The Case for Atheism

[Angrboda]

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 [sic] from facts.

I believe what you mean here is that you made a case for theism. As a matter of fact, you made the same case twice, which would make this your third bite at the apple and you're still coming up empty. Despite your having repeatedly chastised other participants that they have no business gainsaying the results of a debate that they themselves are participants in, you've expressed no hesitancy in declaring yourself the victor in said debate on numerous occasions.

Regardless, it is a well established principle that with regard to existential claims, the burden of proof rests squarely on the claimant. Since the existence of your supposed creator is an existential claim, no counter-argument is necessary, or even effective, if you have properly shouldered the burden of proof for your claim. That we have you here whining ad nauseum (and I do mean that literally) that atheists haven't proved their case likely indicates several things. First, it indicates that you're an incompetent boob who doesn't understand burden of proof. Second, you recognize the weakness of your "case for theism" and are looking desperately for some way to strengthen your claim. Third, you must implicitly realize that your "case for theism" is inadequate because if it were adequate in and of itself, there would be no need to refer to anything else to refute the atheist position.

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.

You mean those five indisputable facts which were disputed at great length? As a matter of fact, I disputed point #5 at great length (here). You responded to my post with the following promise that, "If you care to respond to my last post to you, I'll respond to your last post." (here) I dutifully responded and waited patiently for your response to my post. I guess I can't say you didn't respond because in fact you did, first with an unfounded attack on my character (here) followed by a post indicating that you wouldn't be making any further replies to the arguments given (, which you even bothered to retitle as "Last Word" to underscore your point). Needless to say, neither I nor anybody else here is likely to view either response as relevant to the concerns raised in my post. And yet, after having slung mud and then run away like a coward, you have the gall to repeatedly claim victory. This must be some uniquely "philosophical theist" thing which requires translation for me to understand.

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?

The argument from design as formulated by its proponents is not recognized as a scientific hypothesis by the greater body of practicing scientists as well as having been adjudicated by a U.S. court of law to be, in its then presented form, "not science." As such, any arguments from design are not scientific and thus any such conclusions are not the business of science. This is not to say that the argument from design could not be reformulated into a properly scientific hypothesis, simply that no one has so far succeeded in doing so. As such, it is not the business of scientists to be making conclusions based on the argument from design, and if they do so anyway, the most charitable thing that can be said is that they are engaging in "pseudo-science." Whatever, what they are distinctly not doing is "science." Arguments from analogy aren't science and no attempt to reformulate the arguments from analogy has so far been successful, so this part of your argument fails completely.

---

All these matters aside, I'd like to return to an article which you claimed has made a great impact on you and your thinking (here). The article you are quoting is "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism as published online at csicop.org. Ignoring for the moment that the article is nothing but a bunch of pseudo-intellectual tripe, taking your quotation at face value, I would like to highlight something (in green).

Pseudo-Inquiry; and the Real Thing

A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth. This is a tautology (Webster’s: “inquiry: search for truth . . .”). A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction.

Given that you have repeatedly tried, rather unsuccessfully, to make a case for the same proposition, not once, but essentially three times, I think it's relatively evident to any impartial witnesses [those who are, apparently, neither atheist nor theist] just what sort of reasoner you in fact are.