Products of Chance

[Reasonable_Jeff]

I think you are lying. I don't think you've actually heard an atheist say that. You might've heard Christians say that atheists say that, but not atheists themselves. All my time here, I've never heard this proposition form atheists, only Christians.

Hmm, good call on hearing "Christians say Atheists say."

However...

I have had discussions with some of my atheist friends and they've articulated this position...BUT...I grant that they are not the best representation of atheism.

Sort of like when people say all religions teach essentially the same thing. That statement just shows that they haven't actually studied very much into the different religions. (contrast Buddism an Islam)

I would grant that anyone that makes that statement (universe from chance) is equally uninformed in regards to the beliefs of the majority of atheists.

I've tried searching for any legit articles where an atheist would profess this statement and have found none (that appear credible).

Thanks for the fact checking fellas (and any ladies). Like I said in my intro post, it's good to converse with people who don't believe the same.

I appreciate it
-Jeff

[The Grand Nudger]

I've heard atheists say,

“I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by chance.”

But chance can’t create anything. It’s a word that we use to describe or talk about probabilities. If I flip a coin the chances of it landing heads up if flipped (assuming it doesn’t land on its side) is 50%. But if it does land heads up, chance didn't "cause" it to flip, I did. "Chance" doesn't stand in casual relation to things.

“Chance” as the cause of the universe seems silly.

What do you guys think?

Hey hey now, any given atheist -just might- think that the universe is a product of probability, but what would that have to do with atheism or a god?

"But chance cant create anything" - Laying aside that this is a bare assertion, neither can a fictional superhero.

[TaraJo]

I think you are lying. I don't think you've actually heard an atheist say that. You might've heard Christians say that atheists say that, but not atheists themselves. All my time here, I've never heard this proposition form atheists, only Christians.

Hmm, good call on hearing "Christians say Atheists say."

However...

I have had discussions with some of my atheist friends and they've articulated this position...BUT...I grant that they are not the best representation of atheism.

Well, when I asked for a source, that wasn't exactly my intent, even if it is a valid point. I was trying to figure out the context behind the message of your hypothetical atheist because it's not hard for someone to misinterpret a message and it's easy to spread your misinterpretation if nobody calls you on it; go look up the thread on 'holy flatulence' if you want an example.

Sort of like when people say all religions teach essentially the same thing. That statement just shows that they haven't actually studied very much into the different religions. (contrast Buddism an Islam)

No, but there are general similarities from one to the next, at least as far as mainstream religions go. If a religion causes its adherents to believe in something that's significantly detrimental to their culture, that religion will die out. Look at the Heaven's Gate cult or the Shakers for examples. It's kinda interesting how survival of the fittest and natural selection are taking place even within social institutions like religion, business and general culture.

[Violet]

I'm sorry, but the lack of true information in the OP is simply inexcusable.

Chance did not create the universe... that was Larry (and I killed him for the incestual raping bastard he was). Chance is responsible only for developing sex in a variety of forms (including the act itself), seeing as a universe with a 'life mechanic' should also contain a reproduction of life mechanic (else it would be far too short lived to experiment with or enjoy).

You 'mortals' have a LOT to thank Chance for, but please be considerate and give credit where it is due in future.

Easy guide to the heavy hitters (for the clueless):

Larry: Made the basic template, murdered in cold blood by niece (me). Been through court over it, apparently it was a justified response, but a little too brutal (I was on probation for a few years).

Rukhan: Fixed a shitton of Larry's original mistakes with the template (though she STILL can't figure out how to enable magic after Larry fucked it up, something about having to erase a significant portion and start from scratch, but Sphere is so popular a game as it is that community outcry could be bankrupting). Still kicking, partner of another chick at work (Alice).

Chance: Modeled reproduction after how it is present in our world, because sex sells. Also monitors a number of 'biological' factors such as general universal growth, and takes a look at abnormalities and is often in the midst of manually fixing them (example: why is Earth one of only three places in that galaxy where civilization has developed?).

Moniik: Head of the balancing team, when one civ becomes overwhelmingly imbalanced, he 'nerfs' them accordingly. Sometimes attempts to kickstart developing civs, we're headed for intergalactic warfare in the next couple decades, and some are arriving there just too early (and others too far behing, in example: yall).

Michael: Lead ingame communicator with civilizations, tells them to step their games up when needed, or to back down (or else, thankfully that's only happened twice). Don't you go pissing him off, because it has a strong possibility of getting me killed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCmok5i4uhk

[Reasonable_Jeff]

I'm sorry, but the lack of true information in the OP is simply inexcusable.

You're right. Sorry about that guys, I'll try not to let that happen again.

[Mister Agenda]

I've heard atheists say,

“I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by chance.”

Can you provide a quote? Because I doubt you can.

But chance can’t create anything. It’s a word that we use to describe or talk about probabilities. If I flip a coin the chances of it landing heads up if flipped (assuming it doesn’t land on its side) is 50%. But if it does land heads up, chance didn't "cause" it to flip, I did. "Chance" doesn't stand in casual relation to things.

Since atheists don't really say 'I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by chance', you don't have a point.

“Chance” as the cause of the universe seems silly.

Well, if it seems silly to you, it must not be true. It's not like appeal to incredulity is a fallacy or anything.

What do you guys think?

That you guys have a striking tendency to preface your questions about what we think with a misrepresentation of what we think.

---

I've heard atheists say,

“I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by chance.”

But chance can’t create anything. It’s a word that we use to describe or talk about probabilities. If I flip a coin the chances of it landing heads up if flipped (assuming it doesn’t land on its side) is 50%. But if it does land heads up, chance didn't "cause" it to flip, I did. "Chance" doesn't stand in casual relation to things.

“Chance” as the cause of the universe seems silly.

What do you guys think?

I never heard any atheist use the word "created'' and universe in the same sentence.

And that whole...once upon a time there was nothing and then Bang, something...idea has really gone out of fashion with atheists.

So, for crying out loud, please get with the program will YA?

The past-eternal universe has always existed in one form or another, and one thing simply follows another and if something looks fine-tuned it's not really because there are an infinite number of multiverses out there somewhere and if you get enough of them eventually one will produce monkeys with the randomly evolved IQ gene, all typing out Shakespearean Sonnets backwards on their Ipads, and theres no such thing as a problem of suffering in this absurd little uni/multi/mega/whateververse because were atheists
...and thats just how we roll

I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to accept the multiple universe hypothesis as yet.

---

I'm sorry, but the lack of true information in the OP is simply inexcusable.

You're right. Sorry about that guys, I'll try not to let that happen again.

That's very reasonable, Jeff.

Where the idea probably comes from is the hypothesis that a quantum vaccuum fluctuation could have jump-started the universe. Although no individual quantum fluctuation can be predicted, in Quantum Mechanics they're statistically inevitable. As to whether that's the true origin of the universe, until the hypothesis is tested it remains a hypothesis. There are many interesting possible natural causes for the universe that we just can't verify yet. Just because we entertain those notions and find them interesting doesn't mean we've embraced one in particular as THE ANSWER (echo effect).

[Faith No More]

I have had discussions with some of my atheist friends and they've articulated this position...BUT...I grant that they are not the best representation of atheism.

Have you ever asked them to defend that claim? Have they ever been able to provide any proof? If you ask them to provide evidence of this, you may make them realize that they're really just guessing.

You're right. Sorry about that guys, I'll try not to let that happen again.

Meh. Don't be so hard on yourself.

[Violet]

I'm sorry, but the lack of true information in the OP is simply inexcusable.

You're right. Sorry about that guys, I'll try not to let that happen again.

Good Well, now you know, so next time it would be a total forum infraction and we'd get the Silicoid police involved.

Mauler devices hurt, by the by.

[Haydn2]

I've heard atheists say,

“I believe that the universe was created out of nothing by chance.”

But chance can’t create anything. It’s a word that we use to describe or talk about probabilities. If I flip a coin the chances of it landing heads up if flipped (assuming it doesn’t land on its side) is 50%. But if it does land heads up, chance didn't "cause" it to flip, I did. "Chance" doesn't stand in casual relation to things.

“Chance” as the cause of the universe seems silly.

What do you guys think?

This is the exact opposite of a strawman as it describes quite adequately why god would be an un-needed irrelevance in the creation of anything , even the universe.

The decription of chance is accurate , it is an illusion and only exists when the conclusion of something is un-known . Possiblitys only exist when the conclusion is unknown , or we havn't made our mind up yet , but the result is always what it would have been. Which i why don't believe in alternative realitys , free will ,or fate .

Putting these for-gone conclusions into reverse , you see things go perfectly smoothly ,with out the need for any super-natural intervention.
With the creation of man , the creation of life , the Earth , Solar system and even the universe (and thats as far back as we can see).
One event leading to the next , with no need for any tweaking .

You add a god to the equation and however powerful it would be , he would also be part of an stoppbale chain of events. So completly
pointless.

[Whateverist]

Source?

Pulled it out of his ass.

So according to the Cosmos guy, Carl Sagan, we are all stardust but according to the theists we are all turd balls of the one true god? Let's see .. stardust or turd balls?