Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

You got it 100% backwards. If Atheism is a belief, than the burden of proof IS ON THEM. If you are telling me God doesn't exist; yet you have no evidence God doesn't exist; then you are telling me in Faith.

 

The big bang doesn't contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics, all that has to be true is that there is less energy in the system afterwards (through loss of heat). Since we don't have any singularities of mass to test for their energy level we have to theorize that the original singularity had more total potential energy than the current universe. So you can have order from chaos, you just have lost energy from the system in the form of heat. Also, the heat doesn't disappear it just dissipates into space similar to how you could take a blowtorch to the ocean and never perceive a difference on the entirety of the ocean.

 

Well, you are certainly attempting to prove that it is unsound... I think you've received some very good reasons why these initial proofs are seriously flawed.

 

Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of belief. God is not a thing in which I believe exists. I'm not telling you God doesn't exist, because that is an indefensible claim (as is "God exists.) I am telling you that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that God does exist, so on a matter of pure pragmatics, I don't believe.

Again, lack of belief in God(s) is the default position of human animals. There is an overwhelming lack of evidence to suggest such a thing exists. Those who insist one does exist hold the burden of proof.

 

Again, be careful with your terminology. Not all atheists claim proof of God's nonexistence. Call it "weak atheism", or "negative atheism", or "agnostic atheism", or whatever -- I think the majority of atheists fall into these categories, and do not need to prove a damn thing.

 

Yes it is.

No it's not. You're describing being agnostic.

So, again, you're agnostic, not an atheist.

I still don't get why so many agnostics find it so much cooler to call themselves atheist than agnostic. It's what the cool kids do nowadays.

 

Okay I am going to reply in laymen's terms because I want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Tell me if I understand this correctly.

In the beginning; there must of had a centralized mass or/and energy much greater than what is measured now?

There are many definitions of this. Does it mean "a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume", or "theorems in general relativity theory about when gravitation produces singularities such as black holes". Before I can answer that, I need to have a more specific definition of "signularity".

I need to specifics of your definition os signularity before I can agree or disagree with this statement. BUT... I will say I respect this answer because it sounds logical.

 

blazerboy30 explains it well. I don't want to overlap the rebuttle.

 

"Atheism" is a belief. You even said it above. You can have modifications like "agnostic" or "weak atheism" etc. But the true definition of "Atheism" is a belief. Yes?

 

What has happened in 1 day, cannot determin the outcome of the thread. Yes, some of the "logical explanations" are worth noting. I will not discredit the rebuttles. I question them. There is a difference; yes?

 

In this case the first definition of a singularity is the correct one "a point in spacetime in which gravitational forces cause matter to have an infinite density and zero volume". Where it came from we can't say or prove, I doubt we'll ever be able to. Also the mass or energy at the beginning doesn't necessarily have to be much greater, just greater. Any loss of energy lets the theory be valid.

 

Well, sure. It's a belief in the same way that I believe my mother loves me and I believe there is no such thing as the tooth fairy. I can't prove either one, but they make sense to me. You believe in God because it makes sense to you -- I can't argue with that. But as soon as you start saying that you have solid evidence that I am wrong, we will have words.

 

I hesitate to respond to you, because your aggressiveness makes me wonder if you aren't just trying to stir shit, but you are arguing semantics and we've already been over this a dozen times (see #138 above). Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I am an agnostic because I don't claim to know whether or not god exists. I am an atheist because, in my heart of hearts, I don't believe he does. By these definitions (which, I believe, are the closest to their originally intended definitions), I am an agnostic atheist. I don't think it's "cool" to be an atheist -- I think it best describes my belief system.

 

Then according to that definition I would say it's very logical and I will not discredit or deny that statement. But what I highlighted in bold becomes the greater question. Because no one knows where it came from and there hasn't been a logical explanation of the existence of this matter or mass. If you use the mass has always existed; then it does contridict.

And it leads me to believe that there is a design. That the Universe can expand and fine tune. The improbabilities that this happened by chance is mathmatically improbable.

But on a lighter note; you just gave me reason to believe in the "Big Bang". See I do have an open mind about things.

 

Evidence is what you can test and see. Is this correct? And I am not trying to prove "You are wrong" I am trying to prove the logic of "Atheism" is wrong. We are talking about the true form of Atheism; not the evolved forms. Agnostic is not even close to Atheist, IMO. I am not discounting that belief in this thread.

But as you see, even in this thread, many people have no idea of what true "Atheism" is.

 

I just want to point that you're using a description of THERMODYNAMICS to describe motion. Thermo means heat, dynamics means change. So you're using the change of heat, to describe everything in the universe. While that does drive it, there are other rules.

example. Your very, forgive the unintended sounding insult, closed-minded definition of "entropy must win out" would be contradicted by the fact that humanity has not flown away from the earth. Gravity holds us onto the earth. It also holds the rocks to the earth. It also holds the dust to the earth. But the rocks and the dust hold each other together as well.

 

Call it what you will -- just be aware that many atheists disagree with your definitions, which may cause confusion.

 

Yup. Have you Googled that phrase yet?