Theism (T): There is a God.
Atheism (A): There is no God.
Atheism cannot be true because you believe there is no God. Lol. Atheism can only be true if in fact there is no God.
You are defining Atheism as "I believe there is no God". Then, since you do, you are saying, Atheism is true. Lol.
Now, of T and A, only one can be true. They are mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive. P(A)+P(T)=1, or 100%. So evidence in favor of Theism will reduce the probably of Atheism being true. Evidence in favor of Atheism, if any such thing exists, would reduce the probability of theism being true. Then, you assess each of the arguments in favor of either, like Contingency/Cosmology, Fine-Tuning, the Moral Argument etc.
With every independent argument in favor of Theism, the likelihood of it being true would increase. You can only decrease that and show that Atheism is somehow more rational than Theism by both refuting those arguments and then proposing independent reasons to think A is true.
I gave the example of Anarchy because Anarchy, clearly a political system, claims to be "no political system at all". So the analogy with Atheism, a religious system, that claims to be "no religious system at all" is apt. Here's another one: the "Anarcho-Capitalism" of Murray Rothbard. Pretty much a laissez-faire or libertarian school of economics, which is close to "no economic system at all" in the sense that it is opposed to pretty much all government intervention in the economy. Again, it cannot prove itself good or true or that it ought to be adopted just by saying these things. Adherents of those schools have to provide economic or other evidence that those schools of thought are the best forms of government/economy.
GN: "Anarchy is, by definition, not a system of government. There's nothing to win or lose, it's just a description of the idea."
So, anarchy proves itself the best form of government just by defining itself as that? It needs to show that, when Anarchy is adopted, this leads to human flourishing and better governance. That has to be shown by arguments, experience, examples etc. That's the purpose of a govt. system.
Helios: "there is no such thing as an atheist government"
No such thing as an atheist government? Certainly there is. North Korea for e.g. Did you mean no such thing as an "anarchist government"?
Tomato: "Being without bread doesn't mean one has bread because you want it to be that way."
Ok. But the question is, is it better for humanity at large to be without bread or with bread, per your analogy. That's what we're trying to decide. That's why this isn't just a word game or something. If supposedly being without bread is better, then independent reasons for that need to be given.
Brian: "Atheism is a religion in precisely the same sense that 'bald' is a hair colour."
Well, being bold is arguably a "hair style", not a "hair color", perhaps, but a hair style.
Deese: "Yet he *forgot* to define what atheism is." answered above. Atheism is defined as the opinion that there is no God. It needs to prove/give evidence in its favor, just like every other opinion, before its adherents can claim it to be a fact.
Atheism (A): There is no God.
Atheism cannot be true because you believe there is no God. Lol. Atheism can only be true if in fact there is no God.
You are defining Atheism as "I believe there is no God". Then, since you do, you are saying, Atheism is true. Lol.
Now, of T and A, only one can be true. They are mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive. P(A)+P(T)=1, or 100%. So evidence in favor of Theism will reduce the probably of Atheism being true. Evidence in favor of Atheism, if any such thing exists, would reduce the probability of theism being true. Then, you assess each of the arguments in favor of either, like Contingency/Cosmology, Fine-Tuning, the Moral Argument etc.
With every independent argument in favor of Theism, the likelihood of it being true would increase. You can only decrease that and show that Atheism is somehow more rational than Theism by both refuting those arguments and then proposing independent reasons to think A is true.
I gave the example of Anarchy because Anarchy, clearly a political system, claims to be "no political system at all". So the analogy with Atheism, a religious system, that claims to be "no religious system at all" is apt. Here's another one: the "Anarcho-Capitalism" of Murray Rothbard. Pretty much a laissez-faire or libertarian school of economics, which is close to "no economic system at all" in the sense that it is opposed to pretty much all government intervention in the economy. Again, it cannot prove itself good or true or that it ought to be adopted just by saying these things. Adherents of those schools have to provide economic or other evidence that those schools of thought are the best forms of government/economy.
GN: "Anarchy is, by definition, not a system of government. There's nothing to win or lose, it's just a description of the idea."
So, anarchy proves itself the best form of government just by defining itself as that? It needs to show that, when Anarchy is adopted, this leads to human flourishing and better governance. That has to be shown by arguments, experience, examples etc. That's the purpose of a govt. system.
Helios: "there is no such thing as an atheist government"
No such thing as an atheist government? Certainly there is. North Korea for e.g. Did you mean no such thing as an "anarchist government"?
Tomato: "Being without bread doesn't mean one has bread because you want it to be that way."
Ok. But the question is, is it better for humanity at large to be without bread or with bread, per your analogy. That's what we're trying to decide. That's why this isn't just a word game or something. If supposedly being without bread is better, then independent reasons for that need to be given.
Brian: "Atheism is a religion in precisely the same sense that 'bald' is a hair colour."
Well, being bold is arguably a "hair style", not a "hair color", perhaps, but a hair style.
Deese: "Yet he *forgot* to define what atheism is." answered above. Atheism is defined as the opinion that there is no God. It needs to prove/give evidence in its favor, just like every other opinion, before its adherents can claim it to be a fact.
