So your an Athiest

[Whateverist]

Well I think there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent mind having designed the universe and life itself. I don't know that we can definitively say that that intelligence was god.

You certainly don't get to start with that agreed upon. That there is a disembodied mind pulling shit into existence out of nothing strikes everyone who isn't already a theist as absurd. Are you sure you want to do this?

[marko]

You guys are funny. You really believe you are outside the box. We all believe what makes us comfy, to a point. I have no evidence, but neither do you. [...]

And consequently - we don't demand that the entire world bows down before our imaginary friend and adheres to his "will". And yet the believers do... We don't demand tax-exempt status for our organizations. The believers do... We don't waste a lot of time making sniveling yet insincere apologies for arbitrary transgressions, to invisible tyrants, existence of which cannot be proven. The believers - do... We don't beg supernatural forces for help with our personal problems and responsibilities. The believers, of course do.

We do however treat this life as if it's the only one we have and try to postpone death as much as possible. So do the believers, oddly enough...  In fact - the believers do everything that atheists do - and then some exclusive stuff with no evident positive consequences, like praying, building worship sites, protesting against freedom of speech, etc.

So what are we supposed to prove to you? That you should wear seat-belts and look around before crossing the street, because god is not going to protect you and when you die - it's game over? Well, you guys seem to have figured that out by yourselves...

This is good, a lot of you have said this, but I like how this is worded. " Not believing is the default position". Now if only it can be said without the baggage of evolution following behind. I have a question, do you believe in evolution as a fallback to believe in something, as the National Acadamy of Sciences tells you to, or do you believe in evolution for the sake of evolution itself.'' Not believing is the default position'' can stand on its own. I think it would do atheism better to leave it out.

I accept the basic claims of  evolution as being the best explanation for the diversity of life because I studied it and found the evidence convincing. My assumption going in was that it was false. Instead, I found that literally everything I had been taught as a young earth creationist was untrue. However, that did not rule out a God who initiated a universe conducive to the development of life, it just ruled out Christian and Muslim and as far as I know, all the other religious creation stories about how we got plants and animals.

Atheism does leave it out. It is a separate topic. Atheism and theism are contrary opinions on a single topic. But you're trying to get at why people become atheists, and finding out that creationism is false can be a contributing factor, if you were raised to believe that not only is creationism true, you have to believe it to be a Christian (or Muslim and so on).

You guys are funny. You really believe you are outside the box. We all believe what makes us comfy, to a point. I have no evidence, but neither do you. You don't even know you need evidence, "I am an athiest". You think that is a catch all phrase. We all need evidence. Mine is found inside myself, yours is found outside yourself. We all wonder why bad things happen to good people, why do we love, where does hate, justice, etc. come from, whats it all about. You put on a front like it dosn't matter, or you never think of such things. You think its from our neurons or whatever. I'm sure you believe in evolution, talk about your mental masterbation. But you do believe its from something. Come back down to Earth. And one more thing, thanks for the comment about my english--Public Schools

I wonder how many Christians have to come through this site, make threads where they claim that there's "no evidence for no God", and then completely ignore or refuse to acknowledge the responses given to them, before they realize THEY are the ones with the burden of proof. Research Russel's Teapot, marko. It gives detailed explanation as to why atheists don't need to "prove" anything.

Homeless Nutter- I'v been lumped  
Mr Agenda I agree with a lot of what you say
Laika- I have skimmed past plenty of responses, to which one do you refer
  As far as hate, rejecting God, and some others, they have been covered in previous posts.
This thread has taken a turn. For those of you who are not caught up, I simply asked what brought you to be an atheist. I'v read some excellent responses which has helped. As I stated early on, the atheists I know are flippant, and I knew their were deeper reasons. But now I feel I am defending myself for some reason, which is fine. After all, this is an atheist forum. But If you want me to explain why I beleive what I do, that would be for another thread, if you want to know why I disagree with evolution, that would be for another thread. At least that is how I have approached things. I enjoy bouncing ideas off people, but one thing at a time.  Like I said, we took a turn...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I've always been an atheist. I've never believed in a deity or been convinced by the arguments
For them.

I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact and the ToE seeks to explain it (and does a pretty good job of it too). Completely irrelevant to atheism, though.

And that's that, really.

[marko]

I've always been an atheist. I've never believed in a deity or been convinced by the arguments
For them.

I don't believe in evolution. Evolution is a fact and the ToE seeks to explain it (and does a pretty good job of it too). Completely irrelevant to atheism, though.

And that's that, really.

Pandaemonium, Great answer, back on track. Just curious, were you raised an atheist, were your parents. Have you ever researched about God, for a lack of better words. ( I know atheists can't look into something that does not exist, but humor me)

[AAA]

Your definition is a bit broad. Steve the blue alien who lives in a parallel universe and who has a space ship that poops universes fits that definition just as well. Why not?

And yes, this is an argument from personal incredulity. I tend to think our planet is not so unique as we have thought. I tend to think there could easily be some type of life in our own solar system. You still have not demonstrated that our universe was "created" just said some fallacious argument about design. We KNOW how planets and galaxies come to exist. No agency is required for them to come about. We know how new organs and systems within biological systems come about, no agency is required.

Now if you want to argue that abiogenesis is impossible and requires an intelligent agent I would again state that this is an argument from incredulity. There are perfectly sound models that do propose mechanisms for how it could happen. That is all that is required for the moment. We might not have the be all and end all explanation, but there are working models that look promising.

You still haven't provided positive evidence for your agent. Simply equated writing with biological adaptation does not do it since it is extremely fallacious.

I know the definition is broad, but I'm more interested with the science behind it than the theological definitions.

A planet capable of sustaining life is rare. The odds of a planet being the right size, being the correct distance from the sun, having the right amount of molten iron in the core to produce a magnetic field, and having a correctly proportioned atmosphere are just a few of the many criteria that a planet has to have to sustain life. Most astronomers agree that it takes unique conditions to make a planet that can sustain life. Galaxies come into existence because of the precisely set laws of the universe that allow them to. Also I'm assuming you meant to say that you think we will find life somewhere in the galaxy instead of the solar system, considering that the solar system is just the 8 planets that orbit our sun.

Abiogenesis is one of the most forced theories based on presuppositions next to the multiverse theory. I think you would have trouble finding a biochemist who would tell you that there is a sound model of abiogenesis. And it is not from a lack of searching.

As for the biological adaptation point, it is important to recognize that biological adaptation can only occur if the population can reproduce. But we would be unable to adapt if we didn't have many highly specialized molecular structures and functions. We can't have complex structures without evolution, and we can't evolve without complex structures. It is a chicken or the egg problem.

[Whateverist]

Well I think there is plenty of evidence of an intelligent mind having designed the universe and life itself. I don't know that we can definitively say that that intelligence was god.

You certainly don't get to start with that agreed upon.  That there is a disembodied mind pulling shit into existence out of nothing strikes everyone who isn't already a theist as absurd. Are you sure you want to do this?

Are you not responding to me because of my potty mouth?  Oh well.

[Homeless Nutter]

Homeless Nutter- I'v been lumped  

Wow. You really have a "gift" for debating...

Yeah, well - you lump all atheists together, claiming that we think this, or that, so you can f*** right off...
And my point, that you live just like an atheist most of the time, because you know god doesn't really do sh*t - that still stands.

[Natachan]

No, I meant this solar system. Would not be surprised. I find the prospect of microscopic life in the clouds of Venus intriguing for example, and it isn't off the table.

I have no knowledge of biology, and no interest. I have heard of organic molecules being formed from inorganic. I have heard mechanisms for abiogenesis, and that is enough to counter the "only through intelligent agency" claim. If all the pieces aren't in a line yet so what? Enough are still in place to make the intervention of an intelligent agent unnecessary.

[ignoramus]

AAA, the crux of your argument is that a powerful force created us and the finely balanced universe.
But we won't question how this "thing" came to be... It was just there. It always was!
We're not allowed to ponder why or how?

Because you read about it in a book written in 1604 by a committee of English priests.
Makes perfect sense...

Forget your modern biology books, they're there to brainwash you towards natural reality.

[AAA]

You certainly don't get to start with that agreed upon.  That there is a disembodied mind pulling shit into existence out of nothing strikes everyone who isn't already a theist as absurd. Are you sure you want to do this?

Are you not responding to me because of my potty mouth?  Oh well.

Sorry, I just didn't see your response. And I know it seems strange, but nothing bringing everything into existence also sounds strange. No matter what answers the question of the origin of matter time and energy is, it is bound to seem strange. I simply think that life and the universe reflects an intelligent designer rather than random chance.