If I were an Atheist

[comet]

First I would have to come to grips with the fact that in spite of a decline in religious attendance and participation atheism isn’t a growing movement. It’s not just an issue of popularity. There are many unpopular beliefs and facts that are believed because of a preponderance of evidence in their favor, not because the belief is popular. Many popular beliefs have been abandoned do to evidence against them. Considering many atheists equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus how is it they’re not gaining any traction? If the existence of God were as implausible as the existence of Santa Claus then there should be as many atheists as those who don’t believe in Santa Claus. If atheists know something that leads them to conclude belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa they are keeping it a well-guarded secret or they are dismal failures in communication. The question is what are atheists doing wrong? Why aren’t they expressing their viewpoint in a way that actually persuades people? I suspect some atheists enjoy being contrary and being part of a small often loathed minority. Some atheists just like to think there much smarter than most and therefore their belief isn’t for the gullible masses.  

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

Therefore was I an atheist I would argue from those facts God doesn’t exist which ironically means I’m making a better argument than most atheists make. I wouldn't antagonize anyone, bash them over the head, question their sanity, just make the case and let it go at that.

If I were one?

match the words.  1-(Atheist/theist), 2-(militant/fundie), 3-(agnostic), 4-(agnostic atheist). 

-this type works with logical fallacies. Data/facts don't really come into play for them.
-these don't know what they don't know so they just go on thinking what they know is enough.
-they just don't know so they don't know.
-these, probably 15 - 20 of the population know what they don't know. 

If I were an atheists, It all starts with honesty in the mirror.  And like personality descriptions is only a general base to start understanding ourselves.  We are all mixtures of each I should think.  

[Drew_2013]

[Mister Agenda]

[Mister Agenda]

Does that describe the attribute you have in regards to how our existence is the result of natural causes?

Not at all. Do you read with your eyes closed? Because that's the kindest explanation for you coming up with that. I have said, repeatedly, that whether our universe was created or arose naturally is unknowable at this time. Someone who claims to know for sure is likely ignorant of their own ignorance. Faith is not a virtue. One's belief in something should be proportionate to the evidence for it. As I've pointed out before, natural forces demonstrably actually exist, which is a point in their favor as an explanation; but I'm in no position to know if that's actually the case. No one is, even your supposed Creator can't escape from the possibilty that it was created by a higher power that erased evidence of its existence. We could be in some kind of simulation within a naturally occurring or supernaturally created universe (or within another simulation, for that matter) or a good old-fashioned six-day creation story with all the evidence omnipotently erased. Most theistic notions have been carefully crafted to be unfalsifiable (in order to avoid the problem of there being no evidence that they are true), which also makes them unverifiable barring some unmistakable intervention by some version of the Creator. The main problem with an unfalsifiable Creator is not that it is impossible, but that the notion is utterly indistinguishable from a flight of imagination and utterly useless for any practical purpose other than manipulating others if you can convince them it's real. You might be right, but if you are, it's completely coincidental to anything you've offered as a reason to think you're anywhere remotely close to the actual truth.

It's too bad you didn't look up 'fallacy of incredulity' along with the dictionary defintions of the relevant words. You might have saved yourself some time and embarassment if you understood that the fallacy is in presenting your incredulity as support for your argument. There's nothing wrong with being incredulous, particularly if you understand that actually articulating why you're so incredulous is what you should be sharing, instead of whinging about the unbelievableness of some position. In your case, only rarely the position the person to whom you're talking actually holds.

[Angrboda]

[Drew_2013]

In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance.

So does hypothesis 1. If the Creator has free will and the power to create anything, the things it could have created are infinite. The odds that we and the universe we are in would be exactly what it wanted to create are one in infinity, effectively zero, if one is consistent about working backwards they way you do for a natural explanation of the universe.

This is the advantage of arguing on a primarily atheist board, you can say something truly absurd and no one calls you out on it. Are you trying to suggest something intentionally purposely designed to operate in a certain way is ultimately the same level of happenstance as things that  without plan intent or design just haphazardly turn out in some fashion?

Chance or inevitability, to name one other possible alternative off the top of my head. And neither of those amounts to an argument that they aren't actually the case, just a repetition that you personally find it hard to believe, so it must not be true. 

I'll get to the 'possibly' the universe had to be as it is red herring later. Its not just me who finds any alternative explanation hard to believe you yourself appear to find any specific non-god model or theory hard to believe. Do you believe we owe our existence and the universe to something called quantum foam? To save time I'll short circuit the process and assume you believe the theory has merit, but not enough evidence to warrant actual belief. The reason it has merit is because it falls under your general world view of a naturalistic explanation which automatically gives it merit. But you lack belief in the actual theory just as you lack belief in theism.

True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?
Why wouldn't there be?

You answer my question first...

One, there's no evidence any of those numbers could have been different [several constants that allow for a universe as we know it]. It's a thought exercise, sheer speculation.

No, its not sheer speculation, its an controvertible fact that several constants are in a delicate balance with one another to allow a star, galaxy, planet and a life permitting universe to exist regardless if they 'had' to be that way for some unknown reason or whether they just happened to be as they are by sheer chance. Even if for some reason they 'had' to be that way minus plan design or intent it was still happenstance that they had to be that way. Moreover the notion they had to be as they are smacks of design. Why do printed circuit boards come out just so? Because they are designed to specification.

Since we don't know why they have the values they have in the first place, we have no way of knowing what the odds were.

I'm not assigning odds. However it is scientists who are postulating this is one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics to account how a life permitting universe could exist by chance. If it had to be as it is...that's too close to design for scientists...

And why should an omnipotent being care about those six numbers? An omnipotent being doesn't require a specific set of physical constants in order for us to live in whatever universe it creates, if that's what it wants.

Omnipotent is a theological attribute some religious folks attribute to God. I'm not advancing any theological notions. However even if God is omnipotent God could choose to create the universe as we observe.

If this is the only kind of universe in which we can live naturally, we are in the only kind of universe in which supernatural intervention is NOT required to explain our presence.

Assuming a Creator isn't necessary and that in fact natural forces without plan or intent could cause themselves to exist you would be right. In other words...if you're right then your right. If I'm right, then I'm right right?

Lets take a moment to look at this from the forest level. Unlike most atheists who falsely claim there isn't a shred of evidence not one single fact that is simpatico with belief in theism I don't deny there are facts that support the notion we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to naturalistic forces that somehow came into existence, somehow became a universe and somehow had the characteristics to cause sentient life to exist. If my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator is wrong it leaves only some mechanistic explanation so if nothing else, it is a second runner up. However, even if it were true is the runner up belief any less miraculous? The counter belief is that natural forces minus any plan or intent or to the best of our knowledge any necessity to exist somehow came to exist.

1. Some unknown forces caused the natural forces we now observe to exist.
2. Natural forces we observe bootstrapped themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing.

If 1 the unknown forces operate outside of time and the laws of physics we familiar with don't apply to these unknown forces then by definition they are supernatural relative to us, they are also transcendent to us. If 2 we owe our existence to a supernatural magic act. But I suppose for the sake of argument you'll push the goal posts further back and call matter and the laws of physics popping into existence uncaused out of nothing natural.

My guess is like with theism you lack belief in 1 or 2.

The virtue of it is that the only reason a rational person should need to not believe something [theism] is lack of a good reason to think it is actually true.

I have provided several reasons why it is a reasonable belief compared to any counter theories. There isn't a lack of evidence to support the belief we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to a Creator.

In order for theism to be possibly true (the belief the universe and sentient life were intentionally caused by a Creator) certain conditions must be true or there would be no reason to suggest a Creator is involved. In contrast, there isn't one fact that needs to be true for atheism to be true (the belief (or lack of belief) no Creator exists or was involved in the existence of the universe or sentient humans). In fact there are conditions that if true would significantly favor atheism. For example suppose no universe or humans existed. Not only would atheism be a slam dunk position, there would be nothing existing to attribute to a creator. The claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true if that were so . Suppose a universe did exist, but it was utterly chaotic with no laws of physics no rhyme or reason and obviously no life (exactly what one would expect to be the result of mindless mechanistic forces that some how came into existence). Again there would be no reason to raise the question of theism (or anyone to raise such an idea but this is a thought experiment). Again in order for the possibility of theism to be raised certain conditions and facts must be true.



1. A universe has to exist

2. The universe must be such that life can occur and be around long enough for sentience to occur

3. Sentient life must exist

4. There must be stable laws of physics that allow for stars, galaxies, and planets to exist.



Question: Why would mindless mechanistic forces create the conditions necessary for the claim of theism to have any merit?



You say these facts aren't compelling. Anyone who is an atheist and either disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God is going to say that. Is any atheist here or anywhere going to say the aforementioned facts are compelling but I don't give it any credence anyway? Actually there was an atheist who did give these arguments a lot of credence but as a result he became a philosophical theist. I'm referring to Antony Flew.

[Surgenator]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have my own version of Occam's razor...if its not a fact it doesn't exist.

 
Really now? Do you reject abstractions, then?  I mean, they aren't facts, they are concepts.

[Whateverist]

I have my own version of Occam's razor...if its not a fact it doesn't exist.

 
Really now? Do you reject abstractions, then?  I mean, they aren't facts, they are concepts.

Apparently his own maxim will have to go since it too isn't a fact.

[LostLocke]

Oooh, well this could get fun.

It's not a fact that there's life anywhere else in the universe, therefore life elsewhere in the universe doesn't exist. Therefore, the universe is not fine tuned for life since there is only one planet out of billions upon billions that has life. If the universe isn't fine tuned for life, well we know where that leads....