the reason i entitled this "problems with common atheist arguments" instead of "the case against atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself.
i will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.disclaimer # 1: this is not an argument against atheism or all atheists.
no, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists i speak to on twitter.
Fine tuning is an argument?
"Hey look at the tight tolerances for fluctuation these forces have! God did it! Woo hoo! Masturbation is a sin after all!"
Forces having a low tolerance window of fluctuation are proof that forces-having-a-low-tolerance-window-of-fluctuation exist. Nothing else.
last night a young man in a bar struck up a conversation with me.
our town is having our pride parade soon and he brought it up, the bible and how it's against the bible.
me being me, i said that i couldn't care less that it was against the bible and that it was a horrible guide for morality anyway.
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
A lack of belief = belief? I agree that is illogical.
Please help me see the connection to our discussion.
Why are you asking me? You are the one who wrote Atheism is about belief, not me. I merely pointed out that Atheism isn't about belief. It is a response to a belief and then we got into this circular discussion.
We're close to seeing eye to eye here, very close.
Atheism isn't about holding ANY beliefs at its most basic definition. What I am trying to help people to see is the most basic and accurate definition of atheism. Please think about why I say it is ABOUT belief, without saying it is about HOLDING any belief.
You're saying that it is a "a response to a belief". That is true in most contexts, but not in all contexts. What if I teach a child that god(s) exist, but yet I don't believe they do? [Side note: because I'm a fader, this is probably what I do unintentionally by my presence at meetings and I feel like shit about it.] So you need to realize that, at its basic level, it is a response to a CLAIM not a belief. That's why the following people are all atheists: you, me, the piraha people, and babies. So, just to be clear:
Atheism = lack of belief in god(s); no belief in god(s); not believing in god(s)
Kinda hard to describe without using the word belief, because it is about belief (accepting a claim).
What if we define it like this: atheism = the belief that no god(s) exist
This is how many Christian apologists for example wish to define atheism. This becomes a strawman for them to battle in most cases. Using this definition for debate purposes is the frozen abstraction fallacy. This definition of atheism is more accurately labeled as strong atheism or gnostic atheism. It is still atheism, because it still fits under the atheist umbrella, but it is not atheism at its purest or most basic level. A person that believes no god(s) exist, still lacks a belief in god(s). But, they are something more than just an atheist, pedantically speaking.
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), not necessarily a response to a claim.
How can a lack of belief in something be a belief? That's illogical!!
A lack of belief = belief? I agree that is illogical.
Please help me see the connection to our discussion.
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
OGTG
Cofty/Outlaw
If anyone I debate this topic with has yet to learn that:
1. agnosticism is about knowledge
2. atheism is about belief
3. knowledge is a subset of belief
then I find all conversations about the topic are futile
Cofty, it seems Outlaw is rather jealous of your former elder status.
I really have to take exception to item 2 above. Atheism isn't about belief, ffs. It is merely a response to an unproven assertion that god exists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), not necessarily a response to a claim. Piraha children are atheists for example. Your definition of atheism is too narrow in scope, also known as the frozen abstraction fallacy.
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
Cofty/Outlaw
If anyone I debate this topic with has yet to learn that:
1. agnosticism is about knowledge
2. atheism is about belief
3. knowledge is a subset of belief
then I find all conversations about the topic are futile
Cofty, it seems Outlaw is rather jealous of your former elder status.
the difficulty of finding a marriage mate is well known for sisters.
but i would say it's hard for brothers also.
i was talking to a jw last night.
Plenty of hot chicks in my congregation. Plenty.
the wonders of facebook have accidently made my paths cross with the sister of this particular elder who served in my circuit (london) for many years and would have probably been made an elder at the very beginning of the arrangment in the early 1970's he knew my father very well, spoke at ca's visting speaker etc, and was a member of the hlc, he resigned a few years ago, he was a real hard core make no bones about it and would have been one of the very last you's expect to step down and leave, just goes to show..
I resigned as an elder in 2012, served for 14 years. Just as a reminder to JWN folks.
hey!
i'm new here, and i'm posting from chile, anyone else?
i bet we have some lurkers from here too, hope you register :).
I got FB friends in Chile, does that count?
