What is the best argument for an atheist?

[waitasec]

Objective evidence is demonstrable, not circumstantial. It can be tested, measured, repeated and be physically observed by others.
In science, all Empirical Evidence is Objective.

What many believers describe as evidence of God is the very definition of Subjective Evidence.
"I see God in Creation.", "Design is evident", "I can feel God working in my life."

In the sense that you're trusting that God will keep his word, yes. You're considering God to be trustworthy.

In the sense that you're believing that God exists without evidence, no. You're hearing him speak (or have other sure knowledge of what he's said), so you know full well that he exists.

Edit: this passage isn't about believing in a God that doesn't give any sign of his existence. It's about hearing God's promise that he has made a place for you in Heaven and responding by trusting him instead of saying "show me".

i guess what i am failing to get across is what tumbleweed 41 was pointing out is objective evidence. believing you hear god's promise is believing in evidence of things unseen or in this case, things unheard, rather it just being a presumption to a predisposition of faith.
just by responding in trust indicates believing in things unseen.
this passage, i believe, is appropriate because it establishes the posture of the believer. faith is unquestionably regarded as evidence because of the presumption of god's existence.
but where is the evidence?

 

[Storm]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Is that the only argument atheists have or is there something better? When I see this argument I see an argument that isn’t very well thought out or designed. Since an atheist has no grounds of belief to stand is it normal for them to criticize other people’s religion to buff up their own lack of philosophical views and beliefs?

Also if you can think of some other atheist arguments go ahead and add them to this thread. I would like to see some other out of the ordinary arguments made by atheist.

By "atheist," do you mean weak, strong, or both?

 

[Gloone]

By "atheist," do you mean weak, strong, or both?

Good question. Just general Atheism. I know there might be a difference to some people, but I don’t see it that way. It is either you have faith or you don’t. I have faith and don’t belong to a certain church or congregation, that doesn’t make me atheist. It just means I am a person of faith that doesn’t rely on Sunday service to get me by. That is why I have a hard time understanding why an atheist would need religion just to say they are “an atheist”. It seems like they are only disregarding something for self-satisfaction. I mean this could be proven wrong, I know some have said they don’t need religion, but I don’t know why someone would want to disavow god in the process.

 

[Storm]

Good question. Just general Atheism. I know there might be a difference to some people, but I don’t see it that way. It is either you have faith or you don’t. I have faith and don’t belong to a certain church or congregation, that doesn’t make me atheist. It just means I am a person of faith that doesn’t rely on Sunday service to get me by. That is why I have a hard time understanding why an atheist would need religion just to say they are “an atheist”. It seems like they are only disregarding something for self-satisfaction. I mean this could be proven wrong, I know some have said they don’t need religion, but I don’t know why someone would want to disavow god in the process.

Well, it's a pretty big difference.

A weak atheist is simply unconvinced. A strong atheist actually believes there is no God.

 

[Gloone]

Well, it's a pretty big difference.

A weak atheist is simply unconvinced. A strong atheist actually believes there is no God.

And that is a big difference how? I already know what strong athiesm is. Are you saying weak is where someone isn't sure there is no god?

 

[Storm]

And that is a big difference how? I already know what strong athiesm is. Are you saying weak is where someone isn't sure there is no god?

That's one way of phrasing it.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Actually....I have not. Someone else asked you. Also if you claim that "God is not science." Which is a nonsensical statement anyway. I assume you mean something like, "Science cannot provide evidence of God." then YOU are making a statement. One you are proposing a supernatural universe vs the natural universe of science. You're claiming you have a definition of what a "God" is. Otherwise you might as well claim that a "Blaggersplatgphan is not science."

If Blaggersplatgphan means the same thing that God means, then I don't care what you call it.

Thats why I asked you to define existence, because obviously when you make a statement like god exists, you're not using the conventional definition of existence.

I don't define existence. You have defined existence with your conventional definition. I asked what that is, and so far I haven't gotten an answer...unless I've misunderstood someone's post.

 

[Gloone]

If Blaggersplatgphan means the same thing that God means, then I don't care what you call it.



I don't define existence. You have defined existence with your conventional definition. I asked what that is, and so far I haven't gotten an answer...unless I've misunderstood someone's post.

Chances are you haven't. None of them have really tried to make any sense.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

If Blaggersplatgphan means the same thing that God means, then I don't care what you call it.



I don't define existence. You have defined existence with your conventional definition. I asked what that is, and so far I haven't gotten an answer...unless I've misunderstood someone's post.

Blaggerslatghpan isn't a word. It has no definition or meaning. Hence the point. And to the latter part of your post....

I assume you mean something like, "Science cannot provide evidence of God." then YOU are making a statement. One you are proposing a supernatural universe vs the natural universe of science. You're claiming you have a definition of what a "God" is.

All you're doing so far is dodging people's questions. Repeatedly.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Blaggerslatghpan isn't a word. It has no definition or meaning.

:clap

Not the 'isn't a word' part. It's obviously a word...I mean, it has vowels. It's a very long, nearly unpronounceable word, but a word nonetheless.
I applaud you for getting right to the point. The word has no definition or meaning. So let the word define itself. Don't give it a definition.
Example: Right now, it's being used to prove a point that your original point was actually the whole idea of 'God'. So that's the definition. Very convoluted...but workable.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

:clap

Not the 'isn't a word' part. It's obviously a word...I mean, it has vowels. It's a very long, nearly unpronounceable word, but a word nonetheless.
I applaud you for getting right to the point. The word has no definition or meaning. So let the word define itself. Don't give it a definition.
Example: Right now, it's being used to prove a point that your original point was actually the whole idea of 'God'. So that's the definition. Very convoluted...but workable.

Actually it's pointing out that since you made a statement about how "God is not science." Then you have a working definition of what a "God" is. Which means either A. You can provide it. or B. You're misleading people and don't actually have one and "God" in your statement is gibberish and no better than "Unie is not science." or my previous example.

And you're STILL dodging people's questions.

 

[Amill]

Good question. Just general Atheism. I know there might be a difference to some people, but I don’t see it that way. It is either you have faith or you don’t. I have faith and don’t belong to a certain church or congregation, that doesn’t make me atheist. It just means I am a person of faith that doesn’t rely on Sunday service to get me by. That is why I have a hard time understanding why an atheist would need religion just to say they are “an atheist”. It seems like they are only disregarding something for self-satisfaction. I mean this could be proven wrong, I know some have said they don’t need religion, but I don’t know why someone would want to disavow god in the process.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. What do you mean when you say that an "atheist would need religion to say they are "an atheist"." And what self-satisfaction?

 

[Gloone]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean. What do you mean when you say that an "atheist would need religion to say they are "an atheist"." And what self-satisfaction?

Do atheist need religion to say they are an atheist. Can they do it without being dependent on religion? I'm not just talking about one of them either, I am talking about every single one.

 

[Amill]

Do atheist need religion to say they are an atheist. Can they do it without being dependent on religion? I'm not just talking about one of them either, I am talking about every single one.

So you're saying atheists go from a disbelief in religions to a belief that there isn't any kind of god? Without giving a belief in a non-religious god or deistic concept of god a chance? Or are you saying that atheists base their disbelief in god on the fact that they believe they can disprove religions?

I personally have never been religious but I did have a belief in a more generalized kind of personal god and also believed in a deistic concept of god at one point. Then I sort of started to believe in a life force or divine reason for why everything existed....then eventually shed that as well. My atheism really has nothing to do with religion. I was non-religious long before I became an atheist. So while I feel that religions are incorrect, the main reason why I'm an atheist is because of the fact that the existence of an intelligent creator really doesn't make any sense to me, and because I feel there are more plausible explanations for at least the things that go on within our Universe.

There are many atheists who have believed in other kinds of gods besides the theistic kinds, and many who don't attack religion as a way to prove that there is no god. I'm still not sure precisely what you meant so I tried to answer both of the possible paths I think your claim could have been directed toward.

 

[Gloone]

Obviously you don’t know where the origin of atheist comes from to say this.

Without giving a belief in a non-religious god or deistic concept of god a chance?

Or are you saying that atheists base their disbelief in god on the fact that they believe they can disprove religions?

No. What I’m saying is you might as well be an agnostic before you go mix matching false beliefs.

I personally have never been religious but I did have a belief in a more generalized kind of personal god and also believed in a deistic concept of god at one point.

If that is the case then you would not be an atheist.

Then I sort of started to believe in a life force or divine reason for why everything existed.... then eventually shed that as well.[/

I can understand that. It is just a part of learning.

My atheism really has nothing to do with religion

I’m glad to hear that.

I was non-religious long before I became an atheist.

That is even better.

So while I feel that religions are incorrect, the main reason why I'm an atheist is because of the fact that the existence of an intelligent creator really doesn't make any sense to me, and because I feel there are more plausible explanations for at least the things that go on within our Universe.

Understandable

There are many atheists who have believed in other kinds of gods besides the theistic kinds, and many who don't attack religion as a way to prove that there is no god. I'm still not sure precisely what you meant so I tried to answer both of the possible paths I think your claim could have been directed toward.=

Don’t worry myself included. I have seen gods you probably wouldn’t believe, but I understand their importance. They don’t really venture far from the theist concepts of god either, so I don’t discredit them and understand their importance.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Since I disagree with many (not all) Atheists on very fundamental things, I would say they don't have a best argument, because the basic arguments all seem equally flawed, imho. I think a lot of atheists have a very conservative view of perceiving phenomena, in that they deny everything except what is "scientifically proven" or known up until now, as opposed to the less personally limiting perspective that everything is possible until proven impossible.

 

[Sententia]

Do atheist need religion to say they are an atheist. Can they do it without being dependent on religion? I'm not just talking about one of them either, I am talking about every single one.

Most theists are atheists as well its just most atheists go 'All' gods further.

Brought up as a theist I reject those faiths but coming to be an atheist is something else entirely for me personally.

Nor was it easy. Your argument is odd though... Do you need some group embracing some supernatural unprovable diety in order to be an atheist?

Well what does atheist mean to you?

Do skeptics need believers in order to be skeptics?

 

[Gloone]

Brought up as a theist I reject those faiths but coming to be an atheist is something else entirely for me personally.

I can see your logic, but I wouldn’t hold double bars against it.

Nor was it easy. Your argument is odd though... Do you need some group embracing some supernatural unprovable diety in order to be an atheist?

IDK what type of group embracing do you have? I might accept it, but if my inner demon doesn't then you might as well run like hell.

Well what does atheist mean to you?

Someone that doesn’t know or understand god.
BTW: I didn’t answer you last question because it made absolutely no sense to me.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Most theists are atheists as well its just most atheists go 'All' gods further.

Brought up as a theist I reject those faiths but coming to be an atheist is something else entirely for me personally.

Nor was it easy. Your argument is odd though... Do you need some group embracing some supernatural unprovable diety in order to be an atheist?

Well what does atheist mean to you?

Do skeptics need believers in order to be skeptics?

On some level it's really as basic as theism/atheism are separate sides of the same ontology. But really if that's all he's trying to say...sure ok. But that's rather self evidence if you know anything about prefixes.

 

[Amill]

If that is the case then you would not be an atheist.

Then what word would best classify my beliefs or opinions? I do not believe in an intelligent creator of the Universe, in fact, since I feel that adding a creator makes the existence of everything more complicated, I believe that there is a very high probability that no such being exists. The term I would use is atheist, but what would you choose?

Do I need to have been religious in the past to be an atheist? I mean I was a theist at one point, just not one that subscribed to any of the religions that have ever existed.