What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Meow Mix]

Atheist as a whole usually deny self evident truths or eternal truths because this would be an admission that God exist.Theist point out that science and logic are eternal truths that are self evident and come from God.Every scientist that is worth his salt depends on a strict innate logic to arrive at his conclusions. I 2would never trust a doctor that did not use ontology in his treatment of me. We use ontology to measure cosmology.

Now, If you are ready to challenge my belief in God, my ears are open. If you would enjoy my challenging your unbelief, let the fun begin.

On what grounds do you assert that the existence of ontological necessity inexorably leads to an admission that God exists?

I'm an atheist; I accept the existence of ontologically necessary things such as identity. I fail to see how this leads to an "admission" of the existence of god(s). Can you please elaborate?

 

[Dan4reason]

I really enjoy debunking smug and convinced people of their take on life, existence, being, reality, logic, and their world view in general. I am very objective in debunking faulty religious beliefs and crazy political views. Most beliefs can be debunked to some degree as there always seems to be gaps in the logic of every philosophical world view. In my opinion the Christian and theist world view is the most difficult world view to debunk. The atheist world view is the easiest to debunk, Atheism offers no world view but is more like existentialism and is really very foolish not being supported by any metaphysical reality.

With all due respect, most of the post on this thread represent pure nonsense and are not worthy of a response but represent nitpicking of the worse non-intellectual aspects of Christianity. You do not challenge the ontology of of Christianity, which is Far superior to the ontology of atheism.

Look at the unfairness of the first comment by referencing "prove it" argument. In any legitimate intellectual debate, both are required to prove their theis statements by logical explanations. In any fair minded debate, both sides are presented by the best scholars and each states their own true position.It is fair to challenge their true stated position but you get no points for challenging a point that is not true of an opponents position.

You should never demand a Christian to prove anything unless you are willing to prove your position that there is no God. Atheist just will not do this. It is not so simple to just say "there is no God". Without God, you must show how reasoning and logic (induction & deduction), metaphysics (cosmology/ontology) and knowledge
are possible. Christians will not take your criticism seriously if you can not do this.

The ideas criticised in this post and throughout this thread targets mostly what atheist think Christianity is saying, not what Christianity is saying. Pointing to the many denominations of Christianity does not mean Christianity is false. Atheist are the most diverse thinkers on the earth. There is no unanimity in their thinking whatsoever. That does not prove them all in error but most Christians do think they are. The many moral codes that exist among humanist is an example of the diversity of the thinking of atheist.

Most Christians have a sensible ontological view of God and the universe. They believe in cause and effect, free will rather than determinism, with the overall belief that persons reap what they sow and God gives the unjust and just the same playing field. Most Christians are not obsessed with heaven or hell. Most Christians do not view God as an eternal torturer of sinners but a savior of the human race. But atheist target the worse representatives of Christianity to use as examples of the shortcomings of faith in God. Of course, Christians do the same to atheist and when they do this, atheist do not like to be compared to Hitler, Stalin, and many other such people.

You claim that atheists should try to prove that God does not exist just as much as theists must prove that God does exist because this is "fair." This fairness is unjustified because first you misunderstand atheism and second atheism does not require the burden of evidence theism does.

Contrary to the opinion of peole who know almost nothing about atheism; not all atheists do say that God does not exist. This would be comparable to saying that alternate universes don't exist. There is no solid disproof of alternate universes and no justification to be sure that they don't exist. Most atheists actually claim that they simply have a lack of belief in God.

We are not required to prove that unicorns don't exist to argue that there is not justifiable reason to believe in them; we are not required to provide evidence against the existence of Thor to argue that there is no justifiable reason to believe in him and we certainly do not need evidence that God doesn't exist in order to argue that there is no justifiable reason to believe in him.

You see, either you believe in God or you don't it is that simple and the only thing in between is confusion and indecision. I really hope you are not arguing that you must believe all ideas that you can't disprove.

I personally have some arguments that provide evidence against the Judeo-Christian God of the bible so I do not simply rely on a lack of evidence on the part of Christians as an argument against them. I will give you one.

Many Christians like to think that without an atonement by Jesus we would all be thrown into hell because we are imperfect. However, it is ridiculous to punish slight misdeeds in such a draconian way. Even more silly is the idea that because Jesus was unjustily murdered and tortured we are in the slightest bit redeemed. How does punishing an innocent willing victim let any criminal off the hook?

 

[NeverGotBetter]

As intelligent as you are, you are not really interested in spiting contest. Most of the assertions in your post, fit in well with discussion with Christians who, though earnest in their faith, have not philosophically thought through their faith and are walking by blind faith. Some atheist are this way also. My comment about "smug" was intended for those people both of whom are easy to debunk. It may be a little sadistic of me to enjoy debunking them, I admit; but, I don't get out and about anymore and its the only fun I have. By the way, sometimes I get debunked but I like that too. That is why we are here, right?

I'm fine if it's a source of fun you have. :yes:

I'm also going to mention what is obvious to you already, my lack of philosophical thought. To be quite frank, I've never taken a course in philosophy and the amount I know is from what others have said/posted, so it's not a great deal but I use what I have. In any event, moving on... .

It is unfair to challenge the uninformed and not leave them a reason for why you attack their faith.

I attack their faith for the very reason I don't believe in it and don't support it, I'd like to see how they'd be with their faith removed. Only way to examine how they are when it's removed is to get it removed at least temporarily. Alternatively, I might want to assess the strength of their belief as well as my belief by stressing it.

As for determinism, many atheist believe in it strongly and do not believe in free will at all. Some believe in free will and not in derertnism.It is very difficult to explain cosmology without ontology.

How do those atheists believe in determinism but reject free will?

Atheist as a whole usually deny self evident truths or eternal truths because this would be an admission that God exist.Theist point out that science and logic are eternal truths that are self evident and come from God.Every scientist that is worth his salt depends on a strict innate logic to arrive at his conclusions. I 2would never trust a doctor that did not use ontology in his treatment of me. We use ontology to measure cosmology.

Earlier, you mentioned how some people view ontology to be the same as cosmology, so if you support this notion they are one in the same, how can you use one to measure the other? I'm thinking this is just a way of saying they're the same but whenever someone says they use A to measure B, to me that means A and B are not the same, as there's no need to measure B.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You claim that atheists should try to prove that God does not exist just as much as theists must prove that God does exist because this is "fair." This fairness is unjustified because first you misunderstand atheism and second atheism does not require the burden of evidence theism does.

Contrary to the opinion of peole who know almost nothing about atheism; not all atheists do say that God does not exist. This would be comparable to saying that alternate universes don't exist. There is no solid disproof of alternate universes and no justification to be sure that they don't exist. Most atheists actually claim that they simply have a lack of belief in God.

We are not required to prove that unicorns don't exist to argue that there is not justifiable reason to believe in them; we are not required to provide evidence against the existence of Thor to argue that there is no justifiable reason to believe in him and we certainly do not need evidence that God doesn't exist in order to argue that there is no justifiable reason to believe in him.

You see, either you believe in God or you don't it is that simple and the only thing in between is confusion and indecision. I really hope you are not arguing that you must believe all ideas that you can't disprove.

I personally have some arguments that provide evidence against the Judeo-Christian God of the bible so I do not simply rely on a lack of evidence on the part of Christians as an argument against them. I will give you one.

Many Christians like to think that without an atonement by Jesus we would all be thrown into hell because we are imperfect. However, it is ridiculous to punish slight misdeeds in such a draconian way. Even more silly is the idea that because Jesus was unjustily murdered and tortured we are in the slightest bit redeemed. How does punishing an innocent willing victim let any criminal off the hook?

I agree....but also take note that he really wasn't that willing. At the end he prayed, begged pleaded and cried to his god to spare him from death........The Old Testament says that everyone will be responsible for his or her decisions. The son shall not inherit the sins of the father nor the father inheriting the sins of the son but everyone shall be judge accordingly.....Now this is if you believe such a thing.

 

[Orias]

Are Atheists spiritual?

 

[gnomon]

Are Atheists spiritual?

Given that many of them are religious the necessary conclusion is that many of them are spiritual.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are Atheists spiritual?

Many of them are...Some of them aren't

 

[Dan4reason]

I agree....but also take note that he really wasn't that willing. At the end he prayed, begged pleaded and cried to his god to spare him from death........The Old Testament says that everyone will be responsible for his or her decisions. The son shall not inherit the sins of the father nor the father inheriting the sins of the son but everyone shall be judge accordingly.....Now this is if you believe such a thing.

I do admit that Jesus asked God to take away the responsibility from him but Jesus could have stopped it if he could according to the myth. I compare it to having surgery. It is something that you hate doing but you have to do it. I do wonder how an infinite being would experience such a moment of weakness. I guess this sort of conradiction happens when people try to make up stories about infinite beings. The finiteness of the storytellers rub off on the characters.

Actually parts of the bible say that the son shall not inherit the sins of the father but earlier verses say otherwise.

Exodus 34
5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

I do not think it is just to punish the son for the sins of the father because the cost of the punishment is far exceeded by any benefit if there is one.

 

[waitasec]

I do admit that Jesus asked God to take away the responsibility from him but Jesus could have stopped it if he could according to the myth. I compare it to having surgery. It is something that you hate doing but you have to do it. I do wonder how an infinite being would experience such a moment of weakness. I guess this sort of conradiction happens when people try to make up stories about infinite beings. The finiteness of the storytellers rub off on the characters.

Actually parts of the bible say that the son shall not inherit the sins of the father but earlier verses say otherwise.

Exodus 34
5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. 6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

I do not think it is just to punish the son for the sins of the father because the cost of the punishment is far exceeded by any benefit if there is one.

emphasis added by me

this passage is incomprehensible to those not familiar with this ancient culture don't cha think? how can anyone make sense of this non sense....
why would anyone want to?

 

[Orias]

Given that many of them are religious the necessary conclusion is that many of them are spiritual.

Many of them are...Some of them aren't

So then, how does one conclude what spirituality is?

 

[waitasec]

So then, how does one conclude what spirituality is?

chemistry...

speaking from the perspective as a musician, i have experienced a connection while playing music with other musicians that is not dependent in communicating through words.

in music there is a law but this law is meant to be broken...
call it spirituality or a chemical response...it's really fun either way

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So then, how does one conclude what spirituality is?

I'm not sure. I was born an Atheist and was never "spiritual"....I have no idea what that means. I'm the odd man out in my family of Muslims and Christians. One thing both sides of my family could agree on and that was that I was a heathen and I was going to hell.....whatever that means...

Maybe some of the other Atheist here can answer that one. Up until a year or so ago I had no idea there was such a thing as (Agnostic Atheist) and I suspect there are a few other classifications out there.

 

[outhouse]

Maybe some of the other Atheist here can answer that one.

before i was a atheist I already had my mind made up with common sense alone that the christian hell was not the place modern day man makes it out to be.

I always thought that a sinner or bad person lived a crappy life and thats what there talking about. You kill someone, you get caught and you will live a life of hell in prison. If you dont get caught you may have to live with what you had done, and if that didnt bother you you still had to hide and your life would still be diminished. Again pointing to hell as a state of mind for the living.

I think the bible was a guide for the living, and has nothing to do with the afterlife. I believe the early writers changed all the words to control people and force belief through fear.

No one knows what death is like to suggest a single thought is a guess at best.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

before i was a atheist I already had my mind made up with common sense alone that the christian hell was not the place modern day man makes it out to be.

I always thought that a sinner or bad person lived a crappy life and thats what there talking about. You kill someone, you get caught and you will live a life of hell in prison. If you dont get caught you may have to live with what you had done, and if that didnt bother you you still had to hide and your life would still be diminished. Again pointing to hell as a state of mind for the living.

I think the bible was a guide for the living, and has nothing to do with the afterlife. I believe the early writers changed all the words to control people and force belief through fear.

No one knows what death is like to suggest a single thought is a guess at best.

Agreed.....:yes:

 

[Falvlun]

I do wonder how an infinite being would experience such a moment of weakness. I guess this sort of conradiction happens when people try to make up stories about infinite beings. The finiteness of the storytellers rub off on the characters.

The whole point of Jesus was that he was also fully human, hence he was able to suffer and experience weakness.

The real mind twister is how someone can be both fully God and fully human...

 

[Debunker]

On what grounds do you assert that the existence of ontological necessity inexorably leads to an admission that God exists?

I'm an atheist; I accept the existence of ontologically necessary things such as identity. I fail to see how this leads to an "admission" of the existence of god(s). Can you please elaborate?

Thank you Meow Mix (what a wonderful name) for your question and chance for me to explain beliefs. My definition of God is that God exist as what many philosophers have called mind stuff. God is pure thinking,pure logic,and the final absolute.

It is because God does exist in the pure form of existence and never changes from the substance of existence, men can depend on his eternal essence that never changes.For example science and logic are always science and logic.

The highest forms of knowledge are primal stuff,which is eternal, like logic and science, mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry, etc. These are things that are self evident and do not depend on man but these come from God ;and, the sophisticated use of these eternal tools, which never change, enables man to make great discovers, think strait, and improve the quality of life. Actually the Bible confirms this philosophy for Christians but does nothing for atheist in search for evidence.

The recognition that these tools do exist, that the laws of science are the same throughout the universe,is recognition that God (logos for Greek philosophers and Christians) does exist. God becomes the final premise for all correct reasoning. To reject God means the rational reasoning and logical processes of the mind are interrupted. This is also confirmed by the Bible.

By using the eternal tools, used by man's mind, he sees God as a self evident and that God is (existence). Christians believe that atheist, who do not recognize God as a premise are uninformed in the use of logic and reasoning. Another thread on this forum points out the Bible considers those who do not believe in God as fools. Paul taught that atheist did not like to entertain God in their minds and suffered from delusions sent by God himself (Epistle of Romans).

I bet most atheists were not even aware that Christians had a complicated and complex philosophical position like this, all based on natural theology (reason and logic) and confirmed by reveled theology (Bible). In fact, most Christians are not aware of their own philosophy.
Debunker

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you Meow Mix (what a wonderful name) for your question and chance for me to explain beliefs. My definition of God is that God exist as what many philosophers have called mind stuff. God is pure thinking,pure logic,and the final absolute.

It is because God does exist in the pure form of existence and never changes from the substance of existence, men can depend on his eternal essence that never changes.For example science and logic are always science and logic.

The highest forms of knowledge are primal stuff,which is eternal, like logic and science, mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry, etc. These are things that are self evident and do not depend on man but these come from God ;and, the sophisticated use of these eternal tools, which never change, enables man to make great discovers, think strait, and improve the quality of life. Actually the Bible confirms this philosophy for Christians but does nothing for atheist in search for evidence.

The recognition that these tools do exist, that the laws of science are the same throughout the universe,is recognition that God (logos for Greek philosophers and Christians) does exist. God becomes the final premise for all correct reasoning. To reject God means the rational reasoning and logical processes of the mind are interrupted. This is also confirmed by the Bible.

However, I disagree with this. It's rational to cognize the ontological necessity of something like logic without ever having to bring god(s) into the picture. What you seem to be saying here is that the collection of all ontologically necessary things "are" God, but this is just a romanticized version of pantheism.

No logical contradiction is entailed in agreeing that ontological necessity exists yet denying belief that god(s) exist -- this should be impossible if what you're saying is true; yet here I am: an atheist which agrees logic is ontologically necessary. I haven't contradicted myself, so I'm still not understanding exactly what your point is.

That's why I mentioned it seems like pantheism to me: pantheists will say that the whole universe is God, but that's just sort of defining God into existence if you ask me. They call it God, I call it "the universe." Likewise in this scenario, you seem to be calling it God, while I just call it "logic."

Furthermore, do you assign further attributes to your God than just the known attributes of ontologically necessary things like logic? For instance, logic is not a creator-being, nor is it omnipotent or omniscient or anything like that. This is further evidence if you ask me that God is not just a collection of ontologically necessary things. It seems they are separate concepts, and it's wholly rational to acknowledge the necessary existence of logic while lacking belief in god(s).

By using the eternal tools, used by man's mind, he sees God as a self evident and that God is (existence). Christians believe that atheist, who do not recognize God as a premise are uninformed in the use of logic and reasoning. Another thread on this forum points out the Bible considers those who do not believe in God as fools. Paul taught that atheist did not like to entertain God in their minds and suffered from delusions sent by God himself (Epistle of Romans).

I bet most atheists were not even aware that Christians had a complicated and complex philosophical position like this, all based on natural theology (reason and logic) and confirmed by reveled theology (Bible). In fact, most Christians are not aware of their own philosophy.
Debunker

I disagree that god(s) are self-evident and I reject impromptu pantheistic definitions of god(s) -- it seems to me that I might as well define God as my socks and then declare that therefore God exists (since my socks exist).

Yes, identity exists and exists necessarily, but nothing about identity justifies the existence of god(s). The only way you can turn it around so that it does is by doing the equivalent of defining God to be my socks (by just asserting that God is defined as logic, math, the rules of thought, etc.); but as I've pointed out, doing so is absurd and circular... nothing but a definitional and hollow "victory."

To summarize, I think in order for your position to be justified you would need to demonstrate a few things:

1) Why is the existence of logic, mathematics, reason, etc. congruent with the existence of God without simply defining God as those things?

2) How do you know those things are aspects of God?

Essentially, I'm just asking the basic epistemic stuff: what do you know, and how do you know it?

 

[Willamena]

For instance, logic is not a creator-being, nor is it omnipotent or omniscient or anything like that.

Wanna bet?

 

[Meow Mix]

Wanna bet?

Sure, please demonstrate that it is

 

[Copernicus]

I bet most atheists were not even aware that Christians had a complicated and complex philosophical position like this, all based on natural theology (reason and logic) and confirmed by reveled theology (Bible). In fact, most Christians are not aware of their own philosophy.

Do not assume that most atheists were never Christians. Most of us were. You are not educating people ignorant of Christianity on what Christians believe. And I think it fair to say that other Christians are as aware of their philosophy as you are of yours.

Where I think you go wrong in most of your last post is in your apparent reliance on the assumption that "mind-stuff" can exist independently of a physical brain. Human "mind-stuff", it appears, cannot.