The Case for Atheism

[Drew_2013]

Well, put a fork in it; this one's done. No matter how much you try to explain the burden of proof and the null hypothesis, he just simply responds with, "You don't know the answer, therefore, mine is correct." On top of that, he speaks as if admitting you don't know something is just a weakness, and it would be better to just arrogantly declare you have all of the answers.

Save your energy, folks, and move along.

I have no problem with atheists declaring they don't know anything...it's what I've suspected all along.

[Ryantology]

Drew is frustrated because he has committed to a position he cannot demonstrate to be true, thus placing him on the defensive. His only means of achieving intellectual parity with the rest of us is by inciting us with solipsism he, himself, does not subscribe to, so as to lower us to his level.

Philosophically, I remain a six on the Dawkins scale, mostly to avoid the pants-shitting stupidity such as Drew has unleashed in this thread. In all practical matters, I am a seven. No gods run my life, no gods adjudicate moral matters, no gods make natural processes work. If I cannot make a positively negative statement about God, I cannot make a positively negative statement about anything else which is obviously not there.

I have no problem with atheists declaring they don't know anything...it's what I've suspected all along.

You don't, either, but you're willing to lie about it. That's much worse than being ignorant.

[pocaracas]

Drew... please stop.
You clearly cannot understand the standard atheist position. It's no use trying to convey it once again.
I already told you to stop spewing stupidity once before, and yet... you are still at it.

Sometimes, you just need to realize that some concepts are a bit beyond your ability to understand them. It's not a particular handicap for everyday life, but it tends to be a serious one when discussing delicate subjects, such as these.

It's ok to give up... I certainly don't think it's worth keep beating this dead horse anymore...

[Faith No More]

I have no problem with atheists declaring they don't know anything...it's what I've suspected all along.

Just when I think your ability to understand the concept couldn't get any worse, you go and prove me wrong. Atheists know lots of things. Consider these...

We know that your theism has failed to meet the burden of proof.
We know that our inability to definitively know the origins of life doesn't mean that your answer is correct.
We know that you believe you know the answers, despite being able to demonstrate that.
We know that you would rather arrogantly claim to know something without sufficient evidence to back up that knowledge than admit you don't know.
We know you fear the unknown.
We know intellectual honesty is not a virtue you pride yourself in.
We know that any information that doesn't neatly fit into the closed-minded box that is your reality is ignored and dismissed.
We know you would rather demonize atheists than actually listen to what they have to say.

Shall I go on?

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

I've seen your thread, and nothing in it moves the burden you are trying so hard to support. I do appreciate your continued attempts, but your desire for it to be true has given you blunders to the obvious flaws in your logic. You've invoked "trancendent being". From where do you draw that such a thing exists other than the fact that it makes sense to YOU because there's not a factual explanation? If my leg it itched and I didn't know why, could I just make up a creature, assert it as something that makes legs itch, say its invisible and assume its in my pocket, doing its work? Would this be okay since there was no other explanation given as to why my leg itched at that moment?
Approach this scenario honestly and try to apply the same rationalization to any preponderance of evidence in any claim.

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?

If there is ZERO results to compare for a God, you cannot preponder any sort of evidence as you have none to compare! You have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and you chalk up the entire universe to an entity that you haven't been able to rationally establish. Lastly, no body can PROVE you don't have a unicorn in your pocket, so they can't claim it to be a fact that you don't. But pay attention here...We have no reason to believe you as such a claim doesn't correlate with reality, so its more likely, that the unicorn you claim is in your pocket, does not exist. So I do not believe it. For the same reasons, I do not believe your God claims. They lack all discernible attributes consistent with anything I believe exists. If you don't establish qualifying criteria for existance, you have no way of distinguishing it from that which does not exist. It sounds to me that you are ok with this. You being ok with this implies that you accept that anything could exist, unicorns and fairies included. These claims all share the same lack of comparable substance and are equally hollow. That's why people keep bringing them up. You can't use your reasoning to justify believing in God and then abandon it when it comes to disputing claims that equal in absurdity. Remember, unicorns seem ridiculous to you...and for good reason. God sounds AS ridiculous to me...for the same reasons.

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?

The latter...as those "mindless forces" are what makes trees move when it's windy, the tides roll in and out, and govern the continuity of everything I experience as I understand it. For you to convince me otherwise, you would have to have a really good reason for doing so. Telling me that it makes sense to you, doesn't qualify. Try again.

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.

You seem to confuse my thought experiment with a claim of knowledge. I haven't proven the unicorn doesn't exist anymore than anyone could disprove God. However, they are equally viable claims that lack substance and neither correlate with reality. Therefore, I comfortably reject them as they are both very improbable. They are only possible by virtue of them being unfalsifiable. Don't conflate probability with possibility.

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...

Not at all necessary. I've seen it, posted in it, and pointed out its logical deficiencies as many others also have.

[Drew_2013]

Ryantology,

Drew is frustrated because he has committed to a position he cannot demonstrate to be true, thus placing him on the defensive. His only means of achieving intellectual parity with the rest of us is by inciting us with solipsism he, himself, does not subscribe to, so as to lower us to his level.

I'd have to go into an induced coma to achieve intellectual parity with you...

Faith No More

We know that your theism has failed to meet the burden of proof.

Any time you can find a group of impartial people to judge the merit of our respective arguments I'll be happy to debate theism with you. You aren't so stupid to think the fact as an atheist you think I've failed to meet the burden of proof means anything do you?

We know that our inability to definitively know the origins of life doesn't mean that your answer is correct.

No, it doesn't mean my belief is correct. It does mean you don't know if my belief is incorrect or your counter belief is correct.

We know that you believe you know the answers, despite being able to demonstrate that.

I've expressed all my opinions as beliefs and backed up those beliefs with facts and data.

We know that you would rather arrogantly claim to know something without sufficient evidence to back up that knowledge than admit you don't know.

Care to cite an instance?

Shall I go on?

Knock yourself out.

Texas,

You've invoked "trancendent being". From where do you draw that such a thing exists other than the fact that it makes sense to YOU because there's not a factual explanation?

If you've seen my post The Case for Theism you already know.

If my leg it itched and I didn't know why, could I just make up a creature, assert it as something that makes legs itch, say its invisible and assume its in my pocket, doing its work? Would this be okay since there was no other explanation given as to why my leg itched at that moment?

You're analogy is humorous because in some cases itching can be caused by a small creature invisible to the naked eye. But I assume what you're trying to say is we shouldn't invoke explanations out of whole cloth. You seem to be unaware that's often how advances in knowledge is often made. You create a model (sometimes out of whole cloth) that tentatively explains a phenomena. Einstien proposed something that seemed crazy to account for why time it took Mercury to circle the sun was slightly off. He proposed that time diliated. It was crazy and unthinkable...and true. A certain scientist notices that the continents looked like they would all fit together as a puzzle and proposed the adsurd idea the continents were all together at one time. Absurd but true.

If there is ZERO results to compare for a God, you cannot preponder any sort of evidence as you have none to compare!

Huh?

You have an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and you chalk up the entire universe to an entity that you haven't been able to rationally establish.

It is falsifiable. If another cause for the existence of the universe is proven it will falsify the belief God caused it.

Lastly, no body can PROVE you don't have a unicorn in your pocket, so they can't claim it to be a fact that you don't.

They couldn't examine the contents of my pocket? You have been listening to your fellow atheists too much.

But pay attention here...We have no reason to believe you as such a claim doesn't correlate with reality, so its more likely, that the unicorn you claim is in your pocket, does not exist. So I do not believe it.

Fine, you do realize I never made such a claim true?

For the same reasons, I do not believe your God claims. They lack all discernible attributes consistent with anything I believe exists.

Texas Sailor...its not the same. Both theists and atheists agree that the universe exists, life exists and sentient life exists. Most people (including atheists) don't believe these things popped into existence uncaused out of nothing although some atheists promote that idea. Most believe something caused it to occur. Since most atheists don't believe a personal agent, Creator or God was involved they believe it was some mechanistic unguided unplanned result of mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe, life or sentient life. Even though this is the unavoidable logical conclusion one would arrive at if they don't believe in a Creator... you won't find any atheists to make thier case or provide evidence that supports this conclusion. They just go into their weak atheist song and dance that atheism is just a lack of belief in God.

The latter...as those "mindless forces" are what makes trees move when it's windy, the tides roll in and out, and govern the continuity of everything I experience as I understand it. For you to convince me otherwise, you would have to have a really good reason for doing so. Telling me that it makes sense to you, doesn't qualify. Try again.

Let me shake your hand...at least your attempting to make a case for what you believe which is more than your fellow coward atheists are willing to do. No one disputes this physical material world exists and that with a rigid set of laws of nature, it causes many things such as planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies. That doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing and why if something does exist such as a universe, why it has laws of nature that cause all the conditions for life and sentient life to exist.

You seem to confuse my thought experiment with a claim of knowledge. I haven't proven the unicorn doesn't exist anymore than anyone could disprove God. However, they are equally viable claims that lack substance and neither correlate with reality. Therefore, I comfortably reject them as they are both very improbable. They are only possible by virtue of them being unfalsifiable. Don't conflate probability with possibility.

You're mistaken about the notion God can't be disproven. We're the mythological gods such as the god of rain, fire and earthquakes disproven? Yes because a better competing explanation with more evidence was found for it. If the same occurs for the existence of the universe most people would eventually reject belief in God.

[pocaracas]

You seem to be unaware that's often how advances in knowledge is often made. You create a model (sometimes out of whole cloth) that tentatively explains a phenomena. Einstien proposed something that seemed crazy to account for why time it took Mercury to circle the sun was slightly off. He proposed that time diliated. It was crazy and unthinkable...and true.

Ah, but Einie didn't propose those things just because the idea popped into his mind!
He "stood on the shoulders of giants", remember?
He did the math.
Math led him to those crazy ideas.
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.

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".
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?
And considering all gods' claims that have been shown to have nothing to do with the divine, forgive us if we don't put that hypothesis on a high ranking....actually, it's at a very low ranking.
Not to mention that it then raises the common questions about said god... where did it come from? how was it created?, etc, etc...

[Ryantology]

I'd have to go into an induced coma to achieve intellectual parity with you...

Do us all a favor and try it. It can only be an improvement over the present state of affairs.

They couldn't examine the contents of my pocket? You have been listening to your fellow atheists too much.

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.

Texas Sailor...its not the same. Both theists and atheists agree that the universe exists, life exists and sentient life exists. Most people (including atheists) don't believe these things popped into existence uncaused out of nothing although some atheists promote that idea. Most believe something caused it to occur. Since most atheists don't believe a personal agent, Creator or God was involved they believe it was some mechanistic unguided unplanned result of mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe, life or sentient life. Even though this is the unavoidable logical conclusion one would arrive at if they don't believe in a Creator... you won't find any atheists to make thier case or provide evidence that supports this conclusion. They just go into their weak atheist song and dance that atheism is just a lack of belief in God.

You won't find atheists assuming a claim is true before the evidence confirms it, because that's the sort of dishonest shit people like you do.

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.

Let me shake your hand...at least your attempting to make a case for what you believe which is more than your fellow coward atheists are willing to do. No one disputes this physical material world exists and that with a rigid set of laws of nature, it causes many things such as planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies. That doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing and why if something does exist such as a universe, why it has laws of nature that cause all the conditions for life and sentient life to exist.

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

You're mistaken about the notion God can't be disproven. We're the mythological gods such as the god of rain, fire and earthquakes disproven? Yes because a better competing explanation with more evidence was found for it. If the same occurs for the existence of the universe most people would eventually reject belief in God.

There have been so many other things attributed to God that we now understand to be entirely natural processes. We know how the sun, Earth, and moon formed. We know that thunder is electrical discharge, not the wrath of God. We know how the weather works. We know what causes earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, auroras. We know what is really happening when we see meteor showers, comets, and eclipses, and it's not God giving people mystical signs. We know that plagues are caused by virulent microbes, not a pissed off sky daddy. Really, the creation of the universe is the last gap in which you can cram your tiny, petty God, but science will certainly evict him even from there, given enough time. When science and God face off, science has won 100% of the time. Why should that change at the ultimate finish line?

How many people believe in God specifically because they believe God created the universe? Even when science does discover the natural forces responsible for the existence of the universe, there will be plenty who won't stop believin' because not everybody has the courage and fortitude to toss away a crutch like that. They'll just move the goalposts, as they have ever since science started conquering Christendom.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Well put Ryan. Now, Drew.... You do need to realize the difference between a claim that is falsifiable, and one that adapts only to fill gaps of ignorance. By your reasoning...there is NO theory more viable than any other...Greek Gods included. For some reason, you recognize that the Greeks had it wrong. You need to understand why it is that you've at least reached that conclusion. What you also need to understand is that...if I still believed in Zeus, there isn't a single thing you could say, no matter how improbable you think it to be, no matter how much my claims contradict everything you believe to be true, there's nothing you could do to disprove it. I could adapt any claim of Zeus to bypass your reasoning and insist that its true only due to your inability to empirically prove it false. Once you understand that, and I've opened threads on this very topic invited others to try, then you MIGHT understand how silly it is to continue trying to force this shapeless God piece into a puzzle that doesn't fit.

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

[Esquilax]

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.

Yes, it makes perfect sense. I don't believe in your god, someone else's god, anyone's god. Does that mean I'm saying there aren't any gods? No, it doesn't. I'm waiting, expectantly, for you to provide some fucking proof that actually maps to reality. So far, all the rationalizations you've provided have been arguments from ignorance, and your discourse thus far is only proving that your ignorance is staggering, so somehow I get the feeling your inability to grasp the atheist position comes down to that, and not any incoherence on the part of the position itself.

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?

Alright, listen up, shitheel: YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL ME WHAT MY POSITION IS.

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.

In fact, could you do me a favor and stop acting like a slimy fuck in general? Not having a position on something when there's no evidence to suggest one isn't pathetic, it's honest, moron. It's little shits like you who feel like they're the smart ones just because they've made up a position that are pathetic; congrats Drew, you told a story you happen to believe, I guess it must be true just because you think it is, huh? If yes, you're a dick. If no, then what the fuck is so great about holding a position without evidence?

I think atheism means the following...

Didn't I just say that what you think atheism means is a useless non-starter? Do you have a reading problem?

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.

Number two, please.

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.

So if I don't believe in one thing, I must believe in the exact opposite? I don't believe my house is on fire, so therefore my house is made of ice?

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?