Favourite Atheist arguments

[TagliatelliMonster]

He would have been wrong 60 years ago since atheists back then described themselves as they do now. And that was the case even further back. What began to happen 60 years ago was that dictionaries may have quit trying to tell atheists what they are. But Christians defining what is and what is not atheism is as bad as Muslims defining what is and what is not Christianity.

Sure, I know.

But I was just trying to cut it short.
Because idd, it matters not, since we have this conversation today - not 60 years ago.

 

[epronovost]

The logical problem of evil has been considered to be solved since like 1972. I did a dissertation on it. Do u mean the evidential?

I wasn't aware of it. Do you have a link to this solution.

 

[tarasan]

You are somewhat right. The attacks against atheists goes back long before then. But you are wrong when you try to claim that atheists recently tried to redefine the term. It appears that they always had the current definition and it is the writers of dictionaries that were wrong. One can go back 120 years and find the same definition as we have now proposed by atheists:

A History of the Word “Atheism” and the Politics of Dictionaries

Once again, the members of a group are usually the best at defining their group. You would not allow Muslims to define what Christianity is, especially if it left you out.

I tell you what, let's compromise. I man not really an atheist and you are not really a Christian. Does that sound reasonable to you? I hope not, but it should make your error clear.

By any definition on the kind of level we are talking about definitions are grey. For example I'm not fundamentalist more a centralist Christian does that mean I'm not a Christian? No because these things are not clear cut.

However the article insight complains that in a Christian dominated society athiets where looked down upon, which I think is repressible all the people I consider friends are atheists and they should believe and argue as they like. But the article seems to only give one defontion from an atheist. And they say that they don't understand the concept of God so need to remain neutral. That isn't the case though as for centuries there have been, as I have said before major attempts to clarify and define the nature of God. Most of the Christian disagreement are on irrelevant details (don't tell them I said that but it's true) and most polytheist pantheons operate similarly.

Listen I'm sorry if u think I'm arrogant but I'm truly trying to understand it point of view can we start over and engage with other. (I promise I'll try too).

 

[tarasan]

I wasn't aware of it. Do you have a link to this solution.

Nature of necessity by Alvin plantinga

 

[epronovost]

Nature of necessity by Alvin plantinga

The free will argument in answer to problem of evil is a joke that anybody who has more than a small child understanding of evil. The "free will" argument can only apply, at best, to the evil commited by one person's desire and will to another person. Also, Plantinga arguments on free will are centuries old.

 

[tarasan]

The free will argument in answer to problem of evil is a joke that anybody who has more than a small child understanding of evil. The "free will" argument can only apply, at best, to the evil commited by one person's desire and will to another person. Also, Plantinga arguments on free will are centuries old.

Mate there is more to it than that of give that book a read. If u wanted me to unpack it here it would literally be a wall of txt

 

[epronovost]

Mate there is more to it than that of give that book a read. If u wanted me to unpack it here it would literally be a wall of txt

You don't need to. I've read that book. It's Platinga most popular work with his three ones on "Warrant". His free will argument to solve the problem of evil is garbage just like the entire theodicy of free will he is reformulating.

 

[tarasan]

You don't need to. I've read that book. It's Platinga most popular work with his three ones on "Warrant". His free will argument to solve the problem of evil is garbage just like the entire theodicy of free will he is reformulating.

Can u explain why?

 

[tarasan]

You don't need to. I've read that book. It's Platinga most popular work with his three ones on "Warrant". His free will argument to solve the problem of evil is garbage just like the entire theodicy of free will he is reformulating.

Ok so I have read his book what specifically is wrong with it?

 

[Vinayaka]

The marmot

Surely you mean marmite. That darn dyslexia, eh?

 

[epronovost]

Ok so I have read his book what specifically is wrong with it?

Specifically, his argment to solve the problem of evil only solves, at best and while being generous, evil caused by the actions and desires of other agents with free will, ignoring an other types of evil like scarcity gambits, personnal despair, disease, natural disasters, accidents, etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By any definition on the kind of level we are talking about definitions are grey. For example I'm not fundamentalist more a centralist Christian does that mean I'm not a Christian? No because these things are not clear cut.

However the article insight complains that in a Christian dominated society athiets where looked down upon, which I think is repressible all the people I consider friends are atheists and they should believe and argue as they like. But the article seems to only give one defontion from an atheist. And they say that they don't understand the concept of God so need to remain neutral. That isn't the case though as for centuries there have been, as I have said before major attempts to clarify and define the nature of God. Most of the Christian disagreement are on irrelevant details (don't tell them I said that but it's true) and most polytheist pantheons operate similarly.

Listen I'm sorry if u think I'm arrogant but I'm truly trying to understand it point of view can we start over and engage with other. (I promise I'll try too).

The most common definition of atheist is the agnostic atheist. Very very few atheists are gnostic atheists, just as fundamentalists are actually the minority of Christians. And where does it claim that they don't understand the concept of God? I did not see that said or implied anywhere in that article. Now I might claim that Christians do not understand the concept of God because they think that there is only one.

But it is good hear that you are not a fundamentalist. You hopefully would not want others to claim that you believe the Noah's Ark myth or other parts of the Old Testament that cannot be read literally. Just as it would be wrong to ascribe all of the beliefs of fundamentalists to you it is wrong to ascribe all of the beliefs of gnostic atheists to all atheists.

The group that holds a belief is the one that gets to set the standard for what that belief is. Muslims do not get to define Christianity. Hindus do not get to define Islam. The examples go on and on. Christians do not get to define what an atheist is. The article that I linked shows that the so called "modern" version of atheism dates to the 1860's at least.

 

[Curious George]

Ok but is there any evidence that there is

We are getting off track, if u believe that u can assert your worldview with no evidence then it goes to say that I can as well. You tell me there is no evidence for god I tell you there is no evidence against God and we both stay in that neutral place merely asserting our views as correct.

I mean I could just as easily say to you.

"Do you believe in magic?"

Cause if you say no then you have already employed why people believe there is a creator.

Listen I'm sorry if u think I'm arrogant but I'm truly trying to understand it point of view

If you are truly trying to understand a point of view...

I am an atheist...not just a "lacking belief" atheist but a person who actively believes that no god exists.

I gave you the analogy to magic, to help you understand an atheists, or at least my, pov.

I can offer you no rigorous proof of the lack of existence of all gods; just as you can offer me no rigorous proof of the existence of any one god.

That said, your last comment to me seemed disingenuous. You asking me the same question I asked of you to help explain your belief in a god would cause the analogy to fail.

One of the very first responses from @Unveiled Artist very nicely captured the sentiment of many atheists:given human psychology, anthropology, archaeology and the seeming lack of concrete evidence lends itself to the conclusion that no god exists.

I recognize that this is a belief, not a fact. I am happy and willing to change this belief just as I would happily and willingly change my belief that no magic exists. I just do not anticipate that happening.

Humans like to create stories and meaning. Humans like to feel as though they have control. We can see these stories change over time and within different cultures.

At the end of the day, I can see no reason to assume some entity with super powers or magic. Because i can see no convincing reason to assume such an entity exists, I act and carry myself as though such an entity does not exist.

 

[paarsurrey]

I remember loving arguments and apologetics when I was a teenager/young adult (32 now haven't been young for a while .)

So I was curious what do atheists think is there most convincing argument against God?

The Atheism people go by "Atheist Method", they have no strong argument for their ism, I understand, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Sundance]

Childhood leukaemia
The futility of prayer
The anopheles mosquito
The marmot
Are just a few.

Hello, @Christine. I would like to offer you a different conception of what these things mean. It seems to me that suffering and evil do not point to the non-existence of God or gods, rather (and more directly) that God (or gods) is not providential and does not intervene in the world. This would be considered deism, true?

 

[lukethethird]

Favourite Atheist arguments
No He doesn't,
Yes he does,
No He doesn't,
Yes He does
...ad nauseam

 

[lukethethird]

The Atheism people go by "Atheist Method", they have no strong argument for their ism, I understand, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

Right, atheism means without theism so yes, no need for ism.

Regards

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My favorite arguments are:
I am unconvinced in the existence of gods,
I do not believe gods are necessary to what we know about the universe,
I do not believe gods would want my lip service even if they existed, so I refuse to pretend I believe in gods when I simply do not.

 

[Valjean]

Hey the concept of a god does not hinge on those texts. That's why I asked agruments for athiesm in a general sense

There is no need for an argument for atheism. Atheism makes no positive statements; no claims. It's not a belief.

Atheism is the epistemic default, so there is no burden of proof; nothing to argue for. It's a blank slate -- and how would you argue for an unwritten position? You can't argue for a non-belief.

The burden of proof lies entirely with the party making a positive claim, not with the one who doesn't believe the claim. Asking for evidence of a non-belief makes no sense.

Is there empirical evidence for God; evidence that doesn't involve logical errors, false premises, or apophenic associations and patterns? I think not.
There is no more evidence for God than there is for pink unicorns, Cthulu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; or, conversely, there is just as much evidence, so why not give equal credence to all four?

 

[Valjean]

My favorite is that Atheist seem to know what God would be so they can tell us what he isn't.

???
There is no need to posit any particulars. We have no burden of proof.
Atheists have no particular description of what God isn't. Atheism is just a lack of belief in whatever unevidenced deity is proposed.