Atheists claim there could not be a start to time as this would mean something started it, but the the big bang theory shows time began at some point (approx 12 billion years ago)
Atheists claim all things survive by the strongest but the workings of cellular life shows even at the basic level, cells have a built in self-protective design which undermines this theory. Weak beings have the same survival capabilities as strong ones.
Atheists claim all matter started by chance and by random events, so we should expect results in science to have random results as is explained in Quantum theory and the Chaos theory. But when atoms collide and we get expected results. Sodium and Chlorine together always produces Sodium Chloride never Nitric Acid.
Why are atheists able to argue science proves the non-existence of God when scientific research shows things happen by cause and effect, a very Theist belief.
Just wondering!!! Happy Christmas to Atheists everywhere
2007-12-20 23:56:05 · 41 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No time is not necessarily endless.
It is not logical to argue time is without a beginning when we consider what we know of the universe.
It is within the framework of what we call the universe.
2007-12-21 02:33:47 · update #1
Actually athesim does not predate religious beliefs.
The Bibel says the earliest mankind (Cain and Abel) made sacrifices of animal and cereals to honour God. So far archaeological finds seem to support this hypothesis.
2007-12-21 02:35:44 · update #2
I am not confused as some seem to claim. Typical of Atheists to always demean and try to put their critics down.
It;s just a question... of faith. Atheists believe there is no god and attempt to rationalise their arguments. Theists have proofs from science, nature as well as common sense that there is a God Above.
2007-12-22 07:39:50 · update #3
Yes of course you are correct - because of the one basic flaw in their religion: evolution explains how life developed; not how it originated.
Therefore to reject God and His creation, one must accept this doctrine:
"Intelligent life was accidentally created from nothing by total random chance."
Which no one in their right mind could ever accept as true, factual or logical....and yet in their zeal to deny God, this is exactly what they have done.
Fascinating.
2007-12-21 00:05:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 10⤋
I am guessing you don’t know many Atheists and you certainly haven’t understood how evolution works . The only Claim all atheists agree upon is to claim the absence
of a God or Deity.
Many atheists do not agree with your statements such as ‘ there could not be a start to time ‘ or ‘all things survive by the strongest ‘. At the very least if you are going to stereotype Atheists , you should get a proper understanding of Evolution , where it is the Fittest or most suited to their environment that survive , not the strongest.
Your argument that cells have a built in self-protective design which undermines Evolution , does not fit with the known facts of molecular evolution , just because something looks designed or looks self-protective does not make it so. The earth ‘ Looks ‘ like it is standing still on ‘Pillars’ ( I Samuel 2:8 ) , with the sun revolving around it. The human eye ‘ Looks ‘ designed , yet we both know neither of these statements are true.
Enjoy your Pagan celebrations , with your Pagan Balls of Knowledge , your Pagan Tree of Life , give St Nicholas my regards.
PS Non-Religion is growing faster than any religion and is far from expired as you suggest in your question.
2007-12-21 07:01:00 · answer #2 · answered by londonpeter2003 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Firstly, atheists never claim that there could not be a start to time as this would mean something started it,and never claim that all things survive by the strongest,and that all matter started by chance and by random events. What is an atheist?Atheist is not a person claiming things above but a person who is not religious,who doesn't believe in a religion.
Secondly,science is not definitely correct.Science,like theology and philosophy,is only an approach to the truth.It's not the truth itself.Things that contemporary people think are correct may be proven fallacious in the future,just like the discovery of heliocentric theory made by Copernicus.
Finally,I'm an atheist myself.I never claim anything you've mentioned.I just don't believe in any religion.
Merry Christmas to all religious people.
2007-12-21 00:09:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
I don't know that much about science, so I don't really care bout quantum theories, or cellular structures. Or survival of the fittest.
I am an atheist, and I do not believe in deities. yours, or anyone's else's.
And your statement about no atheists before the bible? I had to laugh, that you said this to atheists that they did not exist, before Cain and Abel and ,the silly sacrifices.
We don't believe in your bible. Why on earth would we think that Cain and Abel came before the first atheist?
Disregarding the bible, there were people, 20,000 years ago, who did not even think about the idea of a supreme being, that would punish or reward.
So you're whole question, makes no sense at all, and the rest of the atheists, have pretty much proved that, already.
I just wanted to call your attention to the silliness of your
statement regarding Cain and Abel, and the first atheist.
Merry Christmas, and Happy New year, to you, as well.
2007-12-21 10:07:52 · answer #4 · answered by Renee 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ah, you are making a very simple mistake here. You are getting the meanings of two very different words confused.
ATHEIST
a·the·ist –noun. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
SCIENTIST
sci·en·tist –noun. an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.
There is no logical, linguistic, ontological, or reasonable reason to think that all atheists have to be qualified scientists, nor that all people who have a basic knowledge of science to not believe in a God, Goddess, or other Godly beings.
To say that all atheists MUST follow science is VERY flawed specious reasoning. By the line of reasoning you are using I could equally say that because I have a Jewish friend who wears shoes all people who own shoes must be Jews.
Also your argument for the relation of chaos theory shows that either:
1- You are a true expect on non-linear dynamics and are arguing on such a theoretical level that you have gone well over my understanding of this subject.
2 - You do not fully understand the principles of chaos theory.
Also to say that "Sodium and Chlorine together always produces Sodium Chloride never Nitric Acid" implies that you must have done this experiement at least several thousand times, if not hundreds of thousands of time to state as a FACT that this "ALWAYS" happens.
HAVE A FANTASTIC CHRISTMAS
2007-12-21 00:24:43 · answer #5 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I have no time to deconstruct your argument at the moment, as my children will be waking any moment and they are infinitely more important than you. However, let me say that you have deliberately misrepresented what atheists claim and/or believe in a feeble attempt to support your unjustified belief
1) Just from the answers to questions asked this morning (or through the night depending on your time-frame), it is clear that atheists have a better understanding of the concept of time than you suggest. Reference those answers please.
2)Natural selection is about survival of the FITTEST, not survival of the strongest. There is a difference. Also, I fail to see how your example undermines said theory.
3)This is just drivel, which I am almost certain you are paraphrasing from another source. You should be able to viably extend your reasoning (if it were true) and say that carbon and oxygen will always be combined as carbon dioxide, or that any other combination of elements should have only one possible formation.
Theist hardly have the monopoly on cause and effect. In fact, it is probably more reasonable to say that they co-opted the idea from observation of the world and applied it in ways that, while reasonable at the time, have since been outstripped by our understanding.
2007-12-21 00:49:30 · answer #6 · answered by Recreant- father of fairies 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
been reading the answers to the question, and can't help but think that maybe it's time everyone started living their lives based on my old 1984 Shoot! football annual. i mean, i could quote all day from it, it even has pictures - real pictures,not just drawings - surely that makes it much more valid than the bible!!
and so in the 4th minute, keegan did dribble past platini....
does that mean we should all wear bubble perm wigs and nutmeg frenchmen?
what's this survival of the strongest rubbish? sounds quite biblical to me, since this 'god' of yours seems to like murder, intolerance, incest, rape infanticide.
it's survival of the fittest; ie, most suited. nothing to do with strength. since when has cause and effect been a theist thing? surely theism preaches that god causes everything? (unless of course it was the devil that time - a good cop out, that one)
what is so hard to believe about life springing from nothing?
think of all the coincidences that had to occur for life to flourish on this planet; the right distance from a star, right sized moon, plate techtonics, bombardment by comets and meteors. then think about how many planets there must be in the universe. for life NOT to have originated somewhere on at least one planet is far more unbelievable than random events creating life.
as for had it's day? how bizarre is that? i mean if the church had it's way, we'd all be scared of our own shadows, hungry and living at the whim of some cartel of bishops somewhere.
the only reason bush hates the taliban so much (well, now at any rate!) is that they thought of setting humanity back 1000 years before he did.
it's much easier to control people who are superstitious, hungry and scared.
2007-12-21 01:55:52 · answer #7 · answered by Marky_Lemonade 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ok i will calmly disprove each of your point then you can ignore them.
Time did not have a start. It's a human made concept. Did miles have a start? Or were a mile always a mile even before we measured it.
Cell survival? "cells have a built in self-protective design " You do understand that that is what makes them stronger and able to survive?
Your third point indicates allot of ignorance towards science. No one has ever said matter came about by chance. I think you meant to say life came about by chance.
2007-12-21 00:12:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
You claim certainty regarding what atheists "believe".
Christianity also claims certainty regarding the nature and origin of the universe.
The top physicists in the world today say that the fundamental nature of the universe is still unkown to us.
To claim that God DEFINITELY exists (or not) is to simply deny the facts of reality and concoct fantasies which can be neither proved nor disproved at this time.
Religious or atheistic "convictions" have everything to do with being convinced, and nothing to do with being correct.
Where others claim certainty, I say "show me".
You say you KNOW God exists? Show me.
You say you KNOW God doesn't exist? Show me.
Get it?
2007-12-21 01:49:45 · answer #9 · answered by Quatermass 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Do You Think The Day will come when lack of belief in the monster under the bed is prove to be mere irrationality and ignorance??????? How about lack of belief in goblins? Dragons? Pixies? Yoda? Gollum? Spider-Man?
2016-05-25 07:08:53 · answer #10 · answered by luz 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Atheists do not have a common dogma therefore your post is pointless. And what has time got to do with anything - it is an abstract concept again invented by men. The only thing we know for sure about anything is that we don't know for certain.
2007-12-21 00:10:51 · answer #11 · answered by LillyB 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋