Ryo Tarn
anonymous attributes
Ryo Tarn
anonymous attributes
Ryo Tarn
No; Atheism doesn't believe that. Many people who are atheists also happen to accept the scientific fact of evolution; but the two aren't related.
You don't understand what atheism is.
It's no more a religion than theism is.
I have changed my wording to "atheists" in my point because I believe "atheism" is a cause for confusion, i'll take the hit for that one.. But you still are using the word "atheism" when I changed my argument to the individuals, the "atheists"
Why you keep saying I do not know what I am talking about while coming back with a reprisal with "Evolution is a fact" is either ignorant of you, or dishonest, pick one. Its called "The theory of evolution." and "The big bang theory." There is nothing certain about it.
The big bang theory is a magical idea, promoting fantasy until proven otherwise. It is impossible for something to come from nothing, it is scientifically impossible and illogical, and until PROVEN OTHERWISE, he who believes in it, believes in what is loosely referred to as magic. It is certainly a fairy tale for now, and is certainly religious to believe in it, which also requires faith.
And do not say to me "its called a theory, we don't really BELIEVE it because new theories or evidence could change in time" that would prove your dishonesty as stated before when you said it was simply just a fact. Also it would be dishonest to be speaking as a whole, knowing first that many people believes very well that it is a fact, when it is just a theory. Kinda like you, when you said it was a fact. What a shame I must debate with dishonest people.
Atheism to atheists is just a superficial change. An atheist is just someone who follows atheism; it doesn't change the fact that you still don't know what an atheist is.
Evolution is a fact.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Evolution_Fact_and_Theory.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/fact_theory.htm
I actually know a few things about science, like how gravity and evolution are both facts as well as having theories about them.
No it's not; the Big Bang Theory says nothing about something coming from nothing. The Big Bang theory is about all matter/energy in the universe being essentially compacted and superheated and then rapidly expanding. It does not comment on where that matter/energy came from, simply the mechanism by which the universe came about. You're making a wild assumption that something came from nothing (one idea behind the multiverse is actually that the universe was the result of a collision of universes; in simple terms, it's more complicated obviously).
You're also trying to impose the restrictions of the universe on forces outside the universe; it doesn't work like that.
And it's certainly not magic.
I didn't say scientists don't believe it; you just don't understand anything about the scientific topics you're trying to bring up. We consider the Big Bang to be the leading cosmological model for the early development of the universe. We don't consider it fact (Nor did I say we consider the Big Bang as fact, I spoke of the fact of evolution); but it is the best scientific theory we have at the moment and so we believe in it in a sense, but we believe in it like we believe a building isn't going to fall on our heads. The science we have available agrees with that point of view; but we're open to further information and searching for it.
That said; that's science, that's not atheism. The Big Bang model was originally proposed by a catholic priest; Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître. Not all atheists believe in it, and many theists do.
Atheism is quite simply; it's the other end of theism.
Theism: Belief in a God or gods.
Atheism: Lack of belief in a God or gods.
The fact that you don't understand science, religion, or atheism doesn't make other people dishonest. You're trying to conflate Cosmology (Big Bang) with Cosmogony (The beginning of existence) because you don't understand the difference; and you don't even realize that neither have anything to do with atheism. That's your failing, not the failing of anyone else.
You are misunderstanding what I mean when I switched from atheism to atheist. Atheism is the theology, "atheist" is the person. I am accusing the atheist, not the theology of atheism.
Posting links is not an argument or debate.
There are so many different things the scientific community say about the big bang, I therefore will accept the other theory for sake of argument that they "now say?" all matter and energy in the universe was compacted into a dot no larger then the period at the end of this sentence. That's one crowded dot. heavy dot too. It is impossible to understand how big the universe is, yet this is a fact for the so called "scientific community" that's a joke. Its not science, its science fiction, and the mind and imagination of man, nothing more.
It's a fairy tail, and until you can prove that its not religious or bound by faith to believe it.
You said "We" don't consider the big bang theory a fact. Well I don't know what you mean when you say "We" But there are too many people to count who do believe in it, from all walks of life, and it is they of whom I speak.
The big bang theory was proposed by a catholic doesn't mean anything..
multiverse idea? again its a notion!
___________
Heres my challenge to you, if evolution is a fact, prove to me that consciousness can come from none consciousness, and life from non life.
You can't....its a fairy tail..and that is precisely why I don't understand what your wise men call "science" its a joke.
You're accusing a person based on their belief; thus it's a superficial difference.
It's called a citation. I posted a claim (I.E. The Fact of evolution) and then source that claim as proof. That's precisely how you debate.
No, the Big Bang is not a fact. It's a scientific theory.
You don't understand what science is; and that's your problem. And it still has absolutely nothing to do with Atheism or atheists.
Believing in a scientific theory is not accepting it as fact. You need to take some science courses.
The fact that the idea was proposed by a catholic priest is exactly as relevant as the fact that some people who happen to be atheists believe in what that catholic priest proposed.
Again; you don't understand science. You're trying to conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't say life can come from non-life, that's abiogenesis.
No, the reason you don't understand is because you don't understand basic principles of science. You've got the mentality of someone who's scientific exposure is limited to watching a few anti-science videos on youtube by other random people who don't understand science either.
And the best part about it is that all of that has absolutely nothing to do with atheism or atheists.
You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying about atheists, and it feels almost intentional.
You said: "No, the Big Bang is not a fact. It's a scientific theory.
You don't understand what science is; and that's your problem. And it still has absolutely nothing to do with Atheism or atheists."
I agree, its a theory, and I didn't say that it necessarily did have anything to do with atheists. I am not making a connection with atheists to evolution theory or the big bang theory as though they are one and the same. That is a straw man argument because that is NOT what I am saying.
What I AM saying is both the theory of evolution and the big bang are religious, and my argument is for those atheists who claim to not be religious or hold faith. Did you even click the link in the OP?
Your "citation" doesn't do a lot for your argument, since is all you really did was make a simple claim "Evolution is a fact" (Which it is not) and post a links. I can do the same thing with what ever I believe in and post links as well, refuting the info in your links. What then? shall we have a link war? It was a good answer if you were talking to someone who may have no experience, but this kind of thing gets no where and it certainly doesn't fly with me, because it would be equally valid for me to post as many links as I desire to my claims as well. Now "we" are not arguing or debating, we are bringing our gods and wise men into the picture and letting THEM argue and debate and account of who can post the best link and best arguer for our side. Is that where you want to go with this? if so, good LUCK, I wont be participating in your delusion of an argument and debate.
I knew you were going to say "Evolution doesn't deal with life coming from non life, that's something else." That is dishonest of of the scientific community to cut the pie into so many slices and only bring out certain slices so they can get away with saying "Well we know THIS part is true." while not admitting that the slice you are bring forth must be able to fit in the pie.
For example.
"The big bang is a theory and unproven"----(skip in time)---- "Evolution is a fact" How do you prove that evolution is a fact when everything that comes into being must have a cause? You say, "Evolution only deals with what is already here, it does not account for any origin of time, space and matter." But that is being illogical and is only cutting up your argument into thin slices and giving me the slice that you can supposedly prove, but in the meantime, cannot be proven if those slices are put back into the pie.
Here is another example. If evolution only deals with what is already here, and does not account for the origin of time space and matter, at what point in the past does the subject of evolution start with? Something that already has consciousness? where did that come from before it had consciousness? or lets just say "Life" or even just "Energy" you mean, evolution is a fact only as long as you start with the already necessary components? The fact that evolution says that something gets better and better over time proves the point that is had to start somewhere, but where did that somewhere come from? logically speaking you have to ask that question. And that makes your argument illogical, because your scientific wise men are dishonest in that respect.
So I ask you again. If evolution is true, where did energy come from, where did life and consciousnesses come from? Take me back in time, even if you think it is not the subject of what your scientific wise men say "is not evolution." The fact remains, you still have to take me back in time.
