If I were an Atheist

[robvalue]

Sure, I'm very happy to say that. I believe that there is no god interacting with our reality, at least. I feel that the complete lack of any evidence you would expect from such a presence or interaction is reasonable for such a belief, along with our scientific explanations doing a great job and not needing such assumptions.

That's how I live my life. But if it came to a formal debate, I'd just stick with weak atheism as I then have no burden of proof at all. I'm not the one making crazy talk.

[paulpablo]

1) I claim not to be a strong or certain atheist because I don't know for sure there is no god. I wouldn't change that opinion for the sake of a debate tactic.
Usually the more specific claims a religious person makes is correlated to how much disbelief I have in what they're saying.
For example someone saying that god exists, I'd reply to that by saying yeh maybe you're right, who knows.
On the other hand someone saying God exists and he told an angel to tell a man to tell his friends to write a book for him in one language as a final message for all mankind, I'd say no, that sounds like a typical cult to me, definitely don't believe in it.
Or if they said god exists and he's definitely responsible for writing a book that looks like a typical book of ancient fictional myths, but this book is really true, god did impregnate a virgin and turn sticks into snakes and a bunch of other stuff, again I'd say I don't believe in all that.

2)I never compared god to santa.

3) I agree with the last one, I try and not demonize or marginalize believers but I have done with some comments in the past, probably out of frustration I was feeling over a specific topic of debate I was having at the time.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='Drew_2013' pid='893896' dateline='1425839001']
[quote]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? [/quote]
[quote]
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.[/quote]

That is because many average people are miss-informed.
Especially in the "stupid zones" in America.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

At least the atheists let theists speak. To be anything but a true believer on a theist site gets you an insta ban.

Try it.

But to quote someone.
"If you don't want your beliefs laughed at, don't have such funny beliefs"

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

Not if theists are only on transmit, which they almost invariably are.
We get the same arguments again and again, often from the same people.
It gets tiring saying "we answered that on page one" and its now page 120. Snowtracks I'm looking at you.

[Esquilax]

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.

So, wait: your position is that misinformation about atheism exists and is potentially widespread, and therefore atheists should lie about what their position is... so that the misinformation seems true... rather than just correcting the misinformation? Why is it that your whole claim here seems to be that people should lie in ways you find convenient?

Besides, there are some people who have misinformed ideas about every religious position. Are you therefore saying that every religion should pretend to change what they think to match other people's incorrect ideas? Or is it just religious positions you feel like you can push around that have to do that?

[GrandizerII]

Sure, I'm very happy to say that. I believe that there is no god interacting with our reality, at least. I feel that the complete lack of any evidence you would expect from such a presence or interaction is reasonable for such a belief, along with our scientific explanations doing a great job and not needing such assumptions.

That's how I live my life. But if it came to a formal debate, I'd just stick with weak atheism as I then have no burden of proof at all. I'm not the one making crazy talk.

But even if one said that they believed God did not exist, the burden of proof would still solely lie on the theist to convince us that God at least likely exists and, therefore, the belief that he doesn't is unwarranted.

[robvalue]

I would say you would both have a burden of proof to an extent, theirs would still be way higher. As a weak atheist you are stating no beliefs at all, you have literally zero burden of proof. Once you make a positive statement about your belief, it's reasonable for someone to ask you what your reasons are. Which is fine, and there can be good reasons. But my point is that this is really time wasted when the theist should be explaining their nonsense.

[GrandizerII]

I would say you would both have a burden of proof to an extent, theirs would still be way higher. As a weak atheist you are stating no beliefs at all, you have literally zero burden of proof. Once you make a positive statement about your belief, it's reasonable for someone to ask you what your reasons are. Which is fine, and there can be good reasons. But my point is that this is really time wasted when the theist should be explaining their nonsense.

All I have to say is lack of evidence and that's it. Of course, when asked, I sometimes provide logical arguments that show God's existence to be either unnecessary or even logically impossible. But I don't even have to go that far. Lack of evidence is a good enough argument in this case.

[robvalue]

Sure, that's no problem. I wasn't criticizing, everything you say is perfectly true.

I was only talking in terms of a formal debate, where you have a limited amount of time to make the WLC wannabe in front of you look like a retarded bungholio, and so you don't want to offer them any more opportunities to avoid answering questions than they are already trying to engineer.

But outside that, sure, I'd argue your case too.

[The Grand Nudger]

@OP....I guess it's a good thing you aren't an atheist then...eh?

[Drew_2013]

God is absurd

There is the kind of answer that will persuade theists that God doesn't exist.

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?

You make a baseless, bullshit assertion like this, without evidence...

I have made my case for theism on this board...

https://atheistforums.org/thread-17548.html

You will respond I've made no case I presented no evidence and it doesn't persuade you, just to save you some time. But at least I made a case for what I think is true.

No, you haven't. All you've done is throw crap at the wall to see what sticks. So far, none of it has.

And there is the kind of response that leaves atheism as a very small nearly meaningless group.

A 2001 survey directed by Dr. Ariela Keysar for the City University of New York indicated that, amongst the more than 100 categories of response, "no religious identification" had the greatest increase in population in both absolute and percentage terms.

I think it's rather presumptuous to take the category of people who say they're not religious and slide them into the atheist group. one does not have to be religious to believe we are the result of a Creator.

In Europe the picture looks a whole lot different. In my country for example 59 percent of the people identify themselves as in no shape and form religious. Also what have numbers to do with anything? There have been and still are very popular movements that proved to be wrong or despicable.

Again I would not equate stating you're not religious on a survey as meaning that you are atheist. A lot of people would say they are not religious just because they don't go to church or practice religion anyway. That doesn't mean they claim God doesn't exist or that they disbelieve in the existence of God. The point about popularity is if a claim is as obvious as atheists say then far more should subscribe to it.

Your arguments following only justify weak atheism. If it makes you feel better, I'm a strong atheist toward the literal version of God described in the Bible: how we got here is not as described in Genesis, there was never a global flood, the sun never 'stopped in the sky' to give Hebrews a military victory, there was never an Exodus, and the Jews were never enslaved en masse by the Egyptians.

Ironically your opinion in regards to this matter makes you a theologian not an atheist at all and certainly not a strong atheist.

'Weak atheists' tend to be careful about what they claim. It's a personality trait. You're not going to change their personalities. Strong atheists sometimes try to argue that weak atheists wouldn't have a problem saying there definitely are no leprechauns...but actually, most of them would, in my experience.

I think by and large weak atheism is used as a tactic to avoid making any claim. It also redefines atheism so that you might as well take the a out of atheism. The a in atheism means not or without God. Just as the a in a sexual means procreation not or without sex. as a result I think of weak atheists as weak theists after all I don't deny the existence of God and neither do they. I can even have a debate with them about the existence of God because neither they nor I deny God exists.

And we happen to be in the slow dying out of theism. Why assume that this time it's just not happening?

I think we see a lot of people are becoming unhappy with organized religion. I wouldn't necessarily equate that with disbelief in the existence of God..

Yeah, sorry, but I don't base my beliefs around what Drew approves of. The way atheists define their beliefs is not down to the opinions of some random theist. We know you think it's shallow, but the fact is that your reasons for thinking that are more due to strategic concerns and your own desire for certainty than anything real or substantive. You think it's shallow because you want atheists to be making a positive claim for burden of proof reasons. You want us to be employing the same certainty you do.

if I ask anyone on the street what does being an atheist mean 99 out of hundred are going to answer it's a person who doesn't believe God exists. Secondly if we all make up our own personal definitions for words communication becomes impossible. lastly if atheists can't convince those who call themselves atheists that God doesn't exist not as a fact but just as an opinion then how weak is the case for atheism? Particularly when many atheists equate the existence of God with the existence of fairies Santa Claus and other mythical figures. Do atheists merely lacked belief in those characters also?

You think it's shallow because you want atheists to be making a positive claim for burden of proof reasons. You want us to be employing the same certainty you do.

I don't claim with any certainty that God exists I stated that on numerous occasions. Even as theist I didn't have any problem with citing at least four reasons why folks might think atheism is true. Am I asking atheists too much to make a cause positive case for what they think is true?

Not necessarily. I see you're still swinging wildly to the contra-positive whenever anyone dares disagree with you, there. It's still a dishonest position; disagreeing with you does not entail belief in the exact opposite position.

If we were arguing this case in front of a crowd of 100 people who are fair and impartial I think you would have a severe uphill climb trying to convince even one of them that something could be neither the result of planning and design but at the same time not the result of happenstance and blind luck. I think that would be just a case of special pleading.

I agree, and you are a prime example of why that is: your discomfort with not knowing, your desperation to even have a wrong answer, so long as you have an answer, and your unwillingness to admit that you don't know, even when that's the honest position, causes your resistance to atheism. But your ego isn't an argument against atheism, it's simply an indicator of the human character flaws that we all have, and that some of us are unable to surmount.

I only claim to have an opinion that our existence and that of the universe is caused by a creator. The truth is I don't know for sure, an opinion or belief is what you express when you're not certain of the actual answer to a question. I have stated several reasons, several lines of evidence and made a case for why I'm skeptical of atheism.

If I had access to the same support system your god has, I absolutely could. I'd need to completely discard my scruples, but I could do it.

Only if you isolated them from the outside world which would just be brainwashing.