Favourite Atheist arguments

[halbhh]

I did, later in the thread but again.

Childhood leukaemia
The futility of prayer
The anopheles mosquito
The marmot

Here's the explanation given:

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 16:19-31 - New International Version

 

[Valjean]

The issue I seem to having with these athiests is that they seem to not know their history, Anthoney Flew proposed their view in I think 1973.

Before him it was very much a philosophical issue with the three houses answering the question does god exist. Thiesm Said yes, agnostics said I don't know/can't know and athiesm said no. It was very much based on knowledge with each house making arguments for and against.

Flew however said it was not a belief but a lack of belief which took athiesm away from the domain of knowing something and instead being as the Stanford encyclopedia states a psychological state.

Now don't get me wrong this has not usurped the old definition. Far from it, some athiests actually find it more productive to use the original definition of athiesm.

I suppose the issue I have among other people is trying to conflate the now "lack of belief" of a good to agnosticism. Agnosticism like the original athiest definition is a knowledge claim, saying there is not enough information either way to make a judgement. This is of course incomparable with the new athiest definition as it does not operate within that realm, to lack belief in God literally means to lack knowledge or lack of a proposition. This doesn't mix with a view that is literally the opposite of it. Something that makes a proposition, claims knowledge. The idea of a agnostic athiest or a agnostic thiest makes sense when all three definitions are in the same category as a knowledge claim as one could imagine a sliding scale of certainty between yes-i don't know- no. This however cannot happen however with the new definition.

I mean there are advantages to the definition because to never hold a position is to never to wrong, however it is also challenging to truly engage the thiest because to cannot make a proposal to challenge his. The thiest could throw everything and the kitchen sink at u argument wise but in order to gain an advantage you would have to have some of your own. Which the new athiest camp can't do. A good defence not a great attack. Now that might be fair enough for some of you I'm not saying there is anything particularly wrong with that just an observation.

From what I have seen personally some athiests try and circumvent this by making a purposition, then when the thiest engages, hides back under the new atheist definition. While I'm not accusing anyone specifically here of doing that it has definitely happened to me and it is especially infuriating.

As with any issue that comes under serious logical, philosophical or scientific inquiry, terms need to be clarified and formalized. This has now been done with atheism, since it's become a serious issue.
Why is this a problem?

 

[ChristineM]

If there were no life after death, then 'god' would be only a myth, and a myth about an evil 'god' at that. (though it's illogical in that 'God' is practically defined as the one who wakens everyone from death)


If there is life after death, where those that suffer here temporarily live in bliss for a vastly longer time, then God is good.

(I'll post a good explanation in story form, from Christ, in a minute)

I will go with the science. Personally speaking it seems far preferable to prospect of being in some heaven for an eternity locked in with some of the supecillioilus and occasionally violent religious folk i have met in my time

 

[lukethethird]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Here, shoot it with my invisible ray gun.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Here, shoot it with my invisible ray gun.

Not me.

 

[lukethethird]

Not me.

Nor I.

 

[tarasan]

As with any issue that comes under serious logical, philosophical or scientific inquiry, terms need to be clarified and formalized. This has now been done with atheism, since it's become a serious issue.
Why is this a problem?

Did u not read my post, there are two definitions of it. One that is in alignment with agnostic and thiest in terms of asking the question "is there a god?" And the other that is a psychological state. I never said there was a problem I merely pointed out the differences between the two approaches the positives and negatives and then how two atheists danced between the two of them unsuccessfully to try and have their cake and eat it too. How was I identifying a problem?

 

[Valjean]

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

????? -- You don't want to discuss it so it's of no consequence?

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?

STOP IT!
This is a straw man. This is not what atheists are asserting. You're arguing from your own fantasy.

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.

It is reasonable not to believe in Mother Goose, unicorns or the FSM. Why? No evidence. How is this not reasonable?

 

[Valjean]

Did u not read my post, there are two definitions of it. One that is in alignment with agnostic and thiest in terms of asking the question "is there a god?"

???? -- Please explain this.

And the other that is a psychological state. I never said there was a problem I merely pointed out the differences between the two approaches the positives and negatives and then how two atheists danced between the two of them unsuccessfully to try and have their cake and eat it too. How was I identifying a problem?

Huh? Atheism has nothing to do with a psychological state. Why do you say that? Explain. Atheism is an ontological state. It's an epistemic position, demonstrated mathematically, ie: logically.
Why are you making not believing in something with no supporting evidence controversial? It seems a simple and logical issue to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

???? -- Please explain this.
Huh? Atheism has nothing to do with a psychological state. Why do you say that? Explain. Atheism is an ontological state. It's an epistemic position, demonstrated mathematically, ie: logically.
Why are you making not believing in something with no supporting evidence controversial? It seems a simple and logical issue to me.

Because atheism doesn't need that adage of "not believing in something with no supporting evidence". It is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. That is a psychological state because it is a state in the brain of the atheist.

 

[Valjean]

Did u not read my post, there are two definitions of it. One that is in alignment with agnostic and thiest in terms of asking the question "is there a god?" And the other that is a psychological state. I never said there was a problem I merely pointed out the differences between the two approaches the positives and negatives and then how two atheists danced between the two of them unsuccessfully to try and have their cake and eat it too. How was I identifying a problem?

You're making up definitions to fit your predetermined conclusion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're making up definitions to fit your predetermined conclusion.

So what is your definition of atheism?

 

[PureX]

This is an argument from ignorance. You're asking for proof of an negative.

How on Earth did you interpret that post as my "asking for proof"??? My whole point is that proof is not possible. Neither is reasoned probability. So demanding these is just pointless and irrational. Thus, we must make our decisions/choices based on something else. And that something else ends up being personal need, desire, and effectiveness. Which is quite reasonable and logical given the circumstances.

Lack of evidence isn't evidence. There's lack of evidence for Cthulu, the FSM, unicorns and the Easter bunny, too. Do you seriously consider these credible till disproved?

The "evidence" depends on the criteria we used to make our choice. And that tends to be personal. How are you not understanding this? There is no objective proof. There is no universal objective physical evidence. There can be no establishment of probability because of this. So the decision becomes personal, and the "evidence" becomes subjective. And that's as true of the atheist as the theist, because they are both facing the same unresolved proposition.

Huh? What does individual conceptualization have to do with anything? Belief in anything with no evidence of its existence is unreasonable.

I don't care about "belief". I am not discussing "belief". I am discussion the proposition that a God/gods exist, and thereby can affect our existence. It is a proposition that cannot be proven, examined, or evidenced by "objective" means. Which means we have to decide our position in relation to the proposition based on some other criteria. And that criteria will not be "objective" because there is no way to determine the validity of the proposition objectively. That criteria will be subjective because that's the only avenue we have left through which to make a determination.

Are you following this so far?

 

[Valjean]

Did u not read my post, there are two definitions of it. One that is in alignment with agnostic and thiest in terms of asking the question "is there a god?" And the other that is a psychological state. I never said there was a problem I merely pointed out the differences between the two approaches the positives and negatives and then how two atheists danced between the two of them unsuccessfully to try and have their cake and eat it too. How was I identifying a problem?

That's the problem. You can find dozens of definitions of atheism. That makes it impossible to discuss. So philosophers and atheists have decided on a single, unambiguous definition.
Sorry if this is a problem and interferes with your strawmen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's the problem. You can find dozens of definitions of atheism. That makes it impossible to discuss. So philosophers and atheists have decided on a single, unambiguous definition.
Sorry if this is a problem and interferes with your strawmen.

So what do I as an atheist have decided on?

 

[tarasan]

You're making up definitions to fit your predetermined conclusion.

Mate u don't know what u are talking about. I was around whenever thiests where is disputing this cliam

That's the problem. You can find dozens of definitions of atheism. That makes it impossible to discuss. So philosophers and atheists have decided on a single, unambiguous definition.
Sorry if this is a problem and interferes with your strawmen.

No they havn't

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheismagnosticism/

Mate this is common knowledge I can't just denie certian things and give no information on the subject. Originally it was about knowledge then flew tried another definition.

That's the problem. You can find dozens of definitions of atheism. That makes it impossible to discuss. So philosophers and atheists have decided on a single, unambiguous definition.
Sorry if this is a problem and interferes with your strawmen.

Mate typically athiesm concerns itself with knowledge of a certain thing most of the definitions align itself with that and concern itself with how it relates to the three pillars. Anthony Flews definition removes itself from that equasion. The idea that u can disregard what a typically well understood definition of athiesm that is used regularly today with something as small as "positive atheism" is crazy to me.

 

[PureX]

????? -- You don't want to discuss it so it's of no consequence?

We cannot discuss an idea that has not been expressed. ... Because it has not been expressed. We cannot discuss your "unbelief" because it has no content to be discussed. It's an empty label. A non-statement. Being an atheist because you "unbelieve" someone else's belief is just meaningless negation. There's no substance to it until you explain why you reject their proposition.

I assume that you reject the theist's proposition because you have chosen to hold the position that no gods exist until and unless they can be shown to exist, to you. But that assumes that if a God/gods did exist, they COULD be shown to be existing, and that you COULD recognize the evidence of their existence when it's shown to you. These are totally unfounded and illogical presumptions given the general definition of a 'god' (the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is). And yet you continue to stand on those expectations, vociferously, even when this is pointed out to you. Why?

 

[tarasan]

That's the problem. You can find dozens of definitions of atheism. That makes it impossible to discuss. So philosophers and atheists have decided on a single, unambiguous definition.
Sorry if this is a problem and interferes with your strawmen.

This is something the enclyideas discuss as the original meaning how is that a straw man?

 

[Valjean]

Because atheism doesn't need that adage of "not believing in something with no supporting evidence". It is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. That is a psychological state because it is a state in the brain of the atheist.

A belief or disbelief is not a psychological state.

 

[Valjean]

So what is your definition of atheism?

The same as everyone else's. Lack of belief in unevidenced, supernatural entities, of any description.