The Case for Atheism

[Love]

In other words...you have an argument from ignorance? If god is an entity, why wouldn't one be able to find empirical evidence of him? Even if he were non-physical, the effects he has on the world would have to be physical.

Because God cannot be adequately defined in rational terms using rational language. It is an experience that cannot be communicated from one person to another. In terms of theoretical and conceptual reflection on the idea of God, I can endeavour to communicate my perception of what God might be by using reasoned language. I postulate that all of the genuine mystics (not the charlatans or corrupt governments) were experiencing the same force; they tried to make sense of it by using rational language, which ultimately comes across to intelligent people as incoherent, contradictory and irrational nonsense.

Ultimately, all atheistic rationalists on this forum will probably conclude that my position is based on: the argument from ignorance/God of the Gaps. The argument from ignorance is encapsulated within the philosophical framework of empiricism; there is a large emphasis on empirical evidence in order to fill the so-called "gaps". There is no standard scientific definition of what God is, so it makes no real sense to assume that the scientific method can comment on the God question. Without a conceptual definition of a hypothetical object, it is impossible to formulate hypotheses and predictions et cetera to test if the object is real.

[Foxaèr]

Because God cannot be adequately defined in rational terms using rational language.

Then that would make belief in God irrational.

[Love]

Then that would make belief in God irrational.

Please clarify what you mean by "belief".

Irrational? In a sense, yes, but not in the pejorative form. Most people use the word disparagingly without being aware of its roots, and its implications, in philosophy.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Universe exists. Either it has always been or it suddenly came into existence

Or it is always coming into existence. Or its on-going existence is predicated on something other than itself.

[Foxaèr]

Irrational? In a sense, yes, but in not the pejorative form.

The English language disagrees with you.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Every case for theism has failed, mostly due to their reliance on logical fallacies and anthropocentric delusions.

Many arguments for theism fail. For me that raises an interesting question. Does this automatically mean that atheism is rationally justifiable? If not, then neither theism nor atheism are rationally justifiable and neither should be considered the default option.

[Raven]

In other words...you have an argument from ignorance? If god is an entity, why wouldn't one be able to find empirical evidence of him? Even if he were non-physical, the effects he has on the world would have to be physical.

Because God cannot be adequately defined in rational terms using rational language. It is an experience that cannot be communicated from one person to another. In terms of theoretical and conceptual reflection on the idea of God, I can endeavour to communicate my perception of what God might be by using reasoned language. I postulate that all of the genuine mystics (not the charlatans or corrupt governments) were experiencing the same force; they tried to make sense of it by using rational language, which ultimately comes across to intelligent people as incoherent, contradictory and irrational nonsense.

Ultimately, all atheistic rationalists on this forum will probably conclude that my position is based on: the argument from ignorance/God of the Gaps. The argument from ignorance is encapsulated within the philosophical framework of empiricism; there is a large emphasis on empirical evidence in order to fill the so-called "gaps". There is no standard scientific definition of what God is, so it makes no real sense to assume that the scientific method can comment on the God question. Without a conceptual definition of a hypothetical object, it is impossible to formulate hypotheses and predictions et cetera to test if the object is real.

You do realize that that is all a large helping of pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook? At least I hope that you do. That which is without evidence is not worth squat. I a super-being creator entity existed, there would be some kind of way to know this in such a way as could be measured. There is not, so belief in such a being makes no sense. Further, if he/she did exist, they are doing an terrible job of taking care of things, so why bother?

[Foxaèr]

neither theism nor atheism are rationally justifiable and neither should be considered the default option.

Except it is already understood that atheism is the default position into which we are all born. Every one is born an atheist, and the irrationality of theism is taught.

[Love]

Irrational? In a sense, yes, but in not the pejorative form.

The English language disagrees with you.

I recommend that read about the Counter-Enlightenment. Also, Isaiah Berlin has some very interesting viewpoints about the limits of rationalism / anti-rationalism.

[Foxaèr]

I recommend that read about the Counter-Enlightenment. Also, Isaiah Berlin has some very interesting viewpoints about the limits of rationalism / anti-rationalism.

I recommend you alter your horrid reading list to something more intellectually stimulating. I am quite certain that one can glean more intellectualism from Tolkien than the irrational drivel you read.