The Case for Atheism

[goodnews]

.......for the same reason other people have not come across the notion, in order to claim the existence?

[Baalzebutt]

.......for the same reason other people have not come across the notion, in order to claim the existence?

huh?

[Darkstar]

Why replace a mystery (the origin of the universe) with a bigger mystery (god)? How could a god exist without any cause, but unstructured atoms can't? Is it because "god always existed"? Is it because the Flying Spaghetti Monster always existed? (You see, saying that he always existed is not only special pleading but a presupposition required for him to exist in the first place, rather than an observation.)

[JesusHChrist]

.......for the same reason other people have not come across the notion, in order to claim the existence?

Could not parse this sentence....

If you mean a thing is more likely if many others "come across" a notion, then no, that doesn't work either.

Lots of folks "came across" Zeus. Hence, Zeus exists. We ain't go no evidence though! Absence of evidence don't make Zeus not so!

Uh huh.

All gods are in the same realm as Zeus and my ten foot tall martian robot spiders until we get us some evidence.

[Faith No More]

The case for atheism is simple. Every case for theism has failed, mostly due to their reliance on logical fallacies and anthropocentric delusions.

[Love]

I'm giving atheists the benefit of the doubt that their disbelief in God is because of facts that call that hypothesis into question, not because they don't like the idea of God for personal reasons.

It is very unlikely that you will ever convince a firm atheist that God exists, especially by using the communication medium of rational textual language in a forum full of atheistic rationalists. Inductive argument, deductive argument, subjective argument, teleological argument, transcendental argument, argument from reason, argument from love among others; none of these methods of argument will work. The approach that I find the most helpful is to discuss epistemology and highlight the fact that the scientific method (predominantly empiricism) and rationalism (pure reason = a priori knowledge) have limits in a variety of areas. For example, I know that a transcendent panentheistic entity (let's call it God for convenience) exists, but I am aware that it is impossible to communicate this knowledge by using rational language.

[Darkstar]

The approach that I find the most helpful is to discuss epistemology and highlight the fact that the scientific method (predominantly empiricism) and rationalism (pure reason = a priori knowledge) have limits in a variety of areas.

In other words...you have an argument from ignorance? If god is an entity, why wouldn't one be able to find empirical evidence of him? Even if he were non-physical, the effects he has on the world would have to be physical.

[Baalzebutt]

For example, I know that a transcendent panentheistic entity (let's call it God for convenience) exists, but I am aware that it is impossible to communicate this knowledge by using rational language.

But how do you "know" this? What is your rational for believing this? Why is your "transcendent panentheistic entity" any more plausible or real than Zeus or 10ft tall martian robot spiders?

[Silver]

I know that a transcendent panentheistic entity (let's call it God for convenience) exists, but I am aware that it is impossible to communicate this knowledge by using rational language.

If such a being existed, it would not be impossible to prove its existence to someone else.

[Simon Moon]

Inductive argument, deductive argument, subjective argument, teleological argument, transcendental argument, argument from reason, argument from love among others; none of these methods of argument will work.

You are correct, methods that involve fallacious arguments (like the ones you mentioned above) won't work.

The approach that I find the most helpful is to discuss epistemology and highlight the fact that the scientific method (predominantly empiricism) and rationalism (pure reason = a priori knowledge) have limits in a variety of areas.

Just a coincidence that the area that they 'have limits' just so happen to be the area where your beliefs lie.

For example, I know that a transcendent panentheistic entity (let's call it God for convenience) exists, but I am aware that it is impossible to communicate this knowledge by using rational language.

How do you know this? What heuristic are using to obtain this knowledge?