What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Willamena]

Certain Sciences can be taught at just about any school or college in a matter of months, learning about religion can take years. The understanding of religion can’t be accumulated for in that such of a short time span. If atheists have that type of mind set or mentality where they just want everything handed to them and explained because they have a barrier around their own belief system, what good is it for someone that actually takes time to study and practice a religion to tell someone else about it that really never had any interests in it to begin with?

Learning about either topic takes precisely as long as learning about the other --a few months, years, or a whole life-time. The point when you decide you've learned it all and stop learning is entirely up to you.

While I agree that many atheists have no interest in learning about "God", it's not what defines atheism for me. Even many theists have that type of mindset where they just want everything handed to them already explained --by the church, the synagogue, the temple, etc. These things don't characterize atheism in particular, just people.

 

[Willamena]

You should take some time to re-read what you just posted. If it doesn't make any sense to you, then I don't know how a theist would.

It does make sense, though. Without an image of God, "belief in god" has precisely the same appearance as "belief in unicorns."

It's a strong argument for atheism.

 

[linwood]

You should take some time to re-read what you just posted. If it doesn't make any sense to you, then I don't know how a theist would.

My question and analogy makes perfect sense to anyone who has the ability to think in context.

Again..

Can you understand a fictional or unevidenced concept without believing the concept is truth in reality?

Can you understand the idea of Bigfoot without believing Bigfoot actually exists?

I only ask because you have defended the idea that one must believe in a thing "before" one can gain an understanding of it.
This idea of yours is an obvious fallacy to anyone who has ever read a work of fiction ever.

I am merely trying to understand why you hold such an impossibly irrational position.

My question is perfectly sensible, your attempts to make it look irrational are having the opposite effect of your obvious goals.

You are the one who looks very irrational.

So yet again please answer my very simple question.

Can you understand a fictional or unevidenced concept or idea without actually believing the idea or concept is truth in reality?


Are you capable of answering such a simple question?
I`m not asking for much, any 5 year old could quickly supply an answer to this very simple straightforward question.

 

[Erebus]

Back when I was an atheist, the most convincing arguments I heard for atheism were some of the poorer arguments for theism.

"Look at the world, it's so wonderful and complex."
"absolutely."
"It couldn't possibly have been the result of random chance."
"Erm, well actually it could have been."
"No don't be silly, the world is evidence of a greater intelligence."
"Well I don't deny it's possible a god exists, but..."
"His name is Yahweh."
"Wait, why do you suppose..."
"He hates gays."
"..."

 

[linwood]

The point, though, is that "prove it" is not an argument, but a demand to provide evidence for a claim.

Exactly.

I make no claims without support.
I accept no claims without support.

If a theist wishes me to understand his beliefs or actually believe in his beliefs the theist will have to supply some support or there can be no argument at all.

In essence there is nothing to argue about.

 

[Wessexman]

Skepticism in this context refers simply to placing the burden of proof on any positive claim. You can abuse epistemology and start going into whether we all live in the matrix and the things we think we see aren't there, but that position completely negates any possibility to ever know anything which isn't helpful at all.

Willamena is in essence correct. One doesn't have to go into Pyrrhonism to realise that. Our Intellect is essentially dogmatist, if doubt conformed to its very nature it would be useless.

 

[Wessexman]

The point, though, is that "prove it" is not an argument, but a demand to provide evidence for a claim.

Indeed. One also must remember that a proof is always relative, a proof that was absolute would be identical to thing one is trying to prove.

 

[MW0082]

I woud have to say my best arguement is, I had a really sh$$y childhood. I mean bad as it can get. If there is a god I care not to know or even acknowledge him. If he does exist and made me deal with that suffering growing up, and expects me to praise him then he has another thing coming.

From my own experience I cannot believe the words of religion. For I suffered and it would be ill-logical for there to be a loving god and allow a child to suffer so.

p.s. I say he, but could eb he she it for all we know.

 

[Gloone]

Have you wondered why there have been no less than four people who have used the phrase "missed the point" with you?

Do you think that's a coincidence, or do you think everyone else but you misses the point?

I see that you're clearly disinterested in civil discourse, and from the looks of it, disinterested in discourse at all.

Wait so you mean you do not want to be friends?
I was actually wanting to know what a friend was, but now I guess all hope is lost.

 

[Gloone]

It does make sense, though. Without an image of God, "belief in god" has precisely the same appearance as "belief in unicorns."

It's a strong argument for atheism.

I was actually looking for more theist responses to some of the more common arguments they hear from atheist. But they did not need to provide any of the examples, all of the atheist that replied to this thread has done it for them.

So I can add to this list of dumb arguments atheist make because what better source do I need, provided that the information is coming from an atheist?

- Do you believe in dat der phat man dey call Santa?

Atheist resort to the hypothetical for criticism for their lack of understanding.

 

[linwood]

Atheist resort to the hypothetical for criticism for their lack of understanding.

So we shouldn`t resort to using hypotheticals when discussing the possibilities of hypotheticals(god)?

God is merely hypothetical.

I see you still haven`t answered a single inquiry in this thread.

 

[Gloone]

So we shouldn`t resort to using hypotheticals when discussing the possibilities of hypotheticals(god)?

God is merely hypothetical.

I see you still haven`t answered a single inquiry in this thread.

The only reason is because God is hypothetical to you. God isn’t and doesn't mean God is to people that know and believe.
I have answered more than enough questions and responses on this thread and I’m actually done with it now, because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

*Strikes a match..
*Throws the match onto this thread.
*Watches the entire thread go up in flames!

 

[Gunfingers]

That's cute. Like he thinks he's coolly put all the slobbering stupid atheists in their place.

 

[jonman122]

The only reason is because God is hypothetical to you. God isn’t and doesn't mean God is to people that know and believe.
I have answered more than enough questions and responses on this thread and I’m actually done with it now, because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

i'll make this reeallly simple to you, by using a pink unicorn.

pink invisible unicorn = god

the invisible unicorn, that i cannot see, is pink.
the god, that you cannot see, is all loving.

now, you tell me god exists, i ask you to give me proof. When i ask for proof, you say "thats a rediculous argument."

when i tell you an invisible pink unicorn exists, you ask me for proof, or tell me that it cannot exist.

what happened was someone tried to put your argument back on you, and you said your own argument was stupid and rediculous. I really have no idea how you came to this conclusion, but after reading every post in here i did have a few good chuckles while you called yourself names.

 

[linwood]

The only reason is because God is hypothetical to you. God isn’t and doesn't mean God is to people that know and believe.
I have answered more than enough questions and responses on this thread and I’m actually done with it now, because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

*Strikes a match..
*Throws the match onto this thread.
*Watches the entire thread go up in flames!

Do you know what hypothetical means?
Do you hold an understanding of the term "hypothesis"?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The only reason is because God is hypothetical to you. God isn’t and doesn't mean God is to people that know and believe.
I have answered more than enough questions and responses on this thread and I’m actually done with it now, because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.

*Strikes a match..
*Throws the match onto this thread.
*Watches the entire thread go up in flames!

Translation....

Why do Atheist always insist on proof for God?!?!
Because there is no objective evidence for a deity, or your God.
That's a ridiculous statement!!! I went to college!!!
Do you believe in my (insert hypothetical here) invisible friend?
Hypotheticals!! This thread is going nowhere.
I'm taking my ball and going home!:sad4:

 

[Meow Mix]

Edit: I take it back, what was originally here.

 

[Tristesse]

Cough - even though that was not my intentions I did plan on getting some more theist responses to bashing atheist than I did atheist trying to defend their systems of beliefs. Funny how the world turns eh? I usually hate it when I'm put on the defensive I'm sure it is no different than some of the atheist that have displayed their displeasure with my OP.

Atheism isn't a system of belief. Unless you consider a rejection of a belief a system.

 

[Gunfingers]

Atheism isn't a system of belief. Unless you consider a rejection of a belief a system.

Classifying atheism as a belief system is rather like classifying "pedestrian" as a type of car.

 

[dogsgod]

Gloone appears annoyed by those that don't believe his imaginary God friend is real.