The Case for Atheism

[Cyberman]

No, actually. If you overstood my intentions you would look at the whole picture.

Maybe I got confused by an instruction to "sleep on it" in response to a statement of unfamiliarity.

You have been present in just about every thread I've started. Have you seen evidence that I am arrogant? This is a serious question because I don't want to assume that I know how I come across to others.   But I take it that you are astute and would not have accepted my buddy request if you thought I was arrogant in a condescending way.

I wasn't trying to assert that you are arrogant, only that I found your response arrogant. Perhaps condescending would have been more apt. And while I am indeed as astute as I can be, or would hope to be, I can be friends with anyone.

I'm not saying that everyone who engages in overstanding will always come to the right conclusion,. I know I don't. so I appreciate a challenge within reason.

I did think that the meaning of the word overstand would come to you, so I said sleep on it.

And that's what rubbed me the wrong way (steady, Nestor). For that moment, you were coming across in theist apologist mode with their "you'll learn the truth one day" schtick. It's so unneccessary, when a simple straightforward clarification would have sufficed and was indeed later forthcoming.

Put it this way. I'm currently taking driving lessons. Assume that I have never seen a car and have no familiarity with the controls. If my obvious and admitted lack of comprehension with, say, the ignition system was met with the instructor telling me to "sleep on it", is that helpful? In this scenario, there are only so many buttons and levers etc I can try. There isn't the same breadth of scope as the English language and all its nuances.

Thank you for elucidating me. We could have saved so much time though.

[Rhondazvous]

No, actually. If you overstood my intentions you would look at the whole picture.

Maybe I got confused by an instruction to "sleep on it" in response to a statement of unfamiliarity.

You have been present in just about every thread I've started. Have you seen evidence that I am arrogant? This is a serious question because I don't want to assume that I know how I come across to others.   But I take it that you are astute and would not have accepted my buddy request if you thought I was arrogant in a condescending way.

I wasn't trying to assert that you are arrogant, only that I found your response arrogant. Perhaps condescending would have been more apt. And while I am indeed as astute as I can be, or would hope to be, I can be friends with anyone.

I'm not saying that everyone who engages in overstanding will always come to the right conclusion,. I know I don't. so I appreciate a challenge within reason.

I did think that the meaning of the word overstand would come to you, so I said sleep on it.

And that's what rubbed me the wrong way (steady, Nestor). For that moment, you were coming across in theist apologist mode with their "you'll learn the truth one day" schtick. It's so unneccessary, when a simple straightforward clarification would have sufficed and was indeed later forthcoming.

Put it this way. I'm currently taking driving lessons. Assume that I have never seen a car and have no familiarity with the controls. If my obvious and admitted lack of comprehension with, say, the ignition system was met with the instructor telling me to "sleep on it", is that helpful? In this scenario, there are only so many buttons and levers etc I can try. There isn't the same breadth of scope as the English language and all its nuances.

Thank you for elucidating me. We could have saved so much time though.

Well, I hope we can lay this to rest.

[Cyberman]

Absolutely. Apart from a suggestion about not replying with full quote unless completely necessary, but that's another story.

[Rhondazvous]

Absolutely.

The noise you hear is me exhaling. 

[Whateverist]

Guess I'll post in this zombie thread too. What's the worst that could happen?

Best case for atheism? Simple. There is no reason or payoff that means squat to me for being a theist. Kind of like my non-philatelist status. Don't have any interest in stamps or gods.

No objection to other people choosing their own hobbies though. Carry on. Don't mind me. Just don't knock on my door to enlist me in your stamp collecting hordes. No thank you.

[Rhondazvous]

Best case for atheism?  Simple.  There is no reason or payoff that means squat to me for being a theist.  Kind of like my non-philatelist status.  Don't have any interest in stamps or gods.  

No objection to other people choosing their own hobbies though.  Carry on.  Don't mind me.  Just don't knock on my door to enlist me in your stamp collecting hordes.  No thank you.

Difference is, in theism, we're what's being collected as tithe and poor fund payers

[FriendlyNeighborhoodAtheist]

The way I see it is this: There have been thousands of gods that people have believed in throughout human history. What are the odds that whatever god you happen to be raised believing in now or a thousand years from now is the one true god? Take into account your parents, society, and country and you'll likely be believing in whatever god is in fashion at the time. Does being born in a christian dominated society make the hindu gods any less valid? Either one god/religion is true or none of them are. Im not going to bother picking one at random and hoping i get lucky.

[robvalue]

Exactly. People get easily fooled by the argument from popularity, and the "but this time it's different" argument. When people get bored of the current gods, they'll be on the scrap heap like all the others.

[Rhondazvous]

The way I see it is this: There have been thousands of gods that people have believed in throughout human history. What are the odds that whatever god you happen to be raised believing in now or a thousand years from now is the one true god? Take into account your parents, society, and country and you'll likely be believing in whatever god is in fashion at the time. Does being born in a christian dominated society make the hindu gods any less valid? Either one god/religion is true or none of them are. Im not going to bother picking one at random and hoping i get lucky.

Why? Don't you believe in luck? Go to Vegas. They've got an entire pantheon.

[Goosebump]

The case for atheism seems to be very well established, if you call it a case. The idea that you need an argument seems unnecessary. They way I, a layman, understand it is thus: my belief or faith in a god or any god or gods requires proof that is reproducible out side of subjective testimony. Absence of this proof leads me to have an absence of belief or faith in a god, or gods.

Pretty cut and dry. But I'm a layman in both reasoned argument and religious studies. Nevertheless until I see an experiment that shows divine intervention clearly I'll continue as I am.