Why are atheist...atheist?

[Faith No More]

---

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.

---

How about the idea that the physical laws were always in place, and the universe evolved to structure itself within these laws giving the illusion that this specificness you refer to is necessary for its existence? Who's to say the universe couldn't have evolved to fit itself within any set of physical laws?

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.

Well then, did you choose to believe in gravity? Based on the evidence presented I see only one logical conclusion leaving my beliefs to be anything but choice.

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?

The way you interpret the evidence is the choice. In other words, you choose to believe or not that your senses are working correctly. The result of that, the belief the sky is blue, is not the choice.

---

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.

---

This is redundant because if I have no belief about something then I do not believe in it either.

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.

God's contradictory nature is evidence that he is man made. Regardless of that, please give me some examples of why you think a god might appear contradictory.

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.

I never got upset personally, but being incorrect in your premise does not excuse your conclusions. If you had said all black people are lazy therefore you hate them, I would not give you a pass on your hate because your assertion that all blacks are lazy is incorrect.

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.

You merely 'glossed over' all of your assertions making it far from thorough.