Would current atheists be considered laughable by atheists from years ago?

Question

Before the Big Bang theory, atheists argued with theists by declaring that the universe was eternally existent. They conceded that if the universe had a beginning, it would necessarily prove that the universe came from nothing, and therefore prove the existence of God. They went so far as to say that if it was proven that the universe had a beginning, they would become theists.

So, it would seem that the Big Bang is the nail on the coffin door for atheists…(and for many, it has been: they have become theists)

Yet ironically, most atheists absurdly believe that the Big Bang supports atheism! Wouldn’t these atheists be mocked by atheists from years ago?

Some current atheists are desperately trying to “get out of cracks in the coffin wall” through string theory or multiverse theory…

But wouldn’t atheists of old say that this is nothing more than sticking one’s head in the sand regarding “proof” that they sought and desired in order to have faith in God?

Eleventy: Again with the obvious distraction. Reversing the tables is one thing, but when you do it the "tables" aren't equal. If God is proven to exist via the Big Bang, then there is the proof you seek. If evolution is proven to occur, it does not prove that God does not exist. And I believe irreducible complexity and the lack of proof for macroevolution make the claim that humans came from goop extremely less likely than that we were created. Given all that is known by humans today, Occam's Razor more than points at atheism...it screams it.

Meat Bot - your logic is what previous atheists would laugh at and mock. The universe could NOT have come from nothing. Period. And you other comments are the straws that atheists are grasping for...such as the "multiverse theory".

Hammy - you prove my point. The Big Band is the weapon of a theist, not an atheist.

If all the proof in the world pointed to God, some would still be atheists saying, "There is just some other explanation."

Other atheists simply ignore all the proof, and say things like, "well...this and that don't matter...and have nothing to do with atheism. You don't know what atheism means"

Blind, deaf, gullible and dumb:
Welcome to atheism.

Eleventy #2: More reasonable in your Edit (though less enjoyed by your cohorts). However, you must see the flaw of being presented proof, but then dismissing such proof by stating, "well...there just MUST be some other explanation". If you were truly "unconvinced", you wouldn't be an atheist...but an agnostic. But if the most underlying assumption is "there is no God", then NO amount of proof will EVER be enough - period. It is a catch-22...agree?

Meatbot - again...something coming from nothing?! Are you kidding me? Nothing isn't little somethings...not molecules, not atoms, not neutrons, not electrons, not protons, not even quarks, and not even gluons...or whatever makes up gluons! Nothing is nothing! And you argue that something can come from nothing because I don't have proof otherwise? Like I said: laughable, absurd, insane...

Answer 1

You mean atheists changed their minds based on the evidence presented to them? What a freaking concept.

BTW, I don't believe the Big Bang theory is a theory about the creation of all matter, only the beginning of the universe as we know it.

Answer 2

I am Christian, and I am not well versed on the history of atheism. But from what I have read from physicists, there is a possible "out" for the atheist argument you describe.

The universe has been expanding since the big bang. However, it is possible that the expansion rate will slow down, eventually come to zero, and then turn negative. That is, eventually the universe could start contracting, ending in a cataclysmic "big crunch". And some physicists muse that this could be a never-ending process, an infinite sequence of universes created and destroyed, with neither a "first" universe or a "final" universe. In each universe, the basic constants of physics like the speed of light and the gravitational constant, would be different.

Will this contraction ever take place?The answer apparantly depends on how much matter is in the universe, including the so-called 'dark matter.' From what I have read, the best estimates people have come up with so far seem to put the total matter in the universe right at the borderline between having enough matter to exert a gravitational contraction and having a lack of matter, which would cause the universe to go on expanding. It seems, however, that searching for this elusive 'dark matter' (matter which might exist but is not detectable by us) is motivated by faith in the idea of such a contraction.

Of course, even if this contraction does occur, the idea of an infinite sequence of universes is purely conjectural, and is motivated by the "aesthetic" goal of having a cosmological theory that exhibits mathematical symmetry, rather than which has a beginning ( a non-symmetric point in time.) This DOES sound a bit like your description of the old atheist argument, although in fairness to physicists I think the attraction of that theory, as well as the theory of dark matter in the first place, is more one of mathematical nicety than of theology.

Christians and atheists alike are employed as physicists.

You raise a fascinating question!

Answer 3

As an atheist, I do have problem believing in an idea that someone created this universe, it seems insane to me. Big bang has nothing to do with my atheism, if there were a God, the world would be a lot different. And the religions we have today are all so stupid and violent, it's easy to see that even if there were a God, he has nothing to do with these religions.

I'm not claiming that I have all the answers, I'm just saying we don't know enough to support the idea of a creator.

Answer 4

Proving the universe had a beginning would not prove that God exists. The universe could simply HAVE come from nothing, or it could have come from something external to it which always existed. That external thing need not be God. It could be another universe.

EDIT: How do you know that it couldn't come from nothing? You don't have enough evidence for that. And why is the multiverse less probable than God? Plus, you are excluding the possibility that the universe always existed, which is probably the case. You constricted the options by the manner in which you asked the question. You assumed that we think the big bang started from nothing. Even if you postulate that "God" exists, you have no way of knowing if it's even conscious let alone the god of the bible.

Answer 5

Same thing with theists. Remember when the complexity of the eye was enough to believe in a Creator? Then evolution was discovered....

[edit] True, I assumed other people would direct you toward the other flaws in the argument, and I was trying to bring something new to the reversing table.

The Big Bang theory, when only understood on an elementary level, supports a creator of some kind (obviously not necessarily an intelligent one, let alone sentient)... But an understanding of the actual theory and the mechanisms of the universe do not imply any such thing. This is why theologians believe the Big Bang is evidence for God, while cosmologists are unconvinced.

I'm sure you know that Irreducible Complexity has never been shown in nature.

[edit II] I feel the same way about theism. They are confronted with evidence disproving a belief they had, they either say the new evidence is faulty, or (when they can no longer deny its truth), claim that it doesn't not actually affect their belief and doesn't challenge a core tenet.

[edit III] I've said before that I'm atheistic toward the Christian, personal God and agnostic toward the deists god. Multiverse, instability of nothingness, M-theory, pantheistic creator, alien creator... they're all possibilities...
Should we just e-mail? haha

Answer 6

Uh I thought atheism was the lack of belief in god

You don't have to agree with the big bang, evolution, science in general to be an atheist.

I don't have a clue about the origins of the universe (other than a god wasn't involved) so the big bang, string theory, multi universes have absolutely nothing to do with my atheism.

Answer 7

You have grossly misspoke... err typed.
The big bang is not the sole property of atheists. Granted atheists do tend to accept scientific ideas more readily than theists but that's not the issue at hand.
The big bang theory gives an atheist one more weapon in the arsenal when discussing theology with a person who believes in creation as described in many holy books.

Answer 8

"Would current atheists be considered laughable by atheists from years ago?"

The word a-theist means NOT a theist.
I would suggest you're grasping at straws to 'prove' your point.
I don't care what other people do or did and how they make or made their decisions.
For me 'god' doesn't exist for many reasons including the fact that a universe WITH a 'god' would be completely different to one without.

Atheism isn't a new concept.
As long as some people have believed in gods there have been those who didn't.

Seneca: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

I come here for the comedy.
I've found fundies to be the best at all comedy, especially IRONY.

Thank YOU! for contributing to my mirth.
.

Answer 9

Atheists do not believe in god. That is all. Our individual views on the Big Bang Theory and science in general has little to do with that simple fact.

Answer 10

i don't at all think the big bang supports atheism. it supports a non-literal reading of Genesis.

they are 2 entirely different things
-atheism