The Case for Atheism

[Drew_2013]

The difference between you and me is that, while I would like to know, I am comfortable with NOT knowing. I don't need to believe in a sky daddy to make me feel like my life has some divine purpose and that the universe was created just for me. I prefer to watch science do its thing and then marvel at the wonderful discoveries we make.

You're making all kinds of assumptions. I could suggest you might be alarmed at the notion we are the result of a Creator. I don't need to believe there is a God who caused and created the universe and humans and if it turns out otherwise my life would be just as full. I enjoy scientific inquiry and love to hear whats new.

Let me ask you a question. Doesn't it seem odd to you that, of all the things god has been credited with over the past xx thousand years, not one of those things has been confirmed by science?

I guess you'd be surprised to know it was theists who rejected the notion of small gods who control rain and earthquakes and proposed the God who designed and caused the universe. There have been many scientific discoveries that have been favorable to theism as well.

I mean, the saying goes that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Where is gods acorn?

Or a broke clock is correct twice a day.

All you've done is offer fallacious arguments.

According to you guys...is that a surprise?

By claiming that these are evidence for a creator, you are guilty of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

And this is the kind of rhetoric you think makes for a fallacious argument.

Why replace a mystery (the origin of the universe) with a bigger mystery (god)? How could a god exist without any cause, but unstructured atoms can't? Is it because "god always existed"? Is it because the Flying Spaghetti Monster always existed? (You see, saying that he always existed is not only special pleading but a presupposition required for him to exist in the first place, rather than an observation.)

This isn't about the case for theism, been there done that. This is about the case for atheism. Whats your best take on what caused the universe, life and sentient life to exist? If your skeptical that God caused it what makes you believe that mindless forces 'poofed' into existence and then with out plan or intent caused life and sentience something totally unlike itself?

It is very unlikely that you will ever convince a firm atheist that God exists, especially by using the communication medium of rational textual language in a forum full of atheistic rationalists. Inductive argument, deductive argument, subjective argument, teleological argument, transcendental argument, argument from reason, argument from love among others; none of these methods of argument will work. The approach that I find the most helpful is to discuss epistemology and highlight the fact that the scientific method (predominantly empiricism) and rationalism (pure reason = a priori knowledge) have limits in a variety of areas. For example, I know that a transcendent panentheistic entity (let's call it God for convenience) exists, but I am aware that it is impossible to communicate this knowledge by using rational language.

I'm well aware of that. I'm trying to goad them into making a case for what they claim to believe.

Every case for theism has failed, mostly due to their reliance on logical fallacies and anthropocentric delusions.

I suppose its pure coincidence that they failed by people who were atheists prior to the argument. You do realize there have been lots of people who became theists (Antony Flew for example) because of the arguments and in which case they succeeded.

But look guys I didn't start this thread to hear of failed theist arguments. I don't care why you think arguments for God fail on what basis do you believe that mindless forces caused life and sentience to exist?

---

That you make basic errors like this with respect to philosophy and science makes your claims that you base your conclusions on a possession of advanced knowledge of philosophy and epistemology seem like the evident boasting of a crank who doesn't know shit.

A finer case of the pot calling the kettle black I have never seen.

---

I am trying understand why atheist have to bring the burden of proof? Atheism is the concept there is not physical evidence for the existence of any god. The burden of proof is the person making the claim. Physical Evidence!

You've taken extreme liberty with the definition of atheism. Atheism means not or without God. It means whatever theists attribute to God (the universe, life so forth) was caused somehow apart from God. Its the belief that God doesn't exiist and therefore couldn't have caused the universe or life to exist. I'm asking what evidence facts data support the conclusion (if atheism is true) that something other than God caused the universe and life to exist.

Atheists promote the thought in the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist. It only stands to reason if you don't believe God caused our existence that you believe natural forces without plan or intent did. I mean be honest...that is what you think. Why? On what basis? Make your case! This is the atheist forum is it not?