Are there varying degrees of Atheism

shadowcomplex

I suppose on side there isn't you either believe in a god or you don't but when it comes to religion there definitely different degrees of faith, most religious people in this country would be catholic but the vast majority don't actually practice it. I myself was born catholic, but don't have much faith there is a god but I wouldn't rule it out entirely but that's probably because of being brought up being told there is a god and its just an idea that's hard to let go of

endacl

I'm a non-practising, a la carte, cultural atheist. I dip in and out as it suits me.

One eyed Jack

Wouldn't that be varying degrees of belief then rather than an absolute absence of belief?

I don't think there's any merit in that weak atheism/strong atheism nonsense myself tbh, and I know far more people who simply identify as non-religious as opposed to labelling themselves atheist.

I imagine it has to do with the fact that either they're not aware of the concept of atheism, or they are aware of it, but prefer to avoid the negative connotations associated with the label.

human 19

"definitely different degrees of faith";
That's fine as far as it goes for Faith...i.e deciding what you choose to believe in from that particular buffet. Technically you are supposed to take the lot without question, but that's your business.

" would be catholic but the vast majority don't actually practice it."
Catholicism is a belief . Whether one who follows those beliefs decides to actually follow it's rules is a sub-topic for those who give a damn about it in the first place.

Athiesm is the belief that the stories that were instilled into you when you were a child regarding these superstitious beings, are actually a load of rubbish.

regarding whether there is a god or not...for me, maybe there is some sort of higher form on a level greater than ours. Where did the universe come from? The questions multiply the further you go back. The amazing this is...once you free your mind from the god/angels/devil story, and ask questions, the possibilities are wonderfully mind-boggling.

Unfortunately the religious want to keep the whole of the cosmos trapped in their little box of unsubstantiated beliefs.

Carawaystick

yeah, sher some people believe there's no god, while others believe there are no gods...

Harika

Dawkins created this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Besides that list there is the need of destinction between people that believe in a god and people that follow e.g. the catholic church. Cause as you said, still the overwhelming majority of irish people is religious, on the other side it is getting harder to recruit priests and young people that actually go to church.

nozzferrahhtoo

Many degrees. For example I joke refer to myself as an incidental atheist.

What that means is that I simply do not subscribe to ideas that people offer me without basis. And GIVEN that the idea there is a god comes before us with absolutely no substantiation at all..... I simply do not subscribe to it. I do not call myself atheist... I have no reason to.... but many other people would and do.

So I often tell people that atheism if not my world view... it is a consequence of my world view.... which is simply a world view of "If you tell me something without any reason to believe you..... then I wont believe you.... simples!"

But the degrees of atheism has generally been a theist canard. It is an attempt to lend credence to their nonsense. Think about it with any other nonsense you just make up on the spot. If I told you, for example, not to leave your house tomorrow because if you do you will be killed by a pokka dot pink VW microbus that will materialize above your head and fall upon you and kill you.... would you gauge your LACK of belief of this nonsense? Would you feel compelled to quantify just which side of non belief you have for this?

Or would you simply hear the words, not believe them, and move on regardless? Despite the fact you can not in advance disprove the proposition? Of course you would. But somehow over the centuries the theists have built up this narrative that one must not only justify disbelief but give it tiers and put yourself on one.

No. Bull Crap. THEY claim there is a god. I don't believe their claim. Quantify that yourself you claimants.

smacl

I don't think there are degrees of atheism, but there are definitely degrees of anti-theism. I don't believe in God -> I'm an atheist. Simples. That I get pissed off at the many barbaric, discriminatory, unsavoury acts and antics carried out in the name of religion leads me to be somewhat anti-theist. My anti-theism is such that I don't really care what anyone professes to believe or how they choose to lead their life, just so long as they don't try to foist it on me, my family, friends, or society. My anti-theism as such is probably better described as secularism.

ScumLord

Yes, the anti-theism is a more important factor in atheism. I swing wildly between apathy and disdain. I want to be apathetic but it's pretty hard.

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

I'm a non-practising, a la carte, cultural atheist. I dip in and out as it suits me.

I always check the Table d'Hote menu as sometimes it's a good bargain.

Hotblack Desiato

The Early Bird Atheists got in before the rush.

realdanbreen

shadowcomplex wrote: »

I suppose on side there isn't you either believe in a god or you don't but when it comes to religion there definitely different degrees of faith, most religious people in this country would be catholic but the vast majority don't actually practice it. I myself was born catholic, but don't have much faith there is a god but I wouldn't rule it out entirely but that's probably because of being brought up being told there is a god and its just an idea that's hard to let go of

Out of curiousity, do you believe that the universe and all it contains is the creation of a higher power? If not how do you think it came about?

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Out of curiousity, do you believe that the universe and all it contains is the creation of a higher power? If not how do you think it came about?

I can't speak for shadowcomplexon the first question (though I suspect there is a clue in 'don't have much faith there is a god'); as to the second question, surely the answer must be 'Don't know, and neither do you'?

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

I can't speak for shadowcomplexon the first question (though I suspect there is a clue in 'don't have much faith there is a god'); as to the second question, surely the answer must be 'Don't know, and neither do you'?

Fair enough but the second question was how do you "think" it all started not do you "know" how it started.

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough but the second question was how do you "think" it all started not do you "know" how it started.

Same answer; Don't know. As in 'Do you think it will rain next Tuesday?' 'I don't know.'

No harm in saying you don't know if you don't know. If you ARE interested in cosmology (and it's a truly fascinating area), there is a host of material available.

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

Same answer; Don't know. As in 'Do you think it will rain next Tuesday?' 'I don't know.'

No harm in saying you don't know if you don't know. If you ARE interested in cosmology (and it's a truly fascinating area), there is a host of material available.

Obviously you don't know and neither do I or anybody else for that matter but surely you must at some stage have thought about it and came to your own take on how it all came about.OTOH maybe it is something that never crossed your mind.

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

Obviously you don't know and neither do I or anybody else for that matter but surely you must at some stage have thought about it and came to your own take on how it all came about.OTOH maybe it is something that never crossed your mind.

As I said, cosmology is a fascinating area and well worth looking into. Loads of material out there; would you like some recommended reading?

My own take on the matter is, I don't know, but it's a really interesting question, and there have been many attempts to answer it down through human history. It's highly likely that we will never know 'how it all came about', though; and, as you might have guessed, I see no need for the God hypothesis.

Akrasia

I know lots of people who are atheist Monday Wednesday and Friday but theist the rest.


I think It's because they genuinely don't believe in god but have been trained to fill in all gaps in knowledge with god.

ie; God can't exist, look at all the suffering, but how does an acorn grow into a tree? It can't be 'just' nature.

I like to reply:

Nature is god, but all nature cares about Is that you follow the laws of physics

smacl

realdanbreen wrote: »

Obviously you don't know and neither do I or anybody else for that matter but surely you must at some stage have thought about it and came to your own take on how it all came about.OTOH maybe it is something that never crossed your mind.

For myself, I'm very much aware of how limited my mind is in the larger scheme of things and as such fully accept there are very many things that are, and always will be, well beyond my comprehension. By times I use abstract ideas to box off huge areas of this lack of comprehension, but these are no more than weak proxies. I suspect that for many religious people, the notion of a god or creator is an inherited abstract that acts as such a proxy. That is, rather than face into the unknown, it is more palatable to say God did it. Personally, I consider this a delusion, albeit an understandable one backed up by considerable emotional investment. Apologies if that comes across as pompous or condescending, but that is my honest take on it.

realdanbreen

I still think it all boils down to whether you think that the Universe was 'created' or not. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation other than the fact that there is a creator.

shaymus27

realdanbreen wrote: »

I still think it all boils down to whether you think that the Universe was 'created' or not. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation other than the fact that there is a creator.

It's not a plausible explanation, it's a belief.

It's not a fact. it's a belief.

At one time it was a belief that if you sailed over the horizon you would fall off the edge of the world. This is the problem with beliefs. They can turn out to be nonsense.

shaymus27

shadowcomplex wrote: »

I suppose on side there isn't you either believe in a god or you don't but when it comes to religion there definitely different degrees of faith, most religious people in this country would be catholic but the vast majority don't actually practice it. I myself was born catholic, but don't have much faith there is a god but I wouldn't rule it out entirely but that's probably because of being brought up being told there is a god and its just an idea that's hard to let go of

There's no varying degrees of athiesm. The idea is there is no God.

There are varying degrees of suiting yourself when it comes to religion if you are religious. If you are a catholic bishop who knows about abuse you can suit yourself and suit the organisation you belong to and abandon morality preachings that are meant for others but not yourself or your organisation.

You weren't born a catholic. Your parents conformed to the norms of the society they lived in and thought of you as a catholic. You were born a human without any erroneous beliefs derived from believing whatever men with power who are promoting a particular religion they derive status and wealth from are saying.

efb

Like when the woman in the hospital asked "what religion are you"- None",
"No", she goes, "what religion are you..."

Pherekydes

efb wrote: »

Like when the woman in the hospital asked "what religion are you"- None",
"No", she goes, "what religion are you..."

You should say "No religion". She probably thinks you're saying "nun". :pac:

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

I still think it all boils down to whether you think that the Universe was 'created' or not. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation other than the fact that there is a creator.

It is not a fact that there is a creator.

The God Hypothesis raises more questions than it answers; not least of which is, where did the Creator come from? If you speculate that the Creator is eternal, why can you not speculate that the Cosmos is eternal?

realdanbreen

shaymus27 wrote: »

It's not a plausible explanation, it's a belief.

It's not a fact. it's a belief.

At one time it was a belief that if you sailed over the horizon you would fall off the edge of the world. This is the problem with beliefs. They can turn out to be nonsense.

Fair enough. So has anyone got a plausible explanation or theory ?
Rubbishing the existance of God doesn't equate to an alternative theory.

realdanbreen

Pherekydes wrote: »

You should say "No religion". She probably thinks you're saying "nun". :pac:

But if you were baptised a Catholic or Protestant or whatever then unless you formally renounce it then that is what you are.

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

But if you were baptised a Catholic or Protestant or whatever then unless you formally renounce it then that is what you are.

The Catholic church doesn't allow people to renounce their 'faith'.

realdanbreen

Arsemageddon wrote: »

The Catholic church doesn't allow people to renounce their 'faith'.

Of course it does, you are free to formally quit it at any time. The thing is there are very few really committed atheists. Most folk who say they don't believe tend to be the same people who could'nt be ar$ed going to the bother of resigning from the church.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

Of course it does, you are free to formally quit it at any time. The thing is there are very few really committed atheists. Most folk who say they don't believe tend to be the same people who could'nt be ar$ed going to the bother of resigning from the church.

can you explain what the steps are to formally quit the Catholic church? Can it be done online or does a person need to contact a parish house?

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

Of course it does, you are free to formally quit it at any time. The thing is there are very few really committed atheists. Most folk who say they don't believe tend to be the same people who could'nt be ar$ed going to the bother of resigning from the church.

I'm surprised that you know so little about your own religion.

Please state exactly how this is done.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

I still think it all boils down to whether you think that the Universe was 'created' or not. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation other than the fact that there is a creator.

Unfortunately the fallacy at play here is to assume a hypothesis credible solely because it is the only one on offer.

Actually there are other plausible hypotheses at play that actually, unlike the god hypothesis, have some basis in data and evidence. Not to say they are proven or true.... but they have a foundation in substantiation that at least justifies proposing them.

But let us assume for a moment you are not wrong, and the god hypothesis is literally the only one in play and the only one on offer. This is ENTIRELY irrelevant. A hypothesis is not lent credibility through exclusivity. An error no small number of theists appear to make.

An exclusive hypothesis is evidence of little more than our ignorance. A point I tend to illustrate by asking the listener to imagine a scanario where we have the privilege of knowledge the people in the scenario do not. Take a conversation between two small boys discussing the origin of babies for example.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them.
Boy1: Oh? How do you know this is true?
Boy2: Well have you got another plausible idea of where they come from?
Boy1: No.
Boy2: Aha! See? The stork brings them.

In this analogy Boy1 and 2 represent Humanity and Boy2 specifically represents YOU. We the listener to the story have the privilege of knowing that not only is there another hypothesis, but it happens to be correct. They are entirely ignorant of this however and Boy2 feels that since only one hypothesis has been postulated in their veil of ignorance.... then it BY DEFAULT attains credibility or truth.

We are in that position. We are in a universe and we exist. We do not know how this has come to be. So we come up with hypotheses to explain this.

You play the part of Boy2 in that discourse. You have a hypothesis that is itself devoid of ANY modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it. But exclusivity alone somehow plays the part of verification in your mind.

It is a fallacy I can imagine you would only do well to divest yourself of.

Thankfully outside the desperation of the theists there are few realms of discourse where exclusivity lends credence. Can you imagine, for example, if a murder suspect was presumed guilty in cases where only one suspect was on the list. No need to evidence the suspect actually committed the crime. Merely being the sole suspect available is guilt already. Imagining a scenario like that leaves one merely grateful that reality does not match YOUR world in your head.

realdanbreen

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I'm surprised that you know so little about your own religion.

Please state exactly how this is done.

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in. I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done but I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Unfortunately the fallacy at play here is to assume a hypothesis credible solely because it is the only one on offer.

Actually there are other plausible hypotheses at play that actually, unlike the god hypothesis, have some basis in data and evidence. Not to say they are proven or true.... but they have a foundation in substantiation that at least justifies proposing them.

But let us assume for a moment you are not wrong, and the god hypothesis is literally the only one in play and the only one on offer. This is ENTIRELY irrelevant. A hypothesis is not lent credibility through exclusivity. An error no small number of theists appear to make.

An exclusive hypothesis is evidence of little more than our ignorance. A point I tend to illustrate by asking the listener to imagine a scanario where we have the privilege of knowledge the people in the scenario do not. Take a conversation between two small boys discussing the origin of babies for example.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them.
Boy1: Oh? How do you know this is true?
Boy2: Well have you got another plausible idea of where they come from?
Boy1: No.
Boy2: Aha! See? The stork brings them.

In this analogy Boy1 and 2 represent Humanity and Boy2 specifically represents YOU. We the listener to the story have the privilege of knowing that not only is there another hypothesis, but it happens to be correct. They are entirely ignorant of this however and Boy2 feels that since only one hypothesis has been postulated in their veil of ignorance.... then it BY DEFAULT attains credibility or truth.

We are in that position. We are in a universe and we exist. We do not know how this has come to be. So we come up with hypotheses to explain this.

You play the part of Boy2 in that discourse. You have a hypothesis that is itself devoid of ANY modicum of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate it. But exclusivity alone somehow plays the part of verification in your mind.

It is a fallacy I can imagine you would only do well to divest yourself of.

Thankfully outside the desperation of the theists there are few realms of discourse where exclusivity lends credence. Can you imagine, for example, if a murder suspect was presumed guilty in cases where only one suspect was on the list. No need to evidence the suspect actually committed the crime. Merely being the sole suspect available is guilt already. Imagining a scenario like that leaves one merely grateful that reality does not match YOUR world in your head.

Nice bunch of scenarios there nozz but I don't see even an attemt at explaining how the Universe came about.

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in. I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done but I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

what a silly line of argument.

I was forced to learn this gibberish in school.

If it's as easy to formally renounce then surely you should be able to explain how it is done.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in.

I see no reason for surprise here. One does not have to believe in an idea to know a lot about it. Especially if that something permeates the modern society and history of the country we either live in or love. If a religion has that much influence in the present and in history on our society, then it behooves one to know as much about it as possible if they wish to influence, or be activist in, that society. Regardless of whether they believe in that religion or not.

realdanbreen wrote: »

I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done

I must warn you that I doubt there is a single user of this forum who will read this sentence from you as meaning anything but "I am bluffing, I actually have no idea, but I am pretending I do".

realdanbreen wrote: »

I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

Thats exactly your problem. We have done this research, especially those of us who followed with interest the rise and fall of the count me out website. We know exactly what is involved, how canon law was literally changed to preclude it, and what the background of "chapter and verse" actually is.

Which is why a number of users are happily calling you out on it and testing to see if you can adumbrate the required steps yourself. Because we know the answers, and we here appear to suspect you are bluffing knowledge of it.

A hypothesis you can quickly falsify by displaying such knowledge however.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Nice bunch of scenarios there nozz but I don't see even an attemt at explaining how the Universe came about.

Given I gave one scenario and not a "bunch" it appears you just replied to my post with a one liner without actually reading it at all.

Especially given the point of my post was not to explain how the Universe came about, but to make the point that even if I could offer no such hypothesis, this in no way, even a small way, would lend credence to any claim there is a creator of it.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm even more surprised that you know so much about a religion that you say you don't believe in. I have no intention of going through the chapter and verse of how its done but I guess if you were serious about quitting your religion you would be able to find out for yourself.

Since you can't be bothered proving your claim.....

A quick google and presto;

A formal act of defection from the Catholic Church (Latin actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica) was an externally provable juridic act of departure from the Catholic Church,[1] which was recognized from 1983 to 2009 in the Code of Canon Law as having certain juridical effects enumerated in canons 1086, 1117 and 1124. The concept of "formal" act of defection was narrower than that of "notorious" (publicly known) defection recognized in the 1917 Code of Canon Law[2][3] and still narrower than the concept of "de facto" defection. In 2006, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts specified in what a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church consisted.[4] In 2009, all mention of a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church and of any juridical effects deriving from it was removed from the Code

Source

So looks like your claim of formally leaving the Catholic church is incorrect as of 2009.

realdanbreen

SW wrote: »

Since you can't be bothered proving your claim.....

A quick google and presto;

So looks like your claim of formally leaving the Catholic church is incorrect as of 2009.

Well here's another quick google--You file a copy of 'Defecto ab ecclesia catholica actu formali' with the office of the Bishop and Bob's your uncle.But I guess anyone serious about quitting would have found that out themselves.

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well here's another quick google--You file a copy of 'Defecto ab ecclesia catholica actu formali' with the office of the Bishop and Bob's your uncle.But I guess anyone serious about quitting would have found that out themselves.

Your googling was too quick. This method was abolished in 2009.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

Well here's another quick google--You file a copy of 'Defecto ab ecclesia catholica actu formali' with the office of the Bishop and Bob's your uncle.But I guess anyone serious about quitting would have found that out themselves.

um, the link I provided clearly states the document you refer is no longer available as per 2009.

So the option you are citing is no longer available.

From my previous post.

A formal act of defection from the Catholic Church (Latin actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica)

realdanbreen

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Your googling was too quick. This method was abolished in 2009.

And was replaced as well you know.

Delirium

realdanbreen wrote: »

And was replaced as well you know.

with what? When did this happen? Link to this announcement?

Arsemageddon

realdanbreen wrote: »

And was replaced as well you know.

By what? Enlighten me.

looksee

efb wrote: »

Like when the woman in the hospital asked "what religion are you"- None",
"No", she goes, "what religion are you..."

That happened to me in the last few months. I said 'none' and she poked at the computer doubtfully, then said, it won't allow me to check you in without a religion...So I lied.

Huntergonzo

There can't be varying degrees of atheism, you either believe in God or you don't, the grey area are agnostics. But because there are many many forms and extremes of religious belief believers often confuse atheism as a religion itself, as though it is actually a belief system.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God given the lack of evidence, any strings and bells attached to it are done so by individuals, but there are no atheist teachings.

oldrnwisr

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough. So has anyone got a plausible explanation or theory ?
Rubbishing the existance of God doesn't equate to an alternative theory.

As Nozz has already pointed out, successfully refuting the claims that there is a God does not require an alternate explanation to be offered. It is enough to just show where the theistic claim is unsupported.

Having said that, yes there are plausible explanations for a naturalistic origin to the universe, several in fact.

For example, right now we are in the stelliferous era of the universe, the age of stars. Once stars such as our sun begin to burn out, the universe will eventually only consist of white dwarfs, brown dwarfs and black holes. At this point we will enter the degenerate era. During this time white dwarfs will assimilate dark matter and proton decay will begin leaving only black holes. Then we enter the black hole era. Over time, the black holes themselves due to Hawking radiation will evaporate. At this point the universe will only consist of massless particles travelling at the speed of light. This dark era will stretch on for eternity, as the temperature of the universe cools to zero, and the density approaches zero. But if you are travelling at the speed of light, an eternity is no different from an instant. Time, as a scale of duration, becomes meaningless. This is the heat death of the universe. At this point, the infinite eternity of one universe is no different, scientifically speaking, from the singularity beginning of the next universe. It is possible, and plausible, that the universe may exist in an infinite series of cycles with the death of each universe being the big bang of the next.
This isn't just a nice story. It is a coherent physical framework which fits within our current understanding of cosmology and quantum physics. Moreover, there has even been some preliminary experimental support for it:

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big Bang activity

On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky

Data gathered from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) suggests that there are variances in the cosmic background radiation (CMB) consistent with a cyclic conformal rescaling.

For more basic explanations of this hypothesis you can read more here:

The Five Ages of the Universe

Heat death of the Universe

Conformal cyclic cosmology

There are also books on the subject, one dealing specifically with the hypothesis above:

Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe

and one dealing more generally with the various cosmogonical theories that have been proposed:

The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos


However, there are several key points to be made here.

1. It is possible that the answer to the origin of the universe may be outside of our capacity to test, just like abiogenesis. We can propose theories and frameworks which fit our understanding of science but until we can go back in time and (in this case) outside our spacetime, we can't know which theory, if any, is correct. It's like discovering a murder victim after he's been cremated. You can hypothesise that he was stabbed or shot or smothered but there's no way to discern from the available evidence which theory is correct.

2. The answer "I don't know" is perfectly valid in this, or any other context. The fact that person A has their claim utterly refuted by person B doesn't require person B to offer an alternate explanation to replace A's broken idea.

You might want to have a look at this, it may help to explain things a bit better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

shaymus27

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fair enough. So has anyone got a plausible explanation or theory ?
Rubbishing the existance of God doesn't equate to an alternative theory.

Not knowing scientifically with 100% certainty is not a basis for the exposition that means there has to be a God.

Rubbishing the belief about the existence of God - not the existence of God.

Look, if you were brought up on an island with no connection to the outside world and no-one ever mentioned to you the concept of God, chances are you wouldn't believe in a God.

If you grow up in a country where a belief in God exists and go to school controlled by a religion, chances are you will believe in God.

If you grow up in India in a part where they believe in re-incarnation and that rats etc could be the re-incarnation of people, that's what you will believe if everyone around you believes that. It's environmental brain-washing.

Hotblack Desiato

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God given the lack of evidence, any strings and bells attached to it are done so by individuals, but there are no atheist teachings.

True, but I dislike the phrase 'lack of belief' as it normalises belief and/or makes out that non-believers are missing out on something or are somehow incomplete

I don't believe in any god. I don't LACK something.

'Absence of belief' is a better phrase, I think.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

'Absence of belief' is a better phrase, I think.

Or 'lack of certain common delusions' even :pac:

realdanbreen

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As Nozz has already pointed out, successfully refuting the claims that there is a God does not require an alternate explanation to be offered. It is enough to just show where the theistic claim is unsupported.

Having said that, yes there are plausible explanations for a naturalistic origin to the universe, several in fact.

For example, right now we are in the stelliferous era of the universe, the age of stars. Once stars such as our sun begin to burn out, the universe will eventually only consist of white dwarfs, brown dwarfs and black holes. At this point we will enter the degenerate era. During this time white dwarfs will assimilate dark matter and proton decay will begin leaving only black holes. Then we enter the black hole era. Over time, the black holes themselves due to Hawking radiation will evaporate. At this point the universe will only consist of massless particles travelling at the speed of light. This dark era will stretch on for eternity, as the temperature of the universe cools to zero, and the density approaches zero. But if you are travelling at the speed of light, an eternity is no different from an instant. Time, as a scale of duration, becomes meaningless. This is the heat death of the universe. At this point, the infinite eternity of one universe is no different, scientifically speaking, from the singularity beginning of the next universe. It is possible, and plausible, that the universe may exist in an infinite series of cycles with the death of each universe being the big bang of the next.
This isn't just a nice story. It is a coherent physical framework which fits within our current understanding of cosmology and quantum physics. Moreover, there has even been some preliminary experimental support for it:

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big Bang activity

On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB sky

Data gathered from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) suggests that there are variances in the cosmic background radiation (CMB) consistent with a cyclic conformal rescaling.

For more basic explanations of this hypothesis you can read more here:

The Five Ages of the Universe

Heat death of the Universe

Conformal cyclic cosmology

There are also books on the subject, one dealing specifically with the hypothesis above:

Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe


and one dealing more generally with the various cosmogonical theories that have been proposed:

The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos


However, there are several key points to be made here.

1. It is possible that the answer to the origin of the universe may be outside of our capacity to test, just like abiogenesis. We can propose theories and frameworks which fit our understanding of science but until we can go back in time and (in this case) outside our spacetime, we can't know which theory, if any, is correct. It's like discovering a murder victim after he's been cremated. You can hypothesise that he was stabbed or shot or smothered but there's no way to discern from the available evidence which theory is correct.

2. The answer "I don't know" is perfectly valid in this, or any other context. The fact that person A has their claim utterly refuted by person B doesn't require person B to offer an alternate explanation to replace A's broken idea.

You might want to have a look at this, it may help to explain things a bit better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

TBH I got as far as 'stelliferous' before I nodded off.
I have yet to meet anyone who can provide an explanation that doesn't get lost in completely meandering gobbledegook other than creation by a higher power .

Pherekydes

realdanbreen wrote: »

TBH I got as far as 'stelliferous' before I nodded off.
I have yet to meet anyone who can provide an explanation that doesn't get lost in completely meandering gobbledegook other than creation by a higher power .

I know. It takes some concentration and thought. Forget the hard stuff.


You must have been a hoot in science class...