What is the best argument for an atheist?

[St Giordano Bruno]

Tell theists God is usually only attributed to what we don't know. If it is a mystery it is so easy to jump to conclusions and assume "God did it". The God of the gaps comes into play to fill our gaps of ignorance.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Tell theists God is usually only attributed to what we don't know. If it is a mystery it is so easy to jump to conclusions and assume "God did it". The God of the gaps comes into play to fill our gaps of ignorance.

Would it make more sense to have God represent what we already know?

And what do you think of the devil being in the details?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Tell theists God is usually only attributed to what we don't know. If it is a mystery it is so easy to jump to conclusions and assume "God did it". The God of the gaps comes into play to fill our gaps of ignorance.

Ignorance is something we can 'fix'. All we need to do is know more stuff. Why, then, would God need to be attributed to something we, as humans, can fix by ourselves?
God represents nothing in terms of ignorance. There is a difference between ignorance and 'not knowing'.
Ignorance implies that you could know, but you just don't have all the necessary equipment, data, or drive to find out what it is you don't know.
'Not knowing' implies that you can never know. It is impossible to know what you are trying to know. No matter how hard you try to figure it out, it will always elude you. It doesn't matter what you do, the harder you try, the further away you get from it. 'Not knowing' does not spawn from ignorance, but an inability to know the unknowable.
Socrates said 'a wise man knows that he knows not'. I've seen many people use this to be ignorance, rather than 'not knowing'. I believe there is a much more powerful lesson to be learned in 'not knowing' than ignorance.
Like I said, ignorance can be solved by reading a textbook, doing some research, or asking a few questions.
'Not knowing' can't be solved. 'Not knowing' just is.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Go outside on a sunny day and point up to the sun and say "what is that? they will reply "the sun" I will say "are you sure?" they will say "of course" then I will say "well you agree it is the sun, so can you prove your God exists as clearly as I can prove the sun exists?"

 

[waitasec]

Ignorance is something we can 'fix'. All we need to do is know more stuff. Why, then, would God need to be attributed to something we, as humans, can fix by ourselves?
God represents nothing in terms of ignorance. There is a difference between ignorance and 'not knowing'.
Ignorance implies that you could know, but you just don't have all the necessary equipment, data, or drive to find out what it is you don't know.
'Not knowing' implies that you can never know. It is impossible to know what you are trying to know. No matter how hard you try to figure it out, it will always elude you. It doesn't matter what you do, the harder you try, the further away you get from it. 'Not knowing' does not spawn from ignorance, but an inability to know the unknowable.
Socrates said 'a wise man knows that he knows not'. I've seen many people use this to be ignorance, rather than 'not knowing'. I believe there is a much more powerful lesson to be learned in 'not knowing' than ignorance.
Like I said, ignorance can be solved by reading a textbook, doing some research, or asking a few questions.
'Not knowing' can't be solved. 'Not knowing' just is.

"a mans got to know his limitations"
-dirty harry

ignorance is not knowing
not knowing is not being in a state of infinite ignorance
like you said, research ask questions.
to know that you don't know is only the beginning

 

[kaisersose]

Atheists do not need arguments. Theists do.

The person who makes the claim has to back it up. The theist makes the claim for a God and the onus is all on him to back it up with mutually acceptable evidence. Lacking such evidence, he has no standing and the claim has no justification.

The atheist makes no claim and is therefore not required to provide any arguments. The classic "You cannot prove a negative" applies.

 

[Orias]

Atheists do not need arguments. Theists do.

The person who makes the claim has to back it up. The theist makes the claim for a God and the onus is all on him to back it up with mutually acceptable evidence. Lacking such evidence, he has no standing and the claim has no justification.

The atheist makes no claim and is therefore not required to provide any arguments. The classic "You cannot prove a negative" applies.

This only applies to a subjective situation.

Realistically, yes Atheistis do need arguments, hence the debate between the two. If Atheists didn't need an argument then Theism would not be necessary for discussion.

Lets get real here. The best argument is this...there is none. Both sides argue from ignorance, even if one side logically choses not to see his/her argument as being ignorant, it still is. Because face it...NO ONE KNOWS.

 

[kaisersose]

This only applies to a subjective situation.

Realistically, yes Atheistis do need arguments, hence the debate between the two. If Atheists didn't need an argument then Theism would not be necessary for discussion.

The debate is all about lack of mutually acceptable evidence. There are theists who argue that existence of a sun or existence of life is proof of God. Some other theists use the "God of gaps" argument. Obviously none of these positions are universally acceptable pieces of evidence. And the fact is, there is not any universally acceptable evidence that a theist can offer to convince an atheist.

Lets get real here. The best argument is this...there is none. Both sides argue from ignorance, even if one side logically choses not to see his/her argument as being ignorant, it still is. Because face it...NO ONE KNOWS.

Not really.

Instead of seeing the atheist as one not believing in God, a more accurate definition is an atheist is one who disbelieves in the claims of the theist for lack of evidence.
And that makes things a lot more clear. For the same reason claims of Santa Claus fail, claims for the existence of a God fail too.

The atheist knows - for the only info he has about God came from theists and as they are unable to prove it, the information is unacceptable. Hence, God is not real. Again, when we talk about God, we should realize that we are talking about God as defined and pesented by theists and this God is clearly not provable.

 

[Orias]

The debate is all about lack of mutually acceptable evidence. There are theists who argue that existence of a sun or existence of life is proof of God. Some other theists use the "God of gaps" argument. Obviously none of these positions are universally acceptable pieces of evidence. And the fact is, there is not any universally acceptable evidence that a theist can offer to convince an atheist.

Of course, its because most Atheists go into debate already denying or blocking out any possibility of accepting "God".

Try this one for size, try comprehending not existing. The Sun or existence is completely logical evidence for existence of a God, because last time I checked, you don't see man going around creating stars and life.

Not really.

Are you insuating that you know?

Instead of seeing the atheist as one not believing in God, a more accurate definition is an atheist is one who disbelieves in the claims of the theist for lack of evidence.
And that makes things a lot more clear. For the same reason claims of Santa Claus fail, claims for the existence of a God fail too.The atheist knows - for the only info he has about God came from theists and as they are unable to prove it, the information is unacceptable. Hence, God is not real. Again, when we talk about God, we should realize that we are talking about God as defined and pesented by theists and this God is clearly not provable.

What about the undefined version?

 

[kaisersose]

Of course, its because most Atheists go into debate already denying or blocking out any possibility of accepting "God".

The same argument can be made the other way too and can also be interpreted as an excuse for failure. But that is not something we need to discuss.

Try this one for size, try comprehending not existing. The Sun or existence is completely logical evidence for existence of a God, because last time I checked, you don't see man going around creating stars and life.

The simplest and most common response to this is - if God can exist by himself without creation, so can the universe.

Are you insinuating that you know?

I know that all info I have about God, right from the dictionary word to the religious books - all came to me from humans. And as said humans are unable to provide mutually aceptable evidence - just as in the case of Santa Claus - I am unable to acceept God and Santa Claus as real. I have to dismiss them as figments of fertile imaginations.

And I know this for sure - yes.

What about the undefined version?

There can be no discussion on something undefined.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

"a mans got to know his limitations"
-dirty harry

ignorance is not knowing
not knowing is not being in a state of infinite ignorance
like you said, research ask questions.
to know that you don't know is only the beginning

You can only learn what life has to teach you. You can't teach what you learn to others.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

"Leave me alone!"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Leave me alone!"

In actual practice, I found this to be surprisingly ineffective until I added "... or I'll call security". That finally got him to leave.

 

[waitasec]

You can only learn what life has to teach you. You can't teach what you learn to others.

you're speaking of wisdom, right?

 

[Copernicus]

I know that all info I have about God, right from the dictionary word to the religious books - all came to me from humans. And as said humans are unable to provide mutually aceptable evidence - just as in the case of Santa Claus - I am unable to acceept God and Santa Claus as real. I have to dismiss them as figments of fertile imaginations.

In the case of Santa Claus, suppose that lots of people (perhaps including you at an earlier time) told a child that Santa Claus existed, and the child gets lots of positive feedback for that belief. He gets all excited about Christmas and then doesn't get the toy he petitioned Santa for. Now you could try to make up endless excuses for why the kid should continue to believe in Santa Claus, but you can expect to be pestered more and more for justifications as time goes on. So you break down and tell the kid that Santa Claus is just a myth perpetrated by adults. The kid probes further for justification to drop belief in Santa. The singularly least effective way of dealing with the kid is to say that there is no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Technically, you have a right to demand that the kid prove Santa's existence, but that kid is going to want something a little better than a burden of proof argument.

Atheists do not really owe theists a bunch of reasons to stop believing in God, but I just do not agree with my fellow atheists that theists should shut up and accept the burden of proof. Surely, there are better ways to handle the demand than to merely declare a lack of responsibility to explain why they take the (usually) minority position of professing lack of belief in gods. When it comes down to it, most theists really do think that the preponderance of evidence is on their side. Atheists who care to discuss the matter ought to engage theists who also want to discuss it. And, by "discuss", I don't mean :ignore:

 

[Jake.]

In the case of Santa Claus, suppose that lots of people (perhaps including you at an earlier time) told a child that Santa Claus existed, and the child gets lots of positive feedback for that belief. He gets all excited about Christmas and then doesn't get the toy he petitioned Santa for. Now you could try to make up endless excuses for why the kid should continue to believe in Santa Claus, but you can expect to be pestered more and more for justifications as time goes on. So you break down and tell the kid that Santa Claus is just a myth perpetrated by adults. The kid probes further for justification to drop belief in Santa. The singularly least effective way of dealing with the kid is to say that there is no evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. Technically, you have a right to demand that the kid prove Santa's existence, but that kid is going to want something a little better than a burden of proof argument.

A fantastic way of putting it, chap. I was going to type something exactly similar until I saw this.

 

[Tiberius]

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

And yet if I were to claim that fairies live in my garden, would you formulate logical arguments that demonstrate why this is not so, or would you just say, "Fairies, huh? Okay, show us the evidence"?

 

[naikaidiver]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
- Carl Sagan

I think most of the time, arguments between athiests and theists could be avoided if both parties the conversation would start like this.
"While I don't believe in your God, I feel that it is impossible to debate belief and it would be dissrespectful to tell you that your belief structure is wrong"
and the theist would say,
"While I would like you to believe in my God, it is impossible to debate belief with disbelief and it would be dissrespectful to say your lack of sharing my belief is reprehensible."

Personally, I love the study of physics, cosmology and theology for my own personal enlightenment. I am constantly in awe of the power and magnitude of the universe we live in and because of that passion I strive to learn what I can to understand its workings.

My experience (and this comes from living in the "Bible belt") is that the pursuit of knowledge is generally looked at with suspicion and sometimes, downright hostility by people of faith. I can go on for days telling of specific examples if you like.

In summary, I would say my reason (because I don't like to argue) for being an atheist comes from the rampant hipocrisy that runs deep within most faiths. Also, in my view, if the Judeo/Christian "God" truly existed and took any interest in the lives of us poor human beings, why would he ever allow the suffering of innocence, the wicked to prosper, and the mass genocide that has happened daily around the Earth for centuries?

 

[kaisersose]

In summary, I would say my reason (because I don't like to argue) for being an atheist comes from the rampant hipocrisy that runs deep within most faiths. Also, in my view, if the Judeo/Christian "God" truly existed and took any interest in the lives of us poor human beings, why would he ever allow the suffering of innocence, the wicked to prosper, and the mass genocide that has happened daily around the Earth for centuries?

They have addressed this question several times. The do have a response for it - regardless of it being adequate or not to an atheist.

This also goes against my premise that the atheist should not be advancing arguments. Not unless, he is seeking out theists for debates.

 

[naikaidiver]

They have addressed this question several times. The do have a response for it - regardless of it being adequate or not to an atheist.

This also goes against my premise that the atheist should not be advancing arguments. Not unless, he is seeking out theists for debates.

When you say "they" whom are you referring to and to what authority do they have to speak for the actions or inactions of God? Also I think my question is a perfectly fair one to ask by any prudent person atheist or not.

Your second statement represents my fundamental problem with many people of faith. They deliberately and (sometimes) forcefully stiffle the asking of questions that can be uncomfortable. Rather than simply answering the question, or even making a good attempt at it, most people simply get defensive as if any question is a direct attack on their faith. Why is that?

At no point have I initiated a confrontation with my post. If fact, I opened with a perfectly civilized dialog that could avoid a conflict.

Unlike some people, I have the utmost respect for people of any faith (yes ANY), belief, or lack thereof. If someone wants to ask what I believe and my experience, I am happy to share until the discussion turns hostile. In this case, the OP asked a question and I answered.