Why Is The Beginning So Important?

[Krabman]

In recent research, among atheists and theists, the most common concerns involve the beginning of man. I feel the future is more important and creationism shouldn't be our concern; we should target ethics, morals and logic. There's the issue of theists giving faith priority over theories and a misunderstanding of what "Evolution" really is (theists' example counterclaim: "So you believe we came from monkeys?"). If we target ethics, morals and logic, perhaps we could have theists reason with us without confusing them: many of them may or may not understand biology. If they realize we have good intentions as a whole, we won't be associated with Satan when they discuss us. Religion, alone, is not our enemy. Bigotry, ignorance and religious indoctrination are our enemy.

[stromboli]

I don't disagree with your viewpoint, but personally I think both aspects- the beginnings and future- are important. In my case it stems from growing up in a restrictive religion that discourages seeking out the truth. we need to call them on everything, not focus on one aspect of argument.

[Krabman]

I don't disagree with your viewpoint, but personally I think both aspects- the beginnings and future- are important. In my case it stems from growing up in a restrictive religion that discourages seeking out the truth. we need to call them on everything, not focus on one aspect of argument.

Agreed, but since this is an entirely psychological-- metaphysical battle, there are more specific boundaries as to what can be said and done without triggering further conflict. The idea is to make progress, not just piss people off by telling them everything they believe is a lie. Cognitive Dissonance is also an issue we have to deal with. Sun Tzu said "Know thy self, Know thy enemy". We all know how God is the trump card when they argue. With morals, logic and ethics we could get the upper hand as god has no real credibility.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Kinda tough to talk about the future sometimes when they believe that you're going straight to hell and they'll be floating up straight to the foot of the Big Spooky. Hmmm..gee. Now what do we talk about? Eternal torture techniques of Little Spooky perhaps?  :-?  :-k  8-[

[Plu]

The beginning is important because our entire approach to science is to understand what causes have which consequences. We also start science by saying "if this happens, then this is the result". Understanding where we came from and how the universe began are thus critical components of understanding where the universe is going . The best way to predict the future is to fully understand the past.

Also evolution is the foundation of the entire field of biology, so it's not just "where we came from", it entails absolutely everything we understand about the workings of life and our own bodies; denying evolution is basically denying all forms of life sciences.

Also, the point isn't fighting religion. The point is understanding the truth. The only reason people spend any time fighting religion at all is because religion in many places is disrupting the search for truth. As soon as religion loses its political influence, nobody gives a flying fuck anymore about what the religious think, and they just get ignored entirely and/or ridiculed in all discussions.

[Sal1981]

As already addressed, it's when religiously motivated acts interferes that we have an issue, not just interference on science issues. I think the reasons are obvious to any atheist, particularly apostates why religiously motivated actions are cause to trouble, but I'll restate them just in case: Religions claims to knowledge are without any proveable foundation, meaning they aren't knowledge claims at all, but faith.

Anything from child upbringing to determining the age of the Earth is met with what can only described as a complete lack of validity. There is no way to know if anything religion proposes can be proven to be correct or wrong. Falsefiability is kinda an important concept in science.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In recent research, among atheists and theists, the most common concerns involve the beginning of man. I feel the future is more important and creationism shouldn't be our concern; we should target ethics, morals and logic. There's the issue of theists giving faith priority over theories and a misunderstanding of what "Evolution" really is (theists' example counterclaim: "So you believe we came from monkeys?"). If we target ethics, morals and logic, perhaps we could have theists reason with us without confusing them: many of them may or may not understand biology. If they realize we have good intentions as a whole, we won't be associated with Satan when they discuss us. Religion, alone, is not our enemy. Bigotry, ignorance and religious indoctrination are our enemy.

Not responding to their BS is how we got into this mess. For a long time it was forbidden to even question the Biblical version of reality. If we allow that to return future generations will be screwed.

So, if you want to go do something else, good on you. I still have a few axe-swinging years left in me.

[SGOS]

I think beginnings and ethics are equally important.  Both can lead to the betterment of mankind, and anyway, we aren't forced into doing only one or the other.

[Krabman]

Thanks guys, for all the replies. For the most part, I agree with all of you. But at the same time, there are Christians that still believe the world was built in less than a week. At this point, I feel creationism is irrelevant as children who don't attend religious schools are exposed to science and experience the "Santa Clause Effect" where they realize they've been lied to. In order for children in religious schools to be taught correctly, we have to target ethics and logic to get religious educators to realize they've been cheating these children out of a proper education. For, even if they learned the truth, without proper ethics it's not certain that they would stop teaching creationism.

[Insult to Rocks]

I look at it this way: we need to know where we've been to know where we're going. And for the creationist origin, our future is not a happy one.

[barbarian]

So much for the "beginning"

Inflationary spacetimes are incomplete in past directions. Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating—or just expanding sufficiently fast—must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime.

Which would mean that all history of that spacetime in past directions has been wiped out by current inflationary spacetimes in equal directions.

[the_antithesis]

The origin of our species (or the universe) is not important. We are here and must deal with that horrible fact.

Creationist like to use it as "proof" of their gods because their gods are useless otherwise. In short, it is an admission of defeat.

[barbarian]

The origin of our species (or the universe) is not important. We are here and must deal with that horrible fact.

Creationist like to use it as "proof" of their gods because their gods are useless otherwise. In short, it is an admission of defeat.

As to what my point actually is, "creationism" is bullshit and we can never go past the point "The Big Bang" so what's the point of trying to explain either outside of hypothetical theories.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In recent research, among atheists and theists, the most common concerns involve the beginning of man. I feel the future is more important and creationism shouldn't be our concern; we should target ethics, morals and logic. There's the issue of theists giving faith priority over theories and a misunderstanding of what "Evolution" really is (theists' example counterclaim: "So you believe we came from monkeys?"). If we target ethics, morals and logic, perhaps we could have theists reason with us without confusing them: many of them may or may not understand biology. If they realize we have good intentions as a whole, we won't be associated with Satan when they discuss us. Religion, alone, is not our enemy. Bigotry, ignorance and religious indoctrination are our enemy.

Hard-cored theists don't reason outside their comfort zone. Ken Ham, Ray Cumfart, etc., the nether end of the spectrum, just don't care about the facts.