Present arguments for atheism

[Jared Jammer]

Atheism is not agnosticism.

Atheism is not a statement of neutrality.

Atheism doesn't say that God may or may not exist.

Atheism says that God does not exist. This statement logically demands something other than God being the explanation for existence.

Atheists have to present a positive, testable argument for this something other than God. They have to make the case that this something is a superior explanation to God.


This entire debate can be summed up like this:

Question 1: What Explains Existence?

Theism: God

Atheism: Not God (read: Something Other Than God)

Agnosticism: Maybe God; Maybe Something Other Than God


Question 2: Which of theism or atheism presents the strongest argument for their conclusion?

If you feel the theist presents the strongest argument, then side with theism.
If you feel the atheist presents the strongest argument, then side with atheism.
If you feel neither position presents a strong argument, then side with agnosticism.​

If atheists refuse to present a compelling argument for atheism, then they have no chance of winning the debate. Even if the theist's argument fails, without a compelling argument for atheism, you end up in agnosticism, not atheism.

So, why don't atheists present a compelling argument for atheism? Why must they pretend atheism is synonymous with agnosticism?

It's simple: There is no compelling argument for atheism.

 

[Demonslayer]

Atheists have to present a positive, testable argument for this something other than God.

Shouldn't theists have to do the same?

 

[Jared Jammer]

Shouldn't theists have to do the same?

Of course.

Theists have to present a compelling argument for God.
Atheists have to present a compelling argument for not God.
Agnosticism is where you end up if neither of the above happens.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is not agnosticism.

Correct.

Atheism is not a statement of neutrality.

Correct. It's no statement. It's an absence of belief.

Atheism doesn't say that God may or may not exist.

Correct.

Atheism says that God does not exist.

No it doesn't. A GNOSTIC ATHEIST says gods don't exist.

Atheists have to present a positive, testable argument for this something other than God.

No they don't. Just because somebody don't share your belief doesn't mean they have to argue for something other than what you believe.

If atheists refuse to present a compelling argument for atheism, then they have no chance of winning the debate. Even if the theist's argument fails

If the theist's argument fails and doesn't make you believe god(s) exist you're an atheist.

So, why don't atheists present a compelling argument for atheism?

Because atheism is just the absence of theism and not a belief to argue for.

Why must they pretend atheism is synonymous with agnosticism?

LOL. Nobody pretends that. Atheism is the absence of belief, agnosticism is the absence of knowledge.

 

[McBell]

Atheism doesn't say that God may or may not exist.

Really?
Then what label is to be used describing people who have no belief either way?

 

[ArtieE]

Theists have to present a compelling argument for God.

No they don't. All they have to do to be theists is to believe that one or more gods exist.

Atheists have to present a compelling argument for not God.

No they don't. All they have to do is not be theists.

Agnosticism is where you end up if neither of the above happens.

Nonsense. Agnosticism is when you don't know whether god(s) exist or not and you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

 

[McBell]

Of course.

Theists have to present a compelling argument for God.
Atheists have to present a compelling argument for not God.
Agnosticism is where you end up if neither of the above happens.

I am an atheist (one who does not believe god exists or does not exist) and I am not required to present any argument to held such a lack of beliefs.

 

[Milton Platt]

Present your argument for atheism.

There is not sufficient evidence for the existence of any of the gods thus far proposed. That is the only arguement really necessary.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, you don't understand the question? It seems pretty simple. I am merely asking whether God's existence is dependent on our belief or whether God exists apart from any mind. It is certainly a valid question, and I am merely asking for your belief on the subject, not evidence or proof.

Your claim here is illogical and contradictory as well. If God does not exist, and someone chooses to believe that God does exist, their believe is incorrect. How do you reconcile this and still claim that your reasoning is logically coherent?

I explained that questions about what the agency of a decision is require a chosen answer. I explained how it makes the concept of choosing dysfunction when the answer is forced.

Your reply is that you insist the answer must be forced. Either the conclusion God is real is forced, because of the other conclusion being wrong, or viceversa.

That is not argumentation, that is simply saying is too the answer about what makes the decision turn out A in stead of B must be forced.

Why must it? Well it must because of the dictionary, because that's the way it is. It is claims about authority. But it is shown that the concept of choosing then ceases to function because of contradiction between freedom and force. To which problem you then reply with does not.

Is too forced, does not dysfunction, because you will it, but logic says otherwise.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is very easy to understand. It seperates the objective aspect of whether someone was, in fact, honest in a statement they made, and the subjective opinion formed as to whether someone else was honest.

You erroneously point to this statement as showing that I see honesty as objective: "Whether someone was honest is objective". But, this is merely due to your issues with reading comprehension. Here is another simple example.

A knows that 1+1=2. A states that 1+1=3. A was dishonest (objective).

A knows that 1+1=2. A states to B that 1+1=3. B assumes that A knew that he was stating something that is incorrect. B's opinion is that A was dishonest (subjective).

It's just a circus clown act of contradictions. And now, do the same rules apply to beauty? You say no, which means you have several definitions for objectivity and several definitions for subjectivity. You've got no working conceptual scheme.

 

[Milton Platt]

No they don't. All they have to do to be theists is to believe that one or more gods exist.No they don't. All they have to do is not be theists.Nonsense. Agnosticism is when you don't know whether god(s) exist or not and you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Well, you are correct there. I guess the problem arises when theists ask others to believe what they believe and cannot offer sufficient evidence for the belief. The result is an atheist....one who lacks a belief in a deity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Of course.

Theists have to present a compelling argument for God.
Atheists have to present a compelling argument for not God.
Agnosticism is where you end up if neither of the above happens.

It is wrong. The problem is that atheists reject subjectivity altogether. Beauty, love God, good and evil, like Sheldon and mister Spock, atheists all regard them as issues of fact. So now the atheists have got you where they want you, arguing for the existence of God as a factual issue like any other factual issue.

If somebody expresses a feeling of emptiness about their own heart, and also believes the hearts of other people are empty, and society generally, and emptiness in regards to the animals, and the plants, and the universe, and the spiritual domain entirely, then such an expression is pathetic beyond belief and morally reprehensible, but it is still logically valid. The existence of God is a matter of opinion, and reasoning about the existence of God can involve refereces to morality, references to majestic divine beauty, etc. etc. but no reference to measuring or objectifying God.

 

[Willamena]

Really?
Then what label is to be used describing people who have no belief either way?

In regards to such people, surely a label about belief in god isn't required.

 

[Quintessence]

This entire debate can be summed up like this:

Question 1: What Explains Existence?

Theism: God

Atheism: Not God (read: Something Other Than God)

Agnosticism: Maybe God; Maybe Something Other Than God​

​

Interesting. If it is the case that the entire debate can be summed up with this question, then I am incorrect to self-identify as a theist. Nor would it be correct to call myself an atheist or an agnostic. I would be whatever "I really don't give a damn about this question" is called.

Of course, this makes it rather apparent that the entire debate can't be summed up like the above. While classical monotheist theologies fixate on the notion of a creator god, this is not the case with other types of theism.

Well-composed post, by the way. I like it, even though I don't follow it.

 

[dust1n]

Atheism is not agnosticism.

Atheism is not a statement of neutrality.

Atheism doesn't say that God may or may not exist.

Atheism says that God does not exist. This statement logically demands something other than God being the explanation for existence.

Atheists have to present a positive, testable argument for this something other than God. They have to make the case that this something is a superior explanation to God.


This entire debate can be summed up like this:

Question 1: What Explains Existence?

Theism: God

Atheism: Not God (read: Something Other Than God)

Agnosticism: Maybe God; Maybe Something Other Than God


Question 2: Which of theism or atheism presents the strongest argument for their conclusion?

If you feel the theist presents the strongest argument, then side with theism.
If you feel the atheist presents the strongest argument, then side with atheism.
If you feel neither position presents a strong argument, then side with agnosticism.​

If atheists refuse to present a compelling argument for atheism, then they have no chance of winning the debate. Even if the theist's argument fails, without a compelling argument for atheism, you end up in agnosticism, not atheism.

So, why don't atheists present a compelling argument for atheism? Why must they pretend atheism is synonymous with agnosticism?

It's simple: There is no compelling argument for atheism.

Do you have a compelling argument against fairies?

 

[McBell]

In regards to such people, surely a label about belief in god isn't required.

One would think so.
However, with their evident obsession with labels, do you honestly think he does not have one?

 

[Yerda]

It's simple: There is no compelling argument for atheism.

There is one in my mind and it is this: There is no compelling argument for theism.

There may well be compelling reasons to be a theist but I doubt these reasons are amendable to argument or we'd probably all be theists.

 

[ArtieE]

It is wrong. The problem is that atheists reject subjectivity altogether. Beauty

Nonsense. One definition of "beauty" is: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." I am an atheist and I find some things beautiful and pleasing to my "aesthetic senses" so how can you say I "reject subjectivity"?

If somebody expresses a feeling of emptiness about their own heart, and also believes the hearts of other people are empty, and society generally, and emptiness in regards to the animals, and the plants, and the universe, and the spiritual domain entirely, then such an expression is pathetic beyond belief and morally reprehensible,

What's that go to do with atheism?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is one in my mind and it is this: There is no compelling argument for theism.

There may well be compelling reasons to be a theist but I doubt these reasons are amendable to argument or we'd probably all be theists.

Belief in God comes with normal subjectivity. It is very evident that people who reject belief in God have a problem with subjectivity in general, which is shown by that besides not believing in God, they also objectify love and hate, they deny free will, and make good and evil into a matter of fact.

 

[ArtieE]

The existence of God is a matter of opinion, and reasoning about the existence of God can involve refereces to morality, references to majestic divine beauty, etc. etc. but no reference to measuring or objectifying God.

So if God actually shows up in the flesh and is promptly taken into custody and charged with innumerable crimes against humanity such as genocide as described in the Bible would his existence still be a "matter of opinion"?