₦airaland Forum

Goodyshoes:
Hy Cloud princess...

I'm curious, do you ENTIRELY dismiss the notion, idea or concept of God??

I ask this, not from the religious perspective..... Rather from the philosophical and ontological point of view.....
Simply put, I do not imply the notion of personal Gods espoused by religions like the Jewish god and other likes.

Cheers.

Hello

My stance is that some mystical force or entity that is currently alien to humanity could exist. But as you said, I completely disagree with religion's standpoint on it -- anything that claims to know what "it" is, what it wants (if it even wants anything), what it thinks (if it even "thinks" ), how it looks (if it even has an appearance), etc.

I don't entirely find the belief in some non-personal, non-dogmatified deity one loosely refers to as "God" problematic. I'm very open to discourse about things like where the natural laws that govern our universe come from, how powerful we are as human beings and how much we're truly capable of, what happened before the big bang and the existence of a multiverse. Some people like to refer to such concepts using words like "intelligence" or "god-force" or "life-force". I have no problem with that sort of thing, although I feel it can sometimes get in the way of useful scientific inquiry, or even cause people to conflate science with pseudoscientific "woo-woo".

Godwin2016:
Repent before it is too late

Repent to Hindu god Krishna before it's too late and you are reborn as an earthworm in your reincarnation

analice107:
I am 100% certain now, that Christianity is true. So many questions in my mind has been answered here.
So many scriptures have been fulfilled. To see you guys turn against God so much gives me the assurance that my Saviour is true. He told me about you. Ride on, we shall surely meet again, whether together as sheep or separated on the other side as a goat.

I am 100% certain now, that Christianity is true.
And most people living in the Middle East are 100% certain that Islam is true. And millions of people living in India are 100% certain Hinduism is true. Your feeling of certainty based on weak reasoning is no more powerful or indicative of truth than a 5 year old's belief in father christmas. It doesn't mean anything, especially when it is not a result of careful thinking and unbiased examination of evidence, but merely circular arguments and self-serving biases.

To see you guys turn against God so much gives me the assurance that my Saviour is true. He told me about you.
"To see everyone running from danger so rapidly gives me the assurance that there is no danger and I should remain standing where I am." Impeccable reasoning as usual, A+.

asalimpo:
Even un believers/non christians know that the world is aggravating it's rate and magnitude of sin.
Man is pushing the limits on what is acceptable. Was this always the case ? No.
So something new is going on and it will only get worst.

Too bad sin is imaginary. I'll bet the "aggravation of sin" you speak of is sh*t that's only bad according to the bible. Consexual, safe sex between non-related adults of appropriate age (and any kinks and variations of it, no matter how "perverted" they seem to you and your closed mind) is not morally wrong by any reasonable standard. Homosexuality, etc. is not morally wrong by any reasonable standard. These and similar things do not harm anyone but are demonized due to moronic, hateful, and ignorant 1st century logic.

When discussing real moral issues, like human rights, safety, just punishment for murder, rape, and theft, etc -- we can see that the average developed society is doing far better than the barbarians of the bible times. Back then people were willing to throw rocks at a woman until her skin was torn and she bled to death, for failing to prove her "virginity" on her first night of coitus with her spouse. Try that in the 21st century UK, US, or Netherlands and see how quickly you're behind bars or in a psychiatric ward.

Ironically the only regions you still see outlandishly immoral acts being carried out on a regular basis, like the unjust killing of innocents, persecution of the innocent, & rape and mistreatment of women, is in countries that refuse to let go of their religions' "guidance".

Man is pushing the limits on what is acceptable. Was this always the case ? No.
LOL have you read any history book? Have you not learned of any of the f*cked up scenarios carried out by humans as far back as 3000 BC? Or is your only knowledge the bible... because that would explain this very ignorant statement.

UyiIredia:
It is naive to limit human progress to technological advancement and forget the need for character development. All the technology in the world and basic human courtesy which your posts is bereft of is sorely lacking. I wonder why.

LOL! You think biblical law is the "character development" we need? Nawa oh... Tell me more about how we need to go back to "witch" burnings and non-virgin stonings, and slavery, and public executions. Because when the bible was taken as law, societies were just as barbaric as Islamic-ruled states are presently.

The bible is a crap book to turn to for any type of moral guidance if you actually read it for face value. No modern law in any functioning developed country operates off of biblical standards of "morality". By the way a typical humanist freethinker has far more "character" than the average deluded self-centered Christian, in Nigeria or anywhere else. At least his ideas of right and wrong come from sound, up-to-date reasoning and genuine compassion for humanity, rather than 20 century-old misogynist, war obsessed cave dwellers' ideas of what an equally barbaric "god" would want.

Decker:
I agree, but it's a necessary evil that we all have to live with. We can't eradicate religion from the world, no matter how we talk about it's flaws, so, it's best we just let it be and worry about other more important stuff that we can change.

No it isn't & no we don't. Yes we can (or at least decrease it significantly; it's already happening), and religion (& all the unnecessary problems it causes) is "important stuff that we can change".

Image123:
That is a deadened conscience. It is not a new thing or something to rejoice about. Have you not seen thieves and politicians that do not feel guilty, or rapists and wife beaters without remorse? Are they hypocrites? Do you suppose that Hitler did not live the way he wanted and even think he was doing the world a lot of good?

You think the author was referring to stealing and raping? Wow.

He was referring to the natural adult human behaviors that the tyrannical Yahwah classifies as sinful despite having little to no harm in regards to actual morality. Like premarital sex between two consenting adults, or working on Saturdays.

And:
This is the most laughable part of all the post, you cannot base morality on personal logic. Personal logic is as fickle as the word fickle. Anyone that says christian standards are arbitrary only to compare to personal standards is a joker and ignorant fellow.
Logic is a fantastic foundation on which to base morality, actually. I'd argue it's the only effective way. Every lawmaker in every developed, secular country has used logic to create their governing rules. What, you think the U.S. Constitution was based off the bible? Laughable.

The "moral codes" in the bible were clearly written for a stone age, barbaric society with no regard whatsoever for women's rights or even human equality. The bible is FAR from the gold-standard for human morality. It's similar to the flat-earth theory in science - outdated and no longer useful according to what humanity has LOGICALLY concluded to be better over time. And yes, that goes for a society's idea of what is moral.

This is one reason why religion is such a deadweight on humanity. It causes people to trust their money-hungry pastors and self-contradictory "holy" texts written by men with a fraction of the knowledge of a modern-day 4th grader, over careful human reasoning - you know, what has taken us from cave-dwelling wanders to huge societies, cell phones, computers, rocketships and modern medicine. The further back in the past you go, the more barbaric, uncivilized, and relatively immoral society was. That includes the era the bible was written in and the people it was written to control. It was our minds that got us to our present standards, not gods or any supernatural entities and especially not Yahweh - a fabricated mythical figure no more proven than Zeus or Krishna who commanded numerous murders, rapes, and baby-killings.

tempem:
And you, raised an atheist?

Nope. Raised Christian, became atheist in adulthood.

You can have confidence in a belief and it still be wrong. You can be "convicted" and still be completely wrong. That is what Christians are.

You say you need evidence to believe in your god, but outside of personal emotions, illusions of the mind, and the bible (which itself is chock full of contradictions and inconsistencies) there is no evidence supporting the works supposedly carried out by the supernatural entities of Christianity. No external, independently verified evidence that proves the God of Abraham and Jesus as any more valid as the Hindu god Krishna.

Also, for every atheist that returned to religion, there are likely at least 1000 religious people who turned atheist. It takes a very confused, fragmented, and probably emotionally-driven mind to go from reason back to irrationality. Then again though, people who are raised atheist usually didn't reason their way to atheism in the first place, so such people are still vulnerable to being sucked in to comforting religious dogmas.

In the US and the UK there has been a modern adaptation of Buddhism that moves the focus from the supernatural symbolism of the traditional religion, to the proven psychological benefits and personal growth that can be attained through Buddhist style meditation. The movement/pratice is called "mindfulness meditation", and there are now many phone apps, websites, programs, and books that teach it. It is actually quite simple to learn, no chanting or hypnosis, there are no dogma or supernatural beliefs required to practice it and the benefits are quite astonishing.

There have been several studies done backing its merits, and its application to many human woes like anxiety, depression, PTSD, even bad habits and addiction. This study discovered significantly increased gray matter in the brains of long-term meditators compared to non-meditators. Gray matter makes up the parts of the brain responsible for self control, emotion regulation, executive function, and overall happiness/peace of mind:
"Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004979/

A good, simple article referencing these studies and more:
https://hbr.org/2015/01/mindfulness-can-literally-change-your-brain

A quick google search of things like, "mindfulness meditation benefits", "mindfulness meditation research", "mindfulness anxiety/depression/stress" will pull up many hits of current and reputable web pages discussing the practice.

I started a year ago and I have to say it has truly changed my experience of life. I'm more in control of my reactions - rather than being controlled by emotional whims, I have learned to obtain a stillness of mind that allows me to pause more easily before making decisions. I am able to metaphorically "step out" of racing thoughts and emotions, and experience them from a less consumed point of view. My stress is down, my enjoyment of life is up, I can now see fears, upset, insecurities and worries for what they are - temporary events of the mind, nothing to fear or be controlled by. I am able to experience gratitude and compassion much more readily.

It's been referred to by experts as "a workout for your mind" -- you are gradually training your brain to be more focused, more "in the now" rather than consumed by habitual intrusive thought, more aware of your physical, emotional, and mental experiences, more in control of your actions, and less judgmental of yourself and others. Over time it becomes easier and more natural, and you begin to relate to your experiences in a way that leaves you so much less stressed, worked up, and battered by life.

In this video Dan Harris, agnostic-atheist meditator, newscaster, and author discusses the practical benefits and science.
"Dan Harris: Hack Your Brain's Default Mode with Meditation"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAcTIrA2Qhk

It's certainly something worth checking out, especially for any atheist or skeptic who's looking for a reliable, proven path towards self-growth that's not polluted by dogma.

analice107:
There's evidence for the big bang theory? Plse show me.

There are several web pages on this but this one seems simple and to the point.

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid

"Astronomers think that the Universe started with the Big Bang. As with all science, this is based on evidence; so what is the evidence for the Big Bang theory?

The spiral galaxy - M51
1. Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.

Cosmic Microwave Background
2. Microwave Background
Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.

The Sun is a fairly new star
3. Mixture of Elements
As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right.

You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang.

Galaxies of long ago
4. Looking back in time
The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.

Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.

From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory."

Also, NASA's page that's a little more complex.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/

UyiIredia:
@ bold: The fact that you write this shows that you are ignorant of the young-earth creationism. Like most other skeptic and atheists you've not sat town to read and listen to the arguments and evidence creationist have to see whether it is worthy. Creationists in fact have loads of peer reviewed articles. In fact, initially they tried getting their articles through to secular journals but their bias against anything Biblical which they deemed anti-science stopped editors from publishing their ideas for critique.

Where are they?

I have seen several articles claiming to be evidence for YEC, only to find that they were already disproven by actual scientists. The bias against biblical findings doesn't exist - but a bias against falsehoods does. Extraordinary claims, like YEC, require extraordinary evidence, which we have yet to have found. And on top of that, there is so much evidence against a young earth that it's not even a matter of dispute in the scientific community anymore, and hasn't been for hundreds of years (specifically since the 1700s, when Scottish geologists concluded the earth's age must be "inconcievably old" due to observing the strata in canyons and fossil sites).

Another reason YEC "scientists" aren't taken seriously is likely because they try to do science backwards. They come with a claim that they "know" is true because of their religious indoctrination, then they look for evidence trying to prove what they already believe is true - causing them to ignore evidence that competes with their view (which happens to be very plentiful). This isn't how good science is done.

Science is supposed to go from:
Unbiased observation --> Hypothesis --> Test (and retest, and retest) --> Peer review --> Supported Theory (Fact).

It seems that YEC "science" is more like:
Hypothesis ("Abrahamic god created everything" ) --> Biased observation ("Look at nature, it proves there is a creator" ) --> Fact ("Young earth creationism is true." )

beau49:
In other words whatever cannot be verified or proven you don't see as true. Now this verification who does them,you or other people?

I added more to my post, and please see my first response to you as well. I think it answers some of this.

Any observer can do the verification, it just has to be consistent to be valid. And supernatural claims are WILDLY inconsistent. Even within Christianity you will get 100 people with different contradicting testimonies.

And when I say valid, I mean capable of confidently being taken as fact. If something hasn't yet been validated (but also hasn't been DISPROVEN, which many biblical/quran claims have been), that doesn't mean it MUST not be true. It just means that there is a potentially high likelyhood of it being untrue, and taking it as fact is risky. And when it comes to religion, it's simply unwise to base major decisions and lifestyle choices on unvalidated claims that have a high chance of being incorrect.

Not surprisingly, people don't do this in any other realm of their lives except religion. Before taking a medicine, people make sure it's been tested to work and not have deadly side effects. Before driving a car for a long trip, people make sure all the parts are working. But with religion, people are okay with basing their entire lives on mere conjecture.

beau49:
And Spiritual?



What I mean is what makes my beliefs as a Christian or muslim wrong? What checks do you useas a basis?


Science?

It depends specifically what beliefs you're looking at. Christianity and Islam both make a lot of fact claims - of how nature works, how the world began, that there is an unseen entity interfering in our daily affairs, and more. Since these are fact claims, they require evidence that is consistent and independently varified, none of which has ever been provided since the dawn of those religions.

To make matters worse, not only have many of the claims made by those religious books NOT been verified, but findings in direct opposition to them have been verified, multiple times. And if a book that claims to be the ultimate source of guidance for humanity is riddled with unsupported and disproven claims, then it follows that it is untrustworthy and the belief system as a whole is flawed.

"Spirituality" is a very broad term and can encompass anything from Buddhist meditation (a practice that can be completely secular), and worship of the Abrahamic god, simply dependant on who you ask. It's a more shady area due to its subjectivity but you can sometimes break down spiritual experiences in similar ways. For example, if you're testing the spirituality claim that "Buddhist meditation brings peace", you can evaluate that. In a study, the brains of long-term buddhist meditators were hooked up to brain scanning machines, and the results showed that the amount of gray matter in their brain (areas responsible for conscious reasoning, emotion regulation, and peace of mind) were significantly increased compared to a non-meditator.

If you have a claim like "god spoke to me and told me to kill my neighbor", its a lot harder to test empirically. But because gods speaking to people has proven to be such an inconsistent occurance (for example, another person can say god told them to SAVE the neighbor about to be killed), it can be classified as merely a result of delusion -- and I say that in the nicest way possible. In this context the word just means a mistaken perception - something us humans are ALL prone to.

beau49:
@bolded what defines a right or wrong conviction?

Good question.

When it comes to fact claims, like why human beings get disease, how nature works, how old the earth is, or if seizures are a matter of witchcraft (rather than mental malfunctioning), then the determinant is whether or not it aligns with reality and is consistent across independent trials.

But when it comes to matters of triviality that are at the root subjective, like favorite food or genre of music, there is no "correct" conviction.

Pidggin:
You've just proven my point.

By calling out a baseless opinion being touted as fact, I have proved that atheists as a whole suffer from depression? Brilliant reasoning.

Pidggin:
Most athiest are depressed. All those things the OP mentioned only gives temporal excitement.

Where's the data to prove this? Sounds like you're just talking out of your ass.

TheRealAdonye:
I've never said one religion is greater than the other.
If I wasn't born Christian, would I have been one by now?
The answer for me is Yes. Not so for a lot of other people if I dare say.
The key here is Conviction.

No one is forcing the three adults to believe in anything. However, if they decide to believe in a Supreme being, they have to read the Holy books put before them and in the end follow the one they're most convicted about.

Little caveat here though: The bible looks like the best ever work of fiction if you set out to read it like that.
I haven't researched enough on the Taoist and Jainist faith to be able to say the same but it most likely would read like fiction too.

Where would said conviction come from? With no prior knowledge of the religion at all?

It's easy to say that you personally would choose Christianity again - that's called the hindsight bias -- people tend to predict that if given the opportunity they'd make the same choices. But without the same cultural influences, societal/familial influences, or prior familiarity with the said religion, it becomes much less likely that a person would make the same choice.

All these forces I mention - culture, society, family, familiarity - are extremely strong environmental forces that act on our subconscious minds to produce the choices we make and the attitudes we hold. "Conviction" as you put it is just a strong belief that something is true. But that still doesn't say anything about its objective legitimacy. We humans can have all sorts of convictions that are wrong - most of which are a result of conditioning via those environmental forces. And whichever attitudes and convictions we adopted first tend to generate resistance in the face of newly introduced, competing attitudes, regardless of validity.

It's why a Buddhist raised in a culture that practices Buddhism will hold a much stronger conviction that Buddhism is true, than a Christian raised in a culture that practices Christianity, who picks up a Buddhist book after already having been familiar with Christianity first. In the latter case their prior experience with Christianity is biasing them strongly against competing religious ideas. This phenomena has been heavily confirmed in the field of psychology with all sorts of beliefs/convictions, both trivial and nontrivial.

Just something to think about.

Denying God’s existence takes an even bigger leap of faith because the questions raised in the Bible still demand to be answered.
So instead of actually looking for answers through serious inquiry and study, you would rather pretend to know the answers because an ancient story fed to you by white colonists is more convenient? You do realize that pretending to know that something is true isn't the same as actually knowing, right? According to Christians, every religion that isn't Christianity has the wrong answers. How can you be so sure yours aren't just as flawed?

Those who discount the Bible must supply answers themselves to countless questions with no ready answers, such as those dealing with the meaning of life and the complexity of design seen in the universe.
So many flaws here. The bible is the only book that has attempted to answer those questions? You're clearly ignorant to the fact that man has been searching for those answers since we first became capable of inquisitive thought. There have been calculated to have been over 4,000 religions created since the dawn of mankind. Why don't you accept the Hindu story of creation and meaning? Or the Buddhist story - both of those came around before Christianity anyway. They make some convincing points, some a lot more believable than the Christian creation story & the Christian idea of human purpose (which is nothing but eternal worship & glorification of Yahweh. talk about unsatisfactory - to me living to worship a being seems quite meaningless.)

Many who choose to trust something other than the Bible must finally agree with atheist Bertrand Russell, who concluded that, if life beyond the grave is a myth, then life before the grave has no meaning.
No we don't. Not all atheists hold the same values and ideas of what makes humanhood meaningful. All atheism says is that none of the gods posed by humanity have sufficient evidence to exist. Outside of that, we all can hold whatever values we see fit. We simply don't derive those values from devised supernatural entities. What does that say about love? Family? Compassion? Wisdom? Knowledge? Innovation? Exploration? The countless things we humans can enjoy in life without relying on any religious dogma.

The truth is that meaning in terms of human life is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. We all see this in our day to day lives. The choices we make, the things we are drawn to, what we consider good for us, all depend on our own PERSONAL outlooks. All subjective. The idea that there must be some universal, blanket "meaning" that applies to every human being on earth is just lazy thinking. As long as we possess autonomy and resources then every one of us is capable of crafting a "meaningful" life, whatever that means for us.

Speak for yourself. I am something without any gods. Although I do agree that material wealth can only take one so far. Meaningful relationships, passionate interests, sound emotional/psychological health and and a healthy relationship with oneself are far more important to long term happiness.

TheRealAdonye:
I have issues with any one's belief system being mocked.
However, I believe Atheism is rational.
To be honest, Christianity and indeed other religions are not rational.


The majority of the Bible is not explained rationally. This where Faith comes in.
We are supposed to have faith. We are supposed to trust God and not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).
The Bible tells us that the “just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). We therefore should trust God regardless of whether His words make sense to our understanding.

This is not rational. It was never intended to be.
Don't sweat it.

No disrespect but I'm genuinely curious. If faith is the only foundation by which you base your belief, then how would someone be able to objectively decide what religion is correct? What about Hindus who have faith? Or Jainist or Taoist faith? If you took three un-indoctrinated, unbiased adults and put these religions in front of them, with nothing but their respective holy books and an offer to employ faith, how would they know which to choose?

TrajansKong:
Witches get their power from our pathetic, cowardly, servile African addiction to ignorance and our predictably depressing compulsion to grovel before actual or self-proclaimed authority.

To the degree that we fear knowledge and free enquiry, witches shall have power over us.

The more time I spend in this forum, the more I fear. Spookism may Well rule our people forever and ever...

Sharp and to the point. Well said.

drered:
No religion can withstand the assault of sustained critical thinking..

To put it simply.

lepasharon:
LOL

You just quoted urban dictionary... that's a reliable source for definitions?

Beautiful, beautiful article and I can relate to every single point.

A few more:

- I no longer have to fear science, or run away when people discuss the Big Bang or Evolution. I can examine the evidence from an unbiased eye and experience all the awe and wonder that comes from understanding nature more. Also:
- I can experience true, deep gratitude for scientists, doctors, engineers, all of the incredible human minds of the past and present that have made brave and world-changing contributions to modern society. I no longer sweep their incredible works under the rug and instead relay my thanks to an imaginary being.

Speechless3:
Tellemall Nice one! I trust people who use their brains, not people who run to the lab over every little thing like crybabies

Did this statement really make sense to you when you typed it out? Because it indicates so much bigotry, entitlement, and incomprehensible ignorance, that I can't fathom any educated adult typing such a thing.

"Running to the lab" is exactly what made this computer you're using, the cellphone you own, the television you watch, the medicine that probably keeps you alive, and even the food you currently eat (almost all the foods we eat have been genetically engineered for taste, size, quantity, etc) possible. How about you try living without all the things science and rigorous inquiry (not prayer, the bible, or religion) gave you before you have the audacity to mock it? Go and live in the forest with only you and your bible and see how well you fare without people "running to the lab like crybabies". Seriously sickening to read.

This is a perfect example of what religion does to people; the part of your brain meant for logical thought has effectively been turned off -- making you the perfect pawn for greedy pastors to feed off of. Your ignorance lines their pocketbooks and keeps Nigeria in the dark ages while secular societies are soaring.

You and Tellemall are some of the most textbook-worthy cases of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've seen recently on these forums (not that you likely know what that means either). There's really nothing I can do for people like you anymore except pity you. Hopefully you come to your senses one day but with this level of denial combined with such an alarming lack of education, I'm doubtful.

Tellemall:
If you cannot replicate the big bang that brought about intelligent life as your evidence, then do not look down on creation the way Christians say it happened.

Your description of the process by which scientific works are noted is irrelevant. It doesn't answer my questions or make your big bang theory more plausible. It simply shows the randomness of what atheists subscribe to. Atheists sound like everything can be scientifically explained. If that is so, why can't the scientists recreate a big bang?

Science suddenly doesn't need believers, so why do atheists try to explain everything away with science?

OK. I'm done. This whole atheism thing will never be convincing enough. What's the proof of atheism? Religious people have miracles but what do atheists have? Doubt in everything and not one bit of

Atheism is too vague and has no evidence.

But hey, it's a free world. You can believe that you don't believe in God or that you do believe in him. After all, we are all chasing illusions.

You know that the "replication" you keep speaking of is impossible. And such a thing is NOT necessary to prove the Big Bang, just like a real-time observation of a criminal act is not necessary for a detective team to deduce a criminal. We have EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. If you don't know the meaning of that, here it is:

"Empirical evidence" or "scientific evidence" is evidence which serves the purpose of either supporting or countering a scientific hypothesis or theory."

I provided valid evidence supporting the Big Bang already and you completely ignored it.

Atheism does not have the burden of proof. Atheism is the negative position ("a-" means lack of, "theism" means belief in a god), we aren't making ANY claims, other than the only one that would logically follow lack of proof of something. If someone came to you and said flying unicorns exist, would you believe them by default? Or would you ask them to state their proof? Until they provided proof that was valid, you would probably be a-unicornist.

Every god hypothesis (yours and the 3,999 others) is exactly like a hypothesis proposing the existence of mythical creatures. People proposing that their specific God exists are the ones who need to present THEIR proof of why THEIR God exists. Until then, there is no reason for any logically thinking human being to accept any of them as true.

That said, try to answer this. What is YOUR evidence that a human-like, ego-fueled, all-powerful being with emotions, created the universe by speaking it into existence, formed humans out of sand, caused childbirth to be painful because he was mad at Eve, etc. If such things were true, there would be signs. Where are those signs? Where is the evidence for your position? Why don't you present that evidence to your local research lab? You realize that if you provided such evidence, you would become world-renowned and transform the world of science, right?

Another great post johny! Shared.

Great find.

Moral licensing also explains why so many adult Christians perform horrible actions and show no remorse. Because they are forgiven by God, why do they need any human forgiveness?

It reminds me of an earlier post by johnydon22 I believe, addressing how the displacement of apologies and remorse that should be given to the humans who have been wronged, to the fictitious god entity instead (through prayer), is a major source of social malfunctioning amongst believers.

Tellemall:
You strongly believe there is no God. Faith is belief. That's the thing your inner man lives by. And it's an illusion.

The only people who you atheists have a problem with, because they believe in a supreme being, are the Christians. You always say it's an illusion. So your disbelief is a form of belief and is an illusion.

Anyway, I'm done on this. People believe what they want to believe in. All beliefs are right, except when they are wrong. Like atheism is wrong.


Added: the whole operation of science on hypothesis, evidence then theory only applies in things not of faith. Any scientist can tell you that. The mind is a different place entirely. Science can't hold it down. Until I see a recreation of the big bang that produced intelligent life, I'll never believe it. It had no evidence so far.

It feels like you are skewing definitions to support your view and posing non-sequitor arguments. Essentially the meaning of "faith" is believing in something in the absense of evidence - so of course that's out of the realm of science, because science only operates based on evidence. Science would not be possible (more relateably, this computer you are using and the modern medicine you depend on would not even exist) if "faith" positions were held with equal weight as evidence-based positions.

How exactly could such a recreation be produced? And where is the recreation of a god entity placing the universe into its present position? Why is it that you easily disregard the evidence for the big bang, yet see no issue with the desperate lack of evidence for your position? If evidence isn't backing your position, then what is? Could it be sheer indoctrination?

I responded to your edit, and covered the rest of what you said in this post.

Also, if you're still here, have you read any books, watched any documentaries, or taken any courses on the topics we're presently discussing (the big bang, evolution, astrophysics, neuroscience)? Please be honest. Because its very common of the types of arguments you're attempting to make to be a result of lack of education in these areas.

In case you don't respond, I'll just recommend some books here that I've read which clarified these topics nicely for me. Hopefully someone checks them out.
A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
World reknowned physicist gives a thorough explanation of time, the universe, and the big bang.
Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by Neil Degrasse Tyson
World-renowned black astrophysisist explains the big bang and many other astrophysical phenomena.
Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation by Bill Nye
Bill Nye, famous science educator and engineer gives an easily digestible introduction to evolution, its important position as the uniting force behind biology, and the current body of scientific evidence behind it.
Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman
Nobel Prize winner and psychiatrist explains thought and the mind, with evolutionary explanations for our most common mental thinking patterns.

Tellemall:
If it's not a belief, why do you believe it? You stake out your faith on it, don't you?

If it's not a belief, why do you believe it?
Because there is evidence, as I just summarized for you if you actually read it. Reliable and repeatedly confirmed evidence is the only way us humans can ever confidently "know" anything (without just lying to ourselves). If evidence was released that proved that the universe was standing still, that planets and galaxies didn't collide, that there is no cosmic radiation, then as a reasonable person I'd obviously be forced to change my mind about the validity of the big bang theory. But creationism still wouldn't necessarily follow from that, all I would know at that point was that the big bang isn't true.

You stake out your faith on it, don't you?
What do you mean by this?

At the end of the day, anything people believe in is an illusion. According to atheists. Therefore the belief that there is no God is an illusion itself.
Belief there is no god is a lack of belief because of lack of evidence. People who insist that their god exists are the ones making the positive claim, which THEY need to defend. There have been over 4,000 gods proposed throughout human history. How can I know yours is real and the other 3,999 aren't, without any reliable evidence? The default position is that NONE of them exist, until at least one of them is proven. Show the solid evidence for god, and then we can talk.

Yes, everything anyone believes is an illusion in a way, because human thought is abstract. A thought about something isn't that thing itself. But that doesn't mean that we can't use our abstract senses to identify consistencies in reality. That's what science is all about.

Tellemall:
Atheists problem is Christians and Christianity.

You always have a grouse with the Christian creation theory and that's why you all subscribe to the big bang theory. That's a belief, though.

You always have a problem when religious people attack gays. The only religious people who are constantly criticized for doing so, with bible quotes are Christians. It seems no other religion is against it. It seems only Christians are against gays. It seems atheists are biased.

Whenever there is a call to fight religion by atheists, you all pick up your paddles and go whacking away at Christians. Are Christians the only religious people on the earth? Do other theists not disagree with atheists? Why always pick on Christianity?

Whenever there is a Christian thread proclaiming a miracle of sorts, atheists must be present. They can't even dare comment rabidly in the Mohammedan section the way they disrespectfully and daftly come after Christians. Why? Are Christians the only religious people?

Anytime there is something to condemn, even if Buddhists are airing their views, the atheist will come in so pained, so wounded, so incensed, so miserable and begin the attack on the Christians. Why?

Speechless3 has a very good point.

1. The big bang theory is NOT A BELIEF for crying out loud. It's a scientifically-supported collection of explanations based on OBSERVATIONS OF THE NATURAL WORLD. It could be wrong, absolutely - the scientific method always allows for the possibility of wrong predictions. But with the EVIDENCE that we have, the likelihood of it being wrong is very slim. Red shift has proven that the universe is constantly expanding, even now - all celestial bodies that we are able to observe are moving further away from eachother by several kilometers a year. We can measure that. There is cosmic radiation that we can detect via machines we have in our planetary orbit, that indicate backlash from a prior massive release of energy. We KNOW that the universe is in constant motion, we can observe stars and galaxies colliding all the time with telescopes and other tools.

This is GOOD evidence to support that at one point, there was a very small area of energy and mass that expanded over a very large amount of time into the modern universe, and that that expansion is still occuring. How, to you, is this indication of baseless belief? How is this anything like believing that an extremely human-like, emotional, ego-driven "god" figure literally poofed the earth and every planetary body into existence as they presently are, simply because he felt like it? What evidence is there to support such an idea? Because modern day scientists have not found any; instead they have discovered a massive amount of evidence to the contrary.

And for that reason, creation really can't even be considered a theory as you put it, at least not in the scientific sense. There is no collection of peer-reviewed evidence supporting the christian creation idea, which is the only way something can go from a hypothesis to a theory in science.

2. Please view my earlier post on why Christian thought specifically is attacked the most.

cloudgoddess:
Most atheists I'm aware of criticize Christianity and Islam relatively equally. But the reasons to target Christianity directly are pretty obvious - it's leading as the most pervasive, influencial, and powerful religious force in most parts of Nigeria and the western world. It allows for so much delusion (modern day "prophecies" that all contradict eachother), misinformation (especially regarding science), brainwashing (of children and gullible churchgoers ready to give up their hard earned money for "blessings" ), and all around inhibition of the potential of the human race.

No one is attacking Buddhists or Hindus because for the most part, they aren't dumbing everyone down, denying science, stealing people's money, corrupting governments, and all the other unpleasant things Christianity tends to do.