Looncall
Well-Known Member
You're welcome to it. Have fun with it!
-
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!
Present arguments for atheism
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Which god? Are you limited to a certain deity? I mean, someone says ''god'', who knows what they mean; As with the label 'christian', it has no meaning without context.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Its just that the word God alone brings up a slew of thoughts and concepts like you elaborated just here.
Atheism tends to be pretty cut and dried as it is, unlike agnosticism. (Hence where God walks in the door) ;0)
there is no evidence for god, no need for god, and nothing suggest god .
i often say im agnostic about a god atheist about your god .
the reason i reject the christian god is different from the reason i reject the mystics or deist god .
some ideas of god are factually false , some unnecessary , some meaningless , some i prƀprobably have not considered .
it boils down to there is no evidence for god, no need for god, and nothing suggest god .
beyond that i need more detail from you . imo the op is a trap.
i often say im agnostic about a god atheist about your god .
the reason i reject the christian god is different from the reason i reject the mystics or deist god .
some ideas of god are factually false , some unnecessary , some meaningless , some i prƀprobably have not considered .
it boils down to there is no evidence for god, no need for god, and nothing suggest god .
beyond that i need more detail from you . imo the op is a trap.
HekaMa'atRa
Member
Argument for atheism in one word: Religions.
Argument for theism in one word: Life.
Argument for theism in one word: Life.
It's just on average, the 'burden' for the person who has something to prove, to prove that...and not the other way around. How do you prove a negative? How does one prove God doesn't exist? But, likewise, I can't prove He does, except to say that I have had an experience of faith recently...of the Holy Spirit. But, it can't be tested, etc...it can't be ''proven.''
That's what I meant by my comment. lol
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Just playing devils advocate ...
The obvious lacking of verifiable evidence that the existence of God is a reasonable assumption to make.
Also, the reliance of theists on logically flawed arguments ... namely arguments based on the present ignorance of science.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Why would I /specifically, the theist position/ have something to prove, and, why would a theist, take that/your, position?It's just on average, the 'burden' for the person who has something to prove, to prove that...and not the other way around. How do you prove a negative? How does one prove God doesn't exist? But, likewise, I can't prove He does, except to say that I have had an experience of faith recently...of the Holy Spirit. But, it can't be tested, etc...it can't be ''proven.''
That's what I meant by my comment. lol
Last edited:
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
Or, more specifically, agnostic atheism.
How is "life" an argument for theism?
HekaMa'atRa
Member
Because even with all our scientific knowledge we still cannot understand how life began nor can we replicate life using only basic non-living components from which life supposedly sprang from.
So the sun is evidence of a flaming chariot crossing the sky, and earthquakes are dragons stirring underground?
Just because a phenomenon isn't yet understood isn't evidence for the various myths concerning it.
Note that religion doesn't explain life either -- it just asserts the existence of a magical agent that poofed it into being.
Just because a phenomenon isn't yet understood isn't evidence for the various myths concerning it.
Note that religion doesn't explain life either -- it just asserts the existence of a magical agent that poofed it into being.
HekaMa'atRa
Member
Your examples don't apply as they're understood and observable in science. Nor did I say the mythologies found in religion explains how life truly began or are evidence for the fact. If anything, these many myths supports my one word argument for atheism, Religions, strengthening the argument that because there are thousands of religions, all religion, and therefore god, is simply manmade.
But until science can explain how life began and are able to replicate it with basic non-living components, there will always being an argument for theism.
There is no argument for atheism. The question makes no sense.
To argue for something there must be some assertion defend. Atheism makes no assertions. There is no argument to make.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Then it obviously isn't a position. If it makes no assertions then it is meaningless.
Exactly! Now you've got it. Atheism is a non-position, a lack of belief.
Fool! It's obvious that promiscuous women's immodest dress causes earthquakes.
Experts have determined it.......
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/20/iran.promiscuity.earthquakes/
Scientific work on this continues.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boobquake
This work also resulted in the first ever usage of the word "rheology"
(plastic flow of solid material under triaxial stress) in poetry.....
A wonderful chance to assess
releasing of tectonic stress.
Is it rheology
of the geology,
or flaunting of immodest dress?
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
Argument from incredulity.
What makes you assume the most primitive self-replicators during origination were the same as they as the most simple self-replicators today?
What makes you assume that the environmental conditions that were exactly right and that the exact combinations needed to make said primite self-replicator would just be able to be made up in a scientific laboratory?[/QUOTE]
Ultimatum
Classical Liberal
The difference is that science admits, currently, that biogenesis is difficult. It is trying to find something, even if this is a vain attempt.
What theists do is actually make a claim, without trying to find something, and atheists want you to back up that claim with evidence, lest there is none.
We're in the same boat and, until you can prove that you can see dry land, we're heading in the same direction.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This ^^^