Arguments for Atheism

there are no arguments needed for atheism, i do not belive in fairytales.

 

To me it just sounds like you want to be an Atheist for the sake of being an Atheist and rebelling against organized religion that's been present in your family for so long.

I believe you should formulate your own ideas and arguments for/against Atheism and see which side you feel is the most logical.



--

According to www.infidels.org there are two basic argument types when it comes to Atheist views about God. There are "Logical Arguments" which

and there are "Evidential Arguments" which

That being said, keep those two types of arguments in mind, and I suggest you read this article (once again credited to www.infidels.org) about Atheism.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

I also recommend reading some articles or books that argue AGAINST Atheism.

I hope I could help!

 

A popular argument that atheists use is the problem of evil and suffering. If you're interested, Aquinas and Augustines theodicies are interesting.

 

It's just up for debate, it's a classic case of, prove God or prove God doesn't exist, with both sides being at a constant tug of war.

As people become Atheists, others become religious. It's really just a choice of what you personally believe in.

 

Or lack of belief in.

 

Join agnosticism and make peace. Just say if you cant prove it then dont shove it in my face, i cant prove it either so i wont shove it in yours. leaning to a side is fine as long as you dont argue yes or no and you argue logically thinking yes and logically thinking no

 

Sigh...Agnostic isn't an view on religion, it's a cop out.
Everyone is agnostic because noone really knows the absolute truth, well on an idea level atleast, the metaphysical god is easily disproven but i digress. E

You can't logically think god is real, thats like saying a child can logically prove santa is real by telling his parents they don't know because they haven't been to the north pole.

 

Theres nothing wrong with agnosticism. Biggest thing about it is that you apply scientific knowledge to anything that you base your beliefs on. Its a view on religion because you arent agreeing with religion, or actually creationism really... Logically thinking i dont see it being realistic that a god or gods are the reason humans are here but i also cant prove that they arent. Just as logically thinking i see its more realistic that the human race evolved from another species, but i cant go and 100% prove this to you at the moment. The reason agnostics are who i side with is because its the way to stop argument, and hopefully you agree that is what should happen as religious arguments have caused oh i dont know only almost every war that was ever fought. Truthfully i believe the end of religion is one of the best things that could ever come to this world whether god/gods are real or not.

 

Again, agnosticism isn't a side because EVERYONE is agnostic. I am agnostic even though I am an atheist and every christian is agnostic as well. This is because, as I have explained no one knows the reality of the idea form of god.

However when it comes to the metaphysical form of god, which is easily disproved by logic even though you said you can't which is ridiculous because there are a large amount of ways god can be disproved, a few hundred or more just from the bible.

And yes you can't show 100% that humans evolved from another species but evidence and probability gives it a hell of alot stronger chance than an overlord who lived before everything whose only evidence is a book with no evidential backup.

Basically these are the 3 points I am making:
-Agnosticism isn't a side.
-God is easily disproved.
-Evolution has evidence god has a book with the same credentials as a Dr.Suess novel.

 

I usually use Disney movies as my comparisons to Christianity but that was good too.

Agnosticism isn't just saying that you cant prove it haha but if that's what you've been taught then that's fine I'm not here to teach.

 

Every Athiestic belief is a THEORY, Not a fact.

Im sure you're high school liberal teacher taught none of you that, Also that most of the "Archaeological" findings are hoax's. Im a Christian, hate on me and say im an idiot but i know im not, you do to.

Most of you kids are Athiests because of what your public school has taught you, I bet you're most socialists to.

 

You have only disproved the Christian idea of God. If you think disproving one religion = disproving all religions, then you're sadly mistaken.

 

If you call evidence a 'theory' then sure, so what? The same can be said christian beliefs, or any other religions for that matter.

I'm not sure what archaeological discoveries has to do with atheism. Nevertheless, do you have any 'theories' aka evidence to substantiate your claims? Sorry, but, we Atheists like evidence, ugh, I mean 'theories'.

The funny thing is that most schools teach some sort of religious belief. I know of NO school that teaches atheism like they do religion, though, it's clear that you did go to a public school courtesy of socialist policies which also is not the political ideology of most atheists, myself included.

That's true, but, it shouldn't really be on the non-believer to disprove the believers claim, the inverse should occur. What other beliefs are worthy of 'disproof'? While it's unfortunate in one respect that the Judeo-Christian God is the only God debated on, closely followed, or maybe even surpassed by Allah, it's not really surprising however given the amount of followers.

It's actually much easier to disprove entities that have impossible (contradictory or illogical) characteristics by citing said contradiction. It's in theory much easier to disprove an omnipotent being (God) than it is to disprove Santa Clause. Omnipotency is a common trait of the numerous Gods of different religions. The God of the Bible for one, and presumably Allah.

If a religion has beliefs that are logically consistent (they don't contradict each other) then you can't really disprove it. In saying that, you don't need to because the burden is still on the believer.

 

Just out of interest why is the burden on the believer? The atheistic belief is as untenable as theistic belief as God cannot be proved empirically one way or another

 

Because the believer is asserting a positive claim. An atheists standpoint isn't indefensible IMO, in fact, a belief in a God typically is.

I say that there is an invisible pink unicorn in the sky. Is asking me to prove it reasonable? I say that all our brains are kept in a vat and we are being pumped nutrients to generate a simulated life. I think proof would be required correct?

I say that there exists an incommensurable teapot hovering around the rings of Jupiter. If the burden of proof is on me (the believer) then I would have to prove it before you agree with me. If the burden of proof is on you (the non-believer) then it is up to you to disprove it. Aka. Russel's Teapot.

You say that God cannot be proved empirically. Why then do you believe in God? What method do you derive your knowledge from (epistemology)? Can we use said methodology in other fields as to not be 'special pleading'?

Simply put, the reason a burden of proof is on the positive claim (belief in God, in this case) is because there are an infinite amount of positive claims able to be made. Many of these claims can contradict each other: there is an invisible pink elephant in the sky; there is an invisible pink elephant bounty hunter that kills all invisible elephants in the sky instantaneously. This is why the burden is on the believer.

 

Atheists aren't asserting anything; rather, they are expressing disbelief at the assertion that god exists.

I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

Most archaeological finds are hoaxes? Without some sort of clarification, this is a meaningless statement.

Again, what is it that you're referring to? What does socialism have to do with this at all?

 

Because of some idiot who laced Kool-Aid with cyanide who was high on drugs and made around 600 others kill themselves aswell.

Basically he used Socialism as the big idea

His name was Jim Jones if you didn't know

 

Far too lazy to sort through 5 pages of posts, but:

Atheism is not comparable to religion/theism. It is the merely the absence of belief. Many people tend to use absence of belief interchangeably with the rejection of belief, but this is an inaccurate way of viewing atheism.

It would be impossible to provide an argument truly in favor of atheism for the aforementioned reasons. Yes, evolution is usually a view held by many atheists, but it does not make evolution an atheistic ideal. The theory of evolution does not specifically try to say "There is no God."

The burden of proof lies on the back of the one making the assertion, not the other way around. How can you provide proof for an absence of something? Much in the same way many theists say that there is no way to disprove God, there is no way to prove he is real either.

 

Some atheists simply do not believe and others state that god does not exist. There is a slight difference and arguments for atheism mainly are arguments against religion. They are inherently linked but a comparison between the two is, as you said, not really feasible as atheism is just one belief (or that lack of one belief) while religion entails much more.

 

Jesus is real through faith.


^ What majority of Christians will tell you.