The Case for Atheism

[Sal]

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.

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

[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!

[Mystical]

I think you're confused, Drew. Here.

Agnostic Atheist. Agnostic refers to the knowledge of, and atheist refers to the belief in deities.

Agnostic atheist uses the adjective form of agnostic not the noun form. The meaning changes, it goes from the noun which itself means uncertainty in the existence of a deity , to a descriptive form meaning not knowing (can be applied to many terms as a descriptor.)

Gnostic in descriptive form (adj) means knowledge but not in anything specific; I could be a gnostic multi-verse theorist, which would be claiming knowledge that the theory of the multi-verse concept is correct.

Agnostic in adj form means to not know in anything specific. The word agnostic was first coined by Thomas Huxley, and is a derivative of the word gnostic, itself derived from the Greek gnossis, meaning knowledge. I could be an agnostic string theorist, meaning I don't claim to know if it's right for sure but I believe string theory is correct. Just because I believe in something but don't know for certain: DOES NOT MEAN there wasn't sufficient evidence given, to lead me to that conclusion.

Gnostic theist: a Theist who claims to know without a doubt that there is a god (which is impossible to know without faith).

Agnostic Theist means a theist who doesn't know if there is a god, but believes in one.

Agnostic atheist is an atheist who doesn't know if there is a god, and doesn't believe in one. It is the default position you were born into without your indoctrination.

Gnostic atheist is one who believes without a doubt there is no god (also impossible to know without faith).


The intellectually honest title for an atheist (without faith) is agnostic atheist. Period.

---

[The Reality Salesman01]

Yes Drew...Atheist means...we don't know...and pertains to the possibility of a God(s). We reject all versions we've heard, but cannot prove it wrong as a fact. That's all.

---

...your version, I'm sorry to say, is included.

[downbeatplumb]

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?

I think it so unlikely that a god or god like being created the universe that it is not a possibility worth considering.

is that close enough for you?

[pocaracas]

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.

yeah, like I didn't study the history of physics... -.-'
here, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...formations
Einie had the advantage of being the first to realize what Lorentz & friends didn't.

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.

On the very first page, I (and others) gave you many cases in favor of atheism... wish is the same as "cases against any form of theism...
Not doing it again.

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?

I don't deny it. It's a hypothesis. Just like the FSM, or "invisible pink unicorn did it". They're all equally valid hypothesis...
As an atheist, I don't believe it to be representative of reality.
As a human being, I don't know how the Universe came about, nor do you, nor does anyone!

However, theists tend to claim that some highly complex entity caused the Universe to be. It is that claim that atheists don't buy into, because they are well aware that humanity's collective knowledge pool has not reached that goal yet. Until then, we make no stupid claims, like yours.

Since we don't ascribe to the intellectual numbness of theism, we follow the people who actually study the phenomena in question - cosmology, particle physics. Most of us are not equipped with the tools they have, so we are left to wait for them to come up with the breakthroughs... in the meantime, we like to throw some fish around just to pass the time.

When they have conclusive evidence that proves the existence of some god, we'll then accept it as a valid entity.... until then... well, I've said a bunch of times on this forum... theism's track record is incredibly void when compared with science's explanation of "events previously attributed to god(s)". So I'm not putting any money on that dying horse.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I don't think I've met any atheist that isn't an agnostic atheist. It's the only logical position to take when confronted with spurious but ultimately untestable claims (eg. There is a god and it does x).

To claim one has garnered knowledge based on personal faith is one thing, but to claim objective facts based on untestable and unverifiable belief is, well, just silly. It's a box that you can never get out of.

As a human being, I don't know how the Universe came about, nor do you, nor does anyone!

Precisely.

[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.

[Drew_2013]

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?

I think it so unlikely that a god or god like being created the universe that it is not a possibility worth considering.

is that close enough for you?

Excellent...maybe now we can have a real discussion on a level playing field.

On what basis do you consider a Creator not being a possibility worth considering and what counter non-god explanation do you consider to be a much better explanation?

---

pocaracas

However, theists tend to claim that some highly complex entity caused the Universe to be. It is that claim that atheists don't buy into, because they are well aware that humanity's collective knowledge pool has not reached that goal yet. Until then, we make no stupid claims, like yours.

Theism is the belief we owe our existence to a transcendent being commonly referred to as God. To claim it is a stupid belief strongly suggests there are intellectually superior explanations for our existence and the universe or that you have some knowledge, facts or data in a poportion that renders such belief to be silly. Make your case. Enlighten me. Thanks.

apophenia,

Please feel free to take your time to respond all you want. I exposed you as a phoney several posts ago.

[downbeatplumb]

Excellent...maybe now we can have a real discussion on a level playing field.

On what basis do you consider a Creator not being a possibility worth considering and what counter non-god explanation do you consider to be a much better explanation?

Define creator.

How EXACTLY is the creator supposed to create from nothing?
How can it exist with no time to exist in?
What is the creator made of if here is no material to be made of?
How did the creator gain intelligence when the only way to gain that is through evolution?
Where did your creator come from?

It tries to answer a difficult question with a simplistic answer which breaks down after a moments thought.

It is a silly idea that was an obvious sop to the feeble minded

And there are quite a few possible ways that the cosmos could have been come to be, some of them even have a smidgen of evidence for them and not one of them is supernatural.

here are a few

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj

Sir Roger Penrose has changed his mind about the Big Bang. He now imagines an eternal cycle of expanding universes where matter becomes energy and back again in the birth of new universes and so on and so on.