I am an atheist!

[Worldquest]

Sometimes when debating god, it can hard to understand quite where the other person is coming from, and what they're actually trying to say. The concept of god is not quite the same as everyday concepts that we come across. I get asked questions all the time, and I'm asked to explain myself often. It can be hard for me to get my point across, and a bit frustrating to be honest. The fact that I'm not too familiar with the terminology doesn't help. What I believe makes so much sense to me yet there's a chasm between my understanding and yours.

So now, I'm an atheist, and you are a theist. I'm going to argue for atheism in order to get into your head, and you're going to argue for theism, to get into my head. Hopefully, as I argue for atheism, I'll begin to "get it", and hopefully, you'll understand what I've so far been trying express. You may still disagree, but at least you'll understand.

I don't know if there's a name for this type of debate, but it doesn't matter, let's try it out and see where it goes.

 

[e2iPi]

I don't know if there's a name for this type of debate, but it doesn't matter, let's try it out and see where it goes.
Sometimes when debating god, it can hard to understand quite where the other person is coming from, and what they're actually trying to say. The concept of god is not quite the same as everyday concepts that we come across. I get asked questions all the time, and I'm asked to explain myself often. It can be hard for me to get my point across, and a bit frustrating to be honest. The fact that I'm not too familiar with the terminology doesn't help. What I believe makes so much sense to me yet there's a chasm between my understanding and yours.

So now, I'm an atheist, and you are a theist. I'm going to argue for atheism in order to get into your head, and you're going to argue for theism, to get into my head. Hopefully, as I argue for atheism, I'll begin to "get it", and hopefully, you'll understand what I've so far been trying express. You may still disagree, but at least you'll understand.

Excellent concept. I'd be happy to take the opposing viewpoint--having been a theist myself, I feel I am probably qualified to take the opposing viewpoint without resorting to the straw-men so often thrown about by atheists arguing from the theistic point of view.

I will begin with the simple statement that God is logically necessary as the original uncaused cause. The atheist viewpoint is fundamentally flawed by ignoring this fact.

-1

 

[JustBusiness17]

"God is perfect, it says so in the bible"

 

[Squawk]

Sorry, but confused.

Theism is a positive claim, atheism being the lack of acceptance of such a claim. Every argument in favour of theism boils down to pleading.

So, an argument "from the other side" as it were, would simply be arguing from a faith position. It's not possible to argue such a position coherently. You can suspend a given belief in order to argue against it, or you can critique a particular belief until it no longer stands up to scrutiny. You can't critique a non-belief by any means other than providing evidence in favour of the positive claim, or by resorting to faith.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Having been a christian and now an atheist, I can't say that I have very good arguments for God that would stand inquiery, if I did I would probably not have become an atheist in the first place.
I could try and argue better for a pantheistic God altough it will fall one leg short.

But here is my attempt:

1. The world is not what it seams to be, it is a place the soul (the disembodied mind) to mature
2. The world is made in such away as to adapt to the logical development of the mind so that it does not apear inherently contradictory and an obvious fabrication. This is done in such away as to correct aparent contardictions while acomodating for the previous experience in away as to apear that the status quo has allways remainded the same. (Ex. When you were young it apeared that the world was flat and that the sun used to go arround the earth, given that it would mean that the sun would have at somepoint intersect the earth. Given this problem the world readjust so that earth is now spherical but extremely big as to apear that it is flat, the fact that you believed before that it was otherwise can be explained due to your imaturity and that what it seams is not exactly what it is, people will start to talk about acient history of similar beliefs not only to have a rectroactive reenforcement but also to better acomodate for the premiss that people can be decieved).
3. The aparent sufering in the world is caused because of the acomodation given 2, but that isn't malevolent as this sufering people are in fact puppets without a disembodied mind of their own (like robots faking it; excelent acting performance), unlike other peers.
4. The histories in the bible, all true, but because of 2 the world has readapt as to apear as if that was a complete fabrication all along, but none the less they have achieved their purpouse on teaching a moral lesson.
5. After enough time and on the moment that we should have died (caused by 2), the world will colapse due to a fundamental contradiction that you can not be both dead and a disembodied mind thus terminating the program and be established as fully mature for this stage. An "after life" (being an after life only due to the notion of life created by 2 on this version of reality) then follows on a different stage.
6. God is the one that does all this.

What i tried to do here, is create an alternative version of reality that tries to acomodate for theistic beliefs with what we see from reality. The argument may not be well constructed, most of you will probably be able to shot it down, but then again that was not unexpected.

 

[MRaverz]

Personally, this would be incredibly hard because it would require me to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Worldquest]

I don't see the problem. It's simple, pretend to be a theist, and argue a theist's side like you mean it. If you have to lie, lie. And vice versa.

It's easy, watch...


I'm an atheist because it just seems ridiculous to me that there should be in existence anything that can't be observed. If something exists, it must be observable. I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste god, and I can't sense any supposed effect or symptom of god with any of those senses. Tools made through technological advances haven't managed to sense anything either. So the only reasonable thing to do is wait and see, and until then, for the time being, doubt.

But theists are always telling me that god isn't the same as everything else, so it isn't necessarily subject to scrutiny in the same way as anything else. They tell me that god isn't like a person, and so god has no need to feel acknowledged and so doesn't need to show himself.

I understand all that but it still leaves the problem of evidence. There is none! As far as I can see the only way to somehow be able to conceive of a god is through philosophy. Perhaps, just maybe, god can be theoretically or logically "proven" but I'm not an expert on philosopy so I stick to what I know, and what I'm interested in, which is science, because science is able to give me answers.

Maybe if I learned more about philosophy and tried to get my head around certain ideas, I don't know, maybe if I shifted my mindset, if I took a step back, looked at everything holistically as I'm constantly told by theists, maybe I would perceive some possibility at least of a creator.

The problem I have with that is this : I already have a handy way of looking at things which yields results. Science.

Why bring anything else into the mix? Why spoil things? Occam's Razor and all that. I'm so happy that I found out about Occam's Razor. Phew.

Anyway, back to the lab. Lots of work to do, but first let me finish off that can of worms, sorry I mean spaghetti. This science stuff really gives you an appetite.

 

[e2iPi]

Sorry, but confused.

Theism is a positive claim, atheism being the lack of acceptance of such a claim. Every argument in favour of theism boils down to pleading.

So, an argument "from the other side" as it were, would simply be arguing from a faith position. It's not possible to argue such a position coherently. You can suspend a given belief in order to argue against it, or you can critique a particular belief until it no longer stands up to scrutiny. You can't critique a non-belief by any means other than providing evidence in favour of the positive claim, or by resorting to faith.

This is the point I was sort of hoping he would get to on his own. I find that the force of an argument is much greater when you reach it yourself.

And your British spellings make little red squiggles in my editor

-1

 

[MRaverz]

Sorry, but confused.

Theism is a positive claim, atheism being the lack of acceptance of such a claim. Every argument in favour of theism boils down to pleading.

So, an argument "from the other side" as it were, would simply be arguing from a faith position. It's not possible to argue such a position coherently. You can suspend a given belief in order to argue against it, or you can critique a particular belief until it no longer stands up to scrutiny. You can't critique a non-belief by any means other than providing evidence in favour of the positive claim, or by resorting to faith.

This is the point I was sort of hoping he would get to on his own. I find that the force of an argument is much greater when you reach it yourself.

And your correct spellings make little red squiggles in my editor

-1

Fixed.

 

[MRaverz]

I don't see the problem. It's simple, pretend to be a theist, and argue a theist's side like you mean it. If you have to lie, lie. And vice versa.

It's easy, watch...


I'm an atheist because you need a reason to agree with a claim. Without a reason, you must deny the claim.

Fixed.

 

[Baranduin]

That's the problem I see: you just aspirate to characterize a caricature. You cannot even do a good misrepresentation. Ok, I'll suppose you're aware of that, so let's go with what you got wrong.

I'm an atheist because it just seems ridiculous to me that there should be in existence anything that can't be observed. If something exists, it must be observable. I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste god, and I can't sense any supposed effect or symptom of god with any of those senses. Tools made through technological advances haven't managed to sense anything either. So the only reasonable thing to do is wait and see, and until then, for the time being, doubt.

Uh, no. Things outside the observable universe are, by definition, non-observable, but no sane scientist would deny their existence in base of that. This is just a strawman.

But theists are always telling me that god isn't the same as everything else, so it isn't necessarily subject to scrutiny in the same way as anything else. They tell me that god isn't like a person, and so god has no need to feel acknowledged and so doesn't need to show himself.

I understand all that but it still leaves the problem of evidence. There is none!

The problem isn't that there is no evidence. The problem is that God, or god, is not required as hypothesis. Certainly, if there was direct evidence we'd acknowledge that god exists, but direct evidence could be not required if enough indirect evidence were provided to support a model - falsable, testable, scientific - where God is an essential part - even if there's no evidence of Him.

As far as I can see the only way to somehow be able to conceive of a god is through philosophy.

That only if you accept metaphysics or theology as a valid field of knowledge. Not every one does, for the reasons expressed in the previous paragraph.

Perhaps, just maybe, god can be theoretically or logically "proven"

And that would be meaningless unless you can provide empirical evidence to back up those claims.

but I'm not an expert on philosopy so I stick to what I know, and what I'm interested in, which is science, because science is able to give me answers.

Maybe if I learned more about philosophy and tried to get my head around certain ideas,

You're being oblivious of philosophers like Daniel Dennett. Also, you seem to think that philosophy can provide answers that we, atheists, ignore, because we haven't looked at them. News for you: some atheist have done so. Some atheists ARE philosophers. With academic credentials. They've learned about philosophy and get their heads around certain ideas. And they've found them to be largely irrelevant. and in some cases, just plain bullshit.

I don't know, maybe if I shifted my mindset, if I took a step back, looked at everything holistically as I'm constantly told by theists, maybe I would perceive some possibility at least of a creator.

I don't know, perhaps if you put the God Glasses unto yourself you'd see it. And of course if you looked at everything conspiranoically you would see conspirations everywhere. If you use your bias to look at the world, you're in a runabout situation. Rational atheism intends to look at the world. Period.

Also, most theists don't and didn't defend a holistic position. Why should we give preference to a "holistic point of view" over any other?

The problem I have with that is this : I already have a handy way of looking at things which yields results. Science.

Yeah... so in this moment of sarcasm you've got... you're defending that we should expend time and resources in something that doesn't yield results?

Why would someone waste time or resources in something with no guaranteed results? Why wouldn't someone want to know if the time and resources they're investing are being effective?


Oh, wait, dogma.

 

[Worldquest]

Baranduin -

Ok. But this isn't a debate like the others. Come on, be a theist, it's fun. Suspend your disbelief and argue my side.

 

[Baranduin]

Baranduin -

Ok. But this isn't a debate like the others. Come on, be a theist, it's fun. Suspend your disbelief and argue my side.

And how are you thinking to learn what's wrong with your position? We already understand the arguments for religion: we've contemplated them - some of us were raised and educated in them -, and we've rejected them. We know the most convincing arguments, and know why they are bullshit - and how theists answers our criticisms, and how to answer those. Some of us have posed as theists, not in a thread in a forum, but in our everyday lives for some time. Some of them perhaps are still doing it.
On the other hand, you may not understand the arguments to reject a god - any kind of god. So you're going to be exposed to arguments we know to be convincing, while lacking the knowledge, training and understanding to effectively debunk them.
So there's a big asymmetry here, if you decide to play the game under those rules. We have an advantage (a very big one) you don't have.

In the best scenario, you're going to learn to argue like an atheist, using the most common arguments and expressions, but without real understanding. In that case, you'll be just a pantomime of what an atheist is supposed to be - you would have achieved nothing, since you won't know where and why a given argument fails.

The worst scenario is that with this sort of an exercise we'll be reinforcing you're own prejudices and bias every time you find an argument you cannot refute. Again, nothing is to gain here, since you still would not have even a slim idea of the atheist mindset.



An example is this last post: most theists with an interest to defend their religion - or perhaps just trash atheists - would have agreed with it. What does it prove? Nothing, it was just a very big misrepresentation done with a poor understanding of the atheist arguments. So the other participants, in their role of believers, would just have to agree with you. What's gained? Two mischaracterizations, and you never having got the chance to get the main idea.

So that's my point. The exercise is just futile, since you're not going to be able to defend coherently a position you don't understand. Sooner or later you'll commit a mistake, or an internal inconsistency. If you cannot be corrected - because that's the nature of this post -, how would you learn?


Go out there, learn the arguments, debate for your own side if you want, read the literature, and once you understand why is parsimony applied and why supernatural things either don't exist or are irrelevant - and, to make it clear, I won't care if you believe in supernatural things as long as you understand why I don't -, then we'll play all the games you want.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Can I just say this is going to end as a sarcastic shit throwing contest where nobody knows who is being serious and who is trying to fix someone's careless errors. I almost tossed my computer out the window after reading this:

I'm an atheist because it just seems ridiculous to me that there should be in existence anything that can't be observed. If something exists, it must be observable. I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste god, and I can't sense any supposed effect or symptom of god with any of those senses. Tools made through technological advances haven't managed to sense anything either. So the only reasonable thing to do is wait and see, and until then, for the time being, doubt.

I couldn't read any further because I'm too tempted to start debunking...

 

[Ozymandyus]

I don't see the problem. It's simple, pretend to be a theist, and argue a theist's side like you mean it. If you have to lie, lie. And vice versa.

It's easy, watch...


I'm an atheist because it just seems ridiculous to me that there should be in existence anything that can't be observed. If something exists, it must be observable. I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste god, and I can't sense any supposed effect or symptom of god with any of those senses. Tools made through technological advances haven't managed to sense anything either. So the only reasonable thing to do is wait and see, and until then, for the time being, doubt.

But theists are always telling me that god isn't the same as everything else, so it isn't necessarily subject to scrutiny in the same way as anything else. They tell me that god isn't like a person, and so god has no need to feel acknowledged and so doesn't need to show himself.

I understand all that but it still leaves the problem of evidence. There is none! As far as I can see the only way to somehow be able to conceive of a god is through philosophy. Perhaps, just maybe, god can be theoretically or logically "proven" but I'm not an expert on philosopy so I stick to what I know, and what I'm interested in, which is science, because science is able to give me answers.

Maybe if I learned more about philosophy and tried to get my head around certain ideas, I don't know, maybe if I shifted my mindset, if I took a step back, looked at everything holistically as I'm constantly told by theists, maybe I would perceive some possibility at least of a creator.

The problem I have with that is this : I already have a handy way of looking at things which yields results. Science.

Why bring anything else into the mix? Why spoil things? Occam's Razor and all that. I'm so happy that I found out about Occam's Razor. Phew.

The problem here is that this isn't an honest attempt - this is a total caricature, very akin to the poster above who said: "I believe in God because the bible tells me to." You are not putting yourself into an atheists shoes - you are putting yourself into the shoes of a strawman. You are not making an honest argument from an atheists point of view at all, which is why we have to debunk you. And by the way I AM an expert on philosophy (well, a master anyway) and god CANNOT be theoretically or logically proven unless you greatly stretch the meaning of the word God to something beyond any reasonable definition. And indeed I have many friends who are experts on philosophy and only one out of 10 believes in God at all. So stop it with your backhanded and ridiculous claims to be 'pretending to be an atheist' when you are really just bashing atheism.

But I am more than willing to take the side of a believer in a way that I feel is intellectually honest. The truth is simply that I do not know 100% whether there is a God or not, nor do any of us. There are many versions of Gods that I could believe exist: but in order to meet the strictest classifications of God I will describe one that is all-powerful, purposefully endeavored to create humans in his image, is all-loving - qualities which many atheists believe to be contradictory and impossible. Here goes:

I believe that God created the universe, designing the elementary laws and particles in such a way that life with intelligence and something resembling free will would eventually arise. He made this universe so that human level intelligence would be different, a new convergence of the elementary laws that allows for an explosion in the scope of the universe's capabilities. He loved these beings most of all, loved watching them struggle to grasp his laws, to overcome their surroundings and their limitations, impressed by their resourcefulness and ability to compensate for their many weaknesses. Even in their cruelty and misunderstanding he loved them, he understood how they could be misled, how they could feel forced to defend what they think is right, how they could create weapons to protect but also to destroy. He knew he could stop them, but he also knew that would destroy a part of them - their journey towards understanding was their most thrilling task, the whole task of the billions of years that preceded them. By telling them what to do it would destroy what they are: instruments made to search for truth. Knowing the truth would take away their purpose.

And when their bodies could no longer be a part of his universe, could no longer participate in the search for the truth, He brings their essence, everything that made up their understanding of His universe to him, and lets them see their world as he sees it: full of hate but with ever growing love and understanding, full of ignorance, but moving towards knowledge. This last step, the sudden jump towards truth and understanding, can be truly traumatic or ecstactic depending on your life/understanding. If you were a person that always reveled in and sought truth and understanding and sought to make the world a better place, it will be joyful. If you believe you knew the truth about everything and found out that most of it was wrong, it would be incredibly painful.

I believe in this God because the universe's beginnings are not readily graspable, and while there are other possible explanations of how this universe came about, this one makes the most sense to me. It allows me to live a life where I can both explore all the beauty and wonder of this world and try to make it as wonderful as possible which I believe is my God-given goal (written by him on the universe and upon human nature) but hold out hope that in some way the end of my journey through this universe will not be the end of my consciousness.

Now the truth is, I don't believe any of this. The question of where the universe comes from is ultimately applicable to God too, and the answer that God created this universe simply begs the question. But it is certainly possible.

But this is a theist depiction of God I can accept: as long as they don't claim to have some revealed knowledge or special connection that privileges them to his divine will.. Because any god that is willing to intervene in daily life simply makes no sense when you look at this world and all that could be done by a being with infinite power. If he doesn't care enough about free-will to keep from intervening in a believer's thoughts or by writing on tablets or setting bushes on fire or appearing in the sky above a bunch of children - why would he not care enough to stop volcanoes and oil spills and mass murderers? Those are the theists I argue against - I don't care about people on a quest for understanding who appeal to God to fill in the gaps of their understanding, or use him as a crutch for speaking about the zeitgeist or the human endeavor or however it is you use God as a concept. As long as they still search! If God is in those gaps, you should be looking there for the truth even harder, to try to understand his mysteries.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Can I just say this is going to end as a sarcastic shit throwing contest where nobody knows who is being serious and who is trying to fix someone's careless errors. I almost tossed my computer out the window after reading this:

I'm an atheist because it just seems ridiculous to me that there should be in existence anything that can't be observed. If something exists, it must be observable. I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste god, and I can't sense any supposed effect or symptom of god with any of those senses. Tools made through technological advances haven't managed to sense anything either. So the only reasonable thing to do is wait and see, and until then, for the time being, doubt.

I couldn't read any further because I'm too tempted to start debunking...

I agree: his little attempt to think like an atheist was ridiculous thing I've ever read, and is the furthest thing from an honest attempt I've seen since Edward Current. Edward Current doesn't claim to be honestly trying to represent theists, he states upfront that he is doing satire... Now world's attempt may be a bit less satirical, but no less blatantly obvious in which side he is REALLY on with his 'if only i would sit down and think about the universe philosophically i might realize that maybe there is a god' silliness. I probably shouldn't have honored it with an honest response, but oh well.

 

[Asrahn]

Sometimes when debating god, it can hard to understand quite where the other person is coming from, and what they're actually trying to say. The concept of god is not quite the same as everyday concepts that we come across. I get asked questions all the time, and I'm asked to explain myself often. It can be hard for me to get my point across, and a bit frustrating to be honest. The fact that I'm not too familiar with the terminology doesn't help. What I believe makes so much sense to me yet there's a chasm between my understanding and yours.

So now, I'm an atheist, and you are a theist. I'm going to argue for atheism in order to get into your head, and you're going to argue for theism, to get into my head. Hopefully, as I argue for atheism, I'll begin to "get it", and hopefully, you'll understand what I've so far been trying express. You may still disagree, but at least you'll understand.

I don't know if there's a name for this type of debate, but it doesn't matter, let's try it out and see where it goes.

For denying the supremacy and not offering anything as tribute to the gods, and your disinclination to die valiantly in battle, you shall be cast down into Niflheim - left to suffer the coldest of climates for all eternity. Let it be known that you are not amongst the einherjar, and that the gates of Valhalla shall be closed to you forever. You shall never have the opportunity to drink the sweetest of mead, nor gorge in the best of meat. Your remaining existence shall be a meek, empty one, and you will not have the honor of fighting by the side of the gods, at the end of times.


Now, this hardly seems as an argument, but most theists I've come across usually just tell me exactly how much I'm going to burn in hell.

 

[tangoen]

I have a question for the atheist out there. you almost always seem to describe atheism as a lack of belief and this is something i understand . But how come you all seem to be so adamant about the fact that the universe had no creator. I'm not saying "god" as it implies a man made creation. I'm just trying to say some indescribable omnipotent entity could exist and there is no proving it one way or another. So why do atheists "believe" there was no possibility of a greater entity. Wouldn't the lack of belief mean you'd have to say you don't know and so far there is no way of knowing. Maybe I don't fully understand what atheism is.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I have a question for the atheist out there. you almost always seem to describe atheism as a lack of belief and this is something i understand . But how come you all seem to be so adamant about the fact that the universe had no creator. I'm not saying "god" as it implies a man made creation. I'm just trying to say some indescribable omnipotent entity could exist and there is no proving it one way or another. So why do atheists "believe" there was no possibility of a greater entity. Wouldn't the lack of belief mean you'd have to say you don't know and so far there is no way of knowing. Maybe I don't fully understand what atheism is.

Can God crate a Rock so big that even he himself can't lift it?

 

[Unwardil]

Yes, saying you're an atheist is taking the stance of 'If there isn't a good reason to believe in something, I admit that I don't know'

Arguing against theism is generally taking the stance 'How is it the superior position to posit a belief that cannot possibly be true rather than admitting one's ignorance on the matter'