What is the best argument for an atheist?

[ButTheCatCameBack]

opcorn:

I would ask for some. But I think popcorn and oven cooked pork chops probably don't mix so well.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So real= anything that is shown to be by empirical evidence?

Empiricism is the basic practice of science. Science relies on direct experience or observation to describe or explain phenomenon. All explanations must be replicable or repeatable and all answers must be predictive and falsifiable. Science describes the real and observable world.
Science does not rely on dreams, or visions, or faith in revealed revelations or supernatural beings as a basis for knowledge.
Science can nether prove nor disprove God, since God is generally believed to be transcendent (i.e. existing beyond nature and therefor beyond potential observation).
As there is no empirical evidence for God, or any transcendent being(s), it is perfectly reasonable to withhold belief in such a being(s) unless such evidence is produced and verified.
The OP complains that Atheists always want "Proof of God" in order to accept God's existence. When it comes down to it, this is all any reasonable person needs to accept something as true. Empirical evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's very obvious you don't see it.
Why?
You have a set definition of God and evidence that you refuse to change.
Why is that?

If you've got another definition of God in mind, feel free to provide it.

Atheism is a response to theism; it's kinda hard to respond to a concept of God until it's presented.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So real= anything that is shown to be by empirical evidence?

Not quite.

"known" = "anything that is shown to be by empirical evidence"

I entirely acknowledge that there's more to the universe than what we humans know about. However, if something really lies beyond human knowledge, it also lies beyond the ability for anyone to speak intelligently about it.

 

[waitasec]

It's very obvious you don't see it.
Why?
You have a set definition of God and evidence that you refuse to change.
Why is that?

how can one define what doesn't exist?

Easy.
A unicorn is a mammal that looks much like a horse, but has a horn sticking out from its forehead.
Unicorns do not exist, correct? Therefore I have defined something that does not exist.

yes but do have a relationship with a unicorn?
does the unicorn talk to you?
and do you believe the unicorn loves you?

1. Sure.
2. Sure.
3. Sure.

Now what that all means, I'm not sure yet. But you seem to be. Mind telling me what you mean by those questions?

well if YOU say you have a relationship with a unicorn and the unicorn talks
to you...can you introduce that unicorn to my 8 yr old niece?

what is a set definition of god?
i ask how can someone define something that doesn't exist and you brought up the unicorn
and then claim to have a relationship with it? how?

 

[MW0082]

Heres another point I just thought of, why does it have to be an arguement? Why can people not debate civilized and adult like?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't think very many theists adopted their religion after a reasoned consideration of the question and a review of the world's religions, as well as atheism and agnosticism, so I don't think logical argument are usually the best way to persuade them that they are mistaken. (I say they're mistaken because everyone, including theists, agrees that the vast majority of the world's theists are mistaken, in that they believe in the wrong God.)

I think one approach that may occasionally work is to ask the theist to begin by themselves considering the question: Does God exist?

With that in mind, I will now go create a thread with that title.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I think if one wants to make a case for the existence of "God" or gods then empirical evidence IS needed...

What do you mean by 'existence'? Or more accurately, what about 'existence' requires empirical evidence to be 'existence'?

 

[linwood]

What do you mean by 'existence'? Or more accurately, what about 'existence' requires empirical evidence to be 'existence'?

Nothing, but as DP said.."If one wants to make a case" for the existence of god then some empirical evidence would be very helpful.

In other words..if you want someone to believe something "exists" show them some evidence.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

well if YOU say you have a relationship with a unicorn and the unicorn talks
to you...can you introduce that unicorn to my 8 yr old niece?

I don't think her unicorn and my unicorn would be the same thing...Like I said, I can have a relationship with a unicorn, but i don't know what that means yet. When I do, I'll let you know. Of course, it is not an entirely pressing issue for me to figure that out, so you might be waiting a while.

what is a set definition of god?
i ask how can someone define something that doesn't exist and you brought up the unicorn
and then claim to have a relationship with it? how?

1. God=X. X is Blah, blah, blah. So God=Blah, blah blah. There is a set definition of God. It doesn't do anything, or explain anything, but its a set definition.
2. I can have a relationship with a teapot if I wanted to. Put anything in that sentence, A chair, a tree, a building, whatever. You can have a relationship with anything. What that relationship means is not dependent on the thing that you are 'related' to. The thing influences the relationship, yes, but you decided what the relationship means.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Nothing, but as DP said.."If one wants to make a case" for the existence of god then some empirical evidence would be very helpful.

In other words..if you want someone to believe something "exists" show them some evidence.

Okay...
y=x+1 Is that linear?
Anyone with basic math could tell you that the equation is in fact linear? Why? Because they know what 'linear' means.

So if you give me X (God) and ask me to prove that X exists (has the state of existing), I need to know what you mean by that. Otherwise, I would be shooting in the dark.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Empiricism is the basic practice of science. Science relies on direct experience or observation to describe or explain phenomenon. All explanations must be replicable or repeatable and all answers must be predictive and falsifiable. Science describes the real and observable world.
Science does not rely on dreams, or visions, or faith in revealed revelations or supernatural beings as a basis for knowledge.
Science can nether prove nor disprove God, since God is generally believed to be transcendent (i.e. existing beyond nature and therefor beyond potential observation).
As there is no empirical evidence for God, or any transcendent being(s), it is perfectly reasonable to withhold belief in such a being(s) unless such evidence is produced and verified.
The OP complains that Atheists always want "Proof of God" in order to accept God's existence. When it comes down to it, this is all any reasonable person needs to accept something as true. Empirical evidence.

All you've proven is that God is not science. If you want to postulate that science equals reality, and therefore say that because God is not science, God is not reality, be my guest.
The first part, I agree with. God is not science, and never will be science. The second...well, that's already not true, so I don't know why you want to try and make it so.

 

[Tristesse]

Okay...
y=x+1 Is that linear?
Anyone with basic math could tell you that the equation is in fact linear? Why? Because they know what 'linear' means.

So if you give me X (God) and ask me to prove that X exists (has the state of existing), I need to know what you mean by that. Otherwise, I would be shooting in the dark.

Actually, you would need to define what you're calling existence. Because by most definitions existence is something that manifests. And if something manifests you should be able to demonstrate it's existence. Otherwise, you either have a different definition of existence, or the thing you're saying exists, is something that doesn't manifest, which is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, you would need to define what you're calling existence. Because by most definitions existence is something that manifests. And if something manifests you should be able to demonstrate it's existence. Otherwise, you either have a different definition of existence, or the thing you're saying exists, is something that doesn't manifest, which is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

I don't think that's quite basic, though, especially as "manifesting" exists. Existence simply "is".

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Actually, you would need to define what you're calling existence. Because by most definitions existence is something that manifests. And if something manifests you should be able to demonstrate it's existence. Otherwise, you either have a different definition of existence, or the thing you're saying exists, is something that doesn't manifest, which is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

They asked me to prove that God exists, I didn't ask myself. If I want to prove it to them, I have to know what they mean by 'exists'. Otherwise, I could just make up my own definition and say God existing means that the sun shines in the daytime.
By your logic, if I was a civil engineer, and a client asked me for a building, I could then define 'building' as a cardboard box, and give them that. This is ridiculous, as the definition of building would be in the instructions. They'd want so many stories, so many feet wide, so many feet long, so many elevators, stairs, bathrooms etc.
But, with the 'prove God exists' no such parameters exist in the instructions. So I'm asking what exist means, so I cover all my bases.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

They asked me to prove that God exists, I didn't ask myself. If I want to prove it to them, I have to know what they mean by 'exists'. Otherwise, I could just make up my own definition and say God existing means that the sun shines in the daytime.
By your logic, if I was a civil engineer, and a client asked me for a building, I could then define 'building' as a cardboard box, and give them that. This is ridiculous, as the definition of building would be in the instructions. They'd want so many stories, so many feet wide, so many feet long, so many elevators, stairs, bathrooms etc.
But, with the 'prove God exists' no such parameters exist in the instructions. So I'm asking what exist means, so I cover all my bases.

Honestly at this point I think you're just playing games but I hope I am wrong.

 

[Wotan]

Honestly at this point I think you're just playing games but I hope I am wrong.

I don't think you are.

We have gone from absolute skepticism - you can't prove reality IS reality - to now you can't define existence.

Neither of those are serious positions. They are just obfuscation for it own sake.
If the poster HAS a point about whatever "god" is post it.

All this coy dodging is both tiresome and pointless.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Honestly at this point I think you're just playing games but I hope I am wrong.

I am attempting to point out that the thing itself is not the source of the definition of the thing. Our perception of that thing is. We are the ones who define everything. Something is given, then we define it. Not the other way around.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If the poster HAS a point about whatever "god" is post it.

And what makes you think I haven't posted it already?

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

I am attempting to point out that the thing itself is not the source of the definition of the thing. Our perception of that thing is. We are the ones who define everything. Something is given, then we define it. Not the other way around.

It doesn't take repetitive, dodgy post after post to relay that concept. Also if this was started as some sort of thing of you taking up the position of believing in God then it behooves you to provide some definitions so they can be, if nothing else, compared against the standard definitions. And the discussion can then move forward.

Otherwise..