Sharpshooter, on 19 September 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:
The claim that your or any God exists is on trial, not the refutation.
The onus is yours to provide evidence for such a claim not mine, since I have made no such claim.
Funny because it's a much more widely accepted claim that God does
exist. Atheism is the new thing, remember?
Theists don't have to prove God exists. It's widely accepted. You have to disprove God, or refute all the evidences that point to a God.
Monty, on 19 September 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:
While I agree with you dajusta, scientists would claim that although the chances of our universe coming into existence as perfectly as it has are incredibly small, almost impossibly so; that doesn't change the fact that a small chance, regardless of how small it is, is all is needed in the scientific field to claim that a creator was not necessary.
If you agree with me, even to the slightest, then you can see it is some sort of evidence that points to a Creator. That's the one point I'm making to Sharpshooter. He thinks there is no evidence whatsoever
which is total baloney.
I'm glad you can see this evidence now, so at least we can get talking! Alright, so there is an incredible small % chance that this world arose through random means right?
Now, what are the chances? Are we asserting that we are the absolutely lucky people who scored such a %?
That argument just doesn't work, especially for scientists. It isn't convincing enough. Almost like how a gambler at a casino would be dealt 4 aces over and over and over again, he cannot say to the authorities "ugh I'm in this universe where I'm just super lucky".. this kind of argument is unacceptable. It's a very small chance, but it's an unacceptable answer.
Not only are the chances extremely and near impossible, but the limited life of the universe of 14 billion years is more strain on the chances. We're not talking infinite time - we're talking limited time.
If scientists DO take this claim.. of the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of hitting the cosmic lottery, then any logical person would assert this underlying fact - it is more probable
to think our universe is designed than to believe it was randomed.
TOMapleLaughs, on 19 September 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:
Jeez, certainly an atheist wouldn't attack others on this issue like a theist would.
Now, i 'answered in my heart' your question, so it's none of your business, but the point was that atheists are united in their non-belief in a deity. Once you take God out of the equation, that leaves more time to solve all the humanistic morality problems you can come up with.
Not saying that atheism is awesome or not hypocritical, but it sure as hell is a lot less confrontational. What i don't get about most religions is how they judge others, when it states in most of their rulebooks that only God shall judge. But i guess we all judge each other, don't we. It's one of those 'guidelines' that tend to go by the wayside a lot, like the golden rule.
So we can refute the argument that only religion leads to differences.
Clearly atheism can breed differences too. Hostile not yet, but give it a few thousand years...
Edited by dajusta, 19 September 2012 - 02:56 PM.