What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[harvey1]

Atheism doesn't need arguments. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that I don't have an invisible friend, or that I was not abducted by aliens.

If you can't prove a negative, then why do you believe a negative? Why not believe nothing at all and be agnostic?

A diety necessarily exists on faith, rather than on evidentiary, visible proofs. Therefor, it can be neither proven nor disproven. Just like my invisible friend. If you can prove I do not have this invisible firend, you have an argument for atheism. If you can prove I do have this friend, there is your proof for a diety.

All the more reason for you to be agnostic, I think. Why then doesn't this atheism business go bankrupt once and for all?

But asking for arguments for atheism is silly. You only mean atheism in the context of disproving religion. On it's own, atheism requires only for us to rely on that which is observable, detectable. You want us to define atheism as a refutation of deity, but if one relies on that which is quantifiable, one need not define reality by everything it is not.

No, I think the atheists who are willing to ante up to an argument can call themselves atheists, the rest should be stripped of their union card and shipped over to the agnostics union.

People don't tend to define "god" by disproving every other religion. They define it in positive statements. Then, you want us to define atheism in only "negative" statements? Forget it!

People who belong to a religion are generally asked for proof of God by atheists, so it seems to be a fair question to ask why someone accepts a negative statement without even an argument!

[Nyril]

If you can't prove a negative, then why do you believe a negative?

But you believe in several trillion equally unprovable ideas, don't you? For instance:

There is no invisible pink unicorn.
There is no magical tree on Mars.
There are no supernatural space monkeys that watch over us.
317 all powerful garden gnomes didn't invent the microwave oven through humans.

The very simple reason is, any answer you can give me that tells me why you don't believe in those 4 items I listed, are the same answers we can give you for why we don't think there is a god. To us, all five things are equally whimsical.

People who belong to a religion are generally asked for proof of God by atheists, so it seems to be a fair question to ask why someone accepts a negative statement without even an argument!

Why do you accept the above negative statements without question?

[bernee51]

Read my reply to Enigma in this regard.

which was...

I'm talking about a causal-metaphysical structural agent that is the ultimate cause of the universe and its basic properties. If you want to extend the function of that causal-metaphysical agent to the tendency of the universe to evolve complex structures (e.g., life, intelligence, consciousness, etc) then that's okay too

As I said god can be down-defined to a point whre the definition, as god, becomes meaningless.

Let us assume it is an observable fact that the universe has a tendency towards complexity. If you were to define this as the one and only characteristic of god and I agreed with the observation I would also agree that god exists.

If you can't prove a negative, then why do you believe a negative?

Atheism is not about proving negatives...it is about non-belief in a positive statement. That is all that is required.

You could make 999 positive statements regarding god and I could expres non belief in all of them. You could make one, eg, tendency towards comlexity and I may agree with that.

I'd be very interested in knowing your strong arguments to support your position on this...

To date I have seen no evidence that would support belief.

So belief or otherwise in god is going to depend very much on definition and I do not doubt that a definition of god could be put with which I agree. For example....god is the universe. That begs the question - why call it god.

Often times, pantheism is construed along these lines, but many Hindus are pantheists, for example. God is everything you see. God takes many different forms (trees, birds, insects, humans, etc). Most pantheists are not materialists. That is, there are aspects of the universe that don't take on material characteristics (e.g., consciousness). Einstein was a pantheist, but for him the laws of physics were just another form of God. They were metaphysical, but part of the universe.

Which is exactly what I am saying. The definition is made and the label placed by those who believe.

[harvey1]

If you can't prove a negative, then why do you believe a negative?

But you believe in several trillion equally unprovable ideas, don't you? For instance:
There is no invisible pink unicorn.
There is no magical tree on Mars.
There are no supernatural space monkeys that watch over us.
317 all powerful garden gnomes didn't invent the microwave oven through humans.

Excellent answer Nyril. Unfortunately, I can give you a strong reason why there are no invisible pink unicorns, or magical trees on Mars, etc. I might not be able to prove they don't exist, but I think I have good reason to be an 'a'-pinky, 'a'-marstreer, a-spacemonkey, etc. I'd like to hear your strongest reason for being an 'a'-theist.

The very simple reason is, any answer you can give me that tells me why you don't believe in those 4 items I listed, are the same answers we can give you for why we don't think there is a god. To us, all five things are equally whimsical.

It might be simple for you, but it is not a simple reason for me. Afterall, why shouldn't I believe in metaphysical causes when virtual particles appear from nowhere and disappear from nowhere? I know virtual particles exist because of things like the Casimir effect. I'd like to know what makes you so certain that a metaphysical reality is a whole lot of lunny.

People who belong to a religion are generally asked for proof of God by atheists, so it seems to be a fair question to ask why someone accepts a negative statement without even an argument!

Why do you accept the above negative statements without question?

I certainly do not. So, at this stage, I'd like to hear why you do.

[harvey1]

Read my reply to Enigma in this regard. which was...

I'm talking about a causal-metaphysical structural agent that is the ultimate cause of the universe and its basic properties. If you want to extend the function of that causal-metaphysical agent to the tendency of the universe to evolve complex structures (e.g., life, intelligence, consciousness, etc) then that's okay too

As I said god can be down-defined to a point whre the definition, as god, becomes meaningless. Let us assume it is an observable fact that the universe has a tendency towards complexity. If you were to define this as the one and only characteristic of god and I agreed with the observation I would also agree that god exists.

Then you have to re-define what being an atheist is for me. It seems you are either a pantheist or deist or some kind of platonist (or agnostic if you are not committed to those viewpoints). As I mentioned somewhere else, if I stated that a theory-of-everythiing absolutely will never be found, that's a strong statement - one which implies that no one anywhere will find anything that unifies all the actions of nature - there will always be a discrepancy somewhere. Sooo, why should there be any exceptions to such a position? Why say something which you are not?

If you can't prove a negative, then why do you believe a negative?

Atheism is not about proving negatives...it is about non-belief in a positive statement. That is all that is required.

Then just call yourself an agnostic and be on with it. This is the exact reason why Huxley coined this term. He was thinking of people like you who felt uncomfortable trying to provide strong reasons for a metaphysical positive or metaphysical negative.

You could make 999 positive statements regarding god and I could expres non belief in all of them. You could make one, eg, tendency towards comlexity and I may agree with that.

So, if I state the beliefs of pantheists you would agree with them?

I'd be very interested in knowing your strong arguments to support your position on this...

To date I have seen no evidence that would support belief.

Ah, but that's another thread, isn't it?

Which is exactly what I am saying. The definition is made and the label placed by those who believe.

All I ask is that you call yourself with what you believe. If you are pantheist, then admit it, and start saying to people "I thought I was an atheist but I came upon a version of theism that I believe is reasonable, so no I'm going to call myself a pantheist. From here on out, never call me an atheist again." Just recite those words every night before you go to bed.

[Arch]

A word or statement means nothing without definition, in order to correctly answer a person question you have to first undertstand THEIR meaning of the words being expressed.

For example a person could ask me do I believe in Priests. I could think to myself of course I believe there are priests I see them everyday. I know there are.

That person then responds no I meant do you BELIEVE in priests, as in their power with god ability to take away sins. Then I would say NO of course I do not.

The meaning behind the word or the statement is very important.

Now lets look at the confusion, first of all the word GOD in its original definition means Powerful, to overcome, conquer, to have control over. By this definition many things could be GOD in fact the President of the United states though he can't complete a sentence could be considered a GOD.

There are men in New York and New Jersey, who go around calling each other GOD to show there ability to have power over themselves and their surroundings.

So by this definition, one would of course answer a definitive yes there are GODS, not just one in fact many. Mother nature would be a GOD, because natural occurrences have power over our lives.

However, these are not the definition within lies the disbelief of Atheist in my opinion. I could be wrong but atheist simple do not believe there is some conscience beings or beings who control the world its creation and outcomes.

Based upon that definition, I could see many reason as to why one would disbelieve. One major reason is there is simple no evidence as to the fact that a being or beings like this exist. Again belief is not subject to the strict parameters of fact or proof.

I for one think the continued debate on whether a unverifiable, unidentifiable and undefined entitiy exists is quite a waste of time. However, the existence of a diety that say fits the christian or say muslim doctrines should be easily verifiable simply because they contain specific attributes that make them imposible to exist without being known to more than just believers. That alone however does not mean that no GOD exist. Just that this GOD or entity or being or space star doesn't fit the religious views.

I feel if there is such a god that could make himself known as such but doesn't make himslf known, obviously doesn't want to be known thus it is a waste of time trying to figure this GOD out or his will.

On the other hand if there isn't such a GOD it is a waste of time arguing over something that doesn't exist in the first place.

Language evolves, obviously the usage of the word GOD went from a powerful being or force to a supreme being in control of all existence. Pharoahs were considered GODS once. It is not to my opinion that those people believed he was the creator of all existence.

In all what I am saying is you have to define exactly that which you are asking about. In 2005 every word in the English language has at least two meanings. Just tell which one you mean.

[otseng]

First off, harvey1, I really do enjoy reading your interchanges with A/As.

Secondly, I'm going to move this topic to the Philosophy subforum since the topic is more of a philosophical nature rather than pertaining directly with Christianity.

Also, an attempt at this question has been made in the Disproving God thread. And nobody was able to show in the positive that God does not exist. And I suspect as well that nobody will be able to show in this thread in the positive that God does not exist.

[bernee51]

Read my reply to Enigma in this regard. which was...

I'm talking about a causal-metaphysical structural agent that is the ultimate cause of the universe and its basic properties. I...If you were to define this as the one and only characteristic of god and I agreed with the observation I would also agree that god exists.

Then you have to re-define what being an atheist is for me.

Ah.... I would think that is what most atheists would do. Let's assume that a definition of god is made that is acceptable (albeit nonsensical in the traditional sense of the word) eg god is the automobile. Not a particular automobile but all automobiles. They have no poweror function other than what your generic auto has. No veneration is required, No special ritual attached. For the sake of argument I, as an atheist would agree that god is the atuomobile. Ergo in the case of an auto I am an theist. (I may however, question why you want to call the automobile god).

For every other definition of god I am an atheist.

The definition doesn't rest on the atheist it rest on the definer of the god that is to believed in or not.

GL, for example is a christian, He is a theist. In the case of Zeus, however, he is most likely an atheist.

If you can't prove a negative, then why do you believe a negative?

Atheism is not about proving negatives...it is about non-belief in a positive statement. That is all that is required.

To some extent the definition of atheist is 'audience-driven". When I am talking with christians, for example, I consider myself an theist. If I am talking with someone who comes up with a definition which I may be uncertain about, I certainly could be considered an agnostic.

You could make 999 positive statements regarding god and I could expres non belief in all of them. You could make one, eg, tendency towards comlexity and I may agree with that.

So, if I state the beliefs of pantheists you would agree with them?

State them and I will agree or not agree.

Which is exactly what I am saying. The definition is made and the label placed by those who believe.

All I ask is that you call yourself with what you believe. If you are pantheist, then admit it, and start saying to people

If and when I see a definition of pantheism with which I would agree I will most certainly do that.

"I thought I was an atheist ...never call me an atheist again." Just recite those words every night before you go to bed.

we were having a reasonable conversation...but if you are going to be patronizing I will think twice before continuing any dialogue with you...OK?

[harvey1]

Read my reply to Enigma in this regard. [which was...]
I'm talking about a causal-metaphysical structural agent that is the ultimate cause of the universe and its basic properties.

If you were to define this as the one and only characteristic of god and I agreed with the observation I would also agree that god exists.

Then you have to re-define what being an atheist is for me.

Ah.... I would think that is what most atheists would do. Let's assume that a definition of god is made that is acceptable (albeit nonsensical in the traditional sense of the word) eg god is the automobile. Not a particular automobile but all automobiles. They have no poweror function other than what your generic auto has. No veneration is required, No special ritual attached. For the sake of argument I, as an atheist would agree that god is the atuomobile. Ergo in the case of an auto I am an theist. (I may however, question why you want to call the automobile god).

You have to have some kind of demarcation in any belief. Without that demarcation, you can call everything anything you like. What demarcates atheism from theism? The line has to be drawn somewhere. The best way to draw that line is to see if there is already an '-ist' for what you might like atheism (or theism) to mean. As it turns out, atheism has a border with agnosticism on one side (e.g., 'without a belief in God'), and bordered by pantheism on another side (e.g., the universe has some teleological tendencies...). If you stray your definition to the right or to the left, then you have confused their bounderies. There's absolutely no reason to make beliefs confusing. There are many, many people who actually believe the weak or strong versions of atheism, and therefore I have not the foggiest idea why people want to extend the definition (or borders) of atheism to its neighboring beliefs. Why?

The definition doesn't rest on the atheist it rest on the definer of the god that is to believed in or not. GL, for example is a christian, He is a theist. In the case of Zeus, however, he is most likely an atheist.

It just doesn't work that way. Theism (in its broadest meaning as a belief in some kind of God or gods) includes Yahweh, Zeus, the God of the philosophers, Spinoza's God, Einstein's cosmic God, etc. If you disagree, then you have to show me why we have names like pantheists and agnostics (which I take it that you want to be considered atheistic beliefs). The people who made these beliefs famous were defiant when asked if they were an atheist. Bertrand Russell for example even wrote an essay entitled <A HREF="http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-te ... .htm">What is an Agnostic?</A>, I suggest you read it.

"I thought I was an atheist ...never call me an atheist again." Just recite those words every night before you go to bed.

we were having a reasonable conversation...but if you are going to be patronizing I will think twice before continuing any dialogue with you...OK?

Don't get upset, I was just joking around (everybody is so serious on this website...). I'll try and remember that you're a real serious person in the future. Sorry if I offended you.

[bernee51]

. Bertrand Russell for example even wrote an essay entitled <A HREF="http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-te ... .htm">What is an Agnostic?</A>, I suggest you read it.

Thanks - I will, So much to read so little time.

"I thought I was an atheist ...never call me an atheist again." Just recite those words every night before you go to bed.

we were having a reasonable conversation...but if you are going to be patronizing I will think twice before continuing any dialogue with you...OK?

Don't get upset, I was just joking around (everybody is so serious on this website...). I'll try and remember that you're a real serious person in the future. Sorry if I offended you.

Hey Harv...I like a joke..I can have a wicked tongue and am not easily offended, in fact i wasn't offended by your comment. If you had perhaps not worded it in what was (IMHO - and that is the only one that counts ) such a patronizing way I may have laughed my arse off.