What proof is there that atheism is accurate and correct?

[-playmaker-]

[QUOTE=sawyersauce]That was a little vague and I

[sawyersauce]

"time" is way to complex for me to break it down in a post...I am no expert on it, like I said...it is "real" though...it isn't just some measurement..."seconds, hours, years, etc" are measurements of "time"...obviously




^^^ there is "time" for you...


all I know is that it is real and very much a part of this universe...and I think it goes without saying that "time" is essential to our existance...

Sorry, I'm afraid your word isn't really very convincing on is own.

There's a perpetual debate on the nature of time. From wiki...

Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[3][4] Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line. The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[5] and Immanuel Kant,[6][7] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.

You are subscribing to the former belief and I'm subscribing to the latter. Neither side has been confirmed as correct. So I'm not sure why you're confident enough to state yours as fact. To me the latter argument seems to make more sense. Obviously neither of us will be able to prove one or the other correct, but as far as I can tell all the processes that units of time are used to measure are not influenced by a force called time, it's always motion or gravity, ect, ect.

Although I'm not sure that really matters with the whole "container" idea... eh. Enough derailment. /hijack.

[-playmaker-]

okay all I said is that "time is real"...

I will stand by that...

[Jackass18]

where the unknown forces came from is a different story...

because they would likely exist in a universe with completely different science books where maybe something like that is understandable...

the big bang coming from "nothing" does not make sense to me...

matter and mass does not just form from "nothing"...


that is my side...if you don't see it from the same angle I understand...I am just wondering why you can't also be understanding...???

I understand your side, but I just don't agree with it. There are many unknowns and things we don't understand, but I don't see a need to automatically attribute them to a man-made concept like God.

Are a lot of your beliefs based off the stories of NDE'ers?

[kentatm]

I am not asking anything in actuality, I know it can't be explained...

I was pointing out that there is a lack of evidence on BOTH SIDES

kent was acting like there is evidence of how the big bang came to be...

thats not what I said

[Take Your Lumps]

A lot of this breaks down to many people's personal threshold for the unknown. Most cannot cope with the mystery and taking it for what it is.

Some people are just absolutely uncomfortable with not feeling like they "know" or "have a feeling" as to what's going on.

Skeptics tend to embrace mystery and be perfectly OK with not knowing. If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard/read a scientist say "I'm more interested in what I don't know than what I do know"......

These debates usually go nowhere because you're putting people together with two completely different intellectual approaches to the topic.

[Pinkhearts]

those are just really silly comparisons because it is pretty much proven those things do not exist...not in a scientific manner...but in a common sense way...humans have an understanding that Peter Pan doesn't exist...or that Kobe isn't LITERALLY God...

So god is also pretty much proven to not exist...not in a scientific manner...but in a common sense way?

Apply the your common sense to god and you will get the same idea. Don't be biased.

[Pinkhearts]

I'll never fully understand why simpletons continue to spew these ridiculous comparisons in these debates. "Well ugh, what's the difference between God and Santa Clause? Why shouldn't I just believe in the flying spaghetti monster!"



Apples and oranges.

Apples and oranges yet you are not able to counter the analogy.

Are medications important to you? You want drug companies to be pushing out drugs because "there is no evidence that they are harmful"? How about letting toddlers smoke pot because "there is no evidence that smoking pot is harmful to toddlers"? Is this important enough for you now?

Simpleton with no reasoning skills indeed.

[Pinkhearts]

that is not how I view it at all...

by definition an athiest rejects the idea of a designer...for whatever reason, it doesn't matter the reason...


if they are "just waiting for evidence" and do not reject that a designer is possible (pending evidence), then that would be an agnostic in my eyes...they are open to whatever


an agnostic is basicaly "I don't know, there is no evidence that points either way"...

Well that's not how you view it, but that's the way it is.

Atheists refuse to accept the notion of a supreme being unless there is evidence that there is one. The reason why they seem to reject the idea is that they get spoonfed the idea all the time without proof so they simply just reject everything until someone ponies up evidence.

Likewise, I do not believe in emails from Nigerians saying I should pay an administrative free so they can send me free money. No proof that it is true, so I reject all those emails. However if this deals are documented to be true and approved by the government with guaranteed money, I will be the first to jump on it.