If I were an Atheist

[robvalue]

Adam: Stress on the environment, I see. Are you suggesting than inaction will delay extinction? Or that we should better plan our actions to delay extinction?

Extinction, or environmental damage, whichever. I agree generally doing nothing is better for the environment and I'd love to see humans go extinct as we suck. We are the biggest threat to the planet and cause the most suffering. So if we all did nothing and died out, I'd be down with that. Not my call though so I have to do my best with what I have.

I don't see the connection between better planning and inaction though. More time spent in thought is a good thing, sure.

[Mister Agenda]

As I've written before, the notion there is no evidence, not one single fact that is simpatico or comports with the belief we owe our existence to a Creator is so imbedded into the thinking of atheists, so fundamental and core to atheist thought that most atheists will refuse to acknowledge there is evidence (which are simply facts in favor of a belief) that no argument will stop atheists from saying it. But I love a challenge.

That this thinking is embedded in the minds of atheists seems to be a notion so thoroughly embedded in yours that no matter how many times we patiently and in detail explain that you've gotten our thinking wrong, some pages down the thread, you'll just repeat basically the same claim about us. It's NOT that not one single fact is sympatico or comports with belief in a Creator. It's that a fact being sympatico or in comportment with a belief does not make it evidence for a belief. Presents being found under Christmas trees is sympatico and in comportment with a belief that Santa leaves presents under trees. It is, however, not evidence that Santa leaves presents under trees because it is equally sympatico and in comportment with the belief that parents leave presents under trees. Your repeated inability to comprehend the necessity that evidence lead to one conclusion and not equally another leaves you where you were on page one and everyone else wondering what it would take for you to be able to understand this relatively simple fact.

---

As a hypothetical imagine there is no universe, no stars, no planets and no life, yet somehow we're able to have this conversation and I said I think a Creator caused the universe to exist you'd say what universe? The position there is no God or creator of the universe or life would be a slam dunk...there is no universe and there is no life. In other words the popular claim of atheists there is no evidence of a Creator would be true.

No Creator doesn't mean no God. It means no God that  has created a universe, possibly with the caveat, yet. If it's true that such nothingness is impossible, the only explanation might be some unknown force preventing a universe from existing. The position that there is no God is not a slam dunk at all in the scenario you envision.

---

Now suppose a universe does exist but its utterly chaotic, there is no predictable or uniform behavior and scientific research is impossible but I said I believe an intelligent designer caused this chaotic universe to exist. I could point to the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by a personal agent as opposed to impersonal forces and if no one knows how the universe came to be a Creator couldn't be ruled out. But you could point to the fact the universe was utterly chaotic with no apparent rhyme or reason to it as evidence it was the result of mechanistic forces. You would argue that is exactly what we expect if mindless forces was the source of the universe.

Since true chaos necessarily results in pockets in order, a universe that has no such pockets of order must have 'uniform chaos' imposed on it by an unknown force. Perhaps a God that wants it to be chaotic. The universe you describe isn't behaving as though only mechanistic forces are at work. A pure chaos universe supports at least some sort of anti-order force at work.

---

Now suppose we observe a universe that has discernible laws of physics that appear to govern how matter interacts and as a result the matter in the universe coalesces into stars that form into galaxies, that form into solar systems that cause planets to exist. Because of the laws of physics scientific research and inquiry, mathematical formulas, predictions and logical deduction are now doable. Furthermore through observation and study we also notice that not just any set of laws or characteristics will produce planets and stars. In fact we notice that even the strength of gravity falls in a narrow range that allows stars and galaxies to form. Then we notice that gravity alone won't hold galaxies together they just fly apart. We realize there is a huge amount of matter we can't detect but in order for galaxies to form it must be there as well. Again I say this universe was created by an intelligent being and I point to all the characteristics and laws of physics that cause the observed universe. However in this imaginary universe there is no life whatsoever. Not a spec not a molecule. You could still argue and say why would an intelligent being cause a sterile universe to exist? You'd say fine there are exacting characteristics that cause stars and planets to exist but so what? What would be the point of creating such a universe? You'd still have a good argument against the existence of a Creator but at this point you could no longer honestly say there is no evidence of a Creator (although you would still say that). The reason you'd still say that is because whether true or not its a great reason to decline a belief in something. Why should anyone believe in something minus any facts or data its true?

Again, you've introduced a universe with a mystery that points to something mysterious acting on it. A universe that much like ours would certainly have life in it somewhere unless something was actively preventing it from beginning or it has an 'anti-life' characteristic which you've failed to note which would make it reasonable to expect no life in it. Now, a God that finds stars pretty but life greasy would be sympatico with and in comportment with these hypothetical facts.

---

Now suppose we observe the same universe but on one planet we find not only life...but sentient life! We find beings capable of art, music and conducting science. There's a reason Downbeat so many people do believe in God but don't believe in Santa Claus or fairies.

Yes, it's that belief in God has mostly replaced belief in faeries, and that largely occurred when the God believers held great political power.

---

Its because they have a choice to subscribe to the belief that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused the universe to exist, caused the laws of physics and the characteristics of matter and subsequently unintentionally caused life and mind exist or they can subscribe to the belief that a fix was in, that all these conditions and laws of physics are the result of design and plan.

There's very strong and persuasive evidence that the reason is that most believers in a Creator indoctrinate their children to believe the same things they do. It's not only demonstrable, the counter examples of people raised to believe differently are legion.

[Hatshepsut]

Now suppose we observe a universe that has discernible laws of physics that appear to govern how matter interacts and as a result the matter in the universe coalesces into stars that form into galaxies, that form into solar systems that cause planets to exist...

Earlier on the thread I've identified atheism, when it is understood as philosophy of life attractive to many people today, as the functional equivalent of a religion. I still think so (even though they don't); however that concerns only atheism's current social function, not the merits of its claims.

If we do observe an apparently lawful universe, then science looks for the laws. Science hasn't found a creator, nor looked for one either, mainly because determining what the laws are is easier. These laws are then whatever they turn out to be regardless of whether a creator is involved or not. There's so much myth and speculation surrounding the creator that this topic isn't really a fruitful arena for science. There's nothing physically measurable to date which could tell us anything about such a creator.

Claim-wise, the atheists are on reasonable ground while religions have overinflated their cushions on this creator business.

[Mister Agenda]

After reading through multiple posts on this thread as well as others, it is amazing to me how misinformed people are about Atheism.  At this point, I am curious as to what experiences people have had with Atheists that causes them to hate us so much.  Not all of us are angry at theists.  The majority of us don't hate God, mainly because we cannot hate a being who we deny to exist in the first place.  So much hatred stems from the word "Atheist", and it sickens me.  I only hope that by continuing to call myself an Atheist, that those who know me will understand that being an Atheist does not make me an evil person.

Trying to change the world's opinion sucks, no?

Apparently, the idea atheists are so angry is the result of mass projection.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.10...013.866929

[Jericho]

Science hasn't found a creator, nor looked for one either...

I am sure if you came up with a way we could possibly search for one, they would test it. Plus, I doubt you can think of any method that hasn't already been thought up or tried. But good looking out.

[Mister Agenda]

Now suppose we observe a universe that has discernible laws of physics that appear to govern how matter interacts and as a result the matter in the universe coalesces into stars that form into galaxies, that form into solar systems that cause planets to exist...

Earlier on the thread I've identified atheism, when it is understood as philosophy of life attractive to many people today, as the functional equivalent of a religion. I still think so (even though they don't); however that concerns only atheism's current social function, not the merits of its claims.

If we do observe an apparently lawful universe, then science looks for the laws. Science hasn't found a creator, nor looked for one either, mainly because determining what the laws are is easier. These laws are then whatever they turn out to be regardless of whether a creator is involved or not. There's so much myth and speculation surrounding the creator that this topic isn't really a fruitful arena for science. There's nothing physically measurable to date which could tell us anything about such a creator.

Claim-wise, the atheists are on reasonable ground while religions have overinflated their cushions on this creator business.

You seem to be a reasonable person, but atheism is not a philosophy (nor is it the sort of noun that ought to be capitalized, but I reckon that's your business), it's a position on one topic. It is not and can not be the functional equivalent of a religion for the same reason theism is not and can not be so. Or that the opinion that ice cream is better than bacon could be so. Atheism could be a feature of a religion, just as theism is a feature of so many (but not all) religions. But one opinion on one topic can't be a philosophy or a religion because it's so narrow. Whatever you're thinking of, it's probably not properly called atheism, unless confusion is what you're aiming for.

---

If I were an atheist, I wouldn't care what the average theist does or really think too much about them. 

It's clearly not true that if you were a theist, you wouldn't care what the average atheist does or really think too much about them.

[Jericho]

Apparently, the idea atheists are so angry is the result of mass projection.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.10...013.866929

I actually saved that document on my computer. Thanks for that, as I fully intend to read it in its entirety.

[Mister Agenda]

There is no atheistic belief system. You seem to have some misconceptions, equating atheism with scepticism...

Many atheists talk like they're coming from a belief system. They fight for what they believe in. They get angry and indignant if they are challenged. They consider themselves "right" and all others "wrong." At risk of repeating myself, they also have standard formulas used in speech or writing, icons such as the "atom" logo or pictures of galaxies emerging from the big bang, and codewords or phrases by which they recognize fellow atheists. These are all the earmarks of a faith. I just don't buy the denial I hear, "we don't believe in anything."

I realize atheism includes diversity and don't group them all together en bloc. But really, every human being holds a belief system of some kind, whether it's simply personal opinion or identification with an organized body of opinion-makers. We can't turn off that part of our nature as if it were a faucet.

I don't fault atheists for what they choose to do with their consciences, or blame them for understandable defense of their own stances. I merely refuse to believe they are Vulcans like Mr. Spock who make choices uninformed by emotion.  

I don't know how you can tell we are getting emotional, hatsch.

It comes with experience smoothing the customers' ruffled archaeopteryx feathers in the commercial dining room, a place much like where the Royal Society used to meet in the early days of science. Albeit my antennae don't work as well online as they do at the table.

Meanwhile, I'd better get off the horn now lest I hog space here. My thanks to everyone.  

Atheists have belief systems. None of the belief systems atheists have is 'Atheism'. Theists have belief systems. None of the belief systems theists have is 'Theism'. I suppose someone could make a belief system and call it 'Theism', but that would be needlessly confusing, wouldn't it?

[Jericho]

I love that argument that theists use that atheism is basically just a religion. Just Google the definition already.

Actually, I will do it for you.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I fail to see how atheists can even be thrown into the same category. We have no religious text, leaders, gathering areas, or anything like that. Sure, some organizations exist that have atheist members, and there are prominent scientists and authors that help people learn about atheism. But that is not the same as believing the word of the Pope, a pastor, preacher, father, or anyone else as the words of a god. Just saying.

[AdamLOV]

Atheists have belief systems. None of the belief systems atheists have is 'Atheism'. Theists have belief systems. None of the belief systems theists have is 'Theism'. I suppose someone could make a belief system and call it 'Theism', but that would be needlessly confusing, wouldn't it?
[/quote]

On this point I would beg to differ. As a minimum definition, one could surmize that Atheism means disbelief in the God of monotheism. All right, but this definition would surely be too narrow. Atheists rarely believe in paranormal phenomena or the reality out-of-body experiences (which have, on a side-note, been shown to be cognitive illusions). Therefore one cannot restrict atheism to being merely disbelief in God. It is much more than that. It would be disbelief in general. Following this logic, the more general the scope of one's disbelief, the more "atheist" that person would be. This is hard atheism, as opposed to the soft atheism of, say, Richard Dawkins, who believes in gene determinism and the redemptive qualities of science.