-
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!
Arguments for Atheism
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Thesis? Atheism has no thesis. It's merely the pronouncement that one doesn't believe in gods and doesn't accept existing god claims. It needs no defense, since it's not an argument or even a claim.
The defense of atheism, if one is requested, is the conviction that a person should have a sound reason before believing anything (rational skepticism), and that there is still no reason to believe in gods?
Last edited:
Sound argument for atheism: The mythic God of traditional religion is not a rational proposition.
Sound argument against atheism: If that's how you understand God, then no wonder you're an atheist. That doesn't say very much about your imagination. Lighten up a little.
Sound argument against atheism: If that's how you understand God, then no wonder you're an atheist. That doesn't say very much about your imagination. Lighten up a little.
Last edited:
PuerAzaelis
Unknown Friend
[R]oyal crowns one after another lost their luster and were eclipsed after the imperial crown was eclipsed. Monarchies are unable to exist for long without the Monarchy; kings cannot apportion the crown and scepter of the Emperor among themselves and pose as emperors in their particular countries, because the shadow of the Emperor is always present. And if in the past it was the Emperor who gave luster to the royal crowns, it was later the shadow of the absent Emperor which obscured the royal crowns and, consequently, all the other crowns — those of dukes, princes, counts, etc. A pyramid is not complete without its summit; hierarchy does not exist when it is incomplete. Without an Emperor, there will be, sooner or later, no more kings. When there are no kings, there will be, sooner or later, no more nobility. When there is no more nobility, there will be, sooner or later, no more bourgeoisie or peasants. This is how one arrives at the dictatorship of the proletariat, the class hostile to the hierarchical principle, which latter, however, is the reflection of divine order. This is why the proletariat professes atheism.
Is the problem god or gods actually. I mean in religion the problem is actually belief, theory, hypothesis, speculation, as facts. Are atheists exempt from such nonsense?
I am still waiting for a theist to believe the sun will rise into rising an atheist to not believe it into rising and an agnostic to actually stop it. None have so i might say all three are irrelevantly lost in lala land mentally except to each other. There is actually some eho are none of the above. Maybe its a different species.!!!!
Lack of a convincing argument for belief. I tried supporting several. Turned out I couldn't even convince myself.
Viviane LaFrance
Member
How isn't this a claim? In the English language making the pronouncement "god doesn't exist" is a claim.
But that's not necessarily what an atheist is saying. Examples:
- "what's a god?" does not entail a claim.
- "I'm not convinced" does not entail a claim.
- "this guy's arguments for God are junk and would be an idiotic basis for believing in a god" entails claims, but not any about the existence or non-existence of gods.
It's a weirdness of English that the phrase "he doesn't believe in any gods" is ambiguous: depending on context, it can mean both "he believes that there are no gods" or "he lacks belief in any gods." To better capture the intended meaning, try asking yourself "how many gods does he believe in?"
- if the answer is 0, he's an atheist.
- if the answer is 1 or more, he's a theist.
It isn't even that much, since no "pronouncement" is needed to be an atheist.
Viviane LaFrance
Member
The claim is in the cause. Let say the atheist states "I lack belief in any gods because there is no evidence that the gods exist", then he or she is making a claim
On this forum, you will get more people telling you that there is no theory supporting atheism than willingness to discuss it.
Atheism, at its most narrow definition, is belief that there are no gods.
1. "Gods" serve no practical purpose, as demonstrated by the possibility of people with no knowledge or care of religions or gods getting along just fine in modern lives, communities, and societies.
2. Where evidence of "gods" is lacking, belief that they are imagined, projected, or in some other way unreal, is reasonable. Where evidence of "gods" is explainable in natural terms, it is reasonable for those conditioned to natural terms to default to the natural, rather than symbolically associative, terms.
3. Where propositions about "god" or "gods" are extraordinary and insufficient evidence is presented, it is reasonable to withhold belief.
That's a few. I will not touch on the anti-god reasons for atheism, but there are a few of those, as well.
But none of that is necessary to be an atheist. Anyone who believes in zero gods is an atheist, period.
And I hope you aren't trying to suggest that atheists have to make claims about gods they've never heard of or evidence they've never seen in order to be atheists.
Surely you can grasp the difference between lacking a belief in god and claiming no god exists. This is not rocket science.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You mean arguments that support the points or justifications of atheism?
None. It just means opposite of theism with the -a being the justification for it being opposite of the root word the prefix is attached to.
What are sound arguments for theism; then, we can describe how the opposite has justification for its definition just as theist does. No one's special.
Viviane LaFrance
Member
Question: According to Webster's an is:
"a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates a atheism."
So if a person never heard of any gods, never heard of the positions of theism or atheism or and therefore gives any thought to both positions, would you call that person an atheist?
She can also, and more significantly, grasp their similarity.
Viviane LaFrance
Member
Simply lacking a belief in something doesn't qualify. If I lack a belief in a good Fast and Furious movie doesn't qualify me as an aVinDieselist, it just means I never seen one. Lacking is a state being deficient, which atheist are not because they have a obvious opinions about the gods, if they totally lacked belief they would also lack their opinions about the gods because any belief about the gods would be deficient and therefore unknowns. If you have absolutely no beliefs in or of or about the gods then the gods wouldn't even cross your mind or be part of the equation.