Big Spoon

Recently I came across a religious website claiming that atheists are in breach of Einstein's laws , because matter and energy can't be created therefore God must have created them.
At first this seemed very hypocritical ie. it's okay to believe in the consistency of physics as long as there's room for an omnipotent deity in there somewhere.
Also, by playing the causality card implicit in their argument they fail to account for who created god etc.
Soon this began to seem even more hypocritical. Christians are the first to scream "It's only a theory!" regarding evolution yet they are happy to take Einstein's THEORIES as fact when they are both supported by an overwhelming body of evidence.

VonEvilstein

Oh dear, so many points to raise...

I don't even think I'll bother, as it will just be ranting and raving about so many things I ranted and raved about at great length before.

However, if someone could tell me when Relativity got promoted to a Natural Law, I'd be appreciative.

I f anyone could confirm for me that there was no matter/energy and then there suddenly was, I'll be confused, but grateful (I don't think the BB was a light switch!).

If one of you guys could explain how atheism implies adherence to the BB theory, and no other school of thought even flirts with it, I will be a wiser man.

Big Spoon

This thoughtful and well-informed website also claimed that an atheist " is someone who doesn't believe in anything supernatural" !!!! These ignorant fundie sights really wind me up a treat.

Wyz_sub10

Well, that's what you get when you allow Enstein to start passing laws willy nilly. (I would think Newton would be a little upset at Einstein "stealing" his ideas.)

Also, I love the whole discussion surrounding "supernatural". What does supernatural mean anyway? Does it mean something that violates natural laws?

Funny. I had a massive debate a while back with a theist. I asked why god, not being subject to natural laws and all, coulnd't save flood victims by grabbing them with a giant hand and removing them to safety. I was told that this was ridiculous and totally unrealistic. Un huh.

Shake

They just get caught up because they don't know the difference between a 'theory' and a 'Theory!' Conjecture vs. tested scientific hypothesis.

Tom Sawyer

Shake,

The difference between the two is simple:

Theory - An idea that supports what you believe in. Absolutely true in all situations

theory - An idea that does not support or contradicts what you believe in. Obviously false and any potential confirmation of it is based on bad data or outright lies.

Answerer

Forgive me guys, but I just want to zzzzzzzzz.

Bob K

Big Spoon:What is wrong with the conception of atheism as being nonbelief in anything supernatural and therefore the concept of an atheist as being a person who does not believe in anything supernatural?

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/defstheistatheistagn.html

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/defsthstathstagnstc2.html

Philosophy is the study of concepts, principles and techniques.

Concepts are mental representations, ideas, of objects, people or things which retain their identities for longer durations in time than related events.

Principles are mental representations/ideas of events, which are relationships between or among people/things.

Techniques are applications of concepts and principles.

Knowledge is the set of verified concepts and principles and practical techniques.

Thus, an individual’s philosophy is his personal set of concepts, principles, and techniques for using his concepts and principles.

Religion is a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods.

‘To believe in’ means ‘to believe in the existence of’ or ‘to believe in the reality of, the actuality of’ a proposition, a claim of reality/actuality.

The fundamental question concerning religion [concerning a philosophy of religion] is thus: Do gods exist?

The followup fundamental question concerning religion is thus: What would be proof of the existence of gods?

Proof consists of (A) Physical evidence, observable people/things/events; (B) Verified eyewitness reports of physical evidence from credible eyewitnesses and corroborated by credible corroborators; and (C) Valid logical arguments in which premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified to be true by physical evidence or verified eyewitness reports of physical evidence and which lead to relevant conclusions which are true if the premises are true.

Proof of the existence of gods would be (A) physical evidence, the gods themselves, or (B) verified and corroborated eyewitness reports of the physical evidence of the gods, the gods themselves.

If theism is belief in the existence of gods, gods being characterized as being ‘supernatural,’ then atheists are fond of claiming that atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods, hence atheism, by extension, is nonbelief in the supernatural, and, therefore, an atheist ‘is someone who doesn’t believe in anything supernatural.’

Furthermore, atheists claim that agnostics, who also can be characterized as having an absence of belief in the existence of gods, are actually atheists without the personal fortitude and integrity to admit they are atheists.

However, agnostics focus upon the existence of proof of either the existence of gods or the nonexistence of gods, and if proof is not conclusive, then the issue is not resolved and cannot be resolved until conclusive proof of either the existence of gods or the nonexistence of gods can be discovered.

When the focus is upon the existence of conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods, the following definitions of theism/atheism/agnosticism make sense:

Theism: A philosophy which includes belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods. A theist is an individual whose philosophy includes a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods.

Atheism: A philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods. An atheist is an individual whose philosophy includes a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods.

Agnosticism: A philosophy which includes a belief that the theistic proof of the existence of gods is inconclusive and a belief that the atheistic proof of the nonexistence of gods is conclusive and that, therefore, the question of whether or not gods exist is unresolved and cannot be resolved until conclusive proof of either the existence of gods or the nonexistence of gods can be discovered. An agnostic is an individual whose philosophy includes a belief that proof of either the existence or the nonexistence of gods is inconclusive at this time and that the question of whether or not gods exist cannot be answered until conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods is discovered.

Concerning whether or not any thing or event is supernatural, consider this:

Define the universe to be the combination of three realities: (1) The spatial reality, which is space, the unbounded area/arena/location/place/stage/theatre/vastness/volume in which exist all things and events comprised of matter and energy; (2) The temporal reality, which is time, the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events; (3) The physical reality, which is physics, matter and energy, including forces and force fields, and which comprises all people, things and events.

We notice that the gods, if they exist, are neither space nor time but therefore must be physics, comprised of matter/energy, of some kind, perhaps of a kind not currently observed by human beings.

If gods are comprised of matter/energy then they are as ‘natural’ as any other physical thing/event, but in the sense that they, the gods, could be more knowledgeable and more powerful than man, than men/women, then the gods, in a stretch, could be considered to be ‘supernatural,’ ‘supernatural’ in the sense of being ‘superhuman.’

I do not care for this stretch, for the recognition that the gods, if they exist, are comprised of matter/energy is enough to consider the gods to be ‘natural in the sense of being part of the universe, not ‘above’ or ‘below’ or ‘beyond’ or ‘super’ or ‘superior to’ the universe.

We still do not have conclusive proof of the existence of gods, we do not have physical evidence--the gods themselves, and we do not have verified eyewitness reports of physical evidence of the gods, of the gods themselves, but at least we can now speculate that if they exist they are not necessarily supernatural and therefore are natural, comprised of matter/energy.

Nevertheless, it is possible that atheists are individuals who do not believe in anything supernatural.

eh

These fundies seem to be having a problem.

...claiming that atheists are in breach of Einstein's laws , because matter and energy can't be created therefore God must have created them.

Nice contradiction we have here. Ask them if they believe in logic.

Starboy

LOL! If only it were so. If only we could be in "breach" of any natural "law". As if that is possible for mere mortals. Can't they see how ridiculous they are? There is no such thing as being in "breach" of natural "law". When it happens the offending scientists are given the Nobel Prize. The religious mindset is so first century!

Starboy