Favourite Atheist arguments

[PureX]

The fact that you need to qualify this with certain "criteria of what evidence is", is a ginormous red flag.

Do you understand why?

You are LITERALLY advocating for special pleading here... you want a "special standard" for what constitutes evidence for your "special" claim.

Sorry - no. I see no reason at all to give your claims or the evidence for it a "special standard" or "privilege".
Your claims are subject to the exact same scrutiny and skepticism as all other claims.

If, by this, you are implying that there is some sort of absolute criteria for what we take as evidence, then you are living in some alternative universe, or in some delusion of your own invention. Because there is no such absolute.

And if your reasoning for the proposition is unverifiable and untestable, then there is no reason to accept it.

There is no reason to reject the proposition, either, if your only criteria for determining validity is testable evidence, and you don't have any. And yet you're just going to keep on ignoring the obvious logic of this, and repeat this fool's mantra, anyway. Just as I predicted way back in post #199.

 

[McBell]

If, by this, you are implying that there is some sort of absolute criteria for what we take as evidence, then you are living in some alternative universe, or in some delusion of your own invention. Because there is no such absolute.
There is no reason to reject the proposition, either, if your only criteria for determining validity is testable evidence, and you don't have any. And yet you're just going to keep on ignoring the obvious logic of this, and repeat this fool's mantra, anyway. Just as I predicted way back in post #199.

Not "absolute" but there is a thing called objective empirical evidence.
Which, unlike the most commonly used definition of evidence (anything that convinces someone of something) is a much more rigid standard for evidence.

 

[Valjean]

To claim that "X is untrue" is exactly as much a truth claim as to claim "X is true". And both claimants are equally responsible for justifying those claims. All that gibberish about "unbelief" is just a disingenuous attempt at avoiding this responsibility by absurd wordplay and misdirection. It's a coward's move, in my opinion.

No. Atheism is not a claim that anything is untrue. This has been explained a hundred times. Don't play ignorant.
The "unbelief" is not gibberish, it's the salient point. Why is this so hard to grasp? There's nothing subtle or abstruse about this.
Your feigned confusion just enables your straw man.

No one cares what you are or are not convinced of, because you are setting the criteria for that according to your own biases and limitations. As we all do. These are no one else's concern. And they have nothing to do with the validity of your truth/untruth claims. That's why your stated justifications matter, and not your 'belief".

"Lack of beief is the closest thing to an "official" definition you're likely to find in philosophy. It's not a personal definition.

What's sad is that I really don't think you understand how foolish that statement is. The theist's justifications are all personal. You have no say over whether they are "valid" or not because you aren't them. It doesn't matter how they say it, they cannot claim to know the truth of God beyond their own experiences. And you should understand this. So, TO YOU, all they can offer is a proposition: "this is how it 'works' for me, and for others, and maybe could work for you, too". And then you shout "false!" See how foolish that is?

Huh? What does the justification of a claim or belief have to do with anything? A believer believes it. A non-believer doesn't. If the belief is theism, the non-belief is atheism. Simple!
You've constructed some sort of convoluted relationship between beliefs, validity, credence, non-belief, &al. Apparently it's meaningful to you, but I can't make head or tails of it.

Why do you keep repeating this when you already know that there can be no proof? Do you have Turrets Syndrome? Are the words flying off your keyboard of their own accord?
Then atheists are clearly idiots. Because they're demanding what they already know is not possible to obtain, OR they're so stupid that they don't know it's not possible to obtain. Either way leads to the same conclusion.

Proof is irrelevant. Belief is the relevant feature.
I'm still confused. Atheists aren't demanding anything. They just lack belief.
Where do you come up with this stuff? You have some bizarre, fixed ideas about atheism you seem unable to get around.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A thing is defined by a unique distinguishing feature. The definition of unmodified "atheism," must comprise the single feature common to all flavors of atheism -- lack of belief.
What other unique defining feature would there be?

Well, yes, if you go by belief, but not if you go by knowledge. I do myself go by belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If, by this, you are implying that there is some sort of absolute criteria for what we take as evidence, then you are living in some alternative universe, or in some delusion of your own invention. Because there is no such absolute.

Except that there kind of is.... Evidence must be verifiable.
The qualifier you tried to sneak into the "standard of evidence" for "your special claim" is not more or less then an attempt to give your claims a free pass where all other claims would be rejected on the count of the evidence being insufficient - or idd no evidence at all.

There is no reason to reject the proposition, either,

Off course there is.............. Propositions that fail to meet their burden of proof, should not be accepted.

if your only criteria for determining validity is testable evidence, and you don't have any.

What other criteria would you suggest?
In my book, that is enough to reject claims. It's also enough for YOU to reject claims, except apparently when it comes to your "special" god claims.

I was abducted by aliens last night. I don't have testable or verifiable evidence. So, do you accept this claim?
I'll go ahead and assume that you do not. The question is why not?

And yet you're just going to keep on ignoring the obvious logic of this, and repeat this fool's mantra, anyway. Just as I predicted way back in post #199.

Claims have a burden of proof.
When this burden can't be met, accepting the claim is not the logical result. Rejecting it, is.

Claims that have no evidence should not be believed. Especially not if it concerns wild claims, which is to say: claims of things wildly out of the ordinary.

 

[PureX]

No. Atheism is not a claim that anything is untrue.

Of course it is. And all the lies to the contrary can't change that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it is.

It's not and I wonder how many atheists need to clarify this to you before you'll understand it.

And all the lies to the contrary can't change that.

So now you are accusing us of lying?



You have reached new lows with that one.

 

[PureX]

Except that there kind of is.... Evidence must be verifiable.

Observation is evidence, and yet often not verifiable beyond itself. Even though it's accepted by both law and science.

Propositions that fail to meet their burden of proof, should not be accepted.

This is nothing more than your own opinion. "I'm right because I say I'm right" is not an acceptable argument.

What other criteria would you suggest?

Value and functionality: the criteria most often used by humans to determine "truthfulness".

Claims have a burden of proof.

We humans very often cannot ascertain proof. And so must rely on other criteria. Usually the "evidence" of value and functionality. You have blinded yourself to the reality of this because your bias demands it. And as a result you keep arguing nonsense.

When this burden can't be met, accepting the claim is not the logical result. Rejecting it, is.

Claims that have no evidence should not be believed. Especially not if it concerns wild claims, which is to say: claims of things wildly out of the ordinary.

Repeating it over and over is not going to make it logical or reasonable. You can't even define what "proof" is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Observation is evidence, and yet often not verifiable beyond itself. Even though it's accepted by both law and science.

Give an example.
It seems to me observations can be repeated and / or tested.

This is nothing more than your own opinion.

No. It's the entire purpose of the burden of proof..............
When it can be met, the claim can be rationally accepted.
If it can't.... then there is no reason to accept it.

"I'm right because I say I'm right" is not an acceptable argument.

That's not at all what I said.

I only said that claims that can't meet their burden of proof, can't rationally be accepted.
The ability to meet the burden of proof, is the qualifier which determines if claims can be rationally accepted or not. That's exactly why the burden of proof exists.

Value and functionality: the criteria most often used by humans to determine "truthfulness".

This is very vague.
Give a real-world example to clarify.

We humans very often cannot ascertain proof. And so must rely on other criteria. Usually the "evidence" of value and functionality. You have blinded yourself to the reality of this because your bias demands it. And as a result you keep arguing nonsense.

Give a real-world example.

ps: the burden of proof, does not just deal with "proof". Providing sufficient evidence (not "proof"), also counts as meeting the burden of proof.

Repeating it over and over is not going to make it logical or reasonable. You can't even define what "proof" is.

Ok, demonstrate this.

I was abducted by aliens last night. I have no evidence to offer. Only my "testimony".

Do you believe me? Why or why not?

 

[Valjean]

Of course it is. And all the lies to the contrary can't change that.

OK, if you insist on a non-standard definition, when everyone else is working from a different one, there's nothing to say. Your definition's a special pleading and your position a straw man.

 

[Orbit]

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?

Simply that there is no evidence FOR a God. It's all post-hoc rationalizations and hand-waving. Prayers are not answered, but there's rationalizations for that. The problem of evil, more rationalizations, but no proof.

 

[halbhh]

Simply that there is no evidence FOR a God. It's all post-hoc rationalizations and hand-waving. Prayers are not answered, but there's rationalizations for that. The problem of evil, more rationalizations, but no proof.

In that view the 2 sides have only opinion then, one guess based viewpoint vs another, seemingly...

So, try to find a way to bring a science style method to the problem.

About any philosophical system of how to live life: test it by trying it -- Actually try doing the stated principles, and find out if they work better or less well than competing ideas. One can figure out how to do that. You hold all variables the same, as much as possible, and change one thing back and forth between 2 competing ways to do things, and find out which of the 2 ways works better, and then repeat in varied situations, and also with varied competing ideas.

Sure, it takes time. But, if one is trying to find the best way to live life to the full, it's a great way to use time. What you can gain is better ways to live, and a more lived, full life that is of better quality and more fulfilling.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't follow. You can't lack believe in something unless it actually exists?
If a kid believes in the tooth færie, does she then exist?

Everything exists. Whether actually, imaginatively, extrapolatively, reductively, deductively, or inductively, everything exists.

The default position is the factory setting; the belief you were born with. Were you born with a belief? any belief?
No? -- Then you were born without belief; an atheist. Atheism is the default; the mental blank slate we all start with.

I disagree that the default position is the position "you were born with." More according with science and common usage, the term refers to what the steady state is if you do not change it. That applies to any point in your lifetime.

I agree that it takes a push to go from someone without beliefs to someone with beliefs, but it's a stretch to suggest that that person is an infant.

The default isn't a belief in nothing. It's no belief at all. It's the state you were born in.

You were born with beliefs--at very least, the five senses. At best, a belief in "mother" who will nourish you and keep you safe. To suggest that we are born without beliefs is to deny what "belief" means (the conviction of something being true).

If you want to argue it, then I would propose that the point at which we garner beliefs is the point at which we start investing in things being true.

Evidence is evidence. That's all it equates to. The choice to derive a belief from it is another matter.
Note that S.D. referred to "rational reasoning" derived belief. Now, a lot of people hold non-rational beliefs, derived from insufficient evidence, but he cited rational belief, derived post hoc, from sufficient evidence.

It's not possible to accept/invest in {something being true} without evidence. Otherwise, it's not belief.

Now, I know words get substituted all the time, and it's not a stretch to substitute 'belief' for trust, extrapolation, expectation, even reasoning, but it's not those things. It's just the acceptance of {something} as true.

 

[McBell]

Everything exists. Whether actually, imaginatively, extrapolatively, reductively, deductively, or inductively, everything exists.

A map is not the terrain.

I disagree that the default position is the position "you were born with." More according with science and common usage, the term refers to what the steady state is if you do not change it. That applies to any point in your lifetime.

Actually, "default" refers to the original out of the box factory settings.
Nice try though.

I agree that it takes a push to go from someone without beliefs to someone with beliefs, but it's a stretch to suggest that that person is an infant.

Since this seems to be based on your humpty dumpty, no need to address it.

You were born with beliefs--at very least, the five senses. At best, a belief in "mother" who will nourish you and keep you safe. To suggest that we are born without beliefs is to deny what "belief" means (the conviction of something being true).

Is it your claim that the five senses are "beliefs"?

If you want to argue it, then I would propose that the point at which we garner beliefs is the point at which we start investing in things being true.

Go right ahead.
Still does not change what "default" actually means.

It's not possible to accept/invest in {something being true} without evidence. Otherwise, it's not belief.

Except that people do it all the time.
They call it 'faith'

 

[Willamena]

A map is not the terrain.

Just so.

Actually, "default" refers to the original out of the box factory settings.
Nice try though.

We disagree.

Since this seems to be based on your humpty dumpty, no need to address it.

As always.

Is it your claim that the five senses are "beliefs"?

Yes. Belief in mental states is belief none-the-less.

Go right ahead.
Still does not change what "default" actually means.

Except that people do it all the time.
They call it 'faith'

I have faith in my brother, my teachers, my students, in what they say and in what they will do. I have accepted the truth of it.

 

[Valjean]

In that view the 2 sides have only opinion then, one guess based viewpoint vs another, seemingly...

So, try to find a way to bring a science style method to the problem.

Excellent idea, I just wish the faithful wouldn't fight every attempt so rabidly, as they have historically. It's as if they fear what might be discovered...
That said, those researches that have been done; historic, archaeological, psychological, linguistic, &c, don't usually support the historic, doctrinal or magical claims of the believers.

About any philosophical system of how to live life: test it by trying it -- Actually try doing the stated principles, and find out if they work better or less well than competing ideas.

This is an interesting point: A system of how to live. Is religion, then, a lifestyle? And what's the goal, a happy life? comfort? material prosperity? release from suffering? access to a better life after death? a better life in the next incarnation?
Some religions don't seem to focus much on earthly happiness or prosperity. Some even encourage toil, suffering and poverty -- ostensibly to gain happiness in an after life. Of course, this kept the 99% selflessly toiling for the immediate benefit of the 1%, but I'm sure this had nothing to do with the social politics and enforced religious dogmas of the time.

One can figure out how to do that. You hold all variables the same, as much as possible, and change one thing back and forth between 2 competing ways to do things, and find out which of the 2 ways works better, and then repeat in varied situations, and also with varied competing ideas.

Science is pretty good at theorem formulation and testing, but what would "working better" mean. and would this threaten the religious apple cart?

Sure, it takes time. But, if one is trying to find the best way to live life to the full, it's a great way to use time. What you can gain is better ways to live, and a more lived, full life that is of better quality and more fulfilling.

You might want to look into Buddhism, cause this doesn't sound like the approach to life Jesus advocated.

 

[tarasan]

Simply that there is no evidence FOR a God. It's all post-hoc rationalizations and hand-waving. Prayers are not answered, but there's rationalizations for that. The problem of evil, more rationalizations, but no proof.

Do you not believe that the logical arguments for god count as evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you not believe that the logical arguments for god count as evidence?

No. Arguments do not qualify as evidence. And I have not seen one that is not terminally flawed.

 

[tarasan]

No. Arguments do not qualify as evidence. And I have not seen one that is not terminally flawed.

No. Arguments do not qualify as evidence. And I have not seen one that is not terminally flawed.

Evidence is:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Arguments are:

a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

Can u show me how they are incomparable?

Are u saying the deductive arguments thiests us are logical contradictions? What do u mean by fatally flawed

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence is:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Arguments are:

a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.

Can u show me how they are incomparable?

Are u saying the deductive arguments thiests us are logical contradictions? What do u mean by fatally flawed

You said a "logical argument". That is a specific type of argument that often does not rely on facts and evidence. You tried to change your claim to a general argument. And the fact remains that logical arguments are almost always terminally flawed. Take the Kalam Cosmological argument. That has to be distorted from its original and God redefined for it to even appear to work to the uneducated. It is a favorite of William Lane Craig's and he is currently a laughing stock because of it. It was refuted a long time ago and he still tries to use it. At best it only shows that the Universe, as we know it, had a beginning. That is not evidence for a God.