"Is atheism against the law?"

[bindeweede]

I wish my knowledge and understanding of science and logical thinking were better, but surely someone here can drive a coach and horses through this jumble....

http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html

[Mongrel]

I wish my knowledge and understanding of science and logical thinking were better, but surely someone here can drive a coach and horses through this jumble....

http://www.anointed-one.net/atheism.html

Only skimmed the first bit but the main thing that springs from "The Law of Conservation" is that the physical laws that we know only came into existence after the Big Bang, time and space didn't exist before that point.

[bindeweede]

Only skimmed the first bit but the main thing that springs from "The Law of Conservation" is that the physical laws that we know only came into existence after the Big Bang, time and space didn't exist before that point.

I'm afraid I just don't understand how time and space didn't exist before Big Bang. What did exist before BB? "Nothing" just defeats my brain. Not so hard, really.

[Araneus]

I wish my knowledge and understanding of science and logical thinking were better, but surely someone here can drive a coach and horses through this jumble....

It's just the standard crap -- "Science can't explain why the universe came into being, therefore it must have been created by an all-powerful sentient being who somehow didn't require a creation of its own despite being more complex than anything which exists in our universe, blah blah blah ..."

Whatever.

[Mongrel]

I'm afraid I just don't understand how time and space didn't exist before Big Bang. What did exist before BB? "Nothing" just defeats my brain. Not so hard, really.

Try this piece over at the Angry Astronomer, it's a pretty good breakdown. Also the Bad Astronomer is good resource for more information.

[wooo_oops]

Try this piece over at the Angry Astronomer, it's a pretty good breakdown. Also the Bad Astronomer is good resource for more information.

Thanks for those, I enjoyed muchly.

I rather liked Phil Plait's (Bad Astronomer) description of what it's like debating with pseudoscientists:

"... debating these people on the radio would be like digging a hole in water."

Somehow I know exactly what he means.

[Cuddles]

The big problem (at least one of them) is that they appear to have no idea what either atheism or science are.

Atheism is a lack of belief mentality which rejects the existence of anything supernatural.

This is just not true. You can be an atheist and believe in all kinds of fairies and quackery. Atheism means lack of belief in gods, nothing else. Every single thing said after this first sentence is therefore either a straw man or non-sequitur. Added to this is the claim that science does accept the supernatural, which adds a whole new layer of straw to the argument.

And I won't even bother with all the relativity and entropy nonsense. What is it about people with no clue about science trying to explain things about it? Do they really not realise how utterly stupid they make themselves look?

[Allo Allo]

Really nice links Mongrel - thanks!

I found this understandable - mostly! :-\ (It's a PDf file of 11 pages of a much longer article - first page is blank...) Well worth careful reading - just my opinion of course!

[bindeweede]

Try this piece over at the Angry Astronomer, it's a pretty good breakdown. Also the Bad Astronomer is good resource for more information.

My September resolution is to read more of the intelligent and thought-provoking stuff, like these links, and JJ's elsewhere, and Allo's above, and less of the mountain of psychic and pseudoscientific stuff.

Thanks Mongrel, and AA.

Edit. But I will still read a bit of the pseud/psych stuff, as it can be a good source of laughter therapy.

[Mongrel]

My September resolution is to read more of the intelligent and thought-provoking stuff, like these links, and JJ's elsewhere, and Allo's above, and less of the mountain of psychic and pseudoscientific stuff.

Thanks Mongrel, and AA.

Edit. But I will still read a bit of the pseud/psych stuff, as it can be a good source of laughter therapy.

Try going to Science blogs and have a poke around. Many of them debunk pseudoscience in their own field

[MRT]

Just shows that a little knowledge of a subject is more dangerous than none at all.

[Araneus]

Just shows that a little knowledge of a subject is more dangerous than none at all.

It's not so much the little knowledge that is dangerous, but the arrogance in assuming that chucking around a gobbledegook of borrowed words is a valid substitute for proper understanding and logical argument.

I know a little about medicine from what I have read on Wikipedia, but this small amount of knowledge is not a problem as long as I don't turn up to doctor's conventions and start spouting off in front of people who know much more than I do, and expecting to be taken seriously. The average pseudoscientist unfortunately has no qualms about doing just that.

[MRT]

Fair point! It is possible to use a little knowledge of a subject well, it's just that, very often, people don't.