Argument against atheism

[Ace Otana]

You claimed that you don't believe in God and in the same breath claim that you don't know whether a God exists and that it is quite possibly unknowable.

I stated that I don't believe in god and then went on to state further that I do not hold certainty. I do not know whether there is one or not, I simply don't believe it. I haven't claimed anything. I've stated what I know and stated my stance on the existence of god. I've claimed nothing.

If you simply lack any belief about God or gods you are simply acknowledging your own ignorance, again.

Well I am ignorant of a lot of things, so are you. What makes me smarter is that I can admit it. I don't KNOW if there is such a thing as a god. However I've seen no evidence, no reason to believe such a thing exists. Just as I don't believe in fairies, why would I? Fairies could possibly exist, they may in fact do but so far I've seen no reason or evidence to suggest that they exist.

That is not atheism.

That is atheism. Just not 'your' version of atheism. You just hate the fact that I'm not claiming anything. Nothing to defend, no burden of proof. You hate it.

Atheism literally means "without theism". An atheist is someone who does not accept, as true, claims that assert the existence of gods.

Considering the claims regarding the existence of a god, there are two possible claims:
God exists

God does not exist

For either claim, there are two positions one can take with regard to belief:

belief or acceptance of the claim

disbelief or rejection of the claim

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't believe that a man named Phil Henderson from Columbus, Ohio is going to send me $100 in the mail today. I have no idea whether or not a man named Phil Henderson from Columbus, Ohio exists.

You can lack belief without knowing for certain. You can have belief without knowing for certain. It's actually pretty simple stuff. Did you say you had an argument against atheism? Haven't seen it yet.

[Darwinning]

Darwinning it is not the job of a theist to convinnce you. Surely, no one is capable of convincing anyone else of anything at all if that person is not open to the possibility of being convinced or persuaded.

Uh, wait, what? I just told you how you could convince me. All you need to do is make it seem more probable that God does exist than that he does not.

In my original post I clearly laid out why a belief in objective reality necessarily stems from a belief in something that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity.

So "belief in God (implies) objective reality"?

I think you posed the opposite in your OP, but this way it makes more sense that I did not follow the argument.

You have chosen to reject the idea of objective reality, which is completely rational, but illogical. It goes against all scientific achievement and human knowledge.

Again, you are seeing things that are not there. I said I was unable to know objective reality and you say I reject the idea of it entirely. Not the same thing.

Funny you should say that goes against all human knowledge, when my whole point was that it is theoretically impossible for humans to know (for certain) anything about objective reality. Funny in a sad, sad way.

[amkerman]

otana I don't hate anything. I am not even trying to argue with you. Im simply offering observations. I admit my own ignorance, I have never claimed to "know" whether "God" exists. You are attempting to put words in my mouth just so you can attack them.

Rhythm I will try to put this as simply as I can. Whether or not Phil Henderson sends you the money, or even whether Mr. Henderson exists, is totally irrelevant to my argument. what you believe is irrelevant to my argument. either Phil Henderson is real, or he's not. If you adhere to the notion that its within the realm of possibility that Phil Henderson "could" exist, that belief necessarily stems from a belief that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity.- If you believe that things can be objectively measured or tested, it is a belief in what would correctly be called "God". What particular beliefs you have is not the point.

[Darwinning]

Did you say you had an argument against atheism? Haven't seen it yet.

Good point. Five pages in, we are still waiting in eager anticipation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you attempting a TAG and completely losing it in the word salad? You're blurring the lines in your apologetics. Not that it matters, none of works. I think you're going to need more practice before you attempt to argue for whatever god you believe in, or against others lack of belief.

Where in my analogy did you see any mention of a god? Nowhere. It's about a guy in Columbus and the $100 dollars he may or may not be sending me today. Epic Fail.

[Darwinning]

If you adhere to the notion that its within the realm of possibility that Phil Henderson "could" exist, that belief necessarily stems from a belief that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity.- If you believe that things can be objectively measured or tested, it is a belief in what would correctly be called "God".

I've seen you argue that for objective values, I've yet to see you argue the same for objective reality.

[amkerman]

darwinning a belief God does not denote a belief in objective reality. a belief in objective reality necessitates a belief in God. Stating that it is impossible for humans to know whether objective reality exists is wholly irrelevant. If you hold no beliefs about objective reality or God, then you are not an atheist. You are simply admitting your own ignorance, you are agnostic. You may call yourself an atheist, and argue with me about it, but to me, simply dealing in logic and truth, you can not possibly be an atheist. Atheism denotes some sort of knowledge or belief, which you claim you don't have.

[Ace Otana]

otana I don't hate anything. I am not even trying to argue with you. Im simply offering observations. I admit my own ignorance, I have never claimed to "know" whether "God" exists. You are attempting to put words in my mouth just so you can attack them.

You admit you are ignorant of things huh? It's not often I find intellectually honest theists, religious people to admit that they may be wrong and that they don't know for sure. Something I don't see very often. I can admit that I could be wrong, I have in fact admitted that often and I've admitted I don't know everything...I mean who does right?
Ok, you admit that you don't know absolutely that there is a god, good. I don't claim to know that there isn't a god. We're on the same page now right? We can put the whole 'certainty/knowledge' thing to rest now.

Also....I'm putting words in 'your' mouth? You've been doing that to me and others right here in this thread! Stating that I claim there is no god when I've never done so. Asserting that I believe with some kind of certainty that there is no such thing. 'You' have put words in my mouth sir.

[Welsh cake]

welsh cake: you state that consciousness is not a primary function of the universe. I hope you will concede that statement is a belief, not a fact.

To the best of our knowledge, its a fact. The universe does not demonstrate it is alive or self aware of itself. By using logic to argue we sentient beings are the proof that the universe is contingent upon consciousness to exist you are making the aforementioned fallacy of composition.

If things actually are "Good" or "bad" it necessarily means that value judgements can be correct or incorrect. Value judgments require a conscious observer. if things inherently have value necessarily consciousness must be a primary law of nature and the universe.

Once again you are committing the fallacy of composition. Our feelings, our subjective views on ethics, morals and standards of worth have no bearing at all on reality or the cosmos.

"atheism is but a response to theistic claims" - I completely agree with you. Atheism offers no insight to whether something that would correctly be termed "God" exists at all.

Because that's theism.

"define God first..." any man-made definition of God would by its very nature be incomplete. From a scientific standpoint the most simplistic term I can come up with is "consciousness as a primary function of the universe"

Why do you think reality is dependant upon consciousness?
Second, are you a Pantheist or a Pandeist?

If one is logically honest, as I see it, atheism can not coexist with objectivity or science.

We never said it did. Our world-view is not atheism, because atheism is not a world-view. My lack of belief in a creator says nothing about what my position is or what I do believe in.

I can not define God.

Then you've managed to kill your own thread before its even begun.

I think you'll appreciate I can see no reason to continue further if you don't know what is it that you want to discuss.