An infinite progress

[Angrboda]

Always?  Methinks thou dost protest too much.  I'd ask for citations except that I know that this, like all your claims, came straight from your ass.

In an atheist's mind, rejecting religion and rejecting the idea of God, are the same thing.

*bzzzt* Wrong answer. You don't have the first clue what atheists actually think. Most atheists in my experience do the reverse, rejecting God leading them to rejecting religion. Many nones who have rejected religion have not rejected God as well, showing that your argument is complete crap. Rejecting religion doesn't in the main lead to rejecting God, though it may. Rejecting God is almost certainly going to lead to rejecting religion.

[HappySkeptic]

In an atheist's mind, rejecting religion and rejecting the idea of God, are the same thing.

*bzzzt* Wrong answer.  You don't have the first clue what atheists actually think.  Most atheists in my experience do the reverse, rejecting God leading them to rejecting religion.  Many nones who have rejected religion have not rejected God as well, showing that your argument is complete crap.  Rejecting religion doesn't in the main lead to rejecting God, though it may.  Rejecting God is almost certainly going to lead to rejecting religion.

I rejected the concept of God, and am part of a religion.  So, the two are not always correlated. 

Being an atheist means not believing in any gods, and nothing more.  Religion is a different thing - it is about community and shared values.  If those "values" involve gods, then stopping believing in God will likely mean leaving the religion (but not always).  I stopped believing in gods, and it took a couple of years before I left my old religion.  In my new religion, gods don't have to be involved.

[Spongebob]

As if that meant anything profound.  Can you grow a brain so you sound somewhat coherent?  I'm pretty sure you're only 12 years old.

So profound.

Now you know how we all feel with your inane utterances.

[Simon Moon]

Always?  Methinks thou dost protest too much.  I'd ask for citations except that I know that this, like all your claims, came straight from your ass.

In an atheist's mind, rejecting religion and rejecting the idea of God, are the same thing.

This is just not true.

I do not reject the idea of god(s), I just find lack of warrant to accept theist's claims that a god exists.

And rejecting religion, and disbelieving gods exist, are 2 separate things. You are making a category error.

I have a good friend who gave up his religion decades ago, yet he still believes in a god. He is a deist.

And Buddhism, is unquestionably a religion, yet it is atheistic.

[brewer]

In an atheist's mind, rejecting religion and rejecting the idea of God, are the same thing.

As if that meant anything profound.  Can you grow a brain so you sound somewhat coherent?  I'm pretty sure you're only 12 years old.

There's a difference between childish and childlike. Unfortunately Ahri covers both bases.

[vulcanlogician]

I tend to like a scientific view of the cosmos. Because science strives toward accuracy. And if science ever finds itself to be inaccurate, it modifies its theories. It improves over time, corrects its own mistakes.

Granted, however, "science" has no way to gather ANY information before the Planck time. However, "science" has, almost by definition, an infinite amount of data that can be discovered after the Plank time. Answers, then, must depend on the future, not the past. Quantam theory has no problem postulating that effect can proceed cause, Therefore, would not an infinitely powerful and complex "being" in the future trump (pardon the expression) and almost infinitely simple, first-order cause in the past?

I mean, sure. You have a point. Science can only trace the history of the universe so far. But (who knows?) better theories and it may be able to trace things back further. But you are correct. It's unlikely that they have (or ever will) trace it all the way back. The Big Bang is a history of the universe (not a theory of why it exists in the first place). And it's pretty accurate.

The point is, science doesn't just accept a given theoretical history of the universe because "it works." There is more to the big bang theory than "it works." There's good evidence for it too. Tons of evidence.

Your history of the beginning of the universe (namely "God did it") "works." Sure... So what?

So does, "before the big bang, the energy required to create the universe was spat out by the great Nordic serpent." But scientists don't entertain the Nordic serpent hypothesis (or yours) because there isn't good evidence backing it up... they aim for a degree of accuracy. A good scientific theory must "work" too, in the sense that it conforms with logic and evidence. Adding layers of accuracy, correcting errors and misconceptions (in a rinse/repeat fashion) is what science does next.

Religion doesn't really do this. Some theologians try to create plausible theories when problems arise, yes. But they never doubt the truth of their holy book. They never want to stop and ask, "Maybe the book is wrong?" Scientists are. Sure, scientists have their books too. But you win a Nobel Prize if you prove their books wrong. End every scientist worth his salt will applaud you for it.

[Mister Agenda]

A lot of Unitarian Universalists are atheists. I attend occasionally myself. Another example of atheists who don't believe in God but don't reject religion.

[HappySkeptic]

So does, "before the big bang, the energy required to create the universe was spat out by the great Nordic serpent." But scientists don't entertain the Nordic serpent hypothesis (or yours) because there isn't good evidence backing it up... they aim for a degree of accuracy. A good scientific theory must "work" too, in the sense that it conforms with logic and evidence. Adding layers of accuracy, correcting errors and misconceptions (in a rinse/repeat fashion) is what science does next.

BTW, it is possible that the net energy of the universe is zero, so the Nordic serpent didn't really have to do anything

[vulcanlogician]

So does, "before the big bang, the energy required to create the universe was spat out by the great Nordic serpent." But scientists don't entertain the Nordic serpent hypothesis (or yours) because there isn't good evidence backing it up... they aim for a degree of accuracy. A good scientific theory must "work" too, in the sense that it conforms with logic and evidence. Adding layers of accuracy, correcting errors and misconceptions (in a rinse/repeat fashion) is what science does next.

BTW, it is possible that the net energy of the universe is zero, so the Nordic serpent didn't really have to do anything

But the serpent is way cooler.

[Ahriman]

A lot of Unitarian Universalists are atheists. I attend occasionally myself. Another example of atheists who don't believe in God but don't reject religion.

I've sat in on a few UU sermons, that shit was kind of weird.