Present arguments for atheism

[leibowde84]

Why would I /specifically, the theist position/ have something to prove, and, why would a theist, take that/your, position?

It's just the way it is. Your perception of it doesn't change the reality that, even if God doesn't exist, it would be impossible to prove.

 

[ArtieE]

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

atheism is a position against theism

No it isn't that would be anti-theism atheism is simply absence of theism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your questions are off topic. Merely because you disagree with say one individuals religious beliefs, means nothing for the position of atheism.

There is no "position of atheism". Atheism isn't one specific position; it's an umbrella term that applies to many positions.

Atheism has to include all the deity ideas, period.

No; a person is an atheist until they become convinced that some sort of theism is true. A person is justified being an atheist as long as they've never found a convincing reason to believe in a god, regardless of whether they've explored the issue.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Present your argument for atheism.

Simple: Theism fails.

 

[leibowde84]

///

And how is that my problem?

It just means that it doesn't support the position that God does exist. That's all.

 

[Erebus]

I've seen a lot of arguments for Atheism. To my mind, the one that makes the most sense is something along the lines of, "I don't need or want gods in my life." To my mind gods and religion (and let's not equate those two) should enrich your life. If you don't want/need one or the other, you shouldn't make them part of your life.

 

[leibowde84]

I've seen a lot of arguments for Atheism. To my mind, the one that makes the most sense is something along the lines of, "I don't need or want gods in my life." To my mind gods and religion (and let's not equate those two) should enrich your life. If you don't want/need one or the other, you shouldn't make them part of your life.

Very mature point of view

 

[Erebus]

Very mature point of view

Thank you, I appreciate it.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I've seen a lot of arguments for Atheism. To my mind, the one that makes the most sense is something along the lines of, "I don't need or want gods in my life."

Really? Because it seems to me that the arguments that lend the most weight to atheism are the ones made by theists.

Meanwhile, doesn't it seem that what one wants or needs tends to have absolutely zero impact on the truth?

To my mind gods and religion (and let's not equate those two) should enrich your life.

Isn't that a bit like saying "Let's not equate food with meals?"

If you don't want/need one or the other, you shouldn't make them part of your life.

Why stop at just one or the other?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Present your argument for atheism.

There has been no plausible explanations, or verifiable evidence for God(s) that has not required gullibility or faith.
At least none that has been brought to public attention, or anyone's attention...

 

[Iti oj]

No it isn't that would be anti-theism atheism is simply absence of theism.

Then all "atheist arguments" are anti theism by that.

I disagree with you, and argument against god x existing is not anti theism.

anti theism would be believing in god x is bad.

very different

 

[Iti oj]

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

I said there were no arguments for, not no arguments, I even said there were (atheist) arguments against theism.

 

[Iti oj]

@q konn listen your beliefs really do matter. If your God is attached to YEC then litteraly all I need to disprove God is fossils, now that does not dismiss all forms of the biblical god, but it does dismiss that one model.

 

[Iti oj]

Mmm I don't really care about YEC theory.

ok, but do you see my point now?

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

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.

I'm sorry. I thought you were referring to general ignorance rather than the logical fallacy - which I don't believe can apply here as I make an argument for both cases, make no declarations of absolute truths, and have repeatedly said I see no issue with both science and religion coexisting.

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

If the answer exists scientifically, no, it doesn't push anything back. Certain religions tells us that X created Y because X wanted to. The answer of how Y is created scientifically doesn't matter to religion- but it sure is nice to know.

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

Not every scientist supports every hypothesis, not every theist supports every religion. Find the system that offers the most acceptable answer for you.

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.

Yes, some religions do explain the origins of life. These can be offered either through mythologies or philosophical teachings. What we understand about the gods within religion comes from ancient texts, personal religious experiences, and both personal and religious philosophies.

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?

I understand my gods as humanly as possible. A theist can make the claim that their god helped them with an understanding but obviously that cannot be verified.

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.

Understandable.

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.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but do you mean like using Divine Will, Energy, Power, and Utterance to bring forth matter? Is this the mechanism you're looking for?

Which, is perfectly fine with me, really. However, I think we'd agree that belief alone is a poor determinant of truth.

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.

Agreed.

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".

Both religious and scientific explanations for the origins of life and the universe cannot be verified (and probably never will be) and categorized as "made up stuff." Why is it a problem for one and not the other?

 

[Erebus]

Really? Because it seems to me that the arguments that lend the most weight to atheism are the ones made by theists.

OK

Meanwhile, doesn't it seem that what one wants or needs tends to have absolutely zero impact on the truth?

I'm not convinced we can know the truth.

Isn't that a bit like saying "Let's not equate food with meals?"

No. You can have gods without religion and religion without gods.

Why stop at just one or the other?

That's your call.

 

[Deidre]

*Shrugs*.

you're not interested in the answer...so shrugs back

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really, ...I understand your reasoning, though. It's just that that reasoning is problematic for arguing theism/atheism. It's part of it, but ultimately the debate will just reach a point where each person says the other is 'wrong', and there is an unprovability aspect, at that point.

In that sort of stalemate situation, what's the reasonable position to take?

You say that both sides end up in an "unprovability aspect", but any proper justification you might have for belief in god(s) should work just fine to resolve the deadlock and show that believing in god(s) is more reasonable than not believing.

As you point out, this deadlock can't be resolved. How do you explain this?

It's not really a mark against atheism. After all, thought experiments like Russell's Teapot illustrate that we may not be able to disprove even ridiculous ideas that would be foolish to believe. Not being able to conclusively disprove a god is no indication that such a god actually exists.

OTOH, this deadlock IS a mark against theism, because anything that could be used as a reasonable justification for faith in god(s) would also work to resolve the deadlock. The fact that the deadlock hasn't been resolved suggests that the theists don't have anything to use to resolve it, which would mean they don't have a reasonable justification for their faiths.

... and it's irrational to believe a claim without reasonable justification.

 

[Looncall]

Both religious and scientific explanations for the origins of life and the universe cannot be verified (and probably never will be) and categorized as "made up stuff." Why is it a problem for one and not the other?

Scientific hypotheses have the advantage of being backed up by our knowledge of physics and chemistry, and by observations. At least some of the constraints around these explanations are pretty well known. We don't yet know if detailed explanations are unobtainable; people are working hard on them.

Religious hypotheses are entirely unconstrained and are not backed up by either theoretical understanding or observations.

 

[Altfish]

No, that's a terrible argument. It would be similar to saying that an assumption that migrating birds are migrating to mars for the season, has the same validity as any other idea.

It's not the same at all. We have evidence where migrating birds are going because they have been seen (many ringed) at both ends of their journey