Doubting Thomas what's your best argument for why you're an atheist? If you don't see any evidence for god (like you said earlier) why don't you see any evidence? Why is it that Christians see evidence for God (by for instance in the arguments they use)?

I already spelled out the why earlier in this thread. Mainly, because it appears that all religions were made up by man, and the reason I'm no longer a Christian is because there is so much wrong in the bible that it's not a book I should be basing my life around.

As far as Christians seeing evidence for God, it's either because they want to believe so badly that they see evidence where none really exists, or they just have a lower standard of proof than I do. Touchy-feely feel-good arguments aren't good enough for me, I need cold, hard factual evidence before I believe in any gods.

Ok thanks for reiterating that for me.

(November 3, 2011 at 1:57 pm)NathanielFisher Wrote: I've never understood strong atheism. Why would I be able to say I'm a strong atheist based on the above? At the moment I just lean lightly towards atheism.

Strong/positive/gnostic atheism makes the counter claim that there is no god, to the theist assertion that there is a god. Weak/negative/agnostic atheism makes no claim but says there is no reason to believe in a god and challenges the theist to make its case. Strong atheism (or just simply atheism) makes a claim and offers atheological apologetics put forward the truth value of atheism. Does this mean that strong atheists, now have a burden of proof ? No. This seems to be a widespread fear, but why should we fear this? Atheists still don’t have the burden of proof. The burden of proof belongs to he who makes a claim about reality. Strong atheists claim reality is absolute (axiomatically) and therefore do not make a claim per se about reality. But until theists can give a meaningful account of their belief and give some actual evidence for said meaning, atheists have nothing to prove. All that positive arguments provide are a reiteration of this burden of proof, as well as some other fatal problems with certain assumed properties of the god concept

I cannot speak for agnostic atheists in why they prefer to adopt that position. From what I can gather it is because in reality we can never know/rule in/out the supernatural, and thus there has to be an element of uncertainty. Therefore however atheist you become, you can only approach 100% certainty but never reach it. In short it’s the intellectual honest position. To some extent there is also a disliking or a fear of other people putting the burden of proof on the agnostic atheist to deny what are by any measure fantastic (not in a good way) claims.

But is there really a distinction? Rather, “weak” and “strong” atheism are in fact the same thing, two sides of the same coin. The basic reasoning is that, if you don’t believe in “God”, then the absence of evidence for “God” necessarily entails that you also affirm the non-existence of “God”. For example we can never be certain that L.Ron Hubbard wasn't right about Thetans (as we have never travelled to such far off places), and therefore we cant be sure Scientology isn't true, but it is true that both weak and strong atheists adopt a stance of 'its basically bonkers'. So on and so forth for Santa, Unicorns and the Tooth Fairy (more traditional fare). Strong atheism therefore would consider itself more consistent as we summarily dismiss such notions, not because we can 100% prove/evidence there truth or falsity, but because we are not JUSTIFIED in believing such abject nonsense. And strong atheism maps that approach to Theism and reserves no special reverence for its claims over any other delusional truth claim. When all is said and done whatever type of atheist you are only a Believer is deluded enough to look past the total lack of evidence and reasoning.

There are many strong atheological arguments. Most are served up as rejoinders to theistic claims about cosmological origins, design, morality, personal experience, historicity of Jesus, TAG or whatever is the theistic claim. Some however directly challenge theism and can be rendered without theism making the fist move (as it were). The argument from non-cognitivism (meaninglessness) of god, the hiddenness of god, the problem of evil/innocent suffering (inductive and deductive forms), the incoherency and self contradictions of god, the main-brain dependence, the essential presumption of naturalism. There are others.

Oh and welcome.

Thanks for that. I'll try to figure out what you mean.

(November 2, 2011 at 12:38 pm)NathanielFisher Wrote: Nature created humans and other animals using evolution, life on earth started with abiogenesis, that's nature creating the first life on earth, the big bang created this universe, that's nature creating the universe. So what created the big bang, where did the big bang come from? We don't know. But so far nature has probably created everything so I'm predicting nature was the cause of the big bang instead of God.. Nature has a good track record of creating. That's why I'm an agnostic-atheist.

Than you should worship nature as your god. People have been doing this very thing ever since they have been on this earth. Matter creating itself from nothingness is the greatest miracle of all. Anything but God, right?

I believe that's exactly the miracle described in your holy book.

(November 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm)justthetruth Wrote: Than you should worship nature as your god. People have been doing this very thing ever since they have been on this earth. Matter creating itself from nothingness is the greatest miracle of all. Anything but God, right?

How the incredulous whine. Then compound that error when they proxy god in as a placeholder concept, because they can't be bothered to understand the natural explanations that explain exactly the mysteries they find oh so mysterious.

(November 3, 2011 at 3:04 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I already spelled out the why earlier in this thread. Mainly, because it appears that all religions were made up by man, and the reason I'm no longer a Christian is because there is so much wrong in the bible that it's not a book I should be basing my life around.

As far as Christians seeing evidence for God, it's either because they want to believe so badly that they see evidence where none really exists, or they just have a lower standard of proof than I do. Touchy-feely feel-good arguments aren't good enough for me, I need cold, hard factual evidence before I believe in any gods.

Well D Thomas I believe it takes more faith to not believe in God than it takes to believe in him. I am amazed how people can over look the fact that the human body is such a magnificent work of art that to think it could be constructed without a master designer speaks for itself. With all of our scientific knowledge today we can construct skyscrapers, satellites, space probes, cell phones, beautiful homes, vehicles, etc, but we can not create on living cell from scratch. To believe that a human could evolve from inorganic matter with out a master designer takes more faith than I have for sure. Every convince we enjoy today had a designer behind it for sure. If not it would not exist as a viable instrument if it did not. None of these non living instruments created themselves. I exist, and I will give the glory of it to my Creator. I have nothing to loose by doing so, and everything to gain. Over 95% of the people who claim to be Christians really are not. In most cases it is just a title through which most hope to get a get out of jail free card in the end. Our scientist have sent space probes to the moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and its many moons in hopes of finding one microbe of life. So far they have found nothing. They can't find it, they can not create it. Life is only granted by the command of God for it to appear. We are more than willing to destroy our enemies. Our great military will attest to that. Don't you thing God will do the same to his enemies? Unfortunately he will. "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." Which one would you like to be in the end?

I'm amazed that you just attempted an argument from design.