Why are you an Atheist?

[Tomorrows_Child]

I am the one pointing out how ridiculous your fine tuning argument is, so yes, I do realize how ridiculous it sounds.

But it's not. If you can tell me how scientifically the sun does not help create and then prosper life on earth, the same goes for the levels of various gases in our atmosphere, the nutrients in plants and the earth itself, the nourishment of water, the distance of the earth itself from the sun and so on, then I can say, "Ok I was wrong".

But whether or not you like it, whether or not you want to believe it is irrelevant, everything on this planet and at the very least in this solar system is in the perfect position to support human and other life. Whether that is by design or not is a different argument and one you can discuss in another thread. But to say that is not what is happening goes beyond the realms of science and common sense. And that's where I will end this part of the discussion.

 

[McBell]

But it's not. If you can tell me how scientifically the sun does not help create and then prosper life on earth, the same goes for the levels of various gases in our atmosphere, the nutrients in plants and the earth itself, the nourishment of water, the distance of the earth itself from the sun and so on, then I can say, "Ok I was wrong".

But whether or not you like it, whether or not you want to believe it is irrelevant, everything on this planet and at the very least in this solar system is in the perfect position to support human and other life. Whether that is by design or not is a different argument and one you can discuss in another thread. But to say that is not what is happening goes beyond the realms of science and common sense. And that's where I will end this part of the discussion.

you need to stop moving the goal posts if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a very interesting position. What type of argument could "convince" you?

An argument that ends with "...and therefore a god or gods exists" where every step in the argument is logically sound and every premise is so well-verified that it would be unreasonable to question it.

 

[Koldo]

This concept that we serve the universe isn't correct. Just simple physics, the sun is there to keep us alive, as are the atmospheric gases, the plants, the animals etc. Everything is in place to support life on earth...life on earth does not support the universe. You don't even have to believe in God to see that.

When you say 'the sun is there to keep us alive' that entails a sense of purpose to the sun and that is not within the realm of physics.

 

[Willamena]

Interesting.
Just how many conversations have you had with the sun?

That's fallacious. I can know that Donald Trump exists to be the bain of so many lives without ever having had a conversation with him.

 

[McBell]

That's fallacious./QUOTE]
which fallacy?

 

[YmirGF]

Why would that be preposterous? The universe is made for all living beings, dolphin, human or otherwise but as human beings, we are of the highest intelligence (surely you would not deny that?) and we have the ability to appreciate and understand that. There is no ego involved, especially from an Islamic perspective, where we have to respect nature and thank Allah for providing us with all this

Surely you can spot the assumptions about reality that litter your comments above. And no, I do not know that humans have the highest intelligence as we have barely made it off our small rock as of yet. On Earth, perhaps.... "providing us with all this" is egocentric. The universe is not about you, that humans have carved a niche in a rather small backwater planet in an unspectacular galaxy is not much to crow over... and yet some human animals, due to their unmitigated arrogance think they are in tune with a force that created all that is. Good grief.

I don't understand why there would be so much dispute directed at a simple, common sense idea. Again, we don't serve the universe, put it in quotations or otherwise. Everything is in place to keep us alive.

Rubbish. Our ability to adapt is what keeps us alive and hopefully will for some time to come. It's a pity you cannot see what a backward idea this is.

 

[Willamena]

Which fallacy?

A redirection to irrelevance, (undoubtedly) missing the point, or else inserting one where it doesn't belong.

 

[Valjean]

But it's not. If you can tell me how scientifically the sun does not help create and then prosper life on earth, the same goes for the levels of various gases in our atmosphere, the nutrients in plants and the earth itself, the nourishment of water, the distance of the earth itself from the sun and so on, then I can say, "Ok I was wrong".

In 1975 bacteria were discovered living in ponds adjacent to a plastics factory, feeding on Nylon manufacturing by-products. The factory did not intentionally design their manufacturing process to nourish these bacteria. Nylon-eating bacteria were not intentionally created in the ponds to feed on the plastic. It just happened, by chance, unintentionally.

But whether or not you like it, whether or not you want to believe it is irrelevant, everything on this planet and at the very least in this solar system is in the perfect position to support human and other life. Whether that is by design or not is a different argument and one you can discuss in another thread. But to say that is not what is happening goes beyond the realms of science and common sense. And that's where I will end this part of the discussion.

And the bacterial physiology is perfectly adapted to thrive in these unique ponds. The ponds are are in a 'perfect position to support' this bacterial life.

No intentional creator needed.

As for our salubrious gas mixture, did you ever consider that life might have evolved to use the existing mixture, rather than the mixture being designed for it?

In the early years of life on earth there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Life's metabolism was anaerobic. But the anaerobic organisms produced this caustic element as a metabolic waste product.

It built up, and eventually terrestrial life nearly wiped itself out with its own wastes before some enterprising organisms learned to incorporate this toxic gas it into their metabolic processes.
The oxygen-eating bacteria thrived in the new, caustic atmosphere, and eventually evolved into apes, aardvarks and anacondas.

The universe was not fine tuned for life. Life evolved to thrive in the universe in which it found itself.
Creationism puts effect before cause.

 

[McBell]

A redirection to irrelevance, (undoubtedly) missing the point, or else inserting one where it doesn't belong.

And here I thought it was called sarcasm....

 

[Onyx]

As an atheist, I do not claim to have absolute answers. I simply refuse to waste time on things that are beyond my comprehension or control.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The universe was not fine tuned for life. Life evolved to thrive in the universe in which it found itself.

That is an interesting couplet, one which links a claim and an observation and simply pretends a relationship. I expect that the insinuated relationship is actually this:

< Life evolved to thrive in the universe in which it found itself. > THEREFORE < The universe was not fine tuned for life. >​

but this is a rather underwhelming non sequitur, i.e., there is simply no 'there' in the 'therefore'.

Furthermore, we actually only know of the tiniest sliver of the universe in which life has succeeded to evolve, and the quality of that success is highly variegated.

 

[Aquitaine]

It is still keeping us alive, so the sun is there, whether you want to admit it or not, to keep us living.

Also, you are right, many of those gases are found elsewhere but not at the very accurate levels that they are present in our atmosphere. A percent either way and we do not live, let alone survive for long periods of time. The same can be said of various nutrients in the earth, in plants, in the meat we eat, the sustenance provided by water. You are trying to say the situation is the reverse of that, but it's not. Again, this is basic science. I can understand putting forward a different argument but in this one, there is no other way around it.

Yes: minor changes to these variables and we wouldn't have arose in the first place.
You need to think about it the other way around: the conditions on Earth (and in the solar system) allowed life to form over millions of years, we weren't formed first (by a god/dess) and then said entity fine tuned the conditions to keep us alive.

With the right conditions life can arise almost anywhere.

 

[That one dude...]

I said it before somewhere, but I'll say it again. Theism makes much more sense with an a in front.

 

[gnomon]

This is coming hot off the trail of my thread about the God Delusion, where I've had some interesting discussions with regards to atheism and what it takes people to become atheists and who they read, listen to, take info from etc etc. So I'm curious, to all the atheists out there, why are you an atheist? Is it based on science? Neglect and/or dislike of religion? Or something else?

Fire away and I won't really be commenting on this thread as I am looking for reasons why people are atheists and don't want to pressure them into discussions, so feel free to post any reason you like/want.

Because I do not believe in divinity. I lack belief in beings intervening in human affairs. Supernatural or alien.

I simply do not believe in, not only tradition in regards to every religion, but the notion that humanity is special in this universe and that their exists divine concepts defining such existence.

I cannot deny the existence of such because I am human.

 

[jasvan100]

Atheism

 

[jasvan100]

I absolutely believe anyone that believes in a personal God is insane

 

[Aquitaine]

I absolutely believe anyone that believes in a personal God is insane

That's a little extreme don't you think? I mean I'm essentially an Athiest, but still. . .

 

[jasvan100]

I meant to follow with "except for my friends and family." Unfortunately my internet server went down before I could follow up.

 

[jasvan100]

Yes, you are correct. I was exaggerating somewhat.