Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are some arguments for atheism?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:23:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

Do you assume Zeus and Apollo do not exist?
Do you have any valid arguments for or against their existence?

Mythical stories about any gods are not valid evidence for or against their existence.

If there is no evidence of tooth fairies can you rationally take a position on whether a tooth fairy does or doesn't exist?

If you can how do you go about rationally determining tooth fairies don't exist?
Apply the same rational argument for any gods.

Why believe one God is real and all the rest are mythical when there is no more evidence for God than there is for gods?

Is one tooth fairy real and the rest mythical?
snkcake666
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:37:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Well realistically, neither atheism nor religion have a substantial argument concerning their matters, since neither have empirical proof which states the other as incorrect. If you notice, the vast majority of religious debates come down to the validity of their "holy books", but rarely do these arguments concern the philosophical existence of a god him/herself. This is also why the debate between atheism and religion is interminable, since neither side can just admit that there is no evidence which can support either claim.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 12:43:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

I like to think of atheism more so as a rejection of theism, or a rejection of the claim that there is a deity. For me, atheists aren't making the claim; it's the theists. Once enough evidence presents itself for the existence of a deity, I would happily become a theist. But up until that point, I remain an atheist. Now, if we want to get into technicalities, I would be an agnostic atheist, as I don't know whether there is a deity of not, but I think that there is no deity. Also, if there isn't any evidence that a deity exists, why would you take a theistic side (I assume)? For me, it hinges on the absurdity of there being an omnipotent, omniscient, and (sometimes) omnibenevolent being in the sky that rewards you if you believe in him and damns you if you don't.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:24:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:23:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

Do you assume Zeus and Apollo do not exist?
Do you have any valid arguments for or against their existence?

Mythical stories about any gods are not valid evidence for or against their existence.

If there is no evidence of tooth fairies can you rationally take a position on whether a tooth fairy does or doesn't exist?

If you can how do you go about rationally determining tooth fairies don't exist?
Apply the same rational argument for any gods.

Why believe one God is real and all the rest are mythical when there is no more evidence for God than there is for gods?

Is one tooth fairy real and the rest mythical?
Your inability to understand you consistently make false analogy fallacies never ceases to astound.
DunderDwight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:32:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:23:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

Do you assume Zeus and Apollo do not exist?
Do you have any valid arguments for or against their existence?

It depends on how you define Zeus or Apollo. Of you define Zeus as some lightning-wielding deity then no, namely because we have evidence of absence. Same goes for Apollo depending on how it is defined.


Mythical stories about any gods are not valid evidence for or against their existence.

It depends on what is said in the story. If there was a story about an omnibenevolent God that sometimes acted evilly then the evidence against this god's existence lies in logical absurdity.

If there is no evidence of tooth fairies can you rationally take a position on whether a tooth fairy does or doesn't exist?

If there is no evidence, no. If there is evidence of absence, yes.

If you can how do you go about rationally determining tooth fairies don't exist?
Apply the same rational argument for any gods.

A winged-like female creature that turns teeth into quarters at night. We would expect to see or have some trace of it interacting with reality. Some houses with surveillance systems (which have allegedly been visited by the tooth fairy) show no evidence of it. To date nobody has seen this creature even though it would easily be perceptible by our 5 senses (a winged-like female creature). Since there is repeated empirical verification of no tooth fairy, there is evidence of its absence. Contrast this with a notion of God defined as "transcendent creator of the universe" and you'll quickly see that something which transcends the universe is not of it, and is therefore can't be empirically verified (directly).

Why believe one God is real and all the rest are mythical when there is no more evidence for God than there is for gods?

Occam's razor

Is one tooth fairy real and the rest mythical?

No
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:32:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:37:38 AM, snkcake666 wrote:
Well realistically, neither atheism nor religion have a substantial argument concerning their matters, since neither have empirical proof which states the other as incorrect. If you notice, the vast majority of religious debates come down to the validity of their "holy books", but rarely do these arguments concern the philosophical existence of a god him/herself. This is also why the debate between atheism and religion is interminable, since neither side can just admit that there is no evidence which can support either claim.

What about the debate between atheism and theism? Personally I'm irreligious but believe in God.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:48:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:43:18 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

I like to think of atheism more so as a rejection of theism, or a rejection of the claim that there is a deity. For me, atheists aren't making the claim; it's the theists. Once enough evidence presents itself for the existence of a deity, I would happily become a theist. But up until that point, I remain an atheist. Now, if we want to get into technicalities, I would be an agnostic atheist, as I don't know whether there is a deity of not, but I think that there is no deity. Also, if there isn't any evidence that a deity exists, why would you take a theistic side (I assume)? For me, it hinges on the absurdity of there being an omnipotent, omniscient, and (sometimes) omnibenevolent being in the sky that rewards you if you believe in him and damns you if you don't.

Theism is the position that "God exists". If you reject the proposition "God exists" as untrue or false, then it follows by logical necessity that you are affirming the proposition "God does not exist" is true. You don't know whether there is a deity or not (no one does) but you don't think there is one. The position that you hold is that God doesn't exist. It's rationally unjustifiable to take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. For example, I can assert "a man named Shingoni lives in China." I have no evidence of the claim but my lack of evidence for the claim doesn't mean that a man named Shingoni does NOT live in China. The default position on any claim is to have no position at all. We simply have no position pending further information. I take the theistic side but I believe there's evidence of God. I wanted the discussion to be about what some good arguments were for atheism though. Why must God necessarily be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent rather than just a transcendent creator? I don't see anything inherently contradictory about those characteristics but when applied to the God of the Bible I do.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:50:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

Ok ill try. First I need to preface this with an assertion....
Is existence provable via self affirmation?
Is self affirmation only possible because no human has ever actually experienced it?
Feral children demonstrate that self affirmation, in regards to existence, isn't possible because the idea, word, knowledge of language didn't develop in these humans so self affirmation isn't possible. I.e one cannot claim to themselves without the knowledge of words that one exists. Stay with me I know what you're thinking.....lol
If God exists and is all powerful and created everything that exists eternal to God himself, then that God could in theory "uncreate" all externally existing intelligent minds leaving nothing external to God to affirm Gods existence. Therefore, if God is defined properly and self affirmation in regards to existence isn't possible, then God existing as the only intelligent being would be by definition non existent or incapable of self affirming existence.
Of course God possesses all knowledge so my argument is moot. But, it also implies that God must exist because humans cannot develop language independently of other influences because it is a scientific fact that humans need intelligent minds to feed off of to acquire language. Thus language couldn't have "evolved" in the human brain because it contradicts scientifically proven observations.
I gave it a shot Ben, lmao . I think I actually argued the philosophy known as Emanation.....I really should look that up though it's been a while since I've read it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing
ken1122
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 1:59:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist.

Of course we can; most rational people do it all the time. There is no evidence of the flying spaghetti monster, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume it doesn't exist

Ken
ken1122
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:02:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing

Logic, abstract concepts, free will and evil only exists in our heads; they have no real existence. Now if you want to make the case that God only exists your head, I will concede that point.

Ken
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:03:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:50:28 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

Ok ill try. First I need to preface this with an assertion....
Is existence provable via self affirmation?
Is self affirmation only possible because no human has ever actually experienced it?
Feral children demonstrate that self affirmation, in regards to existence, isn't possible because the idea, word, knowledge of language didn't develop in these humans so self affirmation isn't possible. I.e one cannot claim to themselves without the knowledge of words that one exists. Stay with me I know what you're thinking.....lol
If God exists and is all powerful and created everything that exists eternal to God himself, then that God could in theory "uncreate" all externally existing intelligent minds leaving nothing external to God to affirm Gods existence. Therefore, if God is defined properly and self affirmation in regards to existence isn't possible, then God existing as the only intelligent being would be by definition non existent or incapable of self affirming existence.
Of course God possesses all knowledge so my argument is moot. But, it also implies that God must exist because humans cannot develop language independently of other influences because it is a scientific fact that humans need intelligent minds to feed off of to acquire language. Thus language couldn't have "evolved" in the human brain because it contradicts scientifically proven observations.
I gave it a shot Ben, lmao . I think I actually argued the philosophy known as Emanation.....I really should look that up though it's been a while since I've read it.

You built up the argument then knocked it down lol that's an interesting philosophy,I'll check it out
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:09:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:59:58 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist.

Of course we can; most rational people do it all the time. There is no evidence of the flying spaghetti monster, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume it doesn't exist

Ken

I disagree, Ken. We have evidence of the Spaghetti Monster's absence all the time. Something that has empirical existence (spaghetti) and food products that have qualities of sentience (-monster) are empirically verified as non-existent every day.

Evidence is defined as information indicating whether a proposition is true. "No evidence" literally means there's 0 information available indicating whether a proposition is true. If that's the case, we simply withhold a position on the existence or non-existence of something pending further information.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:16:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:02:36 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing

Logic, abstract concepts, free will and evil only exists in our heads; they have no real existence. Now if you want to make the case that God only exists your head, I will concede that point.

Ken

So it's your position that everything that is non-empirical doesn't exist?
ken1122
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:23:48 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:09:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:59:58 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist.

Of course we can; most rational people do it all the time. There is no evidence of the flying spaghetti monster, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume it doesn't exist

Ken

I disagree, Ken. We have evidence of the Spaghetti Monster's absence all the time. Something that has empirical existence (spaghetti) and food products that have qualities of sentience (-monster) are empirically verified as non-existent every day.


What make you think the Flying Spaghetti monster is food? His followers claim he created the Universe. Food doesn't create the Universe.

Ken
ken1122
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:26:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:16:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:02:36 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing

Logic, abstract concepts, free will and evil only exists in our heads; they have no real existence. Now if you want to make the case that God only exists your head, I will concede that point.

Ken

So it's your position that everything that is non-empirical doesn't exist?
I cannot think of anything non-empirical that exist in any way outside of human thought/imagination; can you?

Ken
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:32:27 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:23:48 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:09:38 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:59:58 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist.

Of course we can; most rational people do it all the time. There is no evidence of the flying spaghetti monster, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume it doesn't exist

Ken

I disagree, Ken. We have evidence of the Spaghetti Monster's absence all the time. Something that has empirical existence (spaghetti) and food products that have qualities of sentience (-monster) are empirically verified as non-existent every day.


What make you think the Flying Spaghetti monster is food? His followers claim he created the Universe. Food doesn't create the Universe.

Ken

Well "Spahgetti" is a food by definition so we can reject it's existence by logical absurdity then.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:33:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:26:15 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:16:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:02:36 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing

Logic, abstract concepts, free will and evil only exists in our heads; they have no real existence. Now if you want to make the case that God only exists your head, I will concede that point.

Ken

So it's your position that everything that is non-empirical doesn't exist?
I cannot think of anything non-empirical that exist in any way outside of human thought/imagination; can you?

Ken

Sure, colors.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,648
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:38:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist.

Perhaps, but it is easy to take a position that the possibility and probability of a God existing is so infinitesimally small, it doesn't require any attention or thought to the matter until some hard evidence makes itself available. Until then, the concept should be shelved along with unicorns and leprechauns.

So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

There doesn't need to be an argument for not accepting the vacuous claims of theists.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:40:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:38:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist.

Perhaps, but it is easy to take a position that the possibility and probability of a God existing is so infinitesimally small, it doesn't require any attention or thought to the matter until some hard evidence makes itself available. Until then, the concept should be shelved along with unicorns and leprechauns.

Do you believe that unicorns and leprechauns exist?

So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

There doesn't need to be an argument for not accepting the vacuous claims of theists.

Indeed. But there does need to be an argument supporting the position that God is non-existent in order to rationally hold that position.
ken1122
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:47:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:33:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:26:15 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:16:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:02:36 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing

Logic, abstract concepts, free will and evil only exists in our heads; they have no real existence. Now if you want to make the case that God only exists your head, I will concede that point.

Ken

So it's your position that everything that is non-empirical doesn't exist?
I cannot think of anything non-empirical that exist in any way outside of human thought/imagination; can you?

Ken

Sure, colors.

Colors are empiracal. Care to try again?

Ken
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:48:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

I don't think there are 'arguments for atheism'. I think there are arguments against theism, or rather criticisms of theistic arguments. Atheism simply emerges as a byproduct of rejecting these arguments.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:50:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:47:23 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:33:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:26:15 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:16:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:02:36 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing

Logic, abstract concepts, free will and evil only exists in our heads; they have no real existence. Now if you want to make the case that God only exists your head, I will concede that point.

Ken

So it's your position that everything that is non-empirical doesn't exist?
I cannot think of anything non-empirical that exist in any way outside of human thought/imagination; can you?

Ken

Sure, colors.

Colors are empiracal. Care to try again?

Ken

Colors are empirical but they don't exist. Colors "only exist in our heads" and "have no real existence". So why should we only take empirical things as existing and non-empirical things as not existing when that logic is false?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:53:01 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:48:03 AM, Axon85 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

I don't think there are 'arguments for atheism'. I think there are arguments against theism, or rather criticisms of theistic arguments. Atheism simply emerges as a byproduct of rejecting these arguments.

If you have any position on whether something exists or doesn't you need some sort of evidence in support of that position. Absence of evidence doesn't count as evidence.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 2:53:23 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:48:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:43:18 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

I like to think of atheism more so as a rejection of theism, or a rejection of the claim that there is a deity. For me, atheists aren't making the claim; it's the theists. Once enough evidence presents itself for the existence of a deity, I would happily become a theist. But up until that point, I remain an atheist. Now, if we want to get into technicalities, I would be an agnostic atheist, as I don't know whether there is a deity of not, but I think that there is no deity. Also, if there isn't any evidence that a deity exists, why would you take a theistic side (I assume)? For me, it hinges on the absurdity of there being an omnipotent, omniscient, and (sometimes) omnibenevolent being in the sky that rewards you if you believe in him and damns you if you don't.

Theism is the position that "God exists". If you reject the proposition "God exists" as untrue or false, then it follows by logical necessity that you are affirming the proposition "God does not exist" is true. You don't know whether there is a deity or not (no one does) but you don't think there is one. The position that you hold is that God doesn't exist. It's rationally unjustifiable to take absence of evidence as evidence of absence. For example, I can assert "a man named Shingoni lives in China." I have no evidence of the claim but my lack of evidence for the claim doesn't mean that a man named Shingoni does NOT live in China. The default position on any claim is to have no position at all. We simply have no position pending further information. I take the theistic side but I believe there's evidence of God. I wanted the discussion to be about what some good arguments were for atheism though. Why must God necessarily be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent rather than just a transcendent creator? I don't see anything inherently contradictory about those characteristics but when applied to the God of the Bible I do.

I would like to ask about the original proposition you stated: God exists, as the position theism takes. I argue that the position of theism is the BELIEF that there is a God. Thus, the rejection of that proposition, or the negation, if you will, is the stance of 'non belief in the existence of god' (semantics, I know, but wording is very important in logic). And that's the position I take: I lack belief in the existence of god. Now, you and I may disagree on whether atheism is 'belief in no God' or 'a lack of belief in a God', and if we disagree, I believe there would be no point in further discussing (as I recently came out of a couple week "dialogue" about the definition of atheism with a fellow DDO member, and I would prefer not to go down that road again). But, I do think the rejection of a hypothesis in light of a lack of evidence (as I perceive) is justifiable rather than taking no position at all. Is it necessarily the right position (meaning whether it's true) to take? Maybe not. But is it justifiable? I do think so. I would look to Russel's teapot as my justification; in the rejection of the claim, I don't need to provide any evidence as to my rejection, but merely cite a lack of evidence on the other side.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
ken1122
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 3:09:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 2:50:32 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:47:23 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:33:03 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:26:15 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:16:54 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 2:02:36 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:52:55 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/6/2016 1:30:56 AM, DunderDwight wrote:
A scientific atheist should say that there is no empirical evidence to prove there is a god or gods and therefore we can say there most probably is not a god/gods. Richard Dawkins himself came up with a 7 point scale of theism. 1 being 100% sure god exists and 7 being 100% sure god does not exist. Dawkins himself says he is at a 6 because he cannot prove there is no god but because so little evidence exists then he lives under the assumption god/gods do not exist. Which should be how an atheist expresses how they think. Because we have no way of conclusively proving god/gods do not exist we cannot say with certainty that they do exist. But because after thousands of years of the only evidence pro theism is the bible, the odds of any god existing is next to none.

But why would you expect empirical evidence of something that is proposed as being transcendent of the physical universe? There's no empirical evidence of logic, abstract concepts, free will, evil, or other such things but we regard them as existing

Logic, abstract concepts, free will and evil only exists in our heads; they have no real existence. Now if you want to make the case that God only exists your head, I will concede that point.

Ken

So it's your position that everything that is non-empirical doesn't exist?
I cannot think of anything non-empirical that exist in any way outside of human thought/imagination; can you?

Ken

Sure, colors.

Colors are empiracal. Care to try again?

Ken

Colors are empirical but they don't exist. Colors "only exist in our heads" and "have no real existence". So why should we only take empirical things as existing and non-empirical things as not existing when that logic is false?

What we call "colors" is the light reflected from the object we are looking at. Light rays do exist. Try again?

Ken
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2016 3:25:41 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/6/2016 1:24:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:23:25 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/6/2016 12:05:56 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
People assume that if no evidence can be provided for God then God is assumed to be non-existent. This isn't true. If there is no evidence of something then we can't rationally take a position on whether it does or doesn't exist. So if you're an atheist that believes God is non-existent what are some good arguments that a deity doesn't exist?

Do you assume Zeus and Apollo do not exist?
Do you have any valid arguments for or against their existence?

Mythical stories about any gods are not valid evidence for or against their existence.

If there is no evidence of tooth fairies can you rationally take a position on whether a tooth fairy does or doesn't exist?

If you can how do you go about rationally determining tooth fairies don't exist?
Apply the same rational argument for any gods.

Why believe one God is real and all the rest are mythical when there is no more evidence for God than there is for gods?

Is one tooth fairy real and the rest mythical?
Your inability to understand you consistently make false analogy fallacies never ceases to astound.

Your irrelevant pointless comments are outstanding.