Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

Ohhh, so if God is taken out of the equation, life didn't come from nonlife??

Did I say anything approaching that, you braying ninny?

I do have evidence, actually. So I guess I'm not the only one that is "dictating" other people's positions on here.

If you have evidence, you've yet to present it. In the silence you've given us thus far, why am I to assume that you, of all people, have the evidence that thousands of years of christian scholars have failed to produce?

There is this thing called "Historical evidence", kind of like how historians draw the conclusion that Patrick Henry uttered the famous "Give me liberty, or give me death" thing.

Kinda the same stuff.

Yes, and the historical evidence hasn't dredged up even a single contemporary reference to Jesus' existence, so there's that. You also quoted the book of Matthew, and the historical evidence can't even tell you who wrote that book, so you have literally no basis for assuming Jesus said that, using your "Historical evidence."

Not to mention, you were asked to present evidence here and your answer was essentially "the evidence is the evidence!" Why are you so evasive when it comes to your own beliefs, while demanding such high levels of proof from everyone else?

Its funny, thinking back to almost 15 years of intellectual wars with unbelievers, there is one common denominator that they all share...they all are science advocates (Some more than others)...this is because once you take away the God Hypothesis, science is the only game left in town. Science has to explain EVERYTHING...and if it doesn't explain it now, it will explain it at some point in the future. That is the notion.

Science has a wonderful track record of doing just that. Meanwhile, religion has failed to explain even a single thing accurately that wasn't already known. Gee, I wonder which I should follow?

But to your point, oh, it isn't rude or aggressive. It is the truth. Either God did it, or nature did it, and contrary to what you people think, there are no in-betweens. If you don't believe God did it, then you believe that nature did it. Plain and simple.

Even taking this point as correct, you still misrepresent the naturalistic hypotheses for things by attempting to characterize it as a sudden, instantaneous occurrence. Once again; you do not get to dictate other people's beliefs to them any more than I get to dictate yours, and I could easily turn your false dichotomy around and baselessly assert, as you do, that my comments about your beliefs are the truth; either the cosmic armadillo did it, or nature did. And if you don't believe it's nature, you believe it's the armadillo.

As it is, I don't need to do that. All I need to do to point out how flawed your idea of what we believe is, is tell you that "supernature" is a larger category that just "divine." Gods are not the only things that can create universes if we're just going to start accepting undemonstrated claims, and atheism is not a position on universe creators. It's a position on currently claimed religious gods.

In short, just because I think you and your religion have failed to adequately demonstrate the existence of your god, doesn't mean I don't believe the universe was created somehow. I'm an atheist because your religion, and all the others, are huge fuckups. Not because I automatically believe nature created everything. Atheism does not entail the beliefs you keep stamping your feet and insisting, like a child, that it does.

As it is, I do believe natural causes are more likely than supernatural ones, but I'm happy admitting that we don't yet know how the universe came to be. I'm wondering why you feel the need to pretend like you have an answer.

Now of course, there are those that hold the position "I don't know", but in that poll which asks the question "Do you believe in God", with 87% saying no...I wonder whether if a question was asked "Do you believe that nature best explains the origins of life/consciousness", I wonder whether 87% would say no. Probably not.

Do you realize that there are more positions than just absolute certainty either way? Most of us would probably recognize that natural causes are more probable, because nature is at least immediately demonstrable, whereas god is not.

If they don't believe what I said, then they would be theists...deists at best.

Not all potential causes for the universe are gods. That's a false dichotomy that you need to let go of.

You are erraneously assuming that every Christian is a young earth creationists, which is false.

You don't believe god created the universe?

You call it "not perfectly comprehensive"...I call it "not even close to life", a player can almost hit a game winning shot, but when it comes to wins and losses, "almost" isn't good enough...and he wasn't even "almost" there.

It's still literally one hundred percent more evidence than there is for a god. Almost is better than nothing at all.

Either way you put it, it is life from nonlife, buddy.

Sure, but it's not this ridiculous "immediate complex life!" strawman that you used. What I say is at least supported by evidence.

I wasn't implying that atheism is naturalism, I was linking naturalism in there because naturalism is also the unbelief in a god, and from my experience, most atheists ARE naturalist.

I don't think you have much accurate experience of atheism, judging from your conduct here thus far.

I don't cut corners, I got straight to the point.

Or, as the common man knows it, you dishonestly oversimplify to score easy points against an inaccurate representation of your opponent's views.

When you take away all of the semantic BABBLE that you are spewing right now, it all boils down to atheists disbelief in intelligent design. They dont believe in God. Plain and simple, and not believing in God will put you in the portal of naturalism.

Are gods the only things that can create universes? Like, at all, even in ideas that you don't believe?

Btw, I've never met any atheist that believes in any supernatural reality. Never.

I don't give one solid fuck whether you've met any or not. Your experience is not the entirety of reality; I've met several atheists who believe in supernatural things. Some in my family are atheists who believe in ghosts, for example.

You have a chicken/egg problem here. When you speak of these cognitive faculties and sensories, you are already presupposing a brain, but this is exactly what needs to be explained.

Try again.

Maybe you should read a little closer, I'm not presupposing a brain at all. Many simple forms of life don't have brains, or even nervous systems, but they are alive. Their ability to react to their environment accurately is a survival enhancer, and more sophisticated consciousness is orders of magnitude more accurate than that. Mutations over successive generations are random, and those that represent a step forward in consciousness- without necessarily having a brain- are selected for. Rudimentary brains develop as an organ for which to store the hardware required for that consciousness as it develops, and there you have the next big step.

It's pretty simple really; maybe you should try educating yourself on evolutionary biology rather than just blabbering about your own ignorance on topics to the world at large?

Or I could of graduated high school.

Obviously without a comprehensive education in English: it's "could have."

I would rather be stupid in heaven, than smart in hell.

Too bad for you that you're just going to be stupid on earth, and then die stupid too.