# Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288 "2013-02-04T04:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/601 "2013-04-20T18:27:54Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not implying that you are unethical. All I’m saying is that your ethics didn’t stem from empiricism. Actually it is theist that has no empiricism with in their ethics. You claim your ethics come from the Supernatural; that which has no evidence to show it exists, that which lacks any empiricism. Most all atheists only has empiricism. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/602 "2013-04-20T18:29:37Z")
God is acausal. Problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/603 "2013-04-20T18:35:44Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Your definition is as good as any. Like I informed you my definition of atheist is still a work in progress. it is not his definition, and established words are not up for private definitions. Are you claiming that you are just inventing private definitions for established words? How do you expect to communicate if you are simply equivocating the definitions of established words to your private definitions? If somebody describes something with the colour red; to change the colour to purple in your head? Well the definition of Atheism and Atheist is no different, the word is established and to change the definition is intellectually dishonest and is called the fallacy of equivocation ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/604 "2013-04-20T18:46:02Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Someone who does not believe “god” exists AT ALL and matter came out of nothing. > > Not someone who is not sure or doesn’t care or is waiting for the evidence. > > And my definition of “god” is the PRIMARY CAUSE of all matter. Huh, why would an atheist believe anything about where matter came from? You are using a personal definition for Atheist that is not part of the actual definition. You have yet to acknowledge that energy is eternal and matter is a form of eternal energy. Is it you are not aware of the 1st Law and what the relationship is between energy and matter? Finally what do you think ‘nothing’ is? The moment you think about it, it is something, it is a thought which is chemical and electrical interaction in the brain. What does Primary Cause of Matter mean? Matter is a form of energy, so is the primary cause when energy is transformed into matter? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/605 "2013-04-20T18:48:20Z")
> [@Kaviik](#): > > it is not his definition, and established words are not up for private definitions. > > Are you claiming that you are just inventing private definitions for established words? > > How do you expect to communicate if you are simply equivocating the definitions of established words to your private definitions? > > If somebody describes something with the colour red; to change the colour to purple in your head? > > Well the definition of Atheism and Atheist is no different, the word is established and to change the definition is intellectually dishonest and is called the fallacy of equivocation And once again, **pchaos** cannot respond to you. He is not here. He is _banned_. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/606 "2013-04-20T18:48:58Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Ok I admit I didn’t understand what an atheist is. > > I thought atheists completely denied the existence of “god” and that all matter came out of nothing and had scientific proof of this. Scientific proof is defined as evidence right? Remember the scientific method DISPROVES it does not PROVE. Answer that come via the scientific method are probabilities not absolutes. Evidence is evidence, there is no such evidence that cannot be examined by the scientific method. If it cannot be examined it is not evidence/proofs. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/607 "2013-04-20T18:54:29Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And once again, **pchaos** cannot respond to you. He is not here. He is _banned_. Thanks for the heads up, I just realized you have been prompting me regarding me wasting my time. My apologies for not checking my inbox. If i had of checked you would not have had to give me the notice. Being new is a weak excuse, but with me it is the case and I will get use to the format and flow of this board. I do thank the mods for the work they do, and I have been prompted for being off topic. I may be thick, but I do learn. Once again thanks Ted ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/608 "2013-04-20T19:02:58Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > God is acausal. Problem solved. Is that how kids solve problems these days, just make up properties since it cannot be verified? Is this a word you have made up and if so; please define it. Define what this God is; is it the Christian God, the god of Judaism, maybe the Islam god, or are you a Deist? If it is ‘acusual’ is there a reason why other things cannot be? ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/609 "2013-04-20T19:06:26Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > Do atheists believe in the higgs boson? > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6XAkVA7RmY&feature=em-uploademail](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6XAkVA7RmY&feature=em-uploademail) > > I love this guy. Higgs particle is of scientific discovery, there is no BELIEVE; believe is that which one does when they have no evidence ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/610 "2013-04-20T19:19:37Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Because “existence” has 9 letters and 3 syllables, whilst “god” only has 3 letters and 1 syllable – much easier for people who are inclined toward monosyllabism. Though, I suppose “Og” would be even easier, and it has that nice heavy-brow-ridge sound to it. The problem of course is the word ‘God’ actually has a history and is not simply a word invented in the the past 100 years. The word God as in the Theist god has a defined history. And of course the word is from Pagan origins not monotheist origins. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/611 "2013-04-20T19:22:35Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Many people call the first cause God, but if they mean a Supreme Belng, then they need to explain who created the place for this being to be, there is a big difference between A being, and Being. As I see it if the creator was a being, it would have to be in existence and who created that? > I don’t claim to know the answers,just try to understand the explainations. > > Many years ago people thought the sun was God etc. and worshipped it! LOL and just for fun, the creator God speaks things into existence. How do we wrap our head around something speaking when there is no manner to carry the sound. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/612 "2013-04-20T19:27:09Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > As a poscript the big bang had some atoms etc. that caused it. just like spontanious Combustion of a Haystack in a barn, the heat from the damp hay causes a chemical reaction that starts the fire. Am I right… I don’t know, nor claim to know. I know for a fact that there are a lot of people and even many on this board who know a lot more than me. Atoms came about AFTER the initial change of states, atoms are a unit of matter. The problem with the term Big Bang is people associate it to an explosion, which is incorrect. An explosion happens with in a place/space; the BB event is what formed the space and is the creation of the space, so not an explosion. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/613 "2013-04-20T19:31:20Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > How can there be no cause to the universe we live in. For the same reason not all other events need a cause. The BB was an event; a change of states. We have no hard data on the previous state, nor do we know of any laws etc. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/614 "2013-04-20T19:39:06Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > I know what scientists have said about the beginning of the universe. Really? Eternal is defined as no beginning and no end, energy is eternal, so how can there be a beginning. The BB is not the beginning, it was a change of states. Never the less would you post some of the scientist that claim the universe has a beginning, such as the eternal energy that is contained with in it. [QUOTE=But no one will get me to believe you can have an event without a cause.[/QUOTE] The scientific method does not use BELIEVE nor is anybody asking you to BELIEVE. Believe is what you do regarding God not scientific discovery [QUOTE= If something happens there was a reason for it even if we don’t know what that reason was.[/QUOTE] And how did you come to this conclusion, which tests did you employ at the quantum level to make this conclusion? [QUOTE= I know how obscure the field of science can be when they want to justify research. Merely sidestepping a Creator is not good reasoning to me. [/QUOTE] Using logical fallacies such as the above is lack of rational discourse, don’t you agree? A creator cannot be sidestepped, since there is no evidence for one to date. For science to sidestep there must be evidence to discard. [QUOTE= It is only a way to justify themselves as the highest knowledge. It doesn’t work. There are so many events here on earth than science can’t explain and never will on the course they have taken.[/QUOTE] This is called the Poison the Well fallacy, you are attempting to discredit scientific discovery and the Scientific Method by creating lies and employing them with in your argument. Doom on you, Doom on you. I hope you have your melon and hopefully your only female did not jump off the cliff. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/615 "2013-04-20T19:41:59Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > The standard answer to this is that “God has always existed.” You can not tell me how the universe began any more than I can tell you how God began. I am willing to say “I don’t know” if you are. I do know there is a higher intelligence or consciousness than I am. I know that by experience. My error, I thought you were a creationist. So what is a higher consciousness, what does that term mean, and how do you measure this consciousness. regarding higher intelligence, well of course we as humans will meet another human that is more intelligent. ---
**Author:** ![Kaviik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f05b48/32.png) [@Kaviik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaviik)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/616 "2013-04-20T19:44:45Z")
[QUOTE=But nor does saying that time is eternal, cyclical, or “finite but unbounded”. [/QUOTE] Is there any evidence that time is eternal? I only ask because there is no “before the BB” since time came into being after the initial change of states. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/617 "2013-04-20T20:10:43Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > God is acausal. Problem solved. Your post is nonsense. Problem still there, and likely never going to change. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/618 "2013-04-20T20:48:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your post is nonsense. Problem still there, and likely never going to change. Then why is it important? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/619 "2013-04-20T20:55:32Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Then why is it important? Because your brand of ignorance preys on people when they are at their weakest. If you have serious problems, you need to deal with them, not hope a magic dude in the sky is going to fix it for you. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/620 "2013-04-21T00:31:46Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Because your brand of ignorance preys on people when they are at their weakest. > > If you have serious problems, you need to deal with them, not hope a magic dude in the sky is going to fix it for you. You really don’t know me at all. Too bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=32)