Favourite Atheist arguments

[tarasan]

And there it runs aground. There are 4 positions. There is also agnostic theism.

Yes but only in terms when it comes to making a knowledge claim (I'm sure there are thiest who would say thiesm is a mental state and you either have or don't.. but I think their mental..)

 

[lukethethird]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Then let the dog out, she'll take care of it.

 

[Koldo]

The logical problem of evil has been considered to be solved since like 1972. I did a dissertation on it. Do u mean the evidential?

Please go ahead and show me what you have got.

 

[PureX]

But it does make you an atheist. It just doesn't make you a strong or explicit atheist.

It makes you nothing to no one. An unexpressed idea is of no consequence to anyone.

Define "atheism expressed." Atheism requires justification only if it makes a positive claim, like "God doesn't exist." This is a minority atheist position, though.

Every atheist asserts that God/gods don't exist by rejecting every assertion they encounter that gods do exist. No matter how the theist asserts that God/gods do exist, the atheist will reject it. This is a clear assertion that gods (whichever version anyone proposes) don't exist. So the logical question, then, is why does the atheist hold this position?

And that's what this thread is about: those 'whys'.

In post #199 I listed the atheist's main justifications, as I'm seeing them, here. And I've explained why they are unreasonable. And so far, no atheist has yet explained how they are reasonable. Instead, all they want to do is explain why they don't have to give any reasoning, even as they are demanding it, and then attacking it, from everyone else.

 

[Valjean]

Do all atheists use reason, logic and evidence?

My cat's atheist. She doesn't appear to reason at all.
She's a bit of a dingbat, to be frank.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes but only in terms when it comes to making a knowledge claim (I'm sure there are thiest who would say thiesm is a mental state and you either have or don't.. but I think their mental..)

I don't understand what you are trying to say for the bold part.

 

[tarasan]

Please go ahead and show me what you have got.

Really? Firstly hats to you for reading that far back must of been a slog. But yeah it gonna take a while to write cause it incorporates a load of stuff can u wait a few days?

 

[tarasan]

I don't understand what you are trying to say for the bold part.

Mental state is the state of your mind, but mental can also mean crazy in other contexts.... I was trying to be funny ,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mental state is the state of your mind, but mental can also mean crazy in other contexts.... I was trying to be funny ,

Okay, we understand the world differently back to the rest of your post. Let us leave it as that.

 

[tarasan]

Okay, we understand the world differently back to the rest of your post. Let us leave it as that.

No worries buddy, I suppose to some degree we all understand the world a little differently from each other I mean lens in which I view the world has been influenced by my experiences and they are uniquely mine

 

[Koldo]

Really? Firstly hats to you for reading that far back must of been a slog. But yeah it gonna take a while to write cause it incorporates a load of stuff can u wait a few days?

Sure. I have read quite a bit about the problem of evil, it is one of my favorite subjects in philosophy. I have read a lot of different "solutions", but most of them do either one of two things:

1) Reduce omnipotence by claiming that some sort of evil was necessary to achieve the best possible world.

2) Defining good and evil in whatever way is more convenient.

I am curious about what your proposed solution looks like.

 

[tarasan]

Sure. I have read quite a bit about the problem of evil, it is one of my favorite subjects in philosophy. I have read a lot of different "solutions", but most of them do either one of two things:

1) Reduce omnipotence by claiming that some sort of evil was necessary to achieve the best possible world.

2) Defining good and evil in whatever way is more convenient.

I am curious about what your proposed solution looks like.

Define omnipotence for me

 

[lukethethird]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Let me see those glasses.

 

[Koldo]

Define omnipotence for me

Unlimited power.

I like to further explain it this way though: Imagine you want to eat some cake. You can choose to bake a cake yourself or to buy one, for example.

No matter which way you choose you will need to take steps towards your goal. Being omnipotent means you don't need to take any steps towards any given goal, you can get whatever you want right away.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Let me see those glasses.

No, only some atheists.

 

[PureX]

Let's assume you are correct and there is indeed no logical reason to expect evidence on this case. Now what? How do we reach the conclusion that God exists?

We don't need to reach any "conclusions". We can simply choose to trust that the assertion that God exists is true (in whatever way we choose to conceive of it being so). And we can base this choice, logically, on the fact that we have no proof or probability, either way. And can therefor decide based on some OTHER criteria: like personal desire, or personal need, and/or practical results. (Note: we can also choose to trust that the assertion is false based on the same reasoning.)

I wouldn't expect the concepts to be completely equal in all manners, but I would expect some matters to be settled by now.

People can't even agree over whether Jesus is God, for example. This is not some sort of deep philosophical matter.

No, it's a personal preference. Which is why I don't understand why you would expect such differences to be "settled by now". Why would it EVER be settled? The individuals keep coming and going, and choosing their preferences along the way. Which is completely logical, and reasonable, when no proof or probability can be ascertained. The validity of their choices rest on their individual criteria, and their personal results. Exactly as they should, under the circumstances.

Which is why I don't understand why atheists seem to think, and insist, that it's some sort of logical "flaw" that theists conceptualize their gods each in their own ways.

 

[Valjean]

Atheists don't believe in god, right? And I ask what is a god. They can't come up with an answer that is either reasonable or at least widely accepted.
When they state they don't know, they are beyond atheism, they are Agnostics.

Atheists don't generally believe in the unevidenced. They tend to be more reasonable and logical than the faithful.

It's not up to us to define "god." Give us any definition you like, and if there's no evidence for it, we'll withhold belief.

 

[Valjean]

Then just tell me as to what does mean "Athe" without adding ism to it, please. Right?

Regards

It's from Greek. "A" means without. "Theo" means "God," with the "o" dropped for a smooth liaison with "ism" since it starts with a vowel.

 

[tarasan]

Unlimited power.

I like to further explain it this way though: Imagine you want to eat some cake. You can choose to bake a cake yourself or to buy one, for example.

No matter which way you choose you will need to take steps towards your goal. Being omnipotent means you don't need to take any steps towards any given goal, you can get whatever you want right away.

Ok well let me tell you what Christians have believed about omnipotence, essentially the bases of these beliefs cam from an old monk about 900ish years ago called anslem. Ever heard of the onotological arguement? That anslem. So he was the first one who first really thought of the perfect people or "the being that is the greatest that be conceived." ( I think that's how he put it.)

So anyway he defined the who possess omnipotence as being the source of all power (the only reason strength exists or that u have strength is because God imbues strength into creation, if I want I can go into more depth than this but maybe it would be better to make that another discussion if so) it also means that he can do everything that is logically possible. The reason why can only do the logically possible is because the Christian god is the god of order, and he imbues that order into creation ( it's why things pretty much are able to exist). It's also very important for the Christian god to be like this because in the nature of Christianity god is relational, however if god could do the logically impossible he would become impossible to have a relationship with. E.g. the Bible could be true but every word of it a lie, god could be omnibenelovent and omnimalevolent etc.

 

[Koldo]

We don't need to reach any "conclusions". We can simply choose to trust that the assertion that God exists is true (in whatever way we choose to conceive of it being so). And we can base this choice, logically, on the fact that we have no proof or probability, either way. And can therefor decide based on some OTHER criteria: like personal desire, or personal need, and/or practical results. (Note: we can also choose to trust that the assertion is false.)

Then my answer would be that I have no personal desire, nor personal need, nor practical results to believe that God exists or doesn't exist. And, that I don't find any of those criteria to be good at figuring out what is true or false.

No, it's a personal preference. Which is why I don;t understand why you would expect such to be "settled by now". Why would it EVER be settled? The individuals keep coming and going, and choosing their preferences along the way. Which is completely logical, and reasonable, when no proof or probability can be ascertained. The validity of their choices rest on their individual criteria, and personal results. Exactly as they should be under the circumstances.

Which is why I don't understand why atheists seem to think, and insist, that it's some sort of logical "flaw" that theists conceptualize their gods each in their own ways.

I would expect it to be settled by now because revelation is a major point in abrahamic religions. I would expect a revelation to settle the dispute, but rather than uniting people each new purported revelation only divides them.