A case for atheism

Hello there,

May I direct any interested parties to my essay at the wesite adress: www.hubrisbiscuits.blogspot.com
Any comments welcome, as it is a work in progress.

Thanks for your time, folks!

A bit long, some bits could be omitted, namely the long explanation of why you have the right to criticize a belief. But then, I'm an atheist, so that might be way I thought it was unnecessary.

I thought your explanation of the 'master craftsman' was fairly weak. Even if he isn't God per se, its very similar. And besides, just as the craftsman is limited by by original laws, God is limited by logical consistency. Though I think its possible to refute both the master craftsman and God (if defended by the harmony argument). Simply, there is so much arbitrariness in the universe, in fact everything is arbitrary, except that the universe must answer the weak anthropological (sp?) principle. IE, that if the universe was designed in such a way we couldn't exist, we wouldn't be here to wonder why the universe is apparently designed in such a way we can exist.

If we examine the universe's laws, we notice that many laws if different, would not allow our existence (those laws governing the formation of carbon in particular). Its very fine tuned in that respect. Other characteristics of our universe are pretty arbitrary though, and do not suggest any real harmony, our universe is full of contingencies (not sure if that's a real word...)

I think you squashed the first cause argument, very well. Well worded.

When you attack the scriptures, you might want to stress more that although the Bible is in no way adequate as historical evidence, it is still usefull in complementing other evidence as much of the Bible (like Greek legends) is loosely based on fact.

I liked your donut monster argument. Very sharp, I've used pocadot elephant god's in my debates, its basically the same thing. The trouble with faith and God in general, is that it is described very specifically (arbtrary specifics) in each religion, but when one attempts to justify logically, the word loses all meaning and is applied to irrelevant things (like the first cause).

You dealt with faith well, in essence, faith is the ultimate surrender. The faithful has admitted there is no intelligent reason he believes. Faith is when one believes it is better to believe something wrong (which can make you stronger) then to belive something true (fairly paradoxal).

I'd be careful about the culture argument. Maybe the only reason you are atheist is because of exposure to christian culture. Perhaps if you dealt with a different religious culture, you would have been convinced and more religious.

Overall, I enjoyed it, although that's probably because I'm atheist.

any attempt to try and argue the existence of god is laughable. no offense to you, i never read your essay. in writing an essay, however, you have to use logic. and, say there is a god--well, he created this thing called logic, so how can you use something that he has complete control over to dispel his existence? on the other hand, any religious person trying to logically find god's existence is wasting his time.

The idea is a bit like the sentence "this sentence is a lie". It simply has no meaning.

One must show that the apparent logic of the universe is not in contradiction with the idea of God. How can God create a logic which contradicts His own existance?

Kind of off thread a bit but this seemed to be the place to ask.
Why do atheist (you) not believe in GOD? I tend to think along 2 lines of actions.
1) That as parents teach by their actions, their lack of adherence fostered your belief.
2) Pressure from technological advances seem to indicate that there is no god.

I think the reasons you describe are correct. But also, atheists dont believe in God for the same reason one doesn't believe in any other thing.

Lack of belief, is the by default choice. If there is no evidence for something (indeed a total lack of evidence), then we assume it doesn't exist. Do you believe in pokadot elephants? Why not? Atheists don't believe in God for the same reason.

Thank You for the response.

quote:

---

believe in pokadot elephants? Why not?

---

Gee, do we believe in tiny particles called atoms being composed of teeny tiny particles called a nucleus being circled by negatively charged particlescalled electons. Which are so small and moving so fast that they move at the speed of light?
Are the atomos the reflection of our own existence as seen through 'black wholes' in space! After all the evidence of this unseen world are implied by suppositions based on theories.

Well said Dumbteen!

There is no evidence that science will master the programmers code of the universe, or create maths that can count infinity, or conduct the physical elemental dimensions of space-time with a god machine, so why is anyone investigating phenomena or spending all their lives trying to find answers to everything you can think of,why were gods the order of the day for millenia? Maybe any human like species on any planet [hypothetically] waking into consciousness freezing and being chased by sabre cats, and having to live without fire for ages would have a god or gods to believe in, or is it because the more we fathom of the unknown and the more hi-tech we got, the less we believed in gods or god and became atheists, or is it just the traditional idea of god with a big beard that doesn't fit the bill, maybe the ultimate god never gave us minds to get close to comprehending the devilgod. Try eating sleeping etc. without ever thinking of science and the unknown or gods and demons or galactic ufo

"Gee, do we believe in tiny particles called atoms being composed of teeny tiny particles called a nucleus being circled by negatively charged particlescalled electons."
Laymen don't really believe. I mean, sure we might talk about black holes, time dilation and going faster then light, but its not real belief. Because we (non-scientists) don't understand it terribly well. Or we might read a book which simplifies it incredibly. So I wouldn't call that belief.

However, you believe your car is humming. You believe that plane is in the air. You believe that gun pointed at someone's head. Those things are the fruits (good or ill) of science. Even the most uneducated person has to recognise those achievements.

What I'm saying is, science says things like how to make a gun (and we cannot deny it). Using the same methods, it says things like 'we are made of trillions of atoms'. Denying the second statement, is saying scientific method is only right some of time. Its rather suspicious that we only think the method is wrong when there are no immediate consequences we can deal with (like the gun pointed at your head).

Very true, the obvious creations of science are all around us and youd have to be mad to dipute that, cant really say that about the theory side of science though,in regards to super dimension string theories and the like, what bearing do things like that have in the real world,not going to shoot somebody with an 11th dimension or the theory of one are you.

We should better think of the relation between God and Religion,and then most of our arguments will be shallow regarding faith.
In mathematics everyone knows that 2+2 is 4,why not 5? is it only because we have been taught in our schools.
its not always that majority is right and i think we are trying to quench the thirst of our subconscious mind which sometimes questions its own existence.
Faith need not require any argument,it cannot be explained ..exactly like absolute truth which cannot be explained. we need to consider that who is an atheist one who doe not believe in god as supreme power or one who doesnot believe in any God as the panopticon of any religion.

quote:

---

One must show that the apparent logic of the universe is not in contradiction with the idea of God.
How can God create a logic which contradicts His own existance?

---

But our preceptions (science) have their paradox so such are in the eye of the beholder, I see a paradox, not a contradiction of logic of GOD.
Just as I see the Duality of Matter & Energy as a paradox.
http://home.earthlink.net/~clayturtle/maza_1.html #hole_flow
as an example.

quote:

---

While studing transistors, the concept of 'hole flow' became an issue. Vacumn tubes used a preheat circuit to heat the cathode before turning on to reduce the destructive emmisssion of material from the cathode (chuck emmission).
Transistor & diodes introduced to concept of a 'positively charged flow' (hole flow) which is similar to elctron flow?
Now I had accepted electrons as being a particle flow but how could the proton (a particle within the nucleus) flow, by being displaced in the atoms of the emmitting material?
Was this in effect positron flow rather than protonic flow?
Is the (concept) nature of Duality of Mass & Energy, nothing more than the (field) effect of the charged particles?

---

But as stated we can hardly deny the truth of the sword at our throats.

quote:

---

What I'm saying is, science says things like how to make a gun (and we cannot deny it). Using the same methods, it says things like 'we are made of trillions of atoms'. Denying the second statement, is saying scientific method is only right some of time.

---

Seem to have gone FAR off topic.
No longerarguing for or agains Atheism, but for or against the existence and/or truth of science.

Science is made up of theories, we all seem to agree, yes?

"Yes."

Those against science are saying that theories cannot be proven, yes?

"Yes...?"

True.

"Yay!"

not so fast. Scientific theories are different to statements such as "I believe there are polkadotted elephants" (credit credit). Scientific theories are based on observation. If a theory cannot be proven at all, it is disproven and forgotten. if a theory can be partly proven, it is usually disproven and forgotten until more evidence comes along. if a theory can be proven in the majority, but never fully, it is a Scientific Theory. This is where we must make the distinction:

Theory and Scientific Theory. there IS a difference. One is based on fact and observation, the other is simply a statement.

Now, paradoxes are the downfall of us all. Logic created by God, therefore logic cannot disprove its creator... blah blah blah. I think I'll leave paradoxes to a Philosopher.

As for the belief in atoms, they can be (and have been) OBSERVED. They are not a THEORY, they exist because there have been experiements and conclusions and the whole shebang. So, atoms are governed by a Scientific Law, which is a theory that has been proven beyond a doubt.

Okay, back to the essay in the beginning. The ideas within were good, however:
should be several separate essays under one theme, rather than one GIANT essay.
Essays should not use subheadings.
You need more cohesive ties. In some places your essay leaps from idea to idea without warning.
Clarify your theme. Everything in an essay must link back to you CLEAR theme.
Write in third person, as essays are formal, and personal opinion does not matter. Your essay should be backed up by facts drawn from sources, not personal statements.

I think I'm done now.

quote:

---

Seem to have gone FAR off topic.
No longerarguing for or agains Atheism, but for or against the existence and/or truth of science.

---

Absolutely correct we have gotten pretty far afield

quote:

---

Now, paradoxes are the downfall of us all. Theory and Scientific Theory, there IS a difference.
One is based on fact and observation, the other is simply a statement.

---

Yes, science developed the scientific method as means of defining criteria. but this method doesn't particularly prove worthy when applied to abstract math or sciences dealing thought processes, etc. Are they any less than a science because of this lack?
A lot of people think that phsycology, etc as a lot of bull!
But I will apologize for the divirgent thoughts I may have injected, I was making the case that logic should not be seen as the cure all, tell all?
One can form a logical construct built upon common misconceptions.