Favourite Atheist arguments

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a problem when we're talking about two different things with the same name, thinking we're talking about the same thing.
The definition I use is the definition generally accepted by modern university philosophy and theology departments, and by atheists themselves.
Decide what we're actually talking about at the outset.
LOL! -- I say "we" because there are several of us in here saying the same thing, and I didn't want to selfishly arrogate all the credit myself.

Okay, we as you and I respectively don't use the same definition, so we are not a we in a sense. I don't see that as a problem, because we have figured out that we use different definitions. Yet we can still communicate and we can agree, that we don't use the same definition.

 

[Valjean]

Mate I was describing two different definitions of athiesm one is a positive claim while the other is the lack of belief in God if u only agree with one that's fine. I got these definitions from an academic encyclopedia. I understand that there are definitions of athiesm but these are the most common two.

A positive claim would need evidence, but as "atheism," unmodified, is currently used by academics and atheists themselves, it's the default absence of belief we're all born with.
It's only recently that atheism has become a hot academic and philosophical topic, so it's only recently that a received, technical nomenclature has been developed.

 

[Valjean]

Okay, we as you and I respectively don't use the same definition, so we are not a we in a sense. I don't see that as a problem, because we have figured out that we use different definitions. Yet we can still communicate and we can agree, that we don't use the same definition.

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together."
("Jeg er han som du er han som du er mig, og vi er alle sammen.")
-- John Lennon. Magical Mystery Tour.

 

[ChristineM]

Hey, just a moment. Marmots are cool!

Yes they are but they carry fleas, almost 700 years ago those fleas became infected with a disease the marmots were carrying. The resulting pandemic of black death killed between 75 and 200 million people.

 

[Valjean]

So one accepts , as is evident/evidenced from one's above expressions that:

Belief in God is the primary default position

No. A default position is a 'factory setting', in this case, the belief we're born with.
1. We're born with no belief. 2. No belief is atheism. 3. Therefore, atheism, not belief, is the default.

Non-belief is a superficial position

In what way? explain.
In this discussion, non-belief is a crucial concept.

and belief in God is a positive position

Please explain what you mean by "positive." If you mean positive in the sense of definite, then yes, belief is a positive/definite position.

and non-belief is a dependent one and hence

No. Non-belief depends on nothing, it's a blank slate, the original default.

is expression of negativity

How is non-belief either negative or positive? It's nothing, a perfect blank, with no qualities either negative or positive.

And is fallen from the original/basic one.

No. The original/basic one is what we're born with, that is, nothing, no belief, that is: atheism.

Regards[/QUOTE]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. A default position is a 'factory setting', in this case, the belief we're born with.
1. We're born with no belief. 2. No belief is atheism. 3. Therefore, atheism, not belief, is the default.
...

Technical not. We are not born atheists, because being an atheist requires the idea of deities and that you check that you lack the positive belief in some form of deity/deities.

Here is it goes. I have a coffee cup in front of me. That cup is an atheist, because it lacks a belief in deities. But that is meaningless, because it has no beliefs.
Likewise humans including babies, who lack the cognition to in effect hold a belief or lack of belief in a cognitive sense are not atheists.
If you ask a new born baby, if it was an atheist, it couldn't answer. Nor could it answer it is a theist.

A belief or lack of belief is only relevant if it applies as possible for a form of cognition, because atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. But belief requires a certain type of brain to be meaningful. A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true. Both 2 are cognitive and require a certain kind of brain.

 

[Valjean]

Belief is more a "default position," to use that terminology, if you believe in such, because for belief there has to be something to believe in. Not so much for disbelief, unless you swing that way.

The default position is the factory setting; the belief you were born with. Were you born with a belief? any belief?
No? -- Then you were born without belief; an atheist. Atheism is the default; the mental blank slate we all start with.

Now, I await your argument about the existence of nothing.

The default isn't a belief in nothing. It's no belief at all. It's the state you were born in.

Sufficience evidence equates to something to believe in.

Evidence is evidence. That's all it equates to. The choice to derive a belief from it is another matter.
Note that S.D. referred to "rational reasoning" derived belief. Now, a lot of people hold non-rational beliefs, derived from insufficient evidence, but he cited rational belief, derived post hoc, from sufficient evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

No words are " natural ". If you had followed this thread you would have understood how religious beliefs likely have an evolutionary base.
But all of that is besides the point. Let me see if I can get you to understand with some questions:
Do you believe in fairies? Why or why not?

Magenta ^.
That is another dogmatic question of the Atheism people they have been indoctrinated into, I understand.

Regards

 

[Valjean]

Yes they are but they carry fleas, almost 700 years ago those fleas became infected with a disease the marmots were carrying. The resulting pandemic of black death killed between 75 and 200 million people.

Fleabitten health hazards? I suppose they're lazy and shiftless, too?
This bigoted marmotism is uncalled for!
Marmot lives matter!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Note that S.D. referred to "rational reasoning" derived belief. Now, a lot of people hold non-rational beliefs, derived from insufficient evidence, but he cited rational belief, derived post hoc, from sufficient evidence.

Technically there are no strong rational reasoning possible as with strong logic, because all attempts of rationality run into Agrippa's Trilemma.
And like wise there is no strong evidence.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Evidence is a cognitive state of beliefs, that apparently works, but it is not the only cognitive state possible.

 

[tarasan]

A positive claim would need evidence, but as "atheism," unmodified, is currently used by academics and atheists themselves, it's the default absence of belief we're all born with.
It's only recently that atheism has become a hot academic and philosophical topic, so it's only recently that a received, technical nomenclature has been developed.

You have been using the term athiesm for quite some time man, I mean there is even dispute of which is best to use currently from my research.

Ok In my initial response I have two definitions of athiesm and explored then you accused me of using a strawman and then repeat the same definition I used....

I would say it's a popular definition especially in the non acedmic field but there is definitely a debate as to which is better especially given Flews definition has its limitations. Mate people were refering themselves as that kind of atheist for about half a century while it's recent in the grand scale of things is older than me by about 20 years.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have been using the term athiesm for quite some time man, I mean there is even dispute of which is best to use currently from my research.

Ok In my initial response I have two definitions of athiesm and explored then you accused me of using a strawman and then repeat the same definition I used....

I would say it's a popular definition especially in the non acedmic field but there is definitely a debate as to which is better especially given Flews definition has its limitations. Mate people were refering themselves as that kind of atheist for about half a century while it's recent in the grand scale of things is older than me by about 20 years.

There is no objectively better definition. I can't do that and neither can you. Stop claiming an authority that is not there.

 

[Koldo]

You really need to let go of this nonsense. It's a nowhere argument based on the fact that some humans think they hear the gods talking to them. And then other humans finding their own meaning meaning in the purported "revelations". It's a jacked up game of 'telephone'.

Revelations are a central part of abrahamic religions, a major pillar actually. It is one of the few things that most religious people can agree: God spoke to humanity.

If even that is wrong, people simply know nothing about God because most of the things they think they know came from those revelations.

Honestly, I think most people would simply become atheists if they believed as you do.

 

[Koldo]

When have we said that? Inasmuch as we don't believe in God, when would the question have come up? How would we be able to comment on the abilities of an imaginary being?

Can Superman be taken down with kryptonite?

 

[Valjean]

Technical not. We are not born atheists, because being an atheist requires the idea of deities and that you check that you lack the positive belief in some form of deity/deities.

Here is it goes. I have a coffee cup in front of me. That cup is an atheist, because it lacks a belief in deities. But that is meaningless, because it has no beliefs

I think you're making this needlessly complicated.
This has come up in previous threads and, as I recall, went unresolved.
I'm working from the simple, definition of "lack of belief," with no philosophical context. Anyone or anything without god-belief is a-theist. Whether it's 'meaningful' or not is immaterial; it's contextual, sure, but the concept is what it is with or without meaning.

Likewise humans including babies, who lack the cognition to in effect hold a belief or lack of belief in a cognitive sense are not atheists.
If you ask a new born baby, if it was an atheist, it couldn't answer. Nor could it answer it is a theist.

They are technically atheists, even if their atheism has no cognitive framework.
Maybe non-believer would be better?

A belief or lack of belief is only relevant if it applies as possible for a form of cognition, because atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. But belief requires a certain type of brain to be meaningful. A belief is an attitude that something is the case, or that some proposition about the world is true. Both 2 are cognitive and require a certain kind of brain.

But a lack of belief entails no such stipulation. It need not be meaningful in this sense. A belief may entail an attitude, but its absence need not.
How would you characterize an uncontacted Amazon tribe, with no concept of deity? Would they be termed atheists, even though they have no theistic context for their non-belief?

 

[Valjean]

Can Superman be taken down with kryptonite?

Green or red?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ism
See definition of ism *

• congregation
• denomination
• faith
• religion
• sect
• society
• affiliation
• body
• chapter
• communion
• connection
• creed
• cult
• doctrine
• faction
• gathering
• order
• persuasion
• schism

* noun
a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice:

Synonyms of ism | Thesaurus.com

Right friends, please?

Regards

The "a" stands for "not".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you're making this needlessly complicated.
This has come up in previous threads and, as I recall, went unresolved.
I'm working from the simple, definition of "lack of belief," with no philosophical context. Anyone or anything without god-belief is a-theist. Whether it's 'meaningful' or not is immaterial; it's contextual, sure, but the concept is what it is with or without meaning.

There are no concepts without meaning.

They are technically atheists, even if their atheism has no cognitive framework.
Maybe non-believer would be better?

Yes to me. But that is the joke. It is not exact, because we use different cognitive frameworks.

But a lack of belief entails no such stipulation. It need not be meaningful in this sense. A belief may entail an attitude, but its absence need not.
How would you characterize an uncontacted Amazon tribe, with no concept of deity? Would they be termed atheists, even though they have no theistic context for their non-belief?

Just describe what they are. E.g. animistic or whatever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is a proclaimed theological position (or it's irrelevant).

It is a position on the claim of theism. It's not a claim by itself.

And as such, it warrants justification

The only justification I need for my atheism, is that I'm not convinced of the claims of theism due to their not being sufficient evidence to warrant accepting them.

So my justification for atheism, is the lack of justification for theism.
It's theism here that has the burden proof.
Atheism is the logical result of pointing out that theism hasn't met its burden of proof.

If it's not being proclaimed, no one will know, and it will warrant no justification. When you proclaim your atheism in the face of a theological discussion, it does then warrant justification. If you do not proclaim this position, then obviously no justification would be needed.

My justification is that theism hasn't met its burden of proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you don't believe is irrelevant, and does not make you an atheist.

It does, if the thing that isn't being believed are the claims of theism.



Because that's what atheism is: not believing the claims of theism.

What makes you an atheist is believing that gods don't exist until they can be proven to exist

No.