If I were an Atheist

[Dystopia]

if I ask anyone on the street what does being an atheist mean 99 out of hundred are going to answer it's a person who doesn't believe God exists. Secondly if we all make up our own personal definitions for words communication becomes impossible. lastly if atheists can't convince those who call themselves atheists that God doesn't exist not as a fact but just as an opinion then how weak is the case for atheism? Particularly when many atheists equate the existence of God with the existence of fairies Santa Claus and other mythical figures. Do atheists merely lacked belief in those characters also?

Not believing in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.

Also, can you prove that's the people's definition of atheism?

God doesn't exist. There, are you happy?

[The Grand Nudger]

If we were arguing this case in front of a crowd of 100 people who are fair and impartial I think you would have a severe uphill climb trying to convince even one of them that something could be neither the result of planning and design but at the same time not the result of happenstance and blind luck. I think that would be just a case of special pleading.

There's no planning or design in the way meltwater flows down my hillside...and yet, the path it takes is not random. I certainly don't see any need for special pleading. Do you?

I'm not sure why you have issues with this...do you think the meltwater on my hill (or my hill) has been designed so that the water takes a certain path? Or, do you think that the water -does not, or cannot or could not- take a certain path if it hadn't been designed (or the water hadn't been designed) to do so? Hell, look at yourself and the position espoused here. Am I to believe that the only way that you could arrive here, posting this non-random opinion.....is that you have been designed to do so? Or do you, even in your own ignorant worldview with regards to this particular issue, accept that random variables are capable of producing a non-random effect- such as your own opinion ?

In short..is it actually one or the other....or is that merely a requirement for your vapid (but, ironically, demonstrative) comments and opinions?

[Delysid]

god isn't real. /thread

[Ravenshire]

Theism like atheism is a belief and opinion to the question why are we here? How did our existence come about? Are we the result of planning and design or are we the result of mechanistic forces that neither planned nor intended our existence. What factual argument from evidence do you argue that God doesn't exist or that natural unguided forces alone can account for all that we observe?

Atheism is merely a response to the irrational, unprovable and often downright idiotic claims about imaginary men who live in the sky and care deeply about each and every one of us but will send us to a place of infinite torment for finite transgressions some of which are neither immoral nor unethical.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

[Delysid]

Theism like atheism is a belief and opinion to the question why are we here? How did our existence come about? Are we the result of planning and design or are we the result of mechanistic forces that neither planned nor intended our existence. What factual argument from evidence do you argue that God doesn't exist or that natural unguided forces alone can account for all that we observe?

Atheism is merely a response to the irrational, unprovable and often downright idiotic claims about imaginary men who live in the sky and care deeply about each and every one of us but will send us to a place of infinite torment for finite transgressions some of which are neither immoral nor unethical.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes all that is great. But does the topic of god existing even deserve conversation? When something is so obviously a fairy tale why do we even need to debate it? I am questioning why I even joined this forum.

[Ravenshire]

Atheism is merely a response to the irrational, unprovable and often downright idiotic claims about imaginary men who live in the sky and care deeply about each and every one of us but will send us to a place of infinite torment for finite transgressions some of which are neither immoral nor unethical.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes all that is great. But does the topic of god existing even deserve conversation? When something is so obviously a fairy tale why do we even need to debate it? I am questioning why I even joined this forum.

You have a point and I even agree that the conversation over whether gawd exists or not is largely moot.

However, in the face of harassment and even persecution at the hands of believers, the need to defend one's beliefs (or lack there of) becomes important.

There's more to be learned here than just the best arguments to beat down theists with. I was initially drawn to online atheist communities as a place to vent. Being a bit argumentative, I started poking the theists that wandered through with a stick. While I still do some of that, I also join in on a lot of the off-topic threads and lurk on even more. I can say with absolute certainty I've learned more about science from discussions here and the links posted in the last year than I did in all of high school.

If your really questioning why you joined, I would ask "What do you hope to find here?" If you see nothing of value, by all means you are free to depart. Personally, I hope you don't

[robvalue]

Atheism is merely a response to the irrational, unprovable and often downright idiotic claims about imaginary men who live in the sky and care deeply about each and every one of us but will send us to a place of infinite torment for finite transgressions some of which are neither immoral nor unethical.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes all that is great. But does the topic of god existing even deserve conversation? When something is so obviously a fairy tale why do we even need to debate it? I am questioning why I even joined this forum.

Because most of us here are sane?

Yes, that's the position of Ignosticism, that God hasn't been coherently defined and/or is an unfalsifiable/untestable hypothesis. Officially that would be my stance, but since most people (including atheists who say they are not atheists) don't understand the term atheist, it's too much detail for people to handle :p

[JesusHChrist]

Yes all that is great. But does the topic of god existing even deserve conversation? When something is so obviously a fairy tale why do we even need to debate it? I am questioning why I even joined this forum.

Yes, because silence can be interpreted as tacit agreement or approval. I agree there is no "debate". It's like an astronomer debating an astrologer.

Idiotic claims cannot be allowed to go unchallenged, especially when the idiots want to invoke the power of the State on your ass.

[Mister Agenda]

God is absurd

There is the kind of answer that will persuade theists that God doesn't exist.

There's no reason that every comment an atheist makes should be carefully crafted to persuade theists. Frankly, I'd rather most theists stay theists until they've mastered rudimentary critical thinking skills. It's the ones who have done that whom I have some slight interest in persuading that belief in God isn't rationally justified (if they haven't already come to that decision on their own and decided to believe anyway).

---

Your arguments following only justify weak atheism. If it makes you feel better, I'm a strong atheist toward the literal version of God described in the Bible: how we got here is not as described in Genesis, there was never a global flood, the sun never 'stopped in the sky' to give Hebrews a military victory, there was never an Exodus, and the Jews were never enslaved en masse by the Egyptians.

Ironically your opinion in regards to this matter makes you a theologian not an atheist at all and certainly not a strong atheist.

You have an interesting habit of leaving out the identity of the person whom you're quoting. I'm a strong atheist towards the literally interpreted version of the God of the Bible, it contradicts physical evidence. I'm a weak atheist towards less problematic versions of God. It's not that complex of a position. And if you think a theologian can't be an atheist, I'd say you don't understand many of the terms you are using. There are several prominent atheist theologians.

'Weak atheists' tend to be careful about what they claim. It's a personality trait. You're not going to change their personalities. Strong atheists sometimes try to argue that weak atheists wouldn't have a problem saying there definitely are no leprechauns...but actually, most of them would, in my experience.

I think by and large weak atheism is used as a tactic to avoid making any claim.

Yes, we all know you think that, despite anything we might have to say to the contrary. The basis of your opinion seems to be that since it makes criticizing atheism more difficult for you, that must be the reason so many of us hold that inconvenient position. After all, if our position is that we are not convinced any gods exist and your position is that at least one does, the burden of proof is on you, and you know you can't meet that burden. You could simply take the position that you believe in your version of God regardless of whether you can support it empirically. It's a position you would be well-advised to take, if you think tactics are paramount. That puts us on equal footing, burden of proof-wise, if that's what's important to you.

It also redefines atheism so that you might as well take the a out of atheism.

This 'redefiniton' you speak of has been in use by atheist writers for centuries.

The a in atheism means not or without God. Just as the a in a sexual means procreation not or without sex. as a result I think of weak atheists as weak theists after all I don't deny the existence of God and neither do they.

Are we the same in that we don't believe God is real and you don't either?

I can even have a debate with them about the existence of God because neither they nor I deny God exists.

In what way would you be handicapped in having a debate with someone who denies that God exists?

---

if I ask anyone on the street what does being an atheist mean 99 out of hundred are going to answer it's a person who doesn't believe God exists.

Then 99 out of a hundred would be correct.

Secondly if we all make up our own personal definitions for words communication becomes impossible.

Then maybe you shouldn't change 'someone who doesn't believe God exists' to 'someone who believes God doesn't exist'.

Lastly if atheists can't convince those who call themselves atheists that God doesn't exist not as a fact but just as an opinion then how weak is the case for atheism?

Atheism and theism are both differing opinions on the same topic. Neither amounts to more than opinion since neither can ultimately be proven correct. The case for atheism (that is, the case for being an atheist in the face of theistic claims) is weak, if the case for theism weren't even weaker, I'd be a theist.

Particularly when many atheists equate the existence of God with the existence of fairies Santa Claus and other mythical figures. Do atheists merely lacked belief in those characters also?

No one speaks for all atheists and we're not a homogenous group. as you're well aware, but I merely lack belief in those characters because I can't prove they're not real.

I don't claim with any certainty that God exists I stated that on numerous occasions.

So why do you expect us to claim with certainty that God does not exist? I wouldn't tell a theist they weren't a theist because they're not certain God is real. It's enough if they believe it. I'm sure there are millions of 'weak theists'/'agnostic theists'.

Even as theist I didn't have any problem with citing at least four reasons why folks might think atheism is true.

Neither atheism nor theism are truth claims. They are belief claims. I presume you mean you could cite four reasons one shouldn't believe God exists, or more likely I think, four caricatures you ascribed to the reasoning of atheists.

Am I asking atheists too much to make a cause positive case for what they think is true?

You're asking way too much if you want over half of atheists to redefine their identity to suit your tastes. What we all think is true (as far as I know) is that belief in God is not rationally justified. Are we asking too much for you to deal with what we actually think instead of what you want us to think?

I only claim to have an opinion that our existence and that of the universe is caused by a creator.

And that makes you a theist.

The truth is I don't know for sure, an opinion or belief is what you express when you're not certain of the actual answer to a question.

And that makes you an agnostic theist or 'weak' theist. Why do you expect us to express more certainty in our position than you do in yours? Am I now justified in maintaining that you only hold that position as a tactic to avoid bearing the burdern of proof, and shall I simply ignore any statements you make to the contrary instead of charitably assuming that you hold that position because it best describes what you actually think?

I have stated several reasons, several lines of evidence and made a case for why I'm skeptical of atheism.

You can't possibly be claiming that you've found a shortage of people on this site willing to make a case for why they're skeptical of theism.

[QuarkDriven]

@ Drew-2013, it seems that this is rather a guidleline of what you would like us to do vs. an argument of "if you were an atheist". Some of which I agree with. i.e. no body should be bashing and name calling anyone else for their beliefs or any reason for that matter.. except the WBC, but thats a different case altogether. Who said that ahtiesm is not growing? People are giving up their faith everyday. Sure, a lot of people don't come out and publicize it but in a world where people view rapists in higher regards than atheists, you can see why. You will lose friends, your family may alienate you, you can be at risk of losing your job, etc... but none the less, we need to come out. Thats probably why we don't see a higher number and it seems to "not be growing". You are seriously mistaken if you think we "enjoy being contrary and being part of a small often loathed minority".

We don't say it's a fact that god doesn't exist. We tell you we think its highly unlikely that a god does exist. There is no evidence of it. What evidence do you have for believing in a god and a book which was written by man, 2,000 years ago does not count as evidence. its a fictional book. Saying i dont know if a god exists is what makes us more open minded. if a god reveals him/herself to the world, you'd see a lot of atheists believe and a lot of people of other faiths, what ever those faiths may be, convert to what ever that faith is. it would be one world under one religion. So no, its not "weak" to say i dont know if a god exists, its just high improbably that one does. What I would say is weak is accepting and believing in a god because a book tells you to. There are other books that tell other people the same thing and they all make the same claims.. their god is the only god and you're all going to their hell for it...

yeah the santa argument sounds childish but its done on purpose. we all know santa doesnt exisit.. we all know the fairy's and unicorns don't exist and there is no evidence that a god exists yet people still grow up to believe. why? One reason could be childhood indoctrination. parents push religion on children from an early age. children are too young to understand something like the concept of god yet it is imposed on them

dropping the bashind and demonizing... i agree with you on that... people shouldbt be subject to that because of their beliefs. at the same time, please don't impose your religion on me. we shouldnt be subject to that as well. if you believe im going to hell, it is your right to believe so... just keep that shit to yourself.

"God doesn’t exist so it must be a belief that God doesn’t exist". its not a belief that a god doesnt exist. its a lack of belief that one does. a belief is something that people regard as true in their eyes. as i've said above, we don't know if a god exists, it is just highly unlikely that one does.... there is no evidence for such a claim and thats a pretty big claim to make. therefore, we think there is no god, unlike the religious who believe without evidence.. guess thats why its called faith huh.. believing without evidence...

although i agree with some of the stuff you said, that doesnt make your argument for atheism "better than most" atheists.. it just looks like a small list of things you'd like atheists to stop doing. Actually, the only case you make for atheism in that rant is:

-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe.

-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.

-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

and even then, you would have to tweak some words...

-Much of the universe *is* chaotic and unguided. Even most of our planet.. most of it is covered in water which is unhospitable to us and alot of it is shaking, moving, too cold or spewing lava...

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.
you say appears as if to say this scientific theory is just a theory.. a scientific theory is a fact. just like the "theory" of gravity, unless you want to belittle that and say, it appears as though we are not floating away and if you lose your balance, you will fall. Evolution doesnt "apear" to account for how life became more and more complex. Evolution *shows* you how life came to what we know now.