The Case for Atheism

[Dragonetti]

I am trying understand why atheist have to bring the burden of proof? Atheism is the concept there is not physical evidence for the existence of any god. The burden of proof is the person making the claim. Physical Evidence!

[FallentoReason]

Am I wrong in thinking that assuming there is such a thing as "physical evidence for God", and that the theist needs to provide it, is downright wrong? Conversely, am I wrong in thinking that the natural world could ever disprove the concept?

What would evidence for the supernatural look like? Well, it would undeniably be made up of *natural* evidence, as that's all we have around us. But, when/how does "natural evidence" stop being "natural evidence" and start being "supernatural evidence"? It sounds like an impossible task.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Maybe that's next on my to do list...

Please do. It's worthy of much discussion.

I have to say I'm stumped on your thread about "time blocks". I've thought about it, but I don't have anything of substance to actually post. It's a pretty good puzzle.

I'm working on my own refutation of it too. Mostly because I hate making references to anything having to do with quantum mechanics. On the theistic side its too easy to fall into new age mysticism. On the atheist side, it starts to take on god-like powers that seem atheistic in name only.

[Drew_2013]

The difference between you and me is that, while I would like to know, I am comfortable with NOT knowing. I don't need to believe in a sky daddy to make me feel like my life has some divine purpose and that the universe was created just for me. I prefer to watch science do its thing and then marvel at the wonderful discoveries we make.

You're making all kinds of assumptions. I could suggest you might be alarmed at the notion we are the result of a Creator. I don't need to believe there is a God who caused and created the universe and humans and if it turns out otherwise my life would be just as full. I enjoy scientific inquiry and love to hear whats new.

Let me ask you a question. Doesn't it seem odd to you that, of all the things god has been credited with over the past xx thousand years, not one of those things has been confirmed by science?

I guess you'd be surprised to know it was theists who rejected the notion of small gods who control rain and earthquakes and proposed the God who designed and caused the universe. There have been many scientific discoveries that have been favorable to theism as well.

I mean, the saying goes that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Where is gods acorn?

Or a broke clock is correct twice a day.

All you've done is offer fallacious arguments.

According to you guys...is that a surprise?

By claiming that these are evidence for a creator, you are guilty of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

And this is the kind of rhetoric you think makes for a fallacious argument.

Why replace a mystery (the origin of the universe) with a bigger mystery (god)? How could a god exist without any cause, but unstructured atoms can't? Is it because "god always existed"? Is it because the Flying Spaghetti Monster always existed? (You see, saying that he always existed is not only special pleading but a presupposition required for him to exist in the first place, rather than an observation.)

This isn't about the case for theism, been there done that. This is about the case for atheism. Whats your best take on what caused the universe, life and sentient life to exist? If your skeptical that God caused it what makes you believe that mindless forces 'poofed' into existence and then with out plan or intent caused life and sentience something totally unlike itself?

It is very unlikely that you will ever convince a firm atheist that God exists, especially by using the communication medium of rational textual language in a forum full of atheistic rationalists. Inductive argument, deductive argument, subjective argument, teleological argument, transcendental argument, argument from reason, argument from love among others; none of these methods of argument will work. The approach that I find the most helpful is to discuss epistemology and highlight the fact that the scientific method (predominantly empiricism) and rationalism (pure reason = a priori knowledge) have limits in a variety of areas. For example, I know that a transcendent panentheistic entity (let's call it God for convenience) exists, but I am aware that it is impossible to communicate this knowledge by using rational language.

I'm well aware of that. I'm trying to goad them into making a case for what they claim to believe.

Every case for theism has failed, mostly due to their reliance on logical fallacies and anthropocentric delusions.

I suppose its pure coincidence that they failed by people who were atheists prior to the argument. You do realize there have been lots of people who became theists (Antony Flew for example) because of the arguments and in which case they succeeded.

But look guys I didn't start this thread to hear of failed theist arguments. I don't care why you think arguments for God fail on what basis do you believe that mindless forces caused life and sentience to exist?

---

That you make basic errors like this with respect to philosophy and science makes your claims that you base your conclusions on a possession of advanced knowledge of philosophy and epistemology seem like the evident boasting of a crank who doesn't know shit.

A finer case of the pot calling the kettle black I have never seen.

---

I am trying understand why atheist have to bring the burden of proof? Atheism is the concept there is not physical evidence for the existence of any god. The burden of proof is the person making the claim. Physical Evidence!

You've taken extreme liberty with the definition of atheism. Atheism means not or without God. It means whatever theists attribute to God (the universe, life so forth) was caused somehow apart from God. Its the belief that God doesn't exiist and therefore couldn't have caused the universe or life to exist. I'm asking what evidence facts data support the conclusion (if atheism is true) that something other than God caused the universe and life to exist.

Atheists promote the thought in the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist. It only stands to reason if you don't believe God caused our existence that you believe natural forces without plan or intent did. I mean be honest...that is what you think. Why? On what basis? Make your case! This is the atheist forum is it not?

[Esquilax]

Atheists promote the thought in the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist. It only stands to reason if you don't believe God caused our existence that you believe natural forces without plan or intent did. I mean be honest...that is what you think.

Mmm, no. Not entirely. It's A-theism, not a-deism. I've never pointed this out to you before, maybe I should have in your case for theism thread, but, as is my new favorite way of explaining this, atheism isn't a position of disbelief about creators. It's a position of disbelief regarding gods.

The atheist position, such as it is, is one of disbelief regarding religious claims, and an acceptance that, as of this time, we do not know how the universe began. The sole reason for this is that theists haven't properly shouldered their burden of proof; there is no implicit denial of a conscious creator in that. Only a lack of acceptance.

So, yes, we believe that it's possible that the universe came into being via mindless forces, but that's not the same thing as believing that it did so. We don't have a belief regarding how the universe existed, because we don't know. To an atheist (well, to me, I can't speak for the group) all propositions, whether mindless or conscious or what have you, carry the same weight; they are not to be accepted completely without their burden of proof being met. Since none of them have, none of them are "true," to an atheist.

Now, that's not to say all propositions are equally possible, or as good as any other, but there's no implicit belief in any of them.

[Love]

No, the argument from ignorance fallacy is encapsulated within the framework of classical logic. That you make basic errors like this with respect to philosophy and science makes your claims that you base your conclusions on a possession of advanced knowledge of philosophy and epistemology seem like the evident boasting of a crank who doesn't know shit.

Apophenia, do you have a compulsion to belittle other people in order to come across as an intellectual authority? Also, do you have an intellectual inferiority complex? In your response, you have proved that there are major gaps in your philosophical knowledge.

Firstly, at which point did I say that "arguments from ignorance" are not logical fallacies? Secondly, do you care to provide a link to confirm the thrust of your rant (that "arguments from ignorance" are limited to classical logic)? There are different schools of thought in terms of the classification of "arguments from ignorance". For example, Douglas Walton has classified "arguments from ignorance" into three separate categories: epistemic, inductive and dialectic. Furthermore, I am sure that there are other philosophers who have different interpretations in terms of the abstract classification of such.

Also, you completely missed the point I was making; you twisted my words to make it seem as though I made an error. My point is as follows: in the mind of a scientific realist, emprical evidence is required in order to fill the knowledge "gap", hence my statement that the "argument from ignorance" is encapsulated within the philosophical framework of empiricism.

---

That came off a little snobbish, don't you think? You could have just pointed out the error and let it go at that. He never claimed to have an "advanced knowledge"? You're putting words in his mouth in order to insult him, which isn't very classy.

Indeed, apophenia is not interested in discussing anything; I very much doubt that I will receive a response. I suspect that her main objective here was to belittle, insult and to come across as intellectually authoritative to other members.

Apophenia, I demand a response from you because every single time that I dispute your unfounded assertions, and ask for clarification, you fail to respond with a counter argument that substantiates your position. Furthermore, I have followed a lot of your postings, and it appears as though you lack the capacity to engage in a coherent, consistent debate/exchange of ideas. The following seems to be the case with you: once you have expressed your opinion on a topic, you believe the case is closed and that the discussion should be abandoned. To me, this just comes across as somebody who lacks the aptitude to respond to objections.

[Faith No More]

I suppose its pure coincidence that they failed by people who were atheists prior to the argument. You do realize there have been lots of people who became theists (Antony Flew for example) because of the arguments and in which case they succeeded.

You do realize that there have been countless numbers of theists that became atheists based on the lack of convincing arguments, don't you? Not that any of that matters, however, because none of that has any bearing on the truth.

But look guys I didn't start this thread to hear of failed theist arguments. I don't care why you think arguments for God fail on what basis do you believe that mindless forces caused life and sentience to exist?

And what we're trying to explain to you is that your question demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what exactly atheism entails. You seem to think that it is some sort of counter-proposal to the god hypothesis, which it is not. So, I don't know how mindless forces would bring about life. What I do know, however, is that these mindless forces do exist, and when you combine that with the lack of convincing arguments for god, it seems much more probable that these mindless forces are responsible for life.

[Tonus]

This isn't about the case for theism, been there done that. This is about the case for atheism. Whats your best take on what caused the universe, life and sentient life to exist? If your skeptical that God caused it what makes you believe that mindless forces 'poofed' into existence and then with out plan or intent caused life and sentience something totally unlike itself?

I became an atheist because I realized that my belief in god lacked a foundation, and speaking with other believers only made that lack more and more plain. I was, for many years, firm in my belief that god made it all and that it was absurd to think that the universe would exist without cause.

I didn't become an atheist because I learned anything about how the universe came about. I understand that there are gaps; I simply am unable to rationally fill them with a concept (god) that I ultimately found unconvincing. The more I learn, the less and less likely god becomes an explanation for anything.

[Drew_2013]

I wrote..

but we infer a cause because the overwhelming majority of things (if indeed not all things) that begin to exist can be traced back to a cause. Even though there is no direct evidence of blackholes (they can't be directly observed or tested) the indirect evidence of their existence is strong enough that the existence of black holes has been established as fact. I don't want to turn this into the case for theism argument...I've already done that. There are facts and evidence (the existence of the universe, the existence of life, the existence of sentient life, the fact that conditions that allowed our existence obtained) that provide a basis for hypothesizing the existence of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe for the purpose of sentient life.

Huge leap of faith there at the end, why go the magic route it isn't needed?

This is an interesting point. Many atheists seem to think that by eliminating the existence of God they have eliminated a magical or miraculous cause to the existence of the universe and sentient life. But have they? Is the fact of our existence made any less miraculous if we owe our existence to mindless forces that for some reason burped into existence and then without plan or intent or design caused something totally unlike itself to exist, life and sentience. If God doesn't exist humans are in fact gods in that we (unlike everything else) can act volitionally. Where as all other events occur in reaction to some other event, we alone can cause an event to occur. This is ironic because atheism is the disbelief in God and gods yet according to atheism mindless forces without plan or intent created gods.

Lets look at it another way. Suppose we had never seen a computer before and we came stumbled across one. Which explanation for its existence would be more or less miraculous (or magical); that it was creating intentionally by a more complex and intelligent designer or that mindless forces without plan or intent to create such a device stumbled into making one by some process of time and chance? Bottom line is the sentiment I often here from atheists is that by eliminating God we reduce the explanation of our existence to some natural (but unknown cause) and somehow that removes the magical or miraculous out of the equation. If atheists really dared to free think about it...they'd realize their counter explantion is no less magical.

Oh almost forgot to mention.

why go the magic route it isn't needed?

Well first off I don't know that a Creator creating and desiging the universe intentionally is a case of what we call magic...but how do you know some miraculous explanation isn't needed?

[Baalzebutt]

Well first off I don't know that a Creator creating and desiging the universe intentionally is a case of what we call magic...but how do you know some miraculous explanation isn't needed?

Primarily because no miraculous explanation is needed for anything else. Why should the entire universe be any different?