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.

[harvey1]

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.

I make the accusation because it is wishful thinking. There's a certain wish involved in that kind of reasoning. I know it is wishful because no reasons other than wishfulness come attached to the argument put forward.

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.

I disagree. Meaning ultimately is a property of the universe, and this meaning is carried over into events that comprise the universe. If there is no ultimate meaning for the world, then it is purely an illusion that events carry any meaning. Look at this way, if meaning m=0, then anything that references m is also zero. At no point can m take on any value unless m has intrinsic value.

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.

Corvus, you've read the exchange between myself and QED. If you would like to answer the questions posed to him which he did not answer, then I would be happy to hear your answers. Atheism makes a very strong claim. It says that God does not exist. Okay. Let's talk about the beginning and show me in principle that atheism is feasible. If it cannot demonstrate in principle how it is feasible, then on what basis do we say that atheism is true? If that is wishful thinking on my own behalf, then give me reasons why my arguments are wishful thinking. Show me how my arguments are wishful thinking.

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?

No. I'm giving the atheist the benefit of doubt that they have a well-thought out explanation for the universe. I merely follow-through with the implications of atheism, and I find these issues which I think overwhelmingly disqualify it. I'd be more than happy to discuss the reasons on why my conclusions could be flawed, but I need to discuss reasons not ranting.

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. (...) 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.

I see what you're saying, but I'm talking a minimum definition of God. Or, if you prefer, I'm strictly talking a pantheist conception of God. Afterall, this is part of what the atheist believes too. They don't believe the pantheist is right in saying that a minimum type God exists, or that the agnostic is right in saying the pantheist might be right. Those are very strong claims by the atheist, and for that reason we should sit here and listen to what they have to say. Maybe they are right. However, maybe they are wrong and that what they are really saying is that the Christian God doesn't exist. That's fine, but then they shouldn't be calling themselves atheists. I want to discuss these important issues because, from my perspective, atheism is making claims that don't make any sense. So, that's why I like to discuss the beginning of these matters.

[harvey1]

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?

Pantheism is a belief in the existence of something that they call God. Pantheism has a long history and perhaps outdates traditional forms of theism if you look at Native American and Indian cultures. In fact, traditional theism might be an offshoot of pantheism.

[Corvus]

Harvey1, I edited this post because my math didn't make sense. Just added a strikethrough code through the equation. Hope you don't mind; the argument around it still makes sense.

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.

I make the accusation because it is wishful thinking. There's a certain wish involved in that kind of reasoning. I know it is wishful because no reasons other than wishfulness come attached to the argument put forward.

](*,) In an argument where reason, evidence and experience play a central part, claiming knowledge for something you believe is incredibly frustrating.

All right, let's avoid the issue of wishful thinking. It's both unhelpful and pointless.

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.

I disagree. Meaning ultimately is a property of the universe, and this meaning is carried over into events that comprise the universe. If there is no ultimate meaning for the world, then it is purely an illusion that events carry any meaning.

Events only carry subjective meanings. If I point to a cow and say "food", that's a meaning and purpose created for the cow. If the cow understood what I meant, it would be horrified, because, being alive, it values its own life, and what carries a meaning of a pleasurable meal for me is, for the cow, something exceedingly horrible.

Look at this way, if meaning m=0, then anything that references m is also zero. At no point can m take on any value unless m has intrinsic value.

Of course; that intrinsic value is a zero, just like a canvas is blank until you start painting on it. <strike>If M=(HM=1) + (GM=1), then M=2. M has now taken on the value of Human Meaning and God's Meaning.</strike> Why shouldn't it? And why have you introduced maths for a purely linguistic problem? The very fact that we have dictionaries means that we can create meanings, and poetry uses words that have multiple meanings in a given context. I can't see how you can deny that meaning is not something in the mind of the beholder. "What does that mean" in everyday speech means "what does that convey to you or to people", doesn't it? Language itself is an example of meaning applied to particular vibrations of one's glottis, or some scribbles on a page. It's purely a matter of what a thing represents to you. Art is meaning applied by the artist onto an arrangment of paint that resonates with human experience, but, of course, sometimes the artist doesn't do a very good job of expressing his meaning, and another observer arrives at a different one.

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake

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.

Corvus, you've read the exchange between myself and QED. If you would like to answer the questions posed to him which he did not answer, then I would be happy to hear your answers. Atheism makes a very strong claim. It says that God does not exist. Okay. Let's talk about the beginning and show me in principle that atheism is feasible. If it cannot demonstrate in principle how it is feasible, then on what basis do we say that atheism is true?

I haven't read all of the exchange between you and QED, only skimmed a bit. At a whopping 45 pages, and seeming to grow a page every day, skimming the topic is all I can do. If I can't keep up with the arguments, then I apologise.

So, tell me what questions you posed to QED that he did not answer and I'll see if I have any solutions.

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?

No. I'm giving the atheist the benefit of doubt that they have a well-thought out explanation for the universe. I merely follow-through with the implications of atheism, and I find these issues which I think overwhelmingly disqualify it. I'd be more than happy to discuss the reasons on why my conclusions could be flawed, but I need to discuss reasons not ranting.

That's rather dismissive. Perhaps you could explain to me, slowly, what are the flaws in believing a deity does not exist? Please, present your conclusions and how you arrived at them. List the implications of atheism. I don't believe I was doing any ranting, merely suggesting that atheism does not need to equate to a belief in randomness, and that you are jumping the gun by attacking a belief in randomness before addressing whether atheism (a belief that gods do not exist) is possible in principle, as you claimed me to be doing by attacking a specific type of god.

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?

Pantheism is a belief in the existence of something that they call God. Pantheism has a long history and perhaps outdates traditional forms of theism if you look at Native American and Indian cultures. In fact, traditional theism might be an offshoot of pantheism.

Its tradition is irrelevant. What is relevant is the definition of god in our culture, which is what atheists reject. I'll use the American Heritage dictionary instead of my Oxford for this one:

God

• 1)
  • A)A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
    B)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
  2)A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
  3)An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
  One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
  4)A very handsome man.
  5)A powerful ruler or despot.

I could also say that this computer is god, but again, I would be redefining the word god to mean "something vaguely sublime". I could even call myself a god, but that's usually a sign of megalomania, vanity and/or pride. Not that I don't have a lot of vanity or pride, but I don't think I am a deity.

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. (...) 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.

I see what you're saying, but I'm talking a minimum definition of God. Or, if you prefer, I'm strictly talking a pantheist conception of God. After all, this is part of what the atheist believes too. They don't believe the pantheist is right in saying that a minimum type God exists, or that the agnostic is right in saying the pantheist might be right. Those are very strong claims by the atheist, and for that reason we should sit here and listen to what they have to say.

Those are the same claims made by individual theists. I suppose I should start a topic for their strong claims as well.

I understand you are talking about a minimum definition of god, but as I stated earlier, even if one accepts the minimum definition of god as a possibility, that does not mean one should accept the existence of gods in actuality. One can accept that gods are possible in principle and still be an atheist by not believing any such creatures to exist. Read over my post again if you want this explained in more detail on entirely reasonable examples. That's why we should now be questioning specific types of god.

As I argued earlier, I don't think pantheism should be considered because the label of atheist was not meant to cover uses of the word god outside of its current meaning of "a super being".

Maybe they are right. However, maybe they are wrong and that what they are really saying is that the Christian God doesn't exist. That's fine, but then they shouldn't be calling themselves atheists.

Before atheism was actively taken up as a label of belief, it was an pejorative used by Christians against anyone who didn't have faith in the God, being even used against the deists during the Enlightenment. Atheism in the west has a tradition of being about the rejection of the judeo-Christian god, probably because westerners commonly reject the rest as nonsense spirituality anyway.

[Curious]

Of course; that intrinsic value is a zero, just like a canvas is blank until you start painting on it. If M=0 + HM=1 + GM=1, then M=2.

I take it maths isn't your strong point. If M = 0 then HM = GM = 0.
Or was I missing the point?

[QED]

OK, so when did we last see a farmer who was blind deaf and dumb? In addition to knowing where you want to get to, you have to have vision in order to steer. You wish me to accept the structure required for this tangible feedback system as brute fact -- and this is quite clearly the less parsimonious of the two solutions we are contemplating here.

No, because as I already pointed out, strong evidence points out that the universe as a whole is obeying laws of a complex system (e.g., power laws, phase transitions, chaotic attractors, universality, etc.). That is, just knowing a few parameters of a system dictates how that system will evolve regardless of the complex system. This clearly indicates that God is not blind, deaf, and dumb since the universe is moving just fine with these complex laws toward higher and higher complexity, which if given time would result in a God-like universe where intelligence of this magnitude has been farmed by those laws. The atheist would have us believe that this was all dumb luck as a result of a beginning state, which is not a tenable view.

I'm convinced that this argument can be dealt with on a very simple level: You insist that god can see hear and speak. And this is why I insist on discounting the notion that such an entity could be the first entity to exist.

[Corvus]

Of course; that intrinsic value is a zero, just like a canvas is blank until you start painting on it. If M=0 + HM=1 + GM=1, then M=2.

I take it maths isn't your strong point. If M = 0 then HM = GM = 0.
Or was I missing the point?

You were right, maths was never my strong point. What I meant was;

M = Universe Meaning
HM = Human Meaning = input any value
GM = God's Meaning = input any value

HM + GM = M

I was trying to illustrate that there is no meaning, only applied meanings. Gah, just ignore the sum and read my words. It's not like writing that M=0 really convinces anyone.

[harvey1]

I'm convinced that this argument can be dealt with on a very simple level: You insist that god can see hear and speak. And this is why I insist on discounting the notion that such an entity could be the first entity to exist.

In a figurative sense, QED. As I said, God is the laws of physics and I have no idea why you discount this notion when we already demonstrated that atheism cannot likely be true given the inability to demonstrate how other possible universes with different classes cannot be ruled out. Even you cannot show me how we should rule out a 1D universe, or for that matter, no universe at all. You just have a wild hope that this can be done. But, what reason can you give that such is the case?

[Curious]

In a figurative sense... As I said, God is the laws of physics and I have no idea why you discount this notion when we already demonstrated that atheism cannot likely be true given the inability to demonstrate how other possible universes with different classes cannot be ruled out.

Following this reasoning then neither can a universe without the existence of God be ruled out. In point of fact, all your assumptions are incorrect as God is really a Super Conducting Ashtray who demands devotion as a means of powering the universe by an overflow of spiritual ash. This has been proven beyond doubt by the fact that such a theory cannot in any way be disproved.

[McCulloch]

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.

I try to use words to clarify meaning. If I call myself an agnostic, however accurate in a technical sense, I might convey the unintended meaning to someone that I believe that their concept of a christian anthromorphic loving personal suffering trinitarian jealous vengeful sacrificial God is in my mind has more than an infinitesimal possibility of existing. So within the definition of what most people that I know accept as god, I am an atheist. However, very strictly speaking, if you define a pantheistic type of god then you may call me an agnostic. I don't believe that you can prove the existence of such a god and I know that I cannot disprove it.
But the existence or non-existence of a loosely defined pantheistic god has very little or no relevance to debating christianity, since christians seem to reject the pantheist definition of god, excepting perhaps the progressive christians whose beliefs are less definite.

[QED]

In a figurative sense, QED. As I said, God is the laws of physics

Why is this not simply begging the question? Even if you are entitled to make this claim, I consider it impossible that laws of physics have an intent to operate in the way they do. You can figuratively say that gravity intends to make apples fall, but that is equivocation. I said many pages ago that you are putting the cart before the horse. I say that intent comes from mind which comes from matter. You say that matter comes from mind that comes from intent.

You cannot deny that all the attributes you assign to god are familiar characteristics of human minds. You would no doubt care to remind me that god made us in his likeness. I would of course remind you that we have often made god in our likeness. Thus the symmetries persist, yet I remain compelled by the notion that the sequence of mind from matter is a universal principle.