If I were an Atheist

[GrandizerII]

Because the preponderance of evidence favors the theistic hypothesis.

No.

[Cato]

Because the preponderance of evidence favors the theistic hypothesis.

You can try to argue a god into existence all you like, but you have absolutely zero evidence. If there was evidence it would be on constant display; the fact that it isn't is telling.

[pocaracas]

There are many unpopular beliefs and facts that are believed because of a preponderance of evidence in their favor, not because the belief is popular. Many popular beliefs have been abandoned do to evidence against them. Considering many atheists equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus how is it they’re not gaining any traction?

Here is where you fail.
Perhaps a history lesson would come in handy, but I'm a poor lecturer.

Beliefs are abandoned because the ruling classes impose new beliefs on their populace.
Here's a quote from a book I'm reading:
"'Religion and law among our masses must be one and the same', his father said. 'An act of disobedience must be a sin and require religious penalties.
This will have the dual benefit of bringing both greater obedience and greater bravery. We must depend not so much on the bravery of individuals, you see, as upon the bravery of a whole population.'"

Sounds familiar?
The Romans imposed their religion which mimicked the greek one... then they imposed the catholic.... later on, the arabs imposed islam on a large swath of territory.

Other popular beliefs have been squashed in wars, as the losing side believed in the "wrong" gods.

If the existence of God were as implausible as the existence of Santa Claus then there should be as many atheists as those who don’t believe in Santa Claus. If atheists know something that leads them to conclude belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa they are keeping it a well-guarded secret or they are dismal failures in communication. The question is what are atheists doing wrong?

Atheists are simply not believing in whatever god-like belief the surrounding society tries to convince them of.

And that is all they say...
Some go a bit further and point the flaws in those beliefs, but believers are seldom receptive to hear it... they just dismiss it as "god works in mysterious ways" or something like that...

The mind of the believer is a very twisted thing...

Why aren’t they expressing their viewpoint in a way that actually persuades people?

I suspect some atheists enjoy being contrary and being part of a small often loathed minority. Some atheists just like to think there much smarter than most and therefore their belief isn’t for the gullible masses.

It takes a special kind of person to convince others of something that is bullshit.... these are called con artists.
It takes a lot of effort to counter-con someone... even more so if there's no evidence that what the con-artist is selling is existent... if it is just a feeling, a desire, a wish.
How can you prove that something doesn't exist? Something that has been devised to be non-material... how? Impossible!

How would I approach the debate were I an atheist?

1. Drop the ‘I’m a weak-atheist’ strategy.

I’d go further and criticize those who refer to themselves as weak atheists. If atheists can’t convince others who call themselves atheists that God doesn’t exist just as an opinion and not as a fact, how can they possibly convince someone who believes in the existence of God that God doesn’t exist? I know many atheists refer to themselves as weak atheists only so they can say they make no claim about whether God exists and therefore they have no burden of evidence. The upshot is it makes the case in favor of atheism so weak even those who call themselves atheists won’t opine that God doesn’t exist. I think the claim made by atheists they only lack belief in the existence of God is bogus, in reality it is there opinion that God doesn’t exist.
I suspect some atheists enjoy being contrary and being part of a small often loathed minority. Some atheists just like to think there much smarter than most and therefore their belief isn’t for the gullible masses.

You lack understanding as to what a "weak atheist" is.
The opinion is that there's no reason to believe... in fact, why should I jsut believe in the existence of something?
Why can't I be shown that this god thing exists and close the subject?
Why all the secrecy regarding gods?

2. Drop linking belief in Santa to belief in God argument.

It’s a silly argument on the face of it. If belief in God were akin to belief in Santa Claus (or fairies, invisible pink elephants and so on) then why doesn’t 80% of the population believe in Santa Claus? If belief in God is as silly as belief in Santa Claus they need to explain why lucid sane adults don’t believe in Santa Claus but do believe in God? Secondly there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that a mystical person known as Santa who delivers presents worldwide on Christmas is easy to debunk and disprove. If belief in God is akin to belief in Santa how can there be weak atheists who only lack belief in God? Do atheists think Santa may exist but they merely lack that belief?

Yeah... Santa does have a shakier ground to stand on... the guy is supposed to show up every year and deliver presents.
But if parents don't provide said presents, then no present appear.

God has no such burden... he just works in mysterious ways, huh?

3. Drop the bashing, marginalizing and demonizing of believers.

If only all believers would do the same for all people who do not believe in the same thing as they do... The world would be a far better place.
But noooo... muslims cut your head off; christians had a nice thing called Inquisition, at which it seems the spanish excelled.

So yeah, believers are viruses who want to propagate their beliefs onto other people, just because they think it's right.... no evidence that they're right.... they just think, they believe, they're right.

[Drew_2013]

Yes, and there are some important factor one shouldn't neglect - how many people know what being atheist means, what is the public perception of the label (would you want to identofy as such even if the shoe fits) and what is our definition of atheist we are using to make the statistic?

I can guarantee the average person will be shocked to discover that some people who call themselves atheists don't have the opinion that God doesn't exist, they merely lack belief in the existence of God.

Perhaps you would like to give me a factual argument for god from the evidence first?

I've already done that...I'll find the link to it.

The bashing of theists is an emotional reaction to being marginalized by ignorant believers and their desire to marginalize anyone that dares disagree with them. You can only be mocked, told you're un-American and deserve to burn in hell before you lash out at the stupidity behind the whole thing.

No doubt there are many annoying theists who shove their belief down peoples throats and are extremely obnoxious. However on this board and many other discussion boards atheists lie in wait for theists to come on board so they can tear them to shreds. It may provide a catharsis and cheers from the peanut gallery but it does nothing to promote atheism as a logical alternative.

Just another long-winded condescending religious shitbag with no evidence to offer who simultaneously suffers from a reflexive offense taking persecution syndrome because others simply point out the obvious ridiculousness in his/her beliefs. Grow up.

Actually you never do...if it were obvious and you made a case to support the obvious you'd persuade folks.

[Angrboda]

Well, look what the cat dragged in.... Welcome back, Drew!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because the preponderance of evidence favors the theistic hypothesis.

Laughably incorrect.

[Esquilax]

First I would have to come to grips with the fact that in spite of a decline in religious attendance and participation atheism isn’t a growing movement. It’s not just an issue of popularity. There are many unpopular beliefs and facts that are believed because of a preponderance of evidence in their favor, not because the belief is popular.

And many untrue things with no evidence behind them at all are believed because they are attractive, and have a large amount of cultural and historical inertia behind them. The difference is that only one of us recognizes that the growth rate of a belief in no way affects the truth of it.

Many popular beliefs have been abandoned do to evidence against them. Considering many atheists equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus how is it they’re not gaining any traction?

So basically what you're asking is, why hasn't atheism reversed hundreds and thousands of years of contiguous religious belief, across multiple cultures and gods, often defended violently or emotionally... in a couple of decades?

I think that question rather answers itself, but just in case it doesn't, the two forces are not remotely equal. Religion, in its various forms, has enjoyed a lengthy period of privilege in which it had been able to outright deny even the possibility of being questioned. Atheism has only been this open for a few decades. This isn't an issue of two equal ideas being addressed on a purely factual basis, and a simple look at how the world is demonstrates this. Atheism hasn't gained as much traction as you'd like because it's an uphill battle, while being pushed back downhill all the way.

If the existence of God were as implausible as the existence of Santa Claus then there should be as many atheists as those who don’t believe in Santa Claus.

And if parents didn't continue to press god belief on their children, if they didn't threaten their children with hell for expressing disbelief, if parents actually treated the idea of god like they do the idea of Santa, you might have a point. As it is, they allow one belief to fall by the wayside once the child matures, while they reinforce the other belief daily through more means than I care to count. You're drawing an entirely false equivalency here.

How would I approach the debate were I an atheist?

1. Drop the ‘I’m a weak-atheist’ strategy.

Why would I do that, if it's an accurate reflection of my belief? You're essentially asking that I lie to people when I represent myself, and this is supposed to help me make my case?

I’d go further and criticize those who refer to themselves as weak atheists. If atheists can’t convince others who call themselves atheists that God doesn’t exist just as an opinion and not as a fact, how can they possibly convince someone who believes in the existence of God that God doesn’t exist?

The problem is that you're attributing the wrong position to us. The weak atheist position isn't that god doesn't exist, it's that there is a severe lack of evidence for the god proposition, and that one should not believe claims that don't have enough evidence behind them. It's simple: weak atheists aren't trying to convince people that god doesn't exist, they're pointing out that there's no reason to privilege the god claim over and above other claims, and that all things being equal, there isn't enough evidence to believe in god without that unjustified privilege.

Expressions of certainty are not indicators of the quality of a position, Drew. Nor is an intellectually honest lack of certainty a sign of weakness. I'm sort of wondering why you think they are.

I know many atheists refer to themselves as weak atheists only so they can say they make no claim about whether God exists and therefore they have no burden of evidence.

Oh, you know that? How do you know that?

The upshot is it makes the case in favor of atheism so weak even those who call themselves atheists won’t opine that God doesn’t exist. I think the claim made by atheists they only lack belief in the existence of God is bogus, in reality it is there opinion that God doesn’t exist.

Well, I don't think you get to dictate what we really think unless we tell you, Drew. Good to see you haven't dropped that complete lack of awareness of other people's boundaries you had the last time we spoke.

2. Drop linking belief in Santa to belief in God argument.

It’s a silly argument on the face of it. If belief in God were akin to belief in Santa Claus (or fairies, invisible pink elephants and so on) then why doesn’t 80% of the population believe in Santa Claus?

Because at the point at which kids start expressing disbelief in Santa, their parents admit that Santa isn't real. When kids start expressing disbelief in god, their parents not only continue pressing that god is real, they are doing so within the context of a system designed to reinforce that belief daily (prayer, church, christian groups) while actively threatening those who express doubts. Though the level of evidence for both propositions is the same, the god claim has a manipulative support mechanism that simply does not exist for the Santa claim.

Did you really need to be told that? Was this a real chin scratcher for you?

Secondly there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that a mystical person known as Santa who delivers presents worldwide on Christmas is easy to debunk and disprove.

And whenever we disprove a specific claim about god ("Heaven is literally above us, in the clouds!") there are troops of believers more than happy to move their god just beyond the realm of that debunking in order to preserve their belief. Not so for Santa.

If belief in God is akin to belief in Santa how can there be weak atheists who only lack belief in God? Do atheists think Santa may exist but they merely lack that belief?

I don't think you really understand the weak atheist position: the idea is that, if evidence of Santa appears, we'll believe that. Likewise with god. We lack a belief, but retain the possibility that such a belief could be instilled. You're essentially trying to denigrate an open mind.

3. Drop the bashing, marginalizing and demonizing of believers.

He said, before continuing to bash, marginalize and demonize atheists.

If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist)

Because if there's one group of people who gets to decide what a real atheist is, it's theists, right?

I would clearly state such a belief is an opinion. It’s what I think is true but acknowledge I’m not certain of it. That’s what an opinion is, a statement you have reason to believe is true but can’t be certain is true.

You start with "if I were a real atheist," and then essentially describe the weak atheist position, which you think isn't real atheism, except for the wording of the claim itself.

Therefore was I an atheist I would argue from those facts God doesn’t exist which ironically means I’m making a better argument than most atheists make. I wouldn't antagonize anyone, bash them over the head, question their sanity, just make the case and let it go at that.

Oh, you wouldn't antagonize anyone? So, you wouldn't, say, dictate what they believe back to them, tell them that their beliefs are merely tactics to avoid responsibility, call them arrogant?

[TubbyTubby]

If I were an atheist

I wouldn't bother if I were you, your brain would implode with the sudden vacuum created as the thousands of terabytes of crap are erased.

[abaris]

No doubt there are many annoying theists who shove their belief down peoples throats and are extremely obnoxious. However on this board and many other discussion boards atheists lie in wait for theists to come on board so they can tear them to shreds. It may provide a catharsis and cheers from the peanut gallery but it does nothing to promote atheism as a logical alternative.

If someone comes in bible quotes blazing, what are we supposed to do? One of the reasons why we are atheists is that the bible isn't convincing and certainly not evidence for the existence of god.

It's not lying in wait, but when someone flaunts his ignorance about the real world like a batch of honor I usually get angry. If someone literally believes in Adam and Eve and sees proven scientific facts as some kind of conspiracy against their religion, there's nothing left to discuss. We're not talking about stupid people here. I can deal with stupid. What I can't stand is proud and arrogant ignorance.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually you never do...if it were obvious and you made a case to support the obvious you'd persuade folks.

I doubt that. Losing one's faith is not something a person wants to do, and it was a pretty fearful experience. Given that, I could easily see how a believer would cling even more tightly to his beliefs.

That, of course, assumes that the atheist is trying to change the reader's mind ... and faith. I don't post here arguing with theists in order to change their minds. I already know that they are incapable of apostasy. They have gone out of their way to avoid educating themselves about the issues at hand, and often I've seen outright dishonesty from them; both those facts, and they are facts, indicate a refusal to subject their beliefs to any challenge.

I post here thinking that any lurkers should get another perspective. Insofar as I'm rude, I try to avoid that, but I don't shy away from it when I see some uneducated twat talking down to me, or making insinuations about my character based on his own misapprehensions of my atheism -- and his refusal to entertain clarification. If you treat me like a stereotype, you are being rude, and I'm no Christian -- I do not believe in turning the other cheek.

And because I'm not worried about expanding the roster of atheists, I'm fine making change in the coin tendered.