My "Beef" With Atheists

That's actually not true. The majority are evolutionists, but we have a very good mix of Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, at least a few Muslims, and other theists. Of course, this is rather off-topic. Stop right there. Your question here is "does the basic assumption that the Unvierse as we observer it actually exists provide evidence that the universe was intelligently created by an external entity, or that it formed itself?"There are several things wrong with this question, first and formost your assumption that the existence of the Universe requires either a creator or must be the result of a "spontaneous birth" that "came from nothing."There is no model in physics suggesting that the Universe "came from nothing." We have had multiple discussions on this topic here, and becasue it's not the real topic here I'll try to be brief, but I think it's important because you're basically claiming that /ex nihilo> are the only options, and that second option is basically a strawman of modern physics.

​

Nobody realistically suggests that the Universe "came from nothing." That's an assumption on your part, and it basically means you're arguing against an argument that does not exist. In no model of physics I'm aware of does the Universe spontaneously appear out of nothingness. The most basic wat yo explain this is to remind you that time is a dimension of the Universe, just like length, width, and height. Our perspective on time is incidental - it's not really any different from the spacial dimensions. The moment of the Big Bang is the lowest possible value of time - T=0. Time cannot have a negative value, and so this means that there is no "before" the Big Bang. Saying that the Universe "came from nothing" is a non sequitur, because in order to "come from nothing" there would have needed to be "nothing" at a time previous to the Big Bang, and there quite simply is no time previous to T=0. Basically your scenario requires that there be a location farther North than the North Pole, which is of course impossible.

​

So there we have your first problem: you've defined the only two possibilities as and , and so your argument is flawed right from the start.

​

Truthfully, I don't have the answer to that question. No one does, who can at least fully provide the required evidence to the rest of the world to make either side presumed correct.

​

My problem with atheists is that it is a fine belief... only in a world where the only axiom we know to be true, does not in itself exist. Atheism is a great belief in a reality where there is no reality. I'm all for it. And even then, I can't state atheism as a fact.

​

...what? "A reality where there is no reality?" That doesn't make sense. At all.

​

It appears as if, however, this is not the reality in which we live. This reality can most certainly in fact, lend itself to an outside intellect and force that we cannot comprehend, simply because of the only axiom we can empirically observe as fact. Why? Because of its very existence. In a world of "something" it hardly seems reasonable to assert that 'it came from "nothing"' as some sort of self evident truth. Therefore, to suggest that "something" came from "something" can be construed as a more reasonable stance. Of course, neither can be proven or dis-proven at this time.

​

Nothing comes from nothing. Ex nihilo spontaneous formation violates teh Laws of Thermodynamics, which state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Surely you don't suggest that Atheists disagree with the Laws of Thermodynamics? This is simply further extrapolation of your strawman argument regarding the existence of the Universe, a straman belief that is not actually held by any Atheist I know of.

​

Of course, 'what about the intelligent force itself', the atheist would respond. "Where did it come from? It must have come from nothing, so your argument is negated." My response is that I know absolutely nothing about this dimension/realm, do not know the laws that govern it, or even if there are any laws. In this dimension, the universal truth of why there is an intelligent force, and how long it has existed (which is kind of a faulty statement, considering time would most certainly be skewed or non-existent in comparison to our reality), could and most likely would make perfect sense, if the human mind could even comprehend it. The point is, by taking this stance at least you are paving the way for some sensibility to our universe, by leaving the door open to the possibility of what is unknown and could be, what is outside of this "shoebox." The path of the atheist is that of complete and utter insensibility and close mindedness. The atheist firmly shuts the door on all room for sensibility, "I cannot see it, it does not apply to this reality, therefore it doesn't exist, or demand any time of day in its possibility of existence. "It" is nothing more than a flying-spaghetti monster to me. Which is nothing but absurd. Why can’t you see that?"

​

Here you're arguing "I don't know, and you don't either, so it could be," which is a blatant argument from ignorance, followed by the ad hominem "Atheists are just closed-minded." Both are examples of fallacious reasoning.

​

Atheism is a unique beast in itself, in that simple rationale does not support it. Now, I’m not talking about weak atheists, or de facto atheists, who simply suggest that a higher power has not revealed itself in any way to me, so why should I recognize it as anything more than a fairy-tail like entity. This is sort of a primitive and distanced approach taken out of the book of mammals that do not have the ability to reason. They roam the world without the slightest concept of such a thing as a “God,” so why should I be any different? This approach is “I do not see it, therefore why should I even think about it as a reasonable concept. Therefore, I am not deciding for or against something I shouldn’t even be thinking about.

​

This is a much more distanced and agnostic approach, but still harbors traits of the close minded. It, in itself is a reasonable stance, however, it still completely shuts the door on the possibilities of the universe that the human mind should, and is capable of exploring.

​

Are you serious?

​

It seems that you have more of a desire to insult and deride Atheists as "primitive" and "unreasonable" than to actually present any arguemnts against Atheism itself.

​

Strong atheism, on the other hand, the general stance of there is no proof whatsoever, therefore “God doesn’t exist,” deserves the most rebuking. First of all, the proof thing can most certainly be debated (yes yes, not unassailable), but the circumstantial evidence of such a power (just how "loving" is not relevent) can certainly be depicted as nothing other than overwhelming.

​

How so? Without presenting this evidence, you're making a bare assertion, and that just doesn't fly. What evidence of a higher power, regardless of its characteristics, do you find to be overwhelming?

​

And yet, there are people, and even those I’ve come across, that state as a fact that God does not exist. And they will go as far as rebuking, and mocking you for thinking otherwise. “Why are you creating up a fairy tale?” “If it wasn’t for the indoctrination that society has instilled in humans, the concept of a higher intelligence outside our reality wouldn’t even exist, no more than giant flying potato that rules over us all. And THERE IS NO POTATO, this is absurd, and why should I be accepted to have anything to do with this.” I’m sorry, but the big difference is (as touched on earlier), we are here, reality does exist, we reside in a reality that is totally and utterly un-explained. And If I were isolated from all civilization on an island, I would come to the same conclusion, that has nothing to do with flying potatoes but rather, “Hmm, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that some kind of higher power/intelligence had a hand in creating what I see around me. Perhaps there is some sense and purpose to all of this. Just perhaps, maybe [sarcasm].” Hardly un-reasonable.

​

Here your argument finally starts to come together. You posit that:

​

1) the Universe exists
2) we don't know why the Universe exists
3) ergo, the Universe must have been created.

​

This "logic" is so fallacious as to be astounding. We know the Universe exists becasue we can observe it. But our lack of knowledge as to why the Universe exists is irrelevant - you're using an argument from ignorance. It's a simple "God of the Gaps" argument, a line of reasoning that's been ripped apart for obvious reasons so many times it's frankly ludicrous that anyone still tries to use it. "God of the Gaps" essencially places "God" into any unknown, from the "cause" of the Universe to why good things happen sometimes to anything else personally unexplainable. The problem, of course, is that our ignorance of teh Universe is ever shrinking - "God" used to drive the sun around the Earth, and now we know that this is not the case. The gaps that god fills are ever shrinking, and it's silly to assume that anythign you cannot personally explain must be the direct result of a deity that you cannot objectively even show to exist.

​

Further, you're assuming that the existence of the Unvierse by itself lends credence to the existence of a Creator, when this is simply not the case. You certainly haven't shown it to be the case, you've simple stated, matter-of-factly, that it is so, a bald assertion.

​

But the existence of a rock doesn't mean the rock was created by anything beyond purely natural forces that have nothing to do with any deity.

​

An egg does not necessarily imply a chicken - it could be an egg from a robin, or a snake, or a Fabrige egg made by a human being, or simply an egg-shaped rock. You're engaging in a black/white fallacy, defining two possible explanations as the only explanations when there is no reason whatsoever to assume that we are limited to those two.

​

This on top of the fact that your second option is a massive strawman, as described above.

​

I think what it all boils down to, is true Atheism is most certainly a pathological disorder [perhaps related to narcissism] consisting of the following things somehow intertwined into a poisonous combination where the individuals who fall subject to it are blinded themselves. First of all, I think it’s a rebellion. So often, I think you will find that atheists at one point had some religious affiliation, found out how much bologna there was in all that, and completely went the other direction, and found the ultimate antithesis, atheism. But the rebellion goes further than this. It’s a rebellion against religious society as a whole, not only in the present, but going as far back as the birth of human existence.

​

This certainly is the case with some Atheists. You could even say that my own personal vehemence against fundamentalist Christianity is the direct result of my own personal experiences with it. But that's not the reason I'm an Atheist. I beleive in no deities becasue I see no evidence that any deities exist. Present to me objective, reproducible evidence that a deity does exist, and I will believe in that deity. Until then, deities go right along with elves and fairies as imaginary things that I don't think exist because I have no reason to think they do.

​

Remember, at birth, we are all Atheists. None of us believe in gods until we are tought to do so, Babies can hardly be rebels against a religion they don't even know exists, can they?

​

Religious folks, believers in God/higher intelligence, can generally be construed as loons/brainwashed. And in this day and age, even radicals that threaten the very existence of human kind. “If these people are loons, and radicals, and brainwashed, why would I want anything to do with that they believe.”

​

I could make a very, very strong case for that, but that's not really the topic here.

​

Religious folks believers in God/higher intelligence throughout the centuries have been un-enlightened, un-informed, un-intelligent, barbarians, that had no understanding of science, and progress, and we are in an entirely different class from them! “If these people believed in God, and Gods and higher powers, why would I want anything to do with these primitive silly views? We have advanced science harnessed from the great minds of society that explain what they couldn’t. Belief in God/higher intelligence is simply old fashioned, and has no place in today’s society.

​

So rational or not, true atheism is the ultimate rebellion from the belief-set of our primitive forefathers, and the dimwits that still embrace and hijack such views today.

​

Again, thsi reasoning is simply not true. No Atheist I know escews beleif in any deisties simply out of spite or rebellion from a deity that secretly he/she knows to exist. It's difficult to rebel against someone else's imaginary friend after all, and that's how most Atheists view god(s).

​

Atheism is simply a disbeleif in any god or gods. Nothing more and nothing less. There are different ways to arrive at the conclusion that god(s) do not exist, but it's not an act of rebellion. It's a lack of faith.

​

And more than this, and coinciding with this rebellion, is simply put, arrogance. The atheist has the answers that 95% of the world today, and 100% of the world of the past has been blind from. This makes them feel good, enlightened. Science has revealed that science itself reveals things in a way that everything makes sense, does not require supernatural explanations. Everything fits like a puzzle, and there is no higher intelligence required to put it together. “Guess what, I don’t want anything to do with your silly, primitive views, they are far beneath me. Dig your ditch, hold on to your gun; believe in your God, just like billions of loons today, and billions of loons of old, except there’s one thing you don’t know. You’re primitive, and I’m advanced. I’ve got science; you’ve got a black book written by some dudes with beards 1000s of years ago. I don’t care if there’s any sensibility whatsoever in our Universe, I don’t care that I think something that undoubtedly reflects intelligence came from nothing, when it could have just as easily come from something, say intelligent. You know why? Because I have the answer, and you don’t. And you’re most certainly ignorant. And I'm especially sick and tired of you trying to convert me to your non-existent God.”

​

And the most arrogant aspect of it all, is their inability to acknowledge that they simply don't know. Quite a pity.

​

This is an appeal to popularity. In Columbus' time, 95% of the world and 100% before that beleived the Earth was flat. Popularity is irrelevant to whether an idea is factually correct or not. This argument is further flawed because, of those 95%, very few of them can agree on which deity actually exists, or in what number. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (not all of whom are theists, but that's not the point), and all of the myriad sects of each cannot even internally agree, and so your appeal to popularity fails to even appeal to a popular belief as you imagine it.

​

Further, all of the Atheists I've ever met quite willingly admit that they don't know. I've never met an Atheist who believes that it's impossible for a deity to exist, simply that, given the absence of evidence, it's unlikely and there is no reason to believe in one. Even Richard Dawkins, who I strongly suspect exemplifies the type of Atheist you "have beefs with," readily admits that he cannot be certain that deities do not exist, but rather that he finds it unlikely in the absence of any convincing evidence whatsoever.

​

I'm fairly certain you don't beleive in Zeus or Thor. Is that disbelief borne of a feeling of superiority over those who do believe in such deities? Is it a rebellion against both of teh Thunder Gods, whom you secretly know to exist but outwardly rebel against by refusing to acknowledge them?

​

Or do you not believe in Zeus and Thor simply because you have no reason to believe in them? No evidence to show you that they do, in fact, exist?

​

Isn't it reasonable, then, to conclude that Atheists might actually mean exactly what they say when they tell you that they don't believe in any god(s) becasue they have not found any objective evidence that would convince them to do so?

​

I’m sorry, but as far as I can see, there cannot be many other possible explanations for the phenomenon of atheism. And I would like to say, I can give my full respect to agnostics. They acknowledge that the answer is beyond them. “Maybe there’s a higher intelligence, maybe there’s not, I just flipping don’t know .” Fair enough. Deists deserve some respect, for at least acknowledging that it makes more sense to presume that for “something” that comes out of “something” makes more sense than something coming out of nothing. Especially when that “something” is the most finely tuned clockwork one could begin to imagine. And the theist that states his beliefs as fact, can be grouped in the same category as the atheist, in terms of arrogance and close-mindedness. But at least he’s not making any reservations. He believes in something, quite frankly, because there is “something” that demands some sort of explanation. Either that, or there is absolutely no sense, sensibility or purpose to the universe. And yet, this is what the atheist embraces and insists on. Just doesn’t add up.

​

So in conclusion, simply put, in a world where we’re not here, atheism rocks as a belief set. Unfortunately, we wouldn’t be here to believe it. But under the unfortunate circumstance that we are here, I guess it only makes sense to put atheism where it belongs, and that’s certainly “not here.” It would be even better if it regressed to “nothing” that way it could reside peacefully with its shoddy explanation of reality’s existence. From “nothing” you came, and from “nothing” you will return.

​

Your argument is flawed in so many ways that it's difficult to summarize them all imto a concise conclusion. Your basic premise is a black/white fallacy on top of a strawman, and your followup "reasoning" consists of further strawman arguments, appeals to popularity, appeals to ignorance, and ad hominem arguments.

​

Your reasoning is fallcious, Watson75. Egregiously so.

​

Atheism is a simple disbelief in any deities, and is perfectly reasonable in a Unvierse where no objective evidence has been uncovered to suggest their existence, any more than fairies ot elves. It has nothing to do with rebellion or arrogance, it simply has to do with following evidence, and only evidence, wherever it leads.

Wow.You've twisted my words and my stance so much, it's not even funny.I will reply, just not at this time.

Hi Watson75,I think this is at the core of what I see as your misconception; I would consider myself a fairly "hard" atheist, yet I would not claim that we "came from nothing". I don't know exactly where the universe comes from, or if the question is even a meaningful one. I am satisfied that the Big Bang model provides a good description of the universe, right back to the first fractions of a second, but before that, the physicists can't really tell us much, so I certainly wouldn't like to say. As a matter of fact, I find the idea of the universe coming from nothing almost as absurd as you do, but that doesn't mean that it's not true. It is certainly more appealing from a common-sense perspective, but if science has taught us anything, it's that our common-sense is often wrong.On the other hand, if "something came from something", then why should the something it came from necessarily be God? They may make more sense to you, but this is far from self-evident as far as I can see.I have heard similar arguments before and I have to say that I think you are trying to paint atheists into a corner here, by forcing us to adopt an extremely silly extremist position. You seem to want all atheists to take up a position that can be summarised as "I have certain knowledge that God does not exist.". In real life, very few atheists think this way (a lot of theists seem to though). A more common position, my position in fact, is that I am almost entirely certain that gods do not exist, due to the total lack of evidence for their existence. In the absence of such evidence, there is no reason to believe in God, so I don't. Of course, I could be wrong...To my mind, agnosticism has too much of an air of even handedness and equivocation to usefully describe my opinions. There is a sense in which agnosticism suggests a 50/50 even split between belief and disbelief, as though I could go either way. Whilst I acknowledge that the possibility exists that I am wrong, my judgement is to come down on the side of disbelief.You say that agnosticism is logical, but what exactly are you saying we should be agnostic about? Are you agnostic abut Ganesha? Or Apollo? Or Baal? Is there an equal chance of reality/unreality for the Flying Spaghetti Monster?I would suggest that, rather than being agnostic about such entities, most people simply don't believe in them. I just go one god further than you do...Deism puzzles me I must admit. I don't see what people get out of it. A distant god of that kind could exist, but a universe with such a god would be pretty much indistinguishable from one where he didn't exist. It seems to be nothing more than a violation of parsimony and a last-ditch emotional attachment. I don't pretend to know anything in such an absolute sense, but what's wrong with having an opinion? What am I rebelling against exactly? Religion has never really played a significant enough part in my life for me to feel like I had anything to rebel against. As for arrogance, is it really arrogant to simply disagree with people?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hello, Watson75.I don't believe we've ever had the privilege of conversing. I say it's this part: Okay, so this part, in and of itself, is not problematic. But, the problem comes in when you take it as proof of a higher power. Atheists will generally believe in physical laws and the Big Bang as an alternative explanation to a God-created universe, and you have somehow construed this to be a belief that the universe comes from nothing (I'm not sure what you meant by putting "nothing" in quotation marks---if you didn't mean nothing, literally, then you don't really have an argument).And, as far as I can tell, "physical laws" and "a densely-packed, pea-sized point of matter" count as "something" just as much as "God" or "an intelligent designer" does, so your argument that atheists say, "it came from nothing," is completely invalid (unless by "nothing"---in quotes---you meant "something," in which case your argument is... still invalid, I guess).-----I have a tendency to confuse people on this forum with my peculiar standing in the debate, so I'll get it out of the way quickly:I am a theist. But, I have spent years trying to find rational arguments for God, and have still found none. I hold out hope that God is somehow going to appear in the picture somewhere, but, until an irrefutable argument comes along, I won't get my hopes up too highly.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Actually, for now at least, I do not feel the need to defend against your rebuffs, (because I believe my argument stands on its own, and because time is precious), but rather to create a new central talking point to be debated, that is birthed from my argument and your argument combined. And I want to say, I'm glad that you took the time to create some sort of counter-argument to what I presented. Even though you twisted quite a lot.But now, let me ask you Ravhin, based on this statement you made. Is not the world you see around you, with all it's intricacies, how it works like clock-work, at the very least suggestive of an intelligence, as opposed to a non-intelligence. You know, how if one thing was to change just a tad bit, none of it would work. I mean, as far as coincidences go, from you're angle, you're in a huge one. Something like 1 in a Googelplex. And beyond this mathematical anomaly, there is no sensibility in your belief. With no intelligence, no purpose, you're shutting the door on sensibility, straight out.And I'm not saying that's not true, perhaps there's no purpose or sensibility in this Universe, but unlike you, I'm not shutting the door on the distinct possibility that there is.So let me put the ball back in your court Rahvin. And yes because of the reality in which we exist, this is an extremely legitimate question.And that's a yes or no answer. You can't dodge it. I need an answer.I say yes, which, by virtue of that answer, makes me either a deist or agnostic. By doing this, I pave the way for sense, possible purpose, and those darned equations that just don't seem to add up.If you say "no," that means there's not point in going further. I will be forced to hold you in disdain (as a personal view), because I just think that would lack any sort of sense or sensibility. That would mean our minds just operate on entirely different wavelengths. You would be a true atheist, and therein lies the "beef."I'll give you one more I'm going to have to say maybe. Spaghetti creatures rock.Please provide your answer.

Thank you. Nice post, I may reply later.----Later C'mon, give me a break. Read my response to Rahvin. Is is not extremely legitimate to believe there may be sort of "intelligent force" behind everything you see and partake in? What you've presented is nothing other than multiple farces.As I stated in my original post, if you were isolated on an island your entire life, with no contact with humanity you would wonder the following..."I wonder if there is a greater intelligence behind what I see around me?" And this is without all the science that has openned our eyes to the majesty (yeah, some of it) and clockwork of our Universe.You coudn't provide the answer, and would be an agnostic. If you went further, and really felt that there was, you would be a deist. And if you said, "nah, this is certainly not the product of intelligence" you'd be an atheist.You wouldn't ask... "I wonder if there's a flying toaster oven that rules over me?" One is reasonable, even demands being asked, and one is just plain ridiculous.Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

Ok, I admit, my use of "nothing" was certainly not specific enough.I mean, I guess it's almost a given that the big bang came forth from "something." I guess you could call it the "magic particle."So I guess then the re-worded statement would be "something coming from something (an intelligence, within an intelligent realm)," or something coming from nothing (a "magic particle" within a who-knows-what, that originated from a who-has-a-clue).But then, you have "magic" involved , hardly more un-reasonable than "intelligence". Nah. The crux of the issue is that of intelligence, and an intelligent realm=something. "Nothing" can mean whatever you want it to mean (Don't take that out of context, plz). Nothing, as in 'nada' or nothing as in the "magic particle." Whatever. Both constitute as good for "nothing" to me. Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

---

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

Wow, the ole "Science can't explain everything, so there must be a god," tripe. Been there, done that. Very boring.However, I do want to respond to one bit.

quote:

---

Is not the world you see around you, with all it's intricacies, how it works like clock-work, at the very least suggestive of an intelligence, as opposed to a non-intelligence. You know, how if one thing was to change just a tad bit, none of it would work.

---

How do you know that if one thing changed "just a tad bit" none of it would work? How do you know that changing one or more parameters would mean that nothing existed? Perhaps the universe would simply be quite different from what we see, but things would still "work" in that universe?You sound like a mud puddle that says, "Wow, I fit perfectly in this pothole. If the pothole was deeper or wider or longer, I wouldn't fit in it. It must have been designed for me." It's not that the universe is perfectly tuned for life, it's that life is perfectly tuned for this universe, as in fact it must be, otherwise it wouldn't exist.As far as any meat in your argument, I cannot improve on the words of the inestimable philosopher Clara Peller.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Wow, never once did I say, or imply that. I think you're an angry atheist. Let me guess, you're at least an atheist. And I've no doubt angered you.If you're going to respond, please do so against something I said.And as far as the equations working perfectly, (atleast as far as creating life goes), there is no disbuting the improbability.Edited by Watson75, : No reason given.

---

"I want to know, if I can live with what I know... and only that."

Angry? Hardly. I pretty much only get angry over things that matter to me, and your opinion couldn't matter less. No, if i gotta assign an emotional state in response to your message, I must say I can't do better than I already have. Boring.

quote:

---

And as far as the equations working perfectly, (atleast as far as creating life goes), there is no disbuting the improbability.

---

I'm not really too concerned about disputing anything until you've established it. So far, about all you've said is that you can't imagine how it would work if anything changed. There's really no response to personal incredulity, except to say, I see no reason to assume that the universe couldn't work under a different set of rules. Now, if you have actual evidence, I'd be delighted to see it. It would certainly be a first.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

TL; DR So you've identified the own problem with your argument?As far as the rest of it, from the conversations I've had with atheists, apparently you dont know anything about them.The universe did not come from "nothing", according to the athiests and also according to them, you are wrong that, to them, reality is a belief based on where there is no reality.You need to find out more about the beliefs of athiests instead of subscribing one to them.

Whatever, as stated, interpretation of what exactly "nothing" is, is irrelevent to my argument. It's about intelligence vs, non-intelligence. I equate non-intelligence as "nothing." If you/atheists, don't ( you know, maybe "nothing" is their magic particle) that's fine by me. But it's dodging the issue.

and then Good one. Do you think anyone will notice?

C'mon subbie, I don't feel like digging up the stats, cause I shouldn't have to.You know how finely tuned the Universe is to work in harmony with itself. You know how finely tuned life is to exist. You know how perfectly placed our planet is so that life can even survive.Everything fits like a puzzle. If you think otherwise, that's fine. I just don't agree.

quote:

---

Good one. Do you think anyone will notice?

---

What's that supposed to mean? I thought it was pretty good myself.