If I were to become an atheist...

This is a recurring meme in the theist community to try and position atheists as the ones who have a lot of faith. But atheists need not commit themselves to a specific belief about how everything came to be as it is; but as a Christian you are committing yourself to a very specific story that is bolstered only by ancient texts and group consensus.

Look even as a theist, I see how incorrect you are.

In fact as a theist I have to reconcile God with the proven laws and rules that the universe operates under, not the other way around. The hardest being of course natural evil, as a theist I have to reconcile how God would allow millions to be killed in natural disasters, if I rejected God that would be far easier to understand.

Just curious, but how do you reconcile it (I mean you personally)?

First, as others have said, being an atheist doesn't mean believing any of that, but as for those points:

1. There's already solid science that that's true. (Depending on your definition of "nothing.")
2. Life is just a complex of non-life material, which we know can combine on its own. Life from non-life is a rational extrapolation from how non-life behaves.
3.. There is no fine-tuning. The alleged fine-tuning is claimed with many baseless assumptions, many of which are almost certainly wrong, and even if correct betrays a fundamental ignorance of probability (you can't just use the odds against something as an argument that it was designed to happen that way).
4. No idea what this means. Chaos naturally produces order because of fundamental physical laws, and any "information" would just be a type of order.
5. As lowtacks said, what do you think happens from sperm cell to human? Unconsciousness to consciousness.
6. Reason is just humanity's means of organizing thinking to form accurate beliefs about reality; I don't know what you mean by non-reason producing it. Reason wasn't produced, it was labeled.

That's one reason an atheist wouldn't have to believe any of that. He or she also wouldn't have to believe any of it if they chose to look for answers, either, though.


Are you going to have another little cry because the words "atheist" and "agnostic" don't mean what you want them to? Go on, you know how emotional it makes you.


Nope.

For example, an atheist might believe that some iteration of nature has always existed. And therefore such a person would have no need at all to believe that "nothing produces everything".

An atheist might reject the notion of "fine tuning", and thus have no need to believe that "randomness produces fine tuning".


Unlikely, since most atheists do not have the positive belief that there is no god.


The fact that you emotionally reject a thing because you don't like it does not make it impossible.


No, it's a result of atheists desiring accuracy. This is something that you do not understand.


Many - or even most - atheists are perfectly fine with the possibility that there is a god. They simply require some kind of evidence or compelling reason to believe it. It's hardly their fault if believers cannot supply such a reason.

Except that it is.

Not at all. You dont need to know where the universe came from to not believe in god. You just need to see no good evidence of any god.

Saying I dont know is ok for us.