If I were an Atheist

[ghoulslime]

Michael wrote

I'm likely going to take a few days off while my birthday comes and goes. I may get to a response in the meantime, I may not.

Get that ass spanked!

[Michael]

ghoulslime wrote

Get that ass spanked!

There was not nearly enough spanking occuring. Or any, for that.

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

I do suffer from that but USA is a large country and its what I'm familiar with. I have had several atheists quote surveys about people saying their not religious but I wouldn't conflate that with being an atheist. If I responded to such a survey I'd say non-religious also. Some people think God is an old fucking bastard...but they wouldn't be atheists either.

Yeah, and that's a valid point - one which I was expecting when I wrote it, if I'm to be honest.

The problem with the 'no religion' tag is its general vagueness, in that it can have a spectrum ranging from atheism to vaguely spiritual to outright deism. Both you and I - absent further information, like other choices in the census question - would likely both select "no religion" as an option.
There are, of course, further extenuating circumstances - such as the other options on the census, and the additional write-in option. All information I am currently trying to find to add context.

At the end of the day, though, all that was to try to give a concrete description in numbers of a more general feeling in society towards atheism in this country. The fact is in this country (Australia) there is an ambivalence towards religion (and non-religion), and atheists are generally accepted as a societal norm, as opposed to the "armpits of humanity"as you tried to say they were.

Really that is the ultimate point I want to make here - internationally, experiences will be vastly different to what they are in America and you need to look at that and take it into account.

Let me take a moment to pull this discussion from the trees view to the forest view. One problem with any of these discussions is we end up trying to convince each other of our respective points of view. I'd rather have an opportunity to debate this case before impartial folks and let them decide and let it go at that. Then I'm not spinning my wheels trying to convince an opponent who is not an impartial person but an adversary. This forum maybe more impartial, certainly more impartial than Raving Atheist forum.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/forum.php

I'm happy to debate anywhere, but - as I've said before and will likely say again - I'm not interested in "winning" debates, or changing people's minds. I am seeking to have a worldview that accurately represents reality (the fact that such a worldview can win arguments and change people's minds is a bonus).
I debate and talk to people because it gives me an opportunity to expose myself to other opinions and world views, allows me to organise my own thoughts in a cohesive manner, and allows others to find any potential holes in my worldview - that if I find legitimate (and that does happen) i will take into consideration.

I don't need an "impartial" audience for that, though I suppose it can help to fine-tune any weak points in my worldview.

As I have mentioned, I'm not affiliated or involved in any religion or church group. I'm a theist in that I believe having reviewed evidence in my opinion it favors the belief we are the result of a Creator. Anything I can say about the Creator what he, she or it is like would be pure speculation or how such a Creator would go about causing a universe to exist. I have no more idea how God would create a universe anymore than how non-God forces would. You have complained that the Creator designer I am promoting is too generic but that is theism.

Where do they exist? How do they exist? What was the mechanism for creating the universe and matter? What was the mechanism for creating any external realm they might exist in? What was the mechanism for creating them?

This is one of the problems I have with religion and theism - it doesn't answer any questions, it simply moves them back a level and pretends that solves the problem.

Maybe your not really an atheist just a guy who thinks all revealed religion and revelation from God is false.

Call me what you want, my worldview doesn't change just because you gave it a new label.

If it turns out I'm wrong and we really do owe the existence of the universe and sentient humans to non-God forces it wouldn't cause my underwear to explode and my life fall to pieces and all my dreams hopes and aspirations to be shattered. I'd be surprised if that were the case and I wouldn't think our existence is any less miraculous perhaps more so. I have subjected my beliefs to the most dedicated opponents I can think of born again atheists. I have been around religious zealots as well as atheist zealots and I find they share a lot in common.

That's the horseshoe theory in action, and I agree with it in principle. However it is of course not a law, and can't be applied to all cases.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory if anyone is interested.

You have suggested that I must have an answer and I'm uncomfortable with not having an answer. That might be partially true I would very much like to know the truth of the matter we are discussing. The best I can come up with is an opinion regarding the matter we are discussing because there isn't enough evidence in either direction (also in my opinion) for us to claim either belief is a fact.

Hence why the best response is "we don't know". To say anything else is merely speculation - which is fine, we wouldn't get anywhere if we didn't speculate and seek to verify, but it should absolutely not be treated as anything but speculation until proven.
This is the basis of my 'atheism'. That and a leaning towards what I suppose would be called naturalism, which I find has a broader, more justifiable base.

There was an article I read years ago that influenced me greatly.

For the sake of brevity I am going to skip this bit for the moment, as I haven't had a chance to read the entire article/s yet, or any responses to the article/s for context.

But thankyou for providing the link, as that will now make it possible to do so.
These are the kinds of things I want citations for - that and any specific claims you make. If you don't link to dictionary definitions it's not the end of the world, my insistence earlier was more to make a point than to be a specific demand.

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

I know you will say this is hard to believe but I endeavor to be a genuine inquirer and try to get to the truth of the matter which is what I am most interested in. If its true we owe our existence to non-God forces then so be it. When I first made this post I attempted to make the strongest arguments I could think of that support the atheist narrative...


-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.

1) But do you believe any of that?
2) do you sincerely believe atheists either have not or do not make most of those points?
3) if your answer to (1) was inclusive of any variation of "no" (including "some but not all"), then where did you get those points from, if not your own opinion? Likely from atheistic/secular sources, nullifying your point.
4) I can tell you right now that "much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided" would be shot down by many of the types of people you are saying should use it, for reasons I have gone into previously.
5) most of your argument is actually coming from a naturalistic viewpoint rather than an atheistic one. Whilst most naturalists will tend to be atheists (due to the type of argument it is), not all atheists have to be -or are- naturalists.

I know some people think that if there is any evidence against a belief then it must be false or if there is any evidence in favor of a belief then it must be true.

Depends on how conclusive the evidence is. But - as you are about to go on to say - this view is mostly false.

That is a false dichotomy and it conflates the existence of evidence with proof of something. You may not be familiar but in the USA there was a famous murder case involving Jon Bennet a little girl who was found murdered in her own home. The suspicion immediately fell on the parents and with good reason there was circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to suspect they were involved. There was also evidence (a broken window, shoe print) that would lead someone to suspect an intruder had broken in. It wasn't unreasonable for either side to believe what they believed. Ultimately DNA evidence on the little girls panties turned the tide in favor of the intruder theory. Even though that is pretty conclusive its still a mystery because they can't match the DNA to anyone. Which is a bit suspicious because someone doesn't typically start there criminal career by killing a little girl.

Certainly interesting, and I was familiar with the name but not the details.
I will say one thing - without doing any further reading on the case, your last statement ("someone doesn't typically start there criminal career by killing a little girl.") doesn't take into account a whole swathe of possibilities, including (but not limited to) the possibility that this was not the "start" of their criminal career at all, and this was someone who has successfully managed to remain uncaught in their activities before and since, or that whilst it may be atypical it is not impossible for it to be the case that this intruder has only committed one such act of this nature - that this was his/her first, and final, act of this type.

Two points here -
Firstly, people are often over confident in their ability to analyse a situation for all possibilities. This often leads to incorrect assumptions made on a basis of less-than-complete knowledge.

Secondly - people often confuse probability for possibility. Something being improbable does not make it impossible (yes - before you say it - this also applies to those saying a creator is improbable), and too often improbable things will be discarded as impossible when that should not be the case.
Improbable things happen every day.

I did a whole big post on it once, I want to expand on it some more eventually.

The fact is no one really knows the cause of our existence. Given that neither side really knows how is it there is so much acrimony between opposing camps? The reason I suspect is players on either side have a vested and perhaps emotional investment in the outcome of this discussion.

I don't think it is quite as simple as that, but there is too much to delve into in this sort of format.

I can say I have examined this issue from both side, recognize the strengths and weaknesses of either case and at this time still conclude the theist argument has better evidence and more explanatory power.

You're welcome to think that. I disagree whole-heartedly, but that is what we're here for.
What you are not welcome to do is assert that as fact, as a lot of theists (be they religious or not) do, and expect everyone else to live and treat them as though that is the case.

That could change though. The theory of multiverse could be confirmed. The theory of abiogenesis could be confirmed. If we discovered any form of life completely different from ours that would be a feather in the atheists cap. I would have to reconsider my position.

Define "completely different".

We could discover the universe was caused and created with specifications by a scientist in another universe...that would confirm theism though in an entirely unforeseen manner.

That would depend on how Theism was defined.