enfant terrible

You certainly hold unusual beliefs for a physicist. Anyway, if the Big Bang started from a singularity, there was no space and time "before" it, actually there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. Talking about its causes is then completely meaningless. Now if it wasn't a singularity, then it is questionable if we will ever know with much certainty how the laws of physics differed from the known ones in conditions of such extreme density, but the one obvious implication is that the Big Bang, in that case, was not the beginning of the natural universe, so it makes no sense to try to look for its causes outside nature. At the very least (and this is an understatement), Occam's rasor is overwhelmingly against the hypothesis of "God as Creator".

enfant terrible

Why would anyone need to explain existence of the world?

Philosoft

Fine.

Absolutely not. A belief system that cannot appeal to God... is a belief system that must appeal to alternate explanations...

(4) is wrong, thus your proof fails. Atheism is a single belief (or lack thereof). You must show that atheism entails a belief system that itself entails metaphysical claims. Good luck.

If a strong atheist denies the existence of God on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence, what does she need additional empirical evidence for? She is not necessarily advancing any particular metaphysical claim at this point, only denying that one is valid.
You said "God is not a superfluous entity." Per our discussion, that implies God adds explanatory power to the problem of the origin of the universe. My assertion is that God does not answer the questions you think are profound. If you think strong atheism unjustifiably denies a non-superfluous entity, please indicate why.

King Rat

re·li·gious Pronunciation Key (r-ljs) adj.

1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

All this discussion and the OP doesn't even make sense. By definition an atheist can have no religious beliefs.

Thanks for playing everybody.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Metaphysics? WTF are you talking about? I don't use anything except science to explain things. If science doesn't work, my answer is "I don't know". Atheists are content with saying that. Theists aren't, and invent an explanation so they can say they know (even if in reality they are no more rationally certain than the atheist). I don't do anything to explain my existence- I exist, and I'm not entirely sure what events caused said existence to occur if we extrapolate far enough into the past. I just don't know. Postulating God has no explanatory power.

I seriously don't understand what you mean by "metaphysical beliefs" "metaphysical devices" etc...What are they?

-B

Amaranth

Eh? This is rediculous. I am a strong atheist in regards to the biblical god, a stance I base on the evidence against biblical creation, the flood, and the exodus, as well as others. I fail to see any religious claims in this stance.

You have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that a strong atheist must belief in a magical creation in the absense of a god. Says who? I am such an atheist (in at least one regard), and I simply don't have a set of beliefs on the creation of the universe/life. The evidence is incoclusive, and I have no desire to make a decision ad ignorantiam.

TomboyMom

religion
American Heritage Dictionary


How the heck can atheism--a lack of belief in a supernatural power--be a belief in and reverence for a supernatual power?

religion
Webster's Unabridged

How can an absence of recognition of the existence of god = recognition of existence of god?

What on earth definition of religion are you using that would include atheism? Is it a private definition? Or are you merely saying that atheist statements are statements about God or the absence thereof?

Rene

Eudaimonist

Just a logical one.

A belief which involves a god as an explanation for something.

Because they don't necessarily involve a god as an explanation for something.

What you are calling the "belief there is no god" is typically just the belief, perhaps tentative, that a natural explanation explains some phenomenon. This doesn't have to touch on the god issue at all. If science explains lightning, this doesn't mean that it is a religious issue challenging the existence of Zeus.

As far as political issues go, I can understand your concerns as far as statements that "there is no god" might be protected speech, and statements that "there is a god" might be viewed as violating separation of church and state principles. But where is this happening? If a public school were to say "there is no god", then I would agree that something is wrong. But teaching science doesn't do this. Science makes no claim that "there is no god", it simply explores natural explanations for phenomenon, which is not inherently a "religious" issue.

Biff the unclean

Good points, however, may I ask where you found out how God ought to design the universe?

The class of Atheism to which I belong is neither strong nor weak nor Agnostic. I'm of the Abullshitist school of Atheism.

We Abullshitists have noticed that we have never been presented with a god of any size or shape to acknowledge or deny. There is no metaphysics involved in the discussion. The ONLY thing we have been presented with is a story. So when we Abullshitists are presented with questions like " may I ask where you found out how God ought to design the universe?" the answer is "in your own story."

For instance this story says that god created the universe by saying a magic word. Well we know magic words are bull shit so I withhold my belief in this story. The same story goes on to say that people are piles of dust with magic breath blown on them…that's just nonsense. And when this story describes the universe the world and the universe in the story bears no resemblance to the actual world and universe. The world exists, but not the world in your god story. In fact the story is so far off as to be laughable.

So CD it isn't really god that we don't believe, it's your story that is unworthy of belief because we can check most of the claims it makes against reality and they fail.

Charles Darwin

Good point, but my contention is that all alternatives, whether known now, or not yet known, are going to be metaphysical. So to deny my claim you must say you believe that, somehow, there is an explanation for the world which is not metaphysical. It isn't known now. Maybe it will be never known. Frankly I (and I suspect you too) cannot even imagine the form of such an explanation.