Play Trap the Atheist (The atheist delusion)

by John Kalber, Saturday, July 01, 2017, 21:48 (2704 days ago) @ hyjyljyj

Play Trap the Atheist (The atheist delusion)

While trying hard to avoid sounding pompous and appearing to be Mr. Know All, I am concerned that my views may be wrongly assumed to be so because of my strength of feeling. I urge that you understand that what I write is always based on the simplest application of known physical laws - nothing else. Although now aged, I have no academic training, education or qualifications whatever. Enough of me, I think.

I have read a few of these postings but will refer directly to only the first shown in the long, long list!
‘The Atheist Delusion’ – which I assume is a reference to Dawkins book - it is, nonetheless, well named. Unfortunately, it is the author who is deluded! To forestall endless contradictions readers may otherwise post, I will define what I understand atheism is – and is not.

Atheism is an ideology that accepts that what we call Nature has generated everything – bar artefacts – purely by the unassisted use of known natural resources. Neither God nor Super-Intelligence being needed. The one exception to what are, for me incontrovertible facts, is the conundrum that is life. The religious will claim it as inconvertible evidence of God’s will, but ...claims, mine or yours, don’t cut it!

It is to be expected that atheists will challenge any ideology that encompasses or implies that any work of Nature is, in whatever measure, engaged or supervised by a God. This opposition comes also from non-atheists, so is not per se a property of atheism.

QUOTE:
"The fact is that sooner or later, despite the atheist's faith that science will one day reveal all, we come up against the complete blockage of not knowing how it all began. The Big Bang is the current favourite, and in answer to the question what went bang, some say nothing and some say something, but nobody knows and nobody can know. That does not, of course, invalidate the Big Bang theory, so why should the same "don't know" invalidate the design theory? Brilliant. Love to see the arrogance and ignorance of atheists challenged so successfully and succinctly."

Cosmology is a prime example, but alternative views on the workings of the Universe are a personal choice and have little, beyond what I have already said, to do with atheism per se. I do not think the above ‘Quote’can be so meritoriously regarded!

What these posts reveal is a failure to understand this important definition (of atheism) and to wrongly presume that these alternative views are evidence of atheism. I know a number of religious people who share, very strongly, those same contrary views. They say that God would never have engaged such in such nonsense when creating his beautiful Universe! As the Big Bang and its idiotic spin-offs are 100% twaddle, I agree! You might choose to read my comments under the title of “Crazy Cosmology”. You may, of course possibly consider my remarks therein as themselves being crazy!

However, the Big Bang is merely an idea awash in sea populated by ridiculous assumptions, formed on the basis of yet more assumptions, which are proposed, then employed as if they are proven fact: sounds very like a religion to me!

In point of fact, few, if any, scientists actually claim that it is proven. They imply it strongly by the blatant and deliberate misuse of the phrase “Now we know, blah, blah, blah.” Sadly, neither they nor myself actually, definitively, knows.

What I do know, is that this ‘scenario’ is hopelessly flawed.

Presented - as a logical rational scenario - this would be following the necessary and virtually unavoidable path to true knowledge – a subject for discussion entailing logical, normal physics – not some fairyland story telling her an impossibility is employed to verify the behaviour of the characters. The difficulty here is that neither its founding premise nor its ‘spawned’ offspring is founded on proven fact. Thus its basis is quite wrong to start with! This (again) Is not part of atheism, no matter how many atheists believe it.

They claim that their silly ideas are so highly probable that, though presently unprovable, they must be treated as fact or progress will be at a standstill! Quite to the contrary, these ‘ideas’ are instantly replaceable by ideas the rely entirely on known physical law.

I don’t think an explanation of atheism should include a discussion of any scientific subject. It is obvious that atheists are more or less self-programmed to follow a reasoning process that excludes the likelihood of a God’s involvement, but it ends there. Therefore, as DHW suggests, I agree that the Universe is eternal and that it and its component parts have always existed. However, he thinks this does not of itself disprove the Big Bang – here we differ to some degree.

I will post my opinion on these matters elsewhere on this site and posit my solutions for your constructive criticism. These will be under the title “Crazy Cosmology”.