If I were an Atheist

[Faith No More]

"Not gaining traction"? Lol...who gives a rats ass? It didn't matter when round earth was a minority opinion either.

I was going to point this out as well. And to add to that, harping on demographics like that seems like a defense mechanism to some insecurities. Unfortunately for Drew, there could be no atheists left on the planet, but that doesn't get his god one inch closer to being real.

Another unfortunate fact for Drew to consider is that the reality of the matter is that each subsequent generation is getting less and less religious. Thanks to modern society the god claim can no longer hides its silliness behind authoritarianism and the control of information.

The cat's out of the bag, Drew, and no amount of pissing and moaning is going to stuff it back in.

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

Cite your evidence please.

It's not just an issue of popularity. There are many unpopular beliefs and facts

Agreed. So, why did you feel the need to make a baseless assertion about it?

.Many popular beliefs have been abandoned do to evidence against them.

I'm not sure that you considered all the variables that make this an explanation for the disparity in numbers between Atheists/Theists that you referred to in the beginning. If it were true that there was an overwhelming number of religious people compared to Atheists, and it is true that popular ideas can be abandoned due to the evidence against them, it must also be true that for any popular belief that is abandoned due to contrary evidence, some understanding of not only the belief itself, but also what it means to critically examine the evidence and an aptitude for drawing rational conclusions from it. And if the ability and knowledge are required but also rare, then you could have a popular belief that is abandoned by the minority who possess the skills, while widely accepted by those who do not. If it the data concluded that of all people in the world, a small minority of them possess more knowledge about the doctrines and basic tenets of religion, and that minority of people also to possess a rare aptitude for critically examining information and drawing accurate conclusions from it, we would have singled out a minority of people without even identifying whether or not they were religious. If we then polled all of the people in that study to see which ones were religious, and it turned out that there was a correlation between Atheism and those who excelled in the two categories above, we would have a pretty good explanation for the disparity among Atheists and Religious people. It would be clear that some people possess a rare aptitude for critical inquiry, and you could infer that Atheism might just be a byproduct of what happens when those skills are applied to religious claims. The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious belief being any more valid.

Considering many atheists equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus how is it they're not gaining any traction? 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.

This demonstrates a misunderstanding of not only the purpose of the comparison, but the kinds of conclusions that this comparison could support. First of all, Atheists use this to illustrate an unflasifiable hypothesis, and the burden of proof. All too often, when Theists are pressed to explain how they know god is real, rather make an argument to establish it, they make the mistake of asserting that if something can't be disproved, then it must be equally as possible as anything else. This is when Santa or another ridiculous idea can be useful in illustrating the fallacy they've just employed in place of reason. Obviously, most adults don't believe in Santa Claus, but what we are hoping Theists will realize is that nobody needs to disprove Santa Clause before it's justified to not believe in him. We are hoping that you think more about why that is, rather than allow yourself to be reflexively offended. To a Christian, I don't use Santa, I use Allah. From a doctrinal standpoint, Allah is a mutually exclusive and incompatible God to the Christian God, and there are millions of people who believe in it. Can Christians prove that Allah does not exist? No. But, they don't believe in him, why? If they would spend more time reflecting on how they answer the question instead of what they think the answer is, these sorts of thought experiments would be a lot more productive. But alas.

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 .

It's not that a belief in God is equivalent to a belief in Santa. But the same tools of thought are required to reason them away. As children, our parents, friends, and teachers molded our epistemology. If something was true, popularity determined what that was. If I thought that Santa wasn't real, mom could confirm it for me when she thought I was old enough. What we're trying to convey to you is that mom isn't here to tell you what's true anymore. The world may have decided for you that Santa isn't real, and the number of people who agree with you may give you confidence in your decision, but that doesn't get you out of the woods when it comes to claims about God. They're a dime a dozen, and we hear them all the time. I think you've mistaken this for a dilemma. It's not Atheists Vs. Christians. It's Atheists Vs. All the religions, and it Christians Vs. All the other religions. How do you know what you're saying about a God is true? That's our question. If you try to shift the burden of proof, get ready for a counter example. Rather than get mad, try thinking.

The question is what are atheists doing wrong? Why aren't they expressing their viewpoint in a way that actually persuades people?

I was a Theist. I was persuaded by an Atheist. I found later that my initial negative reaction to what they were saying was because I was not prepared to grapple with the things they were saying. I chose feeling defensive because I felt that I was under attack. Later, I understood that the way I perceived their words was a "me problem".

I suspect some atheists enjoy being contrary and being part of a small often loathed minority

I can't speak for every Atheist, but I enjoy thinking about the world. I care about whether my beliefs are true. I enjoy being free to think freely. There's nothing about "being contrary" that is particularly enjoyable. I don't think anyone likes being "loathed", in fact, I find it unconstitutional that I am loathed because I'm not superstitious.

Some atheists just like to think there much smarter than most and therefore their belief isn't for the gullible masses.

It has nothing to do with being smarter. Do you think you're smarter than Muslims? Hindus? I think that I subjected my religious beliefs to a process of critical scrutiny, and the result was that they were negated. I think that if any Theist did what I did, they would no longer believe them. My experience is that the ones I know, have not. And to some extent, believing things without questioning them is "gullible". You can infer whatever you want from that.

Almost every thought you've written required some degree of correction and I just don't have anymore time to address any more. All people deserve dignity, I agree. However, I am not, nor is anyone else in the world obligated to respect the things they believe. If they conduct themselves with dignity, and they do not impose their beliefs on others, I am happy to get along. I can even have a discussion. But if they fail to follow the rules of rational discourse during that discussion, I am not required or obligated to ignore it on the basis that they have fixed their emotions to their intellectual miscues. I think if I were a Theist again, I'd stop getting offended, and start thinking.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

So what explains the abysmal human rights records of 'theist nations'?

---

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.

You don't get to make up a position and assert it's 'traditional'. If you really want to get traditional, the word was coined to describe Christians.

If you asked people on the street if they knew atheism can mean someone who doesn't deny God exists they would be shocked.

I wish I was shocked at your willingness to make up a confusing, unhelpful definition and complain about how confusing and unhelpful it is. If you asked people on the street if they knew an atheist can be someone who just doesn't believe God exists, they wouldn't be shocked at all.

After all I don't deny God exists either.

If you think that qualifies you to be an atheist, we can start referring to you as such.

The argument is intended to insult.

Offense is taken, not given.

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.

You can substitute Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu if you think that makes such a difference.

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?

The most an argument can do is plant a seed. You have to figure things out for yourself ultimately, and if it leads you to be an atheist or something else, so be it. We don't care nearly as much about persuading you as you seem to think we do. Many of us will argue just as vigorously against homeopathic 'medicine' or the 'reality' of Bigfoot.

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.

So? No more or less than when theists do the same thing. Atheism is hardly special in this regard. Everyone deserves to be judged on what they are saying, not on what someone else said.

Do you think atheists could do better at explaining their position and advancing their beliefs?

We don't believe any god or God is real. That's the whole of the atheist position. Is it really our fault if certain people find that too, too, obscure to fathom?

I think they would find sugar would go a lot further than vinegar.

Look who's talking.

[Mister Agenda]

Mr. Agenda

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theism

Philosophical theism is the belief that deities exist (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in a personal God entirely without doctrine. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of a god's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

Adding the adjective 'philosophical' in front of it still doesn't make it a philosophy. Note that even just believing in a Creator has more involved with it than the vague 'some sort of deity' referred to above.

phi·los·o·phy/fəˈläsəfē/
noun
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

"No such explanation [ alternate non-fairy tale 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."--Mister Agenda

The problem is we all know what the alternative explanation is.

That's not what I would call a problem. We all know what the alternative explanation to parents putting presents under Christiams trees is, too.

If the universe and humans weren't purposely caused to come into existence intentionally by a creator designer, then we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that unintentionally caused the universe with the characteristics to cause stars, planets, solar systems and life to exist.

And that can't possibly be the explanation, because in that explanation, you're not the goal of existence.

I can appreciate why most atheists don't care to defend or advance that alternate explanation and many atheists will attempt to argue its a false dichotomy.

How many times should we have to repeat what cosmologists have to say? And if it's not a false dichotomy, that should be easy for you to prove.

Its the former explanation that explains nothing.

The former explanations explain 'how'. The latter 'explanation' is 'God did it'.

There is no rhyme or reason why mindless mechanistic things would happen to be as they are it just is.

There's no rhyme or reason why just the right God would exist to create this specific universe. Positing God as an answer to 'why is there a universe' begs the question of 'why is there a God?'.

"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."--Mister Agenda

If the debate is Theism and I hold the affirmative position it would be lame to debate with someone who doesn't deny God exists just lacks that belief. I don't deny God exists either.

Argument from broken record, in stupefying denial of actually being involved in such a discussion presently.

"Respecting the other's view is precisely where you're failing."--Mister Agenda

You only have a non-position.

You only have a non-sequitur.

"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'."--Mister Agenda

Not at all either side would be defending an opinion.

Hold the presses! Let's all be aghast at the idea that two people might debate over a difference of opinion.

If the debate were theism for or against the proposition I'd like the opposing view to opine theism is mistaken.

Neither theism nor atheism can be 'mistaken'. They are states of mind. A better way to phrase it would be that 'belief that a creator God is real' (since that is your ACTUAL belief) is not rationally justified.

Such a debate in this forum wouldn't be very interesting. Theists would come away theists, atheists atheists.

The purpose of debate isn't to persuade the convinced. It would be entirely pointless, given human nature, were that the only value in it.

"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)."--Mister Agenda

If you regarding something as improbable as our star going nova why wouldn't you state at least as an opinion it doesn't exist?

Because I'm persnickety that way. Why would you say it doesn't exist when it possibly could?

Why would you still give it some credibility by stating you lack belief?

If that's your bar for credibility, you really should raise it.

What does it take for you to stand up and say I don't believe such and such exists?

Been there and done that, multiple times, in this very thread, along with a number of other folks. What does it take for you to sit down and accept 'I don't believe such and such exists' as an answer?

After all its still an opinion when you state it a belief.

I don't believe God exists. I don't beleive lots of things that people have imagined to exist are real. It's a very plain thing to say. It's what I've said all along. You're the one intent on dissecting this very simple statement. Are you so turned around you don't even remember what it is you're complaining about?

"We don't believe God exists, but don't maintain that God necessarily does not exist."

[quote='Drew_2013' pid='898925' dateline='1426451611']
That's inherent to any opinion or belief is the concession you might be mistaken.

Tell that to Godschild.

Wouldn't you think I was being disingenuous if I came to this board and just said I lack belief in God's non-existence? I'm not saying God does exist mind you...I just lack belief in God's non-existence.

No skin off my nose.

"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)."--Mister Agenda

I have in the past provided several lines of evidence (facts) that provide a sound reason to believe our existence is the result of a Creator but apparently you feel alternative explanations are just as unsound.

If your lines of argument were sound, it would be global philosophical news. I have never seen you present anything that didn't rest on a logical fallacy or the assumption that you must be right. It's assumed that you find your own arguments convincing, but it's arrogance to assume that they are therefore sound. Do you make a lot of arguments which you then follow by announcing that you're right? Good arguments stand on their own, bad arguments exist to be destroyed.

That's not true. I made a case citing 5 lines of evidence I argued favor the existence of a Creator. I can't prove I'm right anymore than you can prove I'm wrong. Theism is a belief not a fact.

And you don't see any dichotomy between acknowledging the existence of a Creator is neither provable nor disprovable with being convinced that your arguments are sound? If they were sound, they would prove the existence of a Creator.

And 20 years from now they will still be an insignificant minority.

We'll still be a small minority in the USA but demographic trends indicate we'll likely be twice the percentage of the American population that we are today. It's another example of the USA being 50 years behind Europe in cultural trends. The EU is about 20% atheist, which is where the USA will probably be in 50 years. Still a minority, but a significant one.

What you don't seem to grasp is that we don't 'recruit' atheists. Generally, forum members just like to talk about the various related topics. What usuaally happens is people reject the faith they were raised in for any of a wide variety of reasons (logical bogglement, hypocrisy or lack of compassion on the part of church members, etc.) and leave their church while still retaining a vague belief in some sort of Creator God. After a few years out of the bubble, some of these become enamored of some other denomination, reconcile with their old one, remain vaguely theist, or lose their belief in a God entirely and so become atheists. Everyone's story of 'deconversion' if they were ever believers in the first place is more or less different, but it's a common pattern. And it really has little to do with these internet arguments.

If you want to stop the tide of atheists, stop the tide of people leaving their churches.

[Drew_2013]

Pandæmonium

This isn't a competition, drew. Demographics of religion and atheism differ wildly depending on the part of the world you're looking at or indeed the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 8% of the world's population, whereas with irreligious individuals are 10% to 20%.[1][2][3] A poll by Gallup International, featuring over 50,000 respondents worldwide, recorded that 13% of those interviewed said they were "convinced atheists".[4] In Scandinavia and East Asia, and particularly in China, atheists and the nonreligious are the majority.[4] Globally, atheists and the nonreligious are concentrated in Asia and the Pacific with over 76% of all the irreligious or nonreligious residing in those regions.[5] In Europe, the nonreligious make up 12.5% of the population and in North America they make up 5% of the population.[5] In Africa and South America, atheists are typically in the single digits.[4]

I have noticed that some folks who've responded have taken surveys of folks saying there not religious and sliding them into the atheist group. A lot of people would consider themselves not religious if they simply no longer attend any organized church or religious group. Doesn't mean the disbelief or lack belief in the existence of God.

Are 50% of the English and Welsh population thus insiginifcant? Are large swathes of Northern America, Northern and western euorpe? Not even counting places like China?

No where in the article above does it suggest anywhere is 50% atheist. It claims 2-8%. Again I think your sliding non-religious into the atheist group.

Parkers Tan

I will be happy to explain it to you, and defend its explanatory power; but the fact is, it is a hypothesis, and the difference between an atheist proposing a mechanistic beginning (such as myself) and a theist such as yourself is that while I'm happy to admit I might be wrong, under no circumstances are you permitted to entertain that thought by your own dogma. That is the result of you fetishizing faith instead of knowledge.

Obviously you don't know me. If you looked at the first post you'd have an inkling...

If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist) 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. I don’t know of any atheists claiming it’s a fact God doesn’t exist so it must be a belief that God doesn’t exist so why the animosity towards others who have a difference of opinion? If I ran an atheist board I would welcome theists to the board, respect their difference of opinion but share the facts and evidence I believe challenges that belief.

-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe.

-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.

-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.

-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.

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.

I'm not a religious theist, I am a philosophical theist. It is my belief, my hypothesis that we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I also wrote this thread in which I defended my case in favor of theism. I cited 5 indisputable facts that I argue support theism. I don't make claims from any religious writ or beliefs...

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

I look forward to your answer to my points, Drew. And Mr Agenda's, for that matter.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I don't share your enthusiasm. If my comments receive any feedback, I expect them to be just as unsatisfying as any response that you may receive. I look forward to the next episode of The Walking Dead, I do not look forward to yet another predictably misguided reaction to a criticism directed at a poorly informed theistic rant.

[Mothonis]

I think the important thing is drew that being honest on what are views are is top priority,and is more important than convincing others

[Whateverist]

I'm not a religious theist, I am a philosophical theist. It is my belief, my hypothesis that we owe our existence to a Creator commonly referred to as God. I also wrote this thread in which I defended my case in favor of theism. I cited 5 indisputable facts that I argue support theism. I don't make claims from any religious writ or beliefs...

What could that even mean? Surely you're not asking us to believe that you came to your theist beliefs based on an impartial examination of the facts? No, of course not. Like anyone else with a huge investment in a belief which cannot be supported by impersonal evidence, you are simply putting the best case forward for what you assume to begin with. You may be a sophist, but you are no philosopher.

I guess you want to play the debate game and there are plenty here who will join you in that. Not me. Enjoy your beliefs, you're entitled to them. But no thanks. No gods for me.

You say that makes you a better atheist than me. The problem with that is you're assuming there is anything at all which I should do on account of being an atheist. Do you likewise assume what I should be all about on account of my not being a stamp collector? Stamps may be central to your life but I assure you they play no role at all in mine. Same with gods. I don't think philatelists are lame and I don't pretend to have any reason why theists shouldn't enjoy their gods. Have at it. Just leave me out of it and don't assume everyone's world revolves around what you're into.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't share your enthusiasm. If my comments receive any feedback, I expect them to be just as unsatisfying as any response that you may receive. I look forward to the next episode of The Walking Dead, I do not look forward to yet another predictably misguided reaction to a criticism directed at a poorly informed theistic rant.

He has apparently shrunk from the challenge. Or perhaps he's off hunting up evidence?

In either case, I think it'll be an awful long time before he returns to this thread, and if he does, I doubt, he will address my points anyway. Water flows around obstacles.