I have only had one debate on this topic, so I am rather new to the idea. It was really pretty easy. However, since I've never debated something like this I started the discussion for people to add on to helpful hints on smashing theists who try to claim this.


Here is the conversation thus far online:

Gaurav, only non arrogant faith is agnostic
Yesterday at 6:42pm · Delete

Johnny:
well... yes and no. I was agnostic until I read many of the logical philosophy writings against religion and many forms of god are logical fallacys. Atheists/agnostics are the same thing. No atheist will say that they can absolutely prove god doesnt exist. However, I like to call myself a non-theist when clarification is needed. The terms atheist and agnostic are so tainted by society's view of what they mean.

Gaurav: atheism is the "belief" that there is no god, theres no way to disprove just like theres no way to prove it, agnostic is like saying "i dont know if there is a god or not", arrogance plays a role in anything ending with theism because theism in itself is defined as the "belief" in at least one deity
11 hours ago · Delete

Johnny: difference is the context of the belief. I believe there is no god. I do not however claim that my belief is absolute truth. Based on logic, most forms of god do not make sense, therefore I don't believe in them. If someone was to make a fail-proof, logical argument about why god did make sense, then i would become more neutral.
The difference... is that theists claim to have absolute, god-given proof and no chance they are wrong. You will never find an atheist say there is no chance that they are wrong.
11 hours ago · Delete

Gaurav
: let me just stop you right there, theres something your not realizing...logic plays no role in theism, you cant use it when your talking about a faith....so logically nothing, doesnt matter, god is decided by the heart, logic by the brain...get what im saying?
about an hour ago · Delete

Johnny: ... um... ok well let me stop you right there. have you ever met an atheist? In the many organizations I have dealt with never once have met one with the "blind faith" that you are trying to blame us for... what is your experience? Have you dealt only with theists trying to smear atheists by calling us just as bad?

HAHAHA you really want to make the "atheist is a religion" argument? This is probably the most annoying one there is.

a-, an- +... Read More
(Greek: a prefix meaning: no, absence of, without, lack of, not)
A-sexual: without sex
a-theist: without belief in a higher

Funny that you take one part of the word and ignore the most important part.

Read this before arguing further. This is an argument that frequently comes up an is rather pointless anyway.

http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism

Views: 4

Replies to This Discussion

No atheist will say that they can absolutely prove god doesnt exist.
This article suggests you can prove a negative:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articl...

Here's the argument I use:

Most theists agree that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
They also agree that evil exists (the subject is mentioned hundreds of times in the bible)

(1) If god doesn't know about evil, he is not omniscient.
(2) If god knows about evil but cannot stop it, he is not omnipotent.
(3) If god knows about evil and he can stop it, but doesn't, then he is not omnibenevolent.

QED: God does not exist.

Theists have come up with dozens of explanations for this Problem of Evil, but all of them have been refuted and the conclusion holds good - God does not exist.

Or you could try this approach:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/winningarguments/forum/topics/whi...
I also use that argument but that is not the issue... the issue is saying that we are just as arrogantly preaching our own doctrine of "no god" belief without any proof, but they don't realize that we don't need proof and we don't claim absolute truth.
I can see what you are getting at...and I have heard people say that they believe that god doe not exist, but they haven't chosen their words carefully enough:

An atheist is not someone who "believes" that god does not exist...An atheist is someone who does NOT believe that god exists.

Atheism is not a belief that needs to be proved, it is a LACK of belief.

If I tell you that I am an atheist, you can be sure that I do not believe in god, but there is nothing else you can know about me because there are no beliefs or doctrines common to all atheists.

An atheist could be an anarchist, a communist, a capitalist, or something else altogether. You and I may agree that god does not exist, but it is quite possible that we disagree on everything else. The only thing common to both of us is a lack of belief in god...and it is not necessary to prove a LACK of belief.
Yeah I get that too and i think i did say that... I guess if someone wants to believe we are a religion all we can do is present the fact and they can be closed-minded about it or not.
Yeah, sorry if I misunderstood. I'll read the post a bit more carefully next time. Cheers.
Don't you pity believers who state with certainty that God exists and is very real? Well, I also pity atheists who state with certainty that God does NOT exist and is just a meme. Both positions are logically insupportable and require faith. To me, an honest position states that:

"God's existence is unknowable but the overwhelming preponderance of logic and evidence convincingly sides against the existence of ANYTHING supernatural. God is as supernatural as it gets: therefor, I choose atheism with confidence and without reservation."

This position essentially states that I don't believe in God . . . NOT that God does not exist. An atheist is literally "not theist". Lack of belief in God is all I need to take the label, "atheist". I don't need to proclaim God does not exist: that would be illogical and unnecessary.
Actually, If God did exist I don't see how free will would even be remotely possible. If God exists said god has to be the source of all thing so everything is exactly as it has to be. You as an individual or we as group could never do anything in opposition to how God has determined things. Free will would essentially be an illusion.
Actually, even without God, free will is impossible because of psychology. I'm sooo tired of proving that to theists so I won't do it now. I use free will against them because the whole heaven thing is bull if you don't have any. No god needed for the explanation.
Ah, but the brain science you're referring to is just that, SCIENCE. Not all but many theists tend to ignore science based arguments. It's a really good point. But I doubt they'll acknowledge let alone think about it.
I guess I should define what I mean by "God". I mean what most people mean: The Creator of the Universe. Whatever else he is seems pretty trivial in comparison to the Creator title.

The natural realm IS the universe and everything in it. Therefor, the Creator of the universe is necessarily supernatural.
Well, were I to state that the likelihood of the existence of god is equal to the likelihood of the existence of Little Red Riding Hood, does that mean that I'm agnostic about the existence of Little Red Riding Hood? I think not. I believe it to be rational to state that there is not a supernatural dimension that has any pragmatic meaning or effect in our universe. Period.

Taking this one step further, just as our ability to see into the past (through telescopes) is limited by the "penumbra" of the Big Bang, so too, all that is knowable by man must lie within that penumbra. Anything outside of that penumbra is undiscoverable and, for the same reason, can have no effect on our universe. And for the same reason, any such "creator" must also lie outside of this penumbra and, therefore, have no possible impact on our universe,.

So for me, based both on simple rational thinking as well as an application of rudimentary laws of physics, the entire issue is moot at best, and more likely sophistic.
Something that seems to be overlooked is that "God" as a concept is not always understood in the same way. Omnipotent, etc... may be accepted by all monotheists but that doesn't necessarily mean they have really thought about what that actually means. I agree that when view in abstract terms no one can justifiably claim to have definitive proof that God does or does not exist. However, there is a big chunk of theists out there that do not think of God in the abstract. If they weren't so irrational just about anyone could prove that their "God" does not exist. The God of the bible is easy to disprove. All you need is the bible itself.

RSS

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service