Question

Are Atheist Enlighten or Confused ?

Answer 1

deceived

Answer 2

No one is saying that random chaos has anything to do with the formation of the universe. Just because there wasn't a conscious creator designing it, doesn't make it "random". The laws of physics, chemistry and geology are constants.

If two Hydrogen molecules combine with one Oxygen molecule, they will form water every time. Whether someone/something puts them together, or they wind up meeting on their own... The result will be the same 100% of the time. For it to be random, or chaos, or chance, these molecules would not always form water, and you'd never know what you'd get.

As one looks out at the vastness of the universe, it becomes more & more evident that a creator could not have possibly been behind it. An infinitely vast universe that has existed for nearly 14 billion years all for a species that's lucky to live 100 years on this teeny tiny planet defies logic.

Answer 3

How about you provide links to your definitions next time? That way we'll know you're not making stuff up. Note in my following links, the term "lack of belief" is found nowhere in the definitions:

Atheism (Dictionary.com)
Atheism (Merriam Webster)

A refusal is the same as a denial. Atheism is a chosen, metaphysical position - thus it's a religious position, since adherents can't know for certain that *** does not exist. Or are you making that claim now?

Answer 4

Maybe this video will help you understand.

Answer 5

It only helped me to lose my appetite. Nothing more annoying than a 20 yr old twit, "talking real slow" for us little people who obviously got-the-dumb.

Sorry but her entire diatribe only reaffirms the existence of a Creator. She's trying to use reason and logic to make her case, but reason and logic and absolute truths simply cannot come about via natural chaos. The laws of logic are absolute, immaterial and universally obeyed. There's no natural explanation for them.

Answer 6

I am trying to explain this to you and you clearly don't understand it.

Just because we don't know the answer, doesn't mean your theory must be correct. In the words of Socrates:

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

Answer 7

Well that pretty much sums your argument up - doesn't it? Would you agree with Socrates, that you know one thing and that is that you know nothing? Do you realize that's a logical contradiction too?

If the one thing that you know, is that you know nothing - then either you DO know something (and the second part of that statement is false) or you really do NOT know anything (which means the first part is false). Point is, they can't both be true, because they refute one another.

Answer 8

I understand that they contradict each other. He didn't mean literally nothing, he meant vary little compared to the knowledge in the universe.

Answer 9

Oh I see. Well I didn't know him personally, so I guess you might have that over me.

You don't have to know about everything, to know about somethings. Logical contradictions, for instance, don't require much gray matter to understand. They're pretty simple to grasp. Random chaos is not known to create perfect, absolute order and harmony. So how do you reconcile the two? How do you account for the laws of logic, without appealing to a supernatural source?

Answer 10

So your explanation for the uniformity of nature is... the uniformity of nature? Is that right?

Answer 11

Actually that's exactly what "disbelief" implies - a positive denial (of belief). Or another way to put it, a negative affirmation (of belief). No matter how you try to interpret the words, their meanings are still the same.

Answer 12

I'm saying that natural laws are shown to exist without the need of a conscious creator at the helm.

Answer 13

And you do so by circular reasoning. You're essentially saying that uniformity exists because their uniformity is self-evident.

For it to be random, or chaos, or chance, these molecules would not always form water, and you'd never know what you'd get.
Exactly. Where does the uniformity come from? Do you believe in an infinite universe?

Answer 14

No circular reasoning at all. I'm not stating why uniformity exists, you're just choosing to read what you want. I'm saying that randomness and conscious design are not the only two options.

I honestly have no idea how the first link in the chain of events came to be... But I'm not about to fabricate an unlikely deity just to claim to have an answer.

No one knows where the uniformity came from. But it certainly doesn't need the concept of a creator in order for it to be the case. Is the universe infinite? Not exactly. We know that we don't know how far it extends beyond that which we've been able to see. But people often confuse what, exactly, the universe actually is. It's not the blackness of space. It's all of the physical matter known to exist within that blackness. Where the most outwards galaxies, stars, planets, nebulae, dust particle, etc... exists, is where the universe boundaries are. For all we know, it is infinite, because something would have to be on the other side of the boundary.

Answer 15

Logically there are only two options here. Either a Creator is the source, or not. If not, then randomness can be the only source. For instance, we don't see order born out of chaos in our natural world - just the opposite actually (arrow of time).

To rule out a Creator because you don't like how that sounds, is simply not a logical stance. It's an emotional, faith based stance (faith that something else, something "natural" will explain it all).

The universe can't be infinite, since the usable energy has not yet been lost (entropy). Also, to get from the past to now would require crossing an infinite expanse of time, but it's not possible to cross infinity (otherwise it's not infinite).

Answer 16

No, you simply think that those are the two options, because you need them to be in order to validate your position.

I'm not ruling out a creator based on liking the sound of it, I'm ruling it out because it never seemed like a plausible option to begin with. There's nothing emotional, or faith based about it. Unlike believers, I don't start from the desired agenda and work backwards... I start with what makes sense, and see if it's plausible of implausible.

we see natural events happen all the time. Are we to honestly believe that the earthquake in Nepal was the result of a conscious decision? If so, how sick does that make the perpetrator of it? If not, then who is to say that events that sparked the beginning of the universe were not also of a natural, unconscious circumstance as well? And since we already know that earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, even rain & snow storms are not "random", it's obvious that you present a false dilemma.

You say the universe can't be infinite... You may or may not be right. But, if there is an ***, then there has to be a beginning. And a beginning is something that even a creator cannot be immune to. Which means that even the creator had to have had a creator.

One cannot claim to be logical, without holding his "creator" to the same standards applied to the rest of the universe. The very notion of that, defies logic.

Answer 17

How could the events that sparked the natural universe, be natural themselves? Where did "nature" naturally come from? This is sounding like a very infinite argument to me.

Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes etc. all obey the natural laws of nature. I'm not understanding your point here.

To suggest the Creator (capital "C") must have a cause, is to simply not understand what the Creator is. Yes, the universe had a beginning (most agree on that), but if the Creator also had to have a creator - as you suggest - then that brings you back to the infinite universe argument again - which immediately puts you at odds with the universe having a beginning. It's contradictory and illogical.

Answer 18

..."How could the events that sparked the natural universe, be natural themselves? Where did "nature" naturally come from? This is sounding like a very infinite argument to me."...

Re-read that again (a couple of times if necessary), and ask that again if you still don't get it. Nature is not a concept that needed a beginning. It's more of a description than a physical object.

..."Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes etc. all obey the natural laws of nature. I'm not understanding your point here."...

What a surprise. The point, simply, is that something that obeys the laws of nature, ARE natural events. Nature/natural simply describes something that occurs unprovoked by consciousness.

..."To suggest the Creator (capital "C") must have a cause, is to simply not understand what the Creator is. Yes, the universe had a beginning (most agree on that), but if the Creator also had to have a creator - as you suggest - then that brings you back to the infinite universe argument again - which immediately puts you at odds with the universe having a beginning. It's contradictory and illogical."...

And now you see the conundrum. If everything has to have had a beginning, then that includes the "creator" (you can capitalize it if you want, but I don't see the need to). One cannot simply ****** that "***" has always existed, if everything else is to be held to a different standard.

Answer 19

That's why I put it in quotes. Another way to put it, is where did the natural laws come from, if not from a supernatural source? If you take away the supernatural, you're left with only the natural. How can the natural laws bring themselves into existence? Re-read that if you need.

_{What a surprise. The point, simply, is that something that obeys the laws of nature, ARE natural events.}
Condescension? You're not one of those atheists prone to ad hominems, are you? You've done so good up to this point.

Obviously they're natural events when they're bound by the laws of nature. The point you're missing entirely - is why must they obey the laws of nature in the first place?

_{And now you see the conundrum. If everything has to have had a beginning, then that includes the "creator"}
Everything, that is, except the beginning itself - otherwise you don't have a beginning at all - you have infinity. If you believe in an infinite universe, then realize that it's a "belief" because science doesn't support it at all. Nor does logic.

Answer 20

dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/Submit
noun
noun: disbelief
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
"Laura shook her head in disbelief"
synonyms: incredulity, astonishment, amazement, surprise, incredulousness; More
lack of faith in something.
"I'll burn in **** for disbelief"
synonyms: atheism, nonbelief, unbelief, ***********, irreligion, agnosticism, nihilism
"in the film religious faith and disbelief are interwoven"

Answer 21

Disbelief does not imply a positive denial.

Agnosticism is just a statement about your certainty. It doesn't tell me whether you believe in *** or not.

Answer 22

Confused. But we're all confused. We're just honest enough to admit it.

Answer 23

Thank you

Answer 24

Thank you

Answer 25

Atheists just lack a belief in ****. There are some very ignorant and "unenlightened" atheists as well as some that are brilliant and "enlightened".

Answer 26

Yes and you seem to be the latter. Thank you again for your comments

Answer 27

I don't know about that, but thanks! ; )

Answer 28

I think more lazy.

Answer 29

Thank you and how have you been

Answer 30

...confused ??...about what ?...we're not here by accident or 'POOF' by a mythical being...we're here because of a very long, complicated series of events...

Answer 31

I've never heard an agnostic say "we're not here by accident". An antonym for accident is design. So would you agree we're here by design?

Answer 32

What dictionary are you getting that from? According to mine, atheism is either an outright belief that there's no *** - or a disbelief in ***'s existence.

Disbelief is not the same as a lack of belief. Disbelief is a deliberate rejection or refusal.

<sub>Atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no ***.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.</sub>

Answer 33

Like in any religion, there are some of both.

Answer 34

Thank you

Answer 35

We are simply correct.

Answer 36

Thank you

Answer 37

They are babies who think that they are ******.

Answer 38

Thank you

Answer 39

My problem with atheists is that they're absolutists when there is still no concrete proof of the existence or non existence of ***. I think if you have doubt then being an agnostic is the way to go, it leaves you with a little more room to theorize.

Answer 40

Answer 41

The notion of a natural law, is a concept deciphered by man. It's a tool we use to measure natural events. They didn't have to "come from" anywhere in order to exist. And their likelihood of having always existed is just as - if not more - plausible than the concept of a conscious creator...

Since we know that natural occurrences take place without intelligent intervention, it's perfectly logical to ****** that the the forces that set everything in motion did not need intelligent intent.

Where did everything come from? How did everything begin? We don't know to be completely truthful. There are countless attempts to seek that answer, but so far, nothing serious is pointing to the plausibility of the creation myths. There are far too many ***** to take it seriously.

..."Condescension? You're not one of those atheists prone to ad hominems, are you? You've done so good up to this point."...

No, I'm not. In fact, I went back and couldn't find the remark, although I do remember saying something about it... But it doesn't matter.... Moving on.

..."Obviously they're natural events when they're bound by the laws of nature. The point you're missing entirely - is why must they obey the laws of nature in the first place?"...

Again. These are answers that many are still trying to seek. However,...

The notion of a natural law, is a concept deciphered by man. It's a tool we use to measure natural events. They didn't have to "come from" anywhere in order to exist. And their likelihood of having always existed is just as - if not more - plausible than the concept of a conscious creator...

Since we know that natural occurrences take place without intelligent intervention, it's perfectly logical to ****** that the the forces that set everything in motion did not need intelligent intent.

Where did everything come from? How did everything begin? We don't know to be completely truthful. There are countless attempts to seek that answer, but so far, nothing serious is pointing to the plausibility of the creation myths. There are far too many ***** to take it seriously.

..."Condescension? You're not one of those atheists prone to ad hominems, are you? You've done so good up to this point."...

No, I'm not. In fact, I went back and couldn't find the remark, although I do remember saying something about it... But it doesn't matter.... Moving on.

..."Obviously they're natural events when they're bound by the laws of nature. The point you're missing entirely - is why must they obey the laws of nature in the first place?"...

Again. These are answers that many are still trying to seek. However, we don't need to know how it began, in order to know that these events do take place.

..."Everything, that is, except the beginning itself - otherwise you don't have a beginning at all - you have infinity. If you believe in an infinite universe, then realize that it's a "belief" because science doesn't support it at all. Nor does logic."...

It depends on the hypothesis. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record here. But there are many questions on how it all began. The answers are not fully there yet. There are multitudes of ideas... Some make sense, and others don't. The "***" hypothesis clearly doesn't when you examine it.

(more)