rivrrat

I disagree. I have no understanding of "purpose" whatsoever, except my belief that there is no "purpose". It has no effect on my "morality", and neither does my "morality" stem from any understanding of purpose or lack thereof.


What does that have to do with the Big Bang? Absolutely nothing. I can create and adhere to my principals, accomplish whatever I want in life, live my life however I want and never EVER know for sure if the Big Bang theory, or any other, are true or not. Hell, without even HEARING about them. They have no bearing on my life, and I really don't see how they ever would unless I was a scientist and studying them WAS my life.

__________________

nkgupta80

if you don't have a purpose then why have morals at all? Purpose is synonomous to having a reason, and unless you're a purely random person, you'll always have a reason for your principles (whether emotionally based, based on initial premises, or anything else). That is unless you don't have principles, but everyone has some principles (whether explicitly stated or implicitly acted upon).


[/quote]

well as a piece of knowledge, the big bang specifically gives you a general idea of where we are at in terms of understanding the birth of our universe. Its not about whether you know its true or not, but instead about considering implications (however small). For example, if I were born a strict literalist chrstian, and believed in a young earth and all, knowing and understanding big bang theory does have implications on how I view my christian religion. Its a matter of magnitude. My personal outlook is that if we live in this universe, why not learn about the universe as much as one can.

rivrrat

Well, I guess I have countless purposes then since I have countless reasons for doing any number of things in my life. The reason(s) I do something varies from decision to decision, from situation to situation.


I have no problem learning about the universe. I'm just saying it ultimately doesn't affect my life or how I live it. I read ****, think "Well, that's cool", and go on about my merry way. I don't take any of it into consideration when making decisions in my life.

nkgupta80

Of course. Its the same in my case. But its never a clean slate. You're decisions are based on inner feelings, prior experiences, and principles/philosophies. These principles can change, but thats all the more reason to once in a while question why you do certain things the way you do.


I have no problem learning about the universe. I'm just saying it ultimately doesn't affect my life or how I live it. I read ****, think "Well, that's cool", and go on about my merry way. I don't take any of it into consideration when making decisions in my life.[/quote]

well yea sure. But the sum of it all can affect your life. Someone learned in science will view the world (obviously) in a very different way from someone who hasn't. That view does shape the way you act in situations, you're stance on current AND future issues, etc.

Tucker Case

The reason Athesim is not a "belief" is because a belief in "nothing" is impossible. "Belief" means to acknowledge the truth in something.

Obviously, "nothing" can never be "something".

Atheists, by definition, acknowledge the truth in the existence of nothing (in relation to the concept of "deity", which is the "something" of a religious belief).

This means that they are in a state which is the opposite of belief. You can't simply say that they believe that "there is no God" because that is not what atheism is. Atheism the complete lack of belief in all things religious. It is not a "belief in nothing" because a "belief in nothing" is impossible as belief require "something" that needs to be unbelieved. It is not a state of unbelief, it is a state of non-belief.




Therefore, it is not comparable to the big bang, (the example given so often here) because the Universe still exists with or without the big bang. Not believing in the big bang is not the equivilant of not believing in a god because there is going to be a replacement belief, i.e. "something" which takes the place of the big bang. That "something" cannot by necessity of reality, be "nothing" since the Universe does exist and undeniably so.

Thus a "belief" in nothing is impossible in this case. One MUST be in a state of UNBELIEF in regards to the big bang theory, not a state of NON-BELIEF.

This is the inherent difference between the "big bang argument" so often used by religious people and the "Santa Claus" argument used by atheists. The non-belief in Santa Claus is not a belief, since the non-belief in santa claus is replace by nothing. You are not believing in some alternative to the belief in Santa Claus, you are simply not believing in Santa Clause.

All in all, it is a subtle, yet powerful difference.


(please excuse any grammar and spelling errors)