You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t know if the greatest argument for vs the greatest catalyst for. I didn’t become an atheist because of Christians, but I sure as hell started looking for answers because of them.
Nah, I just hate god. Problem? 😉
Look at this mess of a world. Why hasn’t god fixed anything? god is a deadbeat parent, not worthy of my respect, or even attention.
F*ck god lol
I mean, assuming the existence of a god, I don’t disagree. But if you are assuming the existence of a god then you’re not really atheist. This is the kind of misinterpretation that theists who can’t imagine not believeing in the supernatural often make about atheists; that we’re simply angry or confused rather than rejecting the paradigm altogether.
For all intents and purposes, dystheism is the same as atheism. Especially if it’s agnostic dystheism, as I’m guessing it usually is.
The only one to blame for this messy world is humanity itself, and if there was any direct intervention we wouldn’t have free will and wouldn’t be humans to begin with
I’d be interested to hear what you think about this lecture
I’m an atheist and I hate other atheists, it’s snarky comments and injecting themselves into conversations more than even Christians. It’s to the point where I would even consider some of them religious but their religion is atheism
It’s gotten to the point where many atheists appear to fanatically believe in science, but without believing in the scientific method on which science itself builds.
I have never seen this, heard this, or done this in real life.
Therefore it must not exist! /s
To me, the #1 foam finger reason god doesn’t exist is the ability to lie and to believe in lies. As we continue to progress, so do both of these abilities. god didn’t start but was built over time through the evolution of faith. Beginning with aspects of daily life, growing to aspects beyond the life of anyone. It grows in conjunction with a control system. As more people are controlled, lies are refined through tangible experiences and reactions. When lies fail , so does the control. When they succeed, control grows, and “proof” that the lie is a lie is discounted more. A lie is easy in the beginning but always requires more lies to prop it up and exponentially more to make it broader. religion follows this pattern, and the greatest lie is faith.
Wrong. The greatest argument against gods is the absence of evidence for their existence. Also, no argument is needed. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.
isn’t this more of an argument for agnosticism? atheism makes the claim that god does not exist, while agnosticism says it’s impossible to know either way.
Depends on what your definition is. As how I and from my experience, most atheists define atheism, atheism is the lack of belief in god for whatever reason. Your reasoning for this can stem from gnosis (knowledge) or agnosticism (without knowledge).
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, who do not make any claims regarding the knowledge of existence of any particular gods.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate concept from theism/atheism and can be applied to other concepts, not just gods.
It’s impossible to know whether the Earth is controlled by a secret cabal of Reptilians.
Still, I am not a Reptilian agnostic. Agnosticism to me sometimes feels like the enlightened centrism of religion.
Agnosticism leaves the door open to the idea that our reality and our universe could be artificial on a level outside of our perception, on a fundamental level, though for what purpose, I’d say it would be impossible to know.
Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If you claim that gods don’t exist, you have the burden of proof again and that is impossible to prove.
What is an atheist on a planet of atheists?
If nobody believes in God, then there’s no one to convince anyone, and there’s nothing to convince.
Are you implying people naturally believe in a god and it has to be denied? I sure didn’t.
In what way was I implying that? You’re not making sense.
If you claim God does not exist, you get the burden of proof
This is only true if the general consensus is “God exists”.
If no one has any concept of God to begin with, then what are you arguing?
If you have to invent hypothetical scenarios to make your argument sound plausible, it’s probably not a good argument.
Considering God is entirely hypothetical, I agree.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things. it can mean you either believe there is no god, or that you are basically agnostic, or something in between. (at least that’s what i got from the wikipedia page.) but anyways, the whole “burden of proof” argument does not apply to all forms of atheism, as certain kinds of atheism involve an active belief that no god exists. however, the “burden of proof” argument does apply to all forms agnosticism. so it is still a better argument for agnosticism than it is for atheism.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things.
No, it means one thing: lack of belief in a god. Its there in the word
Other words can modify it (Gnostic atheist, satanic atheist, etc.) but the word literally means without belief in (a) god
Look, I get that kids these days trash devil’s advocates, but have you seen the advocates for god?
