The Case for Atheism

[Drew_2013]

Pocaras,

The only thing he had to postulate was that the speed of light in vacuum is constant... heck, he arrived at a place where he had a constant there, as all physicists, a constant is called 'c' (sometimes, 'k'). This constant had units of speed (m/s).... and he did start off with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetic waves, so he was dealing with electromagnetic waves, AKA, light.
So it wasn't that much of a leap of faith to say that 'c' was the speed of light.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to serve by downplaying one of the greatest intellectual minds of our time and the insight Einstein had that rocked the core of physics. Some have said that it may have taken 40 years before someone else would have had the same insight.

But you propose an explanation for something, with nothing to back it up, but your own "it's the only way that makes sense to me".

Not at all, unlike the atheists in this forum I made a case in favor of atheism from facts.

To us, the god hypothesis is one possible explanation for the start of the Universe, but it's not the only one...Until some actual evidence is found, no one can claim that one hypothesis to be the correct one, now can they?

That is apparently the state of atheism today (at least on this board) so pathetically weak and vacuous that even you don't deny God might be the cause of the universe. If as an atheist you don't deny God caused the existence of the universe why should it bother you if theists do believe God caused the universe?

We'll look, and there will be no purple unicorn, and then you'll tell us it really is there but we're just pretending it's not. Or, that you can only see purple unicorns if you have faith that they exist. And, you'll still tell everybody you have a purple unicorn in your pocket. We all know how apologetics works.

It's not how it worked for me, I made a case for theism based on 5 indisputable facts.

Considering that every single possible instance, thus far, of examining the natural world that has actually delivered real results, has demonstrated the work of mindless natural forces at work, with absolutely zero evidence of these forces being guided by any superintelligence, it is only logical to extrapolate this real knowledge to the conclusion that the naturalist explanation is, if not confirmed, without any rational question the superior explanation to all others.

Thanks for attempting to make your case based on something. I don't know why that seems so difficult for some.

The premise your making is that thus far natural phenonmena such as the creation of stars, planets galaxies, tornadoes, hail earthquakes and such have all been found to have explanations for why they occur and how they do what they do without having found some personal agent or engineers actively manipulating the phenonmena and thus leads you to believe this pattern will continue indefinately and this leads you to believe no creator or designer was involved. Thats the premise correct? If that premise is correct, then something different should occur if the phenomena in question is known to have been caused by a creator designer. If not, then the fact it can be explained naturalistically shouldn't have any evidentiary value concerning whether it was created by intelligent agents. Suppose no one had ever created a laptop or a computer yet scientists found one. No doubt they would do what scientists do to determine how it works and after many years of study they'd have a complete working model of how a laptop works and functions and how it is able to do what it does and they wouldn't have to invoke the existence of a designer or creator to explain how it works and functions. How is it the methodolgy of science works the same way on things known to have been engineered and designed in a certain fashion as it does with things assumed to have been caused by mindless forces that didn't intend their existence? If your premise is correct shouldn't there be a difference between phenonmena known to have been intelligently created and phenomena assumed to have beeen caused by mindless forces that didn't intend to create anything?

You say scientists have explained how physical phenomena works 'with absolutely zero evidence of these forces being guided by any superintelligence' I would submit the fact that mindless forces and matter comply with the established laws of physics is evidence they were designed by an intelligent creator. Apart from the laws of physics we'd have zero chance of figuring out how anything works. Oh not to mention apart from the laws of physics there wouldn't be planets, solar systems, stars and obviously no humans around to discuss this issue.

Appealing to a creator doesn't explain why anything exists.

Really? It doesn't explain why cars exist? Or radios or the computer you're using to write this post. Try harder to think about things before making the standard atheist response. Try being a skeptic of the things you do believe rather than only of the things you don't believe.

Texas,

Zeus makes lightning. I believe its true. You can't prove it wrong. Try.

I can't stop you from believing what you want to believe, I can offer an overwelming preponderance of evidence that lightening occurs from natural causes without the direct intervention of a god which is why the majority of people agree.

There! Fucking A! Have I said it fucking emphatically enough yet, Drew? Christ, it's like talking to a brick wall. Do you not understand the difference between a god and a creator? Do I believe in a god- say, the christian god, or a Norse god- or any conception of god that any religious organization has put forward to date? No, I don't, and am henceforth an atheist. Do I believe it's impossible that a conscious entity- a creator- had some hand in the development of the universe? No, I fucking well do not, and therefore I am not making the claim you think I am, so do me a favor and fuck right off with your arrogant misrepresentations of the atheist position.

Nice rant...feel better?

Tell me this, since you seem to think not having an explanation is so pathetic: why are you so desperate to have an answer? Why does the phrase "I don't know" repulse you so much that you're willing to hold an answer- any answer- no matter what, even if it's most likely wrong, just to avoid having to admit ignorance? Are you that afraid of having to do the legwork toward finding the real answer? Is the shit you make up really that comforting?

Because (and you're not going to be happy but you asked) the atheist position is not 'we don't know' and it is not just an admission of ignorance.

Lets see if I can get a consensus...

Texas Sailer
Ryantology
pocaracas
Mr. Agenda

Does atheism mean to you people 'We don't know?' is atheism to you folks a claim of ignorance? I don't believe it means that to them and I know it doesn't mean that to most folks. Why don't you quit pretending to be an atheist and call yourself an agnostic which far more accurately describes your position.

Forget for but a moment that atheists have lack of beliefs in gods; are you afraid of not knowing? Generally speaking, of course.

Not at all, as a theist I have an opinion. An opinion is what you think is true minus irrefutable evidence its a fact. I could be wrong but I think its true we owe our existence to a Creator known as God. One would think calling yourself an athiest that it is your opinion God doesn't exist. The problem as I see it is atheists (for the sake of a debating tactic) have attempted to redefine atheism as a lack of belief in God not a disbelief in God. That statement is so nebulous, so vacuous that atheists no longer deny God exists they just don't share that belief. Think how little difference there is between our respective beliefs...I don't deny God exists either!