What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Meow Mix]

Well when people are not making false assumptions about things, it is easier to carry on a conversation.

Okay, which assumptions specifically are false? You keep saying "You're wrong!" but not explaining how... that's not productive.

Since when was it necessary for someone who freely chooses to believe in God or follow a certain religion explain why?

Well on one hand this is a debate forum... usually people in a debate must clarify their side and the foundations for that side.

Secondly, atheists doubt theism, so the foundations of theism are especially in the spotlight.

Third, to understand why people are atheists you have to understand that they don't feel theism is adequately justified. Thus, atheists request justification for theism to see if there's something they've missed and to try to further their understanding.

Otherwise you get something asinine like this:

Leprechaunist: What's the best argument for not believing in leprechauns?
Skeptic: Uh... well, the lack of justification for the existence of leprechauns. It's sort of like believing in Santa Claus as far as I can see.
Leprechaunist: That's ridiculous and stupid! Comparing my belief to Santa Claus! You're an idiot!
Skeptic: Well, can you explain to me how the two beliefs are different?
Leprechaunist: Don't be absurd, I don't have to justify my belief to you!

(repeat ad nauseum)

 

[waitasec]

maybe the interpretation of comprehension is what we need to clarify


LITERAL - what is actually stated.

Facts and details
Rote learning and memorization
Surface understanding only
TESTS in this category are objective tests dealing with true / false, multiple choice and fill-in-the blank questions.

Common questions used to illicit this type of thinking are who, what, when, and where questions.

INTERPRETIVE - what is implied or meant, rather than what is actually stated.

Drawing inferences
Tapping into prior knowledge / experience
Attaching new learning to old information
Making logical leaps and educated guesses
Reading between the lines to determine what is meant by what is stated.
TESTS in this category are subjective, and the types of questions asked are open-ended, thought-provoking questions like why, what if, and how.

APPLIED - taking what was said (literal) and then what was meant by what was said (interpretive) and then extend (apply) the concepts or ideas beyond the situation.

Analyzing
Synthesizing
Applying
In this level we are analyzing or synthesizing information and applying it to other information.



i suggest gloon is in the literal level of comprehension because i have yet to see this person able to interpret what is implied and unable to understand thought provoking questions...and hasn't applied what has been said.:ignore:

or this person is a mean hearted trolloid...:troll:


:redx:

 

[Meow Mix]

trolloid...

Yesssss, take off little meme... fly! You can do it!

 

[Gloone]

Okay, which assumptions specifically are false? You keep saying "You're wrong!" but not explaining how... that's not productive.

Alright!!!!!!!!! Since you are an atheist, would you say atheist are superstitious? I'm still trying to understand why leprechauns are important for a debate.

 

[Wotan]

Alright!!!!!!!!! Since you are an atheist, would you say atheist are superstitious? I'm still trying to understand why leprechauns are important for a debate.

Because the belief in leprechauns or unicorns or Santa Claus is no different in principal from believing in a invisible fairy god-father in the sky who worries about and keeps track of your every thought.

The objective verifiable testable evidence for the existence of ALL of the above is the same. Zero. As in zilch, nada, zip. So IF you believe in your favorite invisible friend why not believe in leprechauns?:slap:

 

[Meow Mix]

Alright!!!!!!!!! Since you are an atheist, would you say atheist are superstitious? I'm still trying to understand why leprechauns are important for a debate.

Well atheists differ on many things unrelated to gods since nonbelief in gods is the only thing they have in common, so I'll answer for myself...

No, I'm not superstitious.

The reason leprechauns, unicorns, etc. are brought up is because there's about as much evidence for their existence as there are for gods -- it's an analogy. I really, truly wonder if for some reason you've just never been exposed to how analogies work or something, and I'm really not saying that to be rude... at first I thought you were trolling, but I think you genuinely don't understand the concept of what an analogy is yet.

The leprechaun or unicorn or whatever arguments are used as an analogy for belief in gods because as far as atheists can see the evidence for both is similar: usually word-of-mouth, based on old texts, miraculous stories, occasional "sightings," etc.

So atheists ask, "Why is believing in gods different from believing in leprechauns?"

You clearly see belief in leprechauns as ridiculous. I agree, it is. But the analogy is that I see belief in gods as equally ridiculous. If belief in gods is more justified than belief in leprechauns, how is it more justified? That's the purpose of the analogy: to ask that question; to ask the theist "what evidence do you have that I've never seen that makes belief in gods more justified than belief in something ridiculous like leprechauns?"

To atheists, belief in gods is as ridiculous as belief in leprechauns because we haven't seen any evidence for gods any more than we've seen any evidence for leprechauns. Is that more clear?

----------------

Also you answered my question with a question, I'm still looking for the answer to my original question:

"Okay, which assumptions specifically are false? You keep saying "You're wrong!" but not explaining how... that's not productive."

 

[gnomon]

Because if atheist actually wanted to learn something about god they wouldn't be atheist... its just that simple.

Right now I'm on obese, black, transgendered Korean woman who worships Marduk.

Tomorrow I'll probably be a shark.

 

[Gloone]

Well that is great.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Gloone, I notice that you are repeatedly ignoring well thought out arguments from Meow Mix and others. Is there any reason for that?

 

[Autodidact]

Since when was it necessary for someone who freely chooses to believe in God or follow a certain religion explain why?

So you believe in your God for no particular reason? And you think atheists need to justify their absence of belief?

Aye

So you acknowledge your own hypocrisy? Uh, o.k. Did you know that special pleading is a fallacy? And you know what that means, don't you? It means you're wrong. Good job.

 

[Autodidact]

Because if atheist actually wanted to learn something about god they wouldn't be atheist... its just that simple.

Quite the opposite. Most atheists got that way by learning a lot about God, and what they found out is that there does not appear to be any such thing.

I think you'll find, as researchers have, that atheists tend be the group with the most knowledge about religion, including yours.

 

[Autodidact]

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?

Generally speaking, atheists are among the people who have spent the most time trying to understand religion, which is why we reject it. It's not because we don't know about it, but because we do.

Go ahead and ask. You'll find, among the atheists here, former theology students, former pastors, people fluent in Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew, people who have managed to slog through the quran and The Book of Mormon. Without knowing anything about you, I'll bet you the average atheist here knows more about your religion than you do.

 

[Autodidact]

You really have to stoop to that low of a level to debate, Stewie on family guy would probably just call you a imbecile and be done with it. Oh wait! But since Family Guy is just a Cartoon I guess it doesn't really come on TV and doesn't exist either right.

So basically you have no response to linwood's argument, and have to stoop to infantile name-calling?

 

[Autodidact]

Atheist taking time to study religion. What is it that atheist take time to study religion for? To criticize it or understand it.

First, most of us studied it before we became atheist, and it was our study that led to atheism. Go ahead, ask us.
Second, speaking for myself, I like to test the soundness of my beliefs and keep an open mind. You don't?

 

[Autodidact]

Do you realize how stupid your questions are? Wait, what is that... its a :unicorn: wait, no! It can't be. How is that so?!@#$

In that case you should have not the slightest difficulty in answering them, unless they're still too smart for you?


Last free warning, Gloone. Next gratuitous name-calling or insult and I start reporting you. We try to keep the level of debate here civilized and intelligent. Do try to step up.

 

[Autodidact]

I have reviewed that article and the survey and realize it is all about how they ask some of the questions. Atheist are not any smarter than anyone else. Hate to break it to you, but I'm glad to be the first one to do it.

using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.

1. ^ Ateister er klokere enn religiøse (Atheists are smarter than religious people), Dagbladet. translated at - Atheists are smarter than religious people at Trance.nu forums

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, how about you go on a wild goose chase for unicorns and when you find one you can let me know.

How would you know I did--wouldn't you ask for some evidence of it?

 

[Autodidact]

HAHAHAHA, don't worry! My college transcripts say enough. I don't have to show them to you.

The only thing we know about you, Gloone, is what you post. So far you have failed to make a single argument, and resorted to base insults. In general, the person who stoops to insults reveals that he has no argument.

 

[Autodidact]

Please let’s get off the subject of unicorns and fairytales. I’m glad everyone is flattered by superstition but please don’t bring this into an intelligible debate. If chasing pink unicorns is a hobby or something you did in your spare time, then I don’t warrant you to feel more than obliged to catch the silly things, but don’t resort your pastimes while debating.

Are you familiar with the concept of a hypothetical question? Or is that too abstract for you? It's a rhetorical device, a way to explore ideas. Unless they're just lost on you.

 

[Autodidact]

IDK try joining the church and find out for yourself. If you are into that kind of thing then why ask questions?

I realize you may find this challenging, Gloone, but he's trying to get you to think. Just humor him and see if you can answer the question, and see where it leads you. You may learn something about what he is trying to communicate to you.