The Case for Atheism

[Whateverist]

Also, when you think of a plant producing fruit, you realize there is far more going on than coloring up. There is first a flower which becomes pollinated from which fruit is formed. What will become the fruit starts off very small as well as -in many cases- green. If we don't need to think of the size change being god's signaling us that fruit is on its way, why should we think of the color change as a signal from god? Of course animals and plants evolve together and many plants depend on animals to eat its fruit in order to disperse it. So you could also say that 'coloring up' is a strategy the plant employs to attract animals to disperse its seeds. Of course this way of attributing intention has much more to do with the way we think than the way the world works, but whatareyougonnado?

[Cyberman]

Your friends "logic" only shows that he thinks the world revolves around him and what he likes to eat.

This. Creationism's biggest problem, apart from it being total parasitic horseshit, is that it is irredeemably anthropocentric. Everything has to be argued to be designed solely for use by humans. Show a cretinist something which doesn't fit that rigid mould and you will force them into all manner of ridiculous rationalisations. It's quite amusing sometimes, watching their little neurons pinwheeling in the breeze until they find consolation in the ravings of a Hovind or one of his ilk.

[jughead]

You don't need to make a case for Atheism. The case must be made by the god worshipers for their gods.

They just need to settle down on a god/s of their choice from the long list of figments of human imaginations that they have created over the millennia.

http://www.godfinder.org/

Humans created gods to make them feel better about lost loved ones and to keep people under control. It is all man-made gobbledygook.

[ShaMan]

[zolo]

Hello all,

About a month ago, I started a thread called The Case for Theism. In it I made a case based on 5 indisputable facts that I argued favor theism defined simply as the belief the Universe was intentionally caused by a Creator who intended for humans to exist as opposed to the atheist belief that there was no creator, the universe wasn't intentionally created or designed and subsequently human life wasn't intended to occur.

Since no atheists took it upon themselves to write this counter thread I've taken the liberty to start it. I'm throwing down the gauntlet are any atheists willing to make a case from indisputable facts (not speculative theories) that will convince me I am mistaken, that my belief in a Creator isn't reasonable and there are facts and data that provide a reasonable doubt to the existence of God? I'm giving atheists the benefit of the doubt that their disbelief in God is because of facts that call that hypothesis into question, not because they don't like the idea of God for personal reasons.

Thanks in advance.

if atheism is defined as not believing that God or Gods exist then everybody is/was atheist until persuaded otherwise, it is just brute fact that atheism is the default position.

[Chas]

I believe Tolkien claimed he translated The Lord of the Rings from an older manuscript. Would this mean the Nazgul were real? Or that there even was something for him to translate?

Um, no, he didn't. That is simply part of the tale itself.

[pocaracas]

I believe Tolkien claimed he translated The Lord of the Rings from an older manuscript. Would this mean the Nazgul were real? Or that there even was something for him to translate?

Um, no, he didn't. That is simply part of the tale itself.

The book claims it is a translation of the red book of Westmarch.
This red book has been lost to time... It told of how humans came to be the dominant sentient beings in Middle Earth.

[AceBoogie]

This is an interesting thread. However there is something inherently wrong with the original post.... Once there is an actually factual basis for an argument that SUPPORTS the existence of a god or gods, then and only then will there be a necessity for this forum to exist. However there's some really cool posts in here and I enjoy reading through it all.

As for the arguments regarding the view of naturalism... To me it makes complete sense in my mind that everything arises from natural causes or phenomena. However just because it makes sense to one person does not make it true. I think, however, that even though to some people things cannot be explained, that does not simply make those things supernatural. As of yet, there is no proof behind any claims of supernatural phenomena, as I know of (if someone would like to show me such proof I'd be happy to see it) so if one is too choose between a supernaturalist worldview and a naturalist worldview, assuming that these are the only two worldview choices, I think it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that the logical choice is to assume the position of the naturalist.

I simply see no necessity to explain things with 'god' or magical forces, I don't understand what this inherent need is for people to explain things by something OTHER THAN nature. I suppose it's possible that it's a need to make things exciting or more interesting, or maybe because the existence of supernatural phenomena can possibly support evidence for god or some sort of deity.... I'm not sure. But TO ME things just ARE... and attempting to provide some crazy explanation for things is just childish and possibly dangerous.

[Jenny A]

Atheist or religious persons would't know what scientific proof IS if it was thrown in their faces!! 75% of you all didn't even take Trig...let alone calculas...maybe got B+ in High School chemistry. Oh, yes I know there's smart people from Harvard that are atheist, but their also religious people too from Harvard. Most atheist replace biblical gods with scholastic ones. Atheist always argue for scientific proof, but most of them don't have the education or only have a psuedo knowledge from wikapedia to know what exactly is scientific proof. Just keeping attributing you reasoning to your scholastic gods because obviously the majority just don't have the brains to for reasoning or contemplation

Most people are uneducated or not able to think scientifically, therefore god. That's the most humorous proof yet.

---

No one should call anyone retarded. Atheist have emotional problems and serious mental problems and that's why the deny religion. Or, the practiced devil worshiping or maybe voodoo, and are doing perverted weird things in their cerimonies. As I always say...most atheist want attention..or feel powerless in their lifes

The devil would be a god honey. A nasty one but a god non-the-less. I lack a belief in gods, devil included. You have evidence for the existence of the devil?

---

Atheist don't want religion because they feel guilty. They don't want anything to interfer with all the bad stuff their doing in their life. I keep saying mostly its an attention getter. They feel insignificant in society so somehow going against the norm makes them feel important.

Uh huh? That's why so few atheist come out publicly, to seek attention. And we have lower crime rates because we want to do evil.

---

.

Only in the world of atheism does not believing a light is on does not mean they believe the light is off. <snip>

If I have no way of knowing whether the light is on or not, then the mere fact that I have no reason to believe the light is on gives me no reason to think it is off. I'm simply in no position to know.

In the case of gods, the situation is much worse. At least with a light, I understand what that is and what it means for it to be off or on. With gods I find very little agreement as to what counts as a god. I know how to tell if the light is on (if I have access to the space in question). I have no idea how to tell whether gods exist.

If the light is on, visibility will be much greater at night or when the ambient light is insufficient for creatures such as ourselves. If gods exist .. what? Damned if I know. And what ever you may say on the subject does not constrain the next theist joker from changing the definition.

The situation with gods is what the situation concerning whether the light is on would be like for someone blind from birth. Get it?

This ^

---

I think its a false analogy to compare evidence of gravity with evidence for the existence of God.

One of the key things you learn when doing empirical research is using the right method that fits the research question/hypothesis - rather than assuming there is one right method for testing all hypotheses.

And what method do you think is the right method to test the existence of god and why?

So it really depends on what you mean by evidence - all the counter arguments I've read on the thread really come down to a prior commitment not to interpret the universe, history or experience in theistic terms.

By evidence I mean any facts or logical arguments tending to make the existence of god more or less likely. I haven't seen any which make the god hypothesis more likely. You have any?

If you've presupposed that only naturalist explanations of the world are valid - of course you're going to conclude there is no evidence for the existence of God. But to show this assumption is valid you need to present evidence why naturalism is true - otherwise it doesn't prove anything its just begging the question.

Well yes, I find if I don't believe in the natural world, I tend to bump into things and hurt myself. I lack evidence in anything other than the natural world and that lack of belief appears to have no consequences, so I feel safe in dismissing it.

[Minimalist]

Reading through this thread again makes me really that the jesus freaks come and go and they all have essentially the same line of shit. None of which has any more substance than a fart in a hurricane.