Serious Problems with Atheism

[Crossless2.0]

I wanted to link to the cosmology article but as per rules I couldn't, but an open letter signed by 33 top Scientists in New Scientist, May Issue 2004, states the Big Bang is flawed and only popular due to funding. Just Google Big Bang Busted by 33 Top Scientists.

And regarding your statements that Atheism has been misunderstood by me, I can assure you Atheism affects all aspects of our lives and can be discussed from various angles.

I don't know if anyone has addressed this letter, and I don't have the time or patience to wade through 25 pages to find out. Here's the thing, Pulse, you are citing a letter in which its signatories complain that funding for cosmological investigation is eaten up by work based on the "big bang" model, at the expense of what they consider to be equally plausible models: specifically plasma cosmology and a steady-state cosmology -- both of which posit an eternally existing universe.

Now why would a Christian apologist cite such a letter, since it implicitly cuts the ground out from under the belief in a distinct "creation event", unless he (1) will grasp at anything to throw against the wall of what he regards as the atheist worldview, just to see what might stick; (2) doesn't have any idea what he is talking about; and possibly (3) is a dishonest twat?

[pocaracas]

I get the feeling some people have never properly thought about why they believe as they do.

I think you're giving too much credit to most of mankind, there...

[Astreja]

The citation for the BBT dissenters, simply Google Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists. Your other rebuttals are simply personal opinions which are completely subjective.

And using the word "Delusion" is not allowed because its rude? Please ask Dawkins not to use it in the title of his book. I am sure your response will justify him in your subjective opinion.

I'm not going to argue scientific consensus or book titles with you.  I'm merely going to state (subjectively!) that I find your beliefs fucking ridiculous and a blight upon humanity.

Now be a good little Christbot and run out and get us some testable empirical evidence for your imaginary friend.  Even if the BBT were falsified, it would not make your dead-rabbi-on-a-stick beliefs true.

[Esquilax]

That's at the core of the debate isn't it, why is "prosocial" better than "antisocial"? Why is human survival better than 

extinction? 

It's better for humans. Perhaps it has no significance on a cosmic scale, but do you really need everything you do to have consistent, reality-wide significance to be worth doing? Subjective is not the same thing as worthless.

Why are the random electron collisions in his brain forming his "logic" 

"bad" and the random electron collisions in your brain forming your "logic" "better"?

Well, for one, there are objective facts that can be known about biological entities with regards to their function. One of those is that organisms tend toward survival simply as a mechanism of how that works: the things that stay alive will generally be the ones with equipment enabling them to survive, and we are a part of that set. Our function is to be alive, and thus in that sense, te logic of a serial killer is maladaptive to that purpose.

For another, even if we assume that there is no especial difference, doesn't it also follow that if you're going to give the serial killer a say, o be consistent we ought to have one too? And everyone else? I think you'll find the majority are willing to engage with the social contract. Again, subjective isn't the same thing as worthless.

So my point is we innately know that there is Good and Evil in this Universe because we have a Conscience which is simply 

irreducible to random electron collisions in our skulls, and it requires the stubbornness and closed-mindedness of a Dawkins to

 deny the obvious.

You're assuming that morality can only be detectable by humans if it's an objective function of the universe, rather than an emergent property of brains. I don't know why you'd do that, and frankly, there's nothing here to rebut until you provide even an iota of support for it.

I think the big problem, here, is that you're hanging your entire argument on your discomfort with the idea that your feelings might not have some grand cosmic significance. I know you don't like thinking about it, but making it seem scary is not an argument, it doesn't mean that it's true erely because it stirs existential feelings in you. Got anything other than your subjective opinion?

[AceBoogie]

Pulse, you offer no arguments that this community has not heard a thousand times before. What's more, you're not even very good at debating the very points that you chose to bring up.

This is like mariosep all over again.

1. Post bogus argument against "atheism" (whatever the fuck that even means)
2. Debate the points within your argument until you're blue in the face
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for dozens upon dozens of pages
4. ?????
5. Profit

[Minimalist]

This is like mariosep all over again.

Has anyone checked the sock drawer?

[Asmodee]

This is like mariosep all over again.

Has anyone checked the sock drawer?

It is a pretty great argument isn't it?  If there were no God we wouldn't care if we died.  We don't want to die, therefore there is a God!  Oh, and one time, this atheist with mental problems said something really bad, so, shame on you guys.  And Hitler.  And...um...I stubbed my toe last week and it really hurt.  I was thinking about atheists at the time, so...you assholes...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Holy shit, look at all those big words.

Welcome to the dark side, Brewer.

[Faith No More]

I don't know if anyone has addressed this letter, and I don't have the time or patience to wade through 25 pages to find out. Here's the thing, Pulse, you are citing a letter in which its signatories complain that funding for cosmological investigation is eaten up by work based on the "big bang" model, at the expense of what they consider to be equally plausible models: specifically plasma cosmology and a steady-state cosmology -- both of which posit an eternally existing universe.

Now why would a Christian apologist cite such a letter, since it implicitly cuts the ground out from under the belief in a distinct "creation event", unless he (1) will grasp at anything to throw against the wall of what he regards as the atheist worldview, just to see what might stick; (2) doesn't have any idea what he is talking about; and possibly (3) is a dishonest twat?

Yeah, I brought this up the first time he mentioned it.

Curiously, I got no response.

[Crossless2.0]

I don't know if anyone has addressed this letter, and I don't have the time or patience to wade through 25 pages to find out. Here's the thing, Pulse, you are citing a letter in which its signatories complain that funding for cosmological investigation is eaten up by work based on the "big bang" model, at the expense of what they consider to be equally plausible models: specifically plasma cosmology and a steady-state cosmology -- both of which posit an eternally existing universe.

Now why would a Christian apologist cite such a letter, since it implicitly cuts the ground out from under the belief in a distinct "creation event", unless he (1) will grasp at anything to throw against the wall of what he regards as the atheist worldview, just to see what might stick; (2) doesn't have any idea what he is talking about; and possibly (3) is a dishonest twat?

Yeah, I brought this up the first time he mentioned it.  

Curiously, I got no response.

Good to know I can stop holding my breath.

#sonotsurprised