Is it possible to bridge creationism and atheism?

Michael Gonzalez77 said:...

You’re really missing my point here. Instead of just getting defensive, 🤔 — we're basically talking past each other.

Science wasn't some invention by a handful of academics; it's a fundamental human drive. It’s baked into our DNA. What you’re describing is just a narrow scientific method used to probe the physical plane—a method built on imperfect senses, tools, instruments, and the inevitable fiction of the human imagination. This approach focuses more on exploitation than actual understanding. Why? Because pure knowledge and true comprehension don't turn a profit. That isn't inherently good or bad, but it's insufficient for what any human being on this planet actually wants: prosperity. True prosperity doesn't come from mere comfort, nor does it come from reading about things in a book or believing in something just because someone told you it exists.

If you insist that a purely materialistic scientific approach is the only way to advance civilization, then you’ll struggle to grasp Tesla’s insight or even Mexico's brilliant poem:

"If science spent just ten years studying non-physical phenomena, it would make more progress than it has in its entire century of existence."

STOP NURSING

Take it slow. Let go of the bottle.
That is the core of my argument.

From a zygote, nourished only by blood,
to an infant drinking milk,
to a child eating solid food,
to a seeker of wisdom,
to a hunter chasing the most intangible prey of all.

Imagine trying to have a conversation with a zygote.
You might say:
"The outside world is vast and complex.
There are wheat fields and mountain slopes,
and orchards in full bloom.
At night, millions of galaxies are visible, and in the sunlight,
you can see the beauty of friends dancing at a wedding.">

But if you ask the zygote why it remains cramped
in the dark, with eyes closed,
listen to the answer:

"There is no 'other world.'
I only know what I have experienced.
You must be imagining it."

joe enter said:Only believers have this kind of shallow rudeness based on lies—since religion doesn't even bother with assumptions, they just "KNOW" how the world started because their holy books claim God made it all.

Science is about what’s proven, not what’s guessed—and it’s a proven fact that the Big Bang happened and the universe is expanding! But the fact that believers don't get science—thinking it claims the world just popped into existence via some "bing-beng"—proves they don't need science at all when they've already been handed all these "truths" that they're supposed to accept with their "hearts" instead of using their brains or conscience.

Your comparison between science and religion is honestly laughable—science actually backs up its claims with evidence, and if scientists mess up, they toss those theories out to keep researching and learning so we can find new truths, just like we always have.
Religion, on the other hand, has zero evidence for its claims; it just relies on dogmas where hallucinations or psychotic assumptions are presented as truth—basically saying God made the world just because He said so, without any explanation or proof.

You can absolutely win this whole "religious vs. non-religious" conflict—back during the Enlightenment 200 years ago, people finally woke up; when lightning strikes now, they don't think it's God's wrath, they know it's an electrical discharge! And you need school for that—you need to learn science, which is exactly what you're equating to religion.

Religious folks can only "win" this conflict through force and nothing else—and if they don't have force to guide them right now, they just plug their ears because they can't handle any truth that doesn't come from religion or God. That so-called "divine truth" lacks evidence and rests on lies—and you can only defend a lie with force, because liars and fools don't care about science or reality; they only care about feeding their own egos, which are built on the fear of death—without imagination and hallucinations (aka lies and faith in something made up), they can't grasp anything else.

Anyway, let's not argue too much.

Since you're claiming the world started with the Big Bang and that science proved it, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to answer this one simple question:

"How did the world start with the Big Bang? Like, how did space and time actually emerge from the singularity of the Big Bang?"

Here you go!

Try explaining it in your own words without just dropping links, okay? 🍿