If I were an Atheist

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

Yes primarily because atheists rarely try to make a case from evidence that favors their point of view. Instead they either go into their weak atheism dance in which they say they don't have the opinion God doesn't exist...they just lack belief God exists. Since they don't deny God exists they don't bother making a case against Gods existence.

You clearly haven't read a lot of atheistic writings if you think that is the case.
There may be some atheists that will take any instance of god suggested and say "well, gee, i just plain don't know if i think the god you suggested exists", but they are not the ones I have seen or been involved with.

When we reject your god hypothesis, we are saying that we do not believe your specific god exists. The reason we don't believe it is because you haven't shown enough anything - reason, proof, evidence - to convince us otherwise. The more specific the claims are in your god hypothesis, the more likely we are to be able to demonstrate it as being false.

Take Christianity. I for one have no problem claiming christianity is proven false. It has long made proveably false claims (the firmament, life originating from two people on two seperate occasions), and as scientific advancement has made it more possible to show these claims as wrong, there has been a shift from making verifiable statements to broad, sweeping generalisations. Because the broader you make your claim, the more generic you make it, the harder it is to disprove.

If you make your claims incredibly generic, like you do, it is increasingly likely we will dismiss as lacking evidence without giving specific denials because there is nothing there to deny. You make almost no specific, testifiable, verifiable claims. If you did, we would test them, verify them, and likely show you are wrong.

The question is why don't atheists make their case for atheism as I have?

Again, you clearly don't read enough from atheists.

I think for many atheists the idea of having an honest debate legitimizes theism as a rational belief and not just purely a faith proposition.

Actually, I agree somewhat. When an established thinker - scientist, philosopher, etc - takes on a religious person it only gives the religion being peddled legitimacy. It's like how celebrities and politicians are often told not to address rumors because even the fact of denying the rumor suggests there is something there to be addressed.

However, plebs here arguing? That's hardly the same thing.

Lets look at two points in my argument for atheism.

[size=2]-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that atheists don't make this argument? Seriously?

I have made this argument on this forum alone countless times. Hell, I'm pretty sure I've made this argument against you, even.

I would point out there is no direct evidence mindless mechanistic forces were solely responsible for our existence. Both sides make a circumstantial case in favor of their belief.

Except that we categorise, catalogue, measure, and understand a lot of those natural forces. We can point to them, demonstrate them in action and show that they do exactly what we say they do.
Not a single god hypothesis can do that.

As for the rest of your argument, we've been over that before and frankly I'm not interested on rehashing it again. It is wholly unsurprising that life formed on a planet capable of sustaining that life. If earth were not capable of sustaining us, we wouldn't have developed. Why is it then surprising to you to find out that earth can sustain us?

[Michael]

I was going to make this an edit on the last post but my time has expired.

I will say one more thing on earth conditiones.

There are differing estimates on how many planets have formed in our universe, but I'm going to go with this one that says 10^24.

That's
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Planets.

And out of all those planets, all those possible combinations of elements and conditions necessary to sustain life, how many of them need to have the right conditions for life to exist in this universe?

1.

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances for the right conditions for life.
1 required with those conditions for life to develop.

And you really find that impossible without god?

[Davin]

Alright everyone, let's all argue for atheism the one way that an idiot theist says we should. I guess, that way, Drewl's straw man arguments would no longer be straw man arguments. But other than that, I cannot see any other reason to drop valid points against the irrational beliefs in god.

[reddhedd]

I am an atheist. I don't believe any gods/goddesses exist. Anywhere. At all. In fact, I absolutely believe that there are not now, nor ever have been, gods/goddesses. Anywhere. At all. Hard enough for ya?

The earth conditions argument is answered by the parable of the puddle.

A rainshower overnight left a puddle of water in a pothole. The puddle looked around and said to itself "Wow! I fit into this pothole perfectly; edge to edge, right to the top, but not over it. Obviously there is a creator who cares about me enough to make a world exactly suited to me."

[Drew_2013]

In response to Michael,

You clearly haven't read a lot of atheistic writings if you think that is the case.
There may be some atheists that will take any instance of god suggested and say "well, gee, i just plain don't know if i think the god you suggested exists", but they are not the ones I have seen or been involved with.

I don't recall during our lengthy debate you citing excerpts from these writings you refer to. Haven't you read them?

When we reject your god hypothesis, we are saying that we do not believe your specific god exists. The reason we don't believe it is because you haven't shown enough anything - reason, proof, evidence - to convince us otherwise. The more specific the claims are in your god hypothesis, the more likely we are to be able to demonstrate it as being false.

That can be said of any opinion or belief. Its what a person thinks is true minus conclusive evidence that would establish it as a fact. My opinion is based on two competing alternatives we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to a Creator that purposely designed the universe to support life or we are the result of mechanistic forces that accomplished the same result without plan, purpose or an engineering degree. I assume you are an a-naturalist as well because you refuse to defend or even say that in your opinion natural unguided causes is the more viable hypothesis.

Take Christianity.

I'm not defending or advancing religious belief. There is no church of theism. Its a philosophical belief, like naturalism is.

If you make your claims incredibly generic, like you do, it is increasingly likely we will dismiss as lacking evidence without giving specific denials because there is nothing there to deny. You make almost no specific, testifiable, verifiable claims. If you did, we would test them, verify them, and likely show you are wrong.

You're quite the character Michael. As I recall you absolutely refuse to offer any opinion or alternative explanation except skepticism of theism as if that is some kind of testable hypothesis. I on the other hand not only made specific claims I offered several lines of evidence that comport with that opinion. I don't care whether you or any atheists change their mind that's irrelevant the merits of my case don't rest with the loyal opposition they rest with the undecided. In the court of world opinion atheism is getting crushed and that's what this post was about. One definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different results.

Again, you clearly don't read enough from atheists.

I spent several pages in a discussion with you. Why didn't you cite these readings if you believed it supported your position...by they way what is your position? Oh that's right you don't actually have one your willing to defend so apparently these writings you refer too didn't convince you of anything either...hmmmm.

Except that we categorise, catalogue, measure, and understand a lot of those natural forces. We can point to them, demonstrate them in action and show that they do exactly what we say they do.
Not a single god hypothesis can do that.

The observation, cataloging measuring that there is a natural world with physical laws of nature isn't a hypothesis. Its not an alternative explanation and it doesn't lead to the conclusion you are unwilling to support that we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that somehow came into existence and by pure happenstance had the characteristics to produce stars, planets and ultimately living sentient beings who ponder how we got here. If you were actually willing to make a comparison of my hypothesis to your hypothesis that your too ashamed to defend maybe we'd have something to talk about.

As for the rest of your argument, we've been over that before and frankly I'm not interested on rehashing it again. It is wholly unsurprising that life formed on a planet capable of sustaining that life. If earth were not capable of sustaining us, we wouldn't have developed. Why is it then surprising to you to find out that earth can sustain us?

From what frame of reference is it not surprising that mechanistic forces minus plan, intent an engineering degree would somehow come into existence (uncaused or caused) and have the right characteristics to produce something unlike itself life and mind? Is it really your expectation that given somehow matter came into existence it would end up producing life and sentience without any intent or plan to do so? Really?

That's
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Planets.

And out of all those planets, all those possible combinations of elements and conditions necessary to sustain life, how many of them need to have the right conditions for life to exist in this universe?

Its not the planetary conditions necessary for life (assuming life forms under earth like conditions) given the number of planets I assume there are other planets with earth type conditions. Its the characteristics necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to exist in the first place. For example we know what would happen if the strength of gravity were slightly greater or weaker. We know what would happen if ice didn't float. And its not as if given enough planets were bound to find one where water in ice form floats. No amount of planets is going to produce one where an iron core has the property of producing a field that protects us form the sun's harmful effects. That is a characteristic written into the apparently inviolable laws of physics. There are a plethora of other universal characteristics for the only life we know of to exist.

But you seem to have lost the point of this thread...whatever it is atheists are selling, few are buying.

[Drew_2013]

reddhedd wrote

I am an atheist. I don't believe any gods/goddesses exist. Anywhere. At all. In fact, I absolutely believe that there are not now, nor ever have been, gods/goddesses. Anywhere. At all. Hard enough for ya?

The earth conditions argument is answered by the parable of the puddle.

A rainshower overnight left a puddle of water in a pothole. The puddle looked around and said to itself "Wow! I fit into this pothole perfectly; edge to edge, right to the top, but not over it. Obviously there is a creator who cares about me enough to make a world exactly suited to me."

The parable of a puddle...that's a good one.

Its odd how so many folks bring up this argument but never really say what it implies. Correct me if I'm wrong but what it implies is that life adapted to the prevailing conditions and not that the prevailing conditions came about to support life and as a result we are mistakenly surprised how our existence fits the conditions...

There is no evidence that is true. We have no example of life coming about in other conditions. We don't see life adapting to the conditions on the moon, Venus, Mars or any other planets. Moreover we know there are universal conditions not just planetary conditions necessary for life.

You're all still missing the point. Whining moaning complaining, marginalizing caterwauling about theism isn't moving the ball or giving credence to an alternate hypothesis.

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

In response to Michael,

I don't recall during our lengthy debate you citing excerpts from these writings you refer to. Haven't you read them?

And I don't recall you citing anything, ever. You'll notice I will always include links to sources I use. I notice You seem to pull stuff out of your proverbial constantly without ever citing a single source. So I tell you what - you actually get some sources to back up the nonsense you spout, and I'll start caring when you write stupid statements like the one above.

I assume you are an a-naturalist as well because you refuse to defend or even say that in your opinion natural unguided causes is the more viable hypothesis.

Are you fucking kidding me?
Do I seriously need to go back through my posts and link you to all the times I have said almost exactly that?
Don't make me do it. It's time consuming and pointless.

Good lord. If you're going to say things like that, I'm starting to wonder if you actually pay attention to what the other side is saying or if you like it when the other person finishes talking because then it's your turn to hear yourself speak again.

I'm not defending or advancing religious belief. There is no church of theism. Its a philosophical belief, like naturalism is.

It's religion - just a shitty, generic one.

You're quite the character Michael. As I recall you absolutely refuse to offer any opinion or alternative explanation except skepticism of theism as if that is some kind of testable hypothesis.

Because I don't need to. Any counter explanation I offer would have precisely zero bearing on whether your claim is true or not.
Your claim lives and dies on it's own strength, not on the strength of other competing explanations.
Additionally, I don't enjoy making stuff up just because I'm uncomfortable not having an answer. You apparently do need to do that. That's your business, don't expect everyone else to be as neurotic about it as you.
I'm perfectly fine with saying 'I/we don't know" when that is the case. I don't need to invent gods to fill my gaps.

I on the other hand not only made specific claims I offered several lines of evidence that comport with that opinion.

No, you haven't. Almost everything you claim is incredibly general and generic. The only thing that even comes close to a 'specific claim' is your 'fine tuned universe' spiel, and even that you can't gives us a single reference for.

I don't care whether you or any atheists change their mind that's irrelevant the merits of my case don't rest with the loyal opposition they rest with the undecided.

The merits of your case rest with the facts. Something doesn't become true because you convinced some people it's true.

In the court of world opinion atheism is getting crushed and that's what this post was about.

More claims without sources.

One definition of insanity is to do the same thing and expect different results.

That's a colloquialism, and a very, very overused cliché.

I spent several pages in a discussion with you. Why didn't you cite these readings if you believed it supported your position...

Did you even read my posts? If I make a claim, I link to at least one source that I got the information from.

Or could you mean when I said you haven't read enough atheist literature? Is that the readings you expect me to cite? Every atheist literature you haven't read? Are you really that ridiculous?

by they way what is your position? Oh that's right you don't actually have one your willing to defend so apparently these writings you refer too didn't convince you of anything either...hmmmm.

Is your favourite thing about when I respond the fact that you get to see yourself write more? It sure seems that way, because it's becoming apparent you haven't actually paid attention to a single post I've made.

The observation, cataloging measuring that there is a natural world with physical laws of nature isn't a hypothesis.

No, it's science. While you're busy making up gods to do unnecessary things, scientists are actually figuring out what is really going on, and why. And how. And then we use that to explain the reality around us.

Its not an alternative explanation and it doesn't lead to the conclusion you are unwilling to support that we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that somehow came into existence and by pure happenstance had the characteristics to produce stars, planets and ultimately living sentient beings who ponder how we got here.

Because it's not my viewpoint. It's your warped view of what an atheist viewpoint might be.
Of course I'm not going to support your strawman argument.

If you were actually willing to make a comparison of my hypothesis to your hypothesis that your too ashamed to defend maybe we'd have something to talk about.

There is no comparison to your hypothesis. Again, your argument doesn't stand on the merits of my "counter-hypothesis". It stands on it's own merits alone. It does not become true if I don't give an alternative and it does not become false if I do.

And like I said above, I'm comfortable saying "I/we don't know" when we don't have an answer. That you are not is your problem, not mine.

From what frame of reference is it not surprising that mechanistic forces minus plan, intent an engineering degree would somehow come into existence (uncaused or caused) and have the right characteristics to produce something unlike itself life and mind?

In the exact way I stated earlier. Rewording your statement doesn't do a thing to change that fact. We know there are certain conditions to life. We know that there were a mind-bogglingly large number of chances for that life to come about. We can describe in basic terms the conditions and process for life starting and becoming more complex.
We know that life did come about, because we're living.

Everything about us being here can be explained with naturalistic causes. Why do we need to shove a god in there?

Is it really your expectation that given somehow matter came into existence it would end up producing life and sentience without any intent or plan to do so? Really?

No. I've said it before, I'll say it again. And you'll likely ignore it as you clamber to see yourself write more and accuse me of never saying it.

Where is your supporting evidence that matter "came into existence"? What do you have - other than conjecture - for that being the case? You have none. You are basing your entire argument on an assumption you cannot prove.

Its not the planetary conditions necessary for life (assuming life forms under earth like conditions) given the number of planets I assume there are other planets with earth type conditions. Its the characteristics necessary for planets, stars and galaxies to exist in the first place.

For these types of planets, stars and galaxies to form.
Puddles and potholes, so to speak.

And again, a distinct lack of sources and references.

For example we know what would happen if the strength of gravity were slightly greater or weaker. We know what would happen if ice didn't float. And its not as if given enough planets were bound to find one where water in ice form floats. No amount of planets is going to produce one where an iron core has the property of producing a field that protects us form the sun's harmful effects.

Again, puddles and potholes. The conditions for the type of life that arose in this universe are consistent with the types of conditions we find in this universe. How is that surprising?
The type of life that came to be was the type of life that the universe's conditions allowed for. Shocker. Get back to me when we find life that the laws of our universe says couldn't or shouldn't exist. Then you might have something.

That is a characteristic written into the apparently inviolable laws of physics. There are a plethora of other universal characteristics for the only life we know of to exist.

So...do you just hate giving sources or what? More claims without a single citation. Are we just meant to trust you on your word that your claims are 100% true, 100% accurate? Because no one is going to do that.

From now on I am only going to respond to claims you make that you cite references and sources for. Anything you boldly claim without citation will likely get gibberish in return. Or maybe I'll write you a nice story, to go along with the fiction you spout.

But you seem to have lost the point of this thread...whatever it is atheists are selling, few are buying.

Firstly - This thread has been pointless from the moment you started writing it. I see no reason to change that now.

Secondly - atheists aren't selling anything specifically. Seperation of church/state in America you could probably argue for, but beyond that, no.

Thirdly - again, no sources, just a statement of imagined fact, like we're supposed to just 'take your word for it'.

[Sinfidel]

Michael wrote

I was going to make this an edit on the last post but my time has expired.

I will say one more thing on earth conditiones.

There are differing estimates on how many planets have formed in our universe, but I'm going to go with this one that says 10^24.

That's
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Planets.

And out of all those planets, all those possible combinations of elements and conditions necessary to sustain life, how many of them need to have the right conditions for life to exist in this universe?

1.

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances for the right conditions for life.
1 required with those conditions for life to develop.

And you really find that impossible without god?

You are trying to use logic on a theologue mind. Doesn't work. As the Scottish philosopher said, "Reason didn't put the prejudice into a mind, and reason isn't going to remove it."

[Davin]

Drewl is saying that atheism is being crushed...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-shadows.html
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014...ever-disappear
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...285_story.html

There are sources showing Drewl to be wrong, I wonder if Drewl will present any evidence to support its baseless assertion. Maybe that's why Drewl wants us to argue differently, because the way we are currently doing it is working.

[reddhedd]

Drew_2013 wrote

The parable of a puddle...that's a good one.

Its odd how so many folks bring up this argument but never really say what it implies. Correct me if I'm wrong but what it implies is that life adapted to the prevailing conditions and not that the prevailing conditions came about to support life and as a result we are mistakenly surprised how our existence fits the conditions...

I think people don't explain it because it seems pretty apparent... except the part about being surprised how our existence fits the conditions. It doesn't surprise me...what else would our existence fit?

The idea that because a niche exists, and is filled well by an organism does not mean there is a creator who made that niche, or the organism. No, I don't know the exact mechanism by which life is here, or the reason why it is (so far) not found elsewhere. That doesn't automatically mean god exists. The correct answer to "I don't know" isn't "WooHoo! Magic!" , it's "Let's find out."

There is no evidence that is true. We have no example of life coming about in other conditions. We don't see life adapting to the conditions on the moon, Venus, Mars or any other planets. Moreover we know there are universal conditions not just planetary conditions necessary for life.

So? That doesn't mean magic. It means there is more to be found, discovered, learned. Isn't that wonderful? Not knowing is good.

You're all still missing the point. Whining moaning complaining, marginalizing caterwauling about theism isn't moving the ball or giving credence to an alternate hypothesis.

I guess I am. I re-skimmed the thread, and don't see all this whining moaning, etc that you mention here.
Just because I can't give you an answer doesn't mean yours is right. You need to have evidence for YOUR answer, not just claim it's better than mine and thus is the correct one...the default is not magic.

[Drew_2013]

Michael,

A few things first. This discussion isn't a formal debate I'm not going to look up sources for every thing I say. If I state something egregious it will be your opportunity to jump all over me. I notice you didn't require any reference for the four things I stated in favor of atheism.

Secondly atheists seem to think its up to them to decide if any case made in favor of theism has merit as if I am seeking your approval or acceptance. I'm not. If we argued this case in a debate or in a court of law its up to the jurors or impartial folks to judge who made the better case, not the participants who will always think they won.

Lastly if you no longer wish to reply that's your call.

It's religion [Theism] - just a shitty, generic one.

No its not a religion.

You're quite the character Michael. As I recall you absolutely refuse to offer any opinion or alternative explanation except skepticism of theism as if that is some kind of testable hypothesis.

Because I don't need to. Any counter explanation I offer would have precisely zero bearing on whether your claim is true or not.
Your claim lives and dies on it's own strength, not on the strength of other competing explanations.
Additionally, I don't enjoy making stuff up just because I'm uncomfortable not having an answer. You apparently do need to do that. That's your business, don't expect everyone else to be as neurotic about it as you.
I'm perfectly fine with saying 'I/we don't know" when that is the case. I don't need to invent gods to fill my gaps.

You can make this statement all you want but no one (except perhaps fellow atheists) are going to think you're making sense. It would be like if I argued a light was on and you didn't argue it was off you just argue you don't think its on and you think my reasons for thinking its on are poor but you refuse to argue its off. When someone dies we believe its either the result of natural causes or intentional causes (homicide). You would look silly if you attempted to argue the death of someone wasn't in your opinion intentional but you're unwilling to say it was natural causes as if there is some other viable alternative. It would be laughable to claim one has no bearing on the other. In everyone's life experience we have noted things that we believe to be the result of natural causes as opposed to something willfully done. If we see toothpicks on the floor arranged in a jumble we would conclude they haphazardly fell to the floor and no personal agent arranged them. On the other hand if we saw toothpicks on the floor that formed a geodesic pattern with symmetry we'd conclude it was arranged intentionally. Any evidence in favor of one hypothesis would be detrimental to the opposing hypothesis. There isn't anything we have personally observed that wasn't either the result of intentional design or the result of unguided mechanistic forces. You can respond it ain't so all you want but it doesn't matter because any impartial person listening to our discussion would agree on this point because its what we experience in life daily. You're really engaged in special pleading.

No, you haven't. Almost everything you claim is incredibly general and generic. The only thing that even comes close to a 'specific claim' is your 'fine tuned universe' spiel, and even that you can't gives us a single reference for.

Again I don't seek your approval or acceptance of the case I've made. This is ironic coming from someone who refuses to make any claims that my claims are too generic. My claims are theism...you call yourself an atheist correct? Lets compare my 'generic' claims to your generic claims.

I claim the universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God.

You'll only go so far as to say your skeptical of that claim.

I claim that the universe was intentionally designed to support life.

You won't go so far as to deny that claim you just offer your skepticism of it. But at the same time, your skepticism doesn't amount to a rejection of the claim or is in support of an alternative claims.

Here I'll cite a reference for you

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).


Far from generic my claims line up perfectly with the definition of theism. Maybe your not an atheist but just a guy who loathes religious beliefs. I will let any impartial folks review our discussion and let them decide whose claims are 'generic'.

Or could you mean when I said you haven't read enough atheist literature? Is that the readings you expect me to cite? Every atheist literature you haven't read? Are you really that ridiculous?

I often get 5-10 responses to every post I don't have time to read a link and figure out what part of the link is relevant. I suggest you copy any relevant excerpts from some source or make it your argument.

No, it's science. While you're busy making up gods to do unnecessary things, scientists are actually figuring out what is really going on, and why. And how. And then we use that to explain the reality around us.

We don't know that a Creator is unnecessary. If matter has always been in existence or if it some how came into existence (out of nothing uncaused) and for no particular reason had exacting laws of physics to cause all we observe then a Creator would be unnecessary. You won't defend this alternative explanation because you know it has serious drawbacks. I'm not going to cite any sources so close your eyes if you need to but the available evidence strongly suggests matter and the laws of physics (as it is today) came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago. If it came into existence uncaused out of nothing then we owe our existence to a miraculous magical event. If it was caused to exist then whatever (or whoever) caused it was transcendent to the physical laws of nature as we know it.

In the exact way I stated earlier. Rewording your statement doesn't do a thing to change that fact. We know there are certain conditions to life. We know that there were a mind-bogglingly large number of chances for that life to come about.

Michael...we don't even know how abiogenesis is alleged to have occurred on the only known planet it is alleged to have occurred on. How can we possibly calculate the odds of it occurring elsewhere? Where's your source on this?

Everything about us being here can be explained with naturalistic causes. Why do we need to shove a god in there?

Everything can be explained by natural causes except the existence of natural causes itself. A car or a computer can be explained without shoving a designer or creator into the mix. Does that lead you to conclude they came about by mindless forces?

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

Michael,

A few things first. This discussion isn't a formal debate I'm not going to look up sources for every thing I say.

Then I am going ignore kost of what you say.
When you make claims like "the universe is finely tuned to blah blah blah" then you need to show your working - where you aree getting this idea from, what you are basing this claim on, so that anyone you are making this claim to is able to at least verify if you are referencing valid ideas and research, or just repeating crackpot conspiracies. Until you do, your claims are completely empty.

If I state something egregious it will be your opportunity to jump all over me. I notice you didn't require any reference for the four things I stated in favor of atheism.

I'm not sure which you are referring to, but if I didn't ask for a source it's likely because you either didn't state any 'facts' or I already was aware what you were referencing.

Secondly atheists seem to think its up to them to decide if any case made in favor of theism has merit as if I am seeking your approval or acceptance.

You are on an atheism forum, talking about how you think atheists are wrong.
You do the math there.

I'm not. If we argued this case in a debate or in a court of law its up to the jurors or impartial folks to judge who made the better case, not the participants who will always think they won.

No, it's up to the jurors and judges to decide if the evidence matches the accusation. I hope they never make you a juror - one smooth talking lawyer amd you'd even send Mr. Rogers to death row.

You can make this statement all you want but no one (except perhaps fellow atheists) are going to think you're making sense. It would be like if I argued a light was on and you didn't argue it was off you just argue you don't think its on and you think my reasons for thinking its on are poor but you refuse to argue its off.

You write things like that, and then you accuse me of not making sense?

When someone dies we believe its either the result of natural causes or intentional causes (homicide).

I guess suicides and car accidents aren't a thing in your world.

You would look silly if you attempted to argue the death of someone wasn't in your opinion intentional but you're unwilling to say it was natural causes as if there is some other viable alternative.

I just named two. Do you think maybe - given your haste to try to create a false dichotomy above you completely missed/forgot about several possible causes of death - there could be more you are missing?
Again, this post of yours demonstrates you are clearly uncomfortable with not having an answer - so uncomfortable in fact that you will make up an answer or use a clearly incorrect answer just so that you can have the comfort of having one.

I don't - won't - do that. Sorry.

It would be laughable to claim one has no bearing on the other. In everyone's life experience we have noted things that we believe to be the result of natural causes as opposed to something willfully done. If we see toothpicks on the floor arranged in a jumble we would conclude they haphazardly fell to the floor and no personal agent arranged them. On the other hand if we saw toothpicks on the floor that formed a geodesic pattern with symmetry we'd conclude it was arranged intentionally.

Because we know there is no natural mechanism for geodesic patterns in toothpicks.
You know what else has complex patterns and symmetry? Snowflakes.

Do you see a snowflake and conclude a personal agent is in the clouds making them intentionally in that pattern? No. Because there are other mechanisms for creating that pattern.

Any evidence in favor of one hypothesis would be detrimental to the opposing hypothesis.

Yes, but competing hypotheses are not necessary to evaluate any other hypothesis.

There isn't anything we have personally observed that wasn't either the result of intentional design or the result of unguided mechanistic forces.

That we have personally observed? Sure. There are a lot of things we can't/haven't personally observed, though.

You can respond it ain't so all you want but it doesn't matter because any impartial person listening to our discussion would agree on this point because its what we experience in life daily. You're really engaged in special pleading.

Except I just agreed with that statement?

Again I don't seek your approval or acceptance of the case I've made.

Again you're on an atheism forum trying to tell atheists how and what to think. You came to us. We didn't come to you.

This is ironic coming from someone who refuses to make any claims that my claims are too generic.

Whether or not I make any claims has no bearing on the quality of yours.

My claims are theism...you call yourself an atheist correct?

Depends on your definition of atheist. I have spoken to people in the past who defined the word in such a way as to exclude my viewpoint.

Lets compare my 'generic' claims to your generic claims.

Wow, you really hate having your claims called out as generic, huh?
This sounds like it will be boring, but okay.

I claim the universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God.

You'll only go so far as to say your skeptical of that claim.

I'll also go as far as to say "I/we don't know" and "I don't need to make up an answer just because I'm uncomfortable not having one".

I claim that the universe was intentionally designed to support life.

You won't go so far as to deny that claim you just offer your skepticism of it. But at the same time, your skepticism doesn't amount to a rejection of the claim or is in support of an alternative claims.

Have you not been paying attention?
I'll actually go as far as saying we have naturalistic answers that - whilst not conclusive yet - can explain the emergence and diversification of life, causing a god to be uneccesary.

Here I'll cite a reference for you

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).

Well, that's a start at least.

Far from generic my claims line up perfectly with the definition of theism.

Really? Where is your supposed creator? What is he made of? What does he look like? Where did he come from?
What mechanisms did he use to create the universe? What mechanisms did he use to create matter?


You don't give us a single thing. All you say is "there must be a creator!" and stop.

You literally could not get more generic unless you claimed that creator was vanilla ice-cream.

We don't know that a Creator is unnecessary. If matter has always been in existence or if it some how came into existence (out of nothing uncaused) and for no particular reason had exacting laws of physics to cause all we observe then a Creator would be unnecessary. You won't defend this alternative explanation because you know it has serious drawbacks.

I won't defend it because we don't know what happened. You desperately want me to take a side I'm not necessarily on.

I'm not going to cite any sources so close your eyes if you need to but the available evidence strongly suggests matter and the laws of physics (as it is today) came into existence about 13.5 billion years ago.

In this case you're okay because I know what you're referencing but yeah, you really should cite sources for that in the future - because it's actually closer to 13.8 billion.

See, if you had looked that up instead of pulling out of you-know-where the you would have gotten it right.

Michael...we don't even know how abiogenesis is alleged to have occurred on the only known planet it is alleged to have occurred on. How can we possibly calculate the odds of it occurring elsewhere? Where's your source on this?

Okay. Want to know whay it's annoying to claim things without citing references?

We have proven that with the right conditions, amino acids can be created.
We have shown that amino acids can and will turn into RNA.
We know that RNA turns into DNA.
DNA creates cells.
Cells multiply, and become organisms.
Organisms diversify through evolution.

No god necessary.

Is this right? Did I make it up or get things a little skewed? Where did I get my information from and were they knowedgeable ot mistaken? Who knows, but you should just take me at my word.

Everything can be explained by natural causes except the existence of natural causes itself. A car or a computer can be explained without shoving a designer or creator into the mix. Does that lead you to conclude they came about by mindless forces?

Like I said earlier with the toothpicks - there are mechanisms for explaining the diversity of life. There is no mechanism for a naturally occuring car, so if you see one you know how it came about.

[Kinich Ahau]

Davin wrote

Drewl is saying that atheism is being crushed...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-shadows.html
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014...ever-disappear
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...285_story.html

There are sources showing Drewl to be wrong, I wonder if Drewl will present any evidence to support its baseless assertion. Maybe that's why Drewl wants us to argue differently, because the way we are currently doing it is working.

Nice finds. On previous form I'm expecting Drewl to completely ignore this.

[Smellyoldgit]

Kinich Ahau wrote

.... On previous form I'm expecting Drewl to completely ignore this.

Of course he will. He has no intention of saying to himself "Oh dear, the entire premise of my shite thread has been shown to be a complete load of wank"

[ghoulslime]

Drewl seems to have forgotten that these poorly-reasoned and fallacious arguments that he is making in this thread were already refuted by our forum members in other threads. Was he hoping that we would forget about the other threads? If he keeps repeating the same invalid arguments over and over, at last they will surely make sense to everyone!

This guy is fucking thick!