he most pernicious con tricks in human history such as Christianity and Islam
— universeness

To be replaced by the con of science? — EugeneW

↪Gregory A Frankly that is utter garbage. An atheist doesn’t ‘reject’ god, they just never really considered it at all and when told about some said ‘god’ simply don’t know/understand what the hell people are talking about - hence comparison to Santa.

You can see this is hunter gatherer tribes who were told of some ‘god’ and they asked where the god was. They believe what they see and have some vague belief in a possible afterlife (but they are non-committal).

Everyone is born an atheist because everyone is born without any real conception of themselves let alone some hypothetical being. — I like sushi

And, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks.
— Gregory A

Precisely! The poor bugger got caught up in his own fucking meme (excusez les mots). Which would be no problem, but he's actively engaged in fighting theism. Like a real inquisitor. — EugeneW

theism is a rejection of free-speech
— Gregory A

Eh? Atheism is the view that there are no gods. What has it got to do with free speech? It's nothing to do with politics, it's not a political movement or anything of the sort.

When you say 'invalid' what I think you mean is 'false'. Atheism is not an argument but an assertion/proposition about the way things are. Only arguments can be valid or invalid. Beliefs, assertions etc, can be true or false. — bert1

Keep the faith man! Dawkins would have found a way!
— universeness

I don't think so. He obediently sticks to the dogma... — EugeneW

I suspect trolling is as common amongst theists as it is amongst atheists. That is, its hard to imagine they actually believe everything they are saying. My guess is they are angry because they feel insulted by atheists, which in itself is a staggering hypocrisy. — DingoJones

Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'.
— Gregory A

Oh, so we get to make up our own meanings ? My girl soak inky. I appreciate this weeps mail over potty. A roach beep some witch? A go sinner claws it ?

For get a boot out ! Its shelf help noses same stew me. Spore me your plops and puns and your both dump flu of has it. Go brick to pet. (But hairy back !) — lll

I've been an atheist for about 20 years, so I feel pretty neutral on this issue. Maybe there was such a guy. Maybe not. Some of the words in the book are nice. Others not. I consider myself influenced by some Christian ideas, but I guess many of us must be
— lll

Sounds like a pretty well-balanced approach to me, although I think the influences are from more ancient storytelling as all the Christian stories are rehashed from earlier ones. — universeness

But the arrogance that leads to presumptions like this above is unbelievable
— Gregory A

It's your naivety that is unbelievable!

have been aware of evangelist types since the 70's (the documentary 'Marjoe', Jim Bakker in the 80's
— Gregory A

If you watched a documentary about evanhellical nasties like Jim and Tammy Baker, then perhaps you fell asleep or were not paying attention or.........as you forgot to condemn them as the horrors that they are.
An appeal to Christ means nothing to me as I don't think he ever existed.
I recommend you read Creating Christ by James Valliant or Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill or alternatively the works of Dr Richard Carrier. These might help you progress a little. — universeness

That those who enjoyed watching people being eaten alive by lions should find the compassion of Christians offensive heresy makes sense.

I'm not religious, but can still say thank God for Christianity. — Gregory A

I'm not religious, but can still say thank God for Christianity
— Gregory A

I think this just about sums up your logic.
I am sure we all await more such 'pearls of wisdom' from you.

How about:
I am not religious but thank god for Islam.
I am not religious but thank god for religion.
I am not political but thank providence for Politics.
I am not scientific but thank providence for Science.
I am not a thinker but thank providence for Thinking. — universeness

. For Christ's sake!
— Gregory A — EugeneW

Never forget Gregory the religious peddlers that will preach to you about the rewards you will receive AFTER YOU ARE DEAD!
Meantime you must comply with their instruction based on the claim that they are gods messengers.
Commandment number 1, their prime directive is your responsibility to support them, maintain their status/wealth/positions of power and be willing to give up your life in defense of them.
Also, you must donate some of your earnings to them, even if doing so means a poorer life for you and your family. Don't concern yourself with that! Your reward and your family's rewards will happen in f****** heaven! — universeness

And I do accept the magic bullet theory
— Gregory A
— universeness

Even though physics shows that such a bullet path is impossible, hence the use of the word magic?

Now there's a good example of the boiling pot calling out the frothing kettle!

Dawkins does not believe in magic! But yeah, he is allowed to reference the word, just like you reference words like 'science'.
What will we do with the bible, the quran, the torah etc if the god posit is proved false?
God would seem to have the easier route. Science may never be able to disprove god, yet all god has to do is appear and submit itself to scientific scrutiny. Should be easy for an it that manifests all the omnis.

You have a strong imperative towards what I would consider 'humanism.'
You add to my hopes for a better future for all of us by such typings!
— universeness

Thank you for your kind words! — lll

I've never heard of Tucker Carlson.
— Gregory A
— lll

No kidding? The dude is the, last I checked.

The Selfish Gene is an exciting/good book (you might like it, given your interest in chromosomes ), and I think he was already famous as a popularizer of evolutionary science and felt that rationality and science needed to be defended. Just as you may feel males need defending. If you read his book, you'll see why males and females automatically stay just about balanced. It's game-theoretical.

There are plenty of men on the left, plenty of women on the right. A war of the sexes sounds like a fortunately unrealistic nightmare. Some of us are married and/or have great friendships with women (or at least hope to at some point.)

I'm genuinely concerned that you might be troubled in some way. From my perspective, you are worried about something that's as unlikely as aliens attacking the planet. Please seek help if you are having violent fantasies. Seriously.

I'm here defending a right to free-speech while trying to silence others?
— Gregory A

Let me clarify. You've talked as if there's a threat of theists being silenced by some gang that includes Dawkins. I've said that you haven't made a case for what just sounds like paranoia to me. In general you remind me of Tucker Carlson, who I think is a cynical manipulator of his fans. He's just so shrill. He's a bow-tie white boy mega-Karen. Whether he's influenced you or not, you've both got the same 'worm in your brain' from my perspective, except he might just be faking it. As I've said in other words before, beware the all too ordinary madness of an unrealistic boogeyman. Your cholesterol level might be more of a threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THUFzmmKMPs — lll

Atheism's antipathy for theists is apparent whenever an atheist opens his or her mouth.
— Gregory A

To be an atheist is usually to also be a relatively educated person with respect for science. The average theist who shoulders into an intellectual discussion comes off as 'pre-philosophical' in their apparent disregard of the norms of critical inquiry or just polite conversation. For instance, the contempt that this or that noisy atheist may have for your current beliefs is not censorship. It sounds to me like you'd like them silenced for hurting your feelings. Free speech cuts both ways, — lll

Regardless it does look like you're downplaying atheism's actual intentions which are to take away the rights of those who believe.
— Gregory A
— lll

That's paranoid projection, brother, for which you have not made a case. I'm not sure that most people can walk without that crutch or something like it. If you take away Jesus, they'll get their fix from the child-eating lizardmen who live in tunnels or the Pleiadians come to save us from outer space. If the species makes it another few centuries, we'll probably have believers in the mutterings of a pontifical pulsar, with cryptographers interpreting its beeps and buzzes for a priesthood. I suspect that you're defending a monotheism (and not 'the Seven' or The Secret) simply because you were born among those who babbled of it and not some other fairy's tail. You've shown up late, too, for its glory days are past indeed, and the educated, if still Christian, are at least modest enough to take their theology negative (figurative or cultural at the least.)

You can check out The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to discover that Christianity was originally an offensive heresy that refused to tolerate the other religions already in place, like an only child who just would not share its toys.

There are non-believers in a god/s and there are atheists, those that challenge theists.
— Gregory A

That's not how the word is used by most. If you make up your own usages, you'll likely be misunderstood, especially if you are demonizing/misrepresenting folks. Here's what I got from googling 'atheist,' just to be sure of myself before pointing it out.

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. — lll

No, referencing something that my adversaries have constructed is not at odds with my non-belief.
— Gregory A
— universeness

Yeah, even though based on the logic that you employ, you should not be doing so.
You have no belief in the spaghetti monster so you cant reference it. It would be illogical for you to do so based on your own application of logic.

Well, yes, I do see the massive flaws in how you form your belief system, I do get that.
If you lived in Russia right now and you listened to your beloved state TV channel, you would no doubt be singing Putin's praises. The words 'I've never believed anything other than the Warren commission's findings show that. So, you accept the 'magic bullet' theory then?

Well I'm glad I have the power to embarrass you, even if its inspired by your delusional thinking.

Yeah, keep tubthumping on your tin bath, see if the echo's progress your proposals?

↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago
— baker

As a loser, a homeless person, someone sleeping in a car, yet with a message, can communicate with others wherever they are in the world I can't help but consider such an outcome so slanted in my favour can come about by mere chance. But, still don't let me stop you believing that a 12v powered tablet computer, a hotspot from my phone, like the Mount Rushmore memorial are simply Natural features of an uncaring universe.
— Gregory A
— baker

You're working with a fallacious reduction of options. There aren't just "either believe in God, or believe in mere chance". It's also possible to not have any particular opinion on the matter. Or believe that Earth is controlled by beings from other galaxies. And whatever other cosmogonies people believe in.

I asked you
Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?

This is to point out that most people who have ever believed in God, have not done so as a result of careful consideration and choosing, but were simply born and raised into a monotheistic religion. They were taught to believe in God, they never chose to do so.

The people who _choose_ to believe in God are a minority.

Do you have any comment on this?

Matt Dillahunty gives a very good explanation of atheism in his gumball machine analogy.

The number of gumballs in a machine is either odd or even.
If I tell you that the number is even, do you believe me?
Theism may say yes they do believe me, without requiring a count.
Atheism does not accept the claim due to the lack of convincing evidence.
This does not mean that the atheist takes the alternate view, that the number of gumballs is odd.
They simply hold the VALID position of 'we do not currently know the number of gumballs.'
Atheism is therefore a completely valid position.

Matt suggests this is the correct definition of atheism, it is a rejection of the god posit but does not state that the existence of god is impossible. But Matt has also assigned a 'positive confidence level' to his rejection of the god posit towards a percentage level similar to my own. This does little damage, in my opinion, to the atheist position that god is not impossible.
an hour ago — universeness

Naturalism is not an escape pod for atheism. Newton, when he established the foundations of science, said something to the effect that only God could've been the one behind the laws of nature of which a handful he enumerated.

There's no arguing with theists. The laws that miracles violate and the miracles themselves, as per theists, are God's work. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Heads I win, tails you lose kinda deal! — Agent Smith

Sorry Gregory A, but I am still laughing at your logic.
I will stop now.......:lol: ....sorry! — universeness

I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm a non-believer in what is an impossibility.
Consequently, I can have nothing to say about this thing I do not believe exists. Got it
— Gregory A
— universeness

No, because you just told me you don't believe in the 'flying spaghetti monster.' Why did you do that is your logic demands your silence on that which you don't believe exists? Got it?

I don't think you should call yourself a dummy for not believing in the 'flying spaghetti monster.'
I agree with you that it doesn't exist, how's that for common ground! Welcome to our same level. Have you got it yet?

Yeah? You don't believe the one about the kill shot coming accidentally, from one of his own security men? or the triangular assassins hidden on the 'grassy knoll' etc. Have you got enough space on your sandwich board to reveal the truth about the JFK assassination as well? Do you still not get it yet?

The Right has a set of values, the Left a similar but counter set, meaning one thing the Left has only half of a chance of being right
— Gregory A

:rofl:

So, this is your logic? The left and the right make a whole. So the left is half of the whole. So the left has at best, half of a chance of being RIGHT. Apart from laughing about your poor handling of the words left and right in "LEFT has only half a chance of being RIGHT."
You conflate ratios with politics to try to make a logical point. We have not to consider the moralities of right-wing or left-wing politics, we have just to consider their 50%, coin-toss chance of being correct.
REALLY? — universeness

If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in.
— Gregory A
— universeness

This skewed logic of yours is pure sophistry and as I have already stated, insignificant. You just string nonsense together and hope you can get near the bullseye on the dartboard. I think you are not even throwing darts in the same room the dartboard hangs in.

What does Matt Dillahunty talk about on YouTube on a daily basis. What do your nemeses such as Richard Dawkins write books about? What do groups like MythVision discuss on a daily basis.
Do you think your silly metalogic invalidates atheism and actually supports the OP title?
I find it very difficult to offer you anything but scorn and mockery.
You type with the thoughts of a character like a sandwich board man with the words 'Atheism is invalid' chalked on either side as you wander aimlessly up and down the high street exclaiming 'atheists should not speak because they are atheist and because they are all leftists and because they.......well....just because......

The atheist's challenge is not to 'put up' but is to put up or shut up.
— Gregory A
— lll

Imagine a stranger or an acquaintance comes up to you and assures you that their grandmother came back from the dead or that their son leaped over the house. You'd be intrigued. At least I would. But I'd want some evidence pronto and get bored pretty quickly with various excuses. 'No one knew she was dead but me, but really she came back.' Or 'my son can only do it when no one is looking or just me.' If there were more witnesses supporting these claims, I'd more more intrigued. But I want to see the dead restored to life or the boy pull an ET over my house. The 'shut up' that comes from impatience is just symbolic of my right and yours to not have to listen to those who have lost our trust or respect. At times it's seems that theistic complaints are even a bit entitled, as if they don't just want protection from censorship (which they have in the US) but rather a captive audience.

No more, as far as I can see, than in hanging up on a telemarketer or a robocall. We do not owe one another our ears. As a believer in free speech, I think we owe one another only tolerance. I do try to hurt you or lock you away because we disagree and you do the same.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
— Jefferson

In my experience, theists often fail to note just how moral and even neurotic their foils those pesky agnostic or atheistic liberals can be. Or I wasn't invited to the pansexual key party this month. Hard to say. Neither decency nor smug self-righteousness require religious belief or its absence. In my experience, most people have some kind of patchwork religion of childhood Christianity, self-help books, sci-fi, conspiracy theory. I find the theist/atheist issue way too binary, way too simple. I just want to know that neighbor isn't a maniac who can't deal with not being the center of the world, happy enough in his/her beliefs to not need my approval or admiration.

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.
— Gregory A
— EugeneW

I don't follow. If atheism is valid wouldn't they be able to talk with mouths wide open and loud words? It are the theists who should be silent.

This is confusing. The invalidity of atheism seems equivalent to the validity of theism. Is naturalism compatible with theism?

I'm not sure atheists believe in mermaids and unicorns. They can be found in principle while gods live in a world outside of the universe. But then again, maybe mermaids and unicorns live along with the gods.

That depends on the atheist and the power they possess. I'm a theist and an anarchist.

In the USA, I don't see the silencing of theists or really any kind of supernatural theorists. You can even believe that extraterrestrial reptiles who eat children run the world and they won't lock you up. You can blog about the flatness of the earth as you fly around the globe. As far as I can tell, religious folks are often resentful of the intellectual minority who dare to challenge or mock not silence such theories. — lll

Once again atheism trying to shove its leftist agenda down people's throats. Y
— Gregory A
— Tom Storm

You seem to enjoy a phobic anti-atheist rant. Good for you! However, many atheists are conservatives. Some are fairly right wing. Ayn Rand was an atheist. Libertarians tend to be atheists. Many atheists are arseholes. They are not really a team. Some atheists believe in ghosts and astrology. The only thing they have in common is the lack of a particular belief. To say that atheists are all far left social engineers is to engage in a conspiracy theory. Many people like these conspiracy theories as they make it easier not to think.

Superficially true. But these regimes did not kill for the 'glory of atheism' the way The Inquisition, The Crusades, the Witch Trials, Putin, Islamic State, Isis, etc, killed or kill 'for the glory of God'. They killed as part of a cult of personality and in the name of political fanaticism and nationalism. I would agree that political fanaticism is as bad as religious fanaticism. But I wouldn't include Nazi's - they had the Catholic church and the sermons of Martin Luther to back up their thinking and the slogan, 'Gott Mit Uns' - 'God is with us' was very important in Nazi lore and old German nationalism. — Tom Storm

Agreed, there's also a bias for being or existing things at least epistemologically. — Shwah

If we deny quantum mechanics then we epistemologically never deny/negate physics entirely (we could be extreme general relativists or string theorists) however if we assert quantum mechanics, then that entails mechanics (at least epistemologically).
If atheism is defined as the negation of theism then I'm not sure how one ever gets to that position even given infinite negations of physical theories.
Now physics can be shown to be an issue by attacking the premise of it (that the material universe is fundamentally matter and energy) but this doesn't seem to imply that physics has no validity or doesn't exist in this world (can't be talked about) or that we have the means to justify that we have exhaustive means to show it doesn't exist

I think atheism ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and theism, and even atheism, should be assumed that they are real but in terms of what they are like social constructs etc.

How can someone who does not believe that something exists, can prove that it doesn't exist?
— Alkis Piskas
Your confusion lies with conflating the second-order meta claim of atheism (theism is not true) with the first-order object claim of theism (there is at least one god). Evidence against theism? Theist's conspicuous failure for millennia to soundly demonstrate that "there is at least one god" is true (especially given the extraordinary scope of what's canonically-liturgically attributed to "god" whereby evidences, direct or not, should be ubiquitous and yet are wholly absent). This only "proves" that theism is just as unwarranted as interpreting fairytales or poems literally. Only imaginary things, after all, require "faith" (i.e. suspension of disbelief). :pray: :roll:

Whether aware of it or not atheists attempt to silence theists.
— Gregory A
Sounds like you've got something of a persecution complex. Incel maybe? — 180 Proof

As an atheist, I hold the position that I have seen no reason to be convinced there is god/s - let alone people knowing what god/s want.
— Tom Storm
If it is not immediately evident to you that there is something going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably never believe in God. It's kinda just one of those things. In all my incredible wisdom, I can say at least that much.

The main role for an atheist in these conversations is to ask theists - 'why do you say that?'
— Tom Storm
Wouldn't it be so easy for you if everything was all natural? I mean, then you wouldn't even have to ask a theist why they believe in God right? Or for proof? But wait (here comes the justification)...

It's important because governments all around the world have harmful religious agendas, from killing gay people in Saudi, to working to overturn Roe versus Wade in the USA. We know religious nationalism is a huge problem all around the world (Putin anyone?) with all of these are folk who not only believe in god/s, but think they know what god/s wants.
— Tom Storm
You've got to be kidding me. Haughtily asking for proof of God in the guise of sincere and genuine civic duty? Vladimir Putin? Gays in Saudi Arabia? You're making a mockery of atheism.

Religion does not have a monopoly on psychopathy, not to mention the fact that you are trying to veer the conversation towards the term "religion" rather than the far more neutral term "God".

The only reason I mention the word "theist" is out of respect for the thread (which is about atheism). Plenty of non-religious practicing people still believe in God. Nice try though. — chiknsld

I will say this (correct me if I am wrong), you do not believe in God but you continue to ask for proof of God. What to you is proof of God?
— chiknsld

As an atheist, I hold the position that I have seen no reason to be convinced there is god/s - let alone people knowing what god/s want. So I am asking for theist's evidence. That should seem reasonable, surely?

The main role for an atheist in these conversations is to ask theists - 'why do you say that?'

I don't know what would be counted as 'proof', but I do know that nothing I have heard or seen so far works for me.

It's important because governments all around the world have harmful religious agendas, from killing gay people in Saudi, to working to overturn Roe versus Wade in the USA. We know religious nationalism is a huge problem all around the world (Putin anyone?) and all of these are folk who not only believe in god/s, but think they know what god/s wants.

So why do you make the claims you do? — Tom Storm

Which will not only conspire to deprive males of their lives, females of their freedoms but along with that (all) faiths not worshiping God the Mother.
— Gregory A

You must have had some pretty bad experiences! Do they make you worship the Mother God? Praised is her name. — EugeneW

I mean mermaids are not super-natural
— Gregory A

So how do you categorise mermaids? Obviously they are not 'natural,' or at least they have never been physically discovered anywhere yet on planet Earth. I categorise mermaids as fictitious, just like god. — universeness

The fact that the universe, in its eternal infinity, exists.
— EugeneW

It would be a proof of god's existence if that were the only valid explanation. But other valid explanations exist, and they are not any less or more valid than the other. Therefore the only thing you can claim is that the infinite space and matter in it have existed forever; but the cause of their existence is not necessarily god, AND it is not necessarily the lack of god. Either beliefs are possible, therefore either beliefs are valid AS BELEIFS but not as knowledge. — god must be atheist

for the benefit of III:

God belief is completely valid. IT'S A BELIEF. It purports no knowledge. Atheism, ditto, but the opposite.

Any arguments against beliefs that they should be supported by evidence is invalid. You can't demand evidence for something that is not knowledge.

This goes for both theists and atheists. It is futile to try to convince someone to discontinue his or her BELIEF.
— god must be atheist

The assertion 'God is real' is an assertion of belief. But! To say you can't demand evidence of something that is not knowledge (being in receipt of the facts) isn't quite true as evidence of 'dark matter' exists without anyone knowing dark matter really exists. God too could be a theory, not simply a belief. — god must be atheist

↪Gregory A Why are people theists? Why do people believe in God?
a day ago — baker