Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[Zzyzx]

.

This is sophomoric. "Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

We can expect a certain amount of word play and definition-shifting when people attempt to defend positions in which evidence does not support their contentions.

[parsivalshorse]

.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

"I only believe in one god" (as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions and others) is decidedly NOT any form of Atheism.

That is not the definition in question.

That is known as monotheism.

Belief in multiple gods is known as polytheism.

Absence of belief in gods is known as atheism

Again, tbat is not the definition in question.

"I do not believe in gods" does NOT imply exceptions.

It infers the exception of monotheism.

This is sophomoric. "Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

You are attacking your own strawman, flinging ad homs and at the same time complaining about the quality of MY argument. Perhaps present an argument better than just mud flinging?

__________________________

"Let us have argument, not sophomoric pedantry"

Personal insults are apparently not acceptable. Hopefully you are not excluded from that rule.

[Danmark]

.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

"I only believe in one god" (as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions and others) is decidedly NOT any form of Atheism.

That is not the definition in question.

That is known as monotheism.

Belief in multiple gods is known as polytheism.

Absence of belief in gods is known as atheism

Again, tbat is not the definition in question.

"I do not believe in gods" does NOT imply exceptions.

It infers the exception of monotheism.

This is sophomoric. "Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

You are attacking your own strawman, flinging ad homs and at the same time complaining about the quality of MY argument. Perhaps present an argument better than just mud flinging?

__________________________

"Let us have argument, not sophomoric pedantry"

Personal insults are apparently not acceptable. Hopefully you are not excluded from that rule.

You've failed to address the argument itself:

"Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

Accurate, measured descriptions are neither ad hominems, nor insults.

You erred when you claimed reference to 'gods' did not include 'a single god.'

[parsivalshorse]

.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

"I only believe in one god" (as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions and others) is decidedly NOT any form of Atheism.

That is not the definition in question.

That is known as monotheism.

Belief in multiple gods is known as polytheism.

Absence of belief in gods is known as atheism

Again, tbat is not the definition in question.

"I do not believe in gods" does NOT imply exceptions.

It infers the exception of monotheism.

This is sophomoric. "Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

You are attacking your own strawman, flinging ad homs and at the same time complaining about the quality of MY argument. Perhaps present an argument better than just mud flinging?

__________________________

"Let us have argument, not sophomoric pedantry"

Personal insults are apparently not acceptable. Hopefully you are not excluded from that rule.

You've failed to address the argument itself:

"Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

Accurate, measured descriptions are neither ad hominems, nor insults.

You are just making as assertion, not an argument. And your ad homs are still ad homs. Insulting me by accusing me of 'sophomoric pedantry' is not actually an argument.

You erred when you claimed reference to 'gods' did not include 'a single god.'

If that is the case, you have not supported it with an argument. The definition does not 'include a single God' and you have not indicated why you think it does.The point is that the definition given is problematic.

[wiploc]

You erred when you claimed reference to 'gods' did not include 'a single god.'

If that is the case, you have not supported it with an argument.

"Atheists" is plural, see. Among the bunch of us, we don't believe in gods, plural.

We could say "an atheist doesn't believe in a god." But there's no real point, because people who want to pick nits, who want to misunderstand, would then say, "Ah, so atheists don't believe in one god, but they believe in all the other gods!"

It's tough anyway, deciding to go singular or plural, when Christians claim one god is three gods is singular is plural. You can't blame us for being confused when they are being deliberately confusing.

So I'm content to define atheists as "people who don't believe in gods." Clear and simple. When someone needs elaboration, I'm happy to address the specific point by saying "atheists don't believe in any gods," or "atheists are people who don't believe in gods, and rocks aren't people," or whatever the specific case calls for.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 862 by parsivalshorse]


Moderator Comment

Hello parsivalshorse. If you believe that someone is attacking or insulting you. Please notify moderators. Thank you, kindly!

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[KenRU]

.

This is sophomoric. "Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

We can expect a certain amount of word play and definition-shifting when people attempt to defend positions in which evidence does not support their contentions.

Apparently when evidence and dictionaries don't support them as well.

-all the best

[Zzyzx]

.

"Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

Accurate, measured descriptions are neither ad hominems, nor insults.

You are just making as assertion, not an argument. And your ad homs are still ad homs. Insulting me by accusing me of 'sophomoric pedantry' is not actually an argument.

It is permissible to attack arguments presented. Doing so is known as debate and is not considered a personal insult.

You erred when you claimed reference to 'gods' did not include 'a single god.'

If that is the case, you have not supported it with an argument. The definition does not 'include a single God' and you have not indicated why you think it does.The point is that the definition given is problematic.

If one does not believe in fairies that includes all fairies and not "except for one". Agreed?

If a person believes in one fairy (even if it is only one) they are a believer and not a non-believer. Right?

Apply the same to gods. If a person believes in one god, say the Bible God for example, they are a believer (even if they disbelieve in all competing gods). If another person does not believe in ANY of the proposed gods, they are a non-believer. Right?

Is that really a difficult concept to understand?

[parsivalshorse]

.

The definition of 'strong atheism' given (The belief that Gods do not exist.) is problematic. Monotheism posits that Gods do not exist, and instead that there is only one God.

So Christians, Moslems and Jews would all be 'strong atheists' under the given definition.

It is not a workable definition.

"I only believe in one god" (as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions and others) is decidedly NOT any form of Atheism.

That is not the definition in question.

That is known as monotheism.

Belief in multiple gods is known as polytheism.

Absence of belief in gods is known as atheism

Again, tbat is not the definition in question.

"I do not believe in gods" does NOT imply exceptions.

It infers the exception of monotheism.

This is sophomoric. "Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

You are attacking your own strawman, flinging ad homs and at the same time complaining about the quality of MY argument. Perhaps present an argument better than just mud flinging?

__________________________

"Let us have argument, not sophomoric pedantry"

Personal insults are apparently not acceptable. Hopefully you are not excluded from that rule.

You've failed to address the argument itself:

"Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

Accurate, measured descriptions are neither ad hominems, nor insults.

You erred when you claimed reference to 'gods' did not include 'a single god.'

So you keep insisting, but have not actually made an argument, just a few unfounded assertions addressing your own misrepresentations.

[parsivalshorse]

.

"Gods" includes individual gods. If I do not believe in gods, by inclusion I do not believe in any single god, including the god of a monotheistic religion. "Not believing in gods" does not mean the same as "Not being a polytheist."

Accurate, measured descriptions are neither ad hominems, nor insults.

You are just making as assertion, not an argument. And your ad homs are still ad homs. Insulting me by accusing me of 'sophomoric pedantry' is not actually an argument.

It is permissible to attack arguments presented. Doing so is known as debate and is not considered a personal insult.

I know that. The point is that attacking the person (ad hominem) is not attcking the argument. Which is the case here.

You erred when you claimed reference to 'gods' did not include 'a single god.'

If that is the case, you have not supported it with an argument. The definition does not 'include a single God' and you have not indicated why you think it does.The point is that the definition given is problematic.

If one does not believe in fairies that includes all fairies and not "except for one". Agreed?

Clearly not. Believers on Yahweh for example tend to disbelieve in all other gods. In fact generally with religions followers are atheist towards all gods but one. So that is a perfect counter to your rebuttal.

If a person believes in one fairy (even if it is only one) they are a believer and not a non-believer. Right?

Apply the same to gods. If a person believes in one god, say the Bible God for example, they are a believer (even if they disbelieve in all competing gods). If another person does not believe in ANY of the proposed gods, they are a non-believer. Right?

Is that really a difficult concept to understand?

What has that concept got to do with the point I raised? (That the given definition was problematic)