The Case For Atheism

Originally posted by Rank outsider
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 sys liable way to determine this, why choose one religion over another.

Am I making sense?

yes you are making sense and it does answer your question, regardless of whether different religions have different views of what is righteous, for the principle itself is not concerned with what different religions profess , but is a mechanism which acts like a vehicle for the discerning person to make an evaluation of the different systems with his own mind, which, unless I am mistaken, is what you asked.

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...

I am thinking about a god about which certain statements are true. One of those statements is: Its nonexistence cannot be proven. Can you prove this god is nonexistent?

Obviously, you can't. Any proof that a god was nonexistent, would not apply to this god.

There is another true statement about this god. It will eternally punish anybody who believes it exists, and eternally reward anybody who believes it doesn't. That's just the way it is.

Should we tell people not to believe this god exists? What do we say if they ask us why we are telling them not to believe it exists? What if they ask us to prove it doesn't exist?

The point is, any kind of god can be imagined. Some can't be disproven, and some of those could be pretty outlandish and well, do weird things to your head just to think about. So there needs to be a clear, complete, agreed set of statements about the god or gods whose nonexistence is to be considered.

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

Sin is sin, and as such, loathsome to God.

What's so hard about this?

Everyone today wants a "feel good" religion with no fault-finding, and yet:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" -- Romans 3:23

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you are making sense and it does answer your question, regardless of whether different religions have different views of what is righteous, for the principle itself is not concerned with what different religions profess , but is a mechanism which acts like a vehicle for the discerning person to make an evaluation of the different systems with his own mind, which, unless I am mistaken, is what you asked.

Actually, I see your point. What you are saying is that we must judge all these religions for ourselves, not simply follow them because they were our parents religion etc. When it's teachings or practices are incompatible with what you believe, it is time to find another religion.

I agree with this perspective, but think the problem with this perspective is that it leads to choosing a religion because it accords with your life view. In which case, I would argue that you are not following a religion, but simply selecting one. But it is certainly a better approach than blind faith, just not one for me.

But I agree that you did answer my question, just not in the way I has expected, which is maybe why I did not understand it at first.

Thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Sin is sin, and as such, loathsome to God.

What's so hard about this?

Everyone today wants a "feel good" religion with no fault-finding, and yet:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" -- Romans 3:23

Some religions believe homosexuality is a sin. Others do not.

How do we choose which religion is right on a reliable basis? That is the question I was asking.

If there is no answer to this question, why are you certain you have the right answer?

If this is not hard, would you care to answer the questions I posed and numbered in an earlier post?

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

By default, yes. But one is not making a case for atheism. That's just what you're left with when theism has come up short.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]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,[hidden]not ...[text shortened]... least implies that non-atheists should be ridiculed.

Not creationist =/=> atheist 😞[/b]

I have never heard of an atheist that was a creationist.
From Webster"s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

creationism n (1880): a doctrine or theory holding that matter,
the various forms of life, and the world were created by God
out of nothing.

atheism n (1546): 1 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity 2: UNGODLINESS,
WICKEDNESS

deity n 1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god: DIVINITY
b cap: GOD 1, SUPREME BEING 2: a god or goddess 3: one
exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful


By these definitions an atheist can not be a creationist since
he does not believe in the existence of deity, no GOD.
And a creationist by definition can not be an atheist and is
a non-atheist. Since you say creationist should be ridiculed
this implies that non-atheist should be ridiculed. So you, Sir,
are that one person who implies non-atheist should be ridiculed.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have never heard of an atheist that was a creationist.
From Webster"s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

creationism n (1880): a doctrine or theory holding that matter,
the various forms of life, and the world were created by God
out of nothing.

atheism n (1546): 1 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity ...[text shortened]... d be ridiculed. So you, Sir,
are that one person who implies non-atheist should be ridiculed.

Don't embarrass yourself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have never heard of an atheist that was a creationist.
From Webster"s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

creationism n (1880): a doctrine or theory holding that matter,
the various forms of life, and the world were created by God
out of nothing.

atheism n (1546): 1 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity ...[text shortened]... d be ridiculed. So you, Sir,
are that one person who implies non-atheist should be ridiculed.

Oh deary me, we are dealing with a faulty logic circuit.

Originally posted by JS357
I am thinking about a god about which certain statements are true. One of those statements is: Its nonexistence cannot be proven. Can you prove this god is nonexistent?

Obviously, you can't. Any proof that a god was nonexistent, would not apply to this god.

There is another true statement about this god. It will eternally punish anybody who believes it e ...[text shortened]... ete, agreed set of statements about the god or gods whose nonexistence is to be considered.

Yes.

As a non-dualist, for example, I might use the word “god” to refer to the implicate ground of being—I probably won’t, but I might. And that use would be a far cry from that of a dualist-theist. As was the use of theos as synonymous with phusis for the Stoics. And why should one usage be considered normative vis-à-vis all the others?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

It is as easy as stating that the case for theism is too weak to be believable on purely rational grounds.

Ah, but it isn't as easy as that. Merely stating that the case for theism is too weak to be believable does not make it so. You need to demonstrate that it is too weak to be believable.

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 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.

For simplicity's sake, let's confine the debate to the theistic conception of God in the broad sense, shared by the major monotheistic world religions. What is at issue here is not whether one religion is right and another wrong, but rather whether or not the case for atheism is so overwhelming that theists ought to be ridiculed for having a belief in a divine being of some sort.

Originally posted by JS357
I am thinking about a god about which certain statements are true. One of those statements is: Its nonexistence cannot be proven. Can you prove this god is nonexistent?

Obviously, you can't. Any proof that a god was nonexistent, would not apply to this god.

There is another true statement about this god. It will eternally punish anybody who believes it e ...[text shortened]... ete, agreed set of statements about the god or gods whose nonexistence is to be considered.

The point is, any kind of god can be imagined. Some can't be disproven, and some of those could be pretty outlandish and well, do weird things to your head just to think about. So there needs to be a clear, complete, agreed set of statements about the god or gods whose nonexistence is to be considered.

Well said! I propose we limit our discussion to the classical theistic conception of God which seems to be the recipient of the majority of the ire in these forums. By this I mean, the Necessary Being responsible for the creation of the world ex nihilo, who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, immaterial, etc., etc.

Originally posted by rwingett
By default, yes. But one is not making a case for atheism. That's just what you're left with when theism has come up short.

Not necessarily. There is Spinoza's pantheistic conception of God, which Einstein endorsed. Spinoza was not a theist per se, but neither was he an atheist in the strict sense.

OK, so far no one has stepped up and given a convincing case for atheism; perhaps, though, we are only in the stage where we are defining our terms. And, as Rwingett has pointed out, it seems clear that there isn't a case for atheism as much as there is a case against theism. Plus, we've narrowed our conception of God to the classical theistic God in order give the atheist a target at which to aim his/her withering skepticism.

We'll proceed from here then:

Please, my dear atheist brothers and sisters, present what you believe to be the strongest argument(s) against theism. Starting... now!