I came across the image to the right today on the Friendly Atheist. As many people have pointed out, remove the word “magic” and you’re pretty much there. In case you can’t see it (click to enlarge) it says:
Atheism
The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.
I’ve tried to come up with my very description of religion, well really Christianity, just to see how it fits in with the description of Atheism. I’ve posted it below.
How would your definition of Religion read?
No related posts.
Joe – I’ve edited your comment to remove the defamatory remark. Please refrain from using such homophobic insults in the future. I have nothing against spirited debate, but please know where to draw the line.
The athiest, i apologize for using such insults, i was typing faster than i was thinking, i am not against homosexuality, but its still funny as hell using it in an argument, but i won’t anymore i guess
baker, of course religion gave us a boost of questioning and answering way back when we didnt have the answers, but now we do, and religion just doest hold up to that anymore, infact, its holding us back, and while it may have started with intelectual thoughts, intelectuals in religion are far and wide, yet full with foolish people who conform their thoughts within their religion
underoath – You’ve raised a couple of interesting points there. Firstly, “is this all there is? or is there more than what we can physically document?”. There is plenty that we currently can’t observe and therefore cannot document with any degree of certainty. We can hypothesise and test out theories, but that’s about it. As we advance, and our understanding of the world around us grows, as it has over the years, we will continue to explore and continue to document. So yet, at the moment there is more than we can document with any degree of certainty, but every year it shrinks in one way, and grows in another (we inevitably, in the act of exploring, discover more things we don’t know. For example, we had no idea we didn’t understand the sub atomic world before we discovered atoms).
Your other point really intrigued me. Just to quote what you said:
That’s really interesting (genuinely). If you are ambivalent as to whether God was involved in the creation of the universe, what would you consider as the definition of a (your) God? If he did not create all that we see, then is he really a God? Would you dismiss the idea that God, instead of being the great creator, was in fact a product of the “Big bang”? I’m intrigued by your answers seeing as you’re obviously sensible enough to at least partly accept the scientific explanation of “origin” (I’m in the middle of writing a post on this very subject by the way, so keep an eye out over the next few days).
maybe I was too woried about being offended and seriously is science all you atheists ever think about??? Science dosent determine whether there is a God or not. Science is everything that can be sensed with one of your five senses. And did you read epiof epicurus’ poemish thing??? It was disturbing and sorry I take lots of things a threats because my dad is in the FBI and I was raised like that, so dont call me stupid and offend me because of it I know most 14 year olds who debate with people like you guys and you know what? THEY WIN. most of them can beat people on this website and I might get them to come on because most of my emails have been insults because “IM JUST A KID” that kind of crap just is unexceptable to me I dont care if you thin kmy brain was too busy to think of the insult part of epicurus poem thing and most of it was an insult TO CHRISTIANITY!!! He basically said that I will burn in hell with my God and that is awful I thought this was an atheist website not for a satanic cult.
p.s.-HOPEFULLY YOU ARENT OFFENDED BY THIS SO YOUR anterior cingulate cortex PART OF YOUR BRAIN WONT MAKE YOU FEEL OFFENDED BY THIS!!!
@atheist- hm. this requires more time to think than i have to write this response but my first kinda reaction is a quote…… i cant remember exactly how it goes but its something like “the more we know, the more we realize that we don’t know”. the obvious point being, as we get smarter and more developed in the scientific world, will we (in trying to answer one set of questions) run into a whole new world of questions that lead to even more questions? perhaps right now when were feeling ever so smart, we’ll run into something else that brings us back to the realization that maybe weve just touched the tip of the ice burg?
i wouldn’t say (as a christian) that god had nothing to do with creation, and i wouldn’t say he was a product of the big bang. but (was it darwin that first started this?) science has been trying to disprove the existence of god by coming up with an explanation for our orgin that didn’t require god. because historically, it was always assumed god or gods were required in the making of the world. i think i was more trying to raise a point that even if science could explain our creation without the need of a higher power, that still doesn’t mean there isn’t a higher power.
my definition of god would be a being who could create and obviously is greater than his creation. like if we wanted to prove of disprove his existence, he doesn’t run on our schedule. i believe he is not trapped in forward time like we are, nor space, nor any other of the proposed dimensions of reality seeing as i believe he created them. and i hope i didnt write anything that im gonna regret later but theres my five minute thoughts for you.
ryan- epicurus wasn’t threatening you, he wasnt even adressing you, he was expressing his feelings and emotions/thoughts, there was nothing to explicet for him to write, since it is a poem, he can take poetic liscence on this one as well, you would epicaly fail in court if you were to bring this to a law situation, and instead of taking it personally why don’t you try interpreting his writing, and considering his point, perhaps he did mean that for you(which he didn’t) hell is a metaphoracal place, and therefore irrelavant in court, so stop being so sensitive, obviously if you live in the home of an fbi agent, you must be in a very sheltered enviornment, im just giving some advise to you, if your a guy, chill, be less sensitive, keep emotions like sadness on the inside, don’t cry easily, its bad for mating to be sensitive, if your a girl, thats fine, and don’t say thats sexist if you are, women are known to have thoughts more based off of emotion, and feelings, guys don’t, or at least show it as much or often, im only saying this because i know a few girls named ryan, as well as guys, so yeah just if ur a guy, be less sensitive.
Indeed, I wasn’t adressing anybody, I was just posting another song just like joe did with Tool.
It’s Heresey by Nine Inch Nails, and I posted it because I think the describtion is pretty accurate.
The song says, ‘he’, the (first) christian, didn’t want to see the real truth (sewed his eyes shut, not litterally).
He believes he got the answers to all those questions, why are we here, how did we exist, etc.
“He dreamed a God up, and called it Christianity.”
That’s the point, he dreamed it up. It’s not real, just imagination (note, this is what the writer and me think, i’m not saying it’s a fact)
“His perfect kingdom, of killing suffering and pain”
Earth was supposed to be the perfect kingdom for us humans, but there’s killing, suffering, and pain running rampant all over. We all feel suffering, and pain at one point. We all see killing happening somewhere, if not just the news.
“Demands devotion, atrocities done in his name”
If you’re not faithful, you’ll go to hell. Simple and done. That’s what the bible says.
Atrocities done in his name; What do we call Tornadoe’s, flash floods, typhoon’s, or any “natural disasters”? We call them “acts of god.” And they all kill, destroy, and cause pain in some form or another.
This is describtion is better and more clear than mine:
“He Sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see”
This is the person who made christianity, he’s afraid to see how the world is, he wanted it changed. He wanted it to be “perfect.”
“He tries to tell me what I put inside of me”
Well… Isn’t it true? Christianity tries to tell us what we’re all about. What our emotions should be.
“He Got the Answers to ease my curiousity”
People always have questioned: “Who, What, Where, When, How.”
Atheist. I still don’t understand why you insist on a dichotomy between science and religion as if they are intrinsically opposed. Science, in fact, has always been strongly promoted in a Christian culture. (Feel free to challenge that).
Thus, I agree with everything you say about the Big Bang hypothesis (proposed by a Christian scientist) up to the point about the universe expanding. But then you add in: “Within the space created by the expansion, and using the matter created, …” Too fast. Nothing is “created” by the expansion. The whole point of the theory is that matter/energy is conserved, and that whatever matter is now in the universe was present at the Big Bang as energy. There is no mechanism for creation after the Big Bang, as you seem to suggest.
I also disagree with some aspects on evolution, but that is secondary for this discussion. So far, our only fundamental disagreement is that you seem to consider creation (from nothing) to be possible in empty space.
All of this, you then contrast with your highly idiosyncratic version of the “God” Explanation as if it is not totally separate. Perhaps you don’t understand the difference between expanding (moving out from the center) and increasing (becoming quantatively more)? Also, the Big Bang equally “magics” something out of nothing. Where did it come from? What is it’s cause? As you rightly point out, “speciation, evolution (especially of our own species) is left unexplained, as is modern science.” Yes. A neat admission that religion and science are not the same thing. You don’t have to choose between them.
This also serves therefore to respond to…
Joe’s critique Briefly put, he argues that religion provided primitive answers until science came on the scene and so it is now defunct.
I would like to add, here, however, that even modern science provides “primitive answers” in one sense. As our knowledge improves some of our present ideas about matter and energy and the universe will look pretty silly in 100 years’ time. That’s the nature of science: it is nothing more than a model. It simply tends towards ever increasing accuracy…
Note to everyone:
Atheists should be greatful to the contribution that religious believers brought to science. Check out: History_of_science_in_the_Middle_Ages in the wikipedia if you don’t beleve me. Science and religion are not opposed, they are just different. You can’t prove (or disprove) one without the other. It’s like trying to prove evolution with nothing but mathematics.
Johnathan Baker- yes we still have things to answer but we need to keep moving foward to keep searching, to think about things, i doubt they will all look silly, maybe looking back some will be wrong, but they are at least born from logic and reason, but i doubt it, all of our ideas are born from logic, and have been tested extensively, and have been proven, we need to move foward in science, to keep searching for the unanswered, i’d say we moved pretty far, and if we tried to have these right answers of science conform to religions “explanations” then it would hold us back.
Well Epicurus, you could have told me that. I took it as if you really believed that as if you go by this, and honestly I dont care what the poems say, I dont care how accurate they are that was just disturbing to me. I want facts, how come Christianity is so…..fake to all of you peoples? Why do you mock it as if God is a coward? Why do you thinkk he dosen’t exist? What solid facts do you have to disprove Christianity?????
Jonathan said: “Atheists should be greatful to the contribution that religious believers brought to science.”
From my perspective “people” made scientific advances in spite of religion.
=”Also, the Big Bang equally “magics” something out of nothing. Where did it come from? What is it’s cause?”
Georges Lemaître proposed the Big Bang theory to inject Genesis into science, “let there be light”. It left open the answer to “What is it’s cause?” to be assumed that God did it. This was successful while the modern day Intelligent Design theory was not. The irony is the big bang is still accepted by a great number of scientist and rejected by a great number of religious people.
=”There is no mechanism for creation after the Big Bang, as you seem to suggest.”
One hypothesis or theory is that below Planck scale dimensional space can not be precisely measured as it fluctuates or oscillates.
The Casimir force was first measured in 1997 by one of my former high school class mates http://tinyurl.com/5prdgs and could be interpreted as a potential energy source for Fred Hoyle’s Continuous Creation theory or Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle (Quantum fluctuation).
Joe, we agree that “if we tried to have these right answers of science conform to religions “explanations” then it would hold us back.” The point once again, is that science and religion are not opposed. They are ‘about’ different things. Religion should not impose on scientific ‘turf’ but accept the findings of objective science (I add that, since sometimes ideology gets caught up in it all). Likewise scientists should not try to pretend to pronounce on religious matters. Science, in itself, (because of it’s methodology) can say nothing about God.
Psy. I think you have misunderstood me. I accept that the “Big Bang Theory” needs to be a purely scientific one. It does seem to account for the facts pretty well from what I can gather, but I’m a rookie in that area and will have to leave it to the scientists to prove or disprove. It makes no real difference to my life/beliefs whether it turns out true or false. (ie I don’t think it affects Genesis either way). Thus, I don’t see any irony that some religious people don’t think it holds up while some non-religious people do.
It is merely ideology and arrogance to say that ““people” made scientific advances in spite of religion”… often the monks were the most educated (since they had the luxury of being able to dedicate time to this) and the ones who really brought scientific thought forward. They were of the mind that science (knowledge obtained from cause and effect) and religion (knowledge obtained from divine revelation) can not contradict each other since they are from the same source. They did not have any of the modern schitzophrenia that science would ‘prove’ religion wrong. All this is quite demonstrable historically, and I would be happy to answer any concrete questions on the topic, as usual.
ryan asked: “I want facts, how come Christianity is so…..fake to all of you peoples?”
Not just Christianity, but religion in general.
Where should I start? Duality, bipolar, God-Devil, love-hate, good-evil, us-them, fear-comfort, Old Testament-New Testament. Its emotion based thinking of absolutes for example your reaction to that poem I see as no different than the reaction of the Islamic follower to that Mohammad cartoon that set off riots in different parts of the world where over a hundred people were killed. This is religions way of oppression/suppressing the free expression rights of others through fear based threats and intimidation. Authoritarianism, fascism, collective slave mind.
I could ramble on and on about the evils of religion and its effects on the minds of people, but I think I will save the rest for others to answer for themselves for now.
Jonathan said: “Big Bang Theory” needs to be a purely scientific one. It does seem to account for the facts pretty well from what I can gather,
The facts are circumstantial at best. The background microwave radiation is not blocked or reduced by galaxies between the Earth and the background for example. The red shift suggesting galaxies are moving away as opposed to blue shift for moving towards us is in dispute. Red shift can also be accounted for by decay or distortion of light over great distances. Considering the latest measurement suggested that every cubic centimeter of deep space contained 1 hydrogen molecule and 2 for each cubic centimeter within the galaxies this would account for some of the red shift.
The predicted ambient temperature of the universe was predicted to be around 50 degrees Kelvin for evidence of the big bang, it was fond to be closer to 3 Kelvin.
Dark matter was made up also to support the big bang theory and the expanding universe theories while galactic magnetic fields are discounted for holding galaxies together as they rotate. The issue here is politics interfering with science in the US while Europe, Russia and other parts of the world are funding and exploring the other possibilities. As you know the last 8 years of politics in the US has been controlled by the religious right.
Johnathan baker- look, you say religious shouldn’t “impose” on science, yes your right but the religious fanatics, or deep beleivers do, the very bible, (genises) does, if it were to be taken seriously it would ruin evolution, the big bang theory, and many others, there is, the people who are intellegent and religious, they don’t question science so much, but most followers of religion arn’t, you cant take pretty much any of genisis as fact, i do at times study the bible, just for fun, (not beleiving in it) there is some good shit in there, stories, morals, if you use symbology in genesis you can actually see the being thrown from the garden as hunter gatheres becoming farmers, the switch, other symbology might say other things as well, but christianity, tries to use science as a means of proving their own theories from their book, or just completely deny it, how can they deny it, we have heavy support for it, they don’t have much in the way of that. but anyway, the fact is they do impose on science, by believing the bible fully, by trying to disprove it, by using it for their means. and thats what im getting tired of.
“Note to everyone:
Atheists should be greatful to the contribution that religious believers brought to science. Check out: History_of_science_in_the_Middle_Ages in the wikipedia if you don’t beleve me.”
Johnathan Baker- Seariously, the middle ages, their contributions to science were horrible…. with the exception of the part in the renaissance, they told us not to bathe often, like once or twice a year, the religios nuts then would have us beleive that the sun revolves around us, the world is flat. Ladies and gentlemen, i give you the religious contributions to science in the middle ages….. The sun revolves around the earth, the world is flat, jews chose the wrong religion, lets kill them in the inquisition, oh i don’t like my neighbor, shes a witch, a witch?…yeah….burn her. these are the religios accomplishments of the middle ages, and later, great.
Psy, I do infact see what you mean by this but Christianity is seperate from other religions, It isnt a religion, a religion is man trying to reach god, but Christianity is God trying to reach man through Jesus Christ.
Science is taught us things like, what is the sun, that the earth is not flat, to create computers, phones, all sorts of useful things.
what has religion braught us? wars. anything useful, No.
Why believe in Jesus, God, heaven and hell. If those things exist, Zeus, the third eye, Ra, Anubis, aliens, these things could exist as well.
If there is a God, why doesn’t he just remove all bad people so earth would be paradise?
Also I do believe Christianity was intended to be the opiate for the masses, so people wouldn’t dare to resist against their leader, they were ‘chosen by god’.
fuck. Don’t mind the spelling+grammar mistakes. I can do better than that.
has*
epicurus- do you not believe in the existence of a man named jesus? he has more historical references and background than zeus.
and if ‘god’ were to get rid of bad people, bad compared to whom? jesus? he’d have to kill us all. whose definition of good and bad would he be following.
now your mixing up the divine right of kings with christianity. popes are voted on i believe. and im not catholic. i question my pastor alot too.
Under(/)ath asked: “epicurus- do you not believe in the existence of a man named jesus? he has more historical references and background than zeus.”
As far as I know there are only 4 historical accounts Jesus outside of the Bible and they are all questionable accounts that have been refuted over and over. Please do your research before you make such claims.
Psy- thanks for doing my research for me. as far as i know 4>0. correct me if im wrong.
Under(/)ath, Yes there are 4 and written after the supposed time of Jesus, Its been a few years since I’ve research it debated it on other forums. Here are the 4 and the 5th is a Jewish writing if you would like to follow up a decide for yourself.
Josephus Flavius, Antiquities 93 C.E
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus
Suetonius
Talmud