How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Mister Agenda]

We seem to have two threads with the exact same title and topic

[Acrobat]

I don't think you are talking about nihilism here, the belief that life is meaningless.  It doesn't follow from the universe itself having no essential absolute meaning because people create their own relative meanings, both from their human nature and by their specific interests.

No, I'm talking about nihilism, existential nihilism to be exact. Theist tend view life as possessing some intrinsic meaning, not the extrinsic sort your describing, the relative meaning you and others might supply to it.

The first cause argument you're referring to, isn't everything requires a creator. That's an atheist straw man of the argument. 

It's everything that is contingent has a cause. Something that exists by necessity, that is uncaused. Or else you'd have an infinite regress.

Yes, I have heard that variation of the theistic argument as well, and as you say it deals with the problems of the more simply stated argument.

However, in that case one of the atheistic answers is that there are certain things which are known to be uncaused, like ratioactive decay and quantum fluctuations.  It is thought that the big bang could have started from a quantum fluctuation, as an alternative theory.

Sure, you can have atheistic version of a first cause, such as you're trying to articulate here. Something uncaused that led to the formation of the universe. But this is what you would be offering as alternative to a theistic first cause arguement, not what caused the uncaused, i.e who caused god?

Further, there are other problems with the argument as you have stated it, like how theists arrive at their very specific God concept.  Why should we assume a First Cause which is said to have created the universe is conscious and willful, as a God is assumed to be, or even good and moral for that matter?

So as I mentioned, atheists have a wide range of arguments to answer various theistic arguments.

That really depends on how you see reality, as an existential nihilist, or as someone who sees it as endowed with anintrinsic purpose of some sort of the other. In the latter reality looks something like a novel, a story, in which we are both it's characters and readers. It's from that nature of this novel, that they attempt to derive the nature of it's author. If we say this reality possess something like an objective good, that we ought to be, one might say this authors cares about Goodness, or is Goodness itself.

[Alan V]

That really depends on how you see reality, as an existential nihilist, or as someone who sees it as endowed with an intrinsic purpose of some sort of the other. In the latter reality looks something like a novel, a story, in which we are both it's characters and readers. It's from that nature of this novel, that they attempt to derive the nature of it's author. If we say this reality possess something like an objective good, that we ought to be, one might say this authors cares about Goodness, or is Goodness itself.

I'm an atheist who is neither an existentialist or a nihilist, which is why I pointed out the false dichotomy.

I understand where you are coming from, as I spent many years trying to make sense of the world that way myself. I finally gave up though, and had to settle for relative meanings. That was not my first choice. So yes, I get the attractiveness of the theistic picture. I just don't think it's supported by the facts. Our evolved human nature, rather than our mere preferences or nature as a whole, is what makes certain things objectively good or bad for us. They are the things which help us thrive or hurt us, and they are all quite species-centric.

[Acrobat]

That really depends on how you see reality, as an existential nihilist, or as someone who sees it as endowed with an intrinsic purpose of some sort of the other. In the latter reality looks something like a novel, a story, in which we are both it's characters and readers. It's from that nature of this novel, that they attempt to derive the nature of it's author. If we say this reality possess something like an objective good, that we ought to be, one might say this authors cares about Goodness, or is Goodness itself.

I'm an atheist who is neither an existentialist or a nihilist, which is why I pointed out the false dichotomy.

Existential nihilism, is just a rejection of intrinsic meaning, not relative or subjective meaning. If you're of the view that the only meaning life posses, is what we as human beings give it, but reject any sort of grand or ultimate meaning, outside of this you would be an existential nihilist.

It seems to me that you are the view that life doesn't posses any intrinsic meaning, only the extrinsic meanings human beings attach to it? Would that be accurate, regardless of whether you reject the nihilist label or not?

I understand where you are coming from, as I spent many years trying to make sense of the world that way myself.  I finally gave up though, and had to settle for relative meanings.  That was not my first choice.  So yes, I get the attractiveness of the theistic picture.  I just don't think it's supported by the facts.  Our evolved human nature, rather than our mere preferences or nature as a whole, is what makes certain things objectively good or bad for us.  They are the things which help us thrive or hurt us, and they are all quite species-centric.

I think that our conclusions one way or the other, involve the totality of our experiences and perceptions of the life we live, observe, and occupy, this is not just in regards to life outside, but the life we live inside as well. It has as much to do with the nature of friendship, our personal lives and the relationship that color them both and good and bad, our communities, as equally or perhaps even more so than any fact regarding the theory of evolution. How we make sense of the nature of love, suffering, joy, hope, goodness and evil, forgiveness, redemption, and our failings and imperfection, that just any sort of mechanical fact of nature.

It's my view as a theist, that there some undeniable something to it, a song, a rhythm, a poem, a beauty, that isn't my mind's creation, or even a belief held because I want to hold it, but as some sort of pervasive and unshakeable truth.

[Alan V]

I'm an atheist who is neither an existentialist or a nihilist, which is why I pointed out the false dichotomy.

Existential nihilism, is just a rejection of intrinsic meaning, not relative or subjective meaning. If you're of the view that the only meaning life posses, is what we as human beings give it, but reject any sort of grand or ultimate meaning, outside of this you would be an existential nihilist.

It seems to me that you are the view that life doesn't posses any intrinsic meaning, only the extrinsic meanings human beings attach to it? Would that be accurate, regardless of whether you reject the nihilist label or not?

So you think you know what an atheist thinks better than he does? That's funny.

Humans create all meaning, including yours. You are no different in how you derive meaning than I am. You just tell yourself myths about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would atheists have to reject intrinsic meaning? They only have to reject god-meaning.

[Alan V]

Why would atheists have to reject intrinsic meaning?  They only have to reject god-meaning.

That does bring up the question of what exactly a meaning is.  Reality does have meanings supported by evidence.  Stars, planets, and lifeforms evolve with time.  Gravity creates black holes.  Humans are causing climate change.  People endlessly rationalize what they want to believe.  There are an awful lot of meanings which don't depend on questionable, religious-style revelations.

[GrandizerII]

I don't know about easily, but see what the theist is arguing specifically and then see if one cannot appeal to naturalism to account for just that.

If you can then that's one more God argument out the window.

[Abaddon_ire]

Why would atheists have to reject intrinsic meaning?  They only have to reject god-meaning.

That does bring up the question of what exactly a meaning is.  Reality does have meanings supported by evidence.  Stars, planets, and lifeforms evolve with time.  Gravity creates black holes.  Humans are causing climate change.  People endlessly rationalize what they want to believe.  There are an awful lot of meanings which don't depend on questionable, religious-style revelations.

Yes, this is a question. Meaning and purpose are perfectly valid topics of interesting discussion.

Nevertheless, Acrobat, Belaqua, Drich and the likes will insist that they have ALL of the answers to those questions and everyone else is wrong. Because "god".

If all the atheists on this board disappeared right now this moment, they would have a brief moment of exaltation followed by a horrible endless fiasco of destroying one another. And how can I know that is true? History demonstrates it. Current events demonstrate it. Just look at the islam/christian dynamic. They all believe in the same Abrahamic deity, yet somehow, the minor variations are sufficient reason to start wars.

[The Valkyrie]

How to upset a religious person of any faith: compare their mythology to any other mythology.