How do smart atheists construct their arguments against God?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Logic, science.
By showing the claims to be false and why the claims exist to begin with.
What do you mean why?
The phrase "an open mind" mean allowing your acceptance of *something* to change based on evidence. The average human can only arrive at atheism via an open mind.
Why do smart atheists construct their arguments against God / against believing in God / against theistic topics ?
The phrase "open mind" has nothing whatsoever to do with evidence.
It means to allow the thoughts and ideas of other people to be considered equally alongside ones own.
Because they tend to view faith as the enemy of reason, and so it's dangerous. Theistic people generally oppose the separation of church and state, for instance, and that violates my rights. They tend to distrust scientifically revealed facts, like evolution. They tend to be apocalyptic, and that could lead to the destruction of all mankind.
I am interested in your distinction between smart athiests and 'other' athiests. Please elaborate?
Excellent distinction.
My answer to Signal's question, as a supplementary to spidergoat's answer:
Ockham's Razor.
True enough.
Yet the same could be said about Theists....(in fact, it is mandatory in some theist sects..)....
Smart atheist ? Ok I'll bite.
Since god is an idea. It's impossible to convince someone who does not want to be convinced otherwise, that your position no matter how well you present the case will be accepted.
There is no way to prove it's existence or lack of. That in itself is a good argument, that the lack of evidence indicates that the most likely answer is god does not exist. Until there is such evidence it's just an idea. But the true believer will just state that the evidence is all around us and that we are looking in the wrong places, that we don't understand etc.
So one can construct their argument well, one that might sway the truly impartial. But against believing in god ?
Again the arguments can be made but they are not likely to listen anymore than someone who believes in the lochness monster.
Some theists IMO have a stronger position in their belief to use arguments against. Simply because they are not adhereing to such texts as the bible or quran with obvious mistakes (creation stories) that if considered literal are just wrong. Period. So in those cases it takes someone who uses the texts as a guide to even have a chance to discuss it somewhat rationally.
IOW, if they are a creationist you don't have a chance.
But if you go through the religion forum you should be able to find a ton of good arguments in the back and forth.
Your definition sounds like a recipe for gullibility.
What about a smart, non-average human? How does a smart, non-average human arrive at atheism?
Does "smart human --> smart atheist" ?
Informed by what values?
Hang on………. so you need someone who is using texts with obvious mistakes in them before you can discuss it rationally. That sounds like a contradiction in terms to me?
It is not my definition, that’s just what it means.
The phrase open minded can be applied to all areas of life not just religion; music, holidays, sex..
Depends on what you mean by "values".
If you mean values in the common sense, then the answer is clear: simply by OR: ontological economy.
If however you mean Values in the traditional (ethical/aesthetic) sense... then I don't think that they apply.