Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

There isn't? Seems to me the countless arguments against atheism provide abundance evidence of the contrary...

Countless arguments against atheism? I would be very interested to hear some of those and the evidence to the contrary. Perhaps we could start a conversation on this site?

 

[dianaiad]

There's nothing to arguing against.

Which one? I mean....which 'atheism' are you thinking about:

The 'weak' atheist, who says he can see no compelling evidence that there is a God?
or the "strong' atheist, who says that there is absolutely no God?

If it is the first, you are quite right; there's nothing to argue against. All one can do is find an argument FOR a deity. Good luck.

If it is the second, you don't have to argue. All you have to do is say 'Oh, yeah? That's quite a claim. Prove it."

Either way it could get interesting.

 

[Nakosis]

If someone lacked belief that murder was wrong, wouldn't you try to convince them that it is?

You'd be arguing for your belief that murder is bad, Not against their lack of having a belief. If they lack a belief they lack a belief. It's not like they've made a decision about murder being good.

If they believed murder was good then you'd have something to argue against.

So for example you want to convince me that murder is bad. So what evidence do you have to prove to be murder is bad?

I may argue against your evidence but I wouldn't be arguing that murder was good.

Not having a belief can have just as many consequences as having one.

I see it as having a lack of bias. I'm not for or against a position. I have no vested interest in having the "right" position. If someone can provide evidence that I find reasonable to accept then I can make a decision at that time. Until then, no decision is necessary.

Would you think it unreasonable or immoral to wait for evidence you feel comfortable with before making a decision?

It'd be like you saying it's wrong for me to not have the belief murder is bad when you haven't offered evidence that I find credible to base that belief on.

 

[Nakosis]

Which one? I mean....which 'atheism' are you thinking about:

The 'weak' atheist, who says he can see no compelling evidence that there is a God?
or the "strong' atheist, who says that there is absolutely no God?

If it is the first, you are quite right; there's nothing to argue against. All one can do is find an argument FOR a deity. Good luck.

If it is the second, you don't have to argue. All you have to do is say 'Oh, yeah? That's quite a claim. Prove it."

Either way it could get interesting.

I don't know if I like the term "weak" I'm thinking more unbiased. A strong atheist I'd probably call an anti-theist.

 

[psychoslice]

Well the only thing you could argue about would be god, and no god has been proven so, yes you can't argue with an atheist until you have evidence for god.

 

[David T]

Atheism is the southern baptists of pantheism. They have a knuckle dragging awareness that nature might be important they just can't figure out how it could be more important than them so they go onto religious forums and Mock Ken ham the bible genius!!! All be "cuz" mocking Ken ham is so profoundly deep!!!. Lol btw atheists have zero sense of humor about being atheists.. like being proud you can't dance in rythmm and you sing terribly out of tune, pretending it's in tune and harmonious. They get all defensive when people go you SUCK!! . Which they then shout Ken ham sucks more than us!!! True you got me on that one. Barely.

 

[Falvlun]

You'd be arguing for your belief that murder is bad, Not against their lack of having a belief. If they lack a belief they lack a belief. It's not like they've made a decision about murder being good.

If they believed murder was good then you'd have something to argue against.

So for example you want to convince me that murder is bad. So what evidence do you have to prove to be murder is bad?

I may argue against your evidence but I wouldn't be arguing that murder was good.

No, they'd be arguing against your lack of belief too. They are arguing that their belief is preferable AND that your current position is incorrect. Some arguments might fall more on one side or the other and some might work simultaneous on both.

I don't think there's necessarily a clear cut separation. After all, in order to accept their argument you have to give up your current position.

I see it as having a lack of bias. I'm not for or against a position. I have no vested interest in having the "right" position. If someone can provide evidence that I find reasonable to accept then I can make a decision at that time. Until then, no decision is necessary.

Would you think it unreasonable or immoral to wait for evidence you feel comfortable with before making a decision?

It'd be like you saying it's wrong for me to not have the belief murder is bad when you haven't offered evidence that I find credible to base that belief on.

Your position is fine; My argument doesn't invalidate the third position of "no belief either way."

I do not see it, however, as a non-position, without bias. It's clearly an intellectual decision to withhold belief due to lack of evidence. There's the implied belief that sufficient or acceptable evidence has not been offered.

 

[Falvlun]

Atheism is the southern baptists of pantheism. They have a knuckle dragging awareness that nature might be important they just can't figure out how it could be more important than them so they go onto religious forums and Mock Ken ham the bible genius!!! All be "cuz" mocking Ken ham is so profoundly deep!!!. Lol btw atheists have zero sense of humor about being atheists.. like being proud you can't dance in rythmm and you sing terribly out of tune, pretending it's in tune and harmonious. They get all defensive when people go you SUCK!! . Which they then shout Ken ham sucks more than us!!! True you got me on that one. Barely.

Can you really fault someone for being defensive after being told that they suck?

 

[Nakosis]

No, they'd be arguing against your lack of belief too. They are arguing that their belief is preferable AND that your current position is incorrect. Some arguments might fall more on one side or the other and some might work simultaneous on both.

I don't think there's necessarily a clear cut separation. After all, in order to accept their argument you have to give up your current position.

Your position is fine; My argument doesn't invalidate the third position of "no belief either way."

I do not see it, however, as a non-position, without bias. It's clearly an intellectual decision to withhold belief due to lack of evidence. There's the implied belief that sufficient or acceptable evidence has not been offered.

So my lack of having a position with regard to God's existence is a position. Ok you win but that's because I can't think about that too much or my brain starts to hurt.

My position is the lack of a position, but, of course, you can't even talk about it; the minute you talk, you spoil the whole game. - Marcel Duchamp

 

[Falvlun]

So my lack of having a position with regard to God's existence is a position. Ok you win but that's because I can't think about that too much or my brain starts to hurt.

You don't have a lack of a position. You have a lack of (one particular) belief.

 

[David T]

Z

Can you really fault someone for being defensive after being told that they suck?

Yea but they all think they are the Kieth Richards of religion!!!

But when you talk them about reality " no you are not Keith Richards, you play kazoo" they get pissed!!! Go figure! Gimme shelter on a kazoo isn't being Keith richards!!!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Not really, atheism is an inherently arrogant position in the first place. But. before someone gets upset, let me explain. The atheist no more knows there is no god any more than the average devotee knows there is. They're both simply guessing...

The atheist presumes that since they aren't aware of any spiritual being they will just pretend they're not there. The follow of faith doesn't know any better, but they're willing to pretend just in case they **** that guy off.

The problem with that argument is that it anything can exist then. We are all atheists because we don't believe DAefacan that exists over in Catemanist in the Island of Cabolini off the coast of Zambulu on the invisible planet of Pluto whose science says has disepeared but because we always want to have that one percent chance we "could be wrong", what I said is just as logical and sensible as saying the sun will rise int he morning nad set in the evening.

The reason we know the latter is true, is because of routine and what we study. Number of people, whether it's written or typed in a book, stories, et cetera doesn't make something come alive.

Plus, there are soooooooooo much more Pagan stories and religions, why aren't they treated with the same athiest/theism bit as christianity if not more? If going by numbers, why aren't we proving that the Roman gods aren't real rather than one god of abraham that exist in a small part of the world compared to other parts who believe in multiple gods.

It's not that we are in the same boat as theist. We are not. It's we just need a label to call ourselves because for whatever has a label there is always someone who believes opposite. But honestly, atheists don't exist. It's a negative part of the film.

and so on and so forth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There's nothing to arguing against.

What are your arguments for your belief?

 

[idav]

There's nothing to arguing against.

What kind of eveidence is this nothing you speak of?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think arguing with the intent to change someone's mind, theist or atheist. Is setting yourself up for disappointment. If you're approaching an angle with that sort of will for dominance you're only going to make them dig their heels in further. Instead, and I think this is more valuable than changing minds, is trying to understand why they believe what they do and why you believe the way you do. Then you're getting something out of the debate whether or not the other party does.
I've never actually experienced any long term catharsis from being the aggressor trying to bend minds or in trying to show off how much better me and my beliefs are. It's still a tempting road sometimes. But ultimately not a healthy one for me, or the other person.

 

[Kapalika]

There's nothing to arguing against.

Isn't that like saying it makes it's silly to argue against someone who doesn't believe that the earth is round? You could lack belief in the earth being round but not claim to know it's shape. This might not be the best example but my point is by this reasoning it makes no sense to argue against a disbelief in anything because the disbelief isn't asserting anything. It's a flawed argument by itself. I think the argument is also complicated because it makes even less sense to argue *for* something with no evidence like atheism (which inherently has to be inference based), just as theism has no convincing evidence that stands up to higher standards of knowledge.

 

[Augustus]

I lack any beliefs about gods. What the argument against that?

I suppose you could start with the fact that it is quite obviously untrue.

You have beliefs about many gods.

 

[ArtieE]

You don't have a lack of a position. You have a lack of (one particular) belief.

Weak atheists have an absence of two particular beliefs. That gods exist and that gods don't exist. They haven't taken any of those two positions. They are positionless.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which one? I mean....which 'atheism' are you thinking about:

The 'weak' atheist, who says he can see no compelling evidence that there is a God?
or the "strong' atheist, who says that there is absolutely no God?

If it is the first, you are quite right; there's nothing to argue against. All one can do is find an argument FOR a deity. Good luck.

If it is the second, you don't have to argue. All you have to do is say 'Oh, yeah? That's quite a claim. Prove it."

Either way it could get interesting.

All you need to do to be an atheist is not believe in any gods, so an argument against atheism would have to argue against that.

If you were to manage to convince a "strong atheist" to be a "weak atheist" or sonething in between, then she would still be an atheist, so an argument that attempts to do this wouldn't be an argument against atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Weak atheists have an absence of two particular beliefs. That gods exist and that gods don't exist. They haven't taken any of those two positions. They are positionless.

I hate the "strong atheist"/"weak atheist" labels for a number of reasons, but setting that aside for the moment:

A weak atheist can have all sorts of positions; they just don't have any positions on the existence or non-existence of gods.

This means that a weak atheist could, say, believe that a particular religious claim is irrational and that every person who believes in the god being claimed is an idiot for accepting such a poor claim, but the weak atheist would still be a weak atheist, provided he's still open to the possibility that the religion might have serendipitously stumbled on a correct conclusion for horrible reasons in an "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" kind of way and hasn't accepted the truth or falsehood of the existence of the god being claimed.

"If your god exists, it isn't for the crappy reasons you're telling me" <> "your god does not exist."