Dear atheist, I thank you...

Originally posted by sparda4355
reply to post by idonotcollectstamps

 

Then I accept your challenge, please try to paint me into a corner!

Let's start with this mr science, if it all started with a big bang, what caused the bang??? How's that for a corner?

Sorry about being so insistent, but I just couldn't resist from joining this slight sidetracking (which I consider justified by thread-title and OP).

You have ALMOST put yourself into that corner already, by re-introducing a version of the (imo) great hijacked christian shame: The concept of 'intelligent design'.

IF contemporary science is to be trusted (whether as one big macro-cosmic bang or many small continuous micro-cosmic bangs) and then combined with deductive logic, the (for the duration) formal science/logic conclusion is, that all manifestations of mundane existence (as mankind usually experiences it) break down beyond event horizon (what's 'visible').

This means, that regressive reasoning/deduction is impossible, as we don't have any reliable systematic methodology concerning trans-mundane existence * (=scientific 'chaos').

Science/logic, by their own self-definitions, methodologies and conclusions so far, DON'T acknowledge any such regressive deduction. So you have no justification from their positions.

Ergo: You have INVENTED YOUR OWN VERSION of 'logic', without presenting any systematic methodology, without presenting its procedure and withouit presenting any pragmatic testing of answers.

So not only is your: "What happened before the big bang"-question meaningless in scientific/logical terms; your BASIS (your methodology) for asking the question and for suggesting answers is equally meaningless.

Cutting through my excessive language and returning to normal lingo: You have a 'faith', and to support this 'faith' you create new 'faith'-methods.

Almost in your corner, and all by your own doing.

*Experiental trans-mundanity (e.g. 'mysticism'/applied metaphysics) may be an information-platform.... MAY BE.

Originally posted by sparda4355
reply to post by bogomil

 

Ok I was going to defend my statement that atheism is a religion... Not as in, belief of a god... But as in a organization that has formed rituals, a higharchy of order, a bible, somebody they warship (Darwin), a supernatural belief structure (the big bang existing before the existence of anything), recruiters, etc...

Not saying all atheists are part of this (as I stated), but the atheist movement/religion has been formed!

But I guess this argument has grown tired... Despite physical evidence, the debate never ends!

The argument certainly is tired, as long as it stays on un-realistic generalizations, with vague semantics and vague categorizations.

But there do exist a rather 'straight' and well-defined (though sometimes sophisticated) debate on such subjects, including participants from all 'camps', and in modern times having a temporary center in the discussions between the Copenhagen school (Niels Bohr) and the PARTLY watchmaker-universe school (Einstein).

I'm not hysterically egg-head positioned, where only advanced science/logic/philosophy/theology is 'valid', but as a lot of theist argumentation manifests as horribly twisted semantics (sometimes extending into scholastics), a good first down-to-earth step would be to call things by their proper names, instead of rhetoric and oration. Such a semantic and/or intellectual honesty should be inside the grasp of most people.