# The Arguments for Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428 "2009-01-15T14:34:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/141 "2009-01-21T15:11:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > If you’re talking about observations about how the physical world is I can agree. Clinging to mythology against evidence stands in the way of progress IMO. That’s only one facet of religion and IMO not the more relevant one. It’s however what I’ve been focusing on in this thread; I didn’t mean to actually concern myself with the particulars of religion at all, I merely wanted to try and derive some statements on the epistemology (I gotta stop using this word, it’s already losing all its meaning to me) of faith. That there are beneficial aspects to religion, or at least some religions, I can agree – just think of religious art, community, charity, all sorts of stuff. But that isn’t what my arguments concern themselves with. > [@](#): > > Ok granted. I just question the relevancy. If the point is that religion isn’t a good way to gather information about the physical world then we agree. I guess we’re pretty much agreed, then. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/142 "2009-01-21T16:33:47Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I gotta stop using this word [faith], it’s already losing all its meaning to me Yup, I thought you’d get into some type of trouble with that word. Also, it doesn’t help that you came up with your own definition of \*atheism \* which stipulates the absence of \*all \*faith, rather than just the absence of faith in god. You could use the word “afideism” instead of atheism, but that doesn’t get around the problem of defining faith. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/143 "2009-01-21T16:39:28Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > Yup, I thought you’d get into some type of trouble with that word. Also, it doesn’t help that you came up with your own definition of \*atheism \* which stipulates the absence of \*all \*faith, rather than just the absence of faith in god. You could use the word “afideism” instead of atheism, but that doesn’t get around the problem of defining faith. I think I was rather clearly referring to ‘epistemology’, so would you please not misquote me? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/144 "2009-01-21T16:52:06Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I think I was rather clearly referring to ‘epistemology’, so would you please not misquote me? Thanks. :smack: Sorry. Time to leave. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/145 "2009-01-21T18:05:39Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > No, but I get the feeling that you are not interested in finding a point of agreement. At this stage, I’m prepared to write off whatever disagreement you’re claiming as pointless, because the effort of determining what it is exactly has become tiresome. > [@](#): > > That’s different from being confident that you will arrive at the same conclusion. Your excess focus on the conclusion is the stumbling block. I’m confident that I would end up at heliocentricism because it is well established, but I would still conduct a serious analysis and application of the scientific method if I wanted to invest the time and effort in proving heliocentrism independently. Heck, when I was high school I used inductive reasoning to prove there were an infinite number of Pythagorean triples, well before I knew that this field had been explored in much greater detail. > [@](#): > > Does “one” make predictions, or do you (Bryan) make predictions and then follow the scientific method to test those predictions? If not, why not? I don’t understand your question (or putting “one” in quotes) - the scientific method involves making predictions about what should happen if the null hypothesis was true. Design a test, run this test, and if it fails, reject the null hypothesis. Hypothesis: That’s a dog. Prediction: It should go “woof”. Test: Listen. Result: “Meow”. Conclusion: Hypothesis is false. If you can summarize exactly what the point of alleged disagrement is, it might help. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/146 "2009-01-21T18:07:00Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Never said anything remotely like that. Well then what is your point, and why are you arguing with me? If you don’t find it to be really worth considering magical explanations as an argument, then…I mean what worth is it to point out that we can’t create the magical equivalent of a faraday cage? We can’t put a magical equivalent of a faraday cage around dowsers, but so? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/147 "2009-01-21T22:04:34Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Well then what is your point, and why are you arguing with me? If you don’t find it to be really worth considering magical explanations as an argument, then…I mean what worth is it to point out that we can’t create the magical equivalent of a faraday cage? We can’t put a magical equivalent of a faraday cage around dowsers, but so? I’m saying let’s not let terminology completely obscure the possibilities. The range is more than dismissed magical communion with God and a misfiring neuron. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/148 "2009-01-21T23:39:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If you can summarize exactly what the point of alleged disagreement is, it might help. It’s okay, thanks. Just some stuff about geocentrism/heliocentrism, the nature of scientific inquiry, and the role of faith/trust/confidence in forming and perpetuating beliefs, much of which is not directly relevant to this thread. If I decide to pursue the discussion, I’ll start another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/149 "2009-01-22T02:29:09Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m saying let’s not let terminology completely obscure the possibilities. The range is more than dismissed magical communion with God and a misfiring neuron. Sure, but none of the other unknown possibilities are relevant to the thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428.md?page=7)