• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Favourite Atheist arguments

PureX

Veteran Member
The justification is lack of evidence.

Rather like i am justified in not believing in invisible pink polka dot unicorns for exactly the same reason
From post #199 ...

"So let's see ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist. ..."
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
From post #199 ...

"So let's see ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist. ..."
I have yet to see you own up to strawmanning the atheist position so I do not see why you would expect an answer from atheists. Besides that you have had logical responses but though not as bad as some theists you simple ignore those responses or try to claim that they are not "logical". If you want a discussion change your tactics.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
From post #199 ...

"So let's see ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist. ..."

Theism : belief in the existence of a god or gods

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

See the difference?

I see no evidence of invisible pink unicorns, do you? Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns, yes/no? Can you justify that?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I have yet to see you own up to strawmanning the atheist position so I do not see why you would expect an answer from atheists.
I don't expect an answer, because I know most atheists don't have one. It's why they expend so much energy trying to justify why they don't have to give an answer. I am always pleasantly surprised when one actually HAS an answer and is willing to give it, and offer it up for debate. Usually they just run and hide behind phony claims of agnosticism and gibberish about their "unbelief".
Besides that you have had logical responses but though not as bad as some theists you simple ignore those responses or try to claim that they are not "logical". If you want a discussion change your tactics.
I ignore mindless gibberish about "unbelief" because it doesn't deserve a response.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Theism : belief in the existence of a god or gods

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Both statements are quite wrong. Theism is the philosophical proposition that some sort of deity exists and that it's existence affects ours. Atheism is the philosophical rejection of that proposition.

"Belief" is irrelevant.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Both statements are quite wrong. Theism is the philosophical proposition that some sort of deity exists and that it's existence affects ours. Atheism is the philosophical rejection of that proposition.

"Belief" is irrelevant.


Both statements come come from recognised dictionaries, sorry they don't agree with you but they are the defacto definitions. If you disagree perhaps you should contact the directors of the Oxford English dictionary.

Belief is highly relevant, theism depends on it


And i see you avoided my question for some odd reason so i will ask again

I see no evidence of invisible pink unicorns, do you? Do you believe in invisible pink unicorns, yes/no? Can you justify that?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don't expect an answer, because I know most atheists don't have one. It's why they expend so much energy trying to justify why they don't have to give an answer. I am always pleasantly surprised when one actually HAS an answer and is willing to give it, and offer it up for debate. Usually they just run and hide behind phony claims of agnosticism and gibberish about their "unbelief".
I ignore mindless gibberish about "unbelief" because it doesn't deserve a response.
You not only got an answer, you got a solution. As usual you chose to ignore both.

People know your game here. It is time to either change or move on.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You not only got an answer, you got a solution. As usual you chose to ignore both.

People know your game here. It is time to either change or move on.
So what was the answer, then ... and the big "solution"?

From post #199 ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist.

No. 2. also relies on a couple of presumptions that are not logically or even reasonably sound. One such presumption is that if God exists, we humans would be universally able to conceptualize the nature and manner of that existence. Yet being that God is generally considered to be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and we humans clearly do not yet possess the capacity for understanding this ultimate fundament of existence, I don't see how we could be logically expected to conceptualize it accurately, or universally. These same atheists do not expect scientists to all agree on the origin or conceptualization of the physical universe, and yet they for some odd reason expect theists to all hold the same understanding of God. And yet again, when this blatant double-standard is pointed out to them, they simply walk away repeating their complaint as if reason and hypocrisy were of no consequence to them, at all.

No. 3. I can at least accept for it's honesty, if not necessarily for it's basis in logic. If, from the human perspective, God's nature and existence is not discernible, then why should we waste time trying? And that's a valid question if the premise is true. And the premise is clearly true in terms of our gaining any clear understanding of the nature and existence of God. And the premise would also be true if there were no advantage to be gained for humanity by trying in spite of the difficulty. But although these points are partly true, they are not entirely true. And especially not entirely true for all of us, all the time. Humanity does gain some understanding of this great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is by our seeking. How accurate that understanding is, is certainly debatable. As it should be. And some of our presumed understanding of the 'god-mystery' is bound to be quite wrong. Yet there are some universal common ideals, and they do bear reasoned consideration (as opposed to a blanket dismissal).
Also, a great many humans do find significant and positive value in the process of contemplating the nature and character of this 'god-mystery'. So much so that even though their conceptualizations of God are constantly changing over time, and even though many of these conceptual characterizations disagree with each other, we humans still develop and pursue them in earnest. A huge majority of us, in fact. And again, these may all or nearly all be wrong, but the universality of this desire is overwhelming, and therefor not to be taken lightly, and dismissed out of hand. To do so may be a legitimate choice, ... but it's not a particularly wise one.

What the atheist arguments all seem to boil down to is resentment based on lack of control. If the atheist can't understand this god-mystery fully, and obviously; then he rejects it entirely. And that's just not a particularly logical or reasonable reaction to theism. At least not to my way of thinking. But I welcome debate.​
 

lukethethird

unknown member
What you don't believe is irrelevant, and does not make you an atheist. What makes you an atheist is believing that gods don't exist until they can be proven to exist. And that is a theological position that, when asserted, requires justification. This thread is about that justification.
That's right, what I don't believe is irrelevant.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So what was the answer, then ... and the big "solution"?

From post #199 ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist.

No. 2. also relies on a couple of presumptions that are not logically or even reasonably sound. One such presumption is that if God exists, we humans would be universally able to conceptualize the nature and manner of that existence. Yet being that God is generally considered to be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and we humans clearly do not yet possess the capacity for understanding this ultimate fundament of existence, I don't see how we could be logically expected to conceptualize it accurately, or universally. These same atheists do not expect scientists to all agree on the origin or conceptualization of the physical universe, and yet they for some odd reason expect theists to all hold the same understanding of God. And yet again, when this blatant double-standard is pointed out to them, they simply walk away repeating their complaint as if reason and hypocrisy were of no consequence to them, at all.

No. 3. I can at least accept for it's honesty, if not necessarily for it's basis in logic. If, from the human perspective, God's nature and existence is not discernible, then why should we waste time trying? And that's a valid question if the premise is true. And the premise is clearly true in terms of our gaining any clear understanding of the nature and existence of God. And the premise would also be true if there were no advantage to be gained for humanity by trying in spite of the difficulty. But although these points are partly true, they are not entirely true. And especially not entirely true for all of us, all the time. Humanity does gain some understanding of this great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is by our seeking. How accurate that understanding is, is certainly debatable. As it should be. And some of our presumed understanding of the 'god-mystery' is bound to be quite wrong. Yet there are some universal common ideals, and they do bear reasoned consideration (as opposed to a blanket dismissal).
Also, a great many humans do find significant and positive value in the process of contemplating the nature and character of this 'god-mystery'. So much so that even though their conceptualizations of God are constantly changing over time, and even though many of these conceptual characterizations disagree with each other, we humans still develop and pursue them in earnest. A huge majority of us, in fact. And again, these may all or nearly all be wrong, but the universality of this desire is overwhelming, and therefor not to be taken lightly, and dismissed out of hand. To do so may be a legitimate choice, ... but it's not a particularly wise one.

What the atheist arguments all seem to boil down to is resentment based on lack of control. If the atheist can't understand this god-mystery fully, and obviously; then he rejects it entirely. And that's just not a particularly logical or reasonable reaction to theism. At least not to my way of thinking. But I welcome debate.​
Asked and answered a long time ago.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What you don't believe is irrelevant, and does not make you an atheist. What makes you an atheist is believing that gods don't exist until they can be proven to exist. And that is a theological position that, when asserted, requires justification. This thread is about that justification.
But it does make you an atheist. It just doesn't make you a strong or explicit atheist. Remember what a definition is.
To hold and express a position logically calls for justification. Atheism expressed, is a position. And so calls for justification.
Define "atheism expressed." Atheism requires justification only if it makes a positive claim, like "God doesn't exist." This is a minority atheist position, though.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It wasn't answered then, and it isn't being answered now, because you can't. And everyone with eyes can see it.
Wrong again. Just because you do not like the answer does not mean that it was not answered. Once again change your tactics. When you use a strawman argument all that it takes to refute you is to identify the strawman. No further answer is actually required.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Valjean said:
What does atheism proclaim? What is its position?
That gods don't exist until and unless they can be shown to exist.
The presumption that gods don't exist until and unless they can be shown to exist is not a logical "default position". And we are not born atheists. The logical "default position" would be 'undetermined'. Atheists are not undetermined.
But this is not what atheism proclaims. It sounds more like a Schrödinger-ist atheism, where God appears only when observed.
Most atheists simply withhold belief pending evidence. We don't hold that a thing doesn't exist until evidence for it is discovered.
 

tarasan

Well-Known Member
Both statements are quite wrong. Theism is the philosophical proposition that some sort of deity exists and that it's existence affects ours. Atheism is the philosophical rejection of that proposition.

"Belief" is irrelevant.

The issue I seem to having with these athiests is that they seem to not know their history, Anthoney Flew proposed their view in I think 1973.

Before him it was very much a philosophical issue with the three houses answering the question does god exist. Thiesm Said yes, agnostics said I don't know/can't know and athiesm said no. It was very much based on knowledge with each house making arguments for and against.

Flew however said it was not a belief but a lack of belief which took athiesm away from the domain of knowing something and instead being as the Stanford encyclopedia states a psychological state.

Now don't get me wrong this has not usurped the old definition. Far from it, some athiests actually find it more productive to use the original definition of athiesm.

I suppose the issue I have among other people is trying to conflate the now "lack of belief" of a good to agnosticism. Agnosticism like the original athiest definition is a knowledge claim, saying there is not enough information either way to make a judgement. This is of course incomparable with the new athiest definition as it does not operate within that realm, to lack belief in God literally means to lack knowledge or lack of a proposition. This doesn't mix with a view that is literally the opposite of it. Something that makes a proposition, claims knowledge. The idea of a agnostic athiest or a agnostic thiest makes sense when all three definitions are in the same category as a knowledge claim as one could imagine a sliding scale of certainty between yes-i don't know- no. This however cannot happen however with the new definition.

I mean there are advantages to the definition because to never hold a position is to never to wrong, however it is also challenging to truly engage the thiest because to cannot make a proposal to challenge his. The thiest could throw everything and the kitchen sink at u argument wise but in order to gain an advantage you would have to have some of your own. Which the new athiest camp can't do. A good defence not a great attack. Now that might be fair enough for some of you I'm not saying there is anything particularly wrong with that just an observation.

From what I have seen personally some athiests try and circumvent this by making a purposition, then when the thiest engages, hides back under the new atheist definition. While I'm not accusing anyone specifically here of doing that it has definitely happened to me and it is especially infuriating.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Then just say "Athe", I figure, as adding ism to it has to be as per post #225, if it makes it meaningless, then, when there was meaning in it since inception, please? Right?

Regards
"A:" -- without. "The(o-)" -- God. "Ism" = state of being. "Atheism:" "state of being without God."
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The issue I seem to having with these athiests is that they seem to not know their history, Anthoney Flew proposed their view in I think 1973.

Before him it was very much a philosophical issue with the three houses answering the question does god exist. Thiesm Said yes, agnostics said I don't know/can't know and athiesm said no. It was very much based on knowledge with each house making arguments for and against.

...

And there it runs aground. There are 4 positions. There is also agnostic theism.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
So what was the answer, then ... and the big "solution"?

From post #199 ...

1. no evidence
2. no universal conception
3. doesn't matter/don't care

These seem to be the overwhelmingly predominant "arguments" for atheism.

No. 1. is only a significant point if there were a logical expectation of their being evidence, and we humans were logically expected to be able to identify it as such. I have pointed this out to many an atheist here and elsewhere over the years, and have as yet received no logical reason that we should expect either of these conditions. And yet in spite of this revelation, they inevitably walk away repeating to themselves and everyone else that no evidence is their evidence. Proving to me, at least, that logic and reason are not the intellectual mechanisms by which many atheists become atheist.



Let's assume you are correct and there is indeed no logical reason to expect evidence on this case. Now what? How do we reach the conclusion that God exists?

No. 2. also relies on a couple of presumptions that are not logically or even reasonably sound. One such presumption is that if God exists, we humans would be universally able to conceptualize the nature and manner of that existence. Yet being that God is generally considered to be the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and we humans clearly do not yet possess the capacity for understanding this ultimate fundament of existence, I don't see how we could be logically expected to conceptualize it accurately, or universally. These same atheists do not expect scientists to all agree on the origin or conceptualization of the physical universe, and yet they for some odd reason expect theists to all hold the same understanding of God. And yet again, when this blatant double-standard is pointed out to them, they simply walk away repeating their complaint as if reason and hypocrisy were of no consequence to them, at all.

I wouldn't expect the concepts to be completely equal in all manners, but I would expect some matters to be settled by now.

People can't even agree over whether Jesus is God, for example. This is not some sort of deep philosophical matter.​
 
Top