My argument for atheism +

[EgoDeath]

If Jake came into a courtroom, claiming to have "evidence" that Tom shot Harry, and then when asked about this evidence, Jake revealed that he had a personal revelation where he "saw" Tom shoot Harry, do you think Tom would be convicted? Or would Jake be laughed out of the courtroom?

Let's keep in mind that the police found no evidence of Tom ever owning a gun, and never even found evidence to corroborate that Harry was shot.

Do you think Tom's going to jail?

You just gave me a good excuse for getting out of jury duty next time.

Spoken like a true Christian!

[Sal]

Let's say I recently purchased a home and every room in the home doesn't contain any furniture of any kind.

While showing the empty house to a new neighbor who has never been in the house before, he comments on how nice my dining room table is.

I look at him strangely and say "I don't have a dining room table".
He replies "I believe that you do. It's invisible and intangible, but I can clearly feel it's presence in your dining room."

He holds this belief to be true.
I do not have such a belief.

Are you really asking what my argument is for not having a delusion ?

You don't seem to have any invisible, intangible squids swimming around your house. What argument can you give to support this ?

I just find the question itself to be kinda stupid.

You find it stupid because you assume that God would be visible and tangible in the way that a table is tangible. 

I agree that the man in your example is strange, because tables are in fact visible and tangible. But you'd need to demonstrate two things:

1) God is knowable through the same kind of evidence, and
2) there is no evidence of any kind for God.

These two things may well be true. They may be entirely reasonable positions to hold. But they are still epistemological positions that you hold. They are not nothing. They are the basis of your current atheism.

This is basically an alternative version of "you can't see the wind" argument.

1) If god isn't "knowable" through any sense apperata, what distinguishes god from nothingness?
2) Which is the same as saying god doesn't exist.

[Belacqua]

This is basically an alternative version of "you can't see the wind" argument.

I've never heard the "you can't see the wind" argument. Is it just when people say that you can't see wind but you know it's real? 

That would be more of an analogy than an argument, I think, and I agree it wouldn't be persuasive about religious issues.

At the same time I think we want to avoid a "we haven't found Bigfoot" argument, which is a label I've just made up for a kind of argument I have heard. It is where people talk about God as if it must be similar to Bigfoot (tangible, material, visible if we knew where to look), and declare that since we haven't got physical evidence it means that it doesn't exist. This would be a mistake, because ever since the time of Plato no one has asserted that God is a physical object with a quantifiable body. Such an argument would be declaring a lack of evidence for something which no one has argued for in the first place. 

1) If god isn't "knowable" through any sense apperata, what distinguishes god from nothingness?
2) Which is the same as saying god doesn't exist.

Are the laws of mathematics something or nothing?

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus seems to have been the owner of just such a body - so..maybe some people might have proposed that, a little, lol....but you're still just carrying a bag of rocks for christianity Bel. Why don't you broaden your horizons and make excuses for other gods? What's wrong with them, whats the issue with a physical body? Whats the issue with quantifiable effects and gods? Why are we required, when talking about gods, to run from those things as fast as humanely possible?

[ThinkingIsThinking]

Me: What do you mean by "God"
Them: The supernatural being that created the universe.
Me: WHAT supernatural being that created the universe?
Them: The one that exists.
Me: I've never experienced such a being so I'll suspend belief.
Them: Have you ever been to China?
Me: No.
Them: Then how do you know it exists?
Me: The likelihood that all the photographs and history and people from China is just some massive conspiracy is very small.
Them: The likelihood that all the people who believe in God are lying about it is very small too. And there are more believers in God than disbelievers.
Me: Lying has got nothing to do with it. Such people can genuinely believe that such a God exists ... but at least with China I can go and visit it and see for myself if it's real or not ... not so with God.
Them: You can do the same thing with God. Just open your heart to him and you will know he's real.
Me: No, if I did that, there's no way I could know he was real.
Them: What if he spoke to your heart?
Me: What does it even mean to speak to my "heart"?
Them: You'd get a deep feeling in your heart that he was real.
Me: Feelings are not evidence.
Them: Well, what if he spoke to you directly?
Me: It would be more likely that I was hallucinating than that he actually existed.
Them: What if he came down from the sky and others saw him too?
Me: It would be more likely that I was hallucinating than that he actually existed.
Them: No, no, you misunderstand. I'm not saying that it LOOKS to you like others are seeing him too ... I'm saying they actually are.
Me: So you're saying that if I, and others, actually saw him ... then I, and others, would actually see him?
Them: Yes, how can you refute that?
Me: Well, if a winged pig flew over your head then a winged pig would fly over your head .... how can you refute that?
Them: There's no such thing as winged pigs ... how is that even relevant?
Me: You don't understand the analogy, then?
Them: Don't condescent me! Of course I understand it.
Me: Okay, explain it then.
Them: See, you're still condescending me! It's got nothing to do with winged pigs. The point is that God must exist because how else could the universe exist.
Me: Maybe the universe just existed from the beginning?
Them: Don't be silly ... nothing just exists without any explanation!
Me: Except, God of course!
Them: Now you're getting it!
Me: I was being sarcastic and making a point.
Them: Well, you just admitted that God exists so I'm gonna go and convert somebody else now.
Me: Um, okay, have a nice day. But, to be clear, I don't believe in God and you didn't convince me of anything.
Them: Sure, sure, I get it. You don't want to admit that you lost a debate ... but God knows that you know he exists and you're just denying it.
Me: God would know if he existed.
Them: You already admitted he exists!
Me: Sigh ... bye!

[Mister Agenda]

And then be told to move it to another one?
Perhaps I’ve hit a nerve?

Perhaps you're off topic?

[EgoDeath]

Jesus seems to have been the owner of just such a body - so..maybe some people might have proposed that, a little, lol....but you're still just carrying a bag of rocks for christianity Bel.  Why don't you broaden your horizons and make excuses for other gods?  What's wrong with them, whats the issue with a physical body?  Whats the issue with quantifiable effects and gods?  Why are we required, when talking about gods, to run from those things as fast as humanely possible?

Because @Belacqua understands, on a fundamental level, that he's arguing for something that's impossible to argue for. Like other Christian apologists, Bel seems to wish to cloud this concept in ambiguity to prevent anyone from being able to define what anything is, in concerns to god. If your argument is, "god surely must be tangible," his argument becomes, "Well what is tangible? How do you know god is tangible?" Ir your argument is, "There must be evidence of god," Bel will surely reply, "Well what is evidence? Maybe what some people consider evidence isn't what YOU consider evidence."

He is constantly attempting to muddy the waters, while never really providing an argument for what he actually thinks.

---

I've been surprised by how many atheists think they can reject religious claims based on no viewpoint and no objective standards. They say that they just hear a claim and reject it and that's that -- they don't have to apply any logic, evidence, etc. To me, this is an indication that they may be insufficiently skeptical of their own standards of judgment, just because they aren't consciously applying such standards. 

It's encouraging for me to hear that you are not only conscious of your analytical process, but capable of skepticism about it.

If you're talking about atheists here, which I assume you are, since you seem to wish to represent some sort of "much needed opposition" here on the forums, then I think you're willfully ignoring the fact that plenty of people here have heard the same arguments for years and years on end... A lot of people here on this board are sick of dismantling the same, tired old arguments time after time, only to be met with Bible verses being quoted by the theist on the other end, in some weird, last-ditch effort to save face and exit somewhat gracefully from the conversation. Too many of us have heard the same old shit before, from the same Christians, who use the same logical fallacies, again and again, only to be told that we're all going to hell if we don't accept Jesus into our hearts.

It's nonsense Bel. A lot of us here have just done it too many times. So this lack of critical thinking you're talking about isn't a lack of critical thinking, many times, it's simply an unwillingness to repeat the tired old arguments of past, and engage in dozens and dozens of pages of debate, only to be met with some random theist, or some theist we've seen dozens of times before, quote John 3:16 or some other tired ass, overused Bible verse.

So, no. It's often not that we're unable to be skeptical of our own ideas, or that we're unable to be picky about our own "standards of judgment," it's simply that we've had these arguments time and time again and have no interest in doing it again.

And I think you know damn well how true what I'm saying is. You just have to play the devil's advocate though. Let me ask you, do you belong to any Christian forums, and provide a much needed opposition for them? Or is it just atheists you have a bone to pick with?

[Rahn127]

If I asked you "Do you hold any of the following beliefs ?"

Do you believe that your car is an elephant ?
Do you believe that an invisible space ship is constantly hovering above your home ?
Do you believe that a giant invisible, intangible metal rod protrudes from your head and reaches out to the moon ?

I can currently examine the beliefs I do hold about reality and say with quite confidence that these are not among them.

For instance, I know certain facts about myself.
From a measurement standpoint I know that I am less than 6 ft tall.
I do not hold the belief that I am 20 ft tall or 40 ft tall.

I do not hold any such religious claims of the supernatural based upon the objective reality that I experience day in and day out in much the same way I do not hold the belief that I'm taller than any mountain.

When the theist can show that I'm taller than a mountain, I'll review that evidence and revise my belief.

The same is for their unbelievable belief in a god.

[Abaddon_ire]

This is basically an alternative version of "you can't see the wind" argument.

I've never heard the "you can't see the wind" argument. Is it just when people say that you can't see wind but you know it's real? 

Yup. It is the naive notion that the evidential requirement is a visual experience, completely ignoring all other senses. The simple fact is that we have our own senses (as many as 26 depending how one counts them) plus we have technology that extends our detection beyond our own innate ability.

That would be more of an analogy than an argument, I think, and I agree it wouldn't be persuasive about religious issues.

Only if one restricts it to visual comfirmation which is really a strawman argument. If there is a god of any sort which interacts with the universe in any way, it would be detectable. Not merely visually detectable, but detectable nonetheless.

At the same time I think we want to avoid a "we haven't found Bigfoot" argument, which is a label I've just made up for a kind of argument I have heard. It is where people talk about God as if it must be similar to Bigfoot (tangible, material, visible if we knew where to look), and declare that since we haven't got physical evidence it means that it doesn't exist.

That only works if one is a deist, believing in a deity which does not interact in any way with the universe. Such a deity A) is functionally the same as no deity at all and B) cannot be shown to exist.

This would be a mistake, because ever since the time of Plato no one has asserted that God is a physical object with a quantifiable body. Such an argument would be declaring a lack of evidence for something which no one has argued for in the first place. 

False. The bible claims that god has all of those attributes. Want quotes? Have not read it yourself?

1) If god isn't "knowable" through any sense apperata, what distinguishes god from nothingness?
2) Which is the same as saying god doesn't exist.

Are the laws of mathematics something or nothing?

They are descriptive, not proscriptive. The "laws of mathematics" claim that one cannot have a triangle which has more or less than 3 sides. Is that because the "laws of mathematics" simply claim so?

[Belacqua]

That only works if one is a deist, believing in a deity which does not interact in any way with the universe.

What I've described is the standard Catholic and East Orthodox description of God. Not deist.

False. The bible claims that god has all of those attributes. Want quotes? Have not read it yourself?

If you're arguing against a sola scriptura literalist this would be a strong argument. Most Christians haven't been such. 

are descriptive, not proscriptive. The "laws of mathematics" claim that one cannot have a triangle which has more or less than 3 sides. Is that because the "laws of mathematics" simply claim so?

If the term "laws" sounds too prescriptive -- and gives the impression of something passed by a legislature -- I'd be fine with a different term -- "natural regularities," or "inevitabilities," or just "how things always go." All of these would be fine for what I've been saying.