The Case for Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

Mister Agenda,

Um, it was theists who believed in the 'small gods' too. Theism isn't just your version of things, it's merely the belief that some sort of God or gods exist. All their theisms are belong to you if you're not going to be more specific. Disproving other people's theism isn't favorable to theism.

My response was to the claim that scientists debunked the notion of gods such as the god of rain or earthquakes and such. In reality theists did long before scientists got around to it.

Believing something different isn't debunking something. That thing scientists did where they found out what actually causes lightning? THAT's debunking.

Argumentus Classificatious. In case you don't know that means its the fallacy that merely classifying an argument nullifies it or debunks it.

Identifying a fallacy within an argument doesn't prove the conclusion isn't true, but it proves the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It proves the argument doesn't support its conclusion. There is no such fallacy as Argumentus Classificatious, where did you get it from? Are you thinking of the 'fallacy fallacy', which is inferring that since an argument contains a fallacy, its conclusion is untrue?

If in fact an argument is fallacious. Many atheists seem to think the fact it merely falls into a category qualifies it.

Argument from 'you identified a fallacy in my argument so you're wrong'. Really?

Argumentus Classificatious.

That's not an actual fallacy.

Presumably not because you're ticked off at God but because you don't think God exists.

Correct, someone who is ticked off at God would be a maltheist, I suppose.

I'll speak for myself, to be intellectually satisfied that we are not the result of a personal agent who caused and designed the universe and our existence I would want to have reason to believe some other non-God cause is as feasible and as likely to account for our existence.

Good for you.

Therein lies the problem, neither you or other atheists will cough up some more likely or probable cause or explanation for our existence.

When you say 'more likely or probable' you mean 'convincing to you, personally'. You find the explanations of cosmology and biology improbable, we don't. So stay a theist. You seem to be under the impression we want you to change your mind, but we actually don't care much. We didn't go to a theist forum to convince the theists. We're just entertaining yet another theist visitor daring us to convince them.

Tell me, are you as skeptical of naturalistic in the gaps explanations as you are of the God explanation? If not then make your case for why those alternate explanations are better.

Given we won't latch on to one of the proposed explanations until there's more confirming evidence for it, which there may not be in our lifetimes, our skepticism of the natural explanations should be obvious. They're better because they're based on physical evidence and math that works. That doesn't make them true, but it's a better explanation than 'I'll go with what Iron Age herdsmen thought'.

They do all kinds of things in the universe we live in when confined by very specific laws of nature. As for incredulity it's laughable that word is even in the bag of atheist arguments. It can be said of any argument atheists make against the existence of God is an argument from personal incredulity.

For example?

There have been several atheists on this very board that have said they don't categorically deny Gods existence, they simply lack that belief. If atheists themselves claim God may exist what's their beef with theists who do think God exists?

It depends on the atheist. I don't have a beef with theists, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe what you were raised to believe and what everyone important to you believes. Generally, when we have a beef with theists, it's not because of what they're believing, it's because of what they're doing that they think their belief justifies. Noting the belief itself isn't justified by logic or evidence is just part of the argument against the actions. We generally don't start arguments with Quakers or Jains, you might notice.

in·cre·du·li·ty
[in-kri-doo-li-tee, -dyoo-] Show IPA
noun
the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.
Origin:
1400–50; late Middle English incredulite < Latin incrēdulitās. See incredulous, -ity

Synonyms
disbelief, skepticism, doubt.

Antonyms
faith.

Notice the antonym for incredulity is faith. So when you say I am incredulous of the claims that mindess forces can bootstrap themselves into existence, create a universe with specific laws of nature that create life and mind from non-life and non mind why shouldn't I lack faith barring evidence such could and did happen? Its not as if any atheists I know of are making a case from facts. None in here are.

It's not your incredulity that's a problem. It's using your personal incredulity of the alternative as an argument that's fallacious. It would be like me claiming it's irrational to believe in God because it doesn't make sense. It not making sense to me isn't an argument against you believing it. It may make perfect sense to you. My personal standard of incredulity isn't a standard to which I can hold anyone else.

If atheists only lack belief God exists then as far as they are concerned God may well exist and be a viable explanation that accounts for the existence of the universe and humans, it's just not one they share. So if atheists themselves concede God may exist what gripe can they have with theists who do believe God exists?

No gripe for the belief. A lot of us have a gripe with Creation Science or Intelligent Design being taught in taxpayer-funded science classes when, at the very best, it's not established science.

Considering you as an atheist don't deny God exists you should say to the theist its very reasonable that you believe in God I just don't share your belief.

It's reasonable that theists believe, and a particular theist's personal experiences may be adequate justification for them. That doesn't make it a very reasonable belief. It's just as reasonable for people in a remote African village to believe their ancestors and witches account for pretty much all chance events between them, but the belief itself isn't reasonable. You pretty much have to believe it to think it's reasonable.

However if what you really think is that its unreasonable to believe in the existence of God then you should have at least as good or better alternative explanation that I don't need to accept on faith.

You're asking us to make an argument from ignorance. It being improbable that your belief is true doesn't oblige us to present an alternative that would please you. Nonetheless, centuries of effort by scientists have given us modern cosmology and biology as alternatives to your scenario. If that isn't sufficient for you, keep on believing. It's not like we're going to knock on your door to pester you about it.

You're living in a dream world if you think the majority of atheists sites, leaflets and promotions don't depict belief in God as absurd bizarre, crazy, fanciful, foolish, insane, nonsensical, preposterous and unreal.

Yet, most of us still won't claim no sort of God could possibly exist. That's different from claiming belief in God is unjustified, and showing why.

Many atheists have an agenda to remove the notion of God from society. Sure in a debate most atheists go to the failsafe mode of claiming its just a lack of belief but not elsewhere.

Many theists think if every military officer doesn't have the right to keep a Bible on her desk and every Courthouse can't display their version of the Decalogue, that the notion of God is being removed from society. But hundreds of thousands (at least) of American theists think mixing religion and government more than absolutely necessary is bad for religion as well as government.

There are 'strong' or 'gnostic' atheists who will go so far as to say God definitely does not exist, but since they're in the minority on every single atheist forum site I've ever visiited, I don't think they suddenly become the majority elsewhere. Critiquing bad arguments for God isn't the same thing as saying God doesn't exist.

ra·tion·al·ism
[rash-uh-nl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

Fine then provide me with the rationalist basis for believing that mindless forces somehow came into existence with the right characteristics and laws of nature to produce intelligent human beings rather than telling me I'm incredulous if I don't agree.
[/quote]

I'd go with

1.A belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

but, close enough.

The rationalist position would be to not believe in a proposition until belief in it is sufficiently justified by knowledge and reason. I regard the God hypothesis to be insufficiently justified by knowledge and reason so I don't believe it. I find some current cosmological explanations for your questions plausible, but I don't believe them either, because it's multiple-choice and the evidence to support one over the other isn't in yet. Your need for there to be an answer doesn't mean one is currently available.