Why are atheist...atheist?

[fr0d0]

When I find out more about the universe (which is something I do a fair bit of), it confirms my belief there is nothing beyond nature (natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences).

As science describes nature I don't see how science can describe supernature. Surely your statement is wrong?

Nature encompasses all. Supernatural is merely the artifact of a part of nature, namely some man, in trying to pretend that he knows something about some grand order of universe, must whitewash the fact that his fiction lack compatibility with what his audience might already know of nature. So the supernatural is a phenomenon of the natural world just as much, and in the same way, as any tale of fiction or any man made lie or deceit, and so is within descriptive power of science. Science can not describe god because there is no god. But science in theory has within it's power to fully describe why you think there is a god, how you would think there is a god, the precise attributes you would say of god each time you defend your inconstant fiction, and precisely what impact this dishoest quibbling would have on you, those around you, and society in general.

Word salad for "I agree"?

[Justtristo]

When I find out more about the universe (which is something I do a fair bit of), it confirms my belief there is nothing beyond nature (natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences).

As science describes nature I don't see how science can describe supernature. Surely your statement is wrong?

Nature encompasses all. Supernatural is merely the artifact of a part of nature, namely some man, in trying to pretend that he knows something about some grand order of universe, must whitewash the fact that his fiction lack compatibility with what his audience might already know of nature. So the supernatural is a phenomenon of the natural world just as much, and in the same way, as any tale of fiction or any man made lie or deceit, and so is within descriptive power of science. Science can not describe god because there is no god. But science in theory has within it's power to fully describe why you think there is a god, how you would think there is a god, the precise attributes you would say of god each time you defend your inconstant fiction, and precisely what impact this dishoest quibbling would have on you, those around you, and society in general.

Well said Chuck,

Might I add also when I discover more about the universe and think about it, I just don't believe there is anything apart from natural causes.

[fr0d0]

Belief is a metaphysical stance. Welcome to the dark side.

[reverendjeremiah]

I choose to believe God exist because I think the laws of physics just randomly or coincidently happenening the way they did out of the infinite other possible options is rediculously unlikely.

...and...

But to just assert that God doesn't exist without any real supporting evidence is just as ignorant as religious people saying he does exist and describing what he's like. ...Why not simply admit one does not know instead taking a stance of certainty? That, to me, is inherently ignorant.

makes you a hypocrite..according to your own words, you are a hypocrite and inherently ignorant.

[Anomalocaris]

When I find out more about the universe (which is something I do a fair bit of), it confirms my belief there is nothing beyond nature (natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences).

As science describes nature I don't see how science can describe supernature. Surely your statement is wrong?

Nature encompasses all. Supernatural is merely the artifact of a part of nature, namely some man, in trying to pretend that he knows something about some grand order of universe, must whitewash the fact that his fiction lack compatibility with what his audience might already know of nature. So the supernatural is a phenomenon of the natural world just as much, and in the same way, as any tale of fiction or any man made lie or deceit, and so is within descriptive power of science. Science can not describe god because there is no god. But science in theory has within it's power to fully describe why you think there is a god, how you would think there is a god, the precise attributes you would say of god each time you defend your inconstant fiction, and precisely what impact this dishoest quibbling would have on you, those around you, and society in general.

Well said Chuck,

Might I add also when I discover more about the universe and think about it, I just don't believe there is anything apart from natural causes.

If it appear to you that there exists something apart from natural causes, that's only because you've needlessly and arbitrarily restricted the definition of "natural", probably so as to excuse yourself from examining certain parts of with appropriate rigor in order to continue to indulge in fantasies about it.

[Minimalist]

Why are atheist...atheist?

Because we are too smart to be theists.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Ace

You win one internet fort the pithiest and arguably most honest response in this thread.Viz

I don't give a fuck.

Me? I don't argue with apologists,it's like trying to communicate with an orangutang. I'm usually content to sit one the sidelines and snipe occasionally.

[theVOID]

Belief is a metaphysical stance. Welcome to the dark side.

+1 to examples of fr0d0 using the word metaphysical that demonstrates he doesn't get what it means.

Belief is only related to the metaphysical where it concerns the fundamental nature of reality, that means about 99.9% of everything we believe is in no way tied to metaphysics.

---

I choose to believe God exist because I think the laws of physics just randomly or coincidently happenening the way they did out of the infinite other possible options is rediculously unlikely.

There are a number of problems with that sentence, some stated and some implied;

1. You are comparing God as an explanation to a strawman of the alternative position(s), by stating that you are comparing God as an explanation to an infinite number of other possible options means that God is necessarily more likely, the chances of any one of an infinite set of equally likely things happening is by definition infinitely small, meaning we cannot say anything meaningful about the chances of it happening - Comparing God to something that we cannot say anything meaningful about is a bias towards your chosen position.

2. You are implying that there are only two options, God and Chance, thus your probabilities are going to be false. There are also the possibilities of Inflation, Brane Theory, Cosmic Evolution, Context-dependent physical laws and computer simulations - Each one of these offers a possible explanation for why the laws of the universe are as we observe them, in order to make an intellectually honest claim about the probability of god causing the universe you MUST take into account every other possible option - You must also acknowledge that there could many more explanations that we have not yet conceived of.

3. You are (unknowingly I suspect) giving your own values cosmic mandate. To demonstrate this ask yourself the following; If the Universe was simply 'particle soup' would you still be saying that 'This must have been designed, the chance of such a complex particle soup made up of the hundreds of participants of the 'particle zoo' happening by chance is extremely low so a god must have designed it'? I suspect you wouldn't, that means you are deciding that a universe with Life is more valuable and this is nothing but a reflection of your own values - Unfortunately for you, your own subjective values are completely irrelevant, it is naught but a bias.

4. If you believe that the existence of these specific laws by chance is extremely unlikely then the existence of a being who knew about these laws, how to implement them and what they would achieve ahead of time is MUCH MUCH more unlikely.

In short, you're reasoning is about as fucked as it can get.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bravo to Void, both for actually risking the investment in time and effort on the OP....and for it being so well organized on the page..lol.

[fr0d0]

Belief is a metaphysical stance. Welcome to the dark side.

+1 to examples of fr0d0 using the word metaphysical that demonstrates he doesn't get what it means.

Belief is only related to the metaphysical where it concerns the fundamental nature of reality, that means about 99.9% of everything we believe is in no way tied to metaphysics'

Actually it's the meaning of belief that could be interpreted differently, as your proof statement attests. Are you going cold turkey VOID?