The Case for Atheism

[CindysRain]

Read AND studied the bible = my case for atheism. Nuff said.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My case for my atheism: I have no faith, and I want evidence.

[Ravenshire]

How did the universe come about? How did life start? Why did the universe have the characteristics to allow life even though it didn't plan for it or intend it to happen? I think even the rest of the atheists in here would like to have it explained also.

I've got to interject here.

Just because science hasn't come up with all the answers doesn't mean your 2000 year old book of bullshit does. Hell, it doesn't even get simple math right yet you believe it's the answer to life, the universe and everything else*.

Does gawd exist? I don't know but there is absolutely no evidence in favor of the idea.

Was there a creator, gawd or other? I don't know, but the evidence does not point at one.

Please stop making the gross assumption that atheists believe there are no gods. Gnostic theism is a minority position within atheism.

*Everyone knows the real answer is 42!

---

Number two, please.

Really? Requesting more shit out of him?!?























I know. Quote mining bad. Couldn't help myself.

---

That the buden of proof for god's existence has not been met.

No one has seriously attempted to meet the burden yet.

---

Let’s presume for the sake of argument that The Bible was to be true

Why is it that every theist, sooner or later, resorts to "let's presume" some facet of my bullshit is true?

No. Presuming a truth in absence of evidence is intellectually dishonest.

[Jenny A]

1. Lack of any evidence that he exists other than personal inner testimony. The fact that those with inner testimony or faith disagree radically negates the any small weight such testimony might carry.

2. Internal inconsistencies in sacred texts.

3. The fact that humans have been unable to make up a god with better morals than the average man (I mean what the god is said to do, not what he says to do.)

4. Factual refutation of sacred texts.

5. That miracles become rarer and rarer as man understands the world better.

6. The very idea that a creator most wants worship from the created. Do you want your kids to worship you?

7. That the so called god invariably prefers faith to reason. It's the mark of a conman and not a divine one.

8. The fortune cookie like prose of most sacred texts and that humans read even those texts with an obvious meaning like fortune cookies.

But really number one is conclusive.

[Ravenshire]

Wow. I had no idea I was contributing to a necro thread. My bad for not looking at the dates.

[Jenny A]

In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "

Actually, when a hypothesis implies there will be evidence, lack of evidence is evidence. So, if I theorize gravity, lack of evidence that things fall would be evidence that gravity does not exist.

The god hypothesis when applied to any religion implies there should be evidence. As there isn't evidence, lack is proof that that a particular god exists is proof he doesn't.

God hypothesis that don't imply there will be evidence are irrelevant by definition.

[ignoramus]

The BB can be responsible for everything...

Why is "life" such a different and separate concept.
What if life is a normal byproduct and common throughout the universe...
Same for intelligence ... Some planets have them, some don't... No biggie.

It's all up to the variables on said planet. Whatever happens happens.
Why do we need invent other possibilities for these natural occurring events...

[The Reality Salesman01]

Any hypothesis must be equally vulnerable to being shown false as it is for being confirmed.

Inductive reasoning works. Is that a falsifiable statement?

Yes

[Whateverist]

Inductive reasoning works. Is that a falsifiable statement?

Yes

Yeah, if you accept empirical results then inductive reasoning -correctly applied- can certainly be shown to work. But if what Chad means is can you deduce why it is that induction works, then of course you can't. But by the standards of science, induction is a go.

[frasierc]

In a nutshell....." ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE "

Actually, when a hypothesis implies there will be evidence, lack of evidence is evidence. So, if I theorize gravity, lack of evidence that things fall would be evidence that gravity does not exist.

The god hypothesis when applied to any religion implies there should be evidence. As there isn't evidence, lack is proof that that a particular god exists is proof he doesn't.

God hypothesis that don't imply there will be evidence are irrelevant by definition.

I think its a false analogy to compare evidence of gravity with evidence for the existence of God.

One of the key things you learn when doing empirical research is using the right method that fits the research question/hypothesis - rather than assuming there is one right method for testing all hypotheses.

So it really depends on what you mean by evidence - all the counter arguments I've read on the thread really come down to a prior commitment not to interpret the universe, history or experience in theistic terms.

If you've presupposed that only naturalist explanations of the world are valid - of course you're going to conclude there is no evidence for the existence of God. But to show this assumption is valid you need to present evidence why naturalism is true - otherwise it doesn't prove anything its just begging the question.