Present arguments for atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

um...
Millions of people swearing to its truth?

Heh... any particular god-concept has many more people who are willing to kill and die for their belief that it's false than people who are willing to kill and die for their belief that it's true.

But it's a matter of quality, not quantity. The fact that someone (or many people) believe a claim only speaks to the truth of that claim if the people's beliefs are well-founded. And if they're well-founded, you can justify the claim with that foundation instead of the number of believers.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And the truth is that atheists come up with the irony meter, because they really think they can measure irony, and measure honesty and respect as well.

 

[McBell]

Heh... any particular god-concept has many more people who are willing to kill and die for their belief that it's false than people who are willing to kill and die for their belief that it's true.

But it's a matter of quality, not quantity. The fact that someone (or many people) believe a claim only speaks to the truth of that claim if the people's beliefs are well-founded. And if they're well-founded, you can justify the claim with that foundation instead of the number of believers.

I was merely offering up an answer to your question....

I make no claims as to how good or bad said answer is.

 

[Looncall]

I wouldn't disagree with that, even though, with our current knowledge of physics and chemistry, scientists still subscribe to different theories about universal origins. However, in regards to the origin of life, I'd say scientists are little more...lost. We might know what early life looked like and what it was made of, but we still don't know what that spark was that turned chemicals and elements into a living thing.



I disagree on the observations comment. People have been having religious and supernatural experiences for thousands of years. It might not be something that can be replicated or explained but it's still something they experienced. To write them all off as delusions or tricks of the mind would be foolish.

What spark? The difference between living and non-living things is the arrangements of their parts. "Elan vitale" thinking is so nineteenth century.

I see no reason to consider writing religious experiences off as delusion to be foolish. We are all human and subject to the same mental quirks. Religious experiences can even be triggered by applying electric fields to the brain and by administering drugs. What evidence is there that anything immaterial is involved?

 

[idav]

Present your argument for atheism.

Santa Claus has more evidence of being real than most god concepts. However the concept of where everything comes from doesn't get answered by atheism so it really isn't arguing much. So some bearded dude didn't do it, got it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Religious experiences can even be triggered by applying electric fields to the brain and by administering drugs. What evidence is there that anything immaterial is involved?

Systematic rejection of all subjectivity. It is just the mister Spock stereotype, that's what's atheism is really all about.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If you believe the evidence, even if just for a moment, then you have taken the stance of knowledge, whether you know it or not--knowledge is informed by truth. To doubt knowledge is also to doubt the evidence.

In that moment when evidence points at Santa being true, you have belief (even if the truth value and hence belief are lost in the next moment). Belief follows the truth value indicated by the pointer (evidence).

 

[Revoltingest]

Systematic rejection of all subjectivity. It is just the mister Spock stereotype, that's what's atheism is really all about.

You're wrong about Spock.
He's not all science & logic.

Spoiler: Spock's innermost thoughts

Thus, your analogy & argument are doomed.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

I would agree that it is possible, I assign a probability value which is sufficiently low enough to remove the idea from serious consideration as a factor in the causal ancestry of any event (or phenomena.)

Then I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about other life in the universe. Perhaps in a private conversation.

I struggle to understand the difference between and undetectable* being with such fantastic cognitive (and other) abilities that is capable of fantastic things beyond our comprehension and no such being at all.

That's fine. I on the other hand see life as so miraculous and magical that believing in such a being isn't a struggle at all.

What spark? The difference between living and non-living things is the arrangements of their parts. "Elan vitale" thinking is so nineteenth century.

Maybe I should of used the word "catalyst?" I wasn't referring to a life essence or soul even though that's something I believe in as well. I was referring to the switch (if there is such a thing) that allowed non-living to become living. I'd also disagree that the only difference between living and non-living is the arrangement of parts.

I see no reason to consider writing religious experiences off as delusion to be foolish. We are all human and subject to the same mental quirks. Religious experiences can even be triggered by applying electric fields to the brain and by administering drugs. What evidence is there that anything immaterial is involved?

I won't deny that substances that influence the brain can cause experiences that are mistakend as religious and paranormal experiences, but I would consider it a mistake to say every experience every human has had in the history of mankind was a delusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I won't deny that substances that influence the brain can cause experiences that are mistakend as religious and paranormal experiences, but I would consider it a mistake to say every experience every human has had in the history of mankind was a delusion.

... but when evaluating any particular religious experience, we should acknowledge that there's a significant chance that it might be a delusion and treat it with an appropriate level of skepticism, no?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, however there is a difference between taking a stance of knowledge, and using that as a legitimate standard in arguments, because, the stance, or 'knowledge', is necessarily subjective. '/individual or personal objectivity, //which is actually 'subjective'.

... and when choosing a standard for an argument, if the bar is so low that conflicting claims meet it simultaneously, then it's demonstrably too low.

This happens a lot with arguments for gods. If the argument for god A being the only god and the argument for god B being the only god (or a pantheon of gods C, D, E, and F being the only gods) are equally strong, then it would be incorrect to accept that god A exists and gods B, C, D, E, and F do not.

 

[Willamena]

... but when evaluating any particular religious experience, we should acknowledge that there's a significant chance that it might be a delusion and treat it with an appropriate level of skepticism, no?

Surely that depends on how insignificant your arguments from ignorance are to you.

 

[Willamena]

Ah, however there is a difference between taking a stance of knowledge, and using that as a legitimate standard in arguments, because, the stance, or 'knowledge', is necessarily subjective. '/individual or personal objectivity, //which is actually 'subjective'.

Truth is always objective. The moment you believe the evidence, you are taking the evidence objectively. Not sure what you are referring to as a standard for argument.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

... but when evaluating any particular religious experience, we should acknowledge that there's a significant chance that it might be a delusion and treat it with an appropriate level of skepticism, no?

I would agree, yes. A logical explanation should always be sought after first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Surely that depends on how insignificant your arguments from ignorance are to you.

Skepticism is not an argument from ignorance.

 

[Willamena]

Skepticism is not an argument from ignorance.

But investing in unknows as explanation is.

 

[McBell]

But investing in unknows as explanation is.

which is side is most guilty of investing in unknowns?

 

[columbus]

Skepticism is not an argument from ignorance.

Exactly.
I've been around a lot of people making religious and supernatural claims in my several decades. And whenever you start pressing for details the "evidence" always vanishes in a puff of smoke.
I am not ignorant about the claims. I am skeptical because of the vague and insubstantial nature of the evidence, over and over and over again.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

For reference....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But investing in unknows as explanation is.

In what way do you think I'm "investing in unknowns"?