(February 7, 2013 at 2:05 pm)Zone Wrote: I'm rejecting the atheists total rejection of theism to the extent that the universe becomes a random coincidence of some kind which result in various natural processes taking place with us as an unintentional byproduct. I can see what theists are trying to argue against, they do have a point I see what they mean. Though I would still back slowly away from them should they say anything about the second coming or the anti-Christ, bit weird.
This is all one big argument from ignorance. Just because you can't explain how the universe came about, does not mean that other people can't. You also seem to be equating the lack of belief in the existence of gods with science.
You are letting your personal incredulity and lack of scientific knowledge shape your beliefs.
Quote:It isn't necessarily quite that black and white, both sides make good arguments and both sides believe something that seems slightly off the wall to me as well.
Which arguments do you think theist make that are good? Post the best one. They are all fallacious.
There are no arguments necessary for atheism. Atheism does not make any claims that require supporting arguments.
Quote:The existence of the universe, life, the development of conscious intelligent civilisations living on planets orbiting stars (there's at least one). Rather than be a coincidence I think there will be a damn good reason which explains it all. I don't think the reason is the Bible but at least the people writing it had some imagination, they could have done better had they know what we know now perhaps but was a decent stab.
You are misidentifying that as 'coincidence'. There are strict laws of physics that only allow atoms and molecules to interact in certain, limited ways. It is not a random process.
Quote:What matters to me is what is actually true and I think atheism is wrong based on what I know of the universe as it is. A complex process with a complex end result will have a complex explanation rather no explanation at all as atheists seem to assume.
What do you know of the universe? What university did you study cosmology and physics at?
All I can see is that you look at the vastness and complexity of the universe and say, "Well...I can't see how this could have happened by natural processes, so it couldn't have". Argument from ignorance.
Quote:Evidence and reasoned argument is what I'm using. It may not be convincing for you but you're not particularly convincing me either. I do agree with you on the supernatural issue and religions being man made.
No you are not. You have been guilty of argument from ignorance. That is the opposite of reasoned argument. There is no evidence or valid logic to support anything other than natural processes for the existence of the universe or life.
Quote:I have an opinion that is slightly different to your not personal incredulty. I think you're mistaken about something that's all. We're technically still in the same camp however. If you don't believe in a religion you don't believe in a religion.
You claim your position is valid because you can't imagine that it could be different. That is pretty much the definition of argument from personal incredulity.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
