Atheistic Syllogisms

E

Ekimklaw

Believer in God
Registered Senior Member
Here, in one easy to access place, is all the atheistic syllogisms I have collected thus far. Some are serious, some are humorous, but all reflect atheistic arguments for the non-existence of God.

PART ONE

The pie-in-the-sky argument
1. God is supposed to be good.
2. Hell is bad.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The sensory argument
1. I can't see [hear, touch, smell, taste] God.
2. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The similarity of design argument
1. Humans have two arms and two legs.
2. Monkeys have two arms and two legs.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The holier-than-thou argument
1. Piousness is bad.
2. Christians are all pious.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The bad experience argument
1. Uncle Stan was a Christian.
2. Uncle Stan touched my private place.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The I-Don't-Want-to argument
1. God requires me to behave morally in order to be saved.
2. I don't want to deal with all that stuff.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The maybe-if-I-ignore-it-it-will-go-away argument
1. God is supposedly the sovereign ruler of the universe.
2. God? What God?
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The I-don't-fit-in argument
1. I don't like church.
2. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The hypocrisy argument
1. Christians are a bunch of hypocrites.
2. I detest hypocrisy.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The intelligence argument
1. Smart people don't need God.
2. I am a genius.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The disbelief argument
1. Christians say they believe in God.
2. I do NOT believe in God.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The sin argument
1. God hates sin.
2. I enjoy sinning.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.


The complication argument
1. Science is very very complicated.
2. Since time and evolution are levered on a bias of complex scientific rational, and irregardless of the indefatigable, non-optimal ergodically processed closed-path measurements, this method evolved a low-level object grouping condition. As the literature attests, this method, given its limitations, refutes post-incremental performance. In other words, the polymorphic state of the "condolesian" distance, discriminator, noted by n-dimensional space, vis a vis distinctions and mutations, as implied before, in the polymorphic state of the nocuous phenomenon, which can gridlock mutational improvement also negates the alpha-max algorythm family.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Guilt-By-Association argument
1. Christians say they believe in God.
2. In the past, people claiming to be Christians have done bad things.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Time Traveller Argument
1. If I could go back in time and actually see Jesus performing miracles, I would then believe.
2. Time travel is impossible.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Guru Argument
1. "X" says that God doesn't exist
2. I believe that "X" is the smartest person on Earth.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Powerless God argument
1. God is supposed to be "all powerful"
2. Yet, He is powerless to force me to believe.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Bad Book argument
1. Christians claim the Bible is the word of God.
2. It contains "unsavory" things.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Crusades Argument
1. The Crusades killed thousands of innocent people.
2. The Crusaders claimed to be Christians.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The with-friends-like-these argument
1. I love my friends (or family).
2. My friends are atheists.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Presence of Evil argument
1. Christians say "God is love".
2. Bad things happen in the world.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The self-actualization argument
1. Christians are followers.
2. I am a leader.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Coolness argument
1. Christianity isn't "cool".
2. I AM cool.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The Kid Stuff argument
1. The Bible is for kids.
2. I am a smart adult.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The "so what" argument
1. Jesus, set aside his glory and came to earth as a human, preached to us the way to Heaven, then gave his life on the cross to pay for the sins of humanity.
2. So what...?
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The nobody-asked-me argument
1. Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
2. I didn't ask him to.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The I-Am-God argument
1. Christians believe they must answer to an all-knowing, all-powerful, sovereign, Holy, loving yet just, God.
2. I am God.
3. Therefore the Christian God doesn't exist.

;) :) ;)
 
A lot of what you stated are quite common comments made by atheists if you just remove the "Therefore God does not exist." statement. Same with that site Xev posted removing the "God exists" part. Anyway, humerous.
 
Touche, Mike.

The Presence of Evil argument
1. Christians say "God is love".
2. Bad things happen in the world.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

*Giggles*

Actually, this IS an actual argument, although more refined.
 
Ekky, here I've found that you oversimplify these arguements to the point where the Atheist side sounds rediculous. Perhaps you have programmed your mind to do this automatically and that's why you believe in God?

And if you weren't programmed to do this, you wouldn't believe in God?

Therefore, God doesn't exist.
 
<i>1. God is supposed to be good.
2. Hell is bad.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Replace with "2. Earth is bad." and you've almost got the "Problem of Evil" argument. As it stands, the conclusion does not follow.

<i>1. I can't see [hear, touch, smell, taste] God.
2. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Valid if [hear, touch ...] etc. is replaced by "detect in any way".

<i>1. Humans have two arms and two legs.
2. Monkeys have two arms and two legs.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Compare:

1. Elephants have four legs.
2. Mice have four legs.
3. Therefore elephants are mice.

<i>1. Piousness is bad.
2. Christians are all pious.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

1 is an incomplete premise unless "bad" and "pious" are defined.
2 is false.

<i>1. Uncle Stan was a Christian.
2. Uncle Stan touched my private place.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. God requires me to behave morally in order to be saved.
2. I don't want to deal with all that stuff.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Not a syllogism.

<i>1. God is supposedly the sovereign ruler of the universe.
2. God? What God?
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Not a syllogism.

<i>1. I don't like church.
2. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Not a syllogism.

<i>1. Christians are a bunch of hypocrites.
2. I detest hypocrisy.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. Smart people don't need God.
2. I am a genius.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

1 may be false. 2 may be false. Conclusion does not follow from premises.

<i>1. Christians say they believe in God.
2. I do NOT believe in God.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>The sin argument
1. God hates sin.
2. I enjoy sinning.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

1 and 2 may be false. Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. Science is very very complicated.
2. Since time and evolution are levered on a bias of complex scientific rational, and irregardless of the indefatigable, non-optimal ergodically processed closed-path measurements, this method evolved a low-level object grouping condition. As the literature attests, this method, given its limitations, refutes post-incremental performance. In other words, the polymorphic state of the "condolesian" distance, discriminator, noted by n-dimensional space, vis a vis distinctions and mutations, as implied before, in the polymorphic state of the nocuous phenomenon, which can gridlock mutational improvement also negates the alpha-max algorythm family.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

1 is not necessarily true. 2 is meaningless. Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. Christians say they believe in God.
2. In the past, people claiming to be Christians have done bad things.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. If I could go back in time and actually see Jesus performing miracles, I would then believe.
2. Time travel is impossible.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

2 may be false. Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. "X" says that God doesn't exist
2. I believe that "X" is the smartest person on Earth.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. God is supposed to be "all powerful"
2. Yet, He is powerless to force me to believe.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

2 may be false.

<i>1. Christians claim the Bible is the word of God.
2. It contains "unsavory" things.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. The Crusades killed thousands of innocent people.
2. The Crusaders claimed to be Christians.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. I love my friends (or family).
2. My friends are atheists.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. Christians say "God is love".
2. Bad things happen in the world.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

This is (almost) the problem of evil argument. It is not a syllogism.

<i>1. Christians are followers.
2. I am a leader.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. Christianity isn't "cool".
2. I AM cool.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

1 and/or 2 may be false.

<i>1. The Bible is for kids.
2. I am a smart adult.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

1 is false. 2 may be false. Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. Jesus, set aside his glory and came to earth as a human, preached to us the way to Heaven, then gave his life on the cross to pay for the sins of humanity.
2. So what...?
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Not a syllogism.

<i>1. Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
2. I didn't ask him to.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.</i>

Conclusion doesn't follow from premises.

<i>1. Christians believe they must answer to an all-knowing, all-powerful, sovereign, Holy, loving yet just, God.
2. I am God.
3. Therefore the Christian God doesn't exist.</i>

Argument falls down if I am the Christian God. Otherwise it is ok.
---------------

This is a simplistic charicature of the atheist position. No intelligent atheist would ever make any of these arguments.
 
Hi eye our intelijent aythest. eye maek theas argeumints. theirfoar god dosnt egsits. ;)

James R-- You got all of that stuff correct except the part about "God isn't cool" not being true. God isn't cool, as God doesn't exist, and you can't use an adjective to describe something that doesn't exist. However, if something exists hypothetically, then you can quite easily use adjectives to describe it. However, you can't use adjectives on the nothing of nothing, as there isn't anything to describe. Nothingness is nothingnessy doesn't work-- you're simply stating that it is what it is-- ie, that it isn't.
 
Hello all,

If I take up a stance that says "God exists". And the atheist says "God does NOT exist." We each must, of course, explain why we believe this.

Often I have heard/seen arguments from atheists ranging from "I don't see God", to "God is evil", to "Christians are intolerant", so I must conclude that it is some kind of rational for their belief that God doesn't exist. After all that is the big question... "Does he or doesn't he?" Thus the syllogisms.

I realize the "Therefore God doesn't exist" part is silly in light of the first two parts. But, I can only conclude that an atheist must be making an argument about the existence or NON-existence of God when an atheist tells me he doesn't believe in God because "If there was one, why do so many bad things happen.", or "What loving God would throw someone in hell?" etc.

Perhaps these syllogisms are oversimplifications, but I think that they prove a good point. Many (not all) atheist arguments do not so much explain the non-existence of God, so much as they explain why the individual atheist chooses not to believe in God.

And uh, no offense of course... ;)

-Mike
 
Originally posted by Ekimklaw
Hello all,

If I take up a stance that says "God exists". And the atheist says "God does NOT exist." We each must, of course, explain why we believe this.

Often I have heard/seen arguments from atheists ranging from "I don't see God", to "God is evil", to "Christians are intolerant", so I must conclude that it is some kind of rational for their belief that God doesn't exist. After all that is the big question... "Does he or doesn't he?" Thus the syllogisms.

I realize the "Therefore God doesn't exist" part is silly in light of the first two parts. But, I can only conclude that an atheist must be making an argument about the existence or NON-existence of God when an atheist tells me he doesn't believe in God because "If there was one, why do so many bad things happen.", or "What loving God would throw someone in hell?" etc.

Perhaps these syllogisms are oversimplifications, but I think that they prove a good point. Many (not all) atheist arguments do not so much explain the non-existence of God, so much as they explain why the individual atheist chooses not to believe in God.

And uh, no offense of course... ;)

-Mike
Click to expand...

Of course, we just HAVE to bend the truth to make it sound like Atheists are idiots...
 
Ekky, here I've found that you oversimplify these arguements to the point where the Atheist side sounds rediculous. Perhaps you have programmed your mind to do this automatically and that's why you believe in God?
Click to expand...

Um, did you not notice the recent posting that did the exact same thing with the logic arguments of Judeo-christian authors. The thread, "Proof of the existance of God." It was a total hack job in every case, but guess what. It was funny, as was this thread. You really need to lighten up a little.
 
Friends, Romans, fellow athiests, lend me your ears.

It's the same damn thing as I posted a few days back, only altered for athiest arguments.

C'mon, lighten up. We should laugh at ourselves, no?

I thought they were pretty funny.

"If I take up a stance that says "God exists". And the atheist says "God does NOT exist." We each must, of course, explain why we believe this."

That's a gross oversimplification of the athiest position.

"Perhaps these syllogisms are oversimplifications, but I think that they prove a good point. Many (not all) atheist arguments do not so much explain the non-existence of God, so much as they explain why the individual atheist chooses not to believe in God."

Ditto for theism, Mike. ;)
 
Originally posted by lotuseatsvipers


Um, did you not notice the recent posting that did the exact same thing with the logic arguments of Judeo-christian authors. The thread, "Proof of the existance of God." It was a total hack job in every case, but guess what. It was funny, as was this thread. You really need to lighten up a little.
Click to expand...

"Perhaps these syllogisms are oversimplifications, but I think that they prove a good point. Many (not all) atheist arguments do not so much explain the non-existence of God, so much as they explain why the individual atheist chooses not to believe in God."-- Mike

I rest my case :p
 
Originally posted by Ekimklaw
And the atheist says "God does NOT exist." We each must, of course, explain why we believe this.

Actually, most Atheist take the position "I do not believe that God exists." rather than the assertion that "I believe that God does NOT exist." It is a fine point but rather distinct and quite important.

This, of course, does not prohibit an Atheist from claiming that a particular God does not exist. I would assert that Zeus* does not exist (you know, on the top of Olympus tossing lightning bolts around, turning himself into a swan and banging chicks). Of course, even though you're a Theist, you would probably make a similar claim about Zeus. Some conceptions of God, however, are general enough to defy negation. Defying negation is not the same, however, as proving existence.

Generally, the Atheistic stance is "I do not believe that God exists because I do not see any evidence of its existence." The typical Theistic reply involves something that the Theists consider evidence. Keeping in the Greek theme it might be an argument such as, "But I see the lightning coming down from the clouds around Olympus." and so the battle ensues.

There are other times where the Theist begins with a claim, "Zeus turned himself into a swan and had sex with Zelda, that's why she's pregnant even though she's not married." Again, the Atheist will address the assertion and the battle begins again.

Many (not all) atheist arguments do not so much explain the non-existence of God, so much as they explain why the individual atheist chooses not to believe in God.

Exactly. The two positions are known as the Strong Atheist position (God does not exist) and the Weak Atheist position (I do not believe that God exists) an important distinction to make.

* I am not using this simplistic example to insinuate anything about alternate Theistic beliefs it is simply an example.

~Raithere
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere wrote:
Actually, most Atheist take the position "I do not believe that God exists." rather than the assertion that "I believe that God does NOT exist." It is a fine point but rather distinct and quite important.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference is belief. Right? Are you saying as a rule atheists don't believe? Not sure what distinction you are drawing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere wrote:
This, of course, does not prohibit an Atheist from claiming that a particular God does not exist. I would assert that Zeus* does not exist (you know, on the top of Olympus tossing lightning bolts around, turning himself into a swan and banging chicks). Of course, even though you're a Theist, you would probably make a similar claim about Zeus. Some conceptions of God, however, are general enough to defy negation. Defying negation is not the same, however, as proving existence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defying negation. Hmmm... You mean that because "X" can't be proven to be NON-existant, doesn't mean "X" is non-existant? Ok. I'm confused. Is this an argument for the existance or NON-existance of God?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere wrote:
Generally, the Atheistic stance is "I do not believe that God exists because I do not see any evidence of its existence." The typical Theistic reply involves something that the Theists consider evidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. Pray, tell me...what exactly would be "evidence of God's existence", in your view?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere wrote:
Keeping in the Greek theme it might be an argument such as, "But I see the lightning coming down from the clouds around Olympus." and so the battle ensues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've never been to Mt. Olympus. ;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere wrote:
There are other times where the Theist begins with a claim, "Zeus turned himself into a swan and had sex with Zelda, that's why she's pregnant even though she's not married." Again, the Atheist will address the assertion and the battle begins again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think Greek mythology is held to be an actual religion anymore. You must be trying to draw a comparison between The Christian God and folk myths from various cultures. Irregardless, I'm mystified as to your point here. Other than to diminish or impugn the Christian belief in God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ekimklaw wrote:
Many (not all) atheist arguments do not so much explain the non-existence of God, so much as they explain why the individual atheist chooses not to believe in God.

Raithere wrote:
Exactly. The two positions are known as the Strong Atheist position (God does not exist) and the Weak Atheist position (I do not believe that God exists) an important distinction to make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmm... I wonder... do I have a strong Theist position or a weak theist position. Either God exists... or I believe God exists... hmmm... what if it is both as in my case?

But seriously, the so-called "strong atheistic position" is flawed because you CANNOT prove God doesn't exist, so you cannot say for certain that he doesn't. You must only assert absolutely that you do not believe he exists.
Incidently I do not tell atheists: God exists!!!!
I say: I believe God exists.
Or: I am convinced of the existence of God. etc.
If I say "God exists" or "God lives", I mean I am convinced He lives.

This is more correct because I cannot show you anything you have not already seen that will convince you absolutely (instantly) of the existence of God. I can only express my logical reasons for believing and show why I think your logical reasons for disbelief are flawed. Then it is up to you to decide.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raithere wrote:
* I am not using this simplistic example to insinuate anything about alternate Theistic beliefs it is simply an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh... Okay... gotcha... ;)

-Mike
 

The difference is belief. Right? Are you saying as a rule atheists don't believe? Not sure what distinction you are drawing.

I'm surprised you don't see the difference. One believes that God doesn't exist, the other doesn't believe that God exists.

Defying negation. Hmmm... You mean that because "X" can't be proven to be NON-existant, doesn't mean "X" is non-existant? Ok. I'm confused. Is this an argument for the existance or NON-existance of God?

It's neither. Raithere is saying that this is the problem with the arguements of a select few Atheists, and in the reverse, of many Theists.

True. Pray, tell me...what exactly would be "evidence of God's existence", in your view?

Generally, I think that you're going to go into the arguement about asking for evidence. Well, Raithere didn't ask for evidence, he just said that that's the only thing that would substanciate a belief in a God.

I've never been to Mt. Olympus. ;)

I actually climbed Mt. Olympus once, and strangely found myself back in my hotel just before passing thru the top of the clouds. Therefore, I must assert that Zeus doesn't exist.

I don't think Greek mythology is held to be an actual religion anymore. You must be trying to draw a comparison between The Christian God and folk myths from various cultures. Irregardless, I'm mystified as to your point here. Other than to diminish or impugn the Christian belief in God.

Yes, it is, Mike. Frankly, I'm quite insulted that you refer to it as mythlogy and "folk myths". Religion is any set of beliefs that tell you 1. how to live your life 2. a set of morals (usually) 3. what happens after you die. Hellenic traditional religion does this very well. And if I recall correctly, it has at least a few followers.

Hmmm... I wonder... do I have a strong Theist position or a weak theist position. Either God exists... or I believe God exists... hmmm... what if it is both as in my case?

No such thing. You have a giant misconception of Strong Atheist vs. Weak Atheist. A Strong Theist would believe that a God existed, whereas a Weak Theist would NOT believe that a God didn't exist. And this will take you into the realm of Atheist.

But seriously, the so-called "strong atheistic position" is flawed because you CANNOT prove God doesn't exist, so you cannot say for certain that he doesn't. You must only assert absolutely that you do not believe he exists.
Incidently I do not tell atheists: God exists!!!!
I say: I believe God exists.
Or: I am convinced of the existence of God. etc.
If I say "God exists" or "God lives", I mean I am convinced He lives.

Well, Ekim, Theism is flawed because you CANNOT prove God does exist, so you can't say for certain that he does.

There's nothing flawed here: these people believe what they want, you need no evidence to have a flawless belief. These people DO believe God doesn't exist. They are in no way infringing on the beliefs of others.

This is more correct because I cannot show you anything you have not already seen that will convince you absolutely (instantly) of the existence of God. I can only express my logical reasons for believing and show why I think your logical reasons for disbelief are flawed. Then it is up to you to decide.

But you can still say God exists-- I can tell you a lie, if I wish, it's essentially the same except there is no proof that God doesn't exist.

Oh... Okay... gotcha... ;)

I find it insulting that you seem to think that a comparison of Christianity and traditional Hellenic religion is insulting.

Mark

PS
Cthulhu loathes you!
 
<i>Many (not all) atheist arguments do not so much explain the non-existence of God, so much as they explain why the individual atheist chooses not to believe in God.</i>

Fair comment. Not all atheists believe what they believe for rational reasons. Some are just reactionary or anti-authoritarian. However, you can't tar all atheists with the same brush.

A similar argument applies to Christians and members of other religions.
 
Originally posted by Ekimklaw
If I take up a stance that says "God exists". And the atheist says "God does NOT exist." We each must, of course, explain why we believe this.
Click to expand...

In vast majority, the approximations and parodies of arguments you've posted do not regard atheists' reasons for not believing in your god. Instead, they are counterarguments to (mostly) Christian claims. E.g. Christian claims people would behave badly if it weren't for his religion; atheist counters that Christianity hasn't stopped a lot of extraordinarily bad people, that it in fact served as a convenient tool for extraordinary evil, and simultaneously many more people are good despite of or in absense of Christianity. Same for many other "arguments".

Often I have heard/seen arguments from atheists ranging from "I don't see God", to "God is evil", to "Christians are intolerant", so I must conclude that it is some kind of rational for their belief that God doesn't exist. After all that is the big question... "Does he or doesn't he?" Thus the syllogisms.
Click to expand...

Mostly the "I don't see" is meant to question the belief rather than justify disbelief. IOW if God is undetectable then contemporaries could never learn of it directly. If so, they have no evidence for their belief, and would not possess their belief unless it was indoctrinated into them. To wit, peoples' beliefs typically reflect what they were raised with (geographical assymmetry of religions, correlation of religion b/w parents and children, etc.) Then it follows that all esoteric religions are equally worth from a non-indoctrinated perspective, and worth about as much as any other random fantasy. Hence, why even consider taking seriously any such fantasy at all (again, natural line of thought for someone who has not been indoctrinated.)

"God is evil" is hardly an atheist argument. It's about as silly as arguing whether Rudolph's nose is really red. If anything, it is a criticism of the Bible, where god is asserted to be good in one place and perpetrates evil in another. Specifically, the criticism is aimed at the assertion that the Bible is absolute truth. Generally, it is but one of many contradictions that get pointed out. This sort of argument can also be applied (though more loosely) to claims that everything is according to God's schemes coupled to assertions that God does not do evil.

"Christians are intolerant" questions social value of Christianity, not existence of the Christian god.

etc.

I realize the "Therefore God doesn't exist" part is silly in light of the first two parts. But, I can only conclude that an atheist must be making an argument about the existence or NON-existence of God when an atheist tells me he doesn't believe in God because "If there was one, why do so many bad things happen.", or "What loving God would throw someone in hell?" etc.
Click to expand...

Not all atheists have thought very deeply or carefully about religion. Most atheists simply know they cannot believe. Many (especially young) make iffy attempts at justification when pressed. Sort of like a person trying to verbalize the sequence of events that leads to keeping balance while walking. To many atheists, atheism comes naturally but explaining it (especially to non-atheists) in an accessible or even coherent way takes much trial and error.

There are atheists who have become atheist by rejecting a particular religion (to which they typically used to belong.) Their general approach is that they know what it is to be religious; they realized they were wrong for some reason; now they believe nothing stops all religious people from being wrong just like them. Positions and arguments of such people tend to be much weaker. A lot of such people ultimately re-join their rejected religion or end up assuming another one (IOW their recovery from religion is incomplete and they are likely to relapse -- yes, religion is a contagious disease of the mind not unlike substance addiction and probably neurochemically similar.)

But seriously, the so-called "strong atheistic position" is flawed because you CANNOT prove God doesn't exist, so you cannot say for certain that he doesn't. You must only assert absolutely that you do not believe he exists.
Click to expand...

Not quite. The so-called "strong" atheistic position might be better summarized as "the probability that God exists is 0."

Anthropocentric and "intuitive" thinking makes so-called "weak" atheists conclude "the probability that God exists is small."

Assertions of belief are always absolute (hence the term "assertion".) Strength of belief is relative.

I don't think Greek mythology is held to be an actual religion anymore. You must be trying to draw a comparison between The Christian God and folk myths from various cultures. Irregardless, I'm mystified as to your point here. Other than to diminish or impugn the Christian belief in God.
Click to expand...

You must believe Christian mythology will be held to be an actual religion 2000 years from now. Maybe you turn out to be correct. But there's a good chance you are wrong.

To an impartial observer, Christian myth is just like any other myth: no more, no less. If it diminishes or "impugns" Christianity, then perhaps Christianity thinks too much of itself.

BTW

I know the opening of the thread was supposed to be humorous. However, it didn't make me laugh. The other site (with arguments "for" God) was much funnier just in terms of raw humor (and I don't believe that's just because of my position on theism.)
 
Last edited:
Exactly, Overdoze.

Of course, now our dear Ekimklaw is going to go around stating that Christianity isn't mythology. Well, hon, since you called traditional Hellenic religion mythology, I guess that qualifies all religion as mythology.

So simply put, you're an idiot who still believes in mythology!
 
Overdoze,

Anthropocentric and "intuitive" thinking makes so-called "weak" atheists conclude "the probability that God exists is small."
Click to expand...
No I don’t believe that is quite right.

The primary point of weak atheism is a disbelief in the claims of theists. There is no question of degree of belief. It isn’t that there is a small probability but that there is nothing to substantiate any probability. That is different from a belief in a small probability. This is especially true given an anthropocentric perspective.

The weak atheist is not claiming an inductive conclusion, but rather no conclusion at all since there is no basis for any belief.

Cris
 
Originally posted by Ekimklaw
The difference is belief. Right? Are you saying as a rule atheists don't believe? Not sure what distinction you are drawing.

No Atheist believes in God, any God. The logical reasoning behind this is "I see no evidence that would lead me to believe that God exists." The strong Atheist position takes it a step further, not only does it refuse belief on the absence of evidence in God but it goes on to state that God cannot exist (usually based upon logical reasoning). In other words the strong Atheist asserts that there is evidence that precludes God from existing.

Defying negation. Hmmm... You mean that because "X" can't be proven to be NON-existant, doesn't mean "X" is non-existant? Ok. I'm confused. Is this an argument for the existance or NON-existance of God?

Not quite. As an example, I've seen God described as "that, which is unknowable". This definition defies negation. How can one prove that there is nothing which is unknowable? You can't. Of course, it begs the question of how one can know of "that, which is unknowable" but this point doesn't seem to bother some Theists. A similar argument is "that which is spiritual defies logic and empiricism". Again, this claim defies negation.

True. Pray, tell me...what exactly would be "evidence of God's existence", in your view?

There's already a thread about this.
http://sciforums.com/t8467/s/thread.html

Irregardless, I'm mystified as to your point here. Other than to diminish or impugn the Christian belief in God.

Not at all, though I think you realized this later. I was using a simplistic example to point out that what Theists take as proof, Atheists refute.

Hmmm... I wonder... do I have a strong Theist position or a weak theist position. Either God exists... or I believe God exists... hmmm... what if it is both as in my case?

Yes, actually there is a strong and weak position. Both positions believe in God (whichever God it may be). The strong position would assert that there is proof logical and/or empirical, that God exists. The weak position would not assert proof.

But seriously, the so-called "strong atheistic position" is flawed because you CANNOT prove God doesn't exist, so you cannot say for certain that he doesn't.

It depends largely upon the definition of God. I can prove pretty conclusively that Zeus and the rest of the Greek pantheon do not exist as they were defined as living at the top of Mount Olympus and as physical beings. Other definitions are not so easy to disprove.

This is more correct because I cannot show you anything you have not already seen that will convince you absolutely (instantly) of the existence of God. I can only express my logical reasons for believing and show why I think your logical reasons for disbelief are flawed. Then it is up to you to decide.

This is proper. And appreciated. :) The debate moves on.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by Raithere
But seriously, the so-called "strong atheistic position" is flawed because you CANNOT prove God doesn't exist, so you cannot say for certain that he doesn't.

It depends largely upon the definition of God. I can prove pretty conclusively that Zeus and the rest of the Greek pantheon do not exist as they were defined as living at the top of Mount Olympus and as physical beings. Other definitions are not so easy to disprove.

But perhaps one could assert that divine beings cannot be seen by human eyes or detected by human instruments, therefore the Greek gods are beyond disproof?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top