Is Atheism the Easier Position?

[MikeF]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

Why is it always described as attacking? Why not educating and enlightening?

Not a fan of the term atheism either. Much rather say I'm a fan of reality as opposed to saying I don't believe in one particular category of that which is imaginary.

 

[ecco]

You and a great many other self-proclaimed atheists.

But to this I always have to ask; by what logic are you assuming that if God exists, YOU would be able to ascertain and recognize the evidence of that existence?

It's also quite dishonest in most cases, because the atheist making such proclamations clearly believes that no gods exist, even as he's so blatantly proclaiming that his "unbelief" renders him neutral.

The point is that there is NO POSSIBLE EVIDENCE available to we mere humans that could validate the existence of 'God'.

I have been conversing with these atheists, and others, for many years. I know of what I write.

They are not atheists because they have not accepted the antithetical to the theist proposition.

It's really amazing that you know what an atheist is and what an atheist isn't. But how can you know? You are not an atheist. Worse yet, you disregard what atheists actually tell you.

You have built your own little strawman version of what an atheist is and you spend post after post believing you have knocked them down. How silly. How sad.

 

[halbhh]

You must determine what is helpful and harmful based on the measurable consequences of behavior on individuals and society

Look for yourself what this says when read past just the first verse:

12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

[And in case that was not yet clear... -->)

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name...’ ... 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

So, as you can instantly see (if you look), we are required to determine what is helpful and harmful based on the measurable consequences of behavior -- verse 12 -- and if we do not, then verses 13, 21, 23 will be the outcome.


Is that helpful?

 

[Clara Tea]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

You call yourself an atheist then claim that atheists put down the beliefs of others.

As Christians, we have to pray to fix our own problems, and we have to put our own efforts (not God's efforts) into fixing our own problems as well. We must not ignore the log in our eyes while claiming that someone has a splinter in their own.

Christians voted in huge numbers and ruined God's creations (environment, economy, drilling, fracking, polluting), and defied God in the process. Terrorism increased as a result of unfair attacks on the wrong enemy. In the mean time, the US government (Central Intelligence Agency) armed and supplied brand new Toyota pick up trucks to ISIS (Al Qaeda)--likely a result of faulty intel.

As Christians, we have to pray that other Christians follow their own beliefs in God, Christ/Jesus.

Christians put down Jews and Muslims. They can't even get along with other Christians. For example, they claim that Mormons are not Christians merely because they have a different bible. Yet, there are numerous bibles, even within the same faiths.

 

[Justanatheist]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

That, as much fun as I like and a lie in on Sunday mornings, come on in the waters lovely.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well, in my case, I'm admitting to a lack of knowledge, ignorance.
Do I have to defend my ignorance as well?

No. Which is why I was careful to say that only in instances where you're in an area where debate is occurring. For example, if you and I sat down over a nice cold glass of beer and discussed a variety of issues and religion came up and you asked me what I believed and I told you and went no further in my explanation we would leave it there (or not based on your reaction of course). I asked you the same and you said "Oh I'm atheist because I believe there is evidence of no supernatural deity or deities." So not only did you categorized your metaphysical beliefs, but you've also postulated a claim that your beliefs are true because of evidence which, therefore, naturally in that conversation I'd ask you to substantiate your claim. That is the arena of debate I'm referring to. So instead of having a normal conversation you've made a statement of fact to which naturally I'd challenge you on that especially if it's in opposition to what I believe. If this makes any sense.

 

[Nakosis]

You call yourself an atheist then claim that atheists put down the beliefs of others.

I didn't make a claim, I asked a question. I wondered if sometimes theists believe this to be a motivation of atheists.

As Christians, we have to pray to fix our own problems, and we have to put our own efforts (not God's efforts) into fixing our own problems as well. We must not ignore the log in our eyes while claiming that someone has a splinter in their own.

Christians voted in huge numbers and ruined God's creations (environment, economy, drilling, fracking, polluting), and defied God in the process. Terrorism increased as a result of unfair attacks on the wrong enemy. In the mean time, the US government (Central Intelligence Agency) armed and supplied brand new Toyota pick up trucks to ISIS (Al Qaeda)--likely a result of faulty intel.

As Christians, we have to pray that other Christians follow their own beliefs in God, Christ/Jesus.

Christians put down Jews and Muslims. They can't even get along with other Christians. For example, they claim that Mormons are not Christians merely because they have a different bible. Yet, there are numerous bibles, even within the same faiths.

Well you do make it sound difficult.

 

[halbhh]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

Yes, being an atheist was much easier.

Based on the 25 years when I was a non believer. And about 10 years as a very convinced atheist (not agnostic).

Why was it easier to be atheist for me? See post #63 just above.

 

[leroy]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

1 If you claim that probably there is no God, you do have to support your view. You have to support why his existence is more unlikely than his inexistence, which is no big deal, one can do that with Santa clause, big foot, longness monster etc.

2 If you claim “I don’t know” perhaps there is a God perhaps not (roughly a probability 50% 50%) then you don’t have a burden proof.


I personally label the first as Atheist and the second as an agonstic.

 

[Nakosis]

1 If you claim that probably there is no God, you do have to support your view. You have to support why his existence is more unlikely than his inexistence, which is no big deal, one can do that with Santa clause, big foot, longness monster etc.

2 If you claim “I don’t know” perhaps there is a God perhaps not (roughly a probability 50% 50%) then you don’t have a burden proof.


I personally label the first as Atheist and the second as an agonstic.

A lot of people see it this way. For me I see agnosticism(lack of knowledge) leads to atheism(lack of belief).

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, being an atheist was much easier.

Based on the 25 years when I was a non believer. And about 10 years as a very convinced atheist (not agnostic).

Why was it easier to be atheist for me? See post #63 just above.

However I suspect the ease of atheism was not your reason for being an atheist. Was it?

 

[Justanatheist]

Well, I don't think so. The atheist has a very heavy duty -- if he is rational -- to make his worldview coherent and defend it from intellectual attacks.

Atheism is not a world view, it is just not a belief in gods.

There are many arguments out there against the atheistic worldview and mountains of books by naturalists (e.g., Graham Oppy, Howard Sobel, John Mackie) dealing with these arguments.

Atheist or naturalist the two are not necessarily the same, make your mind up.

And the atheist must be aware of these debates in order to have a robust worldview.

No, because atheism is not a world view anymore that theism is.

So, even though the atheist doesn't postulate any additional being, he must defend its denial of such beings. And this requires hard work.

Really, who do I have to defend anything to. Most of the time when met by people telling me about their religious beliefs I just tell them to go forth, I do not even bother to tell them I am an atheist. I do not let them waste my time.

 

[leroy]

A lot of people see it this way. For me I see agnosticism(lack of knowledge) leads to atheism(lack of belief).

For me an agnostic is someone who is roughly 50% 50%.….. someone who has no good reasons to reject the existence of God, but doesn’t have good reasons to accept the existence of God ether.

A weak atheist would be someone who has good reasons to reject the existence of God

A strong atheist would be someone who has conclusive reasons to reject the existence of God

I personally find this labels clear and easy to understand.

 

[Magical Wand]

Who the hell are you to tell me what I must do?

I am a rational human person who is aware of certain fundamental principles of logical reasoning. I think I’m qualified to say what you must do if you want to be rational. If you want to ignore it, the problem isn't mine, however. You have the legal right to be irrational as much as you like.

 

[Magical Wand]

Atheism is not a world view, it is just not a belief in gods.

Let me correct my comment. Everyone has a worldview, and some worldviews include or reject certain propositions (such as "God exists"). If your worldview doesn't include (i.e., rejects) certain facts about the world, it is incoherent. That's my point. For example, suppose that in my worldview, I reject the existence of the sun. Clearly there is something wrong with it, even though I don't claim the sun does not exist or that belief in the existence of the sun is a whole worldview.

Atheist or naturalist the two are not necessarily the same

Not relevant in this context, though. I could've used the word "philosophers" or "experts" or even "theists". The fact is that they defend a worldview that doesn't include God against apologetical attacks.

Really, who do I have to defend anything to. Most of the time when met by people telling me about their religious beliefs I just tell them to go forth, I do not even bother to tell them I am an atheist. I do not let them waste my time.

That's not the question, though. The question is whether your worldview stands up to scrutiny. Whether your friends are religious or not is not relevant to the coherence of your view.

 

[Magical Wand]

For me, being an atheist is a position of ignorance and lack of trust.
Acceptance of one's own ignorance about any God and a lack of trust about those that claim they do.

Acceptance of one's own ignorance is a position of defense against one's own subconscious mind which is capable of creating spiritual/religious experiences to satisfy one's desire for the existence of a God and or a special relationship to the universe.
My lack of trust comes from the knowledge that the subconscious mind of others is capable of doing the same.

Okaaay... I think.

 

[osgart]

There is no Santa Claus and I stand by my assertion. Do I have evidence there is no Santa Claus? Perhaps I do.

Atheism is simply the assertion that there is no Gods. I'm atheist and I make this assertion: ' The evidence indicates there is no God. '

However those opposing atheism assert there is a God, and some interpret nature to be that evidence.

It's a dead end argument. It's two contrary opposite intuitions; atheism and theism. Although sometimes people do convert one way or the other based on civil discourse, not so much debates.

Atheism is easier to defend because omnipotence, and omniscience would be easy to notice if there was a God. We would have no problem of evil, nor natural disasters if there were a God. Existence would be purposed for the existence of life if there was a God. We are in a universe that is mostly hostile to life. Therefore there is no God.

Atheism is a growing minority so in that sense it is harder to defend.

 

[Sand Dancer]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

Since no one is born believing, it seems like the natural way to continue. I wish I hadn't been scared into Christianity. I'm not atheist, but nor am I theist. Agnostic.

 

[Audie]

No ideology to defend.
No God to logically justify.
Nothing to prove.

Are you an atheist because it allows you to attack the beliefs of others with no obligation to defend beliefs which you lack?

Are people religious so they can attack those
not in their cult, while perched on some high ground of assumed superiority?

I lack religion, and I also lack dengue
and malaria.

 

[firedragon]

Since no one is born believing

How do you prove that?