The Case for Atheism

[Drew_2013]

Rhythm,

Then you're in luck, because our existence is handily accounted for, readily and vastly demonstrated, down to the mechanism and even its underlying mechanics, with nary a single fairy accounted for anywhere - or even required.

Great Rhythm your just the person I have been looking for, an atheist who is going to stand up for atheism and once and for all show us why it silly to beileve we're the result of plan and design.

How did the universe come about? How did life start? Why did the universe have the characteristics to allow life even though it didn't plan for it or intend it to happen? I think even the rest of the atheists in here would like to have it explained also.

"God" accounts for nothing, it doesn't even begin to offer an account for anything, it's a non-starter, an added word. You're partial to the word, that much is obvious. But lets at least try to be a little more candid, if only with ourselves..eh?

I'd be happy to have you put this mystery to rest...

Texas Sailor,

HUH? I'm gonna need you to explain how you have a particular knowledge of a particular God, and therefore have a particular knowledge about the sorts of things IT normally produces by which you must base this "feasibility" on. I presume that you can explain all of this right? If you have NONE...there is absolutely nothing "feasible" about it. It is not a logically grounded supposition, and is actually...unfeasible, and illogical. If you have no basis for that which a God can be credited for "creating", you have no grounds to insert it as a conclusion!

As I have mentioned several times I'm a philosophical theist, not a religious theist. This means I believe our existence is the result of a transcendent being commonly referred to as God who caused, planned the universe and life to exist. If you want to see the case the evidence check the thread The Case for Theism. Unlike the atheists in this forum I was willing to make a case for my belief.

How likely would you say such a claim is? 50/50? You seem to be avoiding the shadow of probability that blurs your assessment. Your claim is no more grounded than a person claiming they have a unicorn in their pocket.

The standard of proof in a civil course is a mere preponderance of evidence in favor of a belief, meaning more for than against. I subscribe to theism because available evidence favors that explanation. You'll have to explain to your fellow theists how the case for theism is as weak and unfounded as a claim for a unicorn in my pocket because most of the atheists I have debated in this thread aren't willing to deny there is a unicorn in my pocket...they just lack that belief. Isn't that pathetic?

Improbable claims of all sorts can be rightly dismissed on the same grounds.

I agree but which claim is more improbable? That we owe our existence to a universe that was designed and engineered to cause sentient life or that we owe the existence of universe, life and sentient life to mindless lifeless forces that somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence and created something totally unlike itself...life and sentience? What makes your counter claim (if atheism is true) less improbable?

A more intelligent approach would be to just say...There's an answer to the questions I have...I don't know what it is...and because I do not know anymore than anyone else, it would be impossible for me to invoke an answer, and then arbitrarily assign it any value of feasibility. I don't know what it is, but I also have ZERO reason to believe in this thing called "God", whatever it is...and so...I just don't know, but am open to new information that is grounded in reality and correlates with truth and verifiable experience.

That would be a reasonable approach but its not the approach you take. Instead you claim belief in God is no more probable than the claim I have a unicorn in my pocket.

I'm afraid you have a LOT of explaining to...starting with what reasons that any God theory is any more feasible than a celestial teapot.

See the thread titled The Case for Theism...

Esquilax,

I'm not obligated to defend what other atheists believe, and I'm certainly not obligated to defend what you think other atheists believe, because... well, I'm absolutely willing to bet you're wrong, simply due to the fact that no two atheists have exactly the same beliefs, nor does atheism ascribe an actual cause to the universe. Atheism is a single position, a disbelief in the existence of gods. Not a belief that there are no gods, not the belief that the universe came about through naturalistic means, just that singular disbelief in theistic claims.

Atheism is a single position, a disbelief in the existence of gods. Not a belief that there are no gods Does that sentence make sense to you? That would be like saying I disbeileve in the existence of football, not a belief there is no football.

You're mistaken, atheists may not have explanations for how the universe came about or how life came about or why the universe has laws of physics that allow our existence, but they do claim that however it came about it did so without the benefit of a creator or designer or God. The fact they don't have any counter claim or explanation how such came about only underscores how weak the case for atheism is. Its so pathetic that while you claim to be an atheist, even you don't deny God exists...you just lack that belief, right?

What you think atheists believe doesn't mean a single fucking goddamn thing.

I think atheism means the following...


a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


It means that whatever the explanation for the existence of the universe and life is...it wasn't created by a transcendent being known as God. The fact atheists don't seem to believe in any naturalistic (non-god) explanation for the existence of the universe and life only underscores how pathetically weak their case against the existence of God is. No wonder even you as an atheist are unwilling to deny God exists.