My argument for atheism +

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The amount of power that something has does not contribute in the least to it having thoughts or awareness.

Black holes are very powerful and I have reason to believe that any of them are conscious and have thoughts

A theist "claims" that a god exists.
A theist "claims" that a god is all powerful.
A theist makes all kinds of claims about something that hasn't been shown to even exist.
If it doesn't exist, it doesn't have any attributes.
If it does exist, we have no way to determine ANY of it's attributes, let alone the limits of those attributes.

You can't define something into existence.

(bold mine)

Which has never stopped the ontology crowd from trying.

Boru

[Tom Fearnley]

If something is all powerful that means it could, if it wanted, have intelligence -- it can do anything including eg use intelligence to do things.

[LastPoet]

Atheism +? The dumbfuckery that arose a few years ago trying to attach atheism with outrageous beliefs. That one got shot down fast by atheists themselves. Stahp associating disbelief in gods with extraneous beliefs. Silly attempt to herd cats.

[Tom Fearnley]

No I mean atheism plus other arguments. I have no idea what "Atheism+" is. Keep up.

[Rahn127]

If something is all powerful that means it could, if it wanted, have intelligence -- it can do anything including eg use intelligence to do things.

You have already given this all powerful thing the ability to want something. You gave it that attribute. You didn't discover it had that attribute. You invented it out of your imagination.

You also gave it the all powerful attribute and gave it existence.
You didn't discover this thing. You invented it.

[Tom Fearnley]

If something is all powerful that means it could, if it wanted, have intelligence -- it can do anything including eg use intelligence to do things.

You have already given this all powerful thing the ability to want something. You gave it that attribute. You didn't discover it had that attribute. You invented it out of your imagination.

You also gave it the all powerful attribute and gave it existence.
You didn't discover this thing. You invented it.

Well theists did, I'm an atheist.

But just because something is in our imaginations doesn't mean it isn't true: Before we could see cars in front of us someone had to imagine -- invent them -- in the mind's eye.

[Belacqua]

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? 

I suspect that there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists today who assume that God thinks in the way that people think. So if you're arguing against those people, what you say makes sense: it is impossible to think in the way that people think if you don't have the brains that people have. 

In fact I think this is a pretty obvious argument -- so obvious that no philosopher or theologian from at least the time of Plato has asserted that God thinks in the way that people think. 

Have you read Plato's Parmenides? As far as I can tell, this is the earliest written argument stating that God is absolutely simple. It says God doesn't "have" thoughts in the way that people have thoughts. It's a very difficult dialogue, and people continue to interpret it in different ways. However it has been enormously influential among people who think about God, following the Neoplatonic tradition (like that of Plotinus), and that tradition as it enters Christianity with Dionysius and Augustine. Theologians and philosophers who are not specifically Neoplatonic, as well (like Aquinas and Spinoza) also hold that God is absolutely simple, having no parts, and is absolutely impassible, having no changes or developments. So among any Christian who has studied these things, your argument that God couldn't possibly think in the way that people think would be old news -- dealt with millennia ago. 

Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.

Here again you're assuming that a God would be like a big person, and could only create in the way that a person creates. So if the sola scriptura literalists at your local church are thinking in this way, you could present your argument there. (Not that they'd listen, probably.)

Maybe you yourself picture God in this way? I think it would be common among Sunday School kids or people who just haven't bothered to study the subject.

So when you say your argument "beats all arguments" for God, that may be true, if you ignore all the arguments ever made by any well-known theologian for the last 2500 years.

[The Grand Nudger]

An absolutely "simple" being doesn't think at all. An unchanging being doesn't think or create.

There will always be some silly thing that god botherers have to say in response to any given objection. That's the beauty of gods. As human creations, they're whatever you want it to be, until that isn't convenient. Then it's something else (until it's convenient for it to be the first thing again, ofc).

Maybe you yourself picture gods as some immobile and specific thing. I think it would be common among apologists who haven't bothered to study the subject.

[Abaddon_ire]

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? 

I suspect that there are a lot of Christian fundamentalists today who assume that God thinks in the way that people think. So if you're arguing against those people, what you say makes sense: it is impossible to think in the way that people think if you don't have the brains that people have. 

In fact I think this is a pretty obvious argument -- so obvious that no philosopher or theologian from at least the time of Plato has asserted that God thinks in the way that people think. 

We get it already. You are a christian pretending not to be. Give it up.

Have you read Plato's Parmenides?

No why the fuck should I? Why should anyone?

As far as I can tell, this is the earliest written argument stating that God is absolutely simple. It says God doesn't "have" thoughts in the way that people have thoughts. It's a very difficult dialogue, and people continue to interpret it in different ways. However it has been enormously influential among people who think about God, following the Neoplatonic tradition (like that of Plotinus), and that tradition as it enters Christianity with Dionysius and Augustine. Theologians and philosophers who are not specifically Neoplatonic, as well (like Aquinas and Spinoza) also hold that God is absolutely simple, having no parts, and is absolutely impassible, having no changes or developments. So among any Christian who has studied these things, your argument that God couldn't possibly think in the way that people think would be old news -- dealt with millennia ago. 

Jebus H. Spaghetti monster. You are a christian. Why are you ashamed of it?

Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.

Really? Demonstrate that claim. Good luck.

Here again you're assuming that a God would be like a big person, and could only create in the way that a person creates. So if the sola scriptura literalists at your local church are thinking in this way, you could present your argument there. (Not that they'd listen, probably.)

Another bucket of wild claims with absolutely no evidence.

Maybe you yourself picture God in this way? I think it would be common among Sunday School kids or people who just haven't bothered to study the subject.

You are fixated on people somehow "picturing" gods. Why? I have no picture of any god. None have been demonstrated. As soon as one rocks up, then fine so long as there is sufficient evidence. What it might look like? I have no clue. Tell me what a "god" should look like.

So when you say your argument "beats all arguments" for God, that may be true, if you ignore all the arguments ever made by any well-known theologian for the last 2500 years.

Oh, so in 2500 years you have no argument worth tuppence. You have no evidence either. Is anyone supposed to be impressed? By something? Anything?

ETA: Oh, it might be that some consider that harsh. Well, sorry. I have accumulated sufficient mileage to have little tolerance of blatant dishonesty. A spade is a spade. Let's not dance around the facts.

[snowtracks]

Atheism: The belief that God almost certainly doesn't exist.

Reason for this: There is no evidence for god where there should be (not just that "there is no evidence..." that's agnosticism.)

Counter from theists: God created the universe/did the fine tuning/created humans/the Kalam/The argument from contingency/the Fine Tuning argument etc etc.

My counter for atheism that beats all arguments for God: God doesn't have a brain or neurons - he's immaterial not made of matter or energy - so how can he think thoughts or have knowledge? Without a brain or neurons he couldn't create a universe or create anything else.



I've never got any evidence that God can think without a brain or neurons.

The eye and brain are functionally connected; therefore, God*. Mind creates brain; Inanimate molecules don't decide to organize for brain development, then decide for mind development.

*I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. -  Psalm 139:14