Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[reverendjeremiah]

I'm saying that even if atheists dismantled every argument a theist could argue, they still wouldn't be any closer to the proposition that "God does not exist". To do that, they would need to have positive arguments for their position.

Now, this is in the spirit of atheism meaning "the denial of god". If the definition becomes "the disbelief in deities" then the circumstances change. So, as long as "atheist" means "the denial of God", then an atheist would have to have positive proof that a god doesnt exist in order to deny that he exists.

The problem is that the vast majority of modern atheists do not view atheism this way. They view atheism as a lack of belief in all deities. You speak of modern relevance as an argument that unpopular deities can be dismissed offhand. Cannot that same modern relevance be extended to include MODERN atheists, as oposed to how atheists of old conducted their arguments compared to how modern atheists conduct themselves?

Or is that irelevant?

I think the default position is probably "I don't know".

That is typically known as agnosticism. modern atheists do not consider atheism and agnosticism to be very different from each other. In fact, many atheists (myself included) hold BOTH titles. I am an agnostic as in I dont have clear knowledge that any deities actually exist outside of fiction, and, because I do not have that knowledge, I therefore have no reason to BELIEVE they exist, hence the atheism.

You don't have to prove something 100 percent, you only have to present a better explanation, or prove it is logically contradictory. A scientific theory doesn't prove anything, it is just what matches the fact as best we can discern.

actually, in science, a theory is a tested running platform for many formulas. The theory of gravity comes to mind. Gravity has been tested over and over again. Germ theory is another well tested theory. Sure, demons could be making diseases SEEM as if they are caused by germs, but the data is utilitarian. Antibiotics tend to kill off the sickness, unless the bacteria has mutated to a resistive strain, in which better drugs must be used to treat them. Sure, someone could argue that demons are merely being consistant in order to fool humans, but what utility is brought about from such information?

Logically, if all of the Gods make contradictory claims, either one of them is true or none of them are. So, if there is a God obviously only one of the religions is true. So it is not absurd for me to think that my God is the true God.

But, if they are gods, then how can they not be allowed to make contradictory claims? Sure, I have brought up contradictions in the bible before, but merely to show that the bible was poorly written. I can in no way 100% guarentee that the bible was not inspired by a god. If that god DOES exist, then he WANTED those contradicitons in the book. Remember, a god can do whatever it wants, regardless of your beliefs and what you think a god can or cant do, regardless of your ego. If, for example, Jesus decides that he doesnt want to save those who worship him, and instead send EVERYONE to hell, what can you do about it? Protest about Jesus to a higher power? He is god, he can do whatever the fuck he wants regardless of wether he made a promise to you or not. the variables are endless when it comes down to it. there is no way that you can be 100% sure about any of this.

I also think it is logical to assume that whichever God is true is going to be a God that is still relevant today. In fact, you would assume that whomever God is, He would wield the most influence. Christianity is the worlds largest religion. It is the worlds most influential religion, throughout history and today, and Jesus is the most influential being to ever live.

Not unless the creator of the universe is a prankster. In that situation you would see a world with many differing religions, and also dead religions (which is what we see now). Another possibility is that we humans are not able to perceive god, therefore we can never be certain. God may have had a fellow Goddess, or a Brother. Twin creator deities, who broke off from each other long ago and now fight each other. Remember, we are talking about the supernatural realm, which means that NOBODY can be 100% certain. that means my thoughts of the supernatural are just as possible and just as relevant as yours.

As I said earlier, you could have a better argument, or prove it is logically contradictory.

And what if the world was created by a council of 10 deities, 5 male, 5 female, and they do not wish to be known? How can you argue for or against them? They are obviously the creators of logic, which means, if they do not want to be known, they would have created logic not to prove that they exist. That would mean every religion known to humanity is wrong, yet a pantheon of gods exist, and that the polytheists are the closest to being correct.

you cant argue against something like that as well. you cant say "Well, if creators exist, then they MUST have a purpose for us that they want us to know". You DONT know that. What if they created us for no purpose at all..because they were bored?

I think Thor and the rest can be ignored for other reasons. For instance, in investigating the cause of the Universe, you can rule out any Gods that made no creation claims.

Asatru has, in my opinion, the best creation story I have ever read. This means that you made an argument from ignorance. Thor very much is connected to a cosmology and a creation claim. Ignorance is not an excuse.

I have never heard any atheists even try to argue their position. The three debate tools of the atheist are scoffing, incredulity, and ridicule.

Because modern atheists consider atheism to be a "lack of belief in all deities", not an active disbelief in your specific god. Scoffing is a powerful tool, as well as ridicule. When it comes to supernatural claims, then anything goes, and we atheists know this very well.

None of that follows from anything I have said. When I was agnostic, I explored many different belief systems, and at one point rejected all of them. All I really desired was the truth, and had no preference towards any particular belief. If anything, I was prejudiced against Christianity. The only reason I arrived there is because God led me to it..

So, naturally, you think that everyone who doesnt believe in your godhas a specific prejudice towards your god, not just all gods and goddesses, but especially Jesus and your god. some may consider this to be paranoia.

The biggest factor is love. None of this has anything to do with evidence. It is a heart matter between you and God. No one is going to go to hell because they thought God was too implausible. The people who go to hell are unrepentant sinners who reject God and love wickedness over the truth.

So hell isnt the biggest factor, but love is. Wait, Im not following you. You say "No one is going to go to hell because they thought God was too implausible", then right after that you say "The people who go to hell are unrepentant sinners who reject God "

So I can consider that god was too implausable, yet still go to heaven, but if I reject god, I go to hell.

How the hell can someone consider god implausable (not believable), yet not reject it?