Atheism, secularism and religious art

[RubiconDecision]

A scientist is someone who uses the established scientific method to determine fact from fiction.

If the existence of the christian god is someday proven scientifically, the world of science will accept it as fact and add it to the pile of proven theories. Until then it's a theory based in faith and not fact.

Religious people however will mostly keep a grudge against science as if it's a conspiracy theory against their unproven beliefs.

A scientist who doesn't discard intelligent design, doesn't mean he believes it's fact. He has faith that it might be true, and is using his work via the scientific method to work towards proving his theory to the rest of the scientific community and the world. But a serious scientist will not publish anything as fact unless it's been proven, tested, double tested, triple distilled, peer reviewed and accepted.

NO.

A scientist may be a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or A Satanist, or a Christian, or a agnostic, or an atheist.

A scientist is not always an agnostic or atheist. Some scientists may claim that since they need evidence to have a belief, then they can only be an agnostic. Other scientists might say that by definition they cannot know everything, then at best they can be a weak agnostic.

No religious people will not necessarily keep a grudge against science. That is called a stereotype. In fact your scientist is a stereotype as well.

Because of all of the reasons in the video links I put in, then that math is called probability and uses permutations to calculate the odds.

Since there are such high odds of even random base pairs through random assortment achieving a viable protein, then there are an infinitesimal minute chance of it ever happening.

Let alone an organism.

Which is why the famous atheist philosopher Anthony Flew rejected that it was even possible, let alone plausible. A theory has to be both to be utilized in science. There is name for that chance and if exceeded it is called operationally impossible: one in 10 ⁷⁰ ​power and it is worse than that.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

NO.

A scientist may be a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or A Satanist, or a Christian, or a agnostic, or an atheist.

A scientist is not always an agnostic or atheist. Some scientists may claim that since they need evidence to have a belief, then they can only be an agnostic. Other scientists might say that by definition they cannot know everything, then at best they can be a weak agnostic.

No religious people will not necessarily keep a grudge against science. That is called a stereotype. In fact your scientist is a stereotype as well.

Because of all of the reasons in the video links I put in, then that math is called probability and uses permutations to calculate the odds.

Since there are such high odds of even random base pairs through random assortment achieving a viable protein, then there are an infinitesimal minute chance of it ever happening.

Let alone an organism.

Which is why the famous atheist philosopher Anthony Flew rejected that it was even possible, let alone plausible. A theory has to be both to be utilized in science. There is name for that chance and if exceeded it is called operationally impossible: one in 10 ⁷⁰ ​power and it is worse than that.

I don't want to get into a DNA debate in a thread about religious inspired art.
I just wanted to point out that science which by definition is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".

Note the distinct lack of faith in the definition, it's either fact or not yet proven.

Anyway this is also off topic here, and I know that arguing this with a bible person is pointless

[RubiconDecision]

I don't want to get into a DNA debate in a thread about religious inspired art.
I just wanted to point out that science which by definition is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".

Note the distinct lack of faith in the definition, it's either fact or not yet proven.

Anyway this is also off topic here, and I know that arguing this with a bible person is pointless

I have noticed this about about agnostics and atheists. They claim to be scientists but then the moment we discuss science, they back off. You want to claim science is solely your territory. Yet in history, human beings were both believers and scientists. Issac Newton was both a scientist and a believer. The majority view of scientists was Intelligent Design.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Do the math. What is the chance of 3 billion base pairs arranging in a specific order so that Life arose?

Answer: One in 10^340,000,000 an agnostic or atheist is taking the chance that it arose spontaneously. Hmmmm is that your scientific opinion that this would ever happen? It doesn't meet the definition of plausibility. It is operationally impossible. It sounds like you need a new theory.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution...ly-impossible/

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."⁷

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."⁸The 100 billion billion is 10²⁰. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 10²⁰, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 10⁵⁰ as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.⁹

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 10⁸⁰ elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 10⁴⁵. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 10²⁵ seconds in all. He thereby obtained 10⁸⁰ x 10⁴⁵ x 10²⁵ = 10¹⁵⁰ for his Law of Small Probability.⁹

[basics]

Emperor Arcturus Mengsk,

You do know what God said of the intellectuals? He said, " Thinking themselves wise they became fools........" Why? Because they follow created things and not the One Who created them. Is that not what Darwin did?

[RubiconDecision]

Let's recap.
1. By definition, antitheism is bigotry for the same reason that antiatheism is bigotry.
2. Bigotry is not rational nor defensible.
3. Atheism is a religion since it is not evidence based, but faith based. There is no evidence the Universe is Eternal. There is no evidence that life arose spontaneously as the odds are so remote as to be operationally impossible.
4. So looking at the evidence alone, the only logically defensible choice is weak agnosticism.
5. Which is more logical, the outrageous idea that the Universe is Eternal and life arose spontaneously and violating entropy and infinite regression, or that an outside force acted on a nonexistent potential and caused a Universe to come into being? That is no different than a Prime Mover. That is the beginning of a logical paradigm for the Universe.

But human beings are not solely governed by reason. For example, every one reading this who has ever had a friendship or romance accepts that on faith. You cannot prove it but accept it. If you do insist upon evidence, chances are you will get a divorce as it is impossible to prove.

Faith therefore is a vital aspect of our humanity.

[Muizer]

Do the math. What is the chance of 3 billion base pairs arranging in a specific order so that Life arose?

Answer: One in 10^340,000,000 an agnostic or atheist is taking the chance that it arose spontaneously. Hmmmm is that your scientific opinion that this would ever happen? It doesn't meet the definition of plausibility. It is operationally impossible. It sounds like you need a new theory.

Where are you getting the notion from that abiogenesis has to be a matter of random chance? Sounds like a straw man to me.

[RubiconDecision]

Where are you getting the notion from that abiogenesis has to be a matter of random chance? Sounds like a straw man to me.

What is your proposed theory for the impetus for Life arising from nothingness?

How did the base pairs form so that Life was possible? What was the impetus for that?

You are going to quote Miller-Urey, right? There is a marked difference between that and complex assortment of base pairs creating life.

Then are you going to talk about Synthetic Biology and clay formation?

Or the lipid bilayer experiment?

[Himster]

1. By definition, antitheism is bigotry for the same reason that antiatheism is bigotry.

No they aren't.
There are good reasons to be opposed to theistic ideologies as there are good reasons to be opposed to atheistic ideologies. eg. ISIS and USSR respectively.

2. Bigotry is not rational nor defensible.

Redefining opposition to "bigotry" is indefensible.

3. Atheism is a religion since it is not evidence based, but faith based.

Nope. That's ing retarded.

There is no evidence the Universe is Eternal. There is no evidence that life arose spontaneously as the odds are so remote as to be operationally impossible.

Nothing to do with atheism. You might point to atheists who believe these things, but you could equally find atheists who believe in a race of nine-fingered-vampire-ghosts controlling all international trade deals: but that doesn't make such things in any way related to atheism.

4. So looking at the evidence alone, the only logically defensible choice is weak agnosticism.

Oh, I see.
Conflating responses to epistemology and beliefs again.....

5. Which is more logical, the outrageous idea that the Universe is Eternal and life arose spontaneously and violating entropy and infinite regression, or that an outside force acted on a nonexistent potential and caused a Universe to come into being? That is no different than a Prime Mover. That is the beginning of a logical paradigm for the Universe.

They're all pretty dumb, to be honest.

But human beings are not solely governed by reason. For example, every one reading this who has ever had a friendship or romance accepts that on faith. You cannot prove it but accept it. If you do insist upon evidence, chances are you will get a divorce as it is impossible to prove.

Faith therefore is a vital aspect of our humanity.

Yup. Nicely said too.

[Muizer]

What is your proposed theory for the impetus for Life arising from nothingness?

How did the base pairs form so that Life was possible? What was the impetus for that?

You are going to quote Miller-Urey, right? There is a marked difference between that and complex assortment of base pairs creating life.

Then are you going to talk about Synthetic Biology and clay formation?

Or the lipid bilayer experiment?

I'm no expert in any of those fields and in any case, there doesn't have to be a current theory for the explanation of abiogenesis in order not to default to a stop-gap creator. But yes, the universe is evidently structured through the laws of nature. If, for instance, the same minerals are formed from the same elements under the same condition, that is not random. And given that life exists, in this structured universe, why assume that life is different by asserting its origin would have to be totally random? We know life existed on earth practically as soon as the conditions allowed it to survive. In other words, there has been no billions of years of random events (on earth anyway) to get to that point. So, if life indeed originated on earth, everything points to it being non-random. I think we can agree on that. To substitute non-randomness with a Creator is just not necessary.

That's my main objection to intelligent design proponents: they make a leap of faith that is entirely unnecessary. It's unnecessary scientifically. It's unnecessary also from the religious debate. For that, all we need to know is that there's no relevant 'divine revelation'. If life was created by a creator, it would be the God of Bacteria. Hardly a reason to lose our objectivity over.

[RubiconDecision]

No they aren't.
There are good reasons to be opposed to theistic ideologies as there are good reasons to be opposed to atheistic ideologies. eg. ISIS and USSR respectively.
Redefining opposition to "bigotry" is indefensible.
Nope. That's ing retarded.

Nothing to do with atheism. You might point to atheists who believe these things, but you could equally find atheists who believe in a race of nine-fingered-vampire-ghosts controlling all international trade deals: but that doesn't make such things in any way related to atheism.

Oh, I see.
Conflating responses to epistemology and beliefs again.....

They're all pretty dumb, to be honest.

Yup. Nicely said too.

No. An atheist has beliefs in philosophy, not an "absence of belief" as some very weak eratz-atheists are today. And whatever the belief, it cannot be proven by evidence. Therefore whatever the beliefs are, and especially if they are strong, then atheism is a religion just one without God.

Bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." by definition. And antitheism is an intolerance of theism. Therefore antitheism is bigotry. It doesn't matter if you dislike belief, but when intolerance creeps in, then it is bigotry, and not rational. It is as cringe-inducing as when someone is antisemitic, or antihomosexual, or antiblack.

I have noticed that atheists want to conflate their numbers and include anyone who disbelieves and adds them to their ranks. One gathers it is because it's nice to feel surrounded by a body of adherents. But a nonbeliever is not an atheist. Some Buddhists have atheist elements to their beliefs and do not consider themselves atheists. A Satanic atheist is not really an atheist but in reality is an anti-theist making rituals in order to mock Christianity. I would think most atheists find them repulsive.

I'm no expert in any of those fields and in any case, there doesn't have to be a current theory for the explanation of abiogenesis in order not to default to a stop-gap creator. But yes, the universe is evidently structured through the laws of nature. If, for instance, the same minerals are formed from the same elements under the same condition, that is not random. And given that life exists, in this structured universe, why assume that life is different by asserting its origin would have to be totally random? We know life existed on earth practically as soon as the conditions allowed it to survive. In other words, there has been no billions of years of random events (on earth anyway) to get to that point. So, if life indeed originated on earth, everything points to it being non-random. I think we can agree on that. To substitute non-randomness with a Creator is just not necessary.

That's my main objection to intelligent design proponents: they make a leap of faith that is entirely unnecessary. It's unnecessary scientifically. It's unnecessary also from the religious debate. For that, all we need to know is that there's no relevant 'divine revelation'. If life was created by a creator, it would be the God of Bacteria. Hardly a reason to lose our objectivity over.

Prove that the universe is evidently structured through the laws of nature and that is why life arose. But you can't because that is a belief, not supported by evidence but wishful thinking and frankly is a religious manner of describing the origin of Life.

So you complaining about a leap of faith is amusing, because your very proposition is a leap of faith: one that requires that Nature somehow supernaturally has an order that causes spontaneous Life to form.

There is nothing to support that the Universe is eternal and expanding (as the Big Bang) and then contracting, and then expanding again.

And yes, I agree that we can find Life as soon as cooling occurred but that doesn't mean that it arose by Nature. And this Nature sounds suspiciously like God.

EDIT
I just realizes something needs to be done for this debate. There is no frame of reference for atheist or atheism. In philosophy, an atheist is someone who actively disbelieves in God.

Some folks describe an atheist as someone lacking a belief in God. That doesn't exist in philosophy. Just to have a conversation you have to:
1. Believe in a proposition.
2. Disbelieve in a proposition.
3. Or feel there is a lack of evidence to choose belief or disbelief.

To have a discussion in philosophy, you have to take a stand of some sort and ALL have a burden of proof to equally defend their beliefs. Atheists who claim "a lack of belief" intentionally use semantics to weasel out from the burden of proof which is on all as they defend their beliefs. It is rather pathetic to claim "a lack of belief" as even the folks who are agnostic have a belief that there is a lack of evidence upon which to make a claim.

https://beliefmap.org/encyclopedia/a...ack-of-belief/

• Question: A number of popular atheist authors recently have promoted the idea that atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God(s), rather than a positive belief that God does not exist. Are they correct?

Academic sources unanimously answer “NO”

• • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2011): “‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” [Atheism and Agnosticism, Online]
  • Encyclopedia of Unbelief (2007), p. 88: “In its broadest sense atheism, from the Greek a (‘without’) and theos (‘deity’), standardly refers to the denial of the existence of any god or gods.”
  • Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2nd ed. (2006), p.358 [in vol. 1 of 10]: “According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence ‘God exists’ expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God”
  • Oxford Companion to Philosophy, New Ed. (2005), p. 65: “Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, ... Agnosticism may be strictly personal and confessional—‘I have no firm belief about God’—or it may be the more ambitious claim that no one ought to have a positive belief for or against the divine existence.”
  • Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004), p. 530: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”
  • Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998), entry by William Rowe: “As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. … the common use of ‘atheism’ to mean disbelief in God is so thoroughly entrenched, we will follow it. We may use the term ‘non-theist’ to characterize the position of the negative atheist.”

“lack of belief” just ambiguates the term

• The revisionist “lack of belief” definition of atheism is overtly ambiguous. After all, there would suddenly be two ways to be an “atheist,” by either…
  (a) …affirming the proposition <God does not exist>, or…
  (b) …withholding belief about it (traditionally called “agnosticism”).¹
  This would in turn needlessly require interlocutors to spend extra time discerning which of those two remaining options apply, rather than the individual being straightforward about his position from the get-go. Right now, things are efficient: One simply says whether they are a theist, atheist, or agnostic. Simple.²
  
  
  • • Louis P. Pojman: “It is a widely held belief that one can will to believe, disbelieve, and withhold belief concerning propositions.” [“Belief and Will.” Religious Studies Vol. 14, 1 (1978). Online at Cambridge Journals)
    • Sven Ove Hansson: “In summary, there are three attitudes that a consistent believer can have with respect to a sentence p and its negation ~p. 1. Believe that p is true (belief, acceptance). 2. Believe that p is false (disbelief, rejection). 3. Neither believe that p is true nor that it is false (suspension of belief).” [A Textbook of Belief Dynamics(Kluwer Academic, 1999), 6.]
    • Roderick Chisholm: “[There are] three basic epistemic attitudes that one may take towards a given proposition at any particular time: (1) one may believe or accept the proposition; (2) one may disbelieve the proposition, and this is the same thing as believing its negation; or (3) one may withhold or suspend belief -- that is to say, one may refrain from believing and refrain from disbelieving.”
    • David Christensen: “One might quite reasonable want to avoid equating disbelief in P with belief in P's negation. In that case, one would naturally see discrete belief as a trinary notion, encompassing three distinct attitudes one might take toward a proposition: belief, disbelieve, and withholding judgment.” [Putting Logic in its Place: Formal Constraints on Rational Belief (Oxford, 2004), 14.]
    • Nicholas Wolterstorff: “…of the propositions that we entertain, we not only believe some and disbelieve others; from some we withhold both belief and disbelief. We suspend judgment.” [Practices of Belief: Volume 2, Selected Essays, ed. by Cuneo (Cambridge, 2009), 68.]
  • Side note: Virtually no one says they are philosophically certain about their theism or atheism, so internet atheists who oddly want to preface theism/atheism with ‘agnostic’ (for example, “agnostic atheist,” “agnostic theist”) to denote a lack of certainty are similarly just wasting time. If a philosopher ever feels the need to communicate the otherwise obvious fact that she is not philosophically certain about her position, she simply says "I'm an atheist, but I don't hold the belief with certainty.”

[Himster]

No. An atheist has beliefs in philosophy, not an "absence of belief" as some very weak eratz-atheists are today. And whatever the belief, it cannot be proven by evidence. Therefore whatever the beliefs are, and especially if they are strong, then atheism is a religion just one without God.

Jaysus, some serious mental gymnastics going on here. Yes an atheist has beliefs in philosophy, an atheist can be a humanist, a Kantian, Utilitarian or whatever., obviously Those belief systems are not "atheism". Atheism is defined quite succinctly and undeniably as a lack of belief (in the same way as asymmetry is a lack of symmetry), it is literally what the prefix "a" means. Any beliefs held by atheists are irrelevant to atheism.

Besides atheism isn't a religion in the exact same way theism isn't a religion. Buddhism is a religion, Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, Islam, these are all religions. Theism/atheism are not religions, they're single positions on single issues. Now each of these religions can be described as atheistic or theistic. I'm also not saying that religious is synonymous with theistic, there are plenty of religious atheists who follow atheistic religions, such as various sects of Buddhism.

Now, if you want to redefine some of the more popular philosophies among atheists as religious: then that'd be interesting.
Humanism, Utilitarianism, ontological-Materialism, scientism etc. With the latter two I think you could get a good go at it. But I think you'll find that they're not so common.

I have noticed that atheists want to conflate their numbers and include anyone who disbelieves and adds them to their ranks.

It has nothing to do with what we want, it is simply what the word means. There's no getting around it. There is no camaraderie among atheists, except the expected "we deserve rights" perhaps.

One gathers it is because it's nice to feel surrounded by a body of adherents. But a nonbeliever is not an atheist.

A non-believer is by definition an atheist.

Some Buddhists have atheist elements to their beliefs and do not consider themselves atheists.

It doesn't matter. If they don't believe in god/gods they're atheists. If they believe in god/gods then they're theists.
Similarly if an object is not symmetrical it is asymmetrical, otherwise it is symmetrical. The prefix "a", remember.

A Satanic atheist is not really an atheist but in reality is an anti-theist making rituals in order to mock Christianity. I would think most atheists find them repulsive.

Of course such an individual is probably repulsive, but if he/she doesn't believe in god/gods then, that person is an atheist.

[RubiconDecision]

Reread my previous post as I provided a philosophical definition of atheist with multiple references.

A debate without common definitions of what the parties involved are discussing is flat out foolish blathering. That is the rationale for frames of reference.

No, a nonbeliever is one who has not made a decision about a belief. It does not imply atheism. In fact in America, nonbeliever is a discreet choice on polls because they distance themselves from agnostic or atheism. A nonbeliever might even say such a question is silly because it has no importance to them. They are apt to shrug their shoulders at the ridiculous fuss of religious belief or disbelief. In philosophy it is often called "unbelief".

Not to mention the confusion that would arise by saying, "I am a nonbeliever in Islam." What does that proposition mean?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ievers-believe

So strong is the concept of God-belief in our culture that the words "believer" and "nonbeliever" are understood as referring to only one thing: belief in a divinity. This can lead to some distorted thinking, such as the idea that "atheists don't believe in anything," a notion echoed even by high-profile politicians who should know better,such as Senator John Kerry. If this is conventional wisdom, it's little wonder that disbelief is often associated, incorrectly, with nihilism and moral breakdown.This is one reason why the modern secular movement has become increasingly assertivein emphasizing what ordinary nonbelievers do believe. Typical secular views are rooted not in complex philosophy but common sense, and when they are fairly considered - without misguided prejudices - we find that they are neither extreme nor dangerous.
As I've interacted with secular individuals from all over the country in recent years - not just the scientists and professors, but the non-academics who are less likely to over-intellectualize - I've found that they disagree on more than they agree. This is a huge demographic with wide-ranging opinions on politics, economics, and other issues. Still, overall, they tend to be well informed, and they generally agree on certain basic facts beyond their disbelief in divinities. Here are some of the views most commonly shared across the nonbeliever spectrum:

[Himster]

Reread my previous post as I provided a philosophical definition of atheist with multiple references.

A debate without common definitions of what the parties involved are discussing is flat out foolish blathering. That is the rationale for frames of reference.

Whatever you have posted is clearly unacceptable, either philosophically or more importantly linguistically.

No, a nonbeliever is one who has not made a decision about a belief. It does not imply atheism.

The prefix "a" means without, to be without belief in God/gods is to be an atheist.

In fact in America, nonbeliever is a discreet choice on polls because they distance themselves from agnostic or atheism. A nonbeliever might even say such a question is silly because it has no importance to them. They are apt to shrug their shoulders at the ridiculous fuss of religious belief or disbelief. In philosophy it is often called "unbelief".

It doesn't matter, they're atheists if they lack belief in god/gods. It doesn't matter if the label that most accurately describes them has been arbitrarily vilified and demonized generation after generation. It doesn't matter why they might dislike the label.
The prefix "a" means "without", to be without "theism": belief in God/gods, is to be an atheist.

As a non-believer, I do think you are making a ridiculous fuss trying to vilify atheists and minimize us. As a linguist I understand that you have been misled by generations of your fellows who have failed to alter the self-evident etymology of atheism.

Not to mention the confusion that would arise by saying, "I am a nonbeliever in Islam." What does that proposition mean?

I didn't mention that gibberish, you did.

[RubiconDecision]

No, I backed up my claims with definitions from philosophy.

The atheists pop culture authors of the last two decades dumbed down atheism from an active disbelief in God to "a lack of belief in God or gods". Those references carefully explain why that new definition is FALSE. I also used references that show there are three choices in philosophy and all have a burden of proof. They are belief, disbelief, and an agnostic view that there isn't sufficient evidence to make a claim of belief or disbelief.

Unbelief similarly has a definition in philosophy.

This is the main contention I have with the Debate and Discussion area as posters use a wide mix of definitions that often are incorrect and so there is no frame of reference in the debate.

If you think this means that then the other person is using a classic definition, then no dialogue can exist because they are talking about different things.

Some of you who claim antitheism are really talking about atheism. Some atheists are really unbelievers. Some claiming atheism are really agnostic. And on and on.

To even begin to have a debate then all parties have to first agree on the definitions. This is the main reason there is so much confusion.Un

Unbelief is not atheism.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unbelief

incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith

Atheism is an active disbelief in God. It is typically an active disbelief in YHWH from the Bible.

An unbeliever is skeptical of religion. PERIOD.
An atheist isn't skeptical but actively disbelieves in God or gods.
An agnostic says, "There isn't evidence either way... I cannot choose God or atheism. Neither has evidence since both are claims of belief."

The word religion in philosophy is complex.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/religion/
It includes atheism within that discussion because atheism is an active disbelief in God or gods and thus creates a paradigm to explain the world without a deity. It is a religion without God or gods.

At the other end of the spectrum regarding religion, however, is a fairly small but vocal band of intellectual atheists who have spawned a movement dubbed the “New Atheism.” These atheists, whose leading voices include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, attempt to demonstrate that respect for belief in God is irrational and socially unacceptable. But despite this orchestrated opposition arguing the falsity and incoherence of theism, it has proved rather resilient. Indeed, the twenty-first century is reflecting a renewed interest in philosophical theism.

[Iskar]

The entire argument with "it was so improbable for life to develop" fails, because life has already developed (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion) and applying probabilities post facto is utter and sheer bollocks.
(Apart from the fact that the postulate of absolute randomness is untenable, since the ability to self-replicate, which is the core feature of life from a scientific perspective, skews the entire thing in its direction.)

[Muizer]

Prove that the universe is evidently structured through the laws of nature and that is why life arose.

Or else? Are you saying that because I (or any other human being alive today) have not managed to prove it, a god must have done it?

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Or else? Are you saying that because I (or any other human being alive today) have not managed to prove it, a god must have done it?

Not just "a god", the christian god!

Apparently Zeus was not good enough for these people

[RubiconDecision]

The entire argument with "it was so improbable for life to develop" fails, because life has already developed (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion) and applying probabilities post facto is utter and sheer bollocks.
(Apart from the fact that the postulate of absolute randomness is untenable, since the ability to self-replicate, which is the core feature of life from a scientific perspective, skews the entire thing in its direction.)

NO. It's isn't a case of an appeal to incredulity, it is that the theory of random assortment is so remote that it doesn't meet the test of plausibility. The upper limit of that is called operational impossibility. And in many debates, atheists have come to conclude that yes, this is true.

You cannot even get a protein to form through random assortment. It is too remote a possibility. If it was more likely by many magnitudes, then it would be PLAUSIBLE and not violate operational impossibility.

So what are we left with? Life didn't happen randomly. It couldn't have.

So that means something caused it to happen. And what atheists literally do is create a religion in which a generic Nature causes Life to arise as a result of some aspect of physical laws. So life is a consequence of the formation of matter beginning with galaxies. Sorry, that is just a religion all over again, a religion without God. There is no evidence of it; it is a belief system based upon faith.

Just be honest and admit that this is what recent atheists have done: a faith based religion in which no God is necessary, but without a shred of evidence that this is how it works.

Or else? Are you saying that because I (or any other human being alive today) have not managed to prove it, a god must have done it?

I am saying that Intelligent Design was the natural conclusion in philosophy due to infinite regression and entropy, which both show that nothing cannot create everything.

There is no evidence to support that the Universe is Eternal. So the most likely paradigm is that our Universe sprung into being through a mechanism.

That mechanism is either an Intelligent Designer, or if I play Devil's Advocate, is an outside Universe that was expanding encountered a potential space and it caused our Universe to come into being as either that Universe broke off or the disturbance caused a new Universe to come into being.

Nothing cannot create everything. Matter has to come from somewhere.

There is a theory that our reality is made of many dimensions. And in the seventh or higher dimensions, that alternate universes exist and some property causes a change and transfers one universe into another.

1. In the fourth dimension, we move through time and space(three dimensions)
2. In the fifth dimension, a series of alternative timelines exist (the Multiverse A) and yet they are part of our Universe, and we are one Planck length apart and living in time and space.
3. In the sixth dimension, then a six dimensional being who had that kind of existence could pass between our multiverse A including the one we inhabit.
4. In the seventh dimension, a being from another Multiverse (call it Multiverse B) then could pass into any number of Multiverses (including the one we live in called Multiverse A).

That seventh dimensional being might be GOD. A being from outside our potential space of nothingness called the Universe into being. Or if that Intelligent Designer triggers you, a universe slipped into a potential space of nothing by a similar mechanism and this caused a reaction that created our Multiverse.

That is rather convuluted. An Intelligent Designer is a far simpler explanation. It doesn't mean that the Intelligent Designer equals YHWH if that freaks you out. But of course I believe that is so.

Here I will help you out. There are scientists who are Synthetic Biologists, and about 17 years ago they discovered self-replication in some forms of clay. Well, later these same Synthetic Biologists were discussing properties of minerals and clay and discovered some properties which were supported in the fossil record during the cooling period which was related to this self-replicating process.

Miller Urey did experiments and tried to create similar conditions which they believed Life might have arisen on Earth, and they claimed that precursors to certain organic chemicals formed. Later there were Synthetic Biologists who found it was remarkably easy to add chemicals into a soup and achieve a lipid bilayer which of course is the beginning of a cell membrane.

So while all of that points to some rather interesting physical properties of organic chemistry, something started the process, and the most likely candidate is an outside force on a potential place of nothingness.
***
Since 2011 or so, I have tried my best to show you what I learned in philosophy about burden of proof and atheism. That is why I provided texts from multiple philosophy sources to break two fallacies that postmodern atheists use in debate.

1. They weasel out by saying "atheism is a lack of belief in gods".
2. Since you believe in YHWH as a Christian, the burden of proof is on you. Not on us as we make no claims.

These are fallacies and NOT found in philosophy.
1. Atheists disbelieve in God (YHWH) and it is active. It can be weak atheism or strong atheism but either disbelieve.
2. Atheists, since they actively disbelieve, have an equal burden of proof. No one in philosophical debate can take the day off.

That leads to a conclusion.
3. Atheists are actually adherents of a religion but only in the philosophical sense, and that Atheist religion is equally based upon faith.

4. Any agnostic who tries to hide behind Science is really committing a fallacy because they honestly disbelieve in God as well, but claim an additional burden of evidence. So they refuse to admit they accept belief on faith. But all of them do when they discuss Nature as causing spontaneous Life to arise.

[Sar1n]

NO. It's isn't a case of an appeal to incredulity, it is that the theory of random assortment is so remote that it doesn't meet the test of plausibility. The upper limit of that is called operational impossibility. And in many debates, atheists have come to conclude that yes, this is true.

So what are we left with? Life didn't happen randomly. It couldn't have.

So that means something caused it to happen. And what atheists literally do is create a religion in which a generic Nature causes Life to arise as a result of some aspect of physical laws. So life is a consequence of the formation of matter beginning with galaxies. Sorry, that is just a religion all over again, a religion without God. There is no evidence of it; it is a belief system based upon faith.

Just be honest and admit that this is what recent atheists have done: a faith based religion in which no God is necessary, but without a shred of evidence that this is how it works.

I am saying that Intelligent Design was the natural conclusion in philosophy due to infinite regression and entropy, which both show that nothing cannot create everything.

There is no evidence to support that the Universe is Eternal. So the most likely paradigm is that our Universe sprung into being through a mechanism.

That mechanism is either an Intelligent Designer, or if I play Devil's Advocate, is an outside Universe that was expanding encountered a potential space and it caused our Universe to come into being as either that Universe broke off or the disturbance caused a new Universe to come into being.

Nothing cannot create everything. Matter has to come from somewhere.

There is a theory that our reality is made of many dimension. And in the seventh or higher dimensions, that alternate universes exist and some property causes a change and transfers one universe into another.

That is rather convuluted. An Intelligent Designer is a far simpler explanation. It doesn't mean that the Intelligent Designer equals YHWH if that freaks you out. But of course I believe that is so.

Here I will help you out. There are scientists who are Synthetic Biologists, and about 17 years ago they discovered self-replication in some forms of clay. Well, later these same Synthetic Biologists were discussing properties of minerals and clay and discovered some properties which were supported in the fossil record during the cooling period which was related to this self-replicating process.

Miller Urey did experiments and tried to create similar conditions which they believed Life might have arisen on Earth, and they claimed that precursors to certain organic chemicals formed. Later there were Synthetic Biologists who found it was remarkably easy to add chemicals into a soup and achieve a lipid bilayer which of course is the beginning of a cell membrane.

So while all of that points to some rather interesting physical properties of organic chemistry, something started the process, and the most likely candidate is an outside force on a potential place of nothingness.
***
Since 2011 or so, I have tried my best to show you what I learned in philosophy about burden of proof and atheism. That is why I provided texts from multiple philosophy sources to break two fallacies that postmodern atheists use in debate.
1. They weasel out by saying "atheism is a lack of belief in gods".
2. Since you believe in YHWH as a Christian, the burden of proof is on you. Not on us as we make no claims.
These are fallacies and NOT found in philosophy.
1. Atheists disbelieve in God (YHWH) and it is active. It can be weak atheism or strong atheism but either disbelieve.
2. Atheists, since they actively disbelieve, have an equal burden of proof. No one in philosophical debate can take the day off.

That leads to a conclusion.
3. Atheists are actually adherents of a religion but only in the philosophical sense, and that religion is equally based upon faith.

4. Any agnostic who tries to hide behind Science is really committing a fallacy because they honestly disbelieve in God as well, but claim an additional burden of evidence. So they refuse to admit they accept belief on faith. But all of them do when they discuss Nature as causing spontaneous Life to arise.

Just because you cannot imagine it does not mean it's impossible. You're committing a common phallacy here. The same argument has been used against shape of Earth, evolution, global warming and many other things that eventually proved to be true. Another fallacy is lack of understanding of statistical probablilities. The odds of each specific reaction happening the right way in chain to create RNA are incredibly small. The odds of one specific organism to produce offspring along specific evolutionary path, leading to humans, are also incredibly small.
But those things didn't happen just once. Even as you read this, bilions of specific chemical reactions happened in your body in a blink of an eye. Bilions of organisms explored bilions of evolutionary paths throughout history. If an event happens enough times, even result with incredibly small odds of happening will become near certainty.

Rest of your post is just a god of gaps. A fallacy. You treat theistic and atheistic approaches as equal. They're not. Let me explain why.

Whenever an unknown phenomena is considered, there are two approaches. Theistic "God did it", aka. god of the gaps, and atheistic, "We don't know.". The first option seemingly explains it, but there's a catch. Assigning any phenomena to god is pure act of faith, and since god is, by definition, not constrained by elementary limits like causality or determinism, there is no way to objectively deduce anything from phenomena assigned to it.
"We don't know", however, thanks to science and logic, comes with a little caveat "yet". It is a question to be answered. And trying to answer it led to every advancement that human race ever did, from fire and wheel to computer you're using and medical advances that allowed you to survive this long. And this is what theism in general has to contend with. If you want to shift the burden of proof to both sides, you need first to prove that theism can lead to equal results.

Good luck with that.

There's another approach to this, more philosophical than empiric. Consider a person's worldview as set of axioms. Belief in own memories and senses, objective reality, etc. There, god is another axiom. It's not a forced choice between axioms "god exists" and "god doesn't exist". It's an axiom postulating god's existence and specific traits. And if you want to add an axiom into system, you need to provide some reasoning for it.
I admit, there are few who hold the inexistence of god as axiom. Some humans just have a need for a god, an ultimate leader...they're just born followers. I guess it's a remnant of pack mentality...and some have just made inexistence of god into a god of their own. From experience, however, most people claiming to be atheistic are either just agnostic, or anti-religious.
This educated anti-religionism is something different that should be explained, as I consider myself to be anti-religious agnostic. It's a logical conclusion of intersection of "hard" agnosticism and humanism. By itself, unexpressed, any faith in divine, including a choice of not having such faith at all, is equal. Every person has right to a spritiuality of his own. But it's also rather benign. Reality is more important than spirituality...materialism is indeed a logical consequence of agnosticism.
The trouble begins when faith is expressed, when god is given a form. By spreading your faith, or even allowing your faith to affect the way you treat others, you are infringing upon their own rights, by putting your spirituality ahead of their own. By treating your faith as real, you are putting it ahead of reality, the material world.
For those reasons, I don't hesitate to call religions evil in principle, and religious upbringing as child abuse.

As you claim to dabble in philosophy, I am looking forward to somewhat more coherent answer from you than from most theists.

[RubiconDecision]

The second I read anti-religious then I cannot bother having a dialogue with you. That is just acknowleding a bigoted post in the same way that acknowledging an antisemitic post is bigoted. There is no room for such severe intolerance. If we all felt that way, we would excuse our own bigotry and try to disempower others based upon their beliefs. Obviously I am not antiatheist or antiagnostic. Both groups are sources for future Christians.

No thanks.

If you do the math, there hasn't been sufficient time in all the billions of years to have even allowed a protein to come into being. This is why atheists and agnostics have abandoned the spontaneous random assortment of the first organism as it isn't plausible. DNA is worse by huge numbers of improbability.

To anyone else, RNA can self-replicate in a lab with a lot of help. It is a paradigm out which puts forth the RNA World Hypothesis. For the sake of diplomacy, I choose not to be bigoted in a reciprocal method, but acknowledge the possibility it explains a portion of the origins of life.

Basically if (and it is a major if) a chain of RNA sprung into being, then if there were base pairs lying around in the chemical ooze, then these base pairs would be attracted to it forming in essence a machine replicator. It could then split and each would again form new RNA machine replicators.

But they are not alive....just self-replicating.

Which is why I brought up self-replicating clay.

Or why I mentioned how easily it is to make a lipid bilayer in a chemical ooze under the right circumstances.

But in no case can nothing create everything. In no case would this RNA or Clay or collection of hydrophilic and hydrophobic lipids just spontaneously arise. Something acted on the Earth for them to be created. If you like, that is the old Prime Mover.

Going back further it is an outside force like another Multiverse entering a potential space of nothing and giving rise to our new Multiverse.

Here is a earlier video explaining the Sixth Dimension and what a 5th Multiverse is and why a six dimensional creature could travel across the across the diverse Multiverse A making up our Universe.