Am I an atheist?

[MasterDebater]

Or an agnostic? Or somewhere inbetween if that is possible.

I don't believe in god and have no time for organised religion. I don't believe in spirits or an afterlife or any sort of all powerful being or heaven and hell etc.

I do believe in evolution but i find it hard to believe in the whole 'there was absolutely eff all, ever, then a boom' thing.

I have the idea that there is something 'out there' where the answer might lie though have no idea where or what form it might take.

So....any input appreciated.

Rick

[Tiberius]

The word "agnostic" is misdefined in modern society to the extent that most people think it means something like "I don't know what I believe". This isn't the case at all.

Agnosticism is the position that the value of certain truth claims is unknown or unknowable.

Whereas atheism / theism are positions on belief in the existence of gods, agnosticism / gnosticism is a position on whether the existence of gods can be known, or is known.

Thus my position of an agnostic atheist, someone who doesn't believe in gods, but at the same time doesn't make any claims to have knowledge of the non-existence of gods.

[fr0d0]

So you believe there's 'something out there' ~woo~

(Crazy bastard)

[Tiberius]

Just to add:

I don't believe in god and have no time for organised religion.

If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist (it's the definition).

I do believe in evolution but i find it hard to believe in the whole 'there was absolutely eff all, ever, then a boom' thing.

I've never heard of a scientific idea where "there was absolutely eff all, ever, then a boom' thing". Do you mean the Big Bang theory? If you read up on what the Big Bang theory says, I assure you it is very different from your somewhat childish (no offence) description.

[leo-rcc]

Just to add:

---

I don't believe in god and have no time for organised religion.

If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist (it's the definition).

I do believe in evolution but i find it hard to believe in the whole 'there was absolutely eff all, ever, then a boom' thing.

---

I've never heard of a scientific idea where "there was absolutely eff all, ever, then a boom' thing". Do you mean the Big Bang theory? If you read up on what the Big Bang theory says, I assure you it is very different from your somewhat childish (no offence) description.

And I'd like to add that the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

[Tiberius]

I hate that the name "Big Bang" stuck. I mean, it sounds cool and everything (I know the name was originally meant to mock the theory) but it's got nothing to do with the theory at all. Bangs require space for sound to move through, and the "Big Bang" was the expansion of space...there was nothing for sound to make any noise in!

[MasterDebater]

Do you mean the Big Bang theory? If you read up on what the Big Bang theory says, I assure you it is very different from your somewhat childish (no offence) description.

None taken.

I tried to read A Brief History of Time but it didn't grab me though it did seem to suggest that the universe opened up into a space that wasn't there and that there was nothing in existence prior.

That isn't at all what the theory states, nor what Hawking was talking.

The big bang theory (The name is misleading and was actually created by someone trying to ridicule the early theory, it would be more adequately called the big expansion) states that all matter, energy, space and time in the universe was once condensed into a single force of energy with no spatial dimensions (infinitely small), it is dubbed 'The Singularity'. For reasons unknown this singularity expanded creating space and time as well as breaking this unified field of energy into the forces of nature (gravity, strong nuclear force, electroweak force, the electromagnetic force etc.) as well as space and time themselves which did not exist prior to this point in time.

So to state that it was an explosion into empty space is completely incorrect, space-time it's self emerged from the singularity.

Also there is no claim that 'nothing was there' prior to the big bang because the singularity was there, it is simply the universe as we know it that had a beginning - We have no way of knowing whether or not the singularity had a beginning or not and if it did, we have no idea what this beginning was. The mathematical theories at the moment work until 1x10^35th of a second but are unable to describe the nature of the universe prior to this time, mainly due to our current inability to rectify General Relativity and Quantum Gravity.

If you have any more questions about it feel free to ask.

[TruthWorthy]

I hate that the name "Big Bang" stuck. I mean, it sounds cool and everything (I know the name was originally meant to mock the theory) but it's got nothing to do with the theory at all. Bangs require space for sound to move through, and the "Big Bang" was the expansion of space...there was nothing for sound to make any noise in!

Actually Adrian, sound requires air molecules, that's why there's no sound in space.

[Tiberius]

I wonder why we can hear sound underwater then? Or through solids?

You don't need air molecules, sound is just a vibration of pressure that can travel through most forms of matter (solid, liquid, gas). Most of space is a vacuum, hence no sound. My original point wasn't about the matter needed in space, but the actual space itself. When the Big Bang happened, there was no space for sound to travel through.

[TruthWorthy]

yes, sound does need a medium to "travel" through, water isn't very rigid so you end up having distortion. Also, water molecules are suspended apart from one another meaning they don't touch.