Atheism is not a default position

[Ouroboros]

Christians are 99.99% atheists...

So theists are just non-converted atheists.

That would mean that everyone is essentially some form of atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

I shall understand by "atheism" a critique and a denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism ... atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief ... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist – for he is not denying any theistic claims. Similarly in the case of an adult who, if he has withdrawn from the faith of his father without reflection or because of frank indifference to any theological issue, is also not an atheist – for such an adult is not challenging theism and not professing any views on the subject.

Nagel, Ernest (1959). "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism"

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Every effect has a cause. Think about all that's not made by man: universe, all science's law, are intelligent effects , where's the cause? Effect and cause. Chaos makes intelligent effects? I don't think so. That's all.

 

[Bunyip]

Every effect has a cause. Think about all that's not made by man: universe, all science's law, are intelligent effects , where's the cause? Effect and cause. Chaos makes intelligent effects? I don't think so. That's all.

You have misunderstood some very fundamental things there - firstly, cause and effect is not universal. Not everything has a cause.
Secondly the alternative to intelligent design is not chaos.

 

[Willamena]

Nagel, Ernest (1959). "Philosophical Concepts of Atheism"

From that same author,

Nevertheless, despite the variety of philosophical positions to which at one time or another in the history of thought atheists have subscribed, it seems to me that atheism is not simply a negative standpoint. At any rate, there is a certain quality of intellectual temper that has characterized, and continues to characterize, many philosophical atheists. (I am excluding from consideration the so-called "village atheist," whose primary concern is to twit and ridicule those who accept some form of theism, or for that matter those who have any religious convictions.) Moreover, their rejection of theism is based not only on the inadequacies they have found in the arguments for theism, but often also on the positive ground that atheism is a corollary to a better supported general outlook upon the nature of things.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Show us something that doesn't obey cause and effect law.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

It's easy say something without any proof.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

You don't need to be rational, I like to be.

 

[Curious George]

Show us something that doesn't obey cause and effect law.

Quantum events do not seem to follow determinism. Whether this means that they are the result of probability and therefore have some degree of randomness within parameters or we have not discovered the cause is still up for debate. But you realize arguing for only cause entails the acceptance of the proposition free will does not exist?

While scientific evidence supports randomness, it is possible that randomness does not exist. However, it is also possible that cause does not exist. That doesn't make for fun.

 

[McBell]

Every effect has a cause. Think about all that's not made by man: universe, all science's law, are intelligent effects , where's the cause? Effect and cause. Chaos makes intelligent effects? I don't think so. That's all.

Which you toss out like yesterdays garbage once it gets you to your god, right?

Show us something that doesn't obey cause and effect law.

Your god.

Or, at least that is the claim, right?

It's easy say something without any proof.

Yes.
You have already demonstrated it in post #983

You don't need to be rational, I like to be.

So, when are you going to start being rational?
Or is this yet another bold empty claim?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

It's nonsense. Only words.

 

[McBell]

It's nonsense. Only words.

Admission or accusation?

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Atomic orbital forms are derived from a law. Weather or not this is well described by any theory. Physical laws doesn't comes from nothing.

 

[McBell]

Atomic orbital forms are derived from a law. Weather or not this is well described by any theory. Physical laws don't comes from nothing.

So, it was an admission.
Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Mestemia, say something reasonable.

 

[Bunyip]

Show us something that doesn't obey cause and effect law.

Sure. Cause and effect is not a law, there is no mm such law to obey.

 

[McBell]

Mestemia, say something reasonable.

You first.

 

[marcosmasliaev]

Discussions like this will lead to nowhere. Bye.

 

[Thief]

Sure. Cause and effect is not a law, there is no mm such law to obey.

all of science depends on it.
If you cannot hold the cause to the effect ...the experiment proves nothing.

 

[Thief]

You have misunderstood some very fundamental things there - firstly, cause and effect is not universal. Not everything has a cause.
Secondly the alternative to intelligent design is not chaos.

If you are referring to God as the First in mind and heart.....ok

and chaos has been raised to a science.