(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The argument doesn't state the universe need be jam packed with life. And it's not really an argument, it is a fact that certain conditions in characteristics of the universe must be true for life as we know it to exist. Secondly no one knows just how much other life there is. We do know there are other planets circling around stars.
Do you really not see the absurdity of your situation? You don't know how much of other life is out there. You don't know what other life is possible. And yet you insist that its occurrence on a tiny part of a miniscule portion of universe had to be intentional. Its like finding a speck of dust in the corner of your room and yelling "Who put it there?".
(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: If that were so, theism would be closer to the truth than atheism because we'd owe our existence to intelligent causes.
You better educate yourself on the distinction between theism and atheism. If a position posits existence of supernatural entities then it is theistic - otherwise atheistic. Believing advanced aliens are responsible for seeding life on earth or for building pyramids or for resurrecting a man called Jesus makes me an atheist. Believing god did it makes me a theist.
(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Mechanistic: Of or relating to theories that explain phenomena in purely physical or deterministic terms.
Determined by physical processes alone.
You may not use the word mindless forces without intent but that is what mechanistic means.
Except, since even the definition does not mention the word "mindless", it means that it is your assumption of mind and intent that is anomalous.
(February 17, 2013 at 4:04 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: There is a huge philosophical difference between believing the universe was created and designed for human inhabitance and believing that humans are the unintended consequences of mechanistic forces that didn't care whether we existed or not. In the former case humans are elevated to a special status, in the latter case humans are no more significant than anything else that was unintentionally created. We have seen this difference in the human rights of countries that hold to some form of theism and ones that don't.
Yes, indeed, we have. And not just in countries based on theism but on societies in general. If it stands to reason that humans have a special status because the world around them favors their existence, then it also stands to reason that some humans whose status in the society is more favorable are more special than others and therefore deserving of greater rights and privileges. This is seen in the special privileges afforded to emperors, kings, feudal lords, priests, brahmins etc. throughout the history. Theistic underpinnings to human rights lead to segregated class and status based societies.
On the other hand, the only thing that particular form of atheism tells you (you know, the one where we are not the product of intention or purpose - one that is held simply by some atheists and not all), is that you are not special because of what you were born into. This is of little philosophical significance - thus proving my point that atheism is not a worldview but merely an aspect of one.
Any conclusion regarding humans and their special status would come from the rest of the person's worldview, i.e. one held apart from his atheism. For example, I believe that the humans capacity to reason and to reflect and act upon their choices is what makes them unique and special and that server as the foundation for human rights.
