Jamie_L

*Climbs up on soap box*
Atheism is not a worldview. You (and/or the original author) are probably trying to attack metaphysical naturalism, which, though often associated with atheism, is not the same thing. Thus, atheism makes no claims about any of the things you criticize it for making no claims about. That's like saying the U.S. Constitution is inadequate because it does not have a good recipe in it for cupcakes.
*Climbs back off of soapbox*

Does it? It seems to me like PEOPLE cry out for an explanation to the universe. It is arrogant and presumptuous to presume that our inner need for some explanation has any bearing on whether the universe actually needs an explanation.

Jamie

Bill Snedden

So would I. That's why "god" doesn't cut the mustard.

It's an arbitrary supposition supported only by a lack of conflicting data. The universe as a wholly self-sufficient entity, with the properties and characteristics we observe it to have is no more and no less an equally valid hypothesis.

Personally, I have no problem with "it just is" as an "explanation" for the character of the universe. After all, that's the same "explanation" I get when I ask, "why is god the way he is?" There's simply no qualitative difference between the two.

It seems to me that most theists seem to seek an anthropormophic "ultimate explanation" for why the universe is the way it is; to impose a human face upon essentially non-human phenomena. Non-theists, on the other hand, take the universe at face value. Most of us, I think, are open to the idea that there may be intelligence behind it (I know that I am, anyway), but resist jumping to that conclusion without convincing evidence.

My $0.02...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

hastalavista2u

To me,the whole idea of the atheist's perspective on creation is sort of like looking at the Pyramids and being indecisive about how they came to be.
But regardless of their existence,one should not be required to form a solid definite conclusion to it's origins,and then develop a personal relationship with who they believe to be the "creators" of these structures.
Perhaps a crude analogy,but it seems to be how some atheists would view creation.

Neither is there evidence of how monuments such as Stone Henge came into existence,even though it seems like it would have been extremely difficult for humans to have built.
But again,since there is no definitive evidence,then why should one be required to create(no pun intended) there own.

Anyway,this is how I see it from a believers perspective,which is why I usually only debate with agnostics if at all.
You'll never convince anyone who puts the burden of proof on the other person,and never relinquishes their own doubts,and why should they?
As long as there is no concrete evidence other than from my own faith,then why would a strong atheist desire or even expect a debate?
Actually,it seems like it would take a whole lot of faith for an unbeliever to believe they could actually change a believer's mind.
It seems like minds are usually changed only from one's own inner searchings
rather than from de-conversion tactics.

But I really don't know since I've only converted once from simple believer to Christian,but I digress.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Theitist ]</p>

Godless Dave

My answer is "no". I suspect you would get far more "no" than "yes" answers. But I don't like how the question is worded. It sounds like a legal question, not a scientific one. It would be better to ask "Do you think the origin of the universe is completely understood?"

RJS, what of you asked theists the same question? "Do you believe the origin of the universe can currently be proven beyone a reasonable doubt?"
What's your answer?

RJS

Is this a statement we can agree on?

Absolutely nobody knows for certain the origin of existence (or the universe?), but the theist attributes it to God, and the atheist believes it was something other than God.

Lets not argue about defining God either, okay.

Laera

I agree that you're likely to get more "no" answers. The cool thing about most atheists I've met (IMO) is that they're completely willing to admit that their theories (even those they put much credence in like evolution and Big Bang) might be proven wrong one day. In fact, many of them HOPE they'll be proven wrong - that would only bring them one step closer to knowing the *right* answer, which is what everyone wants, no?

But until there is a definitive *right* answer proven beyond doubt with ample and sufficient evidence, atheists tend to prefer "I don't know yet" to "Goddidit". (Note the "yet" - the saddest thing about the goddidit explanation is that it stops people from continuing their search for evidence-based truth (the only kind IMO).)

Godless Dave

I'd say:

Absolutely nobody knows for certain the origin of existence (or the universe?), but the theist attributes it to God, and the atheist reserves judgement until somebody finds the answer.

Laera

Sorry, swing and a miss!

How about:
Absolutely nobody knows for certain the origin of existence (or the universe), but the theist attributes it to God, and the atheist feels no need to make such an assumption.

or

Absolutely nobody knows for certain the origin of existence, but the theist attributes it to God, and the atheist looks for proof.

Although, in all the above statements, it might be better to replace "atheist" with "scientist" since even religious scientists aren't so hasty as to let the goddidit stand w/o even looking for proof.

(note, the problems with your initial statement are too many to get into... the most blatant, though, is your attributing a "belief" to a label which by it's very definition contradicts your assertion.)

RJS

how about.

Absolutely nobody knows for certain the origin of existence, but the theist attributes it to God, and the atheist, due to lack of conclusive scientific evidence, does not credit the origin of existence to anything.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: RJS ]</p>

Jamie_L

I would add:

Absolutely no one knows if existence has an origin, or if it does, what that origin is...

Jamie