Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Chriliman]

Why are you asking for "evidence" that atheism is true?

Do you need evidence to believe in something?

Yes, since a logical explanation is evidence of truth.

Can you logically explain why I should not believe in God? If not then can you at least explain how it's logical to be an atheist? If not then you must agree there is no evidence of truth in atheism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, since a logical explanation is evidence of truth.

Can you logically explain why I should not believe in God? If not then can you at least explain how it's logical to be an atheist? If not then you must agree there is no evidence of truth in atheism.

Dude, we've been over this...

 

[Chriliman]

Dude, we've been over this...

Right, atheism is not a truth claim, which is why I avoid it as a world view because I want to know the truth, not opinions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Right, atheism is not a truth claim, which is why I avoid it as a world view because I want to know the truth, not opinions.

Oh boy, you haven't a clue what you're talking about....

 

[quatona]

Yes, since a logical explanation is evidence of truth.

Well, not really. A logical explanation can be untrue. But a logical explanation is a good start, at least.

Can you logically explain why I should not believe in God?

No. Why would I? This is not the thread "Convince me that theism is wrong.". It´s the thread where somebody has posted a particular argument for God´s existence for discussion.

If not then can you at least explain how it's logical to be an atheist?

That´s easy: The affirmative theist´s claim doesn´t come with convincing substantiation. Instead it comes with terrible arguments such as the one that´s the topic of this thread.
So I see no good rational reason to be a theist. That´s sufficient.

If not then you must agree there is no evidence of truth in atheism.

Sure. Atheism isn´t a truth claim. So why expect there to be "truth in it", in the first place?

 

[Chriliman]

Well, not really. A logical explanation can be untrue. But a logical explanation is a good start, at least.


No. Why would I? This is not the thread "Convince me that theism is wrong.". It´s the thread where somebody has posted a particular argument for God´s existence for discussion.

That´s easy: The affirmative theist´s claim doesn´t come with convincing substantiation. Instead it comes with terrible arguments such as the one that´s the topic of this thread.
So I see no good rational reason to be a theist. That´s sufficient.

Sure. Atheism isn´t a truth claim. So why expect there to be "truth in it", in the first place?

Why do people claim to be atheists then? They must think they're correct in some way, right?

If they're correct then they're claiming that it's right to be an athiest as if there is truth in atheism. Can you percieve the contradiction?

 

[quatona]

Why do people claim to be atheists then?

I can´t speak for others. Personally, I have explained it in my previous post: I see no good reason to be a theist. That makes me not a theist, aka atheist.

They must think they're correct in some way, right?

Correct about what?

If they're correct then they're claiming that it's right to be an athiest as if there is truth in atheism. Can you percieve the contradiction?

No, all I perceive is the usual word salad you are producing.

 

[Chriliman]

I can´t speak for others. Personally, I have explained it in my previous post: I see no good reason to be a theist. That makes me not a theist, aka atheist.

So you're claiming to be a correct atheist? Which according to atheism is somehow not a truth claim?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you're claiming to be a correct atheist? Which according to atheism is somehow not a truth claim?

You're not following. quatona is saying that he is an atheist because he is not convinced by the claims of theists. He sees no good reason to be a theist, and is therefore an atheist.

 

[Chriliman]

You're not following. quatona is saying that he is an atheist because he is not convinced by the claims of theists. He sees no good reason to be a theist, and is therefore an atheist.

So he's not actually claiming to be an atheist? Which therefore would make him a theist.

 

[quatona]

So you're claiming to be a correct atheist?

A "correct atheist"? No. I never claimed that. Actually, I don´t know what that´s even supposed to mean.
But since you know so much about my convictions, maybe we can cut things short and skip your semantics games, and instead you tell me what the truth claim is that I make, as an atheist.
Then I can simply tell you if your assumption about my convictions was correct or not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So he's not actually claiming to be an atheist? Which therefore would make him a theist.

Again, you're not following.

 

[quatona]

quatona is saying that he is an atheist because[...]

So he's not actually claiming to be an atheist?

(emphases added)
:facepalm:

 

[Chriliman]

(emphases added)
:facepalm:

You either think you're correct in being an atheist or not. If you're correct then atheism is true, but atheism can't possibly be true because it's not a truth claim. (or is it? Atheists don't seem to really know)

So do you think you're correct in being an atheist? I assume yes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You either think you're correct in being an atheist or not. If you're correct then atheism is true, but atheism can't possibly be true because it's not a truth claim. (or is it? Atheists don't seem to really know)

No, you really don't seem to know. We've clarified what we mean when we say that we're atheists.

 

[Chriliman]

No, you really don't seem to know. We've clarified what we mean when we say that we're atheists.

So in order for there to be atheism, there must first be theism. Which means atheism derives its meaning from theism.

So if we take all belief in God away, atheism becomes meaningless because it depends on others believing in God, but if atheism becomes meaningless, does that effect theism? Not one bit. Theism is the stronger position on which atheism relies upon and atheists themselves are evidence of this truth.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So in order for there to be atheism, there must first be theism. Which means atheism derives its meaning from theism.

I see a light bulb turning on in your head.

So if we take all belief in God away, atheism becomes meaningless

It's not strictly meaningless, unless perhaps knowledge of god-belief was taken away as well, but you're right that no one would care about atheism at that point.

but if atheism becomes meaningless does that effect theism? Not one bit.

How would atheism become meaningless if theism exists?

Theism is the stronger position on which atheism relies upon and atheists themselves are evidence of this truth.

None of that means that "theism is the stronger position", nor does this establish the truth of theism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So in order for there to be atheism, there must first be theism. Which means atheism derives its meaning from theism.

So if we take all belief in God away, atheism becomes meaningless because it depends on others believing in God, but if atheism becomes meaningless, does that effect theism? Not one bit. Theism is the stronger position on which atheism relies upon and atheists themselves are evidence of this truth.

Didn't you present this idea previously in another thread?

 

[Chriliman]

I see a light bulb turning on in your head.



It's not strictly meaningless, unless perhaps knowledge of god-belief was taken away as well, but you're right that no one would care about atheism at that point.



How would atheism become meaningless if theism exists?



None of that means that "theism is the stronger position", nor does this establish the truth of theism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

As long as there are atheists there will be evidence that atheism relies upon theism, which means theism is the stronger position(whether you think it's true or not). If you deny this, then you deny clear evidence. Denying clear evidence is only something an irrational person would do, you don't seem irrational to me.

 

[Chriliman]

Didn't you present this idea previously in another thread?

Possibly. I have a lot of logical ideas that point to the truth of God. I can't force anyone to accept them as logical though, but I can explain them in different logical ways.