Best argument for Atheism in my view

[Cod]

I am not an atheist per se. But if i was this would be the best argument. I was watching FMA Brotherhood and i saw this scene. What i love about this is.. it uses the story of icarus. Essentially the moral of this is, religion when created is just gonna burn itself in the end so why even try? Even if you believe it is true. What i get from the flying close to the sun story. Its just brilliant and simple

I personally believe abrahamic ones were more made out of spite and not truth, since if you look at the history and values of it. I believe in God of obvious good and evil. A new religious cult i made. But i am curious to what you think?

None of what you state is an argument 'for atheism'. At best, and this is a stretch, it is an against religion. You do understand that many, many people believe in gods, and have no religion, right? Deists, pantheists, panentheists, for example.

Atheism is simply the disbelief in the existence of gods.

The best argument for atheism, is that theists have continuously failed, for 1000's of years, to meet their burden of proof for the existence of gods.

I have no reason to come up with an argument for my disbelief in gods (atheism), just like I have no reason to come with arguments for my disbelief in: bigfoot, alien abductions, Loch Ness monster, ghosts, etc, etc, etc. The lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument to support the existence of any of the previous clams, is all that I need for my position.

I cant believe how this is hard to grasp for some people. It's quite simple, we don't believe you... Give us a reason to believe you.

[Vince]

I am not an atheist per se. But if i was this would be the best argument. I was watching FMA Brotherhood and i saw this scene. What i love about this is.. it uses the story of icarus. Essentially the moral of this is, religion when created is just gonna burn itself in the end so why even try? Even if you believe it is true. What i get from the flying close to the sun story. Its just brilliant and simple

Moderator Notice
Links removed due to 30/30 violation

I personally believe abrahamic ones were more made out of spite and not truth, since if you look at the history and values of it. I believe in God of obvious good and evil. A new religious cult i made. But i am curious to what you think?

There are no arguments for atheism.  It is simply a lack of belief in a god.  Provide sufficient evidence for a god and I will have no choice but to believe it.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

*Psssst...*

The OP's gone, mate.

Lest they're haunting the forums for vicarious reasons. .....

You're not gettin' a comeback.

Cheers.

[Rahn127]

I would argue that I will believe something when I have sufficient evidence to justify belief.

[Belacqua]

There are no arguments for atheism.  It is simply a lack of belief in a god.  Provide sufficient evidence for a god and I will have no choice but to believe it.

Have you discussed reasons for belief with Christians before? I suspect that, as a grownup who uses the Internet, you have heard any number of arguments Christians make for why (they think) God exists. 

And since you're an atheist, it seems that you have rejected all their arguments. 

To do that, I'm pretty sure you'd need reasons why you rejected their arguments. That is, you considered what they said, and decided it wasn't persuasive. 

Now, if you wanted to argue that you dismissed their arguments on a whim, for no reason at all, then I'd agree that there are no arguments for atheism. But I hope you don't do that. I suspect that in fact you have good reasons why you reject their arguments. 

So let's take a typical case. We've all heard the First Cause argument. Something like: "Every contingent thing depends for its existence on something else. To avoid infinite regress, we must assume that there is a non-contingent thing as first cause. This is what we call God." 

Please note: I am NOT saying that this is a good argument. I am NOT saying that you SHOULD accept it. I have NO interest in discussing the details of this argument. I am ONLY giving it as an example of something you have probably heard, and rejected. 

Now, there are any number of reasons for rejecting this First Cause argument. Perhaps you think that an infinite regress IS possible. Perhaps you think there may be a non-contingent cause, but it needn't be God. Perhaps you question whether every contingent thing really does depend on something else for its existence. These are all possible reasons -- but they are all REASONS. In other words, you reject the argument because you hold certain things to be true, or at least possible. You hear, consider, and reject the argument based on what you think about the world. 

So I think that for any thinking person -- grownup, not in a vegetative state, who has considered the problem at all -- their current atheism is based on things they hold to be true. It is NOT based on nothing. 

Our current atheism may be based on very good reasons (e.g. revelation is unreliable as a source of truth) or on bad reasons (e.g. that lady at church was mean to me therefore Christianity is false) but it is based on reasons. And these reasons are things we hold to be true. Not nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Have you heard every argument an atheist might offer?

[Peebothuhlu]

There are no arguments for atheism.  It is simply a lack of belief in a god.  Provide sufficient evidence for a god and I will have no choice but to believe it.

Have you discussed reasons for belief with Christians before? I suspect that, as a grownup who uses the Internet, you have heard any number of arguments Christians make for why (they think) God exists. 

And since you're an atheist, it seems that you have rejected all their arguments. 

To do that, I'm pretty sure you'd need reasons why you rejected their arguments. That is, you considered what they said, and decided it wasn't persuasive. 

Now, if you wanted to argue that you dismissed their arguments on a whim, for no reason at all, then I'd agree that there are no arguments for atheism. But I hope you don't do that. I suspect that in fact you have good reasons why you reject their arguments. 

So let's take a typical case. We've all heard the First Cause argument. Something like: "Every contingent thing depends for its existence on something else. To avoid infinite regress, we must assume that there is a non-contingent thing as first cause. This is what we call God." 

Please note: I am NOT saying that this is a good argument. I am NOT saying that you SHOULD accept it. I have NO interest in discussing the details of this argument. I am ONLY giving it as an example of something you have probably heard, and rejected. 

Now, there are any number of reasons for rejecting this First Cause argument. Perhaps you think that an infinite regress IS possible. Perhaps you think there may be a non-contingent cause, but it needn't be God. Perhaps you question whether every contingent thing really does depend on something else for its existence. These are all possible reasons -- but they are all REASONS. In other words, you reject the argument because you hold certain things to be true, or at least possible. You hear, consider, and reject the argument based on what you think about the world. 

So I think that for any thinking person -- grownup, not in a vegetative state, who has considered the problem at all -- their current atheism is based on things they hold to be true. It is NOT based on nothing. 

Our current atheism may be based on very good reasons (e.g. revelation is unreliable as a source of truth) or on bad reasons (e.g. that lady at church was mean to me therefore Christianity is false) but it is based on reasons. And these reasons are things we hold to be true. Not nothing.

Hey Belaqua.

I think I grok what you're posting/aying.

However, just something about the phrasing you've used seems... for want of a better description... a 'Tad off' to me.

Now, I'm admiting upfront, I can't quite yet put my finger on it or explain well what that said 'Twitch' is but.... yeah.

Again I am pretty sure I understand that you're saying people think about new things/some thingd and then depending on other things they think is whether they accept the new things/ some things or not.

Cheers.

 

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

Hey Belaqua.

I think I grok what you're posting/aying.

However, just something about the phrasing you've used seems... for want of a better description... a 'Tad off' to me.

Now, I'm admiting upfront, I can't quite yet put my finger on it or explain well what that said 'Twitch' is but.... yeah.

Again I am pretty sure I understand that you're saying people think about new things/some thingd and then depending on other things they think is whether they accept the new things/ some things or not.

Cheers.

 

Not at work.

Thank you, I appreciate this. I've been surprised at the resistance this brings when I've typed it out before. It's as if some people want to claim that they have no good reasons to be atheists. 

For example, suppose we hear the claim "God is love." You can think about that -- I know what the word "God" means, more or less. That guy in the Bible. And I know what "love" means, more or less. It's the way I feel about my family. And "is" should be easy enough. And I also know that in the Old Testament, God does all kinds of things that aren't loving. So I reject the claim that God is love, for those reasons. 

My atheism, then, is not simply a lack but a lack derived from knowledge and reasons. 




If you figure out what seems "off" to you please let me know.

[Peebothuhlu]

Thank you, I appreciate this. I've been surprised at the resistance this brings when I've typed it out before. It's as if some people want to claim that they have no good reasons to be atheists. 

For example, suppose we hear the claim "God is love." You can think about that -- I know what the word "God" means, more or less. That guy in the Bible. And I know what "love" means, more or less. It's the way I feel about my family. And "is" should be easy enough. And I also know that in the Old Testament, God does all kinds of things that aren't loving. So I reject the claim that God is love, for those reasons. 

My atheism, then, is not simply a lack but a lack derived from knowledge and reasons. 

If you figure out what seems "off" to you please let me know.

Ah! Now that you've re-wroded it I think it's because there's a kind of 'reversal' in how the words/terms fit together in my head.

So. For me, it's not;


A reason(s) to not belive in dieties exists for me.

It is, instead;

No current reason(s) to believe in dieties exist for me.

I know I've seen more knowledgable folks express 'P' and 'Not P' in meaningful ways but I'm not all there with that to be able to grok it quite propperly to reply with something it.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

No current reason(s) to believe in dieties exist for me.

Sure, that's the same thing. 

And since you're a thinking adult, who has heard and rejected the arguments, your rejection of the Christians' alleged reasons is a result of your thought processes.