Favourite Atheist arguments

[Koldo]

That is not an unreasonable response.

But, how thoroughly have you explored these theistic possibilities? How do you know that you have explored them thoroughly enough? And that you are not short-changing yourself by dismissing the possibilities too quickly, too easily, or through bias?

- These are not justifications that you would ever owe me or anyone else, of course. I was just asking them rhetorically.

I have explored them to the point I felt satisfied. I consider that to be enough.

That makes no sense to me at all. Probably no one on Earth holds the same exact idea of God as I do, at the exact same time. And if they did or didn't, so what? I neither expect it, nor demand it, because that would be silly, and pointless.

So why are you using this expectation as some sort of criteria for religious or theological validity?

I wouldn't expect any two people to hold the exact same concept of God down to every single detail. That's not what I am talking about. Rather, I would expect that new revelations would erase the major divides, such as whether Jesus is God, but it didn't happen so far. That's something really trivial to solve with revelations.

 

[Koldo]

Ok, now we get into where people start to deviate and to what degrees. Perfect being theology tends have some disagreements in terms of what makes a perfect being perfect and how the perfect qualities interact with one another. For example Christians would say that god is perfect in relationship (Christians would point to the trinity as how this is the case) and in face he imbues this quality into creation you will find that alot with Christian theology that not only does he contain the greatest possible attribute but he also tends to bestow some sense of it onto creation. So the only reason we are able to establish relationship with each other is because he does so as well. Do you agree to that (I'm sorry this is going slow it's just I'm working up to something and at times I think people word vomit onto the internet and the original intention of the post gets lost.)

I can accept this premise. Please go ahead.
I am fine with the way you are doing it.

 

[tarasan]

I can accept this premise. Please go ahead.
I am fine with the way you are doing it.

Ok also he is nature's do not conflict. We have established before that his omnipotence does not conflict with his relationship and order as to go to the point he can be illogical he conflicts with being a god of order and relationship. Therefore there are limits to what god can do within these nature's in a Christian context.

 

[PureX]

I wouldn't expect any two people to hold the exact same concept of God down to every single detail. That's not what I am talking about. Rather, I would expect that new revelations would erase the major divides, such as whether Jesus is God, but it didn't happen so far. That's something really trivial to solve with revelations.

I still cannot see why you would expect that. If anything, I would expect it to go the other way. The 'bigger' the religion gets, the more diverse it's perspectives will inevitably become. "Revelations" are subjective. Everyone interprets them in their own way.

 

[Heyo]

Atheists don't generally believe in the unevidenced. They tend to be more reasonable and logical than the faithful.

It's not up to us to define "god." Give us any definition you like, and if there's no evidence for it, we'll withhold belief.

Would you agree to:
“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence."
"Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” ?

 

[Willamena]

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

Hey, just a moment. Marmots are cool!

 

[Willamena]

So let's say Bob is walking around and out of the blue I jump in and tell him there is a big were cat somewhere up the road. Bob has three choices. He either believes me, rejects what I say or witholds judgment. Non of these are a lack of belief. Bob lacked believe in the were cat before I confronted him. That's because he wasn't even aware that there could be a were cat. That is to lack belief in something.

I have to disagree with this.

To "lack belief" in something is to have something to lack belief in.

 

[McBell]

Then just tell me as to what does mean "Athe" without adding ism to it, please. Right?

Regards

The state or acknowledgement of existence without deities or without belief in deities. Alternatively, it directly refers to those who actively or passively disbelieve in deities.

Origin: Greece, 1565–75; áthe(os): godless
​

Source​

 

[Subduction Zone]

The state or acknowledgement of existence without deities or without belief in deities. Alternatively, it directly refers to those who actively or passively disbelieve in deities.

Origin: Greece, 1565–75; áthe(os): godless
​

Source​

I preferred the first two definitions, though yours works just fine too.

 

[Willamena]

Using the cake example: It is contrary to common sense to able to create a cake out of thin air, but not logically impossible. It might even violate the laws of physics, but not the laws of logic.

No, creating a cake out of nothing is really, definitively, impossible. Philosophy does not ignore science.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's from Greek. "A" means without. "Theo" means "God," with the "o" dropped for a smooth liaison with "ism" since it starts with a vowel.

So one accepts , as is evident/evidenced from one's above expressions that:

1. belief in God is the primary or default position and
2. non-belief is a superficial position,
3. and belief in God is a positive position
4. and non-belief is a dependent one and hence
5. is expression of negativity
6. and is fallen from the original/basic or default one.

Right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

So one accepts , as is evident/evidenced from one's above expressions that:

1. belief in God is the primary or default position and
2. non-belief is a superficial position,
3. and belief in God is a positive position
4. and non-belief
5. is expression of negativity
6. and is fallen from the original/basic or default one

Right?

Regards

Totally wrong. Atheism is the default position. What makes you think that belief is the default position?

When it comes to rational reasoning one does not believe until after sufficient evidence has been presented.

 

[lukethethird]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Stop feeding it and it will go away.

 

[Koldo]

Ok also he is nature's do not conflict. We have established before that his omnipotence does not conflict with his relationship and order as to go to the point he can be illogical he conflicts with being a god of order and relationship. Therefore there are limits to what god can do within these nature's in a Christian context.

Sure, I agree. I am not certain where exactly you are headed with this though, but I think I should mention this:

Benevolence is the will to do good. Omnibenevolence is therefore the unlimited will to do good. By claiming that God is a god of order, just to cite your example, this order can not contradict, nor subtract from his ultimate will to do good. For if it did, God would not be omnibenevolent since it would be possible to imagine a greater benevolence.

But please do go ahead.

 

[Willamena]

Totally wrong. Atheism is the default position. What makes you think that belief is the default position?

Belief is more a "default position," to use that terminology, if you believe in such, because for belief there has to be something to believe in. Not so much for disbelief, unless you swing that way.

Now, I await your argument about the existence of nothing.

When it comes to rational reasoning one does not believe until after sufficient evidence has been presented.

Sufficience evidence equates to something to believe in.

 

[Koldo]

I still cannot see why you would expect that. If anything, I would expect it to go the other way. The 'bigger' the religion gets, the more diverse it's perspectives will inevitably become. "Revelations" are subjective. Everyone interprets them in their own way.

What do you understand by revelations?
I am referring to the people claiming to be prophets that were able get a message from God. As long as the prophet is alive it is not a subjective matter since there is a living central authority over how to interpret the message.

But what we have is purported prophets contradicting each other and no way to ascertain who is speaking the truth.

 

[Koldo]

No, creating a cake out of nothing is really, definitively, impossible. Philosophy does not ignore science.

Then that would merely mean that God can do the impossible. I would still draw a distinction between the different kinds of impossible though.

 

[Willamena]

So one accepts , as is evident/evidenced from one's above expressions that:

1. belief in God is the primary or default position and
2. non-belief is a superficial position,
3. and belief in God is a positive position
4. and non-belief is a dependent one and hence
5. is expression of negativity
6. and is fallen from the original/basic or default one.

Right?

Regards

Technically, you are discussing etymology. So, from "one's above expressions," all that can be concluded is that one understands a word (or fails to) the same way another does.

 

[Willamena]

Then that would merely mean that God can do the impossible. I would still draw a distinction between the different kinds of impossible though.

I would propose that it means that God does not do the impossible. But that's just me.

 

[Koldo]

I would propose that it means that God does not do the impossible. But that's just me.

That would mean God could not create the universe though. I don't see that as being a particularly popular perspective.