There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[DogmaHunter]

Just as Boggosian misrepresent the definition of faith to create a strawman, he misdefines the definition of atheism in a ill-conceived attempt to avoid the appearance of a knowledge claim.

As Randall Rouser points out in the fifth installment of his whithering critique of Boggosian's "Manual for Creating Atheists,"

"Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2003), Julian Baggini defines atheism as “the belief that there is no God or gods.” (3) The “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” defines atheism as “the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” Countless other standard reference works (e.g. Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy) reproduce the same basic definition. And a consultation of that l’enfant terrible of encyclopedias, Wikipedia, yields the following: “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”

Just about all atheists on this site define their atheism as being a simply disbelief of theistic claims, while acknowledging that it would be irrational to make the factual claim that gods do NOT exist (since that can't be supported either, being a negative unfalsifiable claim and all....)

Why can't you just accept that? Why must you insist on telling all these people that they are "wrong" about what they believe and that you somehow know better then them what they believe and don't believe?

I just don't see the merrit of your "efforts".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I haveput great effort and research into helping atheists articulate their knowledge claims.

Maybe, just maybe, you should not try and tell people what their claims are. Especially not while all those people keep on telling you that they aren't making those claims.

I have pointed them to resources and specific examples of arguments.

And a lot of us have replied that we don't agree with those arguments and claims and resources.

But you simply can not accept it, it seems. You insist on telling us what we believe and claim, for some reason. One can only wonder why.

I'm am forced to ignore those who consistently demonstrate propaganda rather than engagement.

Says the guy who's on a propaganda crusade against the word "atheist".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Strange, I posted some of the best resources in support of atheist claims days ago and no "likes" from the likes of atheists.

Perhaps take a hint.

I posted arguments from two of these resources yesterday, still no "likes" from atheists.
Wonder why?

Read the replies and stop pretending that you know better then us what we believe and don't believe or claim and don't claim.

Theists out here, atheism could be true

BZZZZZT

For atheism to be able to be "true" or "false", it needs to include claims - which it doesn't.

Theism can be "true" or "false".
An atheist is someone who doesn't accept theism as true.

despite the inability of atheists to demonstrate any justification of their claims

What claims?
Ow, you mean the ones that YOU insist on us making, while we keep telling you that we don't make them?

Yeah, I don't need justifications for claims that you are only pretending that I'm making.

William Lane Craig routinely takes the New Atheists apart systematically.

Somehow, I'm not surprised that you are a fan of that dishonest professional debater.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Making your alternative inference an argument from ignorance (Atheism of the gaps).

What does the sciences concerning the origins of the universe have to do with theistic claims?

Both scientists (field of cosmogony) and philosophers recognize the a sufficient cause is needed to create time ,space,matter, energy.

Two reasons are generally discussed:

How can nothing, no space, no time, no laws of nature, no matter, no energy, produce anything?

Who says that if you remove the univere, that "nothing" is left?
(nothing as in "nothingness")

Stop faking that you understand the science.

I'ld say that nobody understands this science - not even the best scientists around.
I mean, you are aware that physics simply breaks down at T = 0, right?
You are aware that quantum physics and classical physics, don't really play along nicely, right?

You are aware that there currently is no proper theory on the origins of the universe / big bang, right?

The best we have at this point, is some loosely informed speculation.

Do the research and ask whynEinstein and Edington, Holye and their peers were so frantic about the philosophical ramifications of the Big Bang theory? Why they spent their careers driving towards eliminating a theory that had a beginning?

Myeah, I don't really care about their motivations or beliefs, when discussing their scientific work. It's the results that matter and what they could and could not support with evidence.

Option 2- skip the research,misrepresent your knowledge by using Pseudoscientific terms and keep up with the new atheist propaganda instead of engaging the evidence.

Again a bit at a loss concerning what theistic claims have to do with the frontiers of scientific knowledge in fields like physics and cosmology...

I would be stunned if any atheist/agnostic chose option 1 on this forum.

Why?

 

[Dave RP]

I haveput great effort and research into helping atheists articulate their knowledge claims. I have pointed them to resources and specific examples of arguments. I have also responded that instead of assuming atheists don't have any coherent arguments due to New Atheist propaganda, that Christians should familiarize themselves with sound atheistic and agnostic arguments.

Yet the New Atheism is strong with several out here. It is an inpenetratable shield set against reason, research,mane discussion. It is a fundamentalists atheism that refuses to reason and relies, as all fundamentalists do, on propaganda.

Instead we see efforts to misrepresent philosophy, logic, history, and basic definitions in pseudo intellectual replies (that don't fool anyone who has had one semester of college).

I'm am forced to ignore those who consistently demonstrate propaganda rather than engagement.

Speaking personally I find your posts condescending and over complicated. We are not engaging in a degree course in philosophy, it's a chat forum. I don't think it is right that you berate people for not following your links to articles, or that you insist that we do a level of research to satisfy you before we join in the discussion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So still haven't spent 30 seconds looking up the difference between belief and knowledge.

(A)theism pertains to beliefs, not to knowledge.

The atheist were supposed to be the bastions of reason against foolish and intellectually bereft Christians. Yet I can't get a single atheist out here who will do 30-seconds of research.

I don't see why I should do any "research" to know what my position is concerning theistic claims.

I just get a stream of propaganda.

You are the one who is spamming "resources" while insisting that they reflect our opinions and beliefs, instead of just listening to what we have to say.

So far the Christian is the only one on this thread to provide any arguments in support of the atheistic knowledge claim.

Atheism is not a knowledge claim. It's just a position on theistic claims. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[KCfromNC]

The atheist were supposed to be the bastions of reason against foolish and intellectually bereft Christians. Yet I can't get a single atheist out here who will do 30-seconds of research.

This should lead to a bit of contemplation about the continued failings of your particular approach to this subject.

 

[KCfromNC]

Since the atheist/seekers are struggling to understand the difference between "Knowing" and "Beleiving"

Objection - assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[KCfromNC]

...but Uber, don't you know that math and science "works" and that is all the knowledge we need?

At least it is actual knowledge instead of a product of philosophy. Perhaps people would pay more attention to the esoteric stuff coming from philosophy if people defending it didn't pretend that an approach working was some sort of pejorative.

 

[KCfromNC]

I haveput great effort and research into helping atheists articulate their knowledge claims.

Claims? The only knowledge claim an atheist needs to make is "I know that I don't believe in any gods".

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't see why I should do any "research" to know what my position is concerning theistic claims.

I get the feeling that to some, philosophy is like stamp collecting. Or maybe more like a card game. It mistakes learning what opinions that various old dead white dudes had with actually learning things about how reality workd. "Oh, you played Kant? Well, I have Heidegger giving a 2x multiplier to Wittgenstein and Pikachu, therefore your ideas about the nature of reality are wrong". When you view thinking this way, it must be tough to understand why some people are more concerned with things that "work" rather than collecting new cards to play.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I get the feeling that to some, philosophy is like stamp collecting. Or maybe more like a card game. It mistakes learning what opinions that various old dead white dudes had with actually learning things about how reality workd. "Oh, you played Kant? Well, I have Heidegger giving a 2x multiplier to Wittgenstein and Pikachu, therefore your ideas about the nature of reality are wrong". When you view thinking this way, it must be tough to understand why some people are more concerned with things that "work" rather than collecting new cards to play.

Interesting analogy

I hear ya....

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I get the feeling that to some, philosophy is like stamp collecting. Or maybe more like a card game. It mistakes learning what opinions that various old dead white dudes had with actually learning things about how reality workd. "Oh, you played Kant? Well, I have Heidegger giving a 2x multiplier to Wittgenstein and Pikachu, therefore your ideas about the nature of reality are wrong". When you view thinking this way, it must be tough to understand why some people are more concerned with things that "work" rather than collecting new cards to play.

The more I study Philosophy, the more I'm annoyed by most of its practitioners. They're like people who fancy themselves experts in music theory, and then when they pick up an instrument are absolutely horrible at it.

Philosophy can be a very powerful tool in helping to navigate your life, but at the point at which you can't see the forest for the trees, well...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The more I study Philosophy, the more I'm annoyed by most of its practitioners. They're like people who fancy themselves experts in music theory, and then when they pick up an instrument are absolutely horrible at it.

Philosophy can be a very powerful tool in helping to navigate your life, but at the point at which you can't see the forest for the trees, well...

...thanks for the lesson on Philosophy, Todd. I can see you'll make a good philosopher. (Because, that IS what you've just done here...a bit of philosophy.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I get the feeling that to some, philosophy is like stamp collecting. Or maybe more like a card game. It mistakes learning what opinions that various old dead white dudes had with actually learning things about how reality workd. "Oh, you played Kant? Well, I have Heidegger giving a 2x multiplier to Wittgenstein and Pikachu, therefore your ideas about the nature of reality are wrong". When you view thinking this way, it must be tough to understand why some people are more concerned with things that "work" rather than collecting new cards to play.

...thanks for the lesson on Philosophy, KC. I can see that you, too, will make a good philosopher. (Because, that IS what you've just done here...a bit of philosophy.)

 

[bhsmte]

The more I study Philosophy, the more I'm annoyed by most of its practitioners. They're like people who fancy themselves experts in music theory, and then when they pick up an instrument are absolutely horrible at it.

Philosophy can be a very powerful tool in helping to navigate your life, but at the point at which you can't see the forest for the trees, well...

IMO, a common theme with many in philosophy, is they try too hard and think they are smarter than they actually are.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...thanks for the lesson on Philosophy, Todd. I can see you'll make a good philosopher. (Because, that IS what you've just done here...a bit of philosophy.)

Oh, I know I'M good at it...

 

[Silmarien]

I really do not understand this idea that atheism is a "lack of belief." It seems like an intellectually dishonest attempt to win a debate by refusing to engage at all. I have always thought it best to distinguish between atheism and non-theism as positions for the sake of clarity--by watering down the definition of "atheism," you're really just making the conversation more difficult. And making atheists look too uninformed to have any opinion at all, frankly. There's really nothing wrong with saying you don't believe! Bon courage, incroyants !

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Thoughts and thanks

Lack of evidence for god...

Other than that, it sounds like you want people to prove a negative claim. That's not how reality works. For example...

Suppose, hypothetically, that someone claimed you were a murderer (positive claim) and all sorts of people believed it even without any evidence like a body, or murder weapon, or anything.

How would you go about proving that you aren't a murderer (the negative claim)?

That's why we don't put it on you to prove a negative claim...such a thing could be completely impossible. It's up to the person making the positive claim (there is a god) to prove their position.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I really do not understand this idea that atheism is a "lack of belief." It seems like an intellectually dishonest attempt to win a debate by refusing to engage at all.

Or... now stay with me here... it could be the intellectually honest position to take when you don't have evidence that X is true, and you don't have evidence that X isn't true...

Personally, what I find dishonest is the insistence on shoehorning someone into a definition they wouldn't agree with for the sole purpose of avoiding the burden of proof.

I have always thought it best to distinguish between atheism and non-theism as positions for the sake of clarity--by watering down the definition of "atheism," you're really just making the conversation more difficult.

Or you could start out by asking what definition someone is using when they call themselves an atheist. I have the distinctions I agree with in my signature. They're exceedingly common distinctions, as you can find countless examples of the chart I'm using throughout the web.

Maybe all the atheists here that agree with the distinctions I'm using should put this graphic in their signatures as well. I think you'll find it's most, if not all, of us.

And making atheists look too uninformed to have any opinion at all, frankly. There's really nothing wrong with saying you don't believe! Bon courage, incroyants !

Yes, I lack belief. I don't believe any god propositions that have been proposed to me, perhaps barring volcano gods or some such. But I am not saying that I believe no gods exist, unless someone wants to posit a god that's a married bachelor. That god, I will go on record saying, does not exist.