If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Hello all,

Just to summarize this discussion.

The two best theories that attempt to account for the existence of the universe and the existence of humans is the following.

1. We are the result of plan, intention engineering and design by a Creator who intentionally caused the universe and life to exist.
2. We are the result of mechanistic forces that somehow came into existence and arbitrarily caused the universe and subsequently life to exist minus plan or intent to do so.

This needs a little adjustment to make both hypotheses equally rife with appeal to personal incredulity and ridicule:

1. We are the result of plan, intention, engineering, and design by a Creator who happens to exist and happens to be able to create universes and happens to be able to act in the universe to design life which it happens to want to do and happens to want exactly the universe in which we find ourselves with exactly the forms of life by which we find ourselves surrounded, and we ourselves happen to be exactly what this Creator wanted.

---

Most atheists in my experience don't defend or support theory 2.

Perhaps that's because hypothesis 2 is not the main reason they don't believe hypothesis 1.

---

Instead they bash, marginalize and demonize theory 1 in an attempt to make it look foolish and then claim we don't know how the universe came into existence.

If you think we DO know how the universe came into existence, please enlighten us instead of whinging that we're not nice for pointing out the  obvious glaring weakness in hypothesis 1, which is that there's no good reason to believe it is true. 

---

The reason most atheists don't support or defend 2 is because theory 2 is inexplicable.

Some people never learn they're not mind readers. Hypothesis 1 is at least as inexplicable. It introduces an explanation that has never been demonstrated to be the actual explanation for anything. At least hypothesis 2 is based on the nature of the actual explanation for the origin of the universe not turning out to be of a completely different kind than the explanations for everything else.

---

They would have to defend the notion that mechanistic forces always existed and eventually turned into matter, caused time and the universe to exist. This would endow mechanistic forces with the divine attribute of always existing and working outside of time.

Which actually seem to be attributes of quantum foam. If you consider those divine attributes, I suppose you ought to worship quantum foam. Quantum foam also seems to have the attribute of endless creativity. It's not a sure thing, but the math works and it's consistent with what we know of the universe, which is more than you can honestly say about your supposed Creator.

---

The alternative is an act of magic in which mechanistic forces came into existence uncaused out of nothing.

Says the guy who believes the origin really is supernatural. Tu quoque much?

---

Although they would claim this is 'natural' which just means it doesn't involve a Creator which is really all supernatural means.

Yes, yes, we are all aware you have made up a definition of supernatural convenient to your argument. And we don't buy it. Your inability to argue your point without changing the usual meanings of words is quite telling.

Even if we somehow swallow this explanation, it still leaves us with mindless unguided forces that for unknown reasons have laws of physics that allowed the simplest matter to turn into stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. For planets to form a process of alchemy occurs inside stars that fuse hydrogen and helium into exotic matter that subsequently turns into second generation stars that have rocky planets. Then a myriad of exacting conditions occurs (minus any plan or intent) that eventually turn inert matter into life.

Yes, it is completely obvious that all you really have to argue against hypothesis 2 with is your own personal incredulity and appeal to ridicule. You needn't belabor it.

---

In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance.

So does hypothesis 1. If the Creator has free will and the power to create anything, the things it could have created are infinite. The odds that we and the universe we are in would be exactly what it wanted to create are one in infinity, effectively zero, if one is consistent about working backwards they way you do for a natural explanation of the universe. 

---

If something isn't by plan or design what do you have left? Apart from mind nothing happens by design it all occurs by chance.

Chance or inevitability, to name one other possible alternative off the top of my head. And neither of those amounts to an argument that they aren't actually the case, just a repetition that you personally find it hard to believe, so it must not be true.

---

I wrote in the OP the best arguments in favor of atheism (other than relentlessly bashing theism).

Haven't we already thanked you enough for continually presuming to know us well enough to put words in our mouths?

-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe. 

True but there are lots of things which only have circumstantial evidence in their favor, theism is a belief not  a fact.

No kidding.

-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.

True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?

Why wouldn't there be?

-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

True. But much of it also appears to be designed and engineered to produce specific results.

Superfically appears. In every case where we've been able to get at the root reasons for something appearing to be designed and engineered to produce specific results we've actually found mechanisms that don't involve conscious design or engineering, except for those things made by conscious biological living organisms with brains and physical manipulatory members.

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

To the best of our knowledge evolution would only occur after life begins and only under a myriad of conditions already mentioned.

Biological evolution can only occur after life begins, chemical/molecular evolution can (and probably did) precede it.  

The problem with the bashing theism technique of justifying atheism is it only inspires the base, those who are already atheists or those who hate all religion.

The virtue of it is that the only reason a rational person should need to not believe something is lack of a good reason to think it is actually true. 

That is why atheism hasn't grown significantly in numbers in many years.

You've been corrected on this before. Atheism is on the rise in the developed world, the only places where religion is gaining is where the bulk of people are ignorant, poor, and desperate. 

A new approach would be to admit theism and atheism are beliefs, opinions about how our existence came about.

There are only so many ways we can say that atheism and theism are differing opinions on the same topic with you seeming completely unable to grasp that that is the majority view here before concluding that you are somehow deficient in your ability to comprehend words coming from people with whom you disagree. 

Since no one knows for sure and no evidence rules out either theory there is no grounds to mock and ridicule one belief over the other.

If someone claimed to know which of the numerous hypothesis 2 scenarios is actually the case, I would point out that they cannot know that. If someone claimed to know for sure that hypothesis 1 is not the case, I would point out that they cannot actually know that. It's with what they use to back up their positions that determines whether mockery or ridicule is in order.

---

Because it was intentionally designed by a Creator.

 Since you don't actually know that, it is hardly a counter-example to our claim that the cause of the origin of the universe is unknown. I dare you to come up with something even weaker than this, because I don't think you can.