If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

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 so they resort to bashing instead.

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.

[Michael]

And yet - despite it being your own argument - you're not an atheist.

You couldn't even convince yourself of your own argument, but you think we should all be taking your advice?

Why don't you stick to being wrong about your opinions and let the smart boys and girls take care of atheism, yes?

[Drew_2013]

And yet - despite it being your own argument - you're not an atheist.

You couldn't even convince yourself of your own argument, but you think we should all be taking your advice?

Why don't you stick to being wrong about your opinions and let the smart boys and girls take care of atheism, yes?

Where have you seen these smart boys and girls you speak of? I haven't noticed any on this board. If you as a smart atheist can't convince your fellow weak atheists to render the opinion God doesn't exist how can I do better?

It wasn't the point of this thread to convince myself or others that atheism is true, the point was how atheists could argue their opinion in a manner that might actually persuade some folks they may have a point. I'm happy you and others won't take my advice and I can count on atheists continuing to be a small pathetic group of malcontents who fail to garner even a small percentage of the population 20 years from now.

[Michael]

It wasn't the point of this thread to convince myself or others that atheism is true, the point was how atheists could argue their opinion in a manner that might actually persuade some folks they may have a point.

So you believe that atheists have a point?

[dogpet]

Drew, I didn't read all your shit, the first few lines were enough to get the gist.

In answer to those lines, in case you got more profound, is atheism will die in direct proportion to religion. The whole boring task is reliant on outlandish claims.

[Drew_2013]

Michael wrote

So you believe that atheists have a point?

Of course they have a point...it might be true God (Creator, Designer, Engineer) doesn't exist and we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic laws of nature and nothing more. Unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence (facts) that support the atheist narrative. I don't make the silly claim atheists do that there is not one shred of evidence that supports theism. As soon as they do that they intellectually bury themselves. As I wrote often in another thread its not that there isn't any evidence to support the atheist point of view, its that the preponderance of evidence supports the theist point of view.

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

Of course they have a point...

and what convinced you of this?

[Drew_2013]

Not atheists...
A fair and impartial (as much as possible) review of available evidence.

[Michael]

So let me get this right -

Atheists and atheism has a legitimate point, which you have been convinced of not by the point that athiests and atheism make, but by something else you came up with yourself. And despite agreeing that atheists and atheism have a legitimate point, you are unconvinced that atheism is correct and that atheists should change their point (that you agree is legitimate but you also disagree with) to be more like the point that you made up to convince you that the point atheism makes is legitimate.

[dstallma]

Drew_2013 wrote

..... atheists continuing to be a small pathetic group of malcontents ......

I have never thought of myself as being a malcontent. I am happy and content. I love life and my family. I am very happy with my job.

Why would you consider me to be a malcontent?

[Kinich Ahau]

"Participation atheism isn't a growing movement"

WTF, started with this bullshit and the spiel deteriorates from there.

[Smellyoldgit]

I notice Drewl neatly sidesteps a couple of points from his earlier dose of diarrhea.
What is this god/creator thing and where did it come from?

Then he chimes in with this brilliant, neatly avoided shite from earlier;

The Idiot wrote

..... the preponderance of evidence supports the theist point of view.

I don't think that word means what he thinks it does.

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

Of course they have a point...it might be true God (Creator, Designer, Engineer) doesn't exist and we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic laws of nature and nothing more. Unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence (facts) that support the atheist narrative. I don't make the silly claim atheists do that there is not one shred of evidence that supports theism. As soon as they do that they intellectually bury themselves. As I wrote often in another thread its not that there isn't any evidence to support the atheist point of view, its that the preponderance of evidence supports the theist point of view.

Drewl moves in mysterious ways!

[Drew_2013]

Michael wrote

So let me get this right -

Atheists and atheism has a legitimate point, which you have been convinced of not by the point that athiests and atheism make, but by something else you came up with yourself. And despite agreeing that atheists and atheism have a legitimate point, you are unconvinced that atheism is correct and that atheists should change their point (that you agree is legitimate but you also disagree with) to be more like the point that you made up to convince you that the point atheism makes is legitimate.

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. The other crowd bashes theism and theists from pillar to post marginalizing and demonizing theistic belief in an attempt to make atheism seem more reasonable.

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

Lets look at two points in my argument for atheism.

-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.

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.

The second point is an observation that the laws of nature as they are allowed the formation of a universe that would ultimately result in the existence of stars which would subsequently form the building materials for planets which ultimately resulted in the existence of living humans. That observation begs the question why the laws of nature minus a blue print or intent or an engineering degree are such that our existence came about? Consider this. Our planet is blasted by solar winds from the sun, this would normally destroy any life that would form. But without planning or design it so happens that if a planet has an iron core spinning inside the planet it produces a magnetic shield which shields us from the harmful solar wind of the sun...but it doesn't stop there. If there was no solar wind cosmic rays from outside our solar system would blast the earth and destroy life. The solar wind that would be lethal to us also preserves the planet from harmful cosmic rays. Atheists will point out that if the conditions that allowed our existence didn't obtain we wouldn't be here as if that offers an explanation why mechanistic forces are such that they allow our existence. Presumably, mechanistic forces don't give a rats ass whether we exist. The premise of atheism (if true) is that our existence is the result of blind happenstance and a fortuitous act of serendipity. Yet scientists know that only an exacting set of conditions in a mind boggling narrow corridor would allow a life permitting universe.

[Sinfidel]

Drew wrote:
As I wrote often in another thread its not that there isn't any evidence to support the atheist point of view, its that the preponderance of evidence supports the theist point of view.

Michael wrote:
and what convinced you of this?

Drew wrote:
Not atheists...
A fair and impartial (as much as possible) review of available evidence.

Drew wrote:
Unlike most atheists I don't deny there is evidence (facts) that support the atheist narrative. I don't make the silly claim atheists do that there is not one shred of evidence that supports theism. As soon as they do that they intellectually bury themselves.

Drew wrote:
As I wrote often in another thread its not that there isn't any evidence to support the atheist point of view, its that the preponderance of evidence supports the theist point of view.

So far, in human history, no one has provided evidence for the existence of the invisible imaginary friend in the sky.
And here you come along, claiming to have such evidence. We notice the absence of any presentation of said evidence in support of your claim.
Put up or shut up. Life is too short to waste any of it playing the usual theologue pathological liar head games.