Well, for one thing you are about 60 years out of date on your understanding of the big bang there. The primordial atom theory came out of the 1940's and didn't last long after that.
If you genuinely want a modern understanding of the big bang theory, I'd suggest reading this first as a basic primer. I'd more strongly suggest checking out the book Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh, which goes into a great deal of detail about both what we know about the early universe and how we came to know it.
And that latter is the more important process. That book will teach you how scientific investigation proceeds. It isn't about absolute truths or knowledge but rather a progression of discovery. Today we can't say what came before time t=0 (the moment referred to as the big bang). That may not be true in a decade's time.
That's why I reject God of the gaps arguments like this one. How much do you attach your understanding of God to the gap you are using as proof of him? Do you make an explicit theological statement that God is required for this to have ever happened? If so, what if we one day discover how it happened physically?
As a specific example, during the resurgence of the Creationist Intelligent Design movement there were specific examples given for places where God The Designer must have intervened because they were said to be impossible. One such example was the bacterial flagellum, with Michael Behe claiming that it was impossible for such a complex system to have evolved. It was a poster-proof of the existence of God The Designer.
Now what would that mean to a religious person who had pinned his faith on Behe's proof? If someone had integrated the inexplicable nature of the flagellum into their theology? Suddenly their faith can't only be tested by experiment (the risk anyone who uses a God of the gaps argument runs) but has been falsified.
Ah, a few good points in here. Too bad I am too lazy to read all 22 pages. I did notice, however, that the people arguing against there being a god seemed to less capable of accepting the opinion of other people. That's just the way it seemed to me when I read the first few pages. Me? I'm a Christian, but I also believe that there is no "real" way of knowing anything for certain. Just belief. Everyone is entitled to their own. Never close down a pathway to knowledge because it seems absurd or stupid. Doing that is ignorance, arrogance, probably both. I would love to say more, but I assume an "spirited debate" will occur as a result of my post. And we all know how annoying those can get. Farewell!
At least we try, which is way more than can be said for religious apologists who just shrug their shoulders and mumble "God did it". That is not an answer, that is the shit you come up with when you don't know, or don't want to know, the real answer.
Actually, the vast majority of scientific breakthroughs for several hundred years have been made by scientists within the clergy. Up until about a hundred years ago, secular scientists were holding back research because they refused to give up on outdated theories they held essentially on the word of ancient Greek theoretical writings. Religious scientists were the ones pushing almost everything forward because they were interested in discovering the mechanisms behind how God created the universe. Keep in mind they weren't limited by things like Genesis because they stopped believing Genesis was a literal history of how the world was created several centuries ago.
Intelligent design and a lot of the other really stupid theories associated with religious groups are held by groups of very stupid people that don't understand what they are talking about. These are the same group of people that think the Bible is one book, written by God, and completely infallible. The Catholic church doesn't even believe that.
Basically, the science vs religion argument contains two groups of zealots arguing back and forth with unprovable arguments, while the vast majority of the scientific and religious communities have absolutely no issues with one another. Most of the people arguing have absolutely no scientific or religious training and completely ignore the sheer volume of religious and scientific people that have contributed to our understanding of how the world works even to this day.
which is way more than can be said for religious apologists
I know that a lot of scientists were and are religious, and I know that a lot of religious people accept science. I was saying that that specific group of religious people, that denounce science, are doing a hell of a lot less to explain anything that goes on than the scientists who admit they don't know the answer.
One of the main reasons for the lack of discovery on the part of secular scientists is because of the Catholic church's persecution of those who contradicted their beliefs (many of which are based upon those Greek philosophers). Here's an example: Galileo. And can you name some of these scientists who were with the clergy (don't say Copernicus)
Arguably the only thing that stopped Sir Isaac Newton's scientific and mathematical progress was God. And possibly never having gotten laid. And dying at a young age in his thirties, but still...
I've been thinking about this, and I don't mean for this to be disrespectful to any of the atheists on this page.
If you believe that you have maybe 60ish years left in your existance, then why are you here? Why aren't you hiking across the Alps? Or seeing the Grand Canyon? Or biking from Russia's coast to South Africa?
I don't believe in God but I recognize that I can't prove that he doesn't exist. If it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt I won't claim it to be true. The one thing that annoys me is when people claim that God exists. I'm fine if they say that they believe he exists but I can't take it when people just say it as complete fact and push that 'fact' onto you.
What bothers me about religious people who seem to have a problem with my belief(or lack there of) is this. They throw the argument "Well, if God didn't create us, then what did?" to which I'd honestly respond "I don't know." and for some reason I lose credibility because of that. I don't see how that disproves all of Atheism, because Atheism isn't a collective belief or religion. Well, not to me at least. I may be repeating myself here, but it's been a while, so forgive me.
I think both the religious and non religious choose to be ignorant in one way or another. (Not insulting anyone here, this is my personal belief.)
To a religious person, it's very comforting to be able to answer the unknown questions with "God did it" and leave it at that. They have faith, something they can look to for support when they're going through a hard time, and something that brings peace and families together. There's nothing wrong with that.
Many Atheists I know, myself included, aren't content with just saying "God did it." and dropping it. I'm not saying I know the answer to life, I'm just saying our existance has to be more than just some all seeing, all knowing being creating us for some reason. But at the same time I choose not to believe that, because having to answer to a power like that is damn scary. To me, at least. I find it more comforting that I can live my life the way I want to, and not the way a diety wants me to in order to avoid being damned for all eternity if I don't.(This does not mean I'm going on a shooting spree.)
Which brings me to another argument I often have thrown at me. People say that because I'm an Athiest, I have no moral compass, which I think is a load of bull. Religion may play a huge role in one's morality, but that doesnt mean Religion is morality. In all honesty, it's one's parents and the society they were brought up in that play a large role in morality. While one incredibly religious person would think "I won't steal because it's a sin", another person who isn't religious would think "I'm not going to steal becasue society said I shouldn't, and concequences would follow if I were caught." Both have different principals, but reach the same outcome. Just because I don't worship a God doesn't mean I have no morality. I'm not gonna go out and kill someone because I don't think I'll go to hell for it. I'm not going to kill someone because that's kind of a dick thing to do.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't mean for this to be disrespectful to any of the atheists on this page.
If you believe that you have maybe 60ish years left in your existance, then why are you here? Why aren't you hiking across the Alps? Or seeing the Grand Canyon? Or biking from Russia's coast to South Africa?
I've lived in twelve countries on four continents and been to and additional twenty. I speak three languages fluently, two passably and another three enough to survive. I have two bachelors degrees and earned through certifications from universities in the USA, Japan and Argentina.
I'm currently employed teacher in a poor neighborhood in Japan at two different technical high schools and have spent the majority of my vacation time for the past year doing relief work in areas badly damaged by the Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunamis.
I've met countless American politicians thanks to my Grandfather (a senator of 35+ years) and famous musicians and singer due to my father ( a multiple grammy winning opera singer), both of whom are sadly now deceased. I've been in a hot tub with Paul McCartney, pegged David Letterman with snowballs, been peripherally a part of GOP back room wheelings and dealings, and backstage of everything from Idomeneo to Rock and Roll.
Over the past two weeks I've been to Chicago twice, Iowa for the Caucus ( my question to Romney in Muscatine actually made the NY times), Virginia to attend a gay wedding party, made the ball drop in New York city, hooked up with the "girl who got away" from university, hosted a party in my childhood home in CT, wrote forty thousand words of the novel I'm working on, designed lesson plans for the next three weeks of classes for three thousand students, co-ordinated with a teacher in the USA for a pen-pal program, and flown back to where I live in Japan.
Way to make me feel inadequate. But then again "some are born to move the world and live their fantasies, but most of us just dream about the things we'd like to be".
Someone has to watch all those TV shows and eat that pizza. If not us, then who? Exodusv? Pfft, he's off 'expanding his horizons' and 'helping the needy'.
When a pregnant woman began her question with, “As a wife and a mother of three boys,” Mr. Romney cut her off. “You’ve only got two more to go,” he said. “You can catch up with us. You’ve got one coming on!”
Mr. Romney cut her off.
I want to know what she was going to ask, and what his reply would have been. It sounded like it would have been interesting, in some way.
But in all seriousness, that's some pretty cool stuff you've done. And I wish I can do some of that when I'm older. As for what I've done? I went to half of a day of school today. As a kid with a major illness, this is quite a feat for me.
TL;DR: I erect a bunch of strawmen and then do extended battle with them.
In the future, when explaining of describing or trying to persuade someone as to the validity of your ideas you want to test them against the strongest possible case to be made against them. Not the weakest case. Not the case you hear most often from the mental defectives you hang out with. Not the "conventional wisdom" case.
No, you make the strongest possible case for why you're wrong and then you try refuting that (if you can.)
She actually did get a chance finish as well as to ask two questions prior to that one and had been chatting with Romney prior. It was a very relaxed event. Romney even entertained a couple of very interesting conversations I was disappointed didn't make the cut for being "newsworthy."
And I have 10,000 rated titles on Netflix so I'm doing my part for watching TV.
