The Case For Atheism

It has been suggested in these forums that the case for atheism is so strong that anyone who isn't an atheist deserves to be ridiculed.

If this is truly the case, atheists, won't one of you please prove that atheism is true for us in this very thread, so that we may avoid your ridicule? If the truth of atheism is so far beyond a shadow of a doubt that its dissenters are deserving of humiliation, then it must be exceedingly easy to prove. Right? Right.

Atheists, you have the floor...

Atheism is a religion in itself.

Fact!

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It has been suggested in these forums that the case for atheism is so strong that anyone who isn't an atheist deserves to be ridiculed.

If this is truly the case, atheists, won't one of you please prove that atheism is true for us in this very thread, so that we may avoid your ridicule? If the truth of atheism is so far beyond a shadow of a doubt tha ...[text shortened]... t must be exceedingly easy to prove. Right? Right.

Atheists, you have the floor...

When you ask for proof, are you asking for mathematical proof, or, as it has supposedly been suggested, a strong case?

As for the strong case, it is, as you say, exceedingly easy. It is as easy as stating that the case for theism is too weak to be believable on purely rational grounds.

Whether all irrational people deserve humiliation is another question altogether, and I personally would say no.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It has been suggested in these forums that the case for atheism is so strong that anyone who isn't an atheist deserves to be ridiculed.

If this is truly the case, atheists, won't one of you please prove that atheism is true for us in this very thread, so that we may avoid your ridicule? If the truth of atheism is so far beyond a shadow of a doubt tha ...[text shortened]... t must be exceedingly easy to prove. Right? Right.

Atheists, you have the floor...

There is no such thing as a case for atheism. There are only cases against theism. The two are not synonymous.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is no such thing as a case for atheism. There are only cases against theism. The two are not synonymous.

Is not the lack of a strong case for theism, by default a case for atheism?

This forum is truly dreadful in the speed at which the debate descends into abuse, so I am probably going regret this but here goes.

I tend to agree that the case to be made is not necessarily for atheism, but rather whether anyone can demonstrate the argument for a single religion.

The probem, as I see it, is as follows:

1) There are many good, decent people who believe in a religion to the exclusion of others (Religion A).

2) There are many good, decent people who believe in Religion B, to the exclusion of Religion A with which it is incompatible in some way.

3) Both implore me to follow their religion, or face serious eternal consequences.

4) How do I then choose? Overwhelmingly people will 'choose' the religion of their parents, but that suggests that religion is simply determined by the casual chance of birth, which is unsatisfactory.

5) If I choose the religion that simply accords with my own moral beliefs, then surely I am not following that religion, as to follow any religion must necessarily imply that I will, from time to time, act against my natural inclinations to follow the teachings of that religion. But, if that were the basis on which I chose the religion in the first place, I might simply find another religion which is a closer match.

6) The alternative is to accept that all religions are manifestations of the same thing, and that their incompatibilities are just what happens when human beings argue over centuries over these types of things.

7) If that is the case, then you may as well accept that no religion can be selected which you can be sure is the right one. So you select none. After all, if you are going to be damned, you would surely prefer to be damned for what you believe in that what (in your heart of hearts) you don't.

8) For my personal perspective, this leads me to conclude that I should simply lead a good and moral life. I have not expanded on what this means to me for the simple reason that it is only my view that matters, as I do not chose to submit myself to someone else's teachings (though I will take elements of them on board if I feel they are valid).

9) This, of course, could lead you to the conclusion that, whilst you don't follow any single religion, you should nonetheless believe in a god.

10) However, in the absence of a specified religion, you would have no prescribed basis to determine what type of god this is (e.g. compassionate, vengeful, proud etc.) At this point, you are back to stage 5, in that you would probably visualise a god as being someone who shares your moral values.

11) If this god were a being that would damn an otherwise decent human being for the simple chance that they followed the religion of their birth, were homosexual, committed adultery etc, then this is not a god I can accept as being a god. In fact, I believe that a true god would not punish an otherwise good person even if that person denied that god's very existence.

12) So I am left with trying to be a good person, look after my family, try and do no harm to others etc. I cross my fingers and hope that, if there is a god, this will be good enough. If there isn't one, I have lost nothing, which I might have done if I had followed the 'wrong' religion and acted against my natural inclinations by following its teachings. I don't need to deny god's existence, because I don't see it matters whether I do or do not.

The only thing people who do follow a particular religion can do for me is not to explain to me why their religion is right, but to explain how they reach the conclusion that other religions must be wrong, other than to say "it just is", as proponents on the other side will say exactly the same thing and are often just as well-intentioned.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
This forum is truly dreadful in the speed at which the debate descends into abuse, so I am probably going regret this but here goes.

I tend to agree that the case to be made is not necessarily for atheism, but rather whether anyone can demonstrate the argument for a single religion.

The probem, as I see it, is as follows:

1) There are many go other side will say exactly the same thing and are often just as well-intentioned.

I believe that a true god would not punish an otherwise good person even if that person denied that god's very existence

sooo there are then absolutely no consequences and the term 'good', has no relevance in this context? Intwesting, vewy intwesting.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I believe that a true god would not punish an otherwise good person even if that person denied that god's very existence

sooo there are then absolutely no consequences and the term 'good', has no relevance in this context? Intwesting, vewy intwesting.

hmmmm, something we agree on. what'r yew up to mister?*squints eyes suspiciously*

sooo there are then absolutely no consequences and the term 'good', has no relevance in this context? Intwesting, vewy intwesting.[/b]

But you have not set out how I should decide that your religion's consequences, and your religion's views on what is 'good', are the right ones as opposed to many others.

What is it that sets your view's apart as being the right one to the exclusion of others? How do I decide if you are right if you will not explain?

Honestly, I am interested if you have an explanation.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
But you have not set out how I should decide that your religion's consequences, and your religion's views on what is 'good', are the right ones as opposed to many others.

What is it that sets your view's apart as being the right one to the exclusion of others? How do I decide if you are right if you will not explain?

Honestly, I am interested if you have an explanation.

yes i have a simple formula, look at what they produce and you shall be able to determine after an evaluation whether they are 'good', or otherwise. You should of course really define what you mean as 'good', that is the term, if to avoid confusion if nothing else.

Got confused with numbering....hope this is better!

I realise I perhaps did not make myself as clear as I would have liked. My question is not about whether one religion is better than another, but the process by which anyone decides which is preferable and how reliable that assessment is.

So, to robbie carrobie, and doward, or anyone else indeed, my questions might better be phrased:

1) Do you ascribe to a particular religion?

2) Is that religion the same as your parents?

3) If no to 2), how did you come to choose this different religion and on what basis? What convinces you that this basis of selection is the correct one?

4) If yes to 2), was your choice of religion simply the chance occurrence of your birth? If so, why should you feel that your religion is the correct one?

5) If yes to 2), do you believe that if you had been born in a different country, with different parents, you would have chosen a different religion? If so, why should you feel that your religion is the correct one?

6) If no to 4), on what basis did you choose to stay with the religion of your parents. What other religions did you examine and what did you base your selection on?

However I look at it, all these questions lead to some form of selective process, if blind chance is to be avoided as a conclusion. I don't believe the latter is the case, but have yet had anyone explain to me how they reached their choice of their religion versus all others that exist.

Hopefully someone will be prepared to take up the challenge.

Originally posted by Doward
hmmmm, something we agree on. what'r yew up to mister?*squints eyes suspiciously*

its ok, we can agree, i have forgiven you for your misdemeanour's and ill treatment, pitchforks, fire and chants of Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit! 🙂

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I realise I perhaps did not make myself as clear as I would have liked. My question is not about whether one religion is better than another, but the process by which anyone decides which is preferable and how reliable that assessment is.

So, to robbie carrobie, and doward, or anyone else indeed, my questions might better be phrased:

1) Do you a n versus all others that exist.

Hopefully someone will be prepared to take up the challenge.

see two posts above, its a very simple Christian principle,

wisdom is proven righteous by its works,

in that, the evaluation of a system can be determined by ascertaining what types of works (persons, attributes) are evident in the adherent of that system.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
see two posts above, its a very simple Christian principle,

wisdom is proven righteous by its works,

in that, the evaluation of a system can be determined by ascertaining what types of works (persons, attributes) are evident in the adherent of that system.

I think you know that doesn't answer the questions I asked, but no-one should feel compelled to answer questions they are not happy answering. It just doesn't take me any further.

Different religions will have a different views on what is righteous, and I was asking how you select between these differing views. I adhere to my own non-religious system, and think it is a moral one, which leads to moral acts. I also do not describe myself as an atheist.

I am not for one moment suggesting that my system is better than yours, or anyone's else's, but don't know how I could possibly determine whether it is or it isn't in a reliable way. And if we don't have a reliable way to determine this, why choose one religion over another.

Am I making sense?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It has been suggested in these forums that the case for atheism is so strong that anyone who isn't an atheist deserves to be ridiculed.

If this is truly the case, atheists, won't one of you please prove that atheism is true for us in this very thread, so that we may avoid your ridicule? If the truth of atheism is so far beyond a shadow of a doubt tha ...[text shortened]... t must be exceedingly easy to prove. Right? Right.

Atheists, you have the floor...

It has been suggested in these forums that the case for atheism is so strong that anyone who isn't an atheist deserves to be ridiculed.
Actually I don't believe it has been suggested that "the case for atheism is so strong that anyone who isn't an atheist deserves to be ridiculed."

On my part I said that creationists,Reveal Hidden Contentyou know... those who take a little bit of irrational here, a dab of wishful thinking there, and then a dirty great dollop of stupid, are the ones to be ridiculed.
Perhaps you'll correct me with a quote which shows under no uncertain terms and beyond all claims of ambiguity that even one person on these boards explicitly says or at least implies that non-atheists should be ridiculed.

Not creationist =/=> atheist 😞