Is it a good idea to be an atheist?

[robvalue]

This is the important thing: atheism is not a belief. It's a lack of a belief. So it cannot be "wrong". The best you can say is that we have evaluated the evidence badly. But since there isn't any, there's not much play there.

[pocaracas]

Because I cannot prove you wrong. I cannot prove there is a God. But I acknowledge it. On the other hand, you are saying that I need to prove to you there is a God.

If you want to convince anyone that you're right, then yes.. evidence would do the trick quite nicely!

Which comes back to my original point. If I were able to demonstrate to you there is a God, I would be sitting on a pile of money, because not even the Pope can do that.

Don't you think that's a hint that something is wrong with the institution?

[The Reality Salesman01]

And you are absolutely right, an atheist may believe - and not think - he is right. Sorry about this. All the more evidence the atheist at point should not, let us say, disbelieve.

I think you're confusing yourself with this word soup that you've concocted. It's really much less complicated than you're trying to make it.

Let me try to put it to you as plainly as I can.

I don't know or believe or think anything about any ACTUAL Gods. If I had any knowledge of an ACTUAL God, it would be kinda silly for me to walk around pretending I don't believe gods are real.

Currently, I don't even have a clue what you believe about gods, only you do. If later on, you choose to disclose what you believe about gods, I will either believe what you believe, or not. Currently, I believe that some things are real, some things are unlikely, and the things I have good reasons to support, I say I "know". I hold things in all sorts of varying degrees of certainty and all of them are open to revision at any time. If given good reasons to believe something or doubt it, I make my adjustments accordingly.


Here's the part I need you to understand: Of all the things I "believe" to be real or true, gods are not among them.

As I said, I am open to adopting a belief or revising my doubts. If you are so inclined as to engage me in a conversation, then I would be able to find out what you believe. Since I have not heard your belief or your reasons, I cannot and will not presume to know that you are wrong. I don't know if you believe in one God or several, I don't even know your definition of "God" so there's no way I can say anything about what you believe. Throughout our conversation, my attitude toward gods will be entirely based on the reasons you offer in support of the God you believe to be real.


Notice that this entire exchange is not between me and a God, it's between me and you. If I decide to adopt a belief in God, it will be entirely based on whether or not the things you say sound believable. If it turns out that your reasons for your belief are flawed, then I will not be persuaded, and you wouldn't have changed my attitude toward reality. I would continue my life without having reasons to believe in supernatural things. A God may very well be real, but since its existence is not self-evident, the only propositions I have to consider are the ones presented to me by people. I can evaluate human claims just fine and I wouldn't need to know anything about an actual God to do it, only your description.

[robvalue]

Good point. For all we know, you think England is your God. In which case, I am a theist.

He's stopped machine-gun posting, so maybe he is actually reading about atheism now. Let's see!

It's the false dichotomy. If you say, "Do you believe there is a god or do you believe there is not a god?" That is two different questions sewn together. It tries to discount the third option, which is that I may not believe either of those statements.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

None of you has answered my question.

I am still waiting.

Sorry but the burden of proof, as you call it, is on you. Otherwise, it means you would first - if no proof - assume there is no God. Which is contradictory.

No, no, & no.

Who here is positing that a god exists? If the answer is you (it is), then that's where the burden of proof resides. Us saying 'I don't believe you' doesn't shift and burden onto us. Occam's razor dismantles any attempt to shift the BOF where someone will disingenuously posit that the default is god exists.

It's time for you to recognise this fact or leave, because frankly if you can't spot a fundamental point of reasoning such as this, you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.

[robvalue]

It's like, I'm also an a-dragonist. I haven't heard every description of a dragon there can be, but I'm pretty confident that whatever version of a dragon you describe, I'm going to say I don't believe it exists. But maybe, if you bring a specific definition of a dragon backed up with actual evidence of that dragon, I'd be happy to take a look. If the evidence you bring is that I can't prove it doesn't exist, I'm going to assume you are either misguided or insane. Or if your version of a dragon is a dog, I'll believe you but I'll think you're weird.

I have no need to make my own claim that dragons don't exist. Why would I need to establish that? My life can continue happily until such time as I see any reason to believe there actually might be dragons.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Good point. For all we know, you think England is your God. In which case, I am a theist.

He's stopped machine-gun posting, so maybe he is actually reading about atheism now. Let's see!

It's the false dichotomy. If you say, "Do you believe there is a god or do you believe there is not a god?" That is two different questions sewn together. It tries to discount the third option, which is that I may not believe either of those statements.

It's easy to overlook that little flaw, especially when you spend so much time around this place. Putting aside all the other possible versions of God that he may believe in, there are incompatible descriptions of God from one believer to another just within Christianity. When someone comes right out of the gate asserting that we think we know that his God isn't real and that we need to prove it, the instinctive reaction is to begin addressing the assault on our character that has just taken place. Lol, but this dude hasn't even told us anything about crime he suspects us of committing, or who the victim is!

[robvalue]

Yeah right! Well we have all given him a comprehensive run down now about atheism, so let's see if he is honest enough to acknowledge he misunderstood atheism or whether he will continue with the strawman.

They'd love it on a Christian forum if I came in and said, "You all believe Jesus is a ham sandwich! Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? A sandwich isn't even a person! Wow you guys are weird."

[FatAndFaithless]

Another shit'n'run theist who has no idea what atheism or the burden of proof is?

[robvalue]

Well, actually, I'm a christian now. Wait, he didn't tell me what I was meant to be? Am I a Muslim? Am I an eighth day follower of the holy toasty mackerel?

Shit. I guess I'm still an atheist then.