RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2012 at 9:50 am by Ben Davis.)
(December 5, 2012 at 2:11 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: It boils down to comparing probabilities. What's the probability the universe, the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes, versus with the existence of God.Fuck probability! It's demonstrable that 'the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes' whereas there is no factual evidence anywhere, at all, to demonstrate the existence of any god let alone the abrahamic God.
Quote:What this argument does is show that considering only unguided processes (evolution, natural selection, etc), universes that support life are just mindbogglingly unlikely to come out in such a way as to actually be sustainable for any long period of time, LET ALONE long enough to sustain life of any kind, LET ALONE life as complex as human life.Irrelevant and here's an analogy to explain why. Imagine flipping a coin 10billion times and charting the sequence of results each time you flip. When you've finished, calculate the probability of the coin-flips happening exactly the way they did. The odd's will be ridiculously astronomical. But that doesn't matter because they did occur in the manner that you charted; one at a time, flip by flip.
(December 5, 2012 at 8:50 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I'm not sure what one must do to become an atheist.Not believe in god/s. It's that simple.
Quote:I assume it's personal reflection and a decision not to be interested in theistic claims as being true.There's no 'route map' to atheism. There are many reasons that people have for not believing. If you're claiming that 'disinterest' in the truth claims of theism is the main one, you clearly don't understand why this site exists in the first place.
Sum ergo sum
