If I were an Atheist

[JesusHChrist]

Again, it is the individual judgement of the particular atheist who should decide when such measures are warranted, not some dictate of the Atheist Reich.

We still get armbands though....right?

I'm still waiting for a cool belt buckle, with something like "No God is with Us" in German on it.

[Norman Humann]

I'm still waiting for a cool belt buckle, with something like "No God is with Us" in German on it.

"Kein Gott mit uns"

[JesusHChrist]

I'm still waiting for a cool belt buckle, with something like "No God is with Us" in German on it.

"Kein Gott mit uns"

Muchas gracias senor!

[Chas]

I'm still waiting for a cool belt buckle, with something like "No God is with Us" in German on it.

"Kein Gott mit uns"

Maybe we should have them in French.

"Pas de Dieux"

[Mister Agenda]

Your response is to various religious beliefs. Theism is philosophy about our existence if your angry about religion, take it up with theologians.

Theism is the opinion that at least one god or God is really real. It's not a philosophy.

Its hard to imagine how the existence of God can be such an obvious fairy tale and yet you can't convince those who call themselves 'weak atheists' that the fairy tale doesn't exist...how is that?

Lots of fairy tales exist. It's the fairies that are unlikely. Due to the 'fallacy fallacy', we can't be certain that a conclusion is false merely because the reasoning used to support it is fatally flawed. Someone who is precise in their epistemology will acknowledge that.

Secondly what alternate non-fairy tale explanation do you offer in place of theism?

No such explanation is required. If we have no explanation at all, it does not add a single nano-gram of weight to the odds that your position is correct. And mere theism explains nothing. It's not the kind of thing that is an explanation for anything, it's a binary positon on the issue of whether or not at least one god or God is real.

"You have an interesting habit of leaving out the identity of the person whom you're quoting. I'm a strong atheist towards the literally interpreted version of the God of the Bible, it contradicts physical evidence. I'm a weak atheist towards less problematic versions of God. It's not that complex of a position. And if you think a theologian can't be an atheist, I'd say you don't understand many of the terms you are using. There are several prominent atheist theologians." --Mister Agenda

I try to get to as many responses as possible is why I don't say who I'm responding to...

No what I am saying is those who have beefs with particular alleged holy writs, interpretations of such writs or doctrines of churches and so forth need to take it up with theologians not me. There is no theology of theism, church of theism or holy writs attributed to theism. Its the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

No kidding. Yet you're the one trying to magnify it into some sort of philosophy. And this is entirely irrelevant to me being a strong atheist to some versions of deities and a weak atheist towards others. What are you even trying to argue with here? Are you under some impression that I'm trying to persuade you not to be a theist rather than just responding to your posts?

"Yes, we all know you think that, despite anything we might have to say to the contrary. The basis of your opinion seems to be that since it makes criticizing atheism more difficult for you, that must be the reason so many of us hold that inconvenient position. After all, if our position is that we are not convinced any gods exist and your position is that at least one does, the burden of proof is on you, and you know you can't meet that burden."--Mister Agenda

I have met the burden of making a case from evidence (facts) to justify my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator.

You've justified your own opinions to your own satisfaction. Perhaps a medal is in order.

The weak atheist position doesn't make a debate about the existence of God more difficult, it makes such a debate impossible.

It's really only a problem for a certain kind of person. Many people who want to argue for the existence of God, upon finding someone doesn't maintain absolutely that there is no God, might still be interested in learning why that person doesn't believe God is real or in presenting a case as to why they ought to believe God is real. Then there is the person who throws up their hands and decides a debate with someone who doesn't assert vigrously that there is no God is impossible.

As a theist I don't deny the existence of God but either do weak atheists. What's there to debate?

Do you think weak atheists are justified in not believing in God? The distinction between a weak atheist and a weak theist isn't THAT subtle that it's reasonable for me to believe that you really can't see it.

"You could simply take the position that you believe in your version of God regardless of whether you can support it empirically. It's a position you would be well-advised to take, if you think tactics are paramount. That puts us on equal footing, burden of proof-wise, if that's what's important to you."--Mister Agenda

[quote='Drew_2013' pid='897221' dateline='1426199694']
Ideally this debate would occur the way any debate is normally conducted. Each side respects the others view but disagrees with them.

Respecting the other's view is precisely where you're failing.

Each side presents evidence they believe supports there view they make their case and let the undecided decide who prevailed.

If you want a formal debate, there's a place for that. The mods can set it up, and all you need is a volunteer to take 'the other side'. The holdup seems to be not only that you want the 'other side' to be 'God definitely does not exist' but that your own side isn't 'God definitely does exist'.

"Are we the same in that we don't believe God is real and you don't either?"--Mister Agenda

Do things that aren't real possibly exist?

No. But there are definitely things that we think aren't real or don't know exist that will turn out to be real. It's happened before, it will happen again. People who believe in things they have no way of knowing are real have a tendency to define them in such a way that they are unfalsifiable. If a particular version of an entity is proven not to be real, they just add an ad hoc explanation for why it 'didn't pass the test'. You can 'maybe' anything, and it's a poor reason to believe something, but it doesn't make it inconceivable that you might be right. People who don't require absolute certainty about everything can acknowledge the small possibility that someone could be right that something apparently imaginary is real...though they would be right by accident, like a stopped clock having the correct time twice a day.

Do you merely lack belief in the existence of Santa Claus or fairies but concede they might actually exist?

It depends on how they're defined. If everything they do is undetectable by science and they never leave verifiable evidence, then I merely lack belief in their existence. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be surprised if I found out either or both were real, as I regard them as more improbable than our sun going nova tomorrow (and our sun isn't the kind of star that ever goes nova).

What you're doing is confirming that folks who call themselves weak atheists are disingenuous in that they do have the opinion God doesn't exist they merely prefer to say they lack belief in the existence of God.

The disengenuousness is entirely within you. We are accurately describing our postion: God is unlikely (how unlikely depends on the particular agnostic atheist, but I'd say most of us make it to be 'highly') but some versions are at least possible. We don't believe God exists, but don't maintain that God necessarily does not exist. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are having so much trouble grasping this.

"You can't possibly be claiming that you've found a shortage of people on this site willing to make a case for why they're skeptical of theism."--Mister Agenda

There are an abundance of those who are willing to share why there skeptical of theism. Mere skepticism and criticism of theism is never going to convince the teeming masses God doesn't exist because it leaves the existence of the universe and humans in limbo.

If so, we should care about that why? If the masses think an argument from ignorance is sufficient reason to hold a position, they need education on logic before arguing over the existence of God will do them any good. Unsupported assertions are not an honest alternative to 'limbo', they're misdirection.

What they would need to do to really persuade the teeming masses is provide some alternate non-god explanation that accounts for why we find ourselves in a universe that supports our existence.

There is an embarassing surfeit of such explanations. There must be dozens of plausible natural explanations for the origin of the universe, and not yet a way to discern the possible from the actual.

Your issue is both a made-up problem (there is no sound reason to believe the universe comes from a personal creator in the first place) AND an argument from ignorance (any answer is better than none).

[downbeatplumb]

Downbeat

I don't believe in extra terrestrial intelligence but I don't believe extra terrestrial intelligence does not exist.

There is simply not enough evidence to support the positive claim but it is definitely possible.

See how that works.

By the same token, if it is definitely possible that God exists what beef can you have with theists who simply do believe what you say is a definite possibility?

Because theists don't believe it is a possibility, they believe it is a fact.

Saying "I think there may be aliens" is a very different claim "to there are aliens and they watch you sleep at night"

Theists go a step further without anything that could be called evidence.

And to make matters worse they want to impose their views on others in the name of the unproven thing.

[jesus_wept]

If so I can only repeat, perhaps you would like to give me a factual argument for god from the evidence first?

what I suspect you mean is direct irrefutable empirical evidence that conclusively proves God exists. If such evidence did exist this forum would not exist. Theism like atheism is a belief and opinion to the question why are we here? How did our existence come about? Are we the result of planning and design or are we the result of mechanistic forces that neither planned nor intended our existence. What factual argument from evidence do you argue that God doesn't exist or that natural unguided forces alone can account for all that we observe?

What I would like is an argument for god based on facts and not logical fallacies, such as this attempt to shift the burden of proof with an argument from ignorance. It's really not up to me to prove your delusions wrong, and whether I can or not has no real bearing on the truth of your claims. If you want people to believe your claims then you need to provide evidence, you can't just sit there and pretend your arguments are valid because I cant prove you wrong.

[QuarkDriven]

"What factual argument from evidence do you argue that God doesn't exist or that natural unguided forces alone can account for all that we observe?"

the fact that thiesm doesn't have any evidence at all for the existence of a god. What evidence do you have for a supernatural guided force to account for all that there is? god got bored and sparked the big bang? i mean, he is eternal right? that means he must have been bored as shit to start something like that or was it an accident? did he mix the wrong chemicals like a lab experiment gone wrong then said ah, the hell with it, i'll create the earth and people and make them fear me but not give them any proof that I exist.

[Whateverist]

Your response is to various religious beliefs. Theism is philosophy about our existence if your angry about religion, take it up with theologians.

Theism is the opinion that at least one god or God is really real. It's not a philosophy.

Perhaps we can concede that at least in this one instance, for Drew, theism is the opinion that theism is the philosophy of existence. It isn't true of course, unless we are all allowed to redefine words willy nilly. But that's Drew's opinion. Duly noted .. and ignored.

[Drew_2013]

Dystopia

Humans are not special.

If atheism is true I agree, we are the accidental by product of mindless forces that never intended our existence. This explains why atheist nations typically have an abysmal human rights record.

I would demand that they stop attacks, insults and attempts to marginalise atheists (and believers of other religions/variations of their own religions...I would tell them to stop vandalising atheist billboards and signs....I would insist they stop threatening atheists with hell and passive aggressive nonsense like "I'll pray for you"...I would tell them to stop prosletysing to atheists because all that achieves is to annoy and drive them away from the message they're trying to spread.

Go for it. I know religious zealots can be offensively obnoxious.

rasetsu

And in doing so, I'd say you're confused about the nature of modern atheism. Yes, there are some who deny the existence of God, and for them to do so is perfectly fine — it's a big tent. However many come to atheism as a position of skepticism — that being to withhold assent until reason and evidence compel belief. It is skepticism of a narrow sort, concerned only with claims about the existence of gods. In this it is no different than, say, skepticism about the matter of universal origins; one is able to withhold belief from specific claims and theories without necessarily being obliged to form a contrary opinion. As I recall, you had great difficulty accepting that as well. Ultimately, it is up to the individual atheist to determine whether they hold to a position of skepticism or one of outright denial; as such, atheism isn't a movement of robot drones all marching to the beat of the same drum. There is no shame in simply adopting an attitude of skepticism; it is a time honored position.

No shame at all. I think by calling themselves atheists they water down the traditional position of atheists which is the belief or opinion that God(s) doesn't exist. If you asked people on the street if they knew atheism can mean someone who doesn't deny God exists they would be shocked. After all I don't deny God exists either.

For whatever reason, the argument seems to have gotten under your skin. It's an analogy, and whether that analogy is weak or strong, effective or ineffective, apt or not, is something that only an individual atheist can decide dependent on context and such. Using it at every opportunity might be unwise, but for a variety of reasons, none of which imply that it is a fundamentally useless argument as you seem to imply here. That someone might use such an argument from analogy is neither good or bad in the absolute; there are certainly times when its use is warranted or effective. (Heaven forbid an atheist might make an ineffective argument! What would the movement think!?) A little now and again does no harm.

The argument is intended to insult. It (obviously) implies that those who believe in the existence of God are as absurd as those who believe in Santa Claus, Fairies or Leprechauns. Insulting people with a difference of opinion does little to persuade them. Do you think any atheists became atheists because of such a dubious argument?

Yes, I'm sure you would welcome an end to the abuse and ridicule, however I would suggest to you that some of the time atheists bash, marginalize, or demonize believers it is because the believer has done, said, or believed something that is worthy of bashing, marginalizing or demonizing. Much like the Santa Claus analogy above, you seem to live in a one-size-fits-all world, but situations may suggest if not compel one to such behavior in the name of moral decency. Seldom is it done as an act put on to entertain one's peers. Again, it is the individual judgement of the particular atheist who should decide when such measures are warranted, not some dictate of the Atheist Reich.

I have been debating atheists for over 15 years and I don't take any of the aforementioned tactics personally. I know devout believers and religious zealots can be incredibly obnoxious but the tactics are still in poor form and still makes atheists 'look petty, smug and arrogant and that they can’t make a factual argument from the evidence' One of the atheists on this board disagreed with all I said except this point.

In general, you seem to be advocating that all atheists abandon their individuality in favor of some kind of unified front for the movement. Not only would this be rather inauthentic, I think that what the movement would lose is inestimably more valuable than what it might gain.

Do you think atheists could do better at explaining their position and advancing their beliefs? I think they would find sugar would go a lot further than vinegar.