If I were an Atheist

[Esquilax]

Having said all this I'm just going to humor you and agree...you're right there's no evidence we are the result of a Creator its all just wishful thinking...pats you on the head and tucks you in to bed....night night.

Again Drew, the claim that predictable physical laws and patterns are impossible in, or inconsistent with, a universe that was not intelligently designed is a claim that you have to provide evidence for, instead of just assuming because of your intuition that it should be so. All you have done here is assume your conclusion and then smugly condescend to anyone who won't do the same, as though if you talk down to us you can fool everyone into thinking your unevidenced claim has validity.

I can't help but notice you're ignoring me on this point: no doubt your complete lack of an answer to it contributes to this substantially.

[Hatshepsut]

[1] I could point to the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by a personal agent as opposed to impersonal forces and [2] if no one knows how the universe came to be a Creator couldn't be ruled out.

Were Atheism so easily dismissed! As for [2], some people think they do have a general idea of how the universe came to be, although no one can rule out the possibility that a Creator caused the big bang and its sequelae to occur. As for [1], Richard Dawkin's blind watchmaker took up the issue of personal agency in a comparison of watches versus eyes. The pocket watch William Paley found on his lawn already had a plausible agent: the Swiss. Until fairly recently, the agent responsible for making the human camera eye was unknown and presumed to be God because of the eye's complexity and fine Swiss optics. Then a finch shat upon Charles Darwin on a tropical island and, like an apple falling on Newton's head, inspired a theory: Descent with modification followed by natural selection. That's a horrid way to make either watches or eyes, you have to build a whole bunch of models and throw most of them in the trash on your way to refinement. But it's plausible.

It's even happened in my lifetime. As a kid I got penicillin for infections. Then, quite suddenly, we had this MRSA stuff going around and they don't keep the now useless penicillin on shelves anymore.

As a theist I like to think sweet Jesus will await when I close my eyes for good. A better Holy Trinity than the spiteful caricature this trio has morphed into at the hands of priesthood. But I think the wrong questions are circulating in debate. Dawkins distinguished personal from impersonal agents by stating the latter do not have foresight; they can't predict or aim at a final result. But notice that when designing with AutoCAD you have a design environment, the CAD program, and then the  design itself on the screen, within this environment. Perhaps the Creator made a design environment rather than the thumbscrew itself. After all, you can draw up millions of screws and delete all but those best fitting the hole they will thread into.

Things like mathematics and the principles of evolution do seem lawful and eternal even though neither has "foresight." Evolution isn't random; it only works with what's available to a conservative son of a bitch. We're still carrying almost the same cytochromes that MRSA bugs have.

I doubt "existence of God" questions are answerable within a framework of empirical data collection plus logic. Reason to believe comes ultimately from the heart. I won't accuse atheists of being heartless: Their challenge has finally unshackled us from the shamans and church bureaucracies that controlled religious thought for so long. It's just that the Atheist Heart didn't settle on the gods. They lost a few old age comforts as a result, yet no decent cosmic creator is going to threaten punishment if they feel belief is against their best interest.

The only actual real thing religion has is a book.

Well, it had lots of books and votive figurines and mental disciplines. Then one day, that religious fella got rolled up inside a scroll and suffocated while he was trying to close the canons.

[Angrboda]

An argument from incredulity doesn't become evidence by repeating it. You've made this argument several times now and it suffers the same basic flaws. It's an intuition, nothing more. If you could make it a rigorous argument, you would have. That you haven't is more telling than anything else.

[Drew_2013]

Kitan,

But there is no evidence...Stop being so fucking retarded. 

That's right just close your eyes and like Dorthy just keep tapping your heels together and repeat mindlessly there's no evidence of theism...there's no evidence of theism

Whateverist

You got nothin.

I'm sure that will completely persuade totally committed born again atheists...

Robovalue

There is no evidence. There's not even a coherent definition of what it is there's supposed to be evidence for. If God turned up and tweaked your nipples, you wouldn't have any frame of reference to know him from a super powered alien.

Non-responsive.


[b]Esquilax[/b]

Again Drew, the claim that predictable physical laws and patterns are impossible in, or inconsistent with, a universe that was not intelligently designed is a claim that you have to provide evidence for, instead of just assuming because of your intuition that it should be so. All you have done here is assume your conclusion and then smugly condescend to anyone who won't do the same, as though if you talk down to us you can fool everyone into thinking your unevidenced claim has validity.

The argument is that we owe our existence to a Creator who intentionally and purposely created the universe to sustain life, the evidence is the fact we're alive and exist in a universe that has laws of physics that allowed the existence of stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. Fair and impartial folks who read our respective arguments can weigh the evidence for themselves.

Secondly, I didn't claim it was impossible for a universe such as we observe to have been caused by mechanistic forces. In the original post I cited facts (also known as evidence) that supports the claim we owe our existence to unguided unplanned coincidence...

-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.


-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

Unlike the atheists in here who repetitiously claim over and over there's no evidence in favor of theism, I admit there is evidence in favor of atheism.

When you cite the evidence above are you being smug and condescending?

[downbeatplumb]

Kitan,

But there is no evidence...Stop being so fucking retarded. 

That's right just close your eyes and like Dorthy just keep tapping your heels together and repeat mindlessly there's no evidence of theism...there's no evidence of theism

Whateverist

Theism exists.
By that I mean that people believe in gods, you are a theist therefore thesim is a thing.
What's missing is any evidence to support that belief.  

You got nothin.

I'm sure that will completely persuade totally committed born again atheists...

Is a born again atheist someone how has learnt to use reason?






[b]Esquilax[/b]

Again Drew, the claim that predictable physical laws and patterns are impossible in, or inconsistent with, a universe that was not intelligently designed is a claim that you have to provide evidence for, instead of just assuming because of your intuition that it should be so. All you have done here is assume your conclusion and then smugly condescend to anyone who won't do the same, as though if you talk down to us you can fool everyone into thinking your unevidenced claim has validity.

The argument is that we owe our existence to a Creator who intentionally and purposely created the universe to sustain life, the evidence is the fact we're alive and exist in a universe that has laws of physics that allowed the existence of stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. Fair and impartial folks who read our respective arguments can weigh the evidence for themselves.

But there is no evidence for this position. Nor is there any explanation as to how this "creator" could have done it. This as far away from being any sort of explanation as it is possible to get. 

Secondly, I didn't claim it was impossible for a universe such as we observe to have been caused by mechanistic forces. In the original post I cited facts (also known as evidence) that supports the claim we owe our existence to unguided unplanned coincidence...



-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.


-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

Unlike the atheists in here who repetitiously claim over and over there's no evidence in favor of theism, I admit there is evidence in favor of atheism.

When you cite the evidence above are you being smug and condescending?

So what I think you are saying here is that there is evidence for a godless universe, you can offer no evidence for a god and then proceed to have a go at us for being smug and condescending even as you admit we are right and while clinging to your bronze age mythology like a toddler with a blanky

[Iroscato]

I would consider 'evidence' for a creator as follows;
Something that could ONLY have been designed, and something that science has absolutely no explanation for. Now, the theist may at this point think "aha! Just like the universe, eh?!" To which I would reply -
"No. Don't be a backward cunt."

We have not yet discovered the cause for the existence of the universe. However, a creator should be the absolute last option that scientists go for. Every other possible avenue, every alternative, every opposing theory must be tried and tested to absolute failure first, before hands are thrown up in frustation and cries of 'godidit!' are heard in labs across the world. Science is a study of the natural law - therefore, why exactly shouldn't they try to find viable alternatives to the intellectually lazy explanations put forward by religion?

It seems to offend many theists that science has stripped away so much of their monopoly in the market. We have discovered geocentrism is bollocks, we've discovered that life on earth evolved and was not designed, but they still yammer and whine, clutching on to their ever-shrinking God of the gaps.

[Jericho]

After reading through multiple posts on this thread as well as others, it is amazing to me how misinformed people are about Atheism. At this point, I am curious as to what experiences people have had with Atheists that causes them to hate us so much. Not all of us are angry at theists. The majority of us don't hate God, mainly because we cannot hate a being who we deny to exist in the first place. So much hatred stems from the word "Atheist", and it sickens me. I only hope that by continuing to call myself an Atheist, that those who know me will understand that being an Atheist does not make me an evil person.

Trying to change the world's opinion sucks, no?

[robvalue]

Indeed, it is very sad. This is quite common. People seem to feel they have license to add whatever gibberish they want to the definition to help them feel superior.

It would be nice for people to just ask and try and learn something.

[Jericho]

Well I just had a pretty decent experience today with one of my coworkers. We were both posted together today and we literally had a 4-hour conversation about his beliefs as well as my lack of belief. Neither of our voices ever raised above normal levels and neither of us became heated towards the other for their views. He is Catholic and I am Atheist. Not only were we able to carry out a controversial conversation with no incident, but I know that I have found a friend with whom I can have an intellectual debate without worrying about being ridiculed.

Part of my faith in humanity was restored this day.

[Esquilax]

The argument is that we owe our existence to a Creator who intentionally and purposely created the universe to sustain life, the evidence is the fact we're alive and exist in a universe that has laws of physics that allowed the existence of stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. Fair and impartial folks who read our respective arguments can weigh the evidence for themselves.

Secondly, I didn't claim it was impossible for a universe such as we observe to have been caused by mechanistic forces. In the original post I cited facts (also known as evidence) that supports the claim we owe our existence to unguided unplanned coincidence...

I don't even need to get into the specifics of that evidence here, as the problem with what you're saying lies directly in your framing: you're doing one of two things wrong, here. The first is that you're using the same observations (the universe) as evidence of two mutually exclusive propositions simultaneously, which is just bad logic. The second is that you're saying "the claim is that there's a creator, and the evidence is the universe," on one hand, while saying "the claim is that there need not be a creator, and the evidence is x, y, and z," on the other; put simply, you cannot use the laws of physics as evidence for a creator if you are not making the claim that those laws of physics are impossible without a creator, as in that case they do not imply a creator at all. You were able to point to specific observations for the other claim, which is what you should be doing, but you didn't do that for the first claim, because you've just acknowledged that the evidence for a creator may not require a creator. That evidence could equally be possible under the reverse claim, and you're offering no justification for using it in support of the one and not the other.

"The evidence is the laws of physics!"

"But haven't you just said that those same laws could be possible without that claim being true?"

"Indeed!"

"Then it seems like the laws of physics would be possible with or without your creator. It's not necessary for them, so how are they evidence for it?"