Atheism is a reasonable position to hold

[Atomist]

"Atheism is a reasonable position to hold "

Was there some doubt?

only for the theist.

 

[The Barefoot Bum]

Belief is a commitment. I'm saying there is reason to have confidence in the belief there is no God. There is no basis to believe pro or con.
... I agree. That is one of the reasons I try real hard to avoid using the word "believe".

So you're happy to use a dictionary argument for "atheism", but when it comes to "believe", you're happy to impose an idiosyncratic definition?

believe:1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. [boldface added]

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're happy to use a dictionary argument for "atheism", but when it comes to "believe", you're happy to impose an idiosyncratic definition?

believe:1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. [boldface added]

I believe that Mrs Rev won't burn the bacon.
Is that absolute truth? Not when she likes it crispier than I do.

 

[NeoSeeker]

So you're happy to use a dictionary argument for "atheism", but when it comes to "believe", you're happy to impose an idiosyncratic definition?

believe:1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully. [boldface added]

Actually I mistyped and ment to say: Belief is a commitment. I'm saying there is no reason to have confidence in the belief there is no God. There is no basis to believe pro or con.

I really don't want to fight with you. Here is more, pick one:

1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

Beliefs for or against are staking out a position. Are you comfortable saying "there is no God?" If your reasoning is that there is no proof of God, I can accept that. But imo you have no grounds to be confident in that position. It's too nebulous.

 

[The Barefoot Bum]

I'm saying there is no reason to have confidence in the belief there is no God. There is no basis to believe pro or con.

All right then. That's not a position I agree with, but it's a real position.

Why is there no basis, no reason to have confidence? Is the existence of God something about which we cannot in principle have confidence in the truth or falsity? Or do we simply lack the relevant evidence?

 

[The Barefoot Bum]

Are you comfortable saying "there is no God?"

Depends on which God you're talking about. If you're talking about Gods such as the character of Yahweh depicted in the Christian Bible or or Allah in the Koran, then no, they definitely do not exist. Keep in mind that billions of people do believe these characters actually exist.

Do you mean the "gods" of deism, pantheism, and the god that might be hiding behind my couch? I'm so radically uninterested in such gods that "apathy" seems far too weak a word.

Do you mean the "ground of all being" "gods" of some theologians who substitute bu... er... baloney... for careful thought? I'm too busy laughing to have much of an opinion.

Do you mean to ask if I live my life as if there were an invisible man in the sky, terribly concerned about precisely what I do with my naughty bits? I most definitely do not.

 

[nrg]

Allow me to qualify that. If there is no evidence for the traditional God, I'd say that is a good enough reason not to follow the mainstream view or at least question it. I am open to the possibility of the spirit of living things, other dimensions and alternate realities. Note I said I'm open, not that I believe. There is too much we don't know, to confidently say our beliefs are infallible.

Absolutely, but the thing is, traditional theism claims a God did make the universe and it's just a valid guess as any other that lacks proof, and seeing as imagination is the limit to those, the number of guesses about how the universe, morals etc. came to be approaches infinity. If we stick to the axiom that a guess is more propable the more evidence it has, it means that if there were only two guesses (atheism and theism), and none would have any sort of evidence backing them up their odds would be 50% each (since we only have two ways to go).

But, as I said, it's not just atheism and theism, it's much more complicated than that. The ammount of deities and demigods and what not that explane the universe are only limited by imagination, so they're approaching infinity meaning that the odds that the Abrahamic God exists (if he has no evidence backing him up) is ε (approaching 0).

(I would be very happy if anyone could point out how wrong my argument is if they do find some flaws in it)

 

[sandandfoam]

Conclusion: It is reasonable to be an atheist.

Of course it is. It is also reasonable to be a theist, agnostic etc etc
Have you ever met anyone who doesn't consider themselves reasonable?

 

[Willamena]

only for the theist.

And those atheists who feel atheism isn't a position held on anything.

 

[Eliot Wild]

PROOF FROM THE TRUTH FOR ATHEISTS

Let us first begin by admitting that we are not gods nor do we possess all knowledge. It is also necessary to remove from our minds and hearts any prejudices and prior notions of how everything came into being and how it is being sustained and perpetuated. This is the critical first step to gaining any true knowledge and establishing facts based on proof

Okay, I'm with you so far.

Ask anyone the question: "Do you believe in God?" and you are sure to receive a variety of answers. The question should be "What do you believe about God?"

Think about this:

If there is a creation, there must be a Creator.

Why?

First of all, you seem to be violating your own rule set forth in paragraph one above. "It is necessary", you said, "to remove from our minds and hearts any prejudices and prior notions of how everything came into being and how it is sustained and perpetuated." Or something like that.

So, again, I ask, 'why does a creation need a creator?' Is it not possible that some thing(s) might be self-producing and self-sustaining. Granted, we have never observed such phenomena to have occurred, at least not that I am aware of. But if we are clearing our mind of all preconceived notions about how everything came into being, then why would we make an initial assumption that everything which was created must have a creator?

Of course, this also assumes that nature itself is a creation. What if nature has always existed? What if nature is an infinitly-existent, self-sustaing force itself, with no creator and no start or end point. What if there is some process by which nature evolves from a most basic elemental point to a form of advanced development before reversing its own process or reverting back to that most basic point again. Then, it simply starts the process all over again in a constant, infinitely reoccurring form of self-sustained evolution and de-evolution or destruction?

I honestly don't know. I am no scientist, nor was meant to be. I'm an attendant, Lord, one that will do, to swell a progress, start a scene or two. I'm a tool, deferential, glad to be of use . . . full of high sentence, and sometimes a bit obtuse, sometimes, indeed, the fool. Or something like that. --T.S. Eliot, my hero.

If there is a Creator, He must be the Sustainer.

Why?

The Creator Cannot Create Himself.

Why?

If He is the sole Creator/Sustainer -- He must be ONE.

Why?

God must be one. Otherwise we would see great differences and competition between the gods if there were more than one -- Alone.

Why? Why couldn't a group of gods all acting in concert for the aboslute 'Good' of the entire universe be a possibility?

Do we agree that this is a creation? Or do we accept that nothing came out of nothing to form this entire universe?
This is a very clear message from Allah, in the Quran. Something does not come out of nothing.

That's a pretty bold statement for ole Allah to make . . . Where did He come from? Uhhhhhhh, I'm not buying it. Why is it easier for you to assume that Allah or another God always existed, or Allah came from nothing, than it is to believe that nature has always existed or came from nothing? We know nature exists. We have conclusive empirical proof. Yet, we have no conclusive proof (and questionable evidence) that Allah or another god exists.

So, there must be something in existence already which created all that we know to exist. And that "something" needs to be called upon in times of need and thanksgiving.
As Allah has said in His Book: "I only created you all to worship Me Alone."

What a narcassistic prick Allah is, huh? He created us to worship Him? Uhhhhh, I think I'll pass. I refuse to worship any deities who created people for the sole purpose of being worshipped by them. I refuse to worship any god who is that personally needy for love and attention. Sounds like Allah just needs a good friend, not worshipping, doting servants. I do feel sorry for Him . . . of course, I find it hard to worship a god that I pity.

He also says that we are all being tested by Him with regard to our wealth, families, children and social status

I have no idea what this has to do with the rest of your argument, but okay, whatever. I should add, however, that I also personally refuse to worship any god that demands we take tests. So it goes.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thank god somebody let me know my position is reasonable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?

Those are some pretty inconvenient questions you have there, fella.
It's pretty rude of you to challenge someone's lame-brained premises.

 

[Willamena]

Of course, this also assumes that nature itself is a creation. What if nature has always existed? What if nature is an infinitly-existent, self-sustaing force itself, with no creator and no start or end point. What if there is some process by which nature evolves from a most basic elemental point to a form of advanced development before reversing its own process or reverting back to that most basic point again. Then, it simply starts the process all over again in a constant, infinitely reoccurring form of self-sustained evolution and de-evolution or destruction?

To play Devil's Advocate: just because you call it "nature," doesn't make it not god.

'Why does a creation need a creator?' Because "creation" is a verb.

 

[Atomist]

Thank god somebody let me know my position is reasonable.

lol I see what you did there.

 

[Eliot Wild]

To play Devil's Advocate: just because you call it "nature," doesn't make it not god.

'Why does a creation need a creator?' Because "creation" is a verb.

Well, na-na-na-na . . . To play opposing counsel to your Devil's Advocate: just because you call it a god doesn't make it not nature. So there. (By the way, in my real life I'm actually a full-fledged mature adult, even though you would never guess it from my posts here on RF)

Uhhhh, also, 'creation' is a noun, silly. When's the last time you 'creationed' something?

 

[Willamena]

Well, na-na-na-na . . . To play opposing counsel to your Devil's Advocate: just because you call it a god doesn't make it not nature. So there. (By the way, in my real life I'm actually a full-fledged mature adult, even though you would never guess it from my posts here on RF)

Uhhhh, also, 'creation' is a noun, silly. When's the last time you 'creationed' something?

lol

According to some, "God" is a verb, too.

 

[Eliot Wild]

lol

According to some, "God" is a verb, too.

You do know, don't you, that I have a huge crush on you!!!

 

[Willamena]

You do know, don't you, that I have a huge crush on you!!!

Haha! I god you! :clap

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Someone has gotten into the mushrooms again.

 

[Eliot Wild]

I've learned when losing a debate, to distract and/or disarm my opponent with lewd flirtatious advances . . . This often causes quite the embarrassing moment when arguing with other guys.