Do you question your religious beliefs? Would you like to?

[Hammerhead]

Atheism is boring and lacks imagination.

How so?

 

When someone says they are an atheist, they are rejecting an infinite number of possibilities for [existence/origin/genesis/t0/etc]

 

When someone says they believe in [God/Creator/Something], they are only rejecting one possibility.

 

So yeah, I find atheism boring and unimaginative.

 

Wrong.

 

When someone says they believe in something specific, they reject all but one possiblity.

[zoogs]

Right, and many are more likely to fall into the category of agnostic. Not that the labels matter necessarily, but it tends to make some of these discussions a little clearer with those definitions.

 

I my book, an agnostic is certainly not a theist, so he would fall under the broad scope of atheism. Which is why I'd say atheism does't define; it encompasses a range of different possibilities. I suppose I would fall under the branch of agnostic atheism....but that's too much label usage for me.

 

That's really what I was getting at there, zoogs. Millions that just don't care about wanting to have an answer.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Opting to not care or deal with the great mysteries as a means of personal resolution is a totally understandable response to having to grapple with some pretty incredible, beyond-human-ability possibly questions. Another common response is to rely on some of the great human stories of our time as means of resolution.

 

I wouldn't say one is any less respectable or understandable than the other. And neither is leaving it open-ended.

[bennychico11]

Wouldn't that be time AT the Big Bang then? Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.

No. T=0 represents "no time" or "before time", before the moment of the big bang. T as in "time" doesn't exist - as in "0"

 

=======================

 

 

My original point was atheists are boring and lack imagination. I meant it as a playful jab the the atheists who frequent the board.

 

bennychico11 helps me to illustrate that point by saying,

 

'Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical.'

 

 

I don't think I helped illustrate your point at all with that comment. I was purely saying time BEFORE the Big Bang is non-sensical. Because time and space came into existence simultaneously. You defined it yourself above...t=0, time doesn't exist. There is no before. It's like asking what's north of the North pole. That's not lacking imagination, it's just physics.

[bennychico11]

I agree with that post, Conga.

 

Nice to see others who see it that way.

 

"Since asking before the Big Bang is non-sensical" is an un-clever way of dodging the glaringly obvious problem itself. It needs an answer, at least to me anyway. But apparently millions are content not to ponder it.

 

That interests and confuses me greatly.

 

As I said in my post above (sorry, I just started replying without reading everyone's post)...it's not dodging the question. I think it's hard for us (me included) to understand 'no-time'. As in, there is no before. It's like trying to explain what "nothing" is. We have no such example of "nothing" as we have no such example of "no-time". It's hard for a lot of us to perceive.

So it's not that I think asking what happened before the Big Bang is stupid...or what caused the Big Bang is just a waste of time to talk about. I actually am extremely intrigued at the universe around me. I just choose not to settle on "God did it" (which I actually would call even MORE unimaginative). What I was saying was it's a non-intelligible question to ask what happened before there was time. There is no before!

 

Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't other theories. This is just how I understand the prevailing idea. You'll have to ask a particle physicist

[bennychico11]

You misread or I failed to make that point clear.

 

Unobservable. I know it's technically not a word...but you get my meaning hopefully.

 

-------

 

I would argue an atheist who is curious about the unobservable and entertains the possibility of a Deity when considering - without picking one as a convenient question filler-, is not an atheist.

 

...but words are hard and I could be wrong wrong wrong.

 

You'll have to explain what you mean by unobservable? Because theists sometime mean two different things. Unobservable with the current limits of our technology (like billions of light years away?)...or unobservable like other dimensions of space/time or a supernatural realm?

Also, I wouldn't say someone who entertains the possibility of a deity is not an atheist. We can talk about hypothetical possibilities all day long, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, that's different. Sure it's possible there is a god. But it's also possible we all live in the Matrix. Now, ask me if I believe we live in the Matrix?

[funhusker]

I may have opened pandora's box on myself. I will borderline anger my wife (devout catholic) with these thoughts. I am loyal to my religion. I am very dedicated to my beliefs. But I also have open eyes and the power to think "what if"-openly. It is what it is.

if you do not question your beliefs and arrive at your conclusions independently, it is hard to say you really believe it at all.

As the season of Lent approaches, this is a tremendous statement for "believers"...Sd'sker, with your permission, I would like to use this outside of Huskerboard.

 

For those that don't know: Lent is based upon the 40 days that Christ spent "questioning" his purpose out in the wilderness...

[Conga3]

I don't think I helped illustrate your point at all with that comment. I was purely saying time BEFORE the Big Bang is non-sensical. Because time and space came into existence simultaneously. You defined it yourself above...t=0, time doesn't exist. There is no before. It's like asking what's north of the North pole. That's not lacking imagination, it's just physics.

We'll... see this conversation inevitably migrates to theoretical physics, and not a lot of people are familiar with that, but much of it is contemplating what happened before "time" as we are experiencing it now in this universe.

 

Without trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about (I don't) or making the assumption you don't know what your talking about, we should try to not confuse the "observable science" with "unobservable scientific theory".

 

Simply saying, 'there is no before'...doesn't make it a truth.

 

We can't observe it, sure. But we can think about it. And that's more interesting to me...

[zoogs]

This is a pretty cool read it looks like. I'll have to sit down with it some time!

 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/15/what-happened-before-the-big-bang/

[Conga3]

You'll have to explain what you mean by unobservable? Because theists sometime mean two different things. Unobservable with the current limits of our technology (like billions of light years away?)...or unobservable like other dimensions of space/time or a supernatural realm?

Also, I wouldn't say someone who entertains the possibility of a deity is not an atheist. We can talk about hypothetical possibilities all day long, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, that's different. Sure it's possible there is a god. But it's also possible we all live in the Matrix. Now, ask me if I believe we live in the Matrix?

Unobservable as in not existing in this universe -- not related to our tools/instruments or distance.

---------

 

So you would humor someone by talking about the possibility of a Deity, but you don't believe it possible?

 

Like discussing all the great flavors of ice cream with someone, even though you only eat custard?

 

--------

 

Do you believe we live in the Matrix?

 

Because I haven't ruled that out.

 

I read a book by Brian Greene called "The Hidden Reality :.." and he covers that topic - the "Holographic Universe" theory. Crazy good stuff.

[bennychico11]

Unobservable as in not existing in this universe -- not related to our tools/instruments or distance.

 

Okay, then responding back to your original post:

 

To me, I think there are only two sides of the fence you can eventually fall on in regards this.

You either entertain the idea (with varying degrees of certainty) of a Deity (theist) and continue to contemplate the significance of your role in this grand experiment ...

or you reject the concept of a Deity outright (atheist) and simply stop thinking about the unobservable how and the why altogether.

 

I guess then I would say that an atheist (and a skeptic) would choose not to believe in the unobservable because of their rejection of the god claim. Yes. An unobservable how and an unobservable why, would need as much (if not more) evidential support as an unobservable god. So in other words, you'd have to not only show evidence of a god, but also evidence of a purpose. So most atheists/skeptics, would choose to reject that as well.

However, take the word "unobservable" out and just leave "how and why" in your original statement...and I disagree with you. I'm in a constant state of wondering how and why we came to be here. But, I'd also have to ask, what distinguishes the unobservable from the non-existant?

 

 

So you would humor someone by talking about the possibility of a Deity, but you don't believe it possible?

 

Not necessarily to humor someone...but to talk about it in a hypothetical or philosophical sense. Atheists do that all the time when discussing religion.

 

Like discussing all the great flavors of ice cream with someone, even though you only eat custard?

 

Again, if were talking about hypothetical flavors (ie. Invisible and Timeless Snazzle Berry Ice Cream), then yes. I could have a hypothetical discussion about them. I'd probably tell you at the end of the discussion I didn't think that flavor existed.

Now, if you said it was chocolate ice cream. I would probably think, "well, I've had ice cream before. I've also had chocolate in other products before. So I can probably take your word on it that another flavor probably exists." And then I can just go to the store and find it on the shelf. It's too bad your Snazzle Berry Ice Cream happens to also be invisible though! Dang!

 

 

 

Do you believe we live in the Matrix?

 

Nope

 

 

"Because I haven't ruled that out.

I read a book by Brian Greene called "The Hidden Reality :.." and he covers that topic - the "Holographic Universe" theory. Crazy good stuff."

 

 

I'll have to check that one out.

[sd'sker]

I may have opened pandora's box on myself. I will borderline anger my wife (devout catholic) with these thoughts. I am loyal to my religion. I am very dedicated to my beliefs. But I also have open eyes and the power to think "what if"-openly. It is what it is.

if you do not question your beliefs and arrive at your conclusions independently, it is hard to say you really believe it at all.

As the season of Lent approaches, this is a tremendous statement for "believers"...Sd'sker, with your permission, I would like to use this outside of Huskerboard.

 

For those that don't know: Lent is based upon the 40 days that Christ spent "questioning" his purpose out in the wilderness...

you absolutely have my permission. i wish you a happy and holy lent season.

[Landlord]

whoa....funhusker. Questioning his purpose in the wilderness huh? What sort of Bible translation are you using?

[funhusker]

whoa....funhusker. Questioning his purpose in the wilderness huh? What sort of Bible translation are you using?

 

The one where Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan...Matthew 4: 1-11 (NIV)

 

"questioning his purpose" were probably the wrong words to use. But trying to associate with the previous postss...

[Landlord]

So where do I find the direct link between "being tempted" and "questioning His purpose"?

[Hammerhead]

or you reject the concept of a Deity outright (atheist) and simply stop thinking about the unobservable how and the why altogether.

 

I don't think that most atheists outright reject the concept of a deity per se, I think most of them simply choose not to believe in any specific deity because they've not seen evidence enough to believe there's any reason to.

 

Even if it is a case of outright rejection, that doesn't require one to stop thinking about any of those things. Just because we may never have a 100% verifiable answer to those "big questions" doesn't mean we can't have our own hypotheses. In fact, I'd argue that an atheist has far more curiosity about those things than a theist does, because a theist assumes to already know the answers.