Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Taoism is as diverse as Buddhism is. I guess I'm not as familiar as I thought I was.

I don't know what Daoism is

Also known as Taoism and Confucionism (I think? Not so sure I know it as well as I thought now).

I did read Confucius, if it's the same as Confucianism ; they definitely worship their ancestors.

LordofHats wrote:Taoism is as diverse as Buddhism is. I guess I'm not as familiar as I thought I was.

I don't know what Daoism is

Also known as Taoism and Confucionism (I think? Not so sure I know it as well as I thought now).

Taoism and Confucionism are very much separate I think, Confucionism is very focused on rules and hierarchies, while Taoism is far more to do with nature and going with the flow. But then my knowledge of them isn't what you'd called lots, a couple of books (including the Winne the Pooh one, its awesome) and chatting to a couple of people in Hong Kong.

Well you apparently know more than I so that points gonna have to be dropped

d-usa wrote:Big one is "converting others". While many atheists are happy to leave others alone, others want to point out to everyone that they found the "truth" and want to convert them.

It's simply a matter of education. Religious people are ignorant, either willfully so or through a lack of education. As an atheist I want to educate them, just as I would want to teach them how to read or write.

Meh, its the only religion that really fascinated me as it's story of creation of modern man is that we used to be far more in tune with nature and could predict natural disasters much like animals, but got more and more obsessed with being better than each other and other such stupidities and lost what we had, thus we became both who we are and spiritually unsatisfied. We could regain our lost innocence, and become happy, if only we stopped caring about "profit and loss." Sort of Buddhism, but without the preoccupation with suffering.

Just thought it was nice.

A Taoist story.

@dael: That's a nice story!

One thing I wanted to add to the discussions around "Things done in the name of religion and/or atheism"...I don't really think such a high number of these cases - Stalin, Pol Pot, the Crusades, every so-called Holy War you can think of - were really motivated by religious beliefs or ideology. They were the result of intelligent, powerful people with the necessary skills to rally people under their banners using whatever tools they could find - be it communist ideals or fundamentalist religion. If you look at the times when the office of Pope was more or less handed around between Italian families and some Popes fething around with prostitutes and getting children...it seems very much to me as if these Popes weren't that religious. They were political people using religion as a tool to influence the balance of power in their country/on their continent.

What I'm saying is, ALL the "Person X did Y in the name of A/in the spirit of B" arguments must be taken with a grain of salt, because I'd wager these people actually just used their "offiicial" religion or ideology as nothing more than tools for personal gain.

dæl wrote:

d-usa wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.

One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).

Define acting religious, after all there are no pilgrimages to the Natural History Museum, atheist's don't ask for Darwin's and Newton's birthdays off work, they don't kneel to the concept of Physics.

I know this post has probably been countered by now but I kind of DO go on pilgrimages to the Natural History Museum in London, it's an amazing building.

d-usa wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.

One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).

And as I made clear several pages ago, a perceived similarity in one degree does not equate to a similarity of kind. One could point out the commonalities between devotion to religion and, for example, love of one's country, or of the music of Iron Maiden. That would not, however, make being either a patriot or a metaller a religious position.

You engage in another logical fallacy too; the question is one of "atheism" and "religion", not "atheists" and "religious". Their actions (or your perception of them) have no essential bearing on the question of whether the former is a subset of the latter. If you want to demonstrate that to be the case, it is the nature of the two positions that you must address.

In that light, try to respond to the assertion that the two have no commonalities beyond both being opinions on the existence or otherwise of a god or gods (which is not itself a useful epistemological category), since the former is one arrived at by the rational use of evidence, the latter one arrived at by mythologically-justified faith in a particular authority.

Kovnik Obama wrote:But atheism doesn't need a doctrine.

Neither does theism, but people seem to like adding it.

Well, we are back in the old standstill where Atheists continue to claim that they are the sole adherents of logic and science and everybody that beliefs in a deity is illogical and basically a Theist version of this guy:








Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just for giggles:

First Church of Atheism

North Texas Church of Freethought

Houston Church of Freethought

Do Atheists Need a Church of Their Own?

LordofHats wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Rituals as in 'acts done to please/not piss off/remain on the good side/respect God' would then also means all moral decisions done in accordance to that God. That would also differentiate the atheists.

One could suggest the scientific process by which an atheist examines the world and determines truth to be a ritual.

Though I reject ritual as necessary to religion (organized religion yes, all religion no). Take for example Daoism. It doesn't really have any rituals (of course its also debated whether Daoism is a religion or a philosophy). Buddhism (as taught by Buddha) inherently rejects ritual as a means of achieving enlightenment. Of course, a lot of Buddhists, mainly the stereotypical monks and nuns, have rituals anyway, but the typical Buddhist doesn't really have any.

Then of course is the problem that in the west we tend to think of theist religion as the only religion, when in fact theism is not the norm for religions in the world. Buddhists have no god (generally speaking), and Hindu's... Well. Brahman makes my head hurt so I won't go into it, but its debatable if Brahman constitutes a deity rather than a force or amorphous entity.

dæl wrote:Could there be an argument that society provides the doctrine for atheists, after all religion gets its morality from it's teachings, whereas atheists must build their moral compass from what they learn from society. After all we are not born with an understanding of ethics.

Humanism.

.

first, science and atheism have nothing to do with each other. the scientific process is not a atheistic trait.

secondly we agree that all babies are atheists because we are not born with a religion.

since we are really just playing word games here about what is and is not atheists and religions and not using dictionary terms. Then ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ATHEISTS. None of you believe in Allah, the Japanese gods, nor the Indian gods, nor the thousands of other gods that have come and gone. Ergo Everyone is an atheist. If all you need is a belief to be in a religion, then all you need is a disbelief to be an atheist.

If anyone in the US still needs to be watched it is the christians. They're still going around using their bible for justification to burn down buildings and kidnap kids and be hateful bigots. Truly a terrorist organization. Because if just 1 person represents the ideals of an entire belief system, then Knapp speaks for all christians right? or is it Phelps?

the mods of the true religion of dakkadakka excluded of course

Praised be yakface.

*lights a sacrificial lego brazier*

sirlynchmob wrote:
since we are really just playing word games here about what is and is not atheists and religions and not using dictionary terms. Then ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ATHEISTS. None of you believe in Allah, the Japanese gods, nor the Indian gods, nor the thousands of other gods that have come and gone. Ergo Everyone is an atheist. If all you need is a belief to be in a religion, then all you need is a disbelief to be an atheist.

Interesting spin on the Dawkins argument.

dogma wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
since we are really just playing word games here about what is and is not atheists and religions and not using dictionary terms. Then ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ATHEISTS. None of you believe in Allah, the Japanese gods, nor the Indian gods, nor the thousands of other gods that have come and gone. Ergo Everyone is an atheist. If all you need is a belief to be in a religion, then all you need is a disbelief to be an atheist.

Interesting spin on the Dawkins argument.

All hail the Atheist Pope

d-usa wrote:Well, we are back in the old standstill where Atheists continue to claim that they are the sole adherents of logic and science and everybody that beliefs in a deity is illogical and basically a Theist version of this guy:

Because at the end of the day, it's true.

Not all the time of course. I've met many religious people who were otherwise intelligent and logical, but when pressed on their religious beliefs resort to circular logic, or are simply satisfied with insufficient or anecdotal evidence.

But I've never met one who could logically and empirically justify their religion.

Apparently, I'm going to need more popcorn...

(I am fully aware I'm not adding anything to this thread)



Automatically fake added next post:

dæl wrote:
A Taoist story.

Spoiler:

There was once a stonecutter, who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.

One day, he passed a wealthy merchant's house, and through the open gateway, saw many fine possessions and important visitors. "How powerful that merchant must be!" thought the stonecutter. He became very envious, and wished that he could be like the merchant. Then he would no longer have to live the life of a mere stonecutter.

To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever dreamed of, envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. But soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants, and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. "How powerful that official is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a high official!"

Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around, who had to bow down before him as he passed. It was a hot summer day, and the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. "How powerful the sun is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the sun!"

Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. "How powerful that storm cloud is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a cloud!"

Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. "How powerful it is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the wind!"

Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, hated and feared by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it — a huge, towering stone. "How powerful that stone is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!"

Then he became the stone, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the solid rock, and felt himself being changed. "What could be more powerful than I, the stone?" he thought. He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stonecutter.

That is an awesome lesson, actually.

streamdragon wrote:Apparently, I'm going to need more popcorn...

(I am fully aware I'm not adding anything to this thread)



Automatically fake added next post:

dæl wrote:
A Taoist story.

Spoiler:

There was once a stonecutter, who was dissatisfied with himself and with his position in life.

One day, he passed a wealthy merchant's house, and through the open gateway, saw many fine possessions and important visitors. "How powerful that merchant must be!" thought the stonecutter. He became very envious, and wished that he could be like the merchant. Then he would no longer have to live the life of a mere stonecutter.

To his great surprise, he suddenly became the merchant, enjoying more luxuries and power than he had ever dreamed of, envied and detested by those less wealthy than himself. But soon a high official passed by, carried in a sedan chair, accompanied by attendants, and escorted by soldiers beating gongs. Everyone, no matter how wealthy, had to bow low before the procession. "How powerful that official is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a high official!"

Then he became the high official, carried everywhere in his embroidered sedan chair, feared and hated by the people all around, who had to bow down before him as he passed. It was a hot summer day, and the official felt very uncomfortable in the sticky sedan chair. He looked up at the sun. It shone proudly in the sky, unaffected by his presence. "How powerful the sun is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the sun!"

Then he became the sun, shining fiercely down on everyone, scorching the fields, cursed by the farmers and laborers. But a huge black cloud moved between him and the earth, so that his light could no longer shine on everything below. "How powerful that storm cloud is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a cloud!"

Then he became the cloud, flooding the fields and villages, shouted at by everyone. But soon he found that he was being pushed away by some great force, and realized that it was the wind. "How powerful it is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be the wind!"

Then he became the wind, blowing tiles off the roofs of houses, uprooting trees, hated and feared by all below him. But after a while, he ran up against something that would not move, no matter how forcefully he blew against it — a huge, towering stone. "How powerful that stone is!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!" he thought. "I wish that I could be a stone!"

Then he became the stone, more powerful than anything else on earth. But as he stood there, he heard the sound of a hammer pounding a chisel into the solid rock, and felt himself being changed. "What could be more powerful than I, the stone?" he thought. He looked down and saw far below him the figure of a stonecutter.

That is an awesome lesson, actually.

And a very good introduction to some of the key concepts of Taoism.

Calling it a religion isn't the whole picture though. Like Buddhism and Confucianism, it was a philosophy first that gradually developed into a religion. I am a philosophical taoist, myself.

Hold the great elephant,
the great image,
and the world moves.
Moves without danger,
in safety and peace.

dæl wrote:

But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.

And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice.

dæl wrote:
I'm not saying it doesn't need to be watched, (well anti-theism should be watched, rather than atheism) but it's not a religion and shouldn't be treated as such.

No it's not a religion, but it is a faith choice, and thus is to be categorized alongside other faith choices, ie religions. Anti-theism is just the militant wing of atheism, and an unfortunately large percentage of frontline atheists are vocal anti-theists. Those atheists who are not are akin to the quietly religious who don't blow people up, kiddy fiddle, plot to eliminate other faiths or races that favour other faiths, or agitate on the streets.
To deal with the fanatics ethically you must treat all faith groups the same, and thus be equally repellant to the proliferation of faith based intolerance. This can only occur if atheists are lumped in with all other faith choices, and scrutinised the same way according to individual merit sperating the honest believer from the fanatic to let the former express their viewpoint without allowing the latter to threaten the liberty of others.


Atheism needs watching no less than Islam and the Catholics, even in the west. For example its not the Moslems who are calling for closure of (non islamic) faith schools, however many mainstream atheists are doing that (targeting all faith schools). They attack by saying 'we are of reason, you are not, you must change' rather than 'we are the true faithful, you are infidel, you must change'. Both cause division and threaten people with the right to choose alternate worldviews.

An alarming number of atheist apologists use their illusory non-religious status to freely propagate intolerance and discrimination, all the while under the cloak of tolerance and reason. I thought that type of doublethink went out with the Counter-Reformation, please let us not go backwards.

Please go ahead declare yourself atheist if you want to, but dont kid yourself that science told you so. Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:
But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.

And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice.

My default position is that there is no God, there are thought experiments that show the existence of God illogical. Even without proof, there is still logic.

Anti-theism is just the militant wing of atheism

I don't agree, it's like the difference between amorality and immorality. One doesn't care for morals, the other is against them.

Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.

Logic isn't silent on the matter though.


And for what it's worth faith schools should be abolished, they cause intolerance, and don't allow children to meet other cultures. And indoctrination on those without the maturity to make their own conclusions is more than a bit wrong.

dæl wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:
But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.

And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice.

My default position is that there is no God, there are thought experiments that show the existence of God illogical. Even without proof, there is still logic.

Anti-theism is just the militant wing of atheism

I don't agree, it's like the difference between amorality and immorality. One doesn't care for morals, the other is against them.

Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.

Logic isn't silent on the matter though.


And for what it's worth faith schools should be abolished, they cause intolerance, and don't allow children to meet other cultures. And indoctrination on those without the maturity to make their own conclusions is more than a bit wrong.

well I doubt anyone said faith schools should be abolished. It was probably said, private schools shouldn't get public money. Its really the ugly hat hypothesis affect going on. oh no he said something bad about my hat, he must be attacking me.

sirlynchmob wrote:
well I doubt anyone said faith schools should be abolished. It was probably said, private schools shouldn't get public money. Its really the ugly hat hypothesis affect going on. oh no he said something bad about my hat, he must be attacking me.

I did, children are born without prejudice, and if integrated with lots of different cultures will understand and accept them. Faith schools are a form of segregation.

I am 100% certain that God exists and created everything. I also believe in evolution and science. Shocking, but apparently you can believe both

QFT

I am also a christian but think evolution and was one of the top science students in my year at high school (One of the other guys was shocked when he found out I was religious)

what I really don't like is creationists, taking Genesis which is largely a metaphorical text and taking it as a literal truth.

Just another day in the OT:

Orlanth wrote:

dæl wrote:

But there is no faith to atheism, it is the absence of faith, and the belief in proof.

And until proof is shown what is your default beleif, there is a god, or there is no God. a Not sure is a type of no. Your emotive half will answer for you, a choice will be made because it is inevitable as the equestion is not alien to you, and your answer however temporary it may be in your mind that is your faith choice....

Please go ahead declare yourself atheist if you want to, but dont kid yourself that science told you so. Science is silent on the existance of God, you find your own conclusion, its a leap of faith, one way or another.

You're getting a little carried away with it all there. Science is silent on the existence of god, just as it is silent on the existence of the tooth fairy or ghosts. All those outlandish supernatural claims get bundled into one big basket and filed away. There is no anti-god agenda, just an anti-ignorance agenda.

People will always believe in something.

2000 years from now Christianity will probably be as mythical as the Greek Pantheon is today, but that won't stop something else from becoming the religion du jour in M4. Even the Emperor couldn't stop religion, after all

All in all, I'm just glad there are plenty of people who really don't care enough (on both sides) that societies can remain productive.

DoW

Kaldor wrote:
You're getting a little carried away with it all there. Science is silent on the existence of god, just as it is silent on the existence of the tooth fairy or ghosts. All those outlandish supernatural claims get bundled into one big basket and filed away. There is no anti-god agenda, just an anti-ignorance agenda.

How are you or anyone else qualified to make claim that faith in God is ignorance.

This is an example of the error of letting atheist dogma masquerade as reason rather than faith opinion. As a man of faith I may say other faiths are wrong, but that is my own opinion, that goes for every other man of faith, including your own.



Is the existance of God an 'outlandish supernatural claim', by your opinion maybe, but its a very hard claim to make definitively. Thats not exactly being scientific isn't it. You also have to deliberately ignore that a lot of strange stuff that defies normal explanation that occurs through religion. Let me show you a tiny handful. We cannot prove God, but we can indicate that the foundation of Israel in 1948 was predicted in the Bible, to the day. We cannot prove God, but I have met a man raised from the dead, who claims to have been to heaven and seen Jesus. He had enough poison in him from a Sea Wasp attack to kill him several times over, there were numerous sting marks on his body and the Sea Wasp is noted as the most venomous creature alive.

Have you heard of supernatural events being attributed to the tooth fairy? Not even anything on the scale I just mentioned, anything at all. Seriously?

Let me leave you with an example that occurs everyday in many churches, one that you can look at mathematically and therefore scientifically. There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible. Sometimes a pastor might hear from God that he is to focus on one verse or another and receives revelation on the subject. At face value there is nothing to distinguish revelation from his own intellect and hearting God from ones own imagination. The Bible even warns us of this and asks us to cross reference with another believer. 'By two or three a matter shall be established'. And this is what happens, someone might have insight into a certain verse, and two or three people might not have the same insight, but are led to the same verse. The amount of times I said to my pastor "Hey Bruce I think God has a message for you on [Book Name], [Chapter and verse number]". I am not the only one to do this, and its a weekly event.

You try and recreate that outside a church of people claiming to be spirit filled believers. I will make it easy for you, two or three must guess the same page of a book with 500 pages, and each person in the room, we will give you say 60 can guess. Thats better odds than we see 'pay off' week after week, as those who do not feel the lead to call out a verse don't do so. We can get it wrong, I do. Some might try to write it off as auto suggestion, but there is no correlation, and it doesn't work in neutral settings. Sometimes I even see a small vision in my head that is shared by someone else, and that someone else might have had that vision at another time or place in the week. Furthermore these are not once in a lifetime experiences, they are weekly events. I cannot prophesy outside a group of believers, I don't have that gift and I don't practice because it doesn't work that way. However i am disappointed if at a prayer meeting I get less than five or six. Faith is kind of strange, but there is something very powerful going on.

So you see perhaps I have an advantage, faith in Jesus is rather easy for me to have. But if you are a man of science and have an open mind then multiply 31,000 x 31,000. You get 961 million. That is the odds of three people guessing the same verse in a Bible, omitting those two hundred or so verses over 31,000 the Bible contains. On a per week basis those are the odds of what happens in a church that practices the charismata in this way is of doing so out of co-oincidence.
I am happy for the revealed odds to be slightly less. We can omit one confirmation as two is enough according to scripture and is in fact more frequent, though I have witnesed more that three on occassion. That only leaves us with 31,000:1 in favour of something being up, and these odds pay off time and time again.

If you want to know what go to a church group and find out. I have witnessed double cross references Bible passages in groups as small as five or six people, we don't pay much attention as we expect this as its a frequent event. After all we are more interested in what revelation is offered along with the cross reference.

If you still think you can explain it all away as a group psychosis get some gamers together and try to guess the same sentence in a 40k rulebook. You can cheat and take extra guesses, you probably won't beat the odds and wont do so nearly every meeting.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:
All in all, I'm just glad there are plenty of people who really don't care enough (on both sides) that societies can remain productive.

A lot of people in the churches are deeply religious and care deeply, and they can be very productive. Groups like the Salvation Army grew out of the churches, many orphanages and hospices grow out of church donations and volunteering.

There are several ways to be active, you can either bring unity or division. To ignore the large volume of good work people of faith do and to segregate people into those who have no strong faith opinion and those who cause trouble is somewhat twisted to be frank.

Orlanth wrote:

DogOfWar wrote:
All in all, I'm just glad there are plenty of people who really don't care enough (on both sides) that societies can remain productive.

A lot of people in the churches are deeply religious and care deeply, and they can be very productive. Groups like the Salvation Army grew out of the churches, many orphanages and hospices grow out of church donations and volunteering.

There are several ways to be active, you can either bring unity or division. To ignore the large volume of good work people of faith do and to segregate people into those who have no strong faith opinion and those who cause trouble is somewhat twisted to be frank.

Good luck with this argument.

Faithful people have a lot of ground to make up considering the millions of people who have died for the various incarnations of 'god' throughout history.

Let's hope you do keep up the "good work," just don't expect me to be grateful for too little, too late.

DoW

Orlanth wrote: Is the existance of God an 'outlandish supernatural claim',

Uh, yes.

Orlanth wrote: by your opinion maybe, but its a very hard claim to make definitively.

What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.

I have met a man raised from the dead, who claims to have been to heaven and seen Jesus. He had enough poison in him from a Sea Wasp attack to kill him several times over, there were numerous sting marks on his body and the Sea Wasp is noted as the most venomous creature alive.

citation needed.

Have you heard of supernatural events being attributed to the tooth fairy? Not even anything on the scale I just mentioned, anything at all. Seriously?

Uh, teeth, pillows, coins? Hello?

*a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo about people thinking about the same stuff*

And that's another big 'ole citation needed.

Come on. I want double blind controlled experiments published in peer reviewed scientific journals that document these supposed 'shared visions'.

Kaldor wrote:

What? No it's not. The proposal that some all-powerful god is responsible for the creation of the universe is totally outlandish. It is the definition of supernatural.
.

yet scientists claim that the Big bang came from nothing, which is more outlandish??