JWeinCom said:
Well I also like debating this sort of thing, so at least we'll start on common grounds. First off, I think you confused the second and first laws of thermodynamics. Not a big deal, but you may want to be more careful if you're invoking that. You're also slightly messing up the wording. The law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics) says that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It has nothing to do with creating from nothing. It just can't be created period within a closed system. So, actually, if someone accepts that something has been created (from within a system) that would actually defy and invalidate the first law of thermodynamics. Secondly, you've said atheists reject god, and this is not true. SOME atheists reject god, but that's not a requirement. Most, like me, would simply say, I don't believe it until I have evidence. Which is, if you've acknowledged its existence has not been proven or disproven, the only rational position one can take. You also say you have faith to back you up, but that's kind of weird to me. How do you define faith, and why is it good support for your beliefs? Of course, if you believe in the Christian god, and you believe the Bible is both accurate and literal, I would say I do actually reject that god. |
My apologies if my attempt to explain my argument in a simpler form has caused a confusion. I can assure you that this is just semantics.
Matter has mass, and mass is a form of energy. All energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed in one form or another. Thus, my point still stands, what triggers this infinite energy known to Science as the initial singularity to prompt a Big Bang explosion that caused the birth of time matter and space?
Removing faith into the equation, the least Atheists and Christians can agree on is that, we don't know anything. You may put a "yet" on the statement but at the current state of what we have, we still don't know anything. Until we know it, Atheism is just like a Religion. It is just another belief, whether you are an Atheist or a Christian, you choose your poison. But for Atheists to claim that it is scientific to deny God is a bit irrational given that Science has not yet answered anything. At least Christians have their lousy excuse called "Faith" while Atheist hides behind Science which does not explain anything "yet". Atheists can deny God, go. But call it an opinion and don't present it as fact.
As stated by David Berlinski, an Atheist himself, states:
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
| JWeinCom said: Secondly, you've said atheists reject god, and this is not true. SOME atheists reject god, but that's not a requirement. Most, like me, would simply say, I don't believe it until I have evidence. |
Actually, I'm following the definition. The rejection of the concept of a creator is what Atheism is about. If you are impartial, whether you believe or deny anything, at best you are an agnostic.
Last edited by Dota2Gamer - on 31 August 2018
