SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism

[CurtC]

@Cosmic Relief

Going from the requirements you’ve given, and that atheism is a lack of positive belief in god, then all you’re left with is “There is not, and never has been, any credible proof of the existence of God. It’s up to you to offer extraordinary proof for this extraordinary claim.”

I think a better way to phrase it is that you haven’t seen any evidence for the existence of God, even though you have earnestly searched. Therefore you don’t believe there is any evidence, but if they have something convincing, you’re open minded.

It always makes for a more productive and persuasive conversation if you come across as being open minded.

If someone asks me about my views on anything related to their beliefs in God, my favorite is to explain that just about any question they have, they can ask that question of themselves, but substitute “leprechauns” for “God” in the question, and they’ll know my position. I don’t believe in God for the exact same reason that they don’t believe in leprechauns.

[John_Mace]

@Lobsang

I didn’t succesfully get to the point with my questions early on. But I can see now that what I was looking for was statements that could make anybody stop and think.

A good example is the one posted by Sage Rat (and possibly earlier on in the thread, I don’t know) that people born into a specific religion are highly likely to follow that religion, therefore the oportunity to make them think comes in the form of a question such as…

In all seriousness, do you think that is some new argument that will suddenly get religious people to “stop and thing”? It resonates with you, because you already stopped to think. Someone heavily invested in his or her religions is just going to say that it’s unfortunate all those other people were born into the wrong religion.

[Jesticulator]

Diogenes the Cynic, thanks for your comments.

There are some issues that I won’t address now.

But, I asked you whether you are saying that the placement of “burden of proof” is determined by the rules of logic. You didn’t answer yes or no. But, if your answer is yes (as implied by your attempt at providing corroboration), then you need to provide a link to the “rules of logic” and not to “a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical devices often used in debate.”

If you think that there are no “rules of logic”, or that the “rules of logic” are not relevant in this case, then your answer to my question is “no”, and no corroboration is required.

As for your question: “What do you think SHOULD determine the burden of proof?”, I think that the burden rests with whoever wishes to persuade. IOW, it’s a rule of rhetoric and not of logic. I recognize, though, that *shifting * the burden of proof, is an informal logical fallacy.

Also, you might find the following interesting: (from Burden of Proof)

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate.

And, FWIW, the obligatory Wikipedia cite:

Keith Lehrer suggests that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. It is more reasonable to suppose that such questions are best left to courts of law where they have suitable application. In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the sceptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side.

[Lobsang]

@John Mace

In all seriousness, do you think that is some new argument that will suddenly get religious people to “stop and thing”? It resonates with you, because you already stopped to think. Someone heavily invested in his or her religions is just going to say that it’s unfortunate all those other people were born into the wrong religion.

To be honest, no. I don’t think it will. I’m a little ashamed not to have put much effort into that post.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jesticulator

Diogenes the Cynic, thanks for your comments.

There are some issues that I won’t address now.

But, I asked you whether you are saying that the placement of “burden of proof” is determined by the rules of logic. You didn’t answer yes or no. But, if your answer is yes (as implied by your attempt at providing corroboration), then you need to provide a link to the “rules of logic” and not to “a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical devices often used in debate.”

I pointed out your fallacy. Fallacies are, by definition, errors in the rules of logic. You fallaciously reversed your burden of proof.

If you think that there are no “rules of logic”, or that the “rules of logic” are not relevant in this case, then your answer to my question is “no”, and no corroboration is required.

I do not think either thing. There ARE rules of logic. You violated them. I showed you why.

As for your question: “What do you think SHOULD determine the burden of proof?”, I think that the burden rests with whoever wishes to persuade. IOW, it’s a rule of rhetoric and not of logic. I recognize, though, that *shifting * the burden of proof, is an informal logical fallacy.

If by “wish to persuade,” you mean, the person making anassertion, then you are correct. and that means the burden is on the theist. The atheist is making no assertion (i.e. the atheist is making no attempt to “persuade,” only to explain why he is not persuaded by the theist).

[Malacandra]

Reasons not to believe in Santa? Easy. Santa is known to be a fantasy, a harmless deception entered into for the entertainment of small children; no-one much over the age of seven or eight pretends differently. The same can be stated with certainty about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, but despite much atheist snark, the same is not known to be true concerning God. This argument does not establish that belief in God is well founded, nor does it pretend to, but it does establish an important reason not to bracket such with belief in the other entities named here.

There have been hundreds of explanations of the origins of species. When you understand why you reject all the others, you will understand why I reject yours. Or perhaps not.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Malacandra

Reasons not to believe in Santa? Easy. Santa is known to be a fantasy, a harmless deception entered into for the entertainment of small children; no-one much over the age of seven or eight pretends differently. The same can be stated with certainty about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, but despite much atheist snark, the same is not known to be true concerning God.

How do you know Santa is a fantasy? Isn’t it possible that he simply works differently than how we perceive him, and that the whole delivering-presents thing isn’t his real shtick? How are you any more sure that God is not a fantasy than you are that Santa is a fantasy?

@Malacandra

There have been hundreds of explanations of the origins of species. When you understand why you reject all the others, you will understand why I reject yours. Or perhaps not.

Yeah, probably not, because the currently accepted explanation of the origin of species* is backed up by modern science. It has been proven, and it has directly replaced theories–including, yes, the Genesis story, but also including (for example) the old French idea that fish grew into turtles who grew into land animals who grew into humans–which we now know to be absurd. At this point in history, actively disbelieving in evolution, or (to a lesser extent) in natural science as the means of evolution, is like disbelieving in calculus. Nobody’s going to stop you, but you’re only going to raise the world’s average ignorance level. By contrast, any particular person’s religious belief is a substitute for any of a set of other, generally equally verifiable, religious beliefs, not an advancement from other religious beliefs. In short, that dog don’t hunt and you know it. When come back, bring intellectual honesty.

• Why are people so quick to talk about Darwin as if he’s the atheist God? Is it so difficult to picture that someone, anyone, lives without faith in a supreme being? Atheists do this too, BTW–like John Safran–and it irritates me all the same. If scientific advancements showed that the Darwinian understanding of the origin of species were false, we would abandon it.

[Malacandra]

@Hostile Dialect

How do you know Santa is a fantasy? Isn’t it possible that he simply works differently than how we perceive him, and that the whole delivering-presents thing isn’t his real shtick? How are you any more sure that God is not a fantasy than you are that Santa is a fantasy?

Suppose we don’t debate how many angels can dance on the head of that particular pin. You know Santa doesn’t exist; so do I; and we’re both perfectly clear in our own minds as to the state of the other’s belief on this subject. The subject is no more worthy of debate than any other known fictional entity, no more than the climate of the planet Vulcan; it is meaningful only in the context of willingly-suspended disbelief. I may be short of positive proof of God; that’s hardly news. I do, however, have abundant reason not to believe in Santa, and you and I both know it, and I refuse to play debating games on the subject.

@Hostile Dialect

Yeah, probably not, because the currently accepted explanation of the origin of species* is backed up by modern science. It has been proven, and it has directly replaced theories–including, yes, the Genesis story, but also including (for example) the old French idea that fish grew into turtles who grew into land animals who grew into humans–which we now know to be absurd. At this point in history, actively disbelieving in evolution, or (to a lesser extent) in natural science as the means of evolution, is like disbelieving in calculus. Nobody’s going to stop you, but you’re only going to raise the world’s average ignorance level. By contrast, any particular person’s religious belief is a substitute for any of a set of other, generally equally verifiable, religious beliefs, not an advancement from other religious beliefs. In short, that dog don’t hunt and you know it. When come back, bring intellectual honesty.

Well, my point exactly. The point is not that belief in YHWH is as well founded as belief in evolutionary theory; rather, that it would be a silly argument to claim that the only reason why anyone adhered to evolutionary theory would be that he did not understand why he rejected all other explanations for the origin of species. Let me know why this is intellectually dishonest.

@Hostile Dialect

• Why are people so quick to talk about Darwin as if he’s the atheist God? Is it so difficult to picture that someone, anyone, lives without faith in a supreme being? Atheists do this too, BTW–like John Safran–and it irritates me all the same. If scientific advancements showed that the Darwinian understanding of the origin of species were false, we would abandon it.

More a prophet than a God, surely. And I suppose if there were fewer threads round here arguing that people who don’t believe in evolution should be treated as if they had no grasp of any science whatsoever, the idea that belief in evolution was the be-all and end-all to atheists would die out a lot quicker. Personally though, I seized upon it simply as a well-founded theory that ought not to be summarily dismissed on the basis of a foolish allegation that a believer in it did not fully understand why he rejected all the competition.

[Linty_Fresh]

@Princhester

I disagree. I’m happy to admit I don’t know. I won’t debate a theist on any fine points of any scientific theory. None of it matters. I don’t have a clue about thousands of things, how an eyeball came to be is merely one of them. My cluelessness doesn’t mean that there is some omniscient being in the sky.

Furthermore, far from “God did it” being a decisive or intelligent answer, it is a non-answer. An abdication. Theists don’t have a clue what their god is, where it comes from, or how it does what it does. Theists tend to be so steeped into the idea that “my god did it” is some form of actual knowledge that they never examine what they mean. Would any theist who asked a person how a Certain Thing came to be, accept as a serious answer: “By someone, somehow”? Of course not. Not even if the “someone” was given a name which meant (in essence) “the person who made the Certain Thing”.

Never let a theist get away with the conceited nonsense that “God did it” is an answer to anything.

Oh, we agree here. I was referring to open debates between theists and atheists, in which the theist can use this sort of thing to woo the crowd in the auditorium or message board, or wherever. If the theist knows what he’s doing, he can be quite persuasive, at least to the lookers-on.

But yeah, I agree with you on the actual principle that “God did it” is not a real answer.

[Baldwin]

@Malacandra

There have been hundreds of explanations of the origins of species. When you understand why you reject all the others, you will understand why I reject yours. Or perhaps not.

I know you weren’t addressing me, but I might as well take my turn.

I reject other theories (and things that are not actually theories, such as the myth in Genesis) as explanations of the origin of species because they don’t have any good evidence to support them. So, I definitely understand that, but still don’t understand why you reject the theory of evolution by natural selection. It’s not for lack of evidence, so why is it?

Oh, and why do you reject all other gods besides besides the one you believe in? When you understand why you reject all the others, maybe you’ll understand why I reject yours. Probably not.

[Jesticulator]

Okay, Diogenes the Cynic, we’re getting close …

One of the ironies of this discussion is that I’ve never believed in Santa Claus and I think that instilling that belief in young children is similar to instilling a belief in god, and is not a good thing. But, there are many other atheists who have no problem with perpetuating a belief in Santa Claus in children.

Another irony is that, with all of our talk about burden of proof, it’s the atheists in this thread who are making most of the claims.

I questioned Chief Pedant’s post (#44) because he uses an incredibly weak argument to equate a belief in Santa Claus with a belief in god, when he is presenting what are purportedly “the most convincing arguments against Santa Claus”, namely:

1. That he is a human invention.
2. That no magic has ever actually been shown to occur.
3. That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around him.

By extending the analogy, he is saying:

1. That god is a human invention.
2. That no magic [by God] has ever actually been shown to occur.
3. That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around god.

The theist has not said these things because no theist participated in his post.

Are you okay with this so far?

He is presenting a didactic exercise for theists, but the request in the OP (and in this thread’s title) is for “the most convincing arguments for Atheism/against the existence of God.”

So what’s Chief Pedant’s argument? In essence, it’s: Whatever a theist’s reasons are for not believing in Santa Claus, those are the same reasons for a theist not believing in god.

I don’t buy into that argument. He hasn’t demonstrated to me that a belief in Stanta Claus is the same as a belief in god. Yes, there are similarities, but that doesn’t make them the same, and he hasn’t provided a convincing argument that they are the same: not convincing to me, and, I think, not convincing for theists.

1. God is a human invention.
   Really? The way that “science” is a human invention?
   Or is it that god exists and people have formed many opinions about his existence?

2. That no magic [by God] has ever actually been shown to occur.
   That’s a claim, an assertion. According to your cite, DoC: “The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.” So, where is Chief Pedant’s proof? Oh, it’s not his assertion – it’s the theist’s assertion about Santa Claus? But it’s not the theist’s assertion about god. (Actually, it’s not even the theist’s assertion about Santa Claus: It’s Chief Pedant’s guess about what a theist would say.) The theist can rightly ask the atheist to back up the claim that there are no miracles, and the atheist can rightly ask the theist to back up the claim that there are miracles. (If the atheist wants to appeal to David Hume, that’s his choice.)

3. That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around god.
   So? There are dozens of obviously invented traditions about the stars. Does that mean that the stars don’t exist?
   (Again, I’m not saying that this is an argument for the existence of god. But “dozens of obviously invented traditions” is not an argument *against * the existence of god.)

The final irony is that I think that many atheists “don’t seem to have much familiarity with logic.” Or, if they do, they let their emotional biases get in the way of a rational argument. (As do many theists.)

One last thought: Do you really think that intelligent, educated theists are going accept any part of an “argument by Santa Claus”? Do you think they’ll say: Wow, I’ve never thought about *that * before!! *Now * I understand the error of my ways!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Jesticulator

Another irony is that, with all of our talk about burden of proof, it’s the atheists in this thread who are making most of the claims.

Well, I’m sorry we weren’t around to counter the claims your parents, ministers and peer group were making when you were a credulous child and philosophically vulnerable, but we’re playing catch-up as best we can.

[Jesticulator]

@Bryan Ekers

Well, I’m sorry we weren’t around to counter the claims your parents, ministers and peer group were making when you were a credulous child and philosophically vulnerable, but we’re playing catch-up as best we can.

So sarcasm is an argument?

And, thanks for confirming that some atheists “let their emotional biases get in the way of a rational argument.”

BTW, do you have *any * evidence of what my parents claimed?

Also, I guess you were a uniquely skeptical and philosophically unassailable child, right?

Right. :rolleyes:

[Czarcasm]

@Jesticulator

So sarcasm is an argument?

And, thanks for confirming that some atheists “let their emotional biases get in the way of a rational argument.”

BTW, do you have *any * evidence of what my parents claimed?

Also, I guess you were a uniquely skeptical and philosophically unassailable child, right?

Right. :rolleyes:

Rather than play guessing games for a page and a half, why don’t you just tell us where you got your ideas about the makup of whatever god or gods you happen to believe in?

[Bryan_Ekers]

That wasn’t sarcasm (well, maybe a little). My point is the rebuttals being made by atheists are only (indeed can only) be in response to claims made by theists. It may be jarring for a lifelong theist to see someone questioning if there is a God, but this is only because the theist long-ago bought into the claim that there was a God.

Is this an irrational argument? By all means, point out the flaw.

[Jesticulator]

@Czarcasm

Rather than play guessing games for a page and a half, why don’t you just tell us where you got your ideas about the makup of whatever god or gods you happen to believe in?

Are my personal beliefs the topic of this thread?

In any case, you’ve already distorted my views once in this thread. And I pointed it out.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jesticulator

Another irony is that, with all of our talk about burden of proof, it’s the atheists in this thread who are making most of the claims

I questioned Chief Pedant’s post (#44) because he uses an incredibly weak argument to equate a belief in Santa Claus with a belief in god, when he is presenting what are purportedly “the most convincing arguments against Santa Claus”, namely:

1. That he is a human invention.
2. That no magic has ever actually been shown to occur.
3. That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around him.

By extending the analogy, he is saying:

1. That god is a human invention.
2. That no magic [by God] has ever actually been shown to occur.
3. That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around god.

The theist has not said these things because no theist participated in his post.

Are you okay with this so far?

No. Pedant made no such claims.

He is presenting a didactic exercise for theists, but the request in the OP (and in this thread’s title) is for “the most convincing arguments for Atheism/against the existence of God.”

Pedant gave a way for atheists to explain why theist claim fail to persuade but there really is no such thing as an “argument for atheism,” since atheism is not a claim in itself.

So what’s Chief Pedant’s argument? In essence, it’s: Whatever a theist’s reasons are for not believing in Santa Claus, those are the same reasons for a theist not believing in god.

No, the argument is that the atheist sees no MORE reason to believe in sky gods than to believe in Santa.

I don’t buy into that argument. He hasn’t demonstrated to me that a belief in Stanta Claus is the same as a belief in god.

Nor does he have to. He’s asking you why the beliefs are different. Thus far no one has offered the slightest reason why they’re different.

Yes, there are similarities, but that doesn’t make them the same, and he hasn’t provided a convincing argument that they are the same: not convincing to me, and, I think, not convincing for theists.

No attempt is being made to convince theists of anything. The exrecise is only designed to show why ATHEISTS are not convinced of anything.

1. God is a human invention.

No such claim was made directly. An invitation was made for theists to explain wht belief in sky gods should be distinguished from belief in other imaginitive entitiies.

That no magic [by God] has ever actually been shown to occur.
That’s a claim, an assertion. According to your cite, DoC: “The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.” So, where is Chief Pedant’s proof?

This is an absolute fact. Sorry to dissapoint you, but not a single supernatural or “miraculous” event of any kind has ever been shown to have occurred in the universe. If you want to claim that magic has occureed, you are the one with the burden to prove it. Give an example of verifiable magic.

Oh, it’s not his assertion – it’s the theist’s assertion about Santa Claus? But it’s not the theist’s assertion about god. (Actually, it’s not even the theist’s assertion about Santa Claus: It’s Chief Pedant’s guess about what a theist would say.) The theist can rightly ask the atheist to back up the claim that there are no miracles, and the atheist can rightly ask the theist to back up the claim that there are miracles. (If the atheist wants to appeal to David Hume, that’s his choice.)

I see that you’re insistent on persisting in your argument from ignorance (can you prove that no elves have ever made a toy?). The lack of verifiable magic in the universe is not a claim so much as an observation.The atheist is asking the theist to show that there is any more evidence for sky god magic than there is for elven magic. Again, this is a question for the theist, not an argument for the non-existence of sky gods (which is not an argument that atheists have any burden to make), it’s a testing of theist assertions and an explanation to the theist for why his assertions fail to convince.

3. That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around god.
   So? There are dozens of obviously invented traditions about the stars. Does that mean that the stars don’t exist?
   (Again, I’m not saying that this is an argument for the existence of god. But “dozens of obviously invented traditions” is not an argument *against * the existence of god.)

You really don’t get this stuff. The burden is on you to show that any tradition is not invented. You are merely being asked to back up your own assertions and you keep using the amateur tactic of trying to reverse the burden of proof.

The final irony is that I think that many atheists “don’t seem to have much familiarity with logic.” Or, if they do, they let their emotional biases get in the way of a rational argument. (As do many theists.)

I suppose it comforts you to trell yourself that. Unfortunately your posts belie any grasp of logical method on your part. I think that part of your problem is that you think the statement “God exists” is one which carries any sort of default presumption of truth which must be overcome by the atheist. It does not. The logical default is to presume that nothing exists until it can be proven to exist.

One last thought: Do you really think that intelligent, educated theists are going accept any part of an “argument by Santa Claus”? Do you think they’ll say: Wow, I’ve never thought about *that * before!! *Now * I understand the error of my ways!

If they actually understand the rhetoric (which you do not) and do not respond with knee jerk fallacies and erroneous presumptions, then yes, many theists have and continue to see that their beliefs hold no empirical weight. That is not the point of the analogy, though. Comparing God to Santa, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, is a way to show theists why their own assertions fail to be persuasive, not an ateempt to claim anything in themselves. “God” is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. No argument can be made that gods psotively do not exist. just like no argument can be made that fairies positively do not exist. The arguments being made in this thread are only that theists can show no reason why God deserves any more presumption of existence than any other magical or mythical entity. Atheism is not an assertion that God psoitively does not exist. Atheists are only saying “You have not persuaded me that gods exist.” I have no wish to persuade any theists of the converse. I’m only trying to explain why they haven’t moved me off the dime.

[Jesticulator]

@Bryan Ekers

Is this an irrational argument? By all means, point out the flaw.

How about this statement:

My point is the rebuttals being made by atheists are only (indeed can only) be in response to claims made by theists.

So, an atheist cannot make a rebuttal in response to a claim made by an another atheist?

Hmmm … :dubious:

It seems that you (and Czarcasm, and **Diogenes **) think that anyone who disagrees with an atheist must be a theist.

That’s a serious flaw in logic.

And, I’ll state a simple fact: Atheists are making claims in this thread.
Not necessarily claims about god-belief, but claims nevertheless. Those claims come with a burden of proof. That’s all.

[CurtC]

@Malacandra

You know Santa doesn’t exist; so do I; and we’re both perfectly clear in our own minds as to the state of the other’s belief on this subject. The subject is no more worthy of debate than any other known fictional entity…

Yes, we all know Santa doesn’t exist, but you missed the point of bringing the subject up. You’re saying that belief in Santa is different from belief in God, well, just because there aren’t any adults who actually believe in Santa. That’s not a significant difference for the purposes of this discussion.

The point is, that we’ve seen no reasons why belief in Santa is different from belief in God, other than the trivial fact that belief in Santa isn’t popular with adults. So unless we’ve missed something and there is a substantive difference, it’s a good point that we reject God for the same reasons you reject Santa.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Jesticulator

And, I’ll state a simple fact: Atheists are making claims in this thread.
Not necessarily claims about god-belief, but claims nevertheless. Those claims come with a burden of proof. That’s all.

Wrong on both counts. Atheists have only asked questions – questions which you have been extremely reticent to give answers for.