-
Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Atheists, perhaps it's you, and not God, who truly do not exist.
ride29er
Confused Kunce
I have seen some of the kindest people I have ever met get eaten alive by cancer, I came to the conclusion then that even if there is a god he is in no way worthy of worshiping or following, to much evil in this world, but in saying that I don't question people who do believe, I will even listen to them talk about it as it does fascinate me how much power a simple belief can give someone in there darkest hour
wingman
Super M0derator
So we may as well not have hospitals then if God is going to bring everyone through?
Or do you have to be a believer for that privilege?
How long do you have to believe for to rack up enough credits for a life save?
Goosey
.
That's the thing unlike people and their religion I don't. Science is a self correcting method of trying to find answers.
Stop trying to compare the two. It's making you look silly.
wingman
Super M0derator
No it isnt, its provable with facts and figures and evidence. Kinda the antithesis to religion
chocchillimango
Well-known member
please stop equating science with atheism.
the two are mutually exclusive.
atheism is simply that belief that there is no God. It is a belief, just like its opposite. A conviction that there is no creator, no omnipotent being, whatever.
Science is agnostic. It does not go hand in hand with atheism. It deals with hypotheses to be tested, not beliefs.
As a theoretical physicist, I can say that, as far as we know and can understand the origins of the universe at this time, the evidence suggests that the presence of an omnipotent being is irrelevant. That doesn't say whether or not one exists, merely that it doesn't matter.
the two are mutually exclusive.
atheism is simply that belief that there is no God. It is a belief, just like its opposite. A conviction that there is no creator, no omnipotent being, whatever.
Science is agnostic. It does not go hand in hand with atheism. It deals with hypotheses to be tested, not beliefs.
As a theoretical physicist, I can say that, as far as we know and can understand the origins of the universe at this time, the evidence suggests that the presence of an omnipotent being is irrelevant. That doesn't say whether or not one exists, merely that it doesn't matter.
Last edited:
Fadi
...
I am all for science, and God as well. I do not see a dichotomy or aclash between the two, but rather a complementarity of sort. As my knowledge in science increases, so does my faith and belief in God. How can it be any other way when Islam itself exhorts me/its followers to think about and try to understand God’s creations in a scientific spirit!
The world’s 1[SUP]st [/SUP]scientist and 1[SUP]st[/SUP] true physicist was a Muslim by the name of Ibnal-Haytham, known in the west as Alhazen. Ironically, atheist scientists such as the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence Krauss use the same scientific methodology that was invented by Ibn al-Haytham, a believer in God, to disprove God, and in the case of Dawkins, to “kill religion”!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen
Theoretical Physicist: Prof. Jim Al-Khalili
Today, humble scientists are finding themselves in a precarious position, admitting that through their own work, discoveries, and observations;they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven that the world as we know it today had a beginning. In most cases, these scientists do not label themselves as atheists, but rather agnostics instead. Just as it is that not all atheists are scientist, so it is that not all scientists are atheists. We need to make a distinction and a separation between the two please.
An atheist having a debate with a theist might at times accuse the theist for using the god of the gaps argument. In other words, because (according to the atheist), the theist doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he somehow squeezes God wherever he finds it necessary in order to prove a point. When a theist responds by saying that he is not committing such an act, of using the god of the gaps, and that he had come to his conclusions through thinking and reflecting upon reality, the universe and upon his ownself, the atheist still disagrees, calling the theist an illogical person.
When scientists studying the cosmos through observation, they may come to a point from where further empirical observation ceases to exist. An example here would be the Big Bang theory. Trying to rewind the clock back to what was before the big bang is pure speculation on their part. So what existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation from a scientific point of view. Here, a follower of a particular faith would say it is God who is behind the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, basing his conclusion on revelation, coupled with scientific observation, and human intellect.
Stephen Hawking in his lecture: The Beginning of Time tells us that “all the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago”.
“This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion.” So as you can see, even the top scientists of our day are conceding that beyond the point of empirical observation, they would need to resort to other/different possibilities as to how (and in my case I’ll add a “who”) originated the universe.
How and by whom the universe came into being should not be a study opposing in its nature but complimentary, as both communities, (theist and atheists) would be better off for it. But still, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe and caused it to come into being. The uncaused causer so to speak. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. So on we go with further theories to explain the origin of the universe in order to avoid a beginning to time.
Theories such as: The Steady State theory, which was killed by the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965.
Loop quantum gravity theory, which finds itselfat loggerheads with the string theory.
The inflationary theory of 1981, introduced to solve several important problems in cosmology, one of which was the horizon problem idea. And on and on we go…
Okay so now I’m back full circle. Basically most all scientists are saying that the Big Bang theory is the best we’ve got to explain the state of the universe as we observe it today. Many, and (God bless them all) are still working very hard, coming up with new ideas, testing them to see if any of them would provide us with better answers than the Big Bang theory does. I’m a full believer in both; the Big Bang theory and God.
Atheists, did you know that it was a Catholic priest who formulated the Big Bang theory as well as published a model of an expanding universe? He was the Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Belgian scientist/theoretical physicist.
Depending whose accounts you read, you may come to the conclusion that it was Edwin Hubble who ought to receive the credit for that stupendous discovery. Please do your own research however, based on my own readings of the accounts, I believe it was not a single scientist, but a collaboration of few that netted the final outcome we now know as the Big Bang theory and that the universe is expanding as opposed to being in a static state as was believed by physicist Albert Einstein up until 1931, (before he embraced the idea of an expanding universe).
The world’s 1[SUP]st [/SUP]scientist and 1[SUP]st[/SUP] true physicist was a Muslim by the name of Ibnal-Haytham, known in the west as Alhazen. Ironically, atheist scientists such as the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Lawrence Krauss use the same scientific methodology that was invented by Ibn al-Haytham, a believer in God, to disprove God, and in the case of Dawkins, to “kill religion”!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen
Theoretical Physicist: Prof. Jim Al-Khalili
Today, humble scientists are finding themselves in a precarious position, admitting that through their own work, discoveries, and observations;they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven that the world as we know it today had a beginning. In most cases, these scientists do not label themselves as atheists, but rather agnostics instead. Just as it is that not all atheists are scientist, so it is that not all scientists are atheists. We need to make a distinction and a separation between the two please.
An atheist having a debate with a theist might at times accuse the theist for using the god of the gaps argument. In other words, because (according to the atheist), the theist doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he somehow squeezes God wherever he finds it necessary in order to prove a point. When a theist responds by saying that he is not committing such an act, of using the god of the gaps, and that he had come to his conclusions through thinking and reflecting upon reality, the universe and upon his ownself, the atheist still disagrees, calling the theist an illogical person.
When scientists studying the cosmos through observation, they may come to a point from where further empirical observation ceases to exist. An example here would be the Big Bang theory. Trying to rewind the clock back to what was before the big bang is pure speculation on their part. So what existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation from a scientific point of view. Here, a follower of a particular faith would say it is God who is behind the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe, basing his conclusion on revelation, coupled with scientific observation, and human intellect.
Stephen Hawking in his lecture: The Beginning of Time tells us that “all the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago”.
“This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion.” So as you can see, even the top scientists of our day are conceding that beyond the point of empirical observation, they would need to resort to other/different possibilities as to how (and in my case I’ll add a “who”) originated the universe.
How and by whom the universe came into being should not be a study opposing in its nature but complimentary, as both communities, (theist and atheists) would be better off for it. But still, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe and caused it to come into being. The uncaused causer so to speak. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. So on we go with further theories to explain the origin of the universe in order to avoid a beginning to time.
Theories such as: The Steady State theory, which was killed by the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965.
Loop quantum gravity theory, which finds itselfat loggerheads with the string theory.
The inflationary theory of 1981, introduced to solve several important problems in cosmology, one of which was the horizon problem idea. And on and on we go…
Okay so now I’m back full circle. Basically most all scientists are saying that the Big Bang theory is the best we’ve got to explain the state of the universe as we observe it today. Many, and (God bless them all) are still working very hard, coming up with new ideas, testing them to see if any of them would provide us with better answers than the Big Bang theory does. I’m a full believer in both; the Big Bang theory and God.
Atheists, did you know that it was a Catholic priest who formulated the Big Bang theory as well as published a model of an expanding universe? He was the Reverend Monsignor Georges Lemaître, a Belgian scientist/theoretical physicist.
Depending whose accounts you read, you may come to the conclusion that it was Edwin Hubble who ought to receive the credit for that stupendous discovery. Please do your own research however, based on my own readings of the accounts, I believe it was not a single scientist, but a collaboration of few that netted the final outcome we now know as the Big Bang theory and that the universe is expanding as opposed to being in a static state as was believed by physicist Albert Einstein up until 1931, (before he embraced the idea of an expanding universe).
Last edited:
Fadi
...
I respect your conclusion, even though I see things differently. I'd like you to ponder on this situation if you don't mind sir. If an atheist is in good health; he's got his good eyes to see with, and a perfectly healthy brain to think with, and all his senses are working perfectly well. Now using your own logic (and from your own point of you based on the facts I've just described to you), should not this atheist be thankful to the One who endowed him with such overall health and wellbeing?
Basically what I'm asking is this: to whom do we give credit when things are running just fine, and in the exact opposite way to the way you have described those kindest people been eaten alive by cancer? I can ask you what is suffering anyway and why, but that's another topic altogether.
Thanking you in advance for your time brother.
wingman
Super M0derator
How about one's parents, since they created us?
Fadi
...
Created us?! How exactly did they create us sir? As a Muslim, I believe my parents have begotten me rather than created me.There is a difference between creating and begetting. You are using circular reasoning, which in my opinion is based on a false premise, that human beings create other human beings, which (as I've already indicated), I do not believe in.
Last edited:
Fadi
...
I ask you, where does Ibnal-Haytham fit in what you had to say above. Please check him out in my reply on post #28. Thank you.
Darkoz
-
Actually, not always
The 'Big Bang' theory is not provable by experiment
'Evolution' is not provable by experiment
But on the other hand it is futile to argue with a religious believer as his only proof of evidence is the bible, which in his eyes is infallible, so you can never win.
You don't believe humans create babies? It's just a coincidence that people have sex and a baby is created?
Fadi
...
Oh Forgive Me, It Must Be A Cultural Thing, Or Perhaps A Linguistic Thing. Let's See...We Have About 400,000,000 Arabs In The World, Of Which Some Are Muslims, Some Are Christians, Some Are Jewish, And Some Are Atheists.Not A Single One Of Them Would Use The Word Create For What You Were So Eloquently Talking About.The Word Or The Verb To Create has Been Reserved For The One And Only Who Creates...God!
Now You Don't Have To Like Or Agree With What I Have said, Just Simply Accept The Fact That there'll Always Be Someone Who Would Have An Opposing View To What You Believe In.
It's How We Deal With It, How We Deal With Our DIFFERENCES that Really Matters At The End. Some Resort To Violence, Some Become Extremists, Some Fanatics, Whilst Others Simply Resort To Being Rude And Disrespectful. We're All Different, That's The Ultimate Trial, How We Deal With Each other's Differences That Would Be The Deciding Factor Between Harmony And Peace, Or disharmony,Chaos, And Violence. Look After Yourself And Thanks For Your Contribution Into This Thread So Far.
Well said.
spartacus
Well-known member
actually I consider myself agnostic rather than atheist. I do not rule anything out.
However, while I find information about religion and history quite interesting, my faith in secularism and science is not in the slightest tested by metaphysical beliefs.
I reckon a world that gives much more credence to metaphysical beliefs is a world returning to the Dark Ages.
However, while I find information about religion and history quite interesting, my faith in secularism and science is not in the slightest tested by metaphysical beliefs.
I reckon a world that gives much more credence to metaphysical beliefs is a world returning to the Dark Ages.
Goosey
.
Yeah I look silly most of the time, and maybe you're right there...religion taught me the value of faith, compassion and the fact that I'm no where near perfect, I'm happy with that.
ive never been too keen on modern day Christians.
I look silly all the time.
I don't know why anyone needs religion to give them good values. It's a bit like living your life by what the tooth fairy tells you to do.
Plenty of religious people do terrible things. Went to catholic school for 13 years. Can't say religion taught me anything useful. It's just a bunch of fictional stories that people believe to be true.
Goosey
.
My take on that is we are all born "bad" in that we don't know right from wrong we are taught how to behave, that depending on how civilized we are also depends on how we look at others.
i just concern myself of what's going on in my own backyard before I start judging others, I have enough trouble trying to sort out my own shit, although if I had my time over I wouldn't change a thing.
i hate talking about religion and politics, especially on a bodybuilding forum full of meat heads.