Atheism Poll

[Drew_2017]

...or has always existed requiring no creation at all.

If any atheists actually believe that they're more than welcome to defend the possibility...not that they will.

[Baruch]

OR created accidentally. You keep leaving this out as if you think that there has never been anything created by accident, or by mistake or pure stupidity.

In Lurianic Kabbalah, that is how creation happened.  G-d dropped a vial of something on the floor by accident, and a Big Bang happened ;-)

[Mike Cl]

If any atheists actually believe that they're more than welcome to defend the possibility...not that they will.

One hallmark of a theist is that they may be able to read--just can't understand what they read.

You've been told time and again--atheists don't 'believe', they think and reason.  I know that is foreign to you.

[Baruch]

One hallmark of a theist is that they may be able to read--just can't understand what they read.

You've been told time and again--atheists don't 'believe', they think and reason.  I know that is foreign to you.

Theologians think and reason too ... and fail just the same.  Thinking and reasoning are weak tea.  My hand is still at the end of my arm.  My experience is undeniable.  What happened a million years after the Big Bang ... not so undeniable.  Drew simply can't get past the meme of cause/effect ... and most others can't along with him.

[Mr.Obvious]

So you can be even more classless...good to know.

Yes, and one, I choose not to be. And two, you can too, but choose not to be. Unless for some reason feces is the pinnacle of vulgarity to you. In which case, you need to reprioritize man.

Your analogy is totally self serving. The evidence you claim doesn't exist is the same for either of us, we observe ourselves and a universe. You have an explanation based on that evidence as do I. The notion I'm making a claim with no evidence is just the stock and trade of atheists everywhere.

The evidence I claim doesn't exist... I'd rather have you say, the evidence I don't claim to exist. In the example, I don't claim my neighbour didn't shit in my backyard. (PARDON ME FOR THE FOUL LANGUAGE!) I don't claim that I have evidence. And not in the example, I don't claim that no creator POTENTIALLY COULD have created the universe. I'm just saying what you concider to be evidence of that assertion is not evidence in favor of said assertion. Indeed, as in my example, no evidence is brought forth of YOUR CLAIM, without me necessarily having a contradictory claim. It COULD be that god created everything. I don't see a reason to believe this, whatsoever. It could be that my neighbor takes dumps in my backyard and removes them again. But, again, I don't see a reason to believe this.
Existance is not evidence for intelligent creation. Technically, it's not even evidence for unintelligent creation. Not evidence for creation at all. As time is even thought to be something that followed the big bang. I  can't even imagine what passed for laws of physics outside of  time. So who's to say something as obvious as the law of causality even passes 'out there'? One thing I will not do, while still not possiting a claim of my own, is blindly accept something someone else 'feels' is likely, without sufficient reason.

And you can dismiss this stance of weak atheism as much as you like Drew. You can go around with your fingers in your ears screaming 'Atheist make claims without evidence!' until you turn blue for all I care. But I find it rich to hear from someone that doesn't even bother to understand or adress his conversational partner's points, that I am supposedly the one not interested in honest dialogue.

[aitm]

Goddamn son... unintentionally by naturalistic forces covers accidents, mistakes or stupidity.

No, there could be a creator but a bumbling fool, kinda like you. Or a stupid one or one that mistook the rainbow and puppy dog tails for the shit and giggles bottle. Or one that just doesn't give a shit, doesn't care and has already moved on into another dimension leaving us like a healthy shit in the universal toilet bowl. But you go ahead and splay yourself and spend hours mentally masturbating your fragile ego over something that does not exist, hoping and praying it does to save you from embarrassment.

[trdsf]

That some sort of divine entity exists?  Epsilon.  There is an infinitesimally small chance that there is one, but to date, not one shred of evidence indicates there is.  I hold out as much expectation that there is a divine power as I do that luminiferous æther theory will be revived, or that the theories of phlogiston or caloric will be shown correct.

So I feel perfectly comfortable saying that there is no god, as there isn't any reason to take the god hypothesis even provisionally.  Show me some evidence first.

[Mike Cl]

Theologians think and reason too ... and fail just the same.  Thinking and reasoning are weak tea.  My hand is still at the end of my arm.  My experience is undeniable.  What happened a million years after the Big Bang ... not so undeniable.  Drew simply can't get past the meme of cause/effect ... and most others can't along with him.

Of course I see that.  I would say the biggest block theists have is simply not knowing.  "I don't know.' , is hard for many to say or think.  It is so much more satisfying to buy into goddidit rather than say 'I don't know'.  Personally, I don't have a problem say that or feeling that.  I don't know more than I know.  Once a person buys into the theist way of looking at the universe with all the holes filled in (with goddidit), things are much easier to deal with.  And don't then, try and reason them out of that posture.  It won't work, because they don't want it to.  Reason means nothing.  Belief and faith are all that matters. 

As for thinking and reasoning being weak tea---it is not weak tea, but the only tea.  You can sincerely believe all you want--with the entire fiber of your being--and it does't make it so.  Thinking and reasoning is the only way to make progress in finding out.  What is so irritating about that is that it is not a quick process.  We make guesses and then test them and find those guesses are not good ones.  Back to the drawing board and more guesses--and so on.  We answer a question and dozens more pop up.  With faith and belief, that process is ignored and not tried.  Much easier if goddidit. 

[Unbeliever]

I don't know who or how or why the Creator was created any more than you know how or why mindless forces came into existence and caused a universe that supports life to exist. That doesn't stop you from believing what you believe does it?

We at least have the chance to figure out the how, with hypothesizing and experimenting and observing, to find the answers to the ultimate questions of existence. We may not find all the answers we'd like to find - but then again we may, because we can continue accumulating knowledge about the universe we find ourselves inhabiting - if we survive long enough to find as many answers to as many questions as we can.

Can you do anything at all to find out more about how and why whatever God you believe might exist cound be the creator God?

[Unbeliever]

In Lurianic Kabbalah, that is how creation happened.  G-d dropped a vial of something on the floor by accident, and a Big Bang happened ;-)

So God was a bumbling chem nerd?

[Unbeliever]

Theologians think and reason too ... and fail just the same.  Thinking and reasoning are weak tea.

Theologians aren't peer-reviewed.

My hand is still at the end of my arm.  My experience is undeniable.  What happened a million years after the Big Bang ... not so undeniable.  Drew simply can't get past the meme of cause/effect ... and most others can't along with him.

Cause and effect may be emergent properties of the large-scale universe. On the quantum scale cause/effect doesn't seem to operate. This is why the first-cause argument has lost whatever force it may once have had.

Also, the cyclic universe model has recently been firmed up, using M-theory. Steinhardt and Turok wrote all about it in Endless Universe.

[Unbeliever]

Part of the reason I don't believe in a supernatural God is that I don't believe in anything else of a supernatural, uh, nature. No ghosts, no goblins, no gods.

[Cavebear]

Judging from your disgusting analogy I don't think you're remotely interested in a genuine dialog. I know the favorite hobby horse of atheists is there is no evidence of a Creator (according to atheists of course). There is a thread in here called Goddidit VS Naturedidit you can read all about the case in favor of theism not that it will make any difference.

There are possibilities of events between 0 and 100%.  I found holes in my backyard from some varmint digging at moles.  It could be skunks, possums, or raccoons.  None of which is either 0% or 100%.

[Blackleaf]

Blackleaf are you really going to hang your hat on this semantic difference? I can play the negative claim game too. I can claim to be an anaturalist (that's someone who lacks belief in the claim naturalistic forces alone can account for our existence) and then say I make no claim. The problem isn't with your fellow atheists who often play the game themselves its with objective impartial people who read our posts. Can we drop the silly semantic game? The claim God exists and is responsible for the existence of the universe is no less a claim then God doesn't exist and unguided naturalistic forces account for all we observe. 

The irony here is that atheists are so afraid to say they have an opinion about the existence or non existence of a creator. They don't know for sure its true but its what they think is true minus conclusive evidence it is true. Instead they make a fact claim they can't support or pretend they don't make any claim.

A dead body by itself is reasonable evidence the cause was either natural or intentional. Barring any evidence other than a dead body both conclusions are supported by the available evidence...a dead body. Further examination may reveal evidence that comports with the belief it was natural causes or may reveal evidence that comports with the belief it was intentional.

The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was caused unintentionally by natural forces or had been caused intentionally by a creator. Neither side of this argument knows how or why the universe came into existence which is why the claim one side is 100% sure is just pissing in the wind and the wind is blowing in your own faces. Further examination of the universe reveals exacting conditions, laws of physics and properties had to obtain right from the beginning for it to result in the existence of stars, galaxies, planets and solar systems which led to the existence of life. That comports with the belief it was caused intentionally. On the other hand there are trillion of planets, much of the universe seems inhospitable and chaotic. Evolution is a reasonable theory of how organisms (once started) evolved into more complicated life. How is it I the theist can see both sides of the coin but the people who supposedly have no axe to grind just following where ever the data leads can't bring themselves to acknowledge there is another side of the coin?

The natural is a part of our every day experiences. The supernatural is not. If you want to claim that the natural doesn't really exist, good luck with that. But I'm not going to let you off the hook for trying to switch the burden of proof or redefine the definition of belief to suit your needs.

[Baruch]

So God was a bumbling chem nerd?

In Nation of Islam (the Black American cult) White people were created by a mad African scientist ;-)