: beauty fades, interest accrues." -- Dan Savage.
"Wealth never decreases because of charity." Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
http://www.progressiveu.org/231615-this-is-a-muslim-girls-plight
I mentioned in my other post that Darwinian evolution and the Big Bang were not the core of atheist thought. It was possible to be an intelligent atheist before Darwin, and it's possible to be an intelligent theist now (although it's not possible, by definition, to be a properly educated creationist). But I will certainly agree that there was a big paradigm shift that took place in the 19th and 20th Centuries, a shift in the burden of proof, if you like. Before Darwin, the theist could address the atheist and say "So what better explanation do *you* have?" Today, the atheist addresses the theist and says, "What is left to explain that can't be better explained by natural science than by a superhuman designer?" Theism has shifted from offense to defense.