“Since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger”

My approach wasn’t as erudite, but this short lecture much explains the intellectual process I went through to stop being an atheist.  I haven’t yet jumped on board with the Biblical God (although I am deeply fond of the lessons the Old and New Testament hold about justice, morality, and humanity), but I realize that atheism is nothing more than the adult equivalent of a childish resistance to a parent’s authority:

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Modern day atheism is not really real atheism, just like the Left aren’t real liberals that believe in individual freedom.
     
    Modern day atheism is a cult and a religion in its own right, often more fanatic and theocratic than the old religions. Except for some the pagan human sacrifice ones such as the Aztecs.
     
    Real atheism means to rely upon yourself as the divine, since there’s nothing on top telling you otherwise. Some monarchies and emperors would fit this mold.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The moral retards and the moral hypocrites think that if they dislike how God runs the universe, they can merely replace it with Global warming and government. That’s incredibly stupid and decadent.
     
    Atheism is the belief that the guy on top is DEAD. There is no one running the place. It doesn’t work if you just replace the boss with government or another religion. It Does Not Work That Way.

  • http://ritestuff.blogspot.com/ Karl

    Comments about the motives of what I call “devout atheists” may be right. However, the statement “since there was a Big Bang, there must be a Big Banger” is not necessarily so. It’s a bit like saying that if water condenses out of vapor in the air (to form clouds or fog), there must be a Condenser.

    One of the blogs I follow, Starts With a Bang frequently discusses the history of the universe, and why scientists think things happened one way and not another. It’s turning out, for example, that inflation seems to have come before the Big Bang, and the Big Bang itself was, in effect, inflation “freezing out” in one area and the energy of that transition showing up in the form of matter and energy.
    Basically, science is attempting to discern general processes — laws, models, principles, what have you — that led to the universe as it exists today. It’s quite possible that a Creator simply pieced everything together and it only looks like a system that would have resulted from inflation-condensation-subsequent expansion. But if you go there, the whole notion of laws of science ceases to have meaning.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Technically another universe, higher dimensions, and the state before the Big Bang, the laws of science never existed. Different laws were at work. Religion takes on faith that they know what kind of state it was. Science, however, has the burden of proving it.
       
      The proof for religion is really the end result, whether their faith produces good people and good works. Whereas science can’t use that justification. Even if a scientist gets the right answer or result of an experiment, if their data is falsified or fake or bad, it is still invalid and an unproven hypothesis.

      • http://ritestuff.blogspot.com/ Karl

        And science is not about producing good people or good works. It’s about producing good results.

        If the model a scientist comes up with matches observations, that’s a good result. If it matches observations not yet made (makes successful predictions), that’s a very good result. And this result is good independent of whether people like the implications.