What is the best argument for an atheist?

[0zyzzyz0]

At the risk of repeating what others have stated in earlier posts (I'll browse through and read some later.) I present here my two bits worth:
The propsition of an existent god must, in order to be considered reasonable, be supported validly by some genuine evidence. Any considered evidence must meet the test of being relevant to a specific definition of a particular conception of a god being propsed as actually having the quality of being existent. It must also in some way be able to explain that it is necessary that such a being is an actually existent being and that its existense is a necessary prerequisit in order to explain something - anything - corresponding to reality as we might eccept and provisionally understand that foundational existential.
Short of being able to satisfy these very fundamental prerequisites, an hypothesis founded upon a thesis proposing that there actually exists a particular "God" must be considered a failed hypothesis.
If I propose that "God" is my dog, who I call "doG", then proving (reasonably) that doG exists would be a proof that God exists. It would be a simple syllogistic proof. Providing my definition of God as being doG is accepted, then, by definition, God might be said to be existent in as much as doG is existent.
Likewise, if someone includes, as part of their definition of their conception of God, that God is a necessarily existent being, then by definition He must exist - in some sense. It wouldn't be what I would accept as a definition, nor what I would accept as a legitimate, genuous argument, but some do try to pull off bogus trickery like this.
An existent giant dinosaur exists behind you and therefore, on the basis of my definition and my claim to be making a well supported factual claim, it is real. Are you convinced yet?
What about the part about necessity? Just like there is a lack of evidence indicating in some way that a particular God is existent, it seems there is no necessity of there being a God in order to explain anything - even though the proposition of a hypothetical God is meant to be an explanation for everything. As a propositon it is not established as being true in that it is not established in keeping with the correspondence theory of truth as being in any way a proposition that can be considered true.
It is true, or at least a truism, that lack of proof is not proof of falsity of the propositon, but if we are to accept that there is a burden of proof required in order for us to reasonably accept that the poposition in question is worthy of being regarded as true, then it seems reasonable that we damand something in the way of corroboration.

So... The best argument, in my opinion, for a non theist to use in countering a theistic proposition is to demand a reasonable burden of proof be met by those proposing the existence of their version of God. Likewise for those attempting to use as a premise a presumption that such a God is existent. It must be an "established" premise in order for it to legitimately be used in a sound argument as a premise. That proof must involve the elements of evidence and necessity.

That's my two bits worth.
0zy

 

[Orias]

The propsition of an existent god must, in order to be considered reasonable, be supported validly by some genuine evidence. Any considered evidence must meet the test of being relevant to a specific definition of a particular conception of a god being propsed as actually having the quality of being existent.

Is thought a quality?

It must also in some way be able to explain that it is necessary that such a being is an actually existent being and that its existense is a necessary prerequisit in order to explain something - anything - corresponding to reality as we might eccept and provisionally understand that foundational existential.

Reality exists intrinsically with fantasy.

Any form of conceptualization is based of an "ideal" basis, yet its components do consist of realistic emphasis.

Comfort is an obligation that is necessary to achieve, by any means.

So in turn, we let our ignorance deceive us.

Short of being able to satisfy these very fundamental prerequisites, an hypothesis founded upon a thesis proposing that there actually exists a particular "God" must be considered a failed hypothesis.

Of course, "Gods" labeled in man's ambition allows such fundamentals to be pursued.

Others denial automatically proposes "false" or claim their own certain "truth", in turn of their lack of understanding what it is to be.

If I propose that "God" is my dog, who I call "doG", then proving (reasonably) that doG exists would be a proof that God exists. It would be a simple syllogistic proof. Providing my definition of God as being doG is accepted, then, by definition, God might be said to be existent in as much as doG is existent.

Likewise, if someone includes, as part of their definition of their conception of God, that God is a necessarily existent being, then by definition He must exist - in some sense. It wouldn't be what I would accept as a definition, nor what I would accept as a legitimate, genuous argument, but some do try to pull off bogus trickery like this.

All men are liars.

An existent giant dinosaur exists behind you and therefore, on the basis of my definition and my claim to be making a well supported factual claim, it is real. Are you convinced yet?

Perhaps in a metaphysical continuation of an ending.

The possibilites are endless.

What about the part about necessity? Just like there is a lack of evidence indicating in some way that a particular God is existent, it seems there is no necessity of there being a God in order to explain anything

The position of a God is related to what man perceives and is influenced by.

By all means, God definitely exists.

It is within mans natural minded inertness to desire a place within "salvation", death be the means.

Upon our own ignorance, we pull ourselves into our own form of hypocritical self deceit. Hence the many claims of "truth".

If one specific religion was true on an individual basis, then everyone would be following it, but there isn't any one specific religion that is true, even though combined they all are.

Instinct lead us here, the rise and fall of Gods, and the rise of mortals.

It should be self evident, that nature tends to destroy itself and overcome it's own existence.

- even though the proposition of a hypothetical God is meant to be an explanation for everything.

No one would follow a hypothetical God, rather a more comforting philosophy of life, and in some cases, the experience of one fathoming the depths of being explores the universe within their own mind, conforming a God within their ideal delusion.

As a propositon it is not established as being true in that it is not established in keeping with the correspondence theory of truth as being in any way a proposition that can be considered true.

Truth should be evident, we express what we are, through our creations.

Even the self proclaimed truth that there is no truth.

Beyond perception lies truth.

It is true, or at least a truism, that lack of proof is not proof of falsity of the propositon, but if we are to accept that there is a burden of proof required in order for us to reasonably accept that the poposition in question is worthy of being regarded as true, then it seems reasonable that we damand something in the way of corroboration.

Introlerance.

So... The best argument, in my opinion, for a non theist to use in countering a theistic proposition is to demand a reasonable burden of proof be met by those proposing the existence of their version of God. Likewise for those attempting to use as a premise a presumption that such a God is existent. It must be an "established" premise in order for it to legitimately be used in a sound argument as a premise. That proof must involve the elements of evidence and necessity.

I think a non-theist could use my argument as well.

 

[ellenjanuary]

How about a punch in the lip? Artifact might send them packing. I have found that radiating love keeps all theists away. Mindset of wolf works, too; that works for lots of problems.

 

[Orias]

How about a punch in the lip? Artifact might send them packing. I have found that radiating love keeps all theists away. Mindset of wolf works, too; that works for lots of problems.

I am, a wolf, in human shape.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I am, a wolf, in human shape.

Then you covered.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

Orias, how do I transfer quotes in blocks in order to respond as you've responded to me?
My apologies, but here goes old school from a fossil:
Orias: "Is thought a quality?" Hmmm? I'll offer that "thought" is abstraction contained contextually and built on a structure of componding and interrelating metaphors. We perceive our thoughts recursively even as our thoughts are our formulated perceptions. Maybe we can think of them as activity emergent of our physical selves. Certainly, they are not something independent of our physicallity in some dualistic sense as primitive peoples once thought. Pinning down what we may meaningfully regard as conscious awareness and the nature of thought is maybe a bit much to try to fit into little message boxes, but trying sure makes for an excellent gedanken exercise.
"We let our ignorance deceive us." I like that.
As for "fantasy" and "conceptualizations" as being based on "ideals", it would seem reasonable to think in terms of all conceptualizations as being formed from our personal mixing of all that we perceive. We do, after all, internalize and build upon our experiences, continually evolving as we introduce the new to our subjectively constructed, established selves.
There were many passages I could not understand, but of particular interest were the assertions, "By all means, God definitely exists.", "...there isn't any one specific religion that is true, even though combined they all are." and "No one would follow a hypothetical God." !!!???
In ending, you say, "I think a non-theist could use my argument as well." What is your argument? I missed it somehow. Being a non-theist, I would be interested in considering any thoughts from differeing perspectives.

0zy

 

[0zyzzyz0]

I'll add to my earlier post that one of the best ways to disarm a theist in "the debate" is to get them to commit to some definition of what they accept God (capitalized) to be. It is possible to allow that some conception of a god may be theoretically or conditionally possible. [A god as some sort of simulation programmer, for instance] The theist will often at that point, through conflation of definitions or understandings, assert that the God they propose is therefore a real possibility. In attempting to define, especially in defining a traditional Abrahaim understanding of God, a conscientious, genuine, intellectually honest attempt to do so should lead to a realization that what they posit may not logically be anything that can be actually existant in any meaningful sense of "real".
In attempting to ascribe the various "omni" characteristics it easily becomes obvious that these characteristics cannot be possessed of an actually existent being as having these characteristics would lead to inevitable unresolveable paradoxes. Most sophisticated apologists are aware of this, but somehow manage to dismiss this inconvenience even so. I'm often at a loss as to how they rationalize doing so, but it does seem standard practice to attempt to just assume the premise of a specifically defined God as being possible without first establishing it as so.
The charge that "defining God out of existance" isn't a fair tactic in debate may be heard often in response, but the counter is that not defining what it is that is being posited does not allow for the possibility of meaningful debate.

0zy

 

[bhaktajan]

There is only one method to Know God.
It is the same method to know who is one’s own father.
Any excuses regarding lack bereftment of this, is due to bad-Karma [opposite of good-karma].

There is only one method to Know God ---He must reveal Himself through our Mother Veda.

My Mum told me who my dad is ---so now I know.
God reveals Himself only by His own self & at His own Time & at His whim ---while we are in the Material-World (maya-prakriti-shakti).

God’s external energy that emits the material world is known as “Maya” or “prakriti” or “shakti” ---all are considered the feminine expression of God’s external energies:
God is the ‘energetic’,
and,
God’s Self-Expansion of the Material-World, aka, “prakriti” is the ‘energy’

We are In-Seperation from God.

God exists in the aspects:
1 Brahman – the Void.
2 paramatma – localised Spirit Life
3 Bhagavan – The Transcendent Personage of Godhead

We are a microcosism of the original Time-less Godhead’s Abode.

We are literally far away ---enjoying life after life without making any effort to escape.

The good news is that eons of time passing are all negated when eternity is reached.

To wit:

I'll add to my earlier post that one of the best ways to disarm a “legitimate Child” in "the debate" is to get them to commit to some definition of what they accept “A Dad” (capitalized) to be.

It is possible to allow that some conception of “A Dad” may be theoretically or conditionally possible. [“A Dad” as some sort of simulation programmer, for instance]

The “legitimate Child” will often at that point, through conflation of definitions or understandings, assert that “A Dad” they propose is therefore a real possibility.

In attempting to define, especially in defining a traditional Abrahamic understanding of “A Dad”, a conscientious, genuine, intellectually honest attempt to do so should lead to a realization that what they posit may not logically be anything that can be actually existant in any meaningful sense of "real".

. . . Without consulting with their Mother, of course . . .

In attempting to ascribe the various "omni" characteristics it easily becomes obvious that these characteristics cannot be possessed of an actually existent being as having these characteristics would lead to inevitable unresolveable paradoxes.

Most sophisticated apologists are aware of this, but somehow manage to dismiss this inconvenience even so. I'm often at a loss as to how they rationalize doing so, but it does seem standard practice to attempt to just assume the premise of a specifically defined “Dad” as being possible without first establishing it as so.

The charge that "defining “A Dad” out of existance" isn't a fair tactic in debate may be heard often in response, but the counter is that not defining what it is that is being posited does not allow for the possibility of meaningful debate.

 

[Orias]

Orias, how do I transfer quotes in blocks in order to respond as you've responded to me?

Copy and past the

and the

. If you do this right, then what would be quoted is the part that says "and the".

Otherwise just wrap quote tags around the text (the button next to the pound # symbol).

Orias: "Is thought a quality?" Hmmm? I'll offer that "thought" is abstraction contained contextually and built on a structure of componding and interrelating metaphors.

So thought is an obscurity?

Does it consist of any qualities or components?

We perceive our thoughts recursively even as our thoughts are our formulated perceptions.

Recognition is the key. Otherwise you could just call it consideration, then I would have to disagree with you.

Not all people "recognize" their thoughts.

Maybe we can think of them as activity emergent of our physical selves. Certainly, they are not something independent of our physicallity in some dualistic sense as primitive peoples once thought.

Spirit and matter are one.

Perhaps they are not as "primitive" as a lot of people think

But then again, that is without the consideration of proclaiming your conscience as being spoken to by a "God".

Pinning down what we may meaningfully regard as conscious awareness and the nature of thought is maybe a bit much to try to fit into little message boxes, but trying sure makes for an excellent gedanken exercise.

I agree.

But one could simply state it, that its what we are, natural, even in attempts to overcome ourselves.

"We let our ignorance deceive us." I like that.

I like that you like that

As for "fantasy" and "conceptualizations" as being based on "ideals", it would seem reasonable to think in terms of all conceptualizations as being formed from our personal mixing of all that we perceive.

Of course, thats because thats all thats to it.

No complecations, or synthetics are needed to determine what it is to be "divine".

We do, after all, internalize and build upon our experiences, continually evolving as we introduce the new to our subjectively constructed, established selves.

The only true source of internalized knowledge is life.

Perception is processed externally.

There were many passages I could not understand, but of particular interest were the assertions, "By all means, God definitely exists.", "...there isn't any one specific religion that is true, even though combined they all are." and "No one would follow a hypothetical God." !!!???

Think of it this way, what you consist of, so does "God".

It is an image, a portrayal, a continuation of an ending, something man uses to Oppress himself.

Not one person would follow an ideal if it was meant to be hypothetical. People believe in something that can be achieved and easily understood, in a kind of hypocritic manner.

In ending, you say, "I think a non-theist could use my argument as well." What is your argument? I missed it somehow. Being a non-theist, I would be interested in considering any thoughts from differeing perspectives.

My argument is comfort, something all people seek.

Try and view it from a phsychological and sociological point of view, God is both ascribed and achieved, divinity is within us, not beyond us.

This is so, simply because we are able to fathom turning our "imperfections" into "perfections".

 

[foxjazz]

Which God?

We are all atheists.

How many concepts of God are there?

Do you believe in all of them?

Therefore you admit your an atheist with respect to the Gods you disagree, ahem I mean don't believe in.

There are as many Gods as there have been persons that thought about this idea of God(s).

Each and every God you believe or disbelieve in are all powerless, Except for the concepts of God that require you to kill. Many have died due to belief in this Christian God, and because of this belief in this God. Do you respect any God concept that people are killed for? If you do, how does that make you any better than the killers committing murder for your God?

 

[Orias]

Which God?

The one that is evident as "God".

We are all atheists.

No we arn't. We are what we are.

How many concepts of God are there?

Beyond your comprehension.

Do you believe in all of them?

Yes

Therefore you admit your an atheist with respect to the Gods you disagree, ahem I mean don't believe in.

Denial is a proposal of intolerance or narrow mindedness, self deceitful, and an oppressed mind.

There are as many Gods as there have been persons that thought about this idea of God(s).

So God does exist.

Each and every God you believe or disbelieve in are all powerless, Except for the concepts of God that require you to kill. Many have died due to belief in this Christian God, and because of this belief in this God. Do you respect any God concept that people are killed for? If you do, how does that make you any better than the killers committing murder for your God?

Its part of life.

 

[0zyzzyz0]

bhaktajan,

I'm not trying to be rude or to offend you in my response here. Please take my dissention as just that - a dissenting opinion based on a different perspective.

I think I see where you tried to go with your response, but I can't see that you were in any way successful. It seems instead that you have conflated meanings and succeeded in sowing confusion. The metaphor doesn't seem to translate directly as you intended that it should be seen to translate.

I pose instead that you have provided an excellent example of a psychological foundation for belief in devine or mystical, anthropomorphized parental authority figures. The parallels between imagined divinity and familiar, idealised parental icons are unmistakable in your example.

Divine revelation!? Archaic revealed knowledge!? God!? Spirits!? Are any of these necessarily real? That is, is positing their reality necessary to explaining anything real? If not, on what basis may we consider them to be real.

In order for me to take the path you seem to think to be reasonable I would have to accept that divine revelation is in some way a reasonable, legitimate source of knowledge. I would have to accept a priori that divinity is real. Until such a foundational epistemology can be established as being correspondent with our observations of the seemingly non magical reality we share, I find myself unable to accept divine revelation as anything but mysticism, something I tend to think of as a magical non explanation of mystery, and an unfounded claim to having some special license ot special knowledge.

0zy

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes[, I believe in all concepts of God]

Then you are a doubleplusgood doublethinker, since some concepts of God are logically incompatible with others.

 

[Orias]

Then you are a doubleplusgood doublethinker, since some concepts of God are logically incompatible with others.

But they all logically describe one thing, which makes them compatibile.

It's only humanly to describe something in a humanly fashion.

"To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by Opposing them, end them."-Hamlet


Humans are hypocrites, thats a pretty well thoughtout premonition. Though most people deny.

Believe me, theists tend to shake the rock in my box just as much as atheists do, but we could just call it a misunderstanding.

I try and stray as far away from Christianity and Buddhism (among others but those are the main two) as possible, not because I don't like them, but because they don't describe what I believe. Even though I often find myself using numerous ideals from numerous religions, they are not the same.

The term God is often thrown around loosely, so what does it mean to you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is only one method to Know God.
It is the same method to know who is one’s own father.

DNA testing?

My Mum told me who my dad is ---so now I know.
God reveals Himself only by His own self & at His own Time & at His whim ---while we are in the Material-World (maya-prakriti-shakti).

My mother didn't have to tell me who my Dad was. He was always just there, so I just knew without being told.

 

[PolyHedral]

But they all logically describe one thing, which makes them compatibile.

My not-at-all-serious-yet-perfectly-valid concept doesn't. It describes an entirely mundane, non-supernatural version of God that still matches the majority of the Bible, and involves almost no philosophy that isn't directly derived from logic. It's not logically compatible with most other ideas of God.

 

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
There is only one method to Know God.
It is the same method to know who is one’s own father.

DNA testing?

In 1928, Frederick Griffith discovered that traits of the "smooth" form of the Pneumococcus could be transferred to the "rough" form of the same bacteria by mixing killed "smooth" bacteria with the live "rough" form.[133] This system provided the first clear suggestion that DNA carries genetic information—the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment—when Oswald Avery, along with coworkers Colin MacLeod and Maclyn McCarty, identified DNA as the transforming principle in 1943.[134] DNA's role in heredity was confirmed in 1952, when Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase in the Hershey–Chase experiment showed that DNA is the genetic material of the T2 phage.[135]
In 1953, James D. Watson and Francis Crick suggested what is now accepted as the first correct double-helix model of DNA structure in the journal Nature.[5] Their double-helix, molecular model of DNA was then based on a single X-ray diffraction image (labeled as "Photo 51")[136] taken by Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling in May 1952, as well as the information that the DNA bases are paired — also obtained through private communications from Erwin Chargaff in the previous years. Chargaff's rules played a very important role in establishing double-helix configurations for B-DNA as well as A-DNA.
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, fellows, that's the ticket !!!

Only direct Revelation of the Body of evidence suffices as Bonefide.

Self-proclamations of divine revelation made by a scholar or preacher are defacto bogus.

God reveals himself only by His recorded & historical acts ---just as all mundane knowledge is passed down from teacher to student ---so similarly we recieve truth direct from the truth bearing personification of truth [aka, God].

Only God can reveal Himself.

My mother didn't have to tell me who my Dad was. He was always just there, so I just knew without being told.

Many other people are born bereft of such avantages ---that is due to past actions re-bounding to form the future paths & means to redemption, that they presently embody.

Well that's Good Karma for you.
Same for Jesus too.
Others have neglected the "Golden Rule" and did not:
"Treat others the way you would want to be treated".

Instead meglomaniacs fall hard from their heights due to their acts of "Being the Lord of all they survey."

 

[bhaktajan]

How many concepts of God are there?

This baffles me!
There is one concept of God!

There may be those claiming to possess the same qualities as God.

But the definition of God is:
The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The Supreme . . . Personality . . . of . . . Godhead.

Is like you had said:
How many concepts of Auto-mobiles are there?
Do you believe in all of them?

Four-wheel transports?
So Many auto manufacturers ---but, all basically the same output.

 

[bhaktajan]

I pose instead that you have provided an excellent example of a psychological foundation for belief in devine or mystical, anthropomorphized parental authority figures. The parallels between imagined divinity and familiar, idealised parental icons are unmistakable in your example.

a] You have got to be kidding [kidding as in sarcasm].

b] "imagined divinity and familiar" ---2+2 is the same for kindergarten Students and for rocket scientists.

When a thief holds a knife to you while demanding your wealth ---"Guess who your daddy is then?"
Maybe you have avoided this occurence "to kow-tow to brutality iron grip" ---But any one can approach you and declare they are your lord & master . . . and you will salute when they do so . . . lest you establish the proper ground work for democratic rule.

Don't be fooled by the theocracies ---they are actually mafiosi commercial enterprises in religious garb.

We just have to establish which is which.

c] Your welcomed. My Pleasure to be of assistance to you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The best argument for atheism is to simply let theists make their arguments for god. Reason and honesty handles the rest.