I predict no derailment. It would be a miracle (ha!) if the train ever leaves the station. — Kenosha Kid
The primary problem theists typically have is that their reason in faith (for this particular task) is so deep, and so unexamined, that they don't realize it is reason. They take faith's qualifications for considering the very largest of questions, those most far removed from human scale, to be an obvious given. And so it doesn't occur to them to questions those qualifications.
Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power. — baker
Nobody has faith in reason. People have very repeatable patterns of reliability that prove its efficacy. — DingoJones
This is the common atheist error, the assumption that because reason is proven good for many things (agreed) it is therefore automatically qualified for everything. And because they hold this typically unexamined assumption, they see no need to inspect or challenge those qualifications. — Foghorn
And so, ok, let us reason together. Let us apply the very same degree of challenge we reasonably aim at theist authorities to atheist authorities. This process is often called intellectual honesty. — Foghorn
I said repeatable patterns of reliability. — DingoJones
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews." — baker
I made a number of points that you havn’t addressed — DingoJones
I mean come on your mode of engagement is to ignore what I’m saying because you know it all already. — DingoJones
I accept such a challenge provided you posit something other than a strawman – e.g. (A) weak/negative atheism ... OR (B) strong/positive atheism ... OR (C) antitheism (my current position, having long since "outgrown" both (A & B)) ... OR (D) ??? — 180 Proof
here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?
Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. — 3017amen
No, but that will suffice for (A) weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend. — 180 Proof
The starting point of any inquiry is that everything (and its negation) might be logically possible. Then someone or another shows some reason or another why something is not possible, and so its negation is necessary. The question at hand is about whether or not atheism is logically possible, not whether it is definitely true. 180’s position is, of course, “I don’t see any reason why not”, because if he did see any reason why not then he wouldn’t hold that position. So everything really rests on 3017 offering some supposed reason why not, the merits of which can then be debated.
180 probably also has some reasons why theism isn’t possible, but that’s not the subject of this debate. — Pfhorrest
Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews." — baker
I was not raised in any religion at all, and was about 7 years of age when I first realised that people actually believed this stuff (the fundamental difference between Jesus and Superman). — Kenosha Kid
I suppose by "prove" you mean the formal sense, rather than just convincing someone? That does seem like an impossible bar to meet. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Atheism is simply accepting logic and reason over belief and experience — Christoffer
I don't think that's entirely accurate but it is true for some atheists. There are, of course, many different kinds of atheist, with different approaches and views. Some believe in astrology and magic. — Tom Storm
It's just not philosophy, that's all. — Foghorn
An atheist doesn't have a lack of belief in God, there's nothing lacking, there's just no logical assumption that there is a God, so it's not even on the list. The only reason atheists speak and think about the concept of "God" is because theists have proposed such ideas in society. — Christoffer
the idea that atheists lack a belief in God has become the norm explanation for atheism, which I don't think is accurate to what drives an atheist. — Christoffer
I agree that theism shouldn't be considered philosophy because philosophy should require reason and logic as the foundation. Atheism works in this sense since it's founded on thinking with reason and logic. — Christoffer
Every little detail of these four people's arguments is scrutinized to the core — Christoffer
This is why I don't think irrational belief, religion, and theism have any place in philosophy. It's the very antithesis of what philosophy aims to do. — Christoffer
This implies that atheism is only in opposition with the concept of "God" and the belief in one or a pantheon. But I wouldn't call someone who believes in astrology an atheist. It's the same kind of belief system, just not focused on the concept of God. — Christoffer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.