The Case for Atheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

Any hypothesis must be equally vulnerable to being shown false as it is for being confirmed.

Inductive reasoning works. Is that a falsifiable statement?

[Anomalocaris]

Any hypothesis must be equally vulnerable to being shown false as it is for being confirmed.

Inductive reasoning works. Is that a falsifiable statement?

Yes.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax

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.

Somehow, I don't think you speak for all atheists.

That's true, and if you look, I even mentioned that in my initial post.

Theism is a belief, an opinion to the questions Why are we here? How did the universe come into existence? Why is there something rather than nothing? Whether the case I made for theism persuades atheists or not, I have shouldered the burden of evidence by providing 5 lines of facts (evidence) that support theism. My case and reasonings don't have to persuade atheists in order to be valid.

Such a pity that you pay no attention to the thorough debunking we gave all of your evidence. But then, ignoring what's happening doesn't make your evidence true. It just makes you ignorant.

The majority of lets say vocal atheists don't share your tepid and vacuous definition of atheism. They do in fact deny the existence of a Creator and are confident that our existence and that of the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't intend our existence.

Somehow, I don't think you speak for all atheists.

They promote that thinking in the market place of ideas and many atheists openly mock and ridcule belief in God as being on par with belief in Fairies and Santa Clause and invisible pink elephants. Do you merely lack acceptance of belief in the aforementioned?

Yes. Why would I need to actively disbelieve concepts that have no evidence to justify belief? Why take a position on a proposition that has no weight?

You know, it's funny; do you know what you'd call my position in any other situation? Keeping an open mind. But because this is a question of your pet god, you just can't take it; everyone just has to have a position because it's important to you, and if we don't agree with you, then we must disagree. It's this same "us and them," mentality that all religions cultivate.

If in fact what atheists believe is true is true, then some other non-God explanation for our existence and that of the universe would have to be true. You reject the explanation an intelligent creator caused and designed the universe for the purpose of human life. Do you equally reject the explanation that mindless forces without plan or intent caused the universe to exist and that human life is the accidental by product of the laws of physics? In short...are you an A-naturalist? That would mean you lack belief that our existence is the result of mindless forces as well as the result of a Creator.

Are you seriously that dense that you don't understand that "I don't know," is not any position on a proposition?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Any hypothesis must be equally vulnerable to being shown false as it is for being confirmed.

Inductive reasoning works. Is that a falsifiable statement?

Not in the context you used it in. "works" for what? To point one to a conclusion one WANTS to be true? Sure, it works. If we were to determine if one's reason indeed points to truth, the subjects of their analyzation should be grounded in truth and correlate with reality, there has been nothing to show that inductive reasoning is useful when applied to anything beyond that or that anything beyond is a justified assumption at all. I agree that inductive reasoning works, but at what point does this point you to a conclusion that doesn't correlate with truth or verifiable experience? A conclusion to invoke a being? Everything that can be understood rationally is subject to either all logical contingencies, or none of them. You cannot justify using logic to get to a conclusioin and then abandonning it once logic fails to ground it as truth.

---

Are you seriously that dense that you don't understand that "I don't know," is not any position on a proposition?

He he he...

[Drew_2013]

Mister Agenda,

Um, it was theists who believed in the 'small gods' too. Theism isn't just your version of things, it's merely the belief that some sort of God or gods exist. All their theisms are belong to you if you're not going to be more specific. Disproving other people's theism isn't favorable to theism.

My response was to the claim that scientists debunked the notion of gods such as the god of rain or earthquakes and such. In reality theists did long before scientists got around to it.

Ad hom fallacy.

Argumentus Classificatious. In case you don't know that means its the fallacy that merely classifying an argument nullifies it or debunks it.

What makes an argument fallacious is it containing or being based on a fallacy.

If in fact an argument is fallacious. Many atheists seem to think the fact it merely falls into a category qualifies it.

Fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

Argumentus Classificatious.

Our claim is that we don't believe in God. We actually don't believe in God. Q.E.D.

Presumably not because you're ticked off at God but because you don't think God exists. I'll speak for myself, to be intellectually satisfied that we are not the result of a personal agent who caused and designed the universe and our existence I would want to have reason to believe some other non-God cause is as feasible and as likely to account for our existence. Therein lies the problem, neither you or other atheists will cough up some more likely or probable cause or explanation for our existence. Tell me, are you as skeptical of naturalistic in the gaps explanations as you are of the God explanation? If not then make your case for why those alternate explanations are better.

Mindless forces do all kinds of things. All you've got for thinking they can't is the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

They do all kinds of things in the universe we live in when confined by very specific laws of nature. As for incredulity it's laughable that word is even in the bag of atheist arguments. It can be said of any argument atheists make against the existence of God is an argument from personal incredulity. There have been several atheists on this very board that have said they don't categorically deny Gods existence, they simply lack that belief. If atheists themselves claim God may exist what's their beef with theists who do think God exists?


in·cre·du·li·ty
[in-kri-doo-li-tee, -dyoo-] Show IPA
noun
the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.
Origin:
1400–50; late Middle English incredulite < Latin incrēdulitās. See incredulous, -ity

Synonyms
disbelief, skepticism, doubt.

Antonyms
faith.

Notice the antonym for incredulity is faith. So when you say I am incredulous of the claims that mindess forces can bootstrap themselves into existence, create a universe with specific laws of nature that create life and mind from non-life and non mind why shouldn't I lack faith barring evidence such could and did happen? Its not as if any atheists I know of are making a case from facts. None in here are.

It's not the belief God doesn't exist. It's the lack of the belief that God does exist. It's the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis holds until it is disproved, else, to be consistent, one would have to believe every proposal heard.

If atheists only lack belief God exists then as far as they are concerned God may well exist and be a viable explanation that accounts for the existence of the universe and humans, it's just not one they share. So if atheists themselves concede God may exist what gripe can they have with theists who do believe God exists? Considering you as an atheist don't deny God exists you should say to the theist its very reasonable that you believe in God I just don't share your belief. However if what you really think is that its unreasonable to believe in the existence of God then you should have at least as good or better alternative explanation that I don't need to accept on faith.

Atheists promote the thought in the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist.

Only if you're really determined not to hear what we're actually saying.

You're living in a dream world if you think the majority of atheists sites, leaflets and promotions don't depict belief in God as absurd bizarre, crazy, fanciful, foolish, insane, nonsensical, preposterous and unreal. Many atheists have an agenda to remove the notion of God from society. Sure in a debate most atheists go to the failsafe mode of claiming its just a lack of belief but not elsewhere.

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?

That's what I personally think, but not because I'm an atheist, because I'm a rationalist.

ra·tion·al·ism
[rash-uh-nl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

Fine then provide me with the rationalist basis for believing that mindless forces somehow came into existence with the right characteristics and laws of nature to produce intelligent human beings rather than telling me I'm incredulous if I don't agree.

[Bad Wolf]

The burden of proof is on the religious person who is making claims. Atheists are atheists because we have not been shown any real scientific, logical evidence. Remember atheism is not a belief or a faith. It is a disbelief, it is a rejection of the claim that there is a god. The case for atheism is simply: you can't prove your claims

[Drew_2013]

Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you give an example of something beginning to exist that can be traced back to its cause?

Sure, black holes begin to exist. There cause is when a super nova explodes and the remaining material contracts into a black hole. I suspect your leading up to something else but I'll wait for your response.

Most of us on this forum don't think we've eliminated the existence of God, just found it doubtful enough not to think believing in it is justified.

Then what non-god cause is more justified and what is your justification? Otherwise I'm liable to think you're just biased.

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.

Yes, because mindless forces are known to exist. Postulating known forces is less miraculous than postulating unknown ones.

You know Mister Agenda, I think if I made this same argument to you in some other context you'd bang me over the head with it. This would be like saying if we didn't know how base balls came into existence it would be less miraculous to propose that base balls somehow created themselves because we know they exist. No one disagree's that mindless forces exist. It's how they came into existence, why they turned into a universe with the right characteristics to allow sentient life that is in question. The fact of their existence doesn't lead to any explantion for thier existence or for the laws of nature.

I could apply that same logic to life and intelligence, since life and intelligence is known to exist it is less miraculous to propose a known cause to an unknown one and we have observable, repeatable proof that life can cause life and intelligence can cause intelligence.

This is ironic because atheism is the disbelief in God and gods yet according to atheism mindless forces without plan or intent created gods.

If you redefine 'god' enough to make it mean 'people'.

Compared to mindless forces we are 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?

We would quickly identify a computer as being the obvious handiwork of human beings or something much like them, because it is so clearly artificial; that is, we'd know it was designed by the characteristics that distinguish it from its natural surroundings.

You're avoiding the point that a computer coming into existence at the hands of designers and engineers is far less miraculous than if mindless forces through time and chance untentionally caused one to exist. Another clue that would inform us its designed its the extremely close tolerance in which the constituient parts operate also known as fine-tuning.

A miraculous explanation isn't actually an explanation at all.
'How did this happen?'
'It was a miracle!'

And if mindless forces without plan or intent, design or engineering caused a universe to exist with the correct characteristics to create life and sentience we'd have to chalk it up to the most fantastic and fortuitious stroke of luck imagininable. On the other hand if the universe was the product if design, engineering and planning no luck or miracle needed.

[pocaracas]

Ah yes... The deist hypothesis.
It's a valid hypothesis... But, considering the track record of God-based hypothesis at explaining the world around us, I don't attribute that hypothesis a decent likelihood at being correct.

[Drew_2013]

Esquilax

That's true, and if you look, I even mentioned that in my initial post.

True but by then I had already wrote what I wrote and I was too lazy to take it out.

Such a pity that you pay no attention to the thorough debunking we gave all of your evidence. But then, ignoring what's happening doesn't make your evidence true. It just makes you ignorant.

And just because an atheist claims to have debunked my arguments doesn't make them false.

Are you seriously that dense that you don't understand that "I don't know," is not any position on a proposition?

So to you atheism means I don't know?

So if I ask:

Do you think God created the universe? Your answer is I don't know.

Do you think God created life? Your answer is I don't know.

Do you think natural forces without plan or intent caused life to exist? Your answer is I don't know.

Do you have any opinion about whether God exists or not? Your answer is I don't know.

On what grounds do you call yourself an atheist if all it means is I don't know? Why not just call yourself undecided or unsure?

[Esquilax]

And just because an atheist claims to have debunked my arguments doesn't make them false.

No, but the information in those debunkings proves your arguments flawed. The same debunkings that you've ignored. And just continued asserting that what you're saying is true. Which has an interesting subtext.

So to you atheism means I don't know?

It means I don't believe current god claims until they're properly shouldered their burden of proof. So, in a way, yes; it means I'm intellectually honest enough to accept that I don't have the answers to every question, and that doesn't give me the right to just make up something that seems comfortable.

So if I ask:

Do you think God created the universe? Your answer is I don't know.

Generally speaking, yes.

Do you think God created life? Your answer is I don't know.

Also yes. Nobody has the answer to the question of abiogenesis, so why would I be justified in assuming a god did it?

Do you think natural forces without plan or intent caused life to exist? Your answer is I don't know.

Now you're getting it. I will say, though, that so far those natural explanations have the edge of at least being immediately demonstrable.

Do you have any opinion about whether God exists or not? Your answer is I don't know.

Yes! Of course I don't know! And as much as you claim to, you don't either! None of us do, because if you can't show it, you don't know it! You believe that a god exists, you have formulated sufficient evidence for you to justify your own beliefs. That's not the same as knowledge, because knowledge is by definition something that can be demonstrated to be true. All I'm doing, is I'm not pretending that I know the answer to questions that we can't possibly come close to answering yet!

Does that mean all claims are created equal? No, because there is certainly evidence that points one way or the other; frankly, I tend to follow the scientific consensus because those fuckers are smart and have dedicated their lives to erecting a self correcting, honest, and always improving system. But science makes no claims regarding a god as of yet; why should I?

On what grounds do you call yourself an atheist if all it means is I don't know? Why not just call yourself undecided or unsure?

Because at the same time as I don't know, I also don't think that religious claims have made any strides toward fulfilling their burden of proof. Like I said, atheism is a position on gods and not creators; there could very well be a creative being that made the universe, but if you want to do what religious people do, and assign that being a shape and a voice and a rulebook of what and what not to do, then you've made a claim and I'll expect you to back it up, and if I don't find the evidence compelling, then I will not believe. I'm open to the prospect of a creator, but I do not believe in any religion's claims to knowledge about who that being might be, and am thus an atheist.

Atheism not adeism.