Why are atheist...atheist?

[Alastor]

How do you go about defining the probability for the laws of physics? What are the chances the laws of physics could be different? You can't answer these but are not afraid to speculate on them.

That is what philosophy is all about. It is about making deductions or inductions from a basic premise, assumed to be true, that, themselves, are also necessarily true. Therefore I do not need to know the details of creation, only that out of nothingness came specificness, you cannot deny this truth. To ask "what are the chances the laws of physics could be different" is the same as asking if nothingness has a bias or tendency toward something and how much. This is illogical, since, otherwise, it couldn't be nothingness. Therefore, in order for a non-infinite probability to exist, there would have to have never been nothingness in the first place. Once again, I "choose" to believe the universe didn't just start with constraints and limits with amazing detail. This, to me, makes no sense. Its not just that the universe stumbled on upon a few rules but became something so complex, so specific and , coincidentally, stable that it is difficult for the human mind to even conceive creating something like it. In order for God, or an intelligent creator, not to exist, then you have to choose to believe that these laws just sort of happened from; either from complete nothingness or nothingness with an incredibly specific bias. It certainly is possible, but I don't think so.

No, you didn't choose, you reached a conclusion based on your view of the probability. For it to be a choice, you would have had to weigh no evidence at all.

I don't get this statement, a choice is always a choice evidence or no evidence. Only conclusion I came to is that the universe either started off with a bias toward something or it did not. I still had choose to believe in God or not based on that.

Again, beliefs based on observations of evidence are not choice but conclusions. Do you choose to believe the sky is blue?

To answer this question, yes, I still have to choose to believe the sky blue. The sight of blueness does not, in itself, force me believe the sky blue. I have to assume my vision is correct among many other things. Need I set up the premise that God or an evil deity may be deceiving my senses?

If I see no evidence for something it is rational for me to assert that I have no belief in something until I do see evidence. Atheism is not the assertion god does not exist, but merely the lack of a belief that a god does exist. Since you appear to not know whether god exists or not, you are actually an agnostic atheist.

If this is true, then this is fine except that it would be more politically correct to say "no beliefs about something" than "in something". To say about something, implies you will not make assumptions about something you do not understand. In something, implies, or at least has the connotation that you deny it.

Example:

" I have no beliefs about America"- implies I know nothing about America

" I don't believe in America"- implies I disagree with it's beliefs or I don't believe it exist. And to not believe it exist requires some assumptions about its nature.

The evidence against them is their contradictory characteristics.

That is not evidence at all. If we are talking about a God from the Big 3 monotheistic religions, then there could be many reasons for the appearance of what we might call contradictory. These religions are exactly based logic or philosophical deduction.

Your definition of atheist is really the definition of 'strong atheist.' An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god.

Again, this the definition I read.

It is human nature to be upset when someone refers to your beliefs as ignorant. It makes you sound arrogant and condescending, not inquisitive.

If my premise was not correct, then why get upset. Especially if you'd agree someones belief are ignorant when they are based on the premise I suggested.

Your explanation was anything but thorough and your premise was wrong. Hopefully I have enlightened you as to what a person means when they say they are an atheist.

Which part was not thorough because all of it was "right of the money", so to speak, after re-reading it multiple times. If the premise was wrong it was only because the dictionary I read was wrong about the definition of atheist.

---

@Al, re unlikely. If the entirety of your argument for the existence of god, however you define it, is the "unlikely" nature of our universe, this is an argument from ignorance/incredulity. That you cannot explain it, that you cannot believe it, has absolutely no effect on whether or not it happened. "I don't know ergo god" is a fairly weak position. I don't know how a telephone works, ergo telephone god.

This is completely misunderstanding what I've said and running away with the wind with it at that. First off I can explain it and have. There is not ignorance but, like I said, in response to "Faith no More", a logical conclusion which leaves with me with two choices. The belief in God is the more realistic choice to me and I explain why. Refer to my response to have better understanding of my position.

@Al, re unicorns. What exactly about god is not fully understood? In what way do myths about god differ from myths about unicorns?

Are you serious?

@Al, intelligent design. What is so intelligent about this design? The earth is a killing machine, even more so with regard to human beings, who occupy only a very small portion of the available area. The earth itself is surrounded by an area absolutely inhospitable to life..and this area stretches as far as we can observe. Everything that exists, is heading for non-existence in the short term (death) and annihilation in the long term (solar death, converging paths of solar systems/galaxies). I fail to see the intelligence in this design. Maybe you're arguing that the creator of the universe "did his best"?

Ignorance is assuming you have the full picture from a small facet of reality.

@Al, re no evidence. I don't even know where to begin. You assert that there is no evidence that gods do not exist. Which god, and I'll point you to the evidence. If by god, you mean a god with no descriptions, no attributes, you are claiming nothing. If you claim nothing, I need not point to any evidence.

I mean the God who created the universe need I quote my own self

For me God is any being or conscious that at least has the property that it created the universe

@Al re strong atheism is ignorant. Only if by "ignorant" you are describing a level of disagreement with your opinions.

No, I mean ignorance as in saying you know God doesn't exist when you know you don't know whether God exist or not.

@Al re my reference to gardens. I was merely illustrating to you that natural selection does indeed have an effect on one type of god, creator gods. That it doesn't have an effect on all gods is obvious. Not all gods are described as creator gods.

No it may have some negating effects some creator god's but not on the idea of a creator God itself. Not unless you make far reaching assumptions about the nature of God, which I did not make.

@Al re definitions of god. The definition of god is not vague. Your definition of god is vague. Others have very well defined gods, and these are the gods that we as atheists take issue with.

The definition of has many meanings of course. But it is general consensus in monotheistic beliefs that God created the universe. This is my belief, and I was simply saying, originally, that is makes no sense to say know that an intelligent Creator being never existed.

@Al re existence came from nothing, irregardless of god. No, existence does not have to come from nothing. It comes from "we don't know". The events of the "big bang" were so violent, so immense, that whatever may have existed before does not seem to have left any traces. Perhaps one day we may be able to peer beyond that veil, today is not that day. Nonetheless, existence does not have to come from "nothing", unless you subscribe to certain verses along the lines of "In the beginning, there was nothing".

Again refer to my response to "Faith no More" or explain why existence does not have to come from nothing. Anything before the big bang must have also came from something. Correct?

@Al re burden of proof. People absolutely do have the burden of proof when they make claims such as this or that exists. This burden becomes even more important when certain obligations and rules are attached to this things existence, especially when they also come with punishments bundled as a package deal.

No, because many monotheistic religions imply proof is not easily found. For example I have always heard Christians say "blessed are those who believe without seeing"

Therefore reason, is far more plausible.

@Al re atheist who would deny god's existence. Your entire argument is a god of the gaps, removing any objectionable description of god. What exactly is there to deny?

This is my point EXACTLY, your question implies it is ignorant to deny a Creator when you know nothing about him.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence."

I can just as easily flip that around and say

"That which can be suggested with reason, should be dismissed, from suggestion, with reason"

Furthermore my original premise, based on the dictionary definition of atheist, is exactly what dear epicuras is describing

To assert that God doesn't exist without evidence, can be dismissed without by evidence, yes, but I was more or less just pointing out that is was ignorant to have that belief without sufficient reason.