Present arguments for atheism

[Iti oj]

The general reasons you gave are merely subjective. They may convince you , but they don't convince me.

Adding on to my previous post. No its not subjective,either this evidence for god or there is not. Even personal subjective evidence holds to this, if as a materialist persist that personal experiences can be explained through physiological and psychological means, then your opinion on that does not change anything. Is god need is also not subjective because either god is or is not needed.


As for convincing you, untill you tell us what and why you believe thats impossible.

atheism is not a stance but a stance against.

 

[Desert Snake]

Adding on to my previous post. No its not subjective,either this evidence for god or there is not. Even personal subjective evidence holds to this, if as a materialist persist that personal experiences can be explained through physiological and psychological means, then your opinion on that does not change anything. Is god need is also not subjective because either god is or is not needed.

You can't merely declare that, however. So, it's subjective. As for evidence, you may not have any for Deity, so what? You may have evidence for Santa Claus, who knows, that's what makes it subjective. You can't assume a stance of knowledge, here, ie you can't set other arguments against yours. as if yours are some sort of ''fact'' standard.

As for convincing you, untill you tell us what and why you believe thats impossible.

atheism is not a stance but a stance against.

Well, no, if it means anything, then it has to be a stance, ie it would have to have at least 'one meaning', that is consistent. Hence, because I do not adhere to Thor, does not make me an atheist; no one would say that. I could only be an atheist if believed or adhered to no deities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see it as ignorance if the knowledge is currently unobtainable or never will be. Can you be ignorant to the unknowable?

Ah - you don't know what an argument from ignorance is.

Yes, you're still committing a logical fallacy even if it's impossible to know the thing you claim.

We understand life as humanly as possible - or did you mean, 'you don't understand the origin of life,"

Close enough.

to which religion offers an answer.

Does it? Or does it just push the hard questions back a step?

No, I don't see it as a problem. Religion offers an answer.

IOW, you claim that it would be a problem if not for religion, and you claim that religion offers an answer.

Do I believe the Divine is behind the origin of life? Yes.

I get that you believe in some sort of god. Does this belief help you to explain the origin of life? If you don't understand the god(s) you're assuming, the answer is no.

So... do you understand your gods? Has assuming a god helped your understanding, or have you just slapped the label "god" on something you don't understand anyway?

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

Hello @Cap'n MacDougal,



I hope my statement did not create the assumption that my belief in the Divine will diminish if we find the origins of life itself. As I said before, I see no problem with believing science can explain how the universe works but was developed by a supernatural force.



For the most part, religious explanations that I believe and come across follows along the lines of Divine Will. And with Kemetics, Divine Intelligence, Divine Energy, and Divine Utterance. Religion offers explanations much like science offers hypotheses. Neither can currently be proven.

Not to worry, I made no such assumption! I apologize for lacking clarity, I'll attempt to explain another way:

Using the origin of the universe as an example, we postulate some mechanism(s) of causation. It is here that I find the proposition of "there is not a specific natural mechanism, or set of mechanisms which has been proven, so I believe Deity X is the creator" to be problematic.

I find it to be problematic due to the religious adherent's lack of ability to explain the mechanisms which are employed by their deity to bring about the act(s) of creation, while requesting a certain degree of specificity from the competing natural hypothesis. E.g., you say Divine Will, Energy, and Utterance bring about creation? What is the psychophysical mechanism, or set of mechanisms which is employed? If there is no specificity to be found regarding these mechanisms, then there is nothing more than the trade of a natural puzzle for a Divine metaphysical puzzle.

Which, is perfectly fine with me, really. However, I think we'd agree that belief alone is a poor determinant of truth. Further, that not all beliefs are veridical. Generalizing (for the sake of discussion) "our" two methodologies (science and religion) as competing between natural and supernatural, it would seem to be prudent to examine which methodology has generated (to date, of course) the greatest amount of success by means of explanatory and predictive power regarding the causation of natural phenomena.

It is a brute fact that scientific endeavor has yielded a greater workable body of knowledge, as a useful tool for understanding various natural phenomena, than religion. Of course, this does not mean that this body of knowledge has, or ever will have, all answers to all questions. Still, this success is acknowledged by religions, as supernatural causation continues to be relocated (via raising epistemic taxes) to unknowns. Or, incredibly-difficult-to-be-knowns.

I do understand that your belief will hold in the presence of a defeater, such as natural causation of the origin of universe. As I said, self-validating belief systems are complete with built-in immunization strategies, and are incredibly tenacious! Which is why I agreed with you, religious folks will always possess an "argument" for their belief.

 

[Looncall]

I don't see it as ignorance if the knowledge is currently unobtainable or never will be. Can you be ignorant to the unknowable?



We understand life as humanly as possible - or did you mean, 'you don't understand the origin of life," to which religion offers an answer.



No, I don't see it as a problem. Religion offers an answer.



Do I believe the Divine is behind the origin of life? Yes.

Religions offers quite a lot. The problem is that almost none of what it offers can be verified. Consequently, it falls into the category of "made up stuff".

 

[Iti oj]

You can't merely declare that, however. So, it's subjective. As for evidence, you may not have any for Deity, so what? You may have evidence for Santa Claus, who knows, that's what makes it subjective. You can't assume a stance of knowledge, here, ie you can't set other arguments against yours. as if yours are some sort of ''fact'' standard.




Well, no, if it means anything, then it has to be a stance, ie it would have to have at least 'one meaning', that is consistent. Hence, because I do not adhere to Thor, does not make me an atheist; no one would say that. I could only be an atheist if believed or adhered to no deities.

Why can't i? and occams razor suggest i can.

Your 'point' about santa clause is ridiculous. It can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt there is no santa nothing subjective about it. Facts exist. As for atheism, atheism is not making a claim but rejecting a claim. Either god exist and there is evidence for God or gods or there is not. Nothing subjective about that.

No, thats not even slightly clear, are you a bible literal?A yec? What do you view the bible as being? Most importsntly you still have not said why you believe.

an atheist does not believe in God or gods, but the reason for that are as varied as the gods being rejected.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why can't i? and occams razor suggest i can.

Your 'point' about santa clause is ridiculous. It can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt there is no santa nothing subjective about it. Facts exist. As for atheism, atheism is not making a claim but rejecting a claim. Either god exist and there is evidence for God or gods or there is not. Nothing subjective about that.

No, thats not even slightly clear, are you a bible literal?A yec? What do you view the bible as being? Most importsntly you still have not said why you believe.

an atheist does not believe in God or gods, but the reason for that are as varied as the gods being rejected.

Semantics. You can't be an atheist and a non-atheist at the same time.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that almost none of what it offers can be verified. Consequently, it falls into the category of "made up stuff".

So everything that can't be verified should be considered 'made up stuff'? I suggest we consider claims (not blindly accept or blindly reject because they can't be verified). The quantity, quality and consistency of claims tells me things. I believe in several types of paranormal phenomena for these reasons.

 

[ArtieE]

Semantics. You can't be an atheist and a non-atheist at the same time.

In general, a theist is a person who believes in the existence of one or more gods. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in the existence of any gods. A Christian can be said to be 99.99% atheist in that he doesn't believe in the existence of exactly the same gods the atheist doesn't believe exist, with one single exception to the rule.

 

[Iti oj]

Semantics. You can't be an atheist and a non-atheist at the same time.

how is that even a response to what i said? did you even read my post? Still ignoring my request, question and points. why did you make this thread?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Either god exist and there is evidence for God or gods or there is not. Nothing subjective about that.

A proper subjective term, like beauty, is defined in terms of agency of a decision. Agency is what makes a decision turn out the way it does. So if a decision can turn out A or B, and the choice turns out A, then the agency of the decision is what took care of it that the choice turned out A. If X is defined in terms of agency of decisions, then you can get no evidence for it. Beauty is a love for the way something looks, love is agency of a decision, therefore beauty is a proper subjective term. And by and large, God is also defined in terms of agency. With all subjective terms one can only reach the conclusion whether they are real or not, by choosing the answer. It is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is to say the painting is ugly.

The reason no facts can be obtained about agency of a decision, is because facts use a logic of being forced, while agency uses a logic of freedom. A fact is in essence a model of something. The facts about the moon for instance, in a book about it, are a 1 to 1 copy of the moon to a form of words, pictures and mathematics. The actual moon is the cause, and the book about the moon containing the facts about it is the forced effect of that cause.

Then obviously, agency, since it is free per definition, because it chooses, one can never apply the logic of fact to it. To say it is a matter of fact what the agency of a decision is, and so to impose the logic of being forced on agency, breaks down the concept of choosing.

You can see this is true in that for most all intellectual atheists, the concept of choosing has broken down. They say free will is not real, or say it is an illusion, or they give the definition of choosing a logic of being forced. An atheist will generally, besides not acknowledging any god, also not acknowledge the existence of the human spirit or soul. Generally they will not acknowledge anything real what is not a matter of fact issue. This then leaves a problem for atheists, to acknowledge if love or hate are real or not, because love and hate are agency, so they cannot be fact. So what atheists will do in stead is to look at what is reasonably judged as an expression of love, like for instance a hug. They then look at the brain processes which are associated to hugging and such, and then they will call these brainprocesses the real love, and the hugging an expression of it. However the brainprocesses themselves are also simply expression only, and it is categorically a matter of opinion what the agency of them is.

 

[Desert Snake]

how is that even a response to what i said? did you even read my post? Still ignoring my request, question and points. why did you make this thread?

Your questions are off topic. Merely because you disagree with say one individuals religious beliefs, means nothing for the position of atheism. Atheism has to include all the deity ideas, period. My personal beliefs aside from the theism are basically off topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So the sun is evidence of a flaming chariot crossing the sky, and earthquakes are dragons stirring underground?
Just because a phenomenon isn't yet understood isn't evidence for the various myths concerning it.
Note that religion doesn't explain life either -- it just asserts the existence of a magical agent that poofed it into being.

The only way I can make sense of the word "evidence" is as sonething like "facts that can be used to support the case for a given claim."

In that light, all sorts of wild (and false) claims are supported by evidence.

That there is a flaming thing in the sky is a critical element of the case for a flaming chariot in the sky, so yes, the Sun is evidence for a flaming chariot in the sky. It's definitely not conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.

 

[Iti oj]

Your questions are off topic. Merely because you disagree with say one individuals religious beliefs, means nothing for the position of atheism. Atheism has to include all the deity ideas, period. My personal beliefs aside from the theism are basically off topic.

what your asking for is impossible. Since my reason for rejecting a theistic stance depends entirely on the stance being rejected. I have told you this multiple times, several other members have told you this. You can not refuse to give detail then complain about lack of detailed responses.


Its not off topic since my explanation for why i don't believe what you believe depends on what you believe.

theism is not unified and i can't give you a singular answer to a plural topic. Many have told you this, thats why i said the op is a trap.

Why did you make this thread?

 

[Looncall]

So everything that can't be verified should be considered 'made up stuff'? I suggest we consider claims (not blindly accept or blindly reject because they can't be verified). The quantity, quality and consistency of claims tells me things. I believe in several types of paranormal phenomena for these reasons.

Quality and consistency of personal experiences surely tells us something, I agree. The question is what it tells us something about; something supernatural or something about human psychology? The big problem is how to tell which it is.

If a proposition cannot be, or has not yet been, verified or falsified, I think one should suspend judgement about its truth. My own response to claims of the supernatural is "I am not (yet) convinced.".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Quality and consistency of personal experiences surely tells us something, I agree. The question is what it tells us something about; something supernatural or something about human psychology? The big problem is how to tell which it is.

If a proposition cannot be, or has not yet been, verified or falsified, I think one should suspend judgement about its truth. My own response to claims of the supernatural is "I am not (yet) convinced.".

All those words related to subjectivity, like beauty, have been invented in common discourse, not science. They have a logic in common discourse, a logic of freedom, which makes it categorically impossible that it can ever be a fact. The supernatural is thus ordinary, and no case can be made against it, as much as nobody can avoid subjectivity in common discourse.

 

[Iti oj]

You are essentially saying that atheism does not exist except as a condition and therefore limited, to specific arguments. This means that ''atheism'' means nothing more than disagreeing with a certain theistic viewpoint, and hence leaving open the possibility to adhere to any number of other deities. So, the question is, what's your point? Because you aren't arguing for atheism, you merely want to debate specific theisms. This thread is for people who reject all notions of deities//gods/, of any sort, any religion, and have or want to present arguments in that context.

so you have not read or just did not understand anything I have said to you?

atheism is a position against theism there is no arguments for atheism only those against theism, i have different arguments for different positions.
What don't you understand?

 

[Willamena]

so you have not read or just did not understand anything I have said to you?

atheism is a position against theism there is no arguments for atheism only those against theism, i have different arguments for different positions.
What don't you understand?

If it has no argument, then it cannot be for or against.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Present your argument for atheism.

Because no God would impose the indignity of being mortal.

 

[George-ananda]

Quality and consistency of personal experiences surely tells us something, I agree. The question is what it tells us something about; something supernatural or something about human psychology? The big problem is how to tell which it is.

I actually can agree with this. But that is why I also look for things that can not be explained away as 'human psychology'; verifiable knowledge that couldn't reasonably have been learned through normal means, independent multiple witnesses, etc.. These are the things that have convinced me that something interesting is really going on.