What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Gloone]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Is that the only argument atheists have or is there something better? When I see this argument I see an argument that isn’t very well thought out or designed. Since an atheist has no grounds of belief to stand is it normal for them to criticize other people’s religion to buff up their own lack of philosophical views and beliefs?

Also if you can think of some other atheist arguments go ahead and add them to this thread. I would like to see some other out of the ordinary arguments made by atheist.

 

[Engyo]

My atheist argument is that I can find adequate descriptions of the world we see around us in today's science without having to resort to postulating an omnipotent, omnipresent creator entity in order to make things turn out as they have.

 

[Nepenthe]

I don't know if I can defend my atheism what with your devastating critique in the OP. I might have to rethink my position.

 

[Tristesse]

The thing is, an atheist doesn't need an argument to not believe what religion is selling. It's the theists job to present compelling evidence to convince. However, there are much better arguments than the "prove it" argument.

 

[waitasec]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Is that the only argument atheists have or is there something better? When I see this argument I see an argument that isn’t very well thought out or designed. Since an atheist has no grounds of belief to stand is it normal for them to criticize other people’s religion to buff up their own lack of philosophical views and beliefs?

Also if you can think of some other atheist arguments go ahead and add them to this thread. I would like to see some other out of the ordinary arguments made by atheist.

did you ever think the ideology doesn't resonate with certain people...

 

[tumbleweed41]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Is that the only argument atheists have or is there something better? When I see this argument I see an argument that isn’t very well thought out or designed. Since an atheist has no grounds of belief to stand is it normal for them to criticize other people’s religion to buff up their own lack of philosophical views and beliefs?

Also if you can think of some other atheist arguments go ahead and add them to this thread. I would like to see some other out of the ordinary arguments made by atheist.

So let me get this straight.
There is no empirical evidence that a deity exists.
Much less evidence that the Abrahamic God exists.
And many Atheists come to their conclusion based on the above facts.
And you find this to be an ill-thought conclusion?

 

[Willamena]

did you ever think the ideology doesn't resonate with certain people...

That's not an argument for atheism.

 

[Gunfingers]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Is that the only argument atheists have or is there something better? When I see this argument I see an argument that isn’t very well thought out or designed. Since an atheist has no grounds of belief to stand is it normal for them to criticize other people’s religion to buff up their own lack of philosophical views and beliefs?

Also if you can think of some other atheist arguments go ahead and add them to this thread. I would like to see some other out of the ordinary arguments made by atheist.

You are indeed looking at the primary argument for the atheist. This is not an argument from ignorance or a simple criticism, however. It's basic epistemology.
A positive claim requires evidence. "I am wearing a watch" is a positive claim, and you should not believe i am wearing a watch without some evidence. Basically, the default position should always be skepticism. From a philosophical standpoint that is.

 

[Willamena]

So let me get this straight.
There is no empirical evidence that a deity exists.
Much less evidence that the Abrahamic God exists.
And many Atheists come to their conclusion based on the above facts.
And you find this to be an ill-thought conclusion?

Actually, he didn't say that. He said, "prove it! prove it!" is an ill-thought out argument. And it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Is that the only argument atheists have or is there something better? When I see this argument I see an argument that isn’t very well thought out or designed. Since an atheist has no grounds of belief to stand is it normal for them to criticize other people’s religion to buff up their own lack of philosophical views and beliefs?

Also if you can think of some other atheist arguments go ahead and add them to this thread. I would like to see some other out of the ordinary arguments made by atheist.

When it comes right down to it, that's the only genuinely atheist argument that there is.

In one way of looking at it, atheism is the position that claims for theism have not met their burden of proof. The only way to counter this is to show that a claim for theism has met the burden of proof.

We can add to this, of course: for instance, I could say that you can't meet the burden of proof for your particular set of religious beliefs because they're false (and in making this claim, I'd be assuming a burden of proof of my own). But this sort of thing isn't necessary for atheism.

 

[Willamena]

You are indeed looking at the primary argument for the atheist. This is not an argument from ignorance or a simple criticism, however. It's basic epistemology.
A positive claim requires evidence. "I am wearing a watch" is a positive claim, and you should not believe i am wearing a watch without some evidence. Basically, the default position should always be skepticism. From a philosophical standpoint that is.

If it's the case that the default position should always be skepticism, then even visible evidence that you are wearing a watch should be doubted. Skepticism is not terribly supportable, and makes a poor base for argument.

 

[Gunfingers]

If it's the case that the default position should always be skepticism, then even visible evidence that you are wearing a watch should be doubted. Skepticism is not terribly supportable, and makes a poor base for argument.

Skepticism in this context refers simply to placing the burden of proof on any positive claim. You can abuse epistemology and start going into whether we all live in the matrix and the things we think we see aren't there, but that position completely negates any possibility to ever know anything which isn't helpful at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it's the case that the default position should always be skepticism, then even visible evidence that you are wearing a watch should be doubted.

Sure - we should worry about the quality of our evidence and data. What's wrong with that?

Skepticism is not terribly supportable, and makes a poor base for argument.

As default positions go, skepticism is more supportable and workable than the alternative. If your default position is to accept all claims until they're refuted, you would arrive at a large number of logical contradictions fairly quickly... unless you see no problem in simultaneously accepting that I'm wearing a watch only on my right wrist, only on my left wrist, on both wrists, and that I'm not wearing a watch at all, for instance.

 

[Willamena]

Skepticism in this context refers simply to placing the burden of proof on any positive claim. You can abuse epistemology and start going into whether we all live in the matrix and the things we think we see aren't there, but that position completely negates any possibility to ever know anything which isn't helpful at all.

I agree, arguments about whether things "are there" are completely unhelpful. But I wouldn't call burden of proof skepticism.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Actually, he didn't say that. He said, "prove it! prove it!" is an ill-thought out argument. And it is.

I suppose if someone started a conversation with,"Hey, your a Christian. Prove to me, an atheist, that God exists!", that would be a rash and argumentative way to demonstrate why one is an Atheist.

However, If a Christian were to come up to an Atheist and say, "Why do you not believe in God?", and the Atheist replied, "I find the evidence for God to be lacking".
The prove-it would logically come if the Christian insisted that God does indeed exist.

 

[Gunfingers]

I agree, arguments about whether things "are there" are completely unhelpful. But I wouldn't call burden of proof skepticism.

It's what the Skeptic Society calls it. Maybe you'd find it more palatable if i dropped the shorthand and used the proper term: scientific skepticism?

 

[Amill]

I usually just go with the fact that my experiences have lead me to believe there isn't a god. And I've never seen any demonstrable evidence for god so why would I ask someone to "prove it" when I already know the answer.

 

[Willamena]

Sure - we should worry about the quality of our evidence and data. What's wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it --I'm a skeptic, myself. It just doesn't make for good argument when you can skept your position right out from under yourself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing wrong with it --I'm a skeptic, myself. It just doesn't make for good argument when you can skept your position right out from under yourself.

In what way has the skeptical position been "skepted"?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Anyone who claims something has a burden of proof to that claim.
Even asking for a proof is claiming something, because you think you know what the proof is, how it should be laid out, what it will look like, and so on and so on. I could very easily ask why that proof is proof, and then ask why the proof of the proof is proof and so and so on.