Lazy Atheists' Non-debate Club

[EduChris]

Many non-theists on this forum have adopted the notion that their view represents the so-called "default position" and therefore they need not engage in actual arguments themselves. So, all they ever do is sit back and say, "prove it" (regardless of what actual arguments anyone offers). These non-theists themselves provide no evidence, no arguments, and they do no mental "heavy lifting."

Now it is true that the "non-theist" position would constitute the "default position" with respect to "accidental gods"--the supposed "gods" of obsolete theisms--which were presented as logically contingent and therefore never understood as the logically necessary Source and Ground of all the contingent existence we find in our universe.

However, today's major world theisms do not posit the "accidental gods," the logically contingent gods of obsolete Greek and Norse and other mythologies. Instead, all of today's major world theisms posit the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which is thought to be Volitional on the basis of solid epistemological reasoning.

Question for debate: should the Lazy Atheists' Non-debate Club be disbanded? Why should they be allowed to engage in the equivocal practice of claiming the "default position" on the issue of "accidental gods" when in fact the real argument has nothing whatsoever to do with these logically contingent "gods" of obsolete superstition?

Isn't it time for the non-theists to develop some new arguments against the actual theologies of today's major world theisms, rather than simply rest on the laurels of arguments which succeed only against "gods" that few (if any) people take seriously any more?

[Clownboat]

...How is your god different than Thor, Allah, Zeus and so on?...

I am not arguing about "my God" vs. "some other God." Instead, I am arguing that the entire debate about God has changed, and the non-theist's arguments have not kept pace with the changes.

...If the arguement works against them, it works against yours. Unless you are using special pleading...

Standard non-theist arguments work well against the philosophically naive, primitive conceptions found in ancient mythology. Zeus and Thor are not presented as the source and ground of all existence--they are contingent beings not much different from you and me, except in power. Since these "gods" are contingent, their existence can be questioned, and in fact no one (other than the inevitable gadfly) takes such "gods" seriously any more. Atheist arguments vs. contingent "gods" have won out; that debate has, for all practical purposes, ended long ago.

...my opinion about god claims being lazy is accurate and you certainly did not refute it.

Let's discuss the logically necessary Ultimate Reality which stands as the Source of all contingent existence. Let's debate what attributes might reasonably pertain to Ultimate Reality. Let's compare your thoughts with mine and with the thoughts of others.

But let's stop with the obsolete strawman arguments that fail to address the claims of today's modern theisms.

I would discuss Ultimate Reality with you, but we have been through that before. Unless Ultimate Reality has some descriptive power, you might as well make up a new word and use it in place of Ultimate Reality.

Let's discuss the logically necessary Blooger which stands as the source of all contingent existence. Shall we? You go first.

What god did you believe in when you were born, or will you answer truthfully and say none?

You try to separate your god ideas from god ideas of Thor and Allah. My point is that I think your god in time, will be just as irrelevant as those. (Edit - Allah is not yet irrelavant obviously)

[micatala]

Moderator Action


Locking the thread at least temporarily pending further discussion among the moderators.

EduChris: Feel free to PM otseng or myself on this if you have questions.



______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been moved, merged, or split. Such actions are taken at the discretion of a moderator.