If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

Yes I am. Einstein and others noticed a slight discrepancy and subsequently he formulated his theory of general relativity. The point is we observe ourselves in a universe that according to atheists came into existence without the benefit of a designer or engineer and yet the universe operates unswervingly by laws of physics that are discoverable, are amenable to scientific inquiry and explicable in mathematical formulas, are uniform throughout the universe and make prediction and deduction possible. Is this what anyone would expect or predict if our universe was the result of mindless mechanistic that didn't intend any specific thing to happen? Would it be surprising if a universe came into existence without the benefit of intelligence design or planning that it would be chaotic without any discernible laws of nature and hostile to scientific inquiry? I dare say it wouldn't be surprising but it would be what you'd expect from the source...

Actually, it appears as though many laws are not uniform, for instance at the edge of and inside of black holes, scientists suspect the laws change.

In answer to the bolded question, yes, it is what we would expect to see, because it is what we do see.

Addressing the rest, as someone already pointed out, the laws and maths we use to describe the universe are TOOLS, the universe is not made up of these laws or maths.

In answer to the bolded question, yes, it is what we would expect to see, because it is what we do see.

That has to be the stupidest response I've seen in a long time.

Addressing the rest, as someone already pointed out, the laws and maths we use to describe the universe are TOOLS, the universe is not made up of these laws or maths.

Did humans invent the laws of physics? Did humans invent or discover the math that describes the universe?

[Brian37]

Actually, it appears as though many laws are not uniform, for instance at the edge of and inside of black holes, scientists suspect the laws change.

In answer to the bolded question, yes, it is what we would expect to see, because it is what we do see.

Addressing the rest, as someone already pointed out, the laws and maths we use to describe the universe are TOOLS, the universe is not made up of these laws or maths.

In answer to the bolded question, yes, it is what we would expect to see, because it is what we do see.

That has to be the stupidest response I've seen in a long time.

Addressing the rest, as someone already pointed out, the laws and maths we use to describe the universe are TOOLS, the universe is not made up of these laws or maths.

Did humans invent the laws of physics? Did humans invent or discover the math that describes the universe?

We developed the language we use to describe our observations. Water was water long before we knew what atoms are and started calling those molecules H20. 

None of all this requires a watchmaker to happen any more than Thor explains the cause of lightening or Poseidon explains the cause of hurricanes.

[loganonekenobi]

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.  

How would I approach the debate were I an atheist?

1. Drop the ‘I’m a weak-atheist’ strategy.

I’d go further and criticize those who refer to themselves as weak atheists. If atheists can’t convince others who call themselves atheists that God doesn’t exist just as an opinion and not as a fact, how can they possibly convince someone who believes in the existence of God that God doesn’t exist? I know many atheists refer to themselves as weak atheists only so they can say they make no claim about whether God exists and therefore they have no burden of evidence. The upshot is it makes the case in favor of atheism so weak even those who call themselves atheists won’t opine that God doesn’t exist. I think the claim made by atheists they only lack belief in the existence of God is bogus, in reality it is there opinion that God doesn’t exist.  

2. Drop linking belief in Santa to belief in God argument.

It’s a silly argument on the face of it. If belief in God were akin to belief in Santa Claus (or fairies, invisible pink elephants and so on) then why doesn’t 80% of the population believe in Santa Claus? If belief in God is as silly as belief in Santa Claus they need to explain why lucid sane adults don’t believe in Santa Claus but do believe in God? Secondly there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that a mystical person known as Santa who delivers presents worldwide on Christmas is easy to debunk and disprove. If belief in God is akin to belief in Santa how can there be weak atheists who only lack belief in God? Do atheists think Santa may exist but they merely lack that belief?

3. Drop the bashing, marginalizing and demonizing of believers.

I know such tactics make a big splash with fellow atheists but it does nothing for those sitting on the fence and are interested in an actual debate between atheists and theists. It makes atheists look petty, smug and arrogant and that they can’t make a factual argument from the evidence.

If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist) I would clearly state such a belief is an opinion. It’s what I think is true but acknowledge I’m not certain of it. That’s what an opinion is, a statement you have reason to believe is true but can’t be certain is true. I don’t know of any atheists claiming it’s a fact God doesn’t exist so it must be a belief that God doesn’t exist so why the animosity towards others who have a difference of opinion? If I ran an atheist board I would welcome theists to the board, respect their difference of opinion but share the facts and evidence I believe challenges that belief.

-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe.

-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.

-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

-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.

The main reason why Santa Clause is not a figure that adults believe is because Santa doesn't promise life after  death.  All of the various traditional faiths lead us to believe that this life isn't the only one we have.  This is a comforting thought and i don't blame anyone for believing that.  However,  the issue becomes a problem when the mass indoctrination that happens in most nations (america/christian, india/hindu,sadiarabia/muslem) doesn't take hold of 100% of the poeple.  when you are one of "those(athiest)people) then the dominant faith/s will use many methods ,civil or not, to get that person back to the "fold".  Most religious scientist are fine with both thier faith and science they just realize where science can go and cant go.  the same with faith.  As an atheist I'm  not angry at God (that would be silly) but instead at those that would use any means (civil or not) to bring me back to what they believe is right.  This is the real reason, i feel, that this site exists.  This is my first post so be gentle.

[Dystopia]

Well hey there, you should consider making an introductory topic.

[Drew_2013]

In answer to the bolded question, yes, it is what we would expect to see, because it is what we do see.

That has to be the stupidest response I've seen in a long time.

Addressing the rest, as someone already pointed out, the laws and maths we use to describe the universe are TOOLS, the universe is not made up of these laws or maths.

Did humans invent the laws of physics? Did humans invent or discover the math that describes the universe?

We developed the language we use to describe our observations. Water was water long before we knew what atoms are and started calling those molecules H20. 

None of all this requires a watchmaker to happen any more than Thor explains the cause of lightening or Poseidon explains the cause of hurricanes.

We have solid evidence a personal agent is directly responsible for lightening or hurricanes. The belief the universe doesn't require a creator is an opinion based on the belief it doesn't require a Creator. What hypothesis or model do you propose that explains how matter came into existence and then caused a universe with laws of nature?

[robvalue]

You have evidence a personal agent is responsible for lightning? What does that mean? I'm starting to think you are messing with us.

You're talking about Thor? He is a swell guy. Sometimes he gets angry and... you know the rest.

Whether or not we can think of a model is irrelevant to whether your model is true.

[downbeatplumb]

We have solid evidence a personal agent is directly responsible for lightening or hurricanes.

Wait what!

The belief the universe doesn't require a creator is an opinion based on the belief it doesn't require a Creator. What hypothesis or model do you propose that explains how matter came into existence and then caused a universe with laws of nature?

What I believe is based on what can be proven.

The universe started by creator idea has no evidence for it, nor does it have any explanatory value, I mean how did the "creator" do it? what process did it use? where did it get it's materials? none of this is explained, it's just left at "god did it" and that's supposed to be satisfactory, it isn't.

You ask for ideas of where matter came from and propose none in its place. There are scientific theories which I know I have posted for you before but you have chosen to ignore on the subject of before the big bang so posting links again would just be a waste of my time.



 

[Esquilax]

We have solid evidence a personal agent is directly responsible for lightening or hurricanes.

See, you say that... but don't think for a moment we haven't noticed the complete lack of that evidence in your post. Assertions aren't evidence, Drew.

The belief the universe doesn't require a creator is an opinion based on the belief it doesn't require a Creator.

Why would you even bother to say something so circular? You could have said nothing at all and this sentiment would still be clear.

What hypothesis or model do you propose that explains how matter came into existence and then caused a universe with laws of nature?

Someone still doesn't know how the burden of proof works, do they? You made the positive claim of a creator, you prove it. The fact that all you do is make wild assertions and then demand that there's evidence for them is reason enough to dismiss that until you come up with better evidence than none at all. And since we live in a universe where all of the available evidence and observations we have are of naturally occurring phenomena happening without need for an intelligent agent, your seeking to insert one directly contradicts those observations and falls afoul of Occam's Razor. Ultimately we don't yet know how matter came into existence, but we don't have to have an alternative solution to know that yours is woefully lacking in justification.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

We developed the language we use to describe our observations. Water was water long before we knew what atoms are and started calling those molecules H20. 

None of all this requires a watchmaker to happen any more than Thor explains the cause of lightening or Poseidon explains the cause of hurricanes.

We have solid evidence a personal agent is directly responsible for lightening or hurricanes.

No we don't. Stop lying.

The belief the universe doesn't require a creator is an opinion based on the belief it doesn't require a Creator.

No it isn't. Stop lying.

What hypothesis or model do you propose that explains how matter came into existence and then caused a universe with laws of nature?

Anything that's not what you believe. Because that 'anything' is more believable than sky fairy magic.

[Cyberman]

We have solid evidence that no gods have ever existed.

Hey look - I can do it too!