The Case For Atheism

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I tend to agree that the case to be made is not necessarily for atheism, but rather whether anyone can demonstrate the argument for a single religion.

For simplicity's sake, let's confine the debate to the theistic conception of God in the broad sense, shared by the major monotheistic world religions. What is at issue here is not whether one r ...[text shortened]... helming that theists ought to be ridiculed for having a belief in a divine being of some sort.[/b]

You say, "What is at issue here is not whether one religion is right and another wrong, but rather whether or not the case for atheism is so overwhelming that theists ought to be ridiculed for having a belief in a divine being of some sort."

There is no basis for ridiculing others for their beliefs so that should not be the criterion of a worthy case for atheism, IMO. Rather, atheism is to be defended on a case by case basis, with the atheists not defining the deity under question. A neutral party should establish criteria, such as , that a deity whose existence is proven to entail logical contradiction cannot be rationally believed to exist (although irrationalists are free to ignore this).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The point is, any kind of god can be imagined. Some can't be disproven, and some of those could be pretty outlandish and well, do weird things to your head just to think about. So there needs to be a clear, complete, agreed set of statements about the god or gods whose nonexistence is to be considered.

Well said! I propose we limit our discuss ...[text shortened]... d ex nihilo, who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, immaterial, etc., etc.[/b]

Yes. Go for it, but the devil is in the et ceteras. 🙂 Especially the unspoken ones.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
OK, so far no one has stepped up and given a convincing case for atheism; perhaps, though, we are only in the stage where we are defining our terms. And, as Rwingett has pointed out, it seems clear that there isn't a case for atheism as much as there is a case against theism. Plus, we've narrowed our conception of God to the classical the ...[text shortened]... , present what you believe to be the strongest argument(s) against theism. Starting... now!

Well the immediate response IMO is that it is not a well defined concept meriting attention or belief, at least so far on this thread. IOW we need a full set of clear, literal statements that cover every implication of its existence that is to be addressed. Otherwise, rational analysis is impossible, but if course irrationalists need not pay attention to this defect. A statement that the deity's existence transcends rational analysis will suffice to defeat any rational argument. Are you ruling such a statement out? That would be a nice start.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The point is, any kind of god can be imagined. Some can't be disproven, and some of those could be pretty outlandish and well, do weird things to your head just to think about. So there needs to be a clear, complete, agreed set of statements about the god or gods whose nonexistence is to be considered.

Well said! I propose we limit our discuss ...[text shortened]... d ex nihilo, who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, immaterial, etc., etc.[/b]

On the one hand, there’s no reason why that particular “formulation” of god ought not be the subject of debate.

On the other hand, I am not at all convinced that—outside particular cultural milieus—that ought to be considered the normative notion of “god”.

That’s just a caveat, but there’s no reason to presume that the dualist conception is somehow more normative than various non-dualist conceptions—including those found within what might be generally considered as dualist religious expressions (e.g., as I argued often in the past, I am not at all convinced that non-dualist versions of Judaism are dominant—going back to the Torah itself—and certainly do not form within Judaism an “orthodoxy” vis-à-vis non-dualist expressions). I also do not see that any “burden of proof” necessarily rests with the non-dualist by assumption. Again, just a caveat.

Originally posted by JS357
Well the immediate response IMO is that it is not a well defined concept meriting attention or belief, at least so far on this thread. IOW we need a full set of clear, literal statements that cover every implication of its existence that is to be addressed. Otherwise, rational analysis is impossible, but if course irrationalists need not pay attention to this ...[text shortened]... defeat any rational argument. Are you ruling such a statement out? That would be a nice start.

IOW we need a full set of clear, literal statements that cover every implication of its existence that is to be addressed. Otherwise, rational analysis is impossible...

The age of verificationism died long ago, so it is simply not an option for the atheist to declare "God" meaningless and leave it at that. For this discussion, like Swinburne, we'll treat "God" as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b] IOW we need a full set of clear, literal statements that cover every implication of its existence that is to be addressed. Otherwise, rational analysis is impossible...

The age of verificationism died long ago, so it is simply not an option for the atheist to declare "God" meaningless and leave it at that. For this discussion, like Swinburne, ...[text shortened]... nal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.[/b]

I think that part of JS357's point is that you need to explain--for example--precisely what it might mean for a "person" to be bodiless, before one can entertain the proposal . . . Likewise, e.g., for "perfectly free" and "perfectly good". If one cannot clearlt know what you mean by such things, one can hardly argue . . .

Originally posted by vistesd
On the one hand, there’s no reason why that particular “formulation” of god ought not be the subject of debate.

On the other hand, I am not at all convinced that—outside particular cultural milieus—that ought to be considered the normative notion of “god”.

That’s just a caveat, but there’s no reason to presume that the dualist conception is ...[text shortened]... y “burden of proof” necessarily rests with the non-dualist by assumption. Again, just a caveat.

I agree, but most of the ire here is directed toward the dualistic, monotheistic conception of God—specifically at those who believe that said God exists, to the extent that atheists consider them worthy of ridicule for their belief in said God. As such, it seems only right to ask atheists to make their best case against said God and not, for instance, the non-dualist conception of God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I agree, but most of the ire here is directed toward the dualistic, monotheistic conception of God—specifically at those who believe that said God exists, to the extent that atheists consider them worthy of ridicule for their belief in said God. As such, it seems only right to ask atheists to make their best case against said God and not, for instance, the non-dualist conception of God.

As I say, it was just a caveat, and certainly was not intended to dismiss your project here. You raise another interesting point though: the relationship between non-dualism and atheism per se. Our old friend bbarr was a non-dualist who followed, for example, Kabir, and affirmed Meister Eckhart. And yet, he also called himself an atheist—meaning atheist vis-à-vis the dualist conception.

Also, I have been thinking about your very important point about apophatism in the other thread. How many (and what kind of) kataphatic affirmations need to be made? By a dualist or a non-dualist? I am thinking about it in terms of my own non-dualism . . . But that’s another topic.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think that part of JS357's point is that you need to explain--for example--precisely what it might mean for a "person" to be bodiless, before one can entertain the proposal . . . Likewise, e.g., for "perfectly free" and "perfectly good". If one cannot clearlt know what you mean by such things, one can hardly argue . . .

Fair enough:

Eternal -> without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Infinite -> immeasurably great in every respect
Spirit -> having a incorporeal conscious life
Necessary -> self-existent; having the reason for its existence in itself
Omniscient -> all-knowing; knows only true propositions
Omnipotent -> all-powerful; able to accomplish anything that is in accord with its own nature
Omnipresent -> ubiquitous; present everywhere at the same time
Omnibenevolent -> morally perfect; the ultimate standard of goodness
Creator of the universe -> responsible for the existence of the universe

"God" will refer to the person possessing the above attributes.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b] IOW we need a full set of clear, literal statements that cover every implication of its existence that is to be addressed. Otherwise, rational analysis is impossible...

The age of verificationism died long ago, so it is simply not an option for the atheist to declare "God" meaningless and leave it at that. For this discussion, like Swinburne, ...[text shortened]... nal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things.[/b]

If that is your definition of god, then the 'problem of evil' remains a potent argument against it. I won't go through all the details of it here yet again, but will simply observe that Christian apologetics has so far failed to adequately sidestep it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Fair enough:

Eternal -> without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Infinite -> immeasurably great in every respect
Spirit -> having a incorporeal conscious life
Necessary -> self-existent; having the reason for its existence in itself
Omniscient -> all-knowing; knows only true propositions
Omnipotent -> all-powerful; able to accom ...[text shortened]... e existence of the universe

"God" will refer to the person possessing the above attributes.

Your answer appears to be that there is no case for atheism.
I judge it to be a false religion. Even the atheist agree with that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your answer appears to be that there is no case for atheism.
I judge it to be a false religion. Even the atheist agree with that.

Uh, no, there are no atheists who would agree that atheism is a "false religion." The only people who make that case are theists who try vainly to avoid having to shoulder the entire burden of proof.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Fair enough:

Eternal -> without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Infinite -> immeasurably great in every respect
Spirit -> having a incorporeal conscious life
Necessary -> self-existent; having the reason for its existence in itself
Omniscient -> all-knowing; knows only true propositions
Omnipotent -> all-powerful; able to accom ...[text shortened]... e existence of the universe

"God" will refer to the person possessing the above attributes.

I’m going to bow out for now after this, but I do not think you’ve satisfied the request entirely. For example:

> Simply substituting the phrase “morally perfect” for “omnibenevolent” says nothing, really. You have to give some criteria for morally perfect behavior (and then, of course, defend attributing that to god).

> What does it mean to have an incorporeal conscious life? Does “spirit” imply any kind of dimensionality? If so, what kind? If not, then how can any dimensionally conditioned consciousness (ours) actually conceive of such a (non)thing?

> What does “person” mean—generally, and in terms of also having traits such as incorporeality (again: “non-dimensionality?) and ubiquitous presence? (This last, by the way, I think also applies to the non-dualist’s implicate ground.)

Whenever we make such assertions, it is up to us to show that we, at least, know what we’re talking about. I think that Wittgenstein was correct in saying that sometimes we are bewitched by language into believing that we know what we mean—when in fact, we are in a muddle that we haven’t recognized. And at that point, a late and lame apophatism doesn’t really work as a way out of kataphatic claims that we’ve already made. Non-dualists such as myself have to confront that no less than dualists—where is an apophatic approach warranted, and where does it become just an excuse? (For example, what can I really say about the implicate ontological ground within my own gestaltic non-dualism?)

Anyway, I am now in clear and present danger of derailing your purpose here, so I’ll let you carry on.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Got confused with numbering....hope this is better!

I realise I perhaps did not make myself as clear as I would have liked. My question is not about whether one religion is better than another, but the process by which anyone decides which is preferable and how reliable that assessment is.

So, to robbie carrobie, and doward, or anyone else indee n versus all others that exist.

Hopefully someone will be prepared to take up the challenge.

I see that all five of your questions could be difficult to adequately
explain and would require much soul searching to recall to ones
mind all the experiences that led to ones choice of spiritual
beliefs. I prefer the term "spiritual beliefs" over "religious beliefs"
in my particular case, since I don't adhere to particular doctrines
of any religion. However, I do consider myself a Christian, being
taught Christianity in a Southern Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas,
US of A., where I was baptized at 12 years of age. While I enjoyed
being loved by God and Jesus, I did not enjoy church rituals at all.
The fact that I was born into a semi-christian family, had a great
influence on my beliefs today. I have studied with a number of
Christian based groups which include Baptist, Methodist, Church
of God, Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), and a of couple Jewish
Messianic groups. I have read books on other world religions.
I have read parts of the Koran of Islam, but dismissed it as being
false without completing the book. I feel lucky that I was born
in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Although I
have had my doubts at times, I remain a Christian in belief; but
I do not go to any particular church or claim that I belong to any
Christian denomination. My beliefs in Christianity make me feel
free to be me. I do not feel I have done anything wrong if I miss
going to church one week or do not donate money to the church.
I do not feel it necessary to participate in any church ritual even
though I do from time to time. I believe Jesus has set me free
from the law of sin and death. I do anything I wish for I have no
desire to sin. I am happy in knowing that I have an advocate in
Jesus, the Christ, who has forgiven me for all my past sins. My
future is secure in Jesus. Since I have spent much time searching
for that particular church that teaches the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, I have come to the conclusion that each one has
truth mixed with a little error. It was up to me to weed out the
error. Whether or not I have succeeded in this is questionable,
but I am satisfied I have done my best and I am happy with my
decision. Now I will live the rest of my life happily looking forward
to that blessed hope.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have never heard of an atheist that was a creationist.
From Webster"s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:

creationism n (1880): a doctrine or theory holding that matter,
the various forms of life, and the world were created by God
out of nothing.

atheism n (1546): 1 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity ...[text shortened]... d be ridiculed. So you, Sir,
are that one person who implies non-atheist should be ridiculed.

wtf??? 😕