Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[Paleophyte]

A lot of atheists criticize theism fiercely but few explain how nature got so many things right.

By getting so very many things dead wrong so very many times.

See that thriving civilization on Venus? Nope? There's a whole stack of planets where life never arose. What are those evidence of? God's hatred of Venusians?

Ever hear of the legendary poetry of the great trilobites? Missed that one too? There are ~10 million species currently on our little mudball and countless billions that have gone extinct over the last 4 billion years or so. All that just so that you could marvel at the odds that nature finally managed to get it right for a change.

You're entertaining the most impressive example of anthropocentrism and survivor bias in all history. It has to be all about you because you can't imagine anything else and blithely ignore everything else. All of Creation is just here to be your snackfood and all of the blatant errors made along the way, including the ones that are clearly you and I are ignored, glossed over, or given to the greatest example of victim blaming to ever disgrace the pages of scripture.

[Paleophyte]

Theism is an explanation for the existence of the universe and intelligent beings. It makes no claims how transcendent beings came into existence.

So all it does is push the unknown back one step by invoking the impossible. Call me skeptical, but that sounds like bad reasoning.

[SteveII]

I believe it is only one, but not because of the evidence of the universe.

If everything had to be created, then you have an infinite regress of causes (a logical impossibility). Something has to be uncaused--something has to necessarily exist.

Why? Couldn't it have been a joint effort? There could have been more than one working on the project?
Why can't there be somethings that had to necessarily exist?

Sure. Maybe it was like...three somethings.

[Rhythmcs]

Theism is an explanation for the existence of the universe and intelligent beings. 

It certainly isn't.  It's a belief about divinity and the nature of divinity.  As an explanation of the universe and intelligent beings it's a non entity.  A non explanation.  "A theistic god did it" explains nothing.

If you want to understand life, perhaps biology would be more productive? Ostensibly, it's "how god did it" even if a god did it. The actual explanation of the item in question. In a world with or without gods, if x and y and z conditions are met - then..etc etc etc.

[brewerb]

Anybody know a good watchmaker? I mean really good, I need to make a Bolex from scratch.

[Minimalist]

If everything had to be created,

Oh, Stevie...cut the horseshit.  You fools insist everything had to be created except your silly fairy tale god.  Try, at the very least to be consistent.

[Antonio]

Maybe try reading
Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"

[Thumpalumpacus]

It seems to me like you're using the word theism as shorthand for your own particular and specific beliefs.  Entire pantheons of theistic gods have been constructed which explicitly lack that attribute, which you consider logically necessary to the truth of the whole belief set.  As stated, your belief seems to me to be premised on transactional claims - rather than existential claims - which isn't uncommon for theism but is also not completely uniform across theism.

IE, an existent god which did not create the universe for life is, by virtue of that particular demand of yours and not based on facts of said gods existence, not a god despite existing..and theism is false even though a or even many theistic gods do exist.

My theistic belief arises from the question is the universe and our existence intentionally caused or the result of mechanistic forces that inadvertently caused all the conditions necessary for a planet like earth to exist and life to arise. I lack belief in the ability of mindless natural forces without plan or intent to cause intelligent life to exist. A lot of atheists criticize theism fiercely but few explain how nature got so many things right.

...and the puddle is always amazed at how its form is perfectly shaped to the pothole.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why? Couldn't it have been a joint effort? There could have been more than one working on the project?
Why can't there be somethings that had to necessarily exist?

Sure. Maybe it was like...three somethings.

Or 27, or 42, or 45,000 ... or one, but not the one you cotton to ... or none.

You're an atheist too, for the other gods you don't believe in. You just don't, or can't, carry your skepticism to its logical conclusion.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

I smell bible college.

I smell early age Sunday school.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

The A in atheism means not or without God. Theists claim the universe was caused by God, atheists claim it wasn't the result of a Creator because one doesn't exist.

(my bold)

Yet another christer chuckle-fuck who doesn't understand what atheism is. Most atheists make no claim about the existence of any gods, yours or anyone else's. We simply do not believe your claims about them. Not believing in something is not the same as claiming it doesn't exist. You should inform yourself on a topic before speaking on it. It make you look less pig-ignorant.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Life all over the universe would be compatible with what I believe, that the universe was intended to cause life.

How do you conclude that life was intended.  Unintended consequences could also explain life arising. How can you tell the difference?   I prefer to hold my decisions and I don’t know is the most valid answer at this point in time.  

Perhaps your god just created a universe where spontaneous life was possible but not required?  Again, how would we know (hint..we can’t).

(my bold)

Maybe his gawd wanted some plastics and just couldn't figure out the proper polymer chains (it does seem to have a bit of trouble with the hard sciences) so it magicked humans into existence for the sole purpose of figuring it out.

[Rhythmcs]

There are far too many things aside from life that a god might have created the universe for if a god is in a universe creating mood. What way a god that did any of those things would not exist, or not be a god, so that theism as a claim were false in any of those possible events..remains a mystery.

[Minimalist]

Maybe his gawd wanted some plastics

Very likely, G/B.  You know....if this  yhwh asshole had plastics he could have made condoms and then Mary wouldn't have gotten pregnant which is why she started this whole "born of a virgin" horseshit to begin with.

If only god knew something about polymers, eh?

[SteveII]

Sure. Maybe it was like...three somethings.

Or 27, or 42, or 45,000 ... or one, but not the one you cotton to ... or none.

You're an atheist too, for the other gods you don't believe in. You just don't, or can't, carry your skepticism to its logical conclusion.

Regarding "You're an atheist too, for the other gods you don't believe in," or the similar "I just believe in one less god than you do." I have heard this sentiment often enough from atheists. This fundamentally misses the point and probably should be dropped from whatever bullet list you guys all consult.

There are three basic possible metaphysical realities related to this:

Theism (God/gods exist)
Pantheism (everything is part of some divine substance)
Naturalism (which is by definition, atheistic, there is no God/gods)

A monotheist is not simply "one god away" from naturalism. Rather, a monotheist holds beliefs about reality fundamentally and profoundly different from those held by a naturalist—such as origins, the existence of supernatural causation, objective divine purposes, transcendent moral standards, and so forth. To equate the two positions as nearly the same, differing only by numerical count of gods, ignores massive metaphysical distinctions.

Regarding your skepticism point, the point I am making above is also illustrated in the fact that when most people leave their religion, they do not become atheists: because it just is not simply a step of "one less God." It would involve huge reworking of one's beliefs in at least a dozen metaphysical categories to take that step and it seems that is not what one is typically prepared to do.

[CapriMark1]

@DrewPaul,

I'm still trying to understand.  To that end, allow me to restate what you are saying.  I am going to try to use neutral words.  Please feel free to correct and/or amend:

1)  The universe was likely created by some sort of intelligence.  The evidence for that is that the universe contains intelligent life.

2)  The universe was not likely created by natural processes.  The evidence for that is that natural processes are random and mindless, so they couldn't produce intelligent life.

3)  The universe is not likely to be perpetual with no beginning nor an end.  The evidence for that is the singularity in the Big Bang Theory.

Is the above correct and complete?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Or 27, or 42, or 45,000 ... or one, but not the one you cotton to ... or none.

You're an atheist too, for the other gods you don't believe in. You just don't, or can't, carry your skepticism to its logical conclusion.

Regarding "You're an atheist too, for the other gods you don't believe in," or the similar "I just believe in one less god than you do." I have heard this sentiment often enough from atheists. This fundamentally misses the point and probably should be dropped from whatever bullet list you guys all consult.

There are three basic possible metaphysical realities related to this:

Theism (God/gods exist)
Pantheism (everything is part of some divine substance)
Naturalism (which is by definition, atheistic, there is no God/gods)

A monotheist is not simply "one god away" from naturalism. Rather, a monotheist holds beliefs about reality fundamentally and profoundly different from those held by a naturalist—such as origins, the existence of supernatural causation, objective divine purposes, transcendent moral standards, and so forth. To equate the two positions as nearly the same, differing only by numerical count of gods, ignores massive metaphysical distinctions.

Regarding your skepticism point, the point I am making above is also illustrated in the fact that when most people leave their religion, they do not become atheists: because it just is not simply a step of "one less God." It would involve huge reworking of one's beliefs in at least a dozen metaphysical categories to take that step and it seems that is not what one is typically prepared to do.

I stand corrected. Losing the gullibility involves a lot more than just losing one more god.

However, the bon mot of "when you understand why you don't believe in Zeus, you'll understand why I don't believe in God" is still pretty apt. Of course, that relies upon empathy as well as reason.

[pattylt]

How do you conclude that life was intended.  Unintended consequences could also explain life arising. How can you tell the difference?   I prefer to hold my decisions and I don’t know is the most valid answer at this point in time.  

Perhaps your god just created a universe where spontaneous life was possible but not required?  Again, how would we know (hint..we can’t).

(my bold)

Maybe his gawd wanted some plastics and just couldn't figure out the proper polymer chains (it does seem to have a bit of trouble with the hard sciences) so it magicked humans into existence for the sole purpose of figuring it out.

I always claimed that human procreation was so the kids could do dished.  Seriously, ask my kids!

[DrewPaul]

@DrewPaul,

I'm still trying to understand.  To that end, allow me to restate what you are saying.  I am going to try to use neutral words.  Please feel free to correct and/or amend:

1)  The universe was likely created by some sort of intelligence.  The evidence for that is that the universe contains intelligent life.

2)  The universe was not likely created by natural processes.  The evidence for that is that natural processes are random and mindless, so they couldn't produce intelligent life.

3)  The universe is not likely to be perpetual with no beginning nor an end.  The evidence for that is the singularity in the Big Bang Theory.

Is the above correct and complete?

In a word no. 

Primarily I was attempting to disabuse atheists of their favorite claim, that there is no evidence, not one single fact that makes theism more probable than not. That's an absurd claim. Of course there are facts that make the claim more probable. The claim of theism is that the universe was intentionally caused to exist for the purpose of causing intelligent life to exist. The two things the claim states are facts. Any fact that is necessary for a claim to be true is evidence it is true. If the universe or life didn't exist, theism would be falsified.

Theism is a potential answer to the question why is there something rather than nothing? Why does a universe exist? Why do laws of physics exist? Why does life exist? Was it intentionally caused or the result of natural forces minus plan or intent? I've never met someone who professes to be an atheist, yet agrees that the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist. They have no choice but to reject the claim it was intentionally caused to exist leaving whatever caused the universe was unintentional causes. 

When it comes to the universe alone without further information its equally good evidence of either claim. However when it comes the existence of life, whereas theism requires intelligent life exist atheism (naturalism) doesn't. A universe caused by natural forces doesn't have to cause life to exist...it might but it doesn't have to. Theism is falsified if the universe or intelligent life doesn't exist.

If anyone studies the conditions necessary for there to be a planet like earth they are mind numbing. Its not nearly as simple as finding a warm pool of water on a rocky planet and life will spring up. First you have to have a universe with specific laws of physics just for stars to exist. The early universe didn't have the ingredients necessary for life to exist stars going supernova (or neutron stars colliding) fused simple hydrogen and helium into exotic matter. Its as if the universe wanted life to exist. 

The fact life exists and the myriad of conditions for life to exist, is what has led many astronomers and physicists to conclude minus any direct evidence we live in a multiverse.

It leaves only three viable options; The universe was the result of providence, serendipity or multiverse.

[KingEric]

Apes with weapons. Well done god.

[Rhythmcs]

I always claimed that human procreation was so the kids could do dished.  Seriously, ask my kids!

I remember looking at the pile thinking "we're gonna need alot of labor here". We're told in magic book that a god had similar plans for some rose garden hobby.

[DrewPaul]

The A in atheism means not or without God. Theists claim the universe was caused by God, atheists claim it wasn't the result of a Creator because one doesn't exist.

(my bold)

Yet another christer chuckle-fuck who doesn't understand what atheism is.

Yet another lovely person who will be summarily ignored. I don't tolerate fools. A word to anyone if you can't be civilized our discussion is over.

[SteveII]

Regarding "You're an atheist too, for the other gods you don't believe in," or the similar "I just believe in one less god than you do." I have heard this sentiment often enough from atheists. This fundamentally misses the point and probably should be dropped from whatever bullet list you guys all consult.

There are three basic possible metaphysical realities related to this:

Theism (God/gods exist)
Pantheism (everything is part of some divine substance)
Naturalism (which is by definition, atheistic, there is no God/gods)

A monotheist is not simply "one god away" from naturalism. Rather, a monotheist holds beliefs about reality fundamentally and profoundly different from those held by a naturalist—such as origins, the existence of supernatural causation, objective divine purposes, transcendent moral standards, and so forth. To equate the two positions as nearly the same, differing only by numerical count of gods, ignores massive metaphysical distinctions.

Regarding your skepticism point, the point I am making above is also illustrated in the fact that when most people leave their religion, they do not become atheists: because it just is not simply a step of "one less God." It would involve huge reworking of one's beliefs in at least a dozen metaphysical categories to take that step and it seems that is not what one is typically prepared to do.

I stand corrected. Losing the gullibility involves a lot more than just losing one more god.

However, the bon mot of "when you understand why you don't believe in Zeus, you'll understand why I don't believe in God" is still pretty apt. Of course, that relies upon empathy as well as reason.

Except (and related the current conversation with DrewPaul) Zeus has absolutely no explanatory power to answer the big questions that are typically answered by even a deistic conception of God. In fact, Zeus brings up a thousand more questions then he answers.

Although he is struggling, DrewPaul's basic argument is that some transcendent idea of God has vastly more explanatory power for the universe's fine tuning and for the existence of complex life--basically a Intelligent Design argument--which brings up a lot of good points--not the least of which is that Naturalism is lacking in explanatory power when it comes to the these questions.

[Rhythmcs]

Primarily I was attempting to disabuse atheists of their favorite claim, that there is no evidence, not one single fact that makes theism more probable than not. That's an absurd claim. Of course there are facts that make the claim more probable. The claim of theism is that the universe was intentionally caused to exist for the purpose of causing intelligent life to exist. The two things the claim states are facts. Any fact that is necessary for a claim to be true is evidence it is true. If the universe or life didn't exist, theism would be falsified.

-and yet you've offered none, preferring arguments instead.  I don't hold it against you.  Professional IDers with otherwise solid credentials in a court setting and with government accommodation on the line were forced to acknowledge that they had no evidence to the effect of a designer, and..further, that the belief was in no way scientific. That the contention was explicitly religious.

Theism is falsified if the universe or intelligent life doesn't exist.

This is still a patently false claim on it's face.  Is there a chance that you're committed to it because you would prefer that any argument for a god be one that "proved" the specific god you believed in, rather than some other crap god you don't?

[Rhythmcs]

Except (and related the current conversation with DrewPaul) Zeus has absolutely no explanatory power to answer the big questions that are typically answered by even a deistic conception of God. In fact, Zeus brings up a thousand more questions then he answers.

Go ahead.  Tell us anything that your god explains. What are the nuts and bolts, for example..of why there's something rather than nothing...with your god? How did your god "do life".....? What is the nature and origin of your gods moral authority....?

Perhaps a description of gods place in human conception......an explanation of how god effects the photosynthetic cycle, or some description of whichever of gods actions causues specific rocks to fall down particular cliffs at set times?