Hi

[Tempus]

Right, which I choose to use higher power instead of God, because most people will automatically connect what I say to the Christian God.

I'm not sure what you mean here - what I said applies to the Christian god, higher powers, angels, ghosts, goblins, etc. No evidence against something is not a reason to believe it. Your justification seems to be mainly a pragmatic one, which I can understand. In certain circumstances, belief in something unsubstantiated may be beneficial, such as a someone having confidence in a job interview even though they're up against a lot of equally qualified competition and statistically unlikely to get the job.

Most atheists believe in the big bang, but it can't be proven; just a theory. << look up the scientific definition of 'theory'

I think grouping acceptance of the big bang by belief or lack of belief in a god is not quite as meaningful as grouping it by education level / field of expertise. From what I understand, most people educated in the areas of cosmology / astronomy / astrophysics accept the big bang because their findings and predictions are consistent with it - regardless of whether they're theistic / deistic / atheistic.

As for "just a theory", although the following quotation is being used in the context of evolution, it's applicable here:

In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. (National Research Council. "Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions." Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1999. 1. Print.)

You can't disprove or prove what happened in the beginning so why is it so idiotic to just believe in something that makes sense to you?

You can't prove or disprove something therefore it's fair game to just make something up that you like? Is that what you're suggesting? I don't think that sounds like a very good idea. How about reserving judgement until finding some evidence? If no evidence surfaces all that's needed is to acknowledge that we don't know. Your position, while technically not being an argument from ignorance is close to it.

I'll just add that I'm reasonably certain that at least some things about the big bang are known. What caused the big bang, what happened before it (if there can be a 'before' without time as we know it) - these are the things that aren't known because conventional physics don't apply in these scenarios.

Also, I don't think it's "idiotic", I just think it's an ignorant sentiment that comes from poor reasoning which can be remedied by looking at the flaws in people's arguments used to reach such conclusions.

Believing in Karma isn't such a bad thing either. If it's keeping you from being a shitty person to others, then I think it benefits society.

Karma can also serve as a justification for suffering. If person X is having a rough time and we believe in karma, I think we're more likely to treat their hard times as their own fault. Clearly if person X has fallen on hard times they must have done something wrong to deserve it. This is known 'blaming the victim' - a judgement is passed on this person's misfortunes before we even know the circumstances. If we lived in a society where people believed that everyone deserved what they got, do you think that would result in a more caring, empathetic attitude toward its members? Still, I acknowledge the idea of karma can be formulated with enough caveats to adequately apply to reality as we perceive it - just like with a religious belief. Oh, what, Adam & Eve didn't really exist? Well, that was a metaphor to illustrate humanities sinful ways (it's also curious that we should inherit original sin from a metaphorical couple, but I digress). Likewise, one can formulate karma as balancing out only after death, outside of perception or awareness, being retribution from past lives, etc.

But that isn't even my real problem with such ideas. My actual problem is that if decisions about what to believe are made from such poor arguments as "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true" (which I will emphasise I realise you're not saying) that's going to lead to larger societal problems. Imagine that attitude applied to global warming, AIDs, racism, etc. Good reasoning skills are critical to making informed decisions. I think it's a mistake to assume people's poor reasoning in one area will not spill over into another.

Finally, if someone spots any errors in my brief science mentions please inform me - it's not an area I'm entirely familiar with.