The Case for Atheism

[Drew_2013]

Well first off I don't know that a Creator creating and desiging the universe intentionally is a case of what we call magic...but how do you know some miraculous explanation isn't needed?

Primarily because no miraculous explanation is needed for anything else. Why should the entire universe be any different?

That assumes the very truth of the statement you're making. The statement no miraculous explanation is needed for anything else assumes there was no miraculous explantion for the universe (such as God causing the universe to exist) because if God did cause the universe then every thing would in fact have a supernatural origin. Secondly the premise that the universe can be explained by naturalistic explanations has no bearing on whether it was caused by a creator. For example, a car and and a computer can be explained and described how they work without reference to whether they were intentionally created by a designer. Yet they were.

[Drew_2013]

Esquilax

The atheist position, such as it is, is one of disbelief regarding religious claims, and an acceptance that, as of this time, we do not know how the universe began. The sole reason for this is that theists haven't properly shouldered their burden of proof; there is no implicit denial of a conscious creator in that. Only a lack of acceptance.

Somehow, I don't think you speak for all atheists. Theism is a belief, an opinion to the questions Why are we here? How did the universe come into existence? Why is there something rather than nothing? Whether the case I made for theism persuades atheists or not, I have shouldered the burden of evidence by providing 5 lines of facts (evidence) that support theism. My case and reasonings don't have to persuade atheists in order to be valid.

The majority of lets say vocal atheists don't share your tepid and vacuous definition of atheism. They do in fact deny the existence of a Creator and are confident that our existence and that of the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't intend our existence. They promote that thinking in the market place of ideas and many atheists openly mock and ridcule belief in God as being on par with belief in Fairies and Santa Clause and invisible pink elephants. Do you merely lack acceptance of belief in the aforementioned?

Love,

Apophenia, I demand a response from you because every single time that I dispute your unfounded assertions, and ask for clarification, you fail to respond with a counter argument that substantiates your position.

That is her modus operandi. I find Apophenia to be a phoney and full of herself and probably best ignored.

Faith No More

You do realize that there have been countless numbers of theists that became atheists based on the lack of convincing arguments, don't you? Not that any of that matters, however, because none of that has any bearing on the truth.

It does matter when someone makes a blanket statement that all theistic arguments have failed.

And what we're trying to explain to you is that your question demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what exactly atheism entails. You seem to think that it is some sort of counter-proposal to the god hypothesis, which it is not. So, I don't know how mindless forces would bring about life. What I do know, however, is that these mindless forces do exist, and when you combine that with the lack of convincing arguments for god, it seems much more probable that these mindless forces are responsible for life.

If in fact what atheists believe is true is true, then some other non-God explanation for our existence and that of the universe would have to be true. You reject the explanation an intelligent creator caused and designed the universe for the purpose of human life. Do you equally reject the explanation that mindless forces without plan or intent caused the universe to exist and that human life is the accidental by product of the laws of physics? In short...are you an A-naturalist? That would mean you lack belief that our existence is the result of mindless forces as well as the result of a Creator.

[Mister Agenda]

You're making all kinds of assumptions. I could suggest you might be alarmed at the notion we are the result of a Creator.

Proof that irony can't kill you.

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.

Um, it was theists who believed in the 'small gods' too. Theism isn't just your version of things, it's merely the belief that some sort of God or gods exist. All their theisms are belong to you if you're not going to be more specific. Disproving other people's theism isn't favorable to theism.

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

Ad hom fallacy.

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

What makes an argument fallacious is it containing or being based on a fallacy.

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?

Fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

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

Our claim is that we don't believe in God. We actually don't believe in God. Q.E.D.

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.

So arguments don't work on atheists except when they do?

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?

Mindless forces do all kinds of things. All you've got for thinking they can't is the fallacy of argument from incredulity.

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.

It's not the belief God doesn't exist. It's the lack of the belief that God does exist. It's the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis holds until it is disproved, else, to be consistent, one would have to believe every proposal heard.

Atheists promote the thought in the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist.

Only if you're really determined not to hear what we're actually saying.

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?

That's what I personally think, but not because I'm an atheist, because I'm a rationalist. Being an atheist doesn't prevent you from believing in all kinds of spooky things, just one. There are atheists who believe in astrology and reincarnation. Just as you confused the issue by claiming disproving the claims of other theists bolstered theism, saying what atheists think when I know atheists aren't in any more agreement than theists would be adding to the confusion.

In other words, you're asking the wrong questions, both of atheists and theists, because you're trying to make very general terms fit in very specific boxes.

---

Apophenia, I demand a response from you because every single time that I dispute your unfounded assertions, and ask for clarification, you fail to respond with a counter argument that substantiates your position. Furthermore, I have followed a lot of your postings, and it appears as though you lack the capacity to engage in a coherent, consistent debate/exchange of ideas. The following seems to be the case with you: once you have expressed your opinion on a topic, you believe the case is closed and that the discussion should be abandoned. To me, this just comes across as somebody who lacks the aptitude to respond to objections.

Aren't you the guy who chided Baalzebutt for making insulting posts? Are you one of those people who thinks it's not insulting as long as your post doesn't have the word 'fuck' in it?

I don't pay too much attention to insulting posts usually, but when they come from one of the 'tone police', I'm always a little more surprised at the hypocrisy than I should be. If you're not above it yourself, maybe you shouldn't be calling other people out on it.

And you're demanding a response? I dare you to be more pompous.

---

What I do know, however, is that these mindless forces do exist, and when you combine that with the lack of convincing arguments for god, it seems much more probable that these mindless forces are responsible for life.

Not to mention, you can be a theist and still believe mindless forces are responsible for life. There are plenty of mythologies that don't start with a god, but a pre-existing universe that somehow preduces a god or gods. Making theism and atheism depend on creation accounts is very Middle East-centered.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I don't think this can ever be clarified effectively.

If you believe in Christ, and you also believe that you are not-Christ...

Are you not-christ?...

...would it be logical for me to infer that you believe you are the Anti-christ?...and from there, assume all sorts of other things about your ideology?

There is no implied belief when one rejects a certain concept. It's just the lack of acknowledgement toward a certain suggestion as valid. It has no other meaning past that. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't give you the right to assign beliefs to me! Don't create a false dillemma.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis holds until it is disproved, else, to be consistent, one would have to believe every proposal heard.

I disagree. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis still. The hypothesis with the most explanatory power should be the one that holds until disproved.

[The Reality Salesman01]

It's the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis holds until it is disproved, else, to be consistent, one would have to believe every proposal heard.

I disagree. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis still. The hypothesis with the most explanatory power should be the one that holds until disproved.

Yes, but the subject of any hypothesis worth pursuing should correlate with reality and truth; it should be falsifiable or its not challengeable. Any hypothesis must be equally vulnerable to being shown false as it is for being confirmed. Otherwise, its just spittle.

[Mister Agenda]

I wrote..

but we infer a cause because the overwhelming majority of things (if indeed not all things) that begin to exist can be traced back to a cause. Even though there is no direct evidence of blackholes (they can't be directly observed or tested) the indirect evidence of their existence is strong enough that the existence of black holes has been established as fact. I don't want to turn this into the case for theism argument...I've already done that. There are facts and evidence (the existence of the universe, the existence of life, the existence of sentient life, the fact that conditions that allowed our existence obtained) that provide a basis for hypothesizing the existence of a Creator who intentionally caused the universe for the purpose of sentient life.

Thanks for bringing this up again. Would you give an example of something beginning to exist that can be traced back to its cause?

This is an interesting point. Many atheists seem to think that by eliminating the existence of God they have eliminated a magical or miraculous cause to the existence of the universe and sentient life.

Most of us on this forum don't think we've eliminated the existence of God, just found it doubtful enough not to think believing in it is justified.

But have they? Is the fact of our existence made any less miraculous if we owe our existence to mindless forces that for some reason burped into existence and then without plan or intent or design caused something totally unlike itself to exist, life and sentience.

Yes, because mindless forces are known to exist. Postulating known forces is less miraculous than postulating unknown ones.

If God doesn't exist humans are in fact gods in that we (unlike everything else) can act volitionally.

You set the bar for godhood remarkably low.

Where as all other events occur in reaction to some other event, we alone can cause an event to occur.

You've never owned a cat, have you?

This is ironic because atheism is the disbelief in God and gods yet according to atheism mindless forces without plan or intent created gods.

If you redefine 'god' enough to make it mean 'people'.

Lets look at it another way. Suppose we had never seen a computer before and we came stumbled across one. Which explanation for its existence would be more or less miraculous (or magical); that it was creating intentionally by a more complex and intelligent designer or that mindless forces without plan or intent to create such a device stumbled into making one by some process of time and chance?

We would quickly identify a computer as being the obvious handiwork of human beings or something much like them, because it is so clearly artificial; that is, we'd know it was designed by the characteristics that distinguish it from its natural surroundings.

Bottom line is the sentiment I often here from atheists is that by eliminating God we reduce the explanation of our existence to some natural (but unknown cause) and somehow that removes the magical or miraculous out of the equation.

Magical: Relating to or using magic.
Miraculous: Occuring through divine or supernatural intervention.

If you are using the words in these senses, not using magic as an explanation is not using magic as an explanation.

Magical: Resembling, produced or working as if by magic.
Miraculous: Highly improbably and extraordinary with welcome consequences.

If you're using the words in these senses, yes, events always seem miraculous when you consider everything that had to happen just so for you to wind up putting the particular socks you're wearing on this morning.

If atheists really dared to free think about it...they'd realize their counter explantion is no less magical.

If you're using 'magical' in its second sense of something that only appears to be magical, the rationalist counter explanation also includes some pretty interesting hypotheses on how the trick works.

Well first off I don't know that a Creator creating and desiging the universe intentionally is a case of what we call magic...but how do you know some miraculous explanation isn't needed?

A miraculous explanation isn't actually an explanation at all.

'How did this happen?'

'It was a miracle!'

See? Not much informaition content there. Saying something was caused by a miracle is distinguishable from saying its cause is unknown only by being the less honest thing to say.

Now, maybe there isn't a non-miraculous explanation for everything. Maybe the inference that every single explanation we've ever found for anything that we could confirm with any degree of certainty to be true has been a natural one means that future explanations will also be non-supernatural won't hold. But I know there are a lot of natural explanations for things we'll never discover if science starts taking 'it's a miracle!' as a sufficient explanation. Speaking as a rationalist, not an atheist, though you confusing the two flatters a lot of atheists who don't deserve it.

---

It's the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis holds until it is disproved, else, to be consistent, one would have to believe every proposal heard.

I disagree. A null hypothesis is a hypothesis still. The hypothesis with the most explanatory power should be the one that holds until disproved.

And taking your advice, an enormous grinding sound is heard from science as it begins to come to a halt.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Lets look at it another way. Suppose we had never seen a computer before and we stumbled across one.

...stop. Keep in mind, at this point we have knowledge of people, and their ability to make stuff. Our knowledge and experience of human creativity is going to lead us to a very logical inductive inference, but go on...

Which explanation for its existence would be more or less miraculous (or magical)

Whoa...why did we jump to magic? Aren't we people in this thought experiment? Don't we have an understanding of our own capabilities in this thought experiment? Why are we invoking magic?

that it was created intentionally by a more complex and intelligent designer ?

You mean...like, other than us? Why is this not sufficient? The object in question can be examined, right? We are smart enough to understand this object, right? Even if only one part at a time?

or that mindless forces without plan or intent to create such a device stumbled into making one by some process of time and chance?

Why would mindless forces even be a suggested theory? What happened to us? Did we lose our ability to think in this thought experiment?
Do you have good reason to rule us out? COMPLEX=GOD? It's a good thing our forefathers didn't think that way. Do you understand quantum physics? Do you understand abiotic synthesis? Do you understand evolution? What evidence do you have that complex things pop into existance from A)NOTHING?, and B) WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE FOR THIS "NOTHING"? Plus, EVERYTHING can be shown to be possible products of a LONG...SLOW...process of simple things turning into more complex things...
So either, magic made the computer and put it there, or mindless forces just popped it into existance with no possibility to understand it? These sound like different versions of the same story.This is a false-FALSE dillemma...

Perhaps there is an underlying process behind this computer that can be understood and replicated. Maybe if we don't just chalk it up as a product of a magician, we might be able to make it ourselves, and through that, unlock answers to more questions that magical explanations bring to a hault? You think?...maybe?

[Neo-Scholastic]

And taking your advice, an enormous grinding sound is heard from science as it begins to come to a halt.

That may not be the case.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-18724-po...#pid442887

[Mister Agenda]

...what we're trying to explain to you is that your question demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what exactly atheism entails.

I believe it, atheism, entails much more than you currently allow. Even just the lack of belief influences the beliefs you do have. The exclusion of God, gods, divine influences and transcendent principles all have logical conclusions. While such exclusions make a good working methodology for science, it is an impoverished way to approach all of life.

Atheism doesn't exclude transcendant principles, just believing in gods. Yes, not believing in something can have an effect on your other beliefs, but what that effect is varies from person to person. if you once believed in God and no longer do, the effect of what led you to give up belief in God may be much more significant than the effect of not believing and is almost certain to be more revealing.

You end your post with a mere assertion of the inferiority and the implied superiority of yours, and that used to surprise me about you, but I've come to accept that it is instead typical of you.

---

A purely scientific description of a tree would include only quantifiable facts: weight, material composition, number of leaves, etc. Any references to tree qualities would not be strictly scientific: reference to uses, symbolic associations and signification, sensable qualities. That doesn't even mention the pre-scientific ability to classify things and events with common features as identical.

Given how long you've been interacting with us, the ignorance required to think we can't appreciate the beauty of a tree or its poetic use is simply breathtaking in the deliberateness necessary to maintain it.

Like the development of nuclear weapons? Science, both as a means of inquiry and its conclusions, does not exist in a vacuum. Science falls within a larger context, a world of values and meaning, even if those values and meanings are provisional.

You are correct.

And I have to throw the bullshit flag on "intellectual honesty." You may have an honest opinion, but that doesn't exclude others from also honestly holding their contrary opinion.

When someone holds a contrary opinion to you about what YOU think after you've told them what you really think many times, that DOES require some dishonesty. If an atheist says theists don't accept science, they're overgeneralizing, but if pressed, most will admit that. I don't respect the ones that won't.

You know the ranks of atheists include great authors, poets, and artists; just like we know theists can claim great scientists. Will you ever be able to process the fact that our atheism isn't the most significant thing about us and that you can't divine a random atheist's thinking, attitudes, or worldview if that's all you know about them? Because it's a demonstrable fact, and you never seem to be able to take it on board. There's a word for people who can't accept that members of a given demographic aren't all alike.

---

And taking your advice, an enormous grinding sound is heard from science as it begins to come to a halt.

That may not be the case.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-18724-po...#pid442887

Try it in a lab and get back to me. Just pick the hypotheses you like, don't compare them to the null hypothesis unless you think it needs it, move along to the next steps and see what you come up with.