Atheism: What Happened Before the Big Bang?

[Raza]

I mostly believe in God because it seems more probable to me than the "Big Bang" theory. As a Muslim, I believe it's my responsibility to know what other people believe in. I have looked in Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, and now it's my turn to look at Atheism. My question is, in Atheism, What happened before the big bang? What made the first physical matter? What made energy? light? fire?

Thank you.

 

[Curious3141]

What made or came before God/Allah?

 

[neurocomp2003]

...mmm i'd say things existed forever...then again...what created god(s).

 

[sas3]

You can find some of the answers to your questions here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
Well excpt for the fire, fire is just a self-sustaining oxidation process accompanied by heat and light.

We really do not know what was here if anything before the big bang but we are getting more data all the time. The term "before" doesn't make sense if time started with the big bang either

Why do you think god is more probable than the big bang?

 

[moe darklight]

I'd also read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins along with some of the reads that are suggested within that book.

I liked it best out of all the "atheist" books... probably the best place to start for someone who hasn't looked into atheism as it covers most of the theist arguments and presents the scientific point of view to those arguments. From morals and values, to evolution and the big bang (obviously it doesn't go too deep into any subject).

 

[verty]

Raza, many atheists do question what the real truth is, etc. I think that many haved looked critically at religion, especially as it has changed over time, and have come to the conclusion that it can't have been true because it has changed so much, or they have come to the conclusion that religion has negative effects generally.

Atheism isn't about the Big Bang, in fact it has almost nothing to do with it. The Big Bang is just a theory without the negatives of religion, it doesn't have to be justified against religion because religious theories are disqualified.

So I think the position of most atheists is that religion just doesn't make sense. I'll use a Christian example. Suppose God is all powerful, he can do whatever he wants. Then why would he make this world? He could counter any need or urge he had. Why should God care if some ant on a ball of rock prays or not?

I think atheists also see that most religious people use religion in strange ways. For instance an earthquake happens and many die, but one of the survivors says "thank God I'm alive". It seems rather callous to suggest that God would let you live but others die. Why shouldn't God have prevented all deaths?

Also there is the matter that religion allows people to be manipulated. People will do what they can to evidence their belief, so like a boyfriend who says "if you love me, you'll have sex with me" they can be manipulated by fundamentalists. Suicide bombers profess to be following Islam. Whether or not it is the real Islam, there is still the matter that they think it is, and I think that says something about religion, that it can be used in that way.

So faced with these reasons, I think atheists reject religion and religious theories, not because they are demonstratively untrue but because the effects of that belief appear to be very negative, to the degree that religious belief seems irresponsible.

Many atheists don't try to persecute others but rather want to be allowed their autonomy. They would rather have the state follow secular values so as not to favour any religion. Science has no opinion on religious matters, it proposes theories that help explain the world but can't disprove religion. The Big Bang is a theory that science proposes but it's not something to believe in, it's something to accept as useful, whatever the truth may be.

So perhaps there is a balance between two things, the belief in the existence of some God and the recognition of the effects of religion. For most atheists, I think the effects of religion weigh heavily enough to favour a secular society which only means that one may believe what one wants to believe but should not force that choice on others, that one should not prejudice the choice of others. Religious freedoms are respected in a secular society, but they are not allowed to prejudice other people's freedoms.

Of course, if one firmly believes in some religion, they are going to want to evidence their belief because the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what type of Christian or Muslim or whatever would you be if you didn't act accordingly? If those religions tell that one should spread the word or whatever, how could one call oneself Christian or Muslim if they didn't do that?

So in this sense, it is probably a bit fantastic to expect that religious people would come to respect secular freedoms. We could only expect them to do that if it was consonant with their religious beliefs. For this reason, some statists would rather have the state take the place of religion, because to them allowing religious freedoms will inevitable have the effect of having people speak out against secular values. If secular values can't be had while religion flourishes, they then seek to institute a new religion.

So I don't think one should think of Atheism as another religion; it is something altogether different. Atheists choose secular freedoms over religious monopoly. Atheists differ in their political aims of course, but in general I think it is a reaction to the nature of religious belief, that it might preclude respect for secular values.

 

[out of whack]

Verty, my hat if off to your lucid and coherent description. I will add my two cents.

Neither religion nor atheism is a "decision" to believe or disbelieve, it is simply a conlusion based on personal affinities. People, religious and atheists alike, trust what gives them a feeling of certainty. In order to feel this way, we must be able to relate to our beliefs. I think that for many (most?) people, a humanized god is the closest thing to daily experience and therefore the most manageable model even though it does not really bear strict analysis. But most people have little time, training or inclination to do this. It is what everyone can understand: someone who listens and speaks to you through prophets or otherwise. For other people, what makes sense is a rational analysis of what is observed. What is illogical and unnatural to them is to have faith in what people said or wrote after a dream hundreds of years ago. These people start with facts and reach a conclusion instead of starting with a conclusion and making facts fit in, a different and opposite approach. But in the end, religious and atheists alike believe what they believe because they feel good about it.

 

[arildno]

What happened before the big bang? What made the first physical matter? What made energy? light? fire?

Thank you.

Blarrgh.
You think you have posted some "deep" questions here, don't you?
How have you gotten into your mind that those questions can be answered at present?

And, how did you get the idea that these question can be answered without bothering to meticulously build up a scientific culture that after, say, some millenia MIGHT be able to answer them?

And wherever have you received the notion from that there exists some shortcut that makes science unnecessary for answering these questions?


And, BTW, please include in your next post your calculation of probabilities that led you to regard "theism" as more probable than "atheism".
If you can't do that, stop loaning feathers from maths to make your credulous beliefs look better.

 

[PIT2]

I think atheism has to do with the big bang, at least the idea of the big bang as the origin of the universe. How does atheism have to do with that? It argues against one of the metaphysical possibilities - that of an intelligent/conscious origin.

Like arildno I am curious if/why the topicopener believes theism to be more probable than atheism.

 

[triden]

I am a creationist, and I do believe in God and ID, but I also love science and the power it has. The main thing for me is that I just look at the world and think of how wonderous it is with all the complex systems and how lucky I am to be here. How lucky I am to be "me" and have my own mind, soul, feelings and emotions. Some people think that athiests are bad people...we'll they are not and some of them are the nicest people in the world. Same to go with Christians and people who believe in God. It's just the few people that give both sides a bad name. Anyhow, I came across this the other day and it kinda sparked my sense of humour. I am not trying to be a jerk or putting anyone down by this. It's just something that makes you think of how crazy it is that we are here today...no matter your beleif. It does take a poke at evolution, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

The Tale Of The Magic Rock Apes

Okay, now sit down now, boys and girls - it's story time! Shhhh... Once upon a time, billions of years ago, there was nothing. Suddenly, magically, the nothing exploded into something. That something is called hydrogen. Can you say "hydrogen?" I knew you could. This hydrogen eventually cooled down enough to condense into solid rock. It was magic rock. Inert and lifeless, but still magical. And then, magically, water formed in the sky above the rock. The waters rained on the rock for, oh, let's say billions of years. Some of the rock broke down into minerals, and these minerals washed into a pool of water.

Then one day some of these minerals magically formed into a kind of goo in the pool of water. Can you say "goo?" I knew you could. Well do you know what happened then? That's right! The goo magically became ALIVE. So anyway, this bit of magic goo magically found something to eat. Then, magically, it found another bit of magic goo to marry, and they had a whole bunch of magical little goos. Eventually - millions of years later - some of this goo grew up into all the plants and animals in the world around us. If it's alive, it came from that first bit of magic goo! Well, more time went on. Finally some of this goo magically evolved - can you say "evolved?" I knew you could - some of this goo magically evolved upwards and upwards, growing ever more advanced, bigger, stronger, smarter, until it became a kind of magical hairless ape with thumbs.

And do you know who those apes are? That's right! They're YOU and ME! We are the magic rock apes! And you know what else? Someday we'll evolve enough that we'll become the God we all know doesn't exist. Now take a nap.

The truth in this story may wander from how an evolutionist believes the world was created, but I'm aware of that possibility.

 

[PIT2]

That magic rock ape story looks like the creationist equivalent of the flying spaghetti monster. Each of them ridicules an idea through extreme oversimplification.

 

[arildno]

And what does "magic" mean, triden?

The only ones dealing with that sort of stuff are superstitious individuals like religionists.

 

[out of whack]

I think atheism has to do with the big bang, at least the idea of the big bang as the origin of the universe.

There were atheists long before the Big-Bang idea was propounded. Atheism does not depend on a particular theory but on an approach to reasoning.

 

[PIT2]

There were atheists long before the Big-Bang idea was propounded. Atheism does not depend on a particular theory but on an approach to reasoning.

I know that's why i said the big bang as in 'the origin of the universe'. Theories may vary, but atheists do rule out an option for the origin.

 

[out of whack]

I know that's why i said the big bang as in 'the origin of the universe'. Theories may vary, but atheists do rule out an option for the origin.

Then I misunderstood you, sorry. I guess with or without BB, the origin of the universe is such a big question that it has to influence people's belief or disbelief in a deity.

Religious people find an answer by postulating a magical being that existed for eternity before it decided to create something. Atheists wonder where that magician might have come from and what she was doing for eternity before creating anything. Some bypass the middle man and conclude that the universe must have existed for all time.

 

[YellowTwo]

I mostly believe in God because it seems more probable to me than the "Big Bang" theory. As a Muslim, I believe it's my responsibility to know what other people believe in. I have looked in Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, and now it's my turn to look at Atheism. My question is, in Atheism, What happened before the big bang? What made the first physical matter? What made energy? light? fire?

Thank you.

If you are saying that everything must have had a cause, including the big bang, then what caused God? And if nothing caused God, then isn't it simpler just to say nothing caused the big bang?

As far as we know, nothing caused the big bang. The big bang was the beginning of space and time, so there was nothing before it because time did not exist. There are theories of a multiverse with an infinite amount of universes like this one, but I think it's pretty far from being proven.

 

[Raza]

Sorry for my late reply.

What made or came before God/Allah?

I don't know. I like to think of it as teaching a dog on how derivatives works, it simply won't happen. Our brains are not sophisticated enough to know that or to even comprehend that .

Why do you think god is more probable than the big bang?

I find it hard to believe that life was an accident and plus, I found many interesting evidences in the Quran that intrigues me.
For example:
"And it is We Who have constructed the heaven (universe) with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it." (Qur'an, 51:47)

Raza, many atheists do question what the real truth is, etc. I think that many haved looked critically at religion, especially as it has changed over time, and have come to the conclusion that it can't have been true because it has changed so much, or they have come to the conclusion that religion has negative effects generally.

Atheism isn't about the Big Bang, in fact it has almost nothing to do with it. The Big Bang is just a theory without the negatives of religion, it doesn't have to be justified against religion because religious theories are disqualified.

So I think the position of most atheists is that religion just doesn't make sense. I'll use a Christian example. Suppose God is all powerful, he can do whatever he wants. Then why would he make this world? He could counter any need or urge he had. Why should God care if some ant on a ball of rock prays or not?

I think atheists also see that most religious people use religion in strange ways. For instance an earthquake happens and many die, but one of the survivors says "thank God I'm alive". It seems rather callous to suggest that God would let you live but others die. Why shouldn't God have prevented all deaths?

Also there is the matter that religion allows people to be manipulated. People will do what they can to evidence their belief, so like a boyfriend who says "if you love me, you'll have sex with me" they can be manipulated by fundamentalists. Suicide bombers profess to be following Islam. Whether or not it is the real Islam, there is still the matter that they think it is, and I think that says something about religion, that it can be used in that way.

So faced with these reasons, I think atheists reject religion and religious theories, not because they are demonstratively untrue but because the effects of that belief appear to be very negative, to the degree that religious belief seems irresponsible.

Many atheists don't try to persecute others but rather want to be allowed their autonomy. They would rather have the state follow secular values so as not to favour any religion. Science has no opinion on religious matters, it proposes theories that help explain the world but can't disprove religion. The Big Bang is a theory that science proposes but it's not something to believe in, it's something to accept as useful, whatever the truth may be.

So perhaps there is a balance between two things, the belief in the existence of some God and the recognition of the effects of religion. For most atheists, I think the effects of religion weigh heavily enough to favour a secular society which only means that one may believe what one wants to believe but should not force that choice on others, that one should not prejudice the choice of others. Religious freedoms are respected in a secular society, but they are not allowed to prejudice other people's freedoms.

Of course, if one firmly believes in some religion, they are going to want to evidence their belief because the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and what type of Christian or Muslim or whatever would you be if you didn't act accordingly? If those religions tell that one should spread the word or whatever, how could one call oneself Christian or Muslim if they didn't do that?

So in this sense, it is probably a bit fantastic to expect that religious people would come to respect secular freedoms. We could only expect them to do that if it was consonant with their religious beliefs. For this reason, some statists would rather have the state take the place of religion, because to them allowing religious freedoms will inevitable have the effect of having people speak out against secular values. If secular values can't be had while religion flourishes, they then seek to institute a new religion.

So I don't think one should think of Atheism as another religion; it is something altogether different. Atheists choose secular freedoms over religious monopoly. Atheists differ in their political aims of course, but in general I think it is a reaction to the nature of religious belief, that it might preclude respect for secular values.

I think that you are talking about Agnostics. They believe in a supreme being who made the Earth but do not believe that this God has a religion.

Blarrgh.
You think you have posted some "deep" questions here, don't you?
How have you gotten into your mind that those questions can be answered at present?

And, how did you get the idea that these question can be answered without bothering to meticulously build up a scientific culture that after, say, some millenia MIGHT be able to answer them?

And wherever have you received the notion from that there exists some shortcut that makes science unnecessary for answering these questions?


And, BTW, please include in your next post your calculation of probabilities that led you to regard "theism" as more probable than "atheism".
If you can't do that, stop loaning feathers from maths to make your credulous beliefs look better.

I am sorry, but I seriously don't know what you are talking about.

That magic rock ape story looks like the creationist equivalent of the flying spaghetti monster. Each of them ridicules an idea through extreme oversimplification.

I thought that you got the term "flying spaghetti monster" from South Park but once I googled it it, it's a popular term used by atheist.

If you are saying that everything must have had a cause, including the big bang, then what caused God? And if nothing caused God, then isn't it simpler just to say nothing caused the big bang?

As far as we know, nothing caused the big bang. The big bang was the beginning of space and time, so there was nothing before it because time did not exist. There are theories of a multiverse with an infinite amount of universes like this one, but I think it's pretty far from being proven.

Please not that I am not trying to deprecate a believe, I was simply asking the question that never gets answered in numerous documentaries I've seen about Evolution.

 

[moe darklight]

1) I don't know. I like to think of it as teaching a dog on how derivatives works, it simply won't happen. Our brains are not sophisticated enough to know that or to even comprehend that .2) I think that you are talking about Agnostics. They believe in a supreme being who made the Earth but do not believe that this God has a religion.

3) Please not that I am not trying to deprecate a believe, I was simply asking the question that never gets anwered in numerous documentaries I've seen about Evolution.

1) that's kind of a cop out, and one that doesn't make much sense coming form a religious person -- If your argument is that these things are too complicated for us to arrive to a conclusion, then you should not believe in a god either because that, in itself, is a conclusion (and one with much less evidential support at that).

2) agnostics don't believe in a god either. agnostics believe the there is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove a god, therefore they are both equally valid points of view.
the line between agnosticism and atheism is very blurred though; most agnostics trust science more than religion and many will admit that there is probably not a god, and many atheists will admit that there is the possibility of a god... but it's still very unlikely.
what you are describing sounds more like deism.

3) an internet forum is probably the worst place to understand atheism... things tend to get heated and out of hand, or it turns into a pissing contest.
so if you want to learn more about atheism, the best is to read books on evolution, history of the universe, astronomy, genetics, etc. and understanding those sciences better, or read books like the god delusion or end of faith (which i didn't like as much) on atheism... there are also DVD series like "cosmos" by carl sagan or "the joy of science" from the teaching company that look at the basics of the scientific method. these last two look at the very basics of the sciences, but sometimes it's good to go back to basics; it helps you put together many of the more complex concepts you might already know and organize them better in your mind... there's a point where it all "clicks" in and you wonder how you could ever believe in something as simplistic as a "god" when the universe is so much more beautiful and interesting than that.

(I realize that last part might sound scary to someone with religious beliefs )

 

[verty]

Please not that I am not trying to deprecate a believe, I was simply asking the question that never gets answered in numerous documentaries I've seen about Evolution.

Science doesn't answer teleological questions. There is not and will never be a scientific answer to that.

I was indeed talking about Atheists. I think I have explained as well as I can, so I'll not add any more.

 

[triden]

There are two possible outcomes:

There is a God or there is no God. Either way it's a scary thought.

As someone who believes in God, I feel "secure" in my future and am not scared of death. The idea of dying one day and ceasing to exist would literally suck...and I know that won't happen to me. I have utmost confidence in it.

 

[triden]

If you are saying that everything must have had a cause, including the big bang, then what caused God? And if nothing caused God, then isn't it simpler just to say nothing caused the big bang?

As far as we know, nothing caused the big bang. The big bang was the beginning of space and time, so there was nothing before it because time did not exist. There are theories of a multiverse with an infinite amount of universes like this one, but I think it's pretty far from being proven.

The probability of the universe existing randomly and leading to create us is pretty much nil. Science can't prove the big bang more than it can prove that Roosevelt liked Scotch whiskey.

 

[verty]

As someone who believes in God, I feel "secure" in my future and am not scared of death.
...
The probability of the universe existing randomly and leading to create us is pretty much nil.

It is nil, it simply must be nil.

 

[moe darklight]

The probability of the universe existing randomly and leading to create us is pretty much nil. Science can't prove the big bang more than it can prove that Roosevelt liked Scotch whiskey.

creationists who haven't studied/don't understand evolution are as sure as you are that evolution is impossible to prove. don't mistake your inability to understand something with it actually not being true. -- I don't understand very well how image and sound is translated into electromagnetic waves and then back into images and sounds... yet I am watching this very entertaining movie with harrison ford as we speak. (it's really good actually, it's one where he's lost in an island with this hot chick).

and just because it scares you or you don't like the fact that you might some day stop existing is not proof that you won't! that's ridiculous. ... you might not LIKE the fact that there is not someone watching over you and protecting you. but there is a difference between wanting something to be true, and it actually being true.

if you fall off the roof of a building, it might be very comforting to close your eyes and convince yourself that a miracle will happen and you'll grow wings and start flying. but science tells us that that warm, fuzzy feeling of comfort will end as soon as the people bellow hear "splatt!".

I myself don't find the inexistence of god scary, quite the opposite, and you'll find many other people who share this feeling. the universe is too beautiful to ugly it up with superstition.

 

[arildno]

I am sorry, but I seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Unsurprising, given your religious predilections.

 

[Tony11235]

Sorry for my late reply.

I find it hard to believe that life was an accident and plus, I found many interesting evidences in the Quran that intrigues me.
For example:
"And it is We Who have constructed the heaven (universe) with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it." (Qur'an, 51:47)

I'm sorry but evolution is just the OPPOSITE of accident or chance. You obviously don't understand evolution. And how is what you just quoted truly evidence?

 

[arildno]

It takes a trained mind, not a chained mind, to understand that evolution is NOT the result of a random process.

 

[triden]

It takes a trained mind, not a chained mind, to understand that evolution is NOT the result of a random process.

Alright, so there isn't a fact of chance in the theory of evolution..please enlighten me. I tried to post my view but the admins deleted my posts. I have always heard that it had to do with chance by evolutionists themselves, but they must have not understood it like you do. I am willing to hear your side of the story.

 

[Tony11235]

Triden, if you're serious, Dawkins book, Climbing Mount Improbable, would be a good read.

 

[triden]

Weird, everytime I make a post on my View..it gets deleted...

 

[Evo]

Weird, everytime I make a post on my View..it gets deleted...

You've been sent 2 messages now warning you not to post the fallacy about Darwin.

 

[triden]

You've been sent 2 messages now warning you not to post the fallacy about Darwin.

Sorry if you thought it was a fallacy. I got that out of a book I read on him a while ago. I won't post about it again..

 

[Integral]

God did it is just another way of saying "I don't know". In my religion I am allowed to say "I don't know" I think this is much more honest then saying "God did it".

The spark of life is indeed a mystery, but how it is connected to the big bang is not even a little bit clear. These events, the big bang and the initiation of life are separated by billions of years and generations of stars.

I am happy with saying that time and space did not exist before the big bang, at least that is a starting point, god on the other hand, by the very definition of the concept, has no begining, this is a bit hard for me to swallow.

 

[Evo]

Sorry if you thought it was a fallacy. I got that out of a book I read on him a while ago. I won't post about it again..

It actually is a fallacy.

"The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin's family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was 'false and without any kind of foundation',4 and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had 'no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view'.5 Charles's daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, 'I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever'"

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp

Believe me, if Darwin had really recanted the theory of evolution, it would be general knowledge.

 

[moe darklight]

lol, yea in this case I agree with deleting those posts... we've all heard these so called "fallacies" of evolution and have explained them time and time again.

next time, visit http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ (or read some of the many books that have been suggested in this forum) and save yourself the trouble of typing. obviously you have not read enough or understood enough of what you've read about evolution to criticize it.

if evolution was a book, it might be missing a couple of pages at the beginning and the middle... but there is no denying what this book is about! we have enough pages to understand the plot of the story, make no mistake :) ... an every once in a while we find a new page

Believe me, if Darwin had really recanted the theory of evolution, it would be general knowledge.

and even if he had... so what! that would still be the opinion of one dying man against a mountain of indisputable evidence.
if Newton had taken back his ideas on gravity, let me assure you we would not be floating in mid-air right now.
I never understood how the whole "he took it back" (which he didn't) thing was even an argument to begin with.

 

[verty]

If Darwin had recanted, so what? The theory was still proposed and it fits the facts. In fact, he only made his findings public when he found someone else had come to the same conclusions, he was almost beaten to the punch. So again, if he had recanted it would be meaningless.

I don't mean to say that he did, certainly we should know that by now so I'm confident that he didn't.

 

[arildno]

triden:
It is your RELIGION that makes you unable to see the truth, i.e, WARPS your perspective.

 

[Raza]

God did it is just another way of saying "I don't know". In my religion I am allowed to say "I don't know" I think this is much more honest then saying "God did it".

The spark of life is indeed a mystery, but how it is connected to the big bang is not even a little bit clear. These events, the big bang and the initiation of life are separated by billions of years and generations of stars.

I am happy with saying that time and space did not exist before the big bang, at least that is a starting point, god on the other hand, by the very definition of the concept, has no begining, this is a bit hard for me to swallow.

Thank you for a great response, I was asking what created the big matter(?) to simply explode?

 

[verty]

[109:4] "Nor will I ever worship what you worship.

[109:5] "Nor will you ever worship what I worship.

That's not a nice sentiment, it's like saying that the other party is terminally flawed, beyond redemption, and that you would never in your life consider what they worship to be worthy of worship. To then say "to you is your religion and to me is mine" is a very lowly consolation after that harsh judgement and implied condemnation.

 

[Raza]

I believe that Christianity is a beautiful religion but I believe that Islam is a perfect religion but I can use these verses to describe the religion's relationship.

 

[moe darklight]

To you is religion, and to me is reason.

Atheism is not a religion... by its very definition Atheism is the complete opposite of religion... that atheism is just another religion is something that religious thinkers tell themselves and each other as a way of dismissing Atheism. Atheists don't have a belief system... i guess our only rule would be to lean towards whatever 'makes sense'.

But like I said before, don't use forums as your main form of research on atheism... as you noticed, things get heated.

p.s: I too believe that the old testament (that was taught to me at school from page 1 to page 1000000 or whatever the last page is lol) and what I've read from the bible are beautiful books full of great lessons. I haven't read the Quran but I'm sure it is too. They great stories and we can all learn a lot from them, and also learn a lot about our past as a culture. And there was a time when they did serve a purpose, to keep a growing human population from destroying itself and to keep it in order... but it's time to move on. and that doesn't mean we have to forget these books and religions and what we've learned from them.

 

[ray b]

I believe that Christianity is a beautiful religion but I believe that Islam is a perfect religion but I can use these verses to describe the religion's relationship.

then why does your religion play so poorly with others
fail to limit the clear excesses of the leadership
kill people for bad reasons [sex]
fail to improve the common peoples lot
be a source of terror
have so little respect for females

 

[PIT2]

There cannot be a 'perfect religion'. A religion is not just an idea but also every consequence this idea has on the world. Furthermore, in the case of islam (and also christianity) the 'idea' is gathered from a book which is considered an absolute truth. Because a book is meaningless without interpretation, and a book is also an extremely flawed way of conveying ones ideas to someone else (video and sound would be much better but there is no perfect communication except perhaps telepathy), the result is a virtually limitless number of interpretations by just as many people, each of whom are, because of the nature of their religion (believing a book to be absolutely true, more than any other source of information), required to see their interpretation as 'the truth'.

Knowing that written text is in no way a perfect way to convey a message, u can see how it can be very dangerous to believe that it is an absolute truth.

Religious people may say things like: "but suicidebombing is not what islam is! burning people at the stake is not what christianity is!". But that is exactly what they both are aswell. U can't detach a religion from its impact on the world, and so all the negative aspects are just as much part of it as all the positive aspects. Empirical observation proves that religions are not perfect.

A man can be in jail for murder, and his mother may say "my son is not a murderer, he's a good person and was always nice to me". But that's just selecting the good aspects and ignoring the bad ones.

 

[heusdens]

I mostly believe in God because it seems more probable to me than the "Big Bang" theory. As a Muslim, I believe it's my responsibility to know what other people believe in. I have looked in Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism, and now it's my turn to look at Atheism. My question is, in Atheism, What happened before the big bang? What made the first physical matter? What made energy? light? fire?

Thank you.

Atheism is a philosophical point of view, it doesn't involve or require a physical explenation as to what "came before the Big Bang" or things like that. Atheism in not a specific world outlook, but is a category of world outlooks, which have in common that they don't acknowledge that there is a deity.

Most of your question, in sofar they relate to your physical questions, are answered in physical theories, such as the Big Bang theory (it perfectly explains why and from what instant in time there is baryonic matter and why there are photons which we can see in the form of the CMBR, these photons were already there but in this dense "soup" of matter, could not go anywhere and bumped directly into particles, only after atoms were formed, photons became visible light, which we can still detect, in fact it is the olders remnant of the big bang) and as to what was the direct cause of the "Big Bang" this question is answered best by the theory of cosmological inflation, which explains that there was a very rapid expansion of space as the potential field (called the "inflaton" field) slowly rolled down to the minimum of the potential, where it oscilated and reheated the universe, thus releasing the energy which created all the baryonic matter and photons, etc.

For your information, as I guess you want to ask the really profound question as to why at all is there matter/energy, space/time, etc., if you want that asked by physics, that is the wrong question to ask, because any question that physics can try to explain, involves a material state of the universe (which already involves some form of matter/energy, space and time).

So you can in physics ask, why does state X of the universe occur, rather then Y, but you can't ask why is there any state at all. If there isn't a physical state, then physics can not deal with it.

So, if I translate your question into the metaphysical question as to why is there being instead of non-being (and for which you think, your deity provides an answer) the answer is that this question already assume something, namely the absolute seperatedness of being and non-being, which makes it impossible to answer the question.

Since, as we can conclude, being and non-being are in fact not absolutely seperate, but just opposites of each other, which necessarily belong to each other. They are like two sided of the same coin, or two poles of a magnet, you can not separate them.
You can slice the coin, but then you end up have two (half) coins, each with a top and bottom side. Cut a magnet, and you don't have a north pole and south pole, but two magnets, each with a north and south pole.
[ for clarity, we neglect the weird case which is claimed by particle phyiscs about monopoles ]

The way we can see this is to reflect on them in their higher unity (the dialectical unity of being and non-being) which is Becoming.

Every process that goes everywhere and on all moments in time, involve becoming, in which one thing changes or transforms into another thing, which therefore means: the being of one thing, changes into non-being (ceasing-to-be), and the non-being of another thing, changes into being (becoming).

Example: burning H₂ gas with O₂, which creates H₂O and heat. In this process the H₂ and O₂ become inexistent, and at the same time it makes water and heat.

But you can't make water and heat without H₂ and O₂ (or other chemical components), nor can you get rid of H₂ and O₂ without creating something else. This in general means you can only transform something from one state into another, wether that requires motion, chemical processes, or physical processes. And as far as science is concerned we have always a material state changing into a different material state.

A philosophy or idea which clings on the absolute seperatedness of being and non-being (which in other words, doesn't reflect on them in their unity, in the form of becoming or ceasing to be) is not called dialectics but sophistry.

I hope this answers your question?

 

[moe darklight]

then why does your religion play so poorly with others
fail to limit the clear excesses of the leadership
kill people for bad reasons [sex]
fail to improve the common peoples lot
be a source of terror
have so little respect for females

This is not always the case... it depends on the interpretation of the religion.

I'm Jewish (well, obviously not a religious jew but I consider myself a jew and follow some of the jewish traditions) and I have muslim friends, and know muslims who are not disrespectful to their wives etc. because they don't read that into the Quran.

the same as some christians read "Jesus loves everyone" while others somehow read "Jesus hates f*gs."

the problem with religion is exactly that... it's all about faith and what FEELS like the truth. it FEELS like I have a soul. it FEELS like god is watching over me. it FEELS like the bible says this or that. and no one is wrong as long as they convince themselves that what they feel is the absolute truth.

your claim that Islam is perfect reminds me of stephen colbert "The bible is 100% true; it says so in the bible." ... the flawed logic he uses as a comedic device, others use as an actual point of argument!

If Islam is perfect, then you should be able to prove so by presenting all the claims and predictions it makes, and showing us how they are all true. same with any religion... but none can.

There is this belief among religious people that science is out to disprove the existence of god by any means... this is just not true. If tomorrow came indisputable evidence that god exists, I'm sure stephen hawking himself would be out spreading The Word and repenting for all his sins.
many of the greatest scientists throughout history have been highly religious. but as science progressed, the probability of god became less and less until it became pretty clear that there most probably isn't a god (and if there is, that it most certainly is not anything like our religious gods).

I feel sorry for religious people who deprive themselves of many of the joys of life (sex, food, art, knowledge) in the name/fear of a god. what a waste it was for that god to create the orgasm!

 

[whatta]

And wherever have you received the notion from that there exists some shortcut that makes science unnecessary for answering these questions?

I am sorry, but I seriously don't know what you are talking about.

Well, you should be, because he's right. What you (religious dudes) have is a bunch of words explaining 0...01% of the world. What they (scientific dudes) have is a bunch of mathematical expressions explaining 0...01% of the world. Apart from big questions like "who is right" and "where everything came from", this is a matter of language preference.

p.s.: as to "where everything came from" question, it is logically incorrect, because "everything" would include that overlooked source as well. some people put it in other words, like what happened "before" T=0 (whilst there was no "before" by definition). you can render this question even more meaningless by switching to another coordinate system (such that T=0 would map to T'=-infinity). any way, "the answer" (if any) is outside of monkeys' 0...01% of the world, so why bother...

 

[YellowTwo]

heusdens - Nice post that was brilliant.

I think to really understand this whole topic it's a good idea to take a course on beginning philosophy. I took a class last semester and ever since then everything has become so much clearer.

 

[Gokul43201]

The probability of the universe existing randomly and leading to create us is pretty much nil.

The probability that you typed this exact combination of words in this post is also nil. Yet it happened.

Most often, it is ignorance of math and science that let's people be happy with whatever arguments they are fed by promoters of religion. Sad.

 

[Nexus555]

In my opinion, atheist are equally as destructive in nature as religious. Being an atheist requires equal amount of faith that a god does not exist, as religions require faith for the existence. I personally feel that Atheism is a religion without any context.

I stay in the neutral ground being Agnostic. Agnostic's do not deny there is a god (because there is no proof that there is not a god) at the same time they do not claim that there is a god (because there is no evidence that there is a god.) So with that being said, Agnostics rely more on evidence as a means of belief, not mere faith.

However I do enjoy hearing my religious friends sharing their experiences with their religion. For some it's hard for them to comprehend people not believing in their religion. Usually when I tell someone I'm agnostic, I get a flame for being an atheist. Big difference.

 

[heusdens]

In my opinion, atheist are equally as destructive in nature as religious. Being an atheist requires equal amount of faith that a god does not exist, as religions require faith for the existence. I personally feel that Atheism is a religion without any context.

I stay in the neutral ground being Agnostic. Agnostic's do not deny there is a god (because there is no proof that there is not a god) at the same time they do not claim that there is a god (because there is no evidence that there is a god.) So with that being said, Agnostics rely more on evidence as a means of belief, not mere faith.

However I do enjoy hearing my religious friends sharing their experiences with their religion. For some it's hard for them to comprehend people not believing in their religion. Usually when I tell someone I'm agnostic, I get a flame for being an atheist. Big difference.

It doesn't require me to have faith for me being an atheist. It's a false assumption to state that being an atheist requires faith. Despite your "personal feelings". If atheism requires one to have faith, then atheism would not be atheism (by definition), therefore your remark is self-contradictionary.

See also my previous post why I argue that there isn't any reason one could assume that the existence of a deity is a necessary or reasonable explenation. There isn't a reasonable ground on which the assumption that the existence of a deity would be a necessary conclusion yields true. So, in short, there isn't a reason on why one should assume that such a deity could exist.

I don't have to give a "proof" that deities don't exist as in general one can not proof a negative (neither I can't "proof" that an invisible and in principle undetectable gremlin sits on my desk).

If religion can not satisfy the condition why their assumption would be reasonable, then there is no need to justify such a belief.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

This is my perspective regarding the fundamental differences between belief systems and models of reality. It is pretty general so if anyone wishes to discuss any specifics, please feel free to address them.

The first subjective presupposition or assumption that an individual must construct about reality, is an ontological status. Does this individual presuppose a substance ontology, in which reality can fundamentally reduce into constituent parts, from which the macrocosmic emerges? Or does this individual presuppose a process ontology, in which reality is a complimentary oscillation between being and nonbeing?

After one has decided upon their paradigm of reality, one must extend their assumptions further.

I have reflected upon this topic for a while and I have come to the conclusion that this dialogue essentially deconstructs into a dichotomy between two fundamental presuppositions about reality:

1) Is the architecture of reality generated and engineered by an absolute mind, such as god?

Or

2) Does reality exist independent of an absolute mind?

If one presupposes that reality cannot exist independent of some absolute mind such as god, then one must transcend this notion to accept and embrace a Universe capable of existing independently. For instance, if a Christian who maintains a literal interpretation of the bible, presupposes the existence of biblegod and assumes that the bible is the truth and the inerrant word of biblegod, then when one is confronted with concepts and ideas dismissing the need for biblegod and postulating a self-contained Universe, one reaches a contradiction in which there is no longer a need for an absolute mind. Since one would presuppose that biblegod exists and that the word has been given to humanity, then when confronted with contradictory notions such as evolution, one must dismiss it on grounds of contradiction (granted, evolution does not necessarily dismiss the need for a creator, nor am I implicitly implying that) .

Conversely, if one presupposes the existence of reality, independent of an absolute mind, then one must transcend this presupposition in order to embrace an abstract notion such as an absolute mind. Since one does not presuppose the existence of an absolute mind, one does not embrace or accept the words in the bible (or whichever particular holy text is being considered) and instead, seeks solutions that lack the need for an absolute mind, such as biological and stellar evolution or even perhaps a Buddhist/Daoist approach to reality.