What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[McCulloch]

Step 1 is the reason why I spent so much time on this thread talking about pantheism, and step 2 is the recent arguments to believe that such a pantheist (i.e., minimum) definition of God is reasonable.

Sorry it took me so long. Now I get it. I fear that we might be at risk of making the logical fallacy of equivocation. Since this is the Debating Christianity site, someone might get the idea that we are debating the existence of the christian definition of god. Furthermore, one could be an agnostic towards the idea of an impersonal pantheistic god yet atheist towards the more commonly understood idea of the christian personal active willful God.

[harvey1]

Since this is the Debating Christianity site, someone might get the idea that we are debating the existence of the christian definition of god. Furthermore, one could be an agnostic towards the idea of an impersonal pantheistic god yet atheist towards the more commonly understood idea of the christian personal active willful God.

I don't think of atheism as a belief system that is agnostic here and atheistic there. Atheism is a belief system that no God exists, including the pantheistic God. This is why I don't think it is relevant if we don't talk about the Judeo-Christian God at this moment since we are talking about whether atheism is right or wrong. My argument is that it is just wrong. That is, people are just mistaken if they are atheists.

[Curious]

I disagree. The agnostic would believe that the lack of evidence was due to the nature of the investigation being unable to yield results one way or the other. The atheist may believe however that the results of the investigation have some significance.

The strong agnostic might believe the lack of evidence was due to the nature of the investigation, whereas the weak agnostic just believes that we lack the evidence and doesn't strongly support a reason to why that is. An atheist has a reason that the agnostic doesn't find convincing. What I want to know is, what is the reason for atheism that agnostics don't find convincing to make them atheists.

To reiterate, the agnostic does not believe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence while the atheist does.

So, does this mean you are agnostic?
[/quote=]
No, quite the contrary.

I know of no data in cosmology, geology, evolution... that is an argument for atheism.

That isn't what I said.

I would disagree with your last statement here. The position of a great many Christians and Muslims is one of unquestioning belief.

That's later. Every thinking person undergoes a period in their life where they ask the questions and seek some type of suitable reply. For many theists, such as myself, this happened when we considered the beginning of the world and realized that a "no God" universe is not feasible.

[Curious]

The strong agnostic might believe the lack of evidence was due to the nature of the investigation, whereas the weak agnostic just believes that we lack the evidence and doesn't strongly support a reason to why that is. An atheist has a reason that the agnostic doesn't find convincing. What I want to know is, what is the reason for atheism that agnostics don't find convincing to make them atheists.

To reiterate, the agnostic does not believe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence while the atheist does

So, does this mean you are agnostic?

No.Quite the contrary.

Cosmology, geology, evolution... take your pick.

I know of no data in cosmology, geology, evolution... that is an argument for atheism.

There is a mass of data that refutes utterly the scriptural version regarding the age of the earth, the universe and the creation theory. Since this is shown to be incorrect and cannot be believed why should the rest be given credence.

Every thinking person undergoes a period in their life where they ask the questions and seek some type of suitable reply. For many theists, such as myself, this happened when we considered the beginning of the world and realized that a "no God" universe is not feasible.

I hate to burst your bubble but that is not how the majority of people get into religion.

[Curious]

The strong agnostic might believe the lack of evidence was due to the nature of the investigation, whereas the weak agnostic just believes that we lack the evidence and doesn't strongly support a reason to why that is. An atheist has a reason that the agnostic doesn't find convincing. What I want to know is, what is the reason for atheism that agnostics don't find convincing to make them atheists.

To reiterate, the agnostic does not believe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence while the atheist does

So, does this mean you are agnostic?

No.Quite the contrary.

Cosmology, geology, evolution... take your pick.

I know of no data in cosmology, geology, evolution... that is an argument for atheism.

There is a mass of data that refutes utterly the scriptural version regarding the age of the earth, the universe and the creation theory. Since this is shown to be incorrect and cannot be believed why should the rest be given any credence?

Every thinking person undergoes a period in their life where they ask the questions and seek some type of suitable reply. For many theists, such as myself, this happened when we considered the beginning of the world and realized that a "no God" universe is not feasible.

I hate to burst your bubble but that is not how the majority of people get into religion.

[harvey1]

To reiterate, the agnostic does not believe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence while the atheist does

You can believe whatever you want to believe, what I want to know is the reasons for your atheistic belief.

There is a mass of data that refutes utterly the scriptural version regarding the age of the earth, the universe and the creation theory. Since this is shown to be incorrect and cannot be believed why should the rest be given any credence?

I don't know anything about the "scriptural version." All I know is what science tells me. What is there in science that an atheist can use to show that God doesn't exist? Is that your claim?

[Curious]

To reiterate, the agnostic does not believe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence while the atheist does

You can believe whatever you want to believe, what I want to know is the reasons for your atheistic belief.

I am not an atheist and I believe the above post is quite clear.

I don't know anything about the "scriptural version." All I know is what science tells me. What is there in science that an atheist can use to show that God doesn't exist? Is that your claim?

I am not suggesting that science can disprove the existence of God. As I said above, I believe that data contradicting the scriptural versions and a lack of any evidence supporting the existence of God leads them to their disbelief. That said, I guess probably the strongest argument for atheism is the Bible.

[harvey1]

I am not an atheist and I believe the above post is quite clear.

I apologize for misunderstanding you. However, I don't think absence of physical evidence is necessarily evidence of absence. It's a case by case situation.

[Curious]

I am not an atheist and I believe the above post is quite clear.

I apologize for misunderstanding you. However, I don't think absence of physical evidence is necessarily evidence of absence. It's a case by case situation.

I agree with you. I wasn't trying to defend the position of the atheist. I was simply explaining why I believe they come to their conclusions.

[Corvus]

Harvey1, you have to be aware of how ridiculous this sounds. If you can't understand "why atheists would want something like this to be true", why even make the accusation that they are "interpreting facts in light of what one would like to be true"

I don't know why they would want their atheist vision to be true.

Then why make the accusation? If I were in the habit of questioning people's motives, I might suggest that this reveals more about your own motives, and that the only reason for you to believe someone else's belief is wishful thinking is because you think the only reason to have a belief is if it satisfies some emotional desire. I say that's rubbish, and we should avoid scrounging around in bins.

If you are going to commit the sin of wishful thinking, then why not at least do so for a meaningful world?

I won't deal with the tired, groundless accusation of wishful thinking again, but I will say there is no such thing as a meaningful world, in either atheist or Christian perspectives any more than there is such a thing as a meaningful screwdriver or a meaningful oven. Meaning is in the mind of the beholder, not any property of the world, and the meaning in the mind of a creator doesn't mean much more to us than the meaning we make for ourselves. All things are intrinsically meaningless, until someone superimposes meaning onto it. All things are intrinsically purposeless until they are put to a purpose. Certainly things can be designed for a purpose, but that doesn't make them purposeful, nor show that purpose intrinsic to the thing in question.

You are now claiming to look objectively at the situation but only reacting to it with incredulity. And then, how have you proven God exists by writing a few lines about how ridiculous you consider an atheistic orgin of the universe? (...) Personally, I think the God model is more absurd, because it expects us to believe that our spiritual wellbeing relies upon what we do when sent inside a material body in a material playground. These are things we do to other material bodies that it is asked of us to refrain from doing, even though we would presume that any such material problems or complications would cease once we exit the material world. We are also expected to believe that the locality of the spirit once freed from its material bonds depends on whether, during that time of material bondage, we believed in a spiritual creator. What does a material anything have to do with our souls, and why would God be bothered by it? And, as Epicurus states, why would God be bothered by anything?

Well, I prefer to separate personal theism from an argument on whether atheism is true. You see, atheists are making specific claim about the class of universe that they say existed at the beginning state of the universe, they merely fluff it off as that they are ignorant. But, they are making this claim. Don't make any claims if it is based on wishful thinking, which is exactly what atheism is ultimately based on. In this context it doesn't matter what some theists believe. All that matters is that atheism is wrong. So, why are we still discussing atheism in 2005?? I have no idea. It's wrong and obviously so.

When did the trial take place? I didn't see that in the history books, and you have yet to prove that the claim is based on wishful based on anything other than your own wishful thinking about what you would like atheists to think.

If the counterargument is merely what some theists believe, then can I argue against atheism based on what some atheists believe too?

Isn't that what you're doing anyway, by focussing on the origin of a universe without a god? It seems that you don't think a universe can exist without a creator, or that that a random universe can't exist, and that is the extent of your argument. Isn't solipsism also an atheistic explanation of creation? What about Schopenhauer's Will and the World? What about Panpsychism? That's usually associated with pantheism, but is pantheism real theism, or is it just a redefinition of the word god, which has traditionally meant some sort of super being, and is probably the definition mosts atheists are working off?

And are you not guilty of presenting a specific type of god by conflating both a deity with a creator? Epicurus' gods were not creators, and I would think there are many gods that have never created anything and yet are still gods.

In fact, if God was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal, there's no reason to believe God is anything other than a universal computer, and we are numbers on sitting in the middle of a column of a spreadsheet in a year's financial figures. All events are created by God, all of His actions were foreseen before they occurred, if there is a "before" in eternity, and everything is accounted for. If something wasn't accounted for, it would be. And if we exist at all, it's also necessary that we exist, otherwise, we wouldn't exist. There also appear to be a lot of seemingly unnecessary figures in the spreadsheet which also must be a necessity. We have 5 fingers, 206 bones, x hairs, and the universe contains x amount of stars, x amount of tons for the weight of the earth, x amount of atoms that seem to have nothing to do with salvation, spiritual wellbeing or anything resembling an intelligent plan, but I'm sure God knows what he's doing. Hey, that argument of incredulity thing works both ways!

Before we talk about what kind of God exists, let's settle the issue on whether a God exists.

Excuse me, but I don't believe that's entirely fair. Christians make the claim that only this particular god exists and that it has certain properties. If I successfully counter the judeo-christian god notion of god, shouldn't that be satisfying enough for you, seeing as you aren't a polytheist and have already taken up the position against the existence of other gods, which we would hope is based on reason?

What you seem to be proposing is the question of whether a god can exist in principle. I personally don't deny this, nor do I think most atheists should. But I also don't think that because a thing is possible in principle means that I should also, by extension, accept the possibility it exists. Otherwise, my imagination is the limit as to what may be out in the world that is undetectable or yet undetected. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with the existence sylphs, gnomes, fairies, elves, brownies, dwarves, djiin, afriit and maybe even dragons. My ex-girlfriend was convinced fairies existed and that she communed with them as a child. They might exist partly in a spiritual world or partly in an imaginitive realm (like the one in Alan Moore's Promethea comics) or possibly they might be entirely corporeal, and their reputation for being good at hiding might be entirely true. Dragons may be able to breathe flame by the combination of two or more chemicals in their chest, and when they die, decompisition makes these chemicals combine and consume the body, which explains why we never found any fossils. For us to question the existence of these things, we need, as you said in another topic, a compelling reason, and, as the bible and the circumstances of Christianity give some people a compelling reason to believe in a particular god, we should be focussing on it.