Atheism is a belief system.

[dogsgod]

A strawman argument FYI is is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
or Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments.

No, that's a red herring. A straw man is a weak or fallacious analogy that's easy to tear down with the pretension that the tearing down of the straw man in some way weakens the opponents argument, though it does nothing of the sort. You're batting zero.

 

[Memories]

No, that's a red herring. A straw man is a weak or fallacious analogy that's easy to tear down with the pretension that the tearing down of the straw man in some way weakens the opponents argument, though it does nothing of the sort. You're batting zero.

...... I strongly suggest.... that you read......a ...... Book.

 

[Willamena]

*Pshaw* you said the same thing.

 

[gnomon]

A better title would have been "Atheism can be a belief system".

"Smurf puppies" would have been a better title for this thread.

...... I strongly suggest.... that you read......a ...... Book.

Hate to burst your bubble for the second time in one thread but dogsgod is right.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Like I said absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I hear this all of the time. "Atheism is a non-sequitur. It's an argument from ignorance." Such a statement demonstrates poor understanding of modern atheism which does not deny the existence of God so much as it simply does not affirm the existence of God.

It's a matter of practicality. I live my life giving consideration to those things I know exist. I have neither the time, resources nor desire to consider things for which there is no evidence, and frankly, neither do you (except, apparently, for God). Let me ask you, in your daily life:

• Do you actively seek ways to protect yourself from invisible mind control rays? Remember, you can't prove they don't exist.
• Do you ensure that you read your horoscope everyday so that you will be prepared for what is going to happen to you? Remember, you can't prove horoscopic predictions are untrue.
• Do you refuse to sleep to avoid your body being taken over by pod people at night. Remember, you can't prove they don't exist.

I would go on, but the fact of the matter is that there are a infinite number of ideas for which there is no evidence, and rational human beings rightly give no consideration whatsoever to these ideas. As a matter of practicality, how could we?!?!

The thing you must remember is that your idea of an omnimax God is no different than any other idea for which there is no evidence. It is an idea that I do not affirm a belief in. COULD there be an omnimax God, or mind control rays or giant, invisible spaghetti monsters out there? SURE there could! Do I affirm a belief in any of that? Why would I?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Hate to burst your bubble for the second time in one thread but dogsgod is right.

Yeah he is. I see "strawman" used incorrectly at RF all the time. Dogsgod and Gnomon are both right.

 

[dogsgod]

Yeah he is. I see "strawman" used incorrectly at RF all the time. Dogsgod and Gnomon are both right.

I didn't read as far as the last portion of Memories statement, "Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments." it is correct. However, the main explanation that he presented describes a red herring.

 

[Memories]

I didn't read as far as the last portion of Memories statement, "Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments." it is correct. However, the main explanation that he presented describes a red herring.

I guess I can agree to that, my mistake.

 

[Tristesse]

well what are you? agnostic? atheist?

Not that it's relevant, but I'm an atheist.

 

[Tristesse]

Simply because the arguments I would bring forth only support the Judeo- Christian-God. and not Quan Yin.

Its admirably simple.


all these arguments to only name a few:
1.) The Argument from Christ’s Resurrection
2.) The Argument from the Divinity of the Bible
2.) Teleological Argument
1.) Cosmological Argument

All these support the Judeo-christian-God.

Why then, do we so often reject the existence of the gods of other religions?
Many of the gods we have not even heard of before, so how can we say that we have rationally decided to reject them?
There are several reasons we don’t give the claims of many other religions much credence. First of all, the vast majority of other religions have simply failed to produce a positive case. This is where the atheists will claim that the theist is being inconsistent. However, the Christian theist is only being inconsistent here if he has not produced his own positive case. If the Christian theist (such as myself) provides evidence for his or her own belief, there is no intellectual sacrifice related to belief in the Christian God.
If the Christian’s belief is confirmed by all sorts of evidence and experience, then there is actually not much need to inspect every other view. Once a positive case is established, one is rationally justified in belief in Christianity and out-of-hand rejection of other views. There is no need to refute other beliefs. It may very well be that there is quite a bit of evidence for other deities. However, as long as the evidence in favor of that deity is surpassed by the evidence for the Christian God, Christianity remains the most plausibly true belief.

Skeptical Christian

ok, I'll bite. Whats the argument from christ's resurection? And whats the argument from the divinity of the bible?

 

[monta]

http://www.skepticalchristian.com/argumentfrommultipledeities.htm

http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=2709

 

[dogsgod]

1.) The Argument from Christ’s Resurrection
This argument is very commonly employed by Christians, and it is obvious that it is specific evidence for Christianity and not evidence for any other religion. According to this argument, there is substantial evidence for Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead. If this argument is true, then Christianity is unavoidable. 2,3 This argument, if true, actually even tends to show that other gods don’t exist. Since resurrection from the dead confirms Christ’s claims to Divinity, they also confirm His claims to exclusive Divinity. If Christ was vindicated by means of bodily resurrection, we have a strong reason to believe that the Christian God exists, as well as a strong reason to believe that no other god does.


Mighty big "ifs" to overcome, to say the least. Where do these people come from and what happened to their brains?

 

[Memories]

1.) The Argument from Christ’s Resurrection
This argument is very commonly employed by Christians, and it is obvious that it is specific evidence for Christianity and not evidence for any other religion. According to this argument, there is substantial evidence for Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead. If this argument is true, then Christianity is unavoidable. 2,3 This argument, if true, actually even tends to show that other gods don’t exist. Since resurrection from the dead confirms Christ’s claims to Divinity, they also confirm His claims to exclusive Divinity. If Christ was vindicated by means of bodily resurrection, we have a strong reason to believe that the Christian God exists, as well as a strong reason to believe that no other god does.


Mighty big "ifs" to overcome, to say the least. Where do these people come from and what happened to their brains?

''You contradict yourself. You claim: their is Mighty big "ifs" to overcome .......... You are no match for anyone here, most everyone has heard this nonsense before, we weren't born yesterday.''

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ok...so we're 150+ responses later...Have we come to the obvious conclusion that Atheism is not a "belief system"....? or did we just set that aside to debate about the bible....?

 

[Alceste]

Simply because the arguments I would bring forth only support the Judeo- Christian-God. and not Quan Yin.

Its admirably simple.
all these arguments to only name a few:
1.) The Argument from Christ’s Resurrection

That certainly never occurred.

2.) The Argument from the Divinity of the Bible

The bible is a book written by men, just like any other.

2.) Teleological Argument
1.) Cosmological Argument

All these support the Judeo-christian-God.

And you're shocked ... SHOCKED... to discover that sophistic theological arguments crafted by followers of Judeo-Christian religions support the existence of the Judeo-Christian god. Doesn't that seem a little... I dunno... circular to you?

Why should I bother listening to the followers of Judeo-Christian religions, or reading their "sacred" books, or believing in their mythology as opposed to some other religion with different books, myths and gods that have greater appeal to me?

Why then, do we so often reject the existence of the gods of other religions?
Many of the gods we have not even heard of before, so how can we say that we have rationally decided to reject them?
There are several reasons we don’t give the claims of many other religions much credence. First of all, the vast majority of other religions have simply failed to produce a positive case.

Christianity is no exception.

This is where the atheists will claim that the theist is being inconsistent. However, the Christian theist is only being inconsistent here if he has not produced his own positive case. If the Christian theist (such as myself) provides evidence for his or her own belief, there is no intellectual sacrifice related to belief in the Christian God.

Someone of another faith would say exactly this type of thing in support of their own religion - not Christianity.

If the Christian’s belief is confirmed by all sorts of evidence and experience, then there is actually not much need to inspect every other view. Once a positive case is established, one is rationally justified in belief in Christianity and out-of-hand rejection of other views. There is no need to refute other beliefs. It may very well be that there is quite a bit of evidence for other deities. However, as long as the evidence in favor of that deity is surpassed by the evidence for the Christian God, Christianity remains the most plausibly true belief.

Skeptical Christian

I think it's nonsense, personally, and Buddhism makes WAY more sense. How do you account for the fact that perfectly rational people like myself, when presented with what you call the "evidence" of Christian supremacy, decide that what you believe is less appealing than some other religious tradition, or NO religious tradition?

If there were any evidence, as you claim, surely it would not be so difficult to convince me I should opt for Yahweh over Quan Yin.

 

[Beaudreaux]

''You contradict yourself. You claim: their is Mighty big "ifs" to overcome .......... You are no match for anyone here, most everyone has heard this nonsense before, we weren't born yesterday.''

Unless I'm missing something, dogsgod does not contradict himself in that passage. To what contradiction are you referring?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Bumping this up and emphasizing the questions. I'd really like the OP to answer them.

I hear this all of the time. "Atheism is a non-sequitur. It's an argument from ignorance." Such a statement demonstrates poor understanding of modern atheism which does not deny the existence of God so much as it simply does not affirm the existence of God.


It's a matter of practicality. I live my life giving consideration to those things I know exist. I have neither the time, resources nor desire to consider things for which there is no evidence, and frankly, neither do you (except, apparently, for God). Let me ask you, in your daily life:

• Do you actively seek ways to protect yourself from invisible mind control rays? Remember, you can't prove they don't exist.
• Do you ensure that you read your horoscope everyday so that you will be prepared for what is going to happen to you? Remember, you can't prove horoscopic predictions are untrue.
• Do you refuse to sleep to avoid your body being taken over by pod people at night. Remember, you can't prove they don't exist.

I would go on, but the fact of the matter is that there are a infinite number of ideas for which there is no evidence, and rational human beings rightly give no consideration whatsoever to these ideas. As a matter of practicality, how could we?!?!

The thing you must remember is that your idea of an omnimax God is no different than any other idea for which there is no evidence. It is an idea that I do not affirm a belief in. COULD there be an omnimax God, or mind control rays or giant, invisible spaghetti monsters out there? SURE there could! Do I affirm a belief in any of that? Why would I?