Thread: A critique of Atheism

Nowadays people believe the FSM doesn't exist. They go beyond that and say there are no giant space gnomes and no rainbow-dinosaurs hiding in the center of Saturn.

That's not science damn it!





There's no proof for god. So to believe in "it" makes as much sense as believing there's an inter dimensional invisible octopus hiding in my closet.

There is occam's razor to think about, too. "god" is just an useless and baseless assumption.

Originally Posted by ethen

This is all I can think of at the moment. Just as an ending comment, I believe that most atheists sort of believe in each one of these ‘justifications’, and when they come together as a general way of looking at the world, atheism does seem like it has a lot going for it. But when you break down the individual justifications, there is really isn’t anything special or substantial about it under the self-righteous façade it puts up.

Whatever. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you'll believe it.

I forgot to add:

Don't even try to say you're agnostic to the FSM. You're not and so you're as bad as the "atheism" you criticize, that's hypocrisy.

There's no point in breaking down atheism the way you've done. For one, you assume a lot of things about atheism that simply aren't true. Your "justifications" are bogus and don't, in any way, speak for all atheists. Why are you delving into this so extensively? Atheism is simply lack of god belief. You can't attribute it to a certain way of thinking. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of god belief - period.

Originally Posted by kaeraz

There's no point in breaking down atheism the way you've done. For one, you assume a lot of things about atheism that simply aren't true. Your "justifications" are bogus and don't, in any way, speak for all atheists. Why are you delving into this so extensively? Atheism is simply lack of god belief. You can't attribute it to a certain way of thinking. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of god belief - period.

Exactly.

As for myself, the main reason I refuse to believe in any deities is primarily a matter of relevance. Admitting that gods exist doesn't change anything about myself, how I view the world, or how the world at large operates. With or without gods, things would be the same as they are now.

God is dead. What's for lunch?

Originally Posted by ethen

Atheism is a movement that regularly and extensively questions, analyzes, and critiques a number of the world’s held beliefs

Atheism is not a movement - it's a lack of god belief. You make it sound like we're zombies rising up from grave to attack religion. And not all atheists question, analyze, or critique religions at all. Some choose not to associate themselves with religion period. You're already assuming things about atheism that are completely false. It floors me that you think you can break down atheism when you're not even correctly defining it.

Originally Posted by ethen

, but how often is Atheism itself examined in such a way and to such an extent? In my experience, I would say a less than proportional amount.

What are you talking about? Atheism is under constant scrutiny. Why do you think that, in America at least, atheists are the most mistrusted minority? The only reason you think atheism is examined less is because...there's nothing to examine! It's lack of god belief - nothing more, nothing less. It's not a mind-blowing concept if you take it at face value. Religion and theists are obviously examined more because there's a lot more to examine and falsify.

Originally Posted by ethen

And considering the significant role atheism plays in these forums alone, a full-out critique of it seems oddly past due. Now before I begin, I would like to say that, despite my bias regarding atheism, I am honestly going to try to be as objective as I can. I will be doing this by refraining from using opinionated, ‘loaded’, or unnecessary adjectives/comments whenever possible, and I will also be going be using operant definitions of terms to avoid semantic tangents.

Your admitted bias and lack of understanding already makes you completely unfit to critique atheism. In the following rebuttal, I will tell you why.

Originally Posted by ethen

What is Atheism?

In this specific discussion, Atheism will refer to “ the belief in the absence of God’s existence.” I would like to contrast this with the idea of “not believing in the concept of God” because the former makes a definite assertion about the existence of God, while the latter does not. They are both similar notions in the sense that neither believes in God, but atheism goes one step beyond this and makes the additional assertion that God also doesn’t exist. It’s a small detail, but an important one.

I don't get why you're making this distinction in the first place. Who, exactly, doesn't believe in the "concept" of God? God is a relatively easy idea to conceive of - it's the believing part that's a bit more difficult for some, namely, atheists.

Originally Posted by ethen

Some people feel that not believing God’s existence inherently implies the belief in God’s non-existence, but this isn’t accurate. In order to believe that something exists or does not exist, you must first assume that certain characteristics are true of the concept in question. For example, if the concept in question is Santa Claus, you cannot believe he exists (nor can you believe that he doesn’t exist) unless you assume certain characteristics of Santa (namely his omniscient-ish and omnipresent-ish nature). Without assuming specific characteristics, there just simply isn’t anything to believe or reject. If I were to ask you if you believe in the concept of Googly Schmoogly, you could not accept or reject this notion unless I gave that concept a framework of specific characteristics to accept or reject.

I'm pretty certain that not believing God's existence and the belief in God's non-existence are the same thing. Sounds like a bit of fancy word rearranging. All this talk of having a concept and certain characteristics is irrelevant. If I grew up on a remote island where the idea of a god or gods was never proposed and I never had a concept or knew certain characteristics of this/these god(s) that would still technically make me an atheist. Atheist = lack of god belief. My island self would still have a lack of god belief regardless of knowing what a god is so my island self would still be an atheist.

Originally Posted by ethen

Now lets apply this to the concept of a God, and specifically someone in my situation. I cannot accept or reject the general notion of a God because there is no way of knowing what characteristics must be true in order for something to be considered a God. Specific religions have tried, but I don’t have good enough reason to accept any of the qualities any religion assigns to God. As a result, I cannot therefore accept or reject the concept of a God. And its not simply a matter of being torn between believing God exists and believing God doesn’t exist…someone in my position can’t even get that far because there are no definite qualities to be “torn” about either. In this sense, it is possible to not believe God exists (since there are no definite qualities to believe in) and yet not believe God doesn’t exist either (since there are no definite qualities to reject).

What is this ambiguous gray area of knowing/not knowing you keep talking about? This is pretty black and white. Either you believe in god or you don't regardless of your knowledge or concept of god. If you don't believe in god, you're an atheist. If you do believe in god, you're a theist. Pretty simple, really.

Originally Posted by ethen

Where does Atheism stand as a concept?

Is Atheism a matter of science, philosophy, faith? In order to determine where Atheism fits in, we must first understand the justification behind the concept. The following are, in my experience, the most common justifications used to defend Atheism.

Atheism is neither science, philosophy, or faith. I don't know how you can so deeply misconstrue such a simple meaning. Your justifications are merely your interpretation of what you think atheists "believe" - all of which do not apply to all atheists everywhere or atheism in general.

Originally Posted by ethen

1.) There is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting it.

-This claim is slightly misleading. There is not overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the belief that there is no God. In fact, there is no scientific evidence regarding the existence of God at all (and that’s supposedly the point). What Atheists usually mean when they say use this justification is that “of all of evidence the scientific community has amassed, there is none of God’s existence”. The reason I make this distinction is because there is a fundamental difference between a belief that is based on actual evidence (such as a scientific theory), and a belief that is based on a lack of evidence to the contrary (such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster). In this sense, scientific evidence supports the idea of Atheism in the same way it supports the idea of the FSM. The only scientific support atheism does have is that there is no evidence of God, or in other words, there is no evidence to the contrary of atheism…but as you can see, the FSM can claim the exact same thing. And ironically enough, so can many forms of Theism,…such as those who claim that, because God is supernatural, there is no way to scientifically study God considering science is limited to the natrual/physical universe. Other than that, there is no scientific evidence confirming anything atheistic, just as there is no scientific evidence confirming the FMS or a Supernatural God. None have has, nor can have, this sort of scientific support. In short, this justification is void.

I have never heard an atheist assert that there's overwhelming scientific evidence to proof the non-existence of God. If you've heard this, again, it's irrelevant because that does not speak for all atheists. The way you described it later on in your paragraph sounds more accurate. Most atheists will probably agree that because there's no evidence to support a god, it's simply natural to disregard the fairytale of a god. Any logical person believes things because they are facts that can be proven. God simply can't be proven - just like green elves, pink unicorns, and the FSM can't be proven.

Originally Posted by ethen

2.) It’s the only logical thing to assume.

-Again, this claim is misleading because the ‘logic’ being referred to is the same logic described in #1, and we have shown that this same logic (i.e. that no scientific evidence to the contrary scientifically justifies the belief) can also be use to support notions like the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a Supernatural God. Again, the only scientific support Atheism has is that there is no scientific evidence of the existence of God,

Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds?
"Again, the only scientific support A-elfism has is that there is no scientific evidence of the existence of elves."
Ethen, you and I need to rethink our lack of belief in elves because ALL we have to support us is the lack of evidence that they exist!

Do you see what I mean?

Originally Posted by ethen

which is just another way of saying there is no scientific evidence contradicting Atheism. There also isn’t any scientific evidence contradicting the concept of the FSM, nor is there any scientific evidence contradicting the concept of a Supernatural God. But as you can see, this sort of “justification by default” is clearly flawed.

Your justification is clearly flawed. Do you honestly think people could go through life thinking like that? Why would I believe in something just because there was no evidence to support that it didn't exist? That is so ass-backwards, it's not even funny. This way of thinking wouldn't help anybody - theist or atheist. If I were a theist, how could I believe in the Christian God, when it's possible to believe in all these other gods? Why not? There's no evidence that they don't exist.

This kind of thinking would simply lead our world into madness. We can't believe in everything just because there's nothing to prove it's non-existence so instead we rely on evidence to prove that certain things are true and do exist.

Originally Posted by ethen

Therefore this specific justification is not valid because there are several opposing concepts that are equally ‘logical’ given the specific ‘logic’ atheism utilizes. However, some Atheist would not agree with this because they refer to the issue of probability as the ‘logic’ behind their beliefs. This brings us to our next argument.

Atheism doesn't utilize specific logic. Again, you're assuming more things about atheism that are untrue.

Originally Posted by ethen

3.) Atheism is not a matter of certainty, it’s a matter of probability.

- The probability being referenced, as I understand it, is that given all of the evidence the scientific community has, and given the fact that none of it supports the existence of a God, its much more “likely” that there is no God… even though such a claim is not, and cannot, be certain or proven by science. This is probably the most sound argument atheism has. Nevertheless, it has its own shortcomings. Like most Atheist arguments, this too is very much rooted in the validity of #1, but less vitally than #2. The problem with this argument is that is ultimately makes an appeal to evidence, though admittedly in a different way than #1 or #2. The problem arises when you take a closer look at what exactly justifies the acceptance of the evidence in question. Most atheists are not scientists, and therefore have virtually no direct evidence to appeal to. Instead, and understandably so, they must appeal to claims of empirical evidence, namely the claims of the scientific community. This is fine, but there is a distinction to be made between claims of evidence and [/i]actual evidence[/i], and that distinction is in the level of credibility each has, and as a result, the extent of justification it each can yield.

The scientific method can provide actual evidence, that is, direct empirical verification of a phenomenon. And using this method, this actual evidence can be experienced by others by repeating the experiment. Doing this gives an individual actual evidence of something, but as you can already begin to see, a requisite of having actual evidence (as opposed to “claims of evidence”) is first person verification. Now suppose that a person has actual evidence of something. This person cannot “give” his evidence to anyone, at best he can claim to have evidence, and this is because he cannot share the firsthand experience with others. He has to settle for using language to attempt to share the reality of this evidence, but as you can see…it isn’t the actual evidence he is sharing (he cannot share it) it is his testimony of the evidence that he is sharing. Now, lets suppose this person (person 1) does indeed share his testimony of this evidence with another person (person 2), Person 2 can now only be said to have a testimony justifying the claim, even though the claim itself came from someone who truly did have actual evidence. It doesn’t matter because, regardless of if Person 1 has actual evidence, and regardless if person 1 was completely honest with Person 2, Person 2 can still only claim to have his testimony. Therefore, if Person 2 ends up believing the same thing Person 1 does, only Person 1 can claim to have evidence of the belief because Person 2 can only rightly claim to have a testimony as his evidence (or first-hand experience).

Person 1? Person 2? Who cares? Again, this is ALL completely irrelevant to atheism. You're equating atheism with the scientific community. I, along with many other atheists, don't believe in a god or gods because there is nothing to compel me to believe - no evidence, no magical giant finger spelling my name out in the clouds. Just like you don't believe in unicorns, hobbits, or one-eyed eight foot cyclops people. Although, I don't know - judging by the logic of your last "justification" for atheism, maybe you do believe in all those things.

Originally Posted by ethen

Now imagine science as a whole. It consists of million of people doing millions of different things over hundreds and hundreds of years. That’s a lot of firsthand experiences, and thus, a lot of actual evidence…no one is denying this. But now consider how those in the scientific community “share” this evidence…they primarily do it via testimony! Sure, experiments must be replicated before they are accepts by the community. But only a slight fraction of the scientists that make up the community do this, and as a result, only this slight fraction of the community have the same actual evidence (as opposed to testimony). It’s only understandable that this process of verification would be seriously impractical if it had to be done by every individual in the community for each and every experiment, but that’s exactly what would be needed in order for the community, as a whole, to claim to have actual evidence of the all of the findings boasted by science. In this sense, even scientist-atheists have severely insufficient evidence for the probability claim, because at least 99.9% of the evidence they are going off of isn’t actually evidence, its testimony (or other scientists).

OK, so, assuming you're a Christian or at least religious, you have no problem believing the "testimony" of other believers and the Bible (or other religious texts), but you use this as an "argument" against atheism? The fact is, regardless of whether I personally use the scientific method to test something to confirm that it's true, I don't need to. I could, but I don't need to because I know it's a scientist's job to test and test and test a theory over and over and over and over again. If they're wrong, the theory is discarded or revised. Science is so universal and easy to accept because science is not afraid to admit when it's wrong. It strives to find answers where religion strives to suppress answers to fit into its wacky, little distortion of reality.

Regardless, all you've said above is also irrelevant. Atheism and science are not synonymous. The lack of god belief often fits nicely with scientific thought simply because much of science contradicts an astounding amount of what religious folks do (or did) believe. Science, however, does not contradict atheists lack of god belief. In fact, it's just confirming our lack of belief more and more as science progresses.

Originally Posted by ethen

This may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but when it comes to personal beliefs, it’s of the utmost importance. Imagine that you have a group of friends and, when you were in the bathroom, your friends see a UFO (Assume it’s a real UFO and the really saw it). They now have good reason to believe in UFOs. Suppose now that you come out of the bathroom, having not witness the fiasco, and your friends now give you their independently verified experiences of the UFO. Would you then have as good of a reason to believe in UFOs as your friends do…or even close to as good of a reason?... and if not, why? I’ll tell you why, its because there is something very significant about the first-hand experience and the justification of one’s belief. ALL atheists, as in individuals who believe God does not exist, have this belief that God does not exist… but NO atheist (scientists and laymen alike) can claim to have sufficient evidence to say “its just a matter of probability based on scientific evidence” because at least 99.9% of that evidence they are talking about is mere testimony…testimony that hasn’t been verified by at least 99.9% of the scientists who believe it! You cannot claim you are justified by way of probability without first justifying the things that make up that probability…and no atheist could ever even come close to doing this. Therefore, since the probability is unverified by way of the evidence being unverified, not individual atheist can claim this justification either.

You have a very gross misunderstanding of how science works. You're describing science like it's about bunch of grade school kids playing the game telephone where they whisper messages to each other through the grapevine. This is not how science is done. It's not testimony - it's credited scientific journals that have been tested, often by many scientists, over and over again.

Also, your equating this with a UFO sighting is very unrealistic. If it were me in that position, I wouldn't automatically believe my friend just because they said they saw a UFO. If I didn't see it myself - in other words, if there was no EVIDENCE - then I wouldn't believe it. You talk as though science is merely hearsay - gossip passed on from scientist to scientist. That is not how things are done. If there's no evidence, there's no science.

Originally Posted by ethen

4.) It’s science/It’s on the same level as science.

-Similar to #1, but even more inaccurate. These are people who equivocate Atheism and science and insist on using them interchangeably (such as attempting to defend atheism by defending science). We have already shown one that there is no scientific evidence that actually supports atheism, only a lack of evidence supporting its contradiction…something several opposing beliefs also have the benefit of claiming. The use of this justification is to be unaware that there is a very real difference between a scientific theory (something that is supported by actual evidence) and a philosophical theory based off the unscientific implications of absent scientific data. Making this implication is fine, but its not scientifically justified. At best its philosophically justified and this is another subtle, yet vital, distinction not usually made. Part of the problem is that, because Atheism is ‘based’ on science (notice the quotes), that it must somehow inherent some or all of the credibility and justification science is entitled to. Not true, and to put the claim “based on science” into perspective, Intelligent Design is also ‘based’ on science. Though Atheism and I.D are clearly different from one another, they are the same in at least one regard. They are ‘perversions’ of objective, neutral science in the sense that [u]both[/i] assert unscientific claims based on unscientific implications…all in the name of science.

Atheism is NOT synonymous with science. I don't know who's telling you this rubbish or if you're just spouting it out of your deluded mind. You can surely say that many atheists equate their beliefs with science, but that does not many all atheists do. From my experience, atheists are very aware that atheism and science are two completely separate things. You've probably misunderstood the idea that atheism is compatible with science. Atheism is the absence of god belief. I wonder how many times I can write that...

Originally Posted by ethen

5.) Because (insert religion or religions) contradict themselves

-Atheism is not religion-specific. It is not merely the belief that there is no Christian God (or any other religious deity), and if you think so, perhaps you shouldn’t consider yourself an Atheist. Atheism is the belief that a God, in general, does not exist. But notice how this claim cannot be invalidated by debunking specific religions…or even all religions. The concept of God goes beyond the religions often associated with it. It’s a also a philosophical notion that has no vital connection to the religions often attacked in the name of Atheism. The people who use this justification assume that, in order for God to exist, he must exist according to one or more religious interpretations…otherwise religions contradicting themselves have no real relevance to the notion of God (if God can exist as something outside of those religious interpretations, that is). This is not a valid justification either.

This is not a "justification" for atheism. This is merely one of the many reasons that I, and perhaps many other atheists, don't believe in God. The contradicting of religions is irrelevant, but many of the contradicting religions cause contradicting gods. Even the Christian God is described as both a jealous, murderous war-monger in the Old Testament and an all-loving gentle being in the New Testament. You see how even this simple contradiction might make some logical individuals a bit skeptical?

Originally Posted by ethen

Given all of this, if we define faith as "belief not strongly supported by evidence or logic", then Atheism fits the bill. Not only is atheism not strongly supported by evidence, its not supported by evidence at all because there is none regarding the existence of God (and supposedly that is the evidence ). Atheism makes an implication that is not supported, warranted, or justified by the standards of science. And since the logic is based off of this same missing evidence, the logic isn't actually based on anything empirical. And even I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept 'testimony' as sufficient evidence (though it clearly doesn't compare to the first-hand experience), atheism still suffers from all of the shortcomings listed above, regardless of what label we slap on it. Faith, not faith...it doesn't really matter what you call it when you have that many holes in your argument...and thats without having to things like external world skepticism and such.

This is all I can think of at the moment. Just as an ending comment, I believe that most atheists sort of believe in each one of these ‘justifications’, and when they come together as a general way of looking at the world, atheism does seem like it has a lot going for it. But when you break down the individual justifications, there is really isn’t anything special or substantial about it under the self-righteous façade it puts up.

You can believe all you want, buddy. All I can say to end this long rebuttal is there's belief or non-belief. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe a ball will drop to the ground the moment I let it go. I believe you have are completely wrong in your assumptions about atheism. I do not believe in a pink unicorns because there's never been any fossils, photos, videos, or flocks of pink wings across the sky to prove their existence - no evidence in other words. Now replace "pink unicorns" with "god."

Isn't Atheism just a non believer in god?

Ethen, what is the probability that a single mind deliberately created the universe and its laws? What is the probability that the single mind exists without a body? What is the probability that the single mind is invisible? What is the probability that the single mind is everywhere at once and perceiving all that goes on? What is the probability that the single mind has emotions even though it is not the result of the evolution of survival abilities? What is the probability that the single mind has ALL of those qualities?

I am not sure how you define "God", but the standard definition involves all of those qualities. Maybe you should give us a definition of "God" so we can know exactly what you consider an "atheist".

Believing in the falsehood of a highly improbable notion that does not show up on reality's radar and goes against the laws of reality as we have always observed them and as the generally proven worthy (through developments that we experience directly) scientific community at large has shown them to be is logical. Believing in the truth of such a highly improbable notion is not logical. Believing that the issue is something like a toss up is not logical either. Atheism is logical.

Also, not believing what one perceives to be a highly improbable notion is pretty much synonymous with believing it to be false. I can't really picture how they would ever not come together. Conclusions are formed based on perceived probabilities.

I still want to get to the bottom of why you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. You said recently that you believe he does not exist because you have no reason to believe that he does and that you have "faith" that he does not exist. I think it goes deeper than that, and I would really like to see what all is behind your belief that the FSM does not exist. I am willing to bet that your argument, if you ever stated the full details of it, would sound a lot like what I just said in the above paragraphs.

You didn't define God in a way that would be appropriate to a thread like this. Tell me exactly what God is in terms of something that can readily be perceived by any human mind and be agreed upon to be a valid basis for a discussion such as this.

Please add on what basis you are creating the definition. Because it has any relationship to reality whatsoever or just because it's the most common usage of the term? If the latter, does it actually have any relationship to reality whatsoever and if yes, present evidence. If not, how do you figure you are in the position to define something said to be non-fictional if you haven't even perceived it yet? Where is the actual basis for defining a word claimed to be pertaining to a real phenomenon? Wouldn't you know that words define phenomena once perceived so as to be capable of referring to them in a much more efficient and intersubjectively valid way? How do you square this with the constant usage of a term the reference of which you yourself admit not to have any evidence for? Are you now using the word 'God' only in reference to what's going on in people's minds or are you actually still proposing a phenomenon that you can't even point at?

If you fail to provide a viable definition, you are for the most part of your post using a word without meaning, the meaning of which in your head is based on something that does not pertain to something intersubjectively valid because it has never been perceived. How do you figure it is meaningful to talk about something such as 'God' if it's impossible to present an intersubjectively valid definition due to lack of evidence? Lack of evidence for what even? Lack of evidence and the incapability to provide an accurate definition for a proposed concept are principally synonymous. It means that you don't know what you're talking about in the very meaning of the idiom. You're proposing a phenomenon out of the blue and if you wish the discussion to go any further than that, you must first justify this proposal as something that is more reasonable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why is it more reasonable? On what basis?

I don't know what the word 'God' is supposed to mean. It's supposed to refer to something non-fictional, yet all common references to him are usually in the form of fiction. So what does this word mean? If it's just some sort of mindfuck that has never been observed, or even worse, can never be observed, the meaning of the word is void and your whole thread invalidated.

If everybody just thinks up 'his' version of God to participate in a discussion, how are we to reach a conclusion if the very basis of our communication is defective in the first place? Suggest something that would make sure that we're actually referring to the same concept when using the word. And if this concept is just of a theoretical nature, what lends it more credence and importance than the aforementioned Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why discuss God and not the FSM?

BTW there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the nonexistence of [any omnipotent benevolent god]. Example: Hurricane Katrina.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

BTW there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the nonexistence of [any omnipotent benevolent god]. Example: Hurricane Katrina.

The Magic Space Wizard works in mysterious ways that you cannot understand.*

*But we the One True Church do, apparently.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

BTW there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the nonexistence of [any omnipotent benevolent god]. Example: Hurricane Katrina.

Well, aslong as you didn't say god, period.

If that's the best critique of atheism you have........... theists are wayyyy behind.

I'll restrain myself from going into tearing this post apart at the seams, since several people have already covered details that bothered me.

The main problem with it is in assuming that atheists are some organized group that all have the same set of beliefs, standards, morals, and philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I've never encountered an organized Atheist group of any kind (not saying they don't exist, but I've never seen one.)

Nor have I ever encountered athiest pickets, protests, newsletters, weekend TV shows, or houses of (non-) worship.

As far as I'm aware, there is no athiest equivilent for:
Church
Sunday School
Catholic school
"Jesus Bookstore" (yes, there are several in my area)
Televangelists
Healing shows
Bible Study
Bar Mitzvahs
Holidays
Christenings
Christian Rock
Christian newspapers
"Faith-Based Initiatives"
Tax-exempt status


There is no Atheist "movement." We are not a unified body.

We are just everybody else.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Holidays

One day, Towel Day will be a public holiday. At least if I have anything to say about it

And I'm going to pre-emptively strike down the first person to claim the Anonymous protests against Scientology are atheistically motivated. There are plenty of religious folk on those lines carrying signs too.

hmm your logic seems flawed to me... You seem to suggest that to be able to have a lack of believe in something, you must believe in parts of it or know of it, you then say you cannot know what God is like so how can you have a alck of believe.

Generally i think you;d go by the description that is given in all the Holy books of this world, especially since they claim to be the word of God at least in part.

I disagree that you must have some kind of part believe in something to lack believe in it. I do not believe that the core of this Earth is made of Ice, an ice which gives out heat without melting itself. This is because it is simply not logical. A better example is that i don't believe gnomes steal items from my house when i sleep, i don't have evidence to say they don;t exist or have knowledge of them, but it is illogical to say they exist. So i don't believe it if i am told it, that is how my lack of believe in God works.

Also there is no Atheist movement, bar talking on forums Atheists have no official gathering location or any official set of rules. I have never seen an atheist on the street handing out leaflets to people to lose their faith or have i ever had an Atheist knock at my door trying to convince me their is no God.

I don't think that argument works...

Secular humanist schools
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Brights
Atheist Alliance International
International League of non-religious and atheists
International secular and ethical union
Rational Response Squad
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
James Randi Educational Foundation

the list goes on and on... and on.

Atheist bands (Atheist, Antichrist etc.)
Atheist T-shirts
Atheist forums
Atheist meetings
Local atheist clubs
Thoroughly atheist and antitheist newspapers and magazines

The rest is spot on though.

.. no nation wide single structure which controls all people with Atheist views!!!!

It;s funny that i've never heard of a single one of them in my life...

Ok fine most atheists don;t attend Atheist clubs.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

.. no nation wide single structure which controls all people with Atheist views!!!!

Ummm... yeah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor..._denominations

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

.. no nation wide single structure which controls all people with Atheist views!!!!

Most likely because there is only one shared Atheist view.

I guess I can say that some of the things you said are true in a way. One important thing though is that we all live in this universe and that we've decided on what reality is. Generaly speaking... Atheists run their experiences through a "reality" filter before deciding on whether to believe or not, while religious people don't. That's how I see it.

A normal dream for one person can be a vision sent from god for the other.

wow that got a reaction

if you don't agree with the specific definition of atheism I used, then these arguments do not apply. I figured that was a given, along with the fact that it would be ridiculous to attempt to address all subcategories of atheism in one fell swoop. Many sub-sects of atheism claim different things (weak atheism vs string atheism for example).

Secondly I am not a theist...obviously because I explain exactly what my beliefs are on the subject. I would consider myself an agnostic, but I understand that agnosticism may imply certain things that I personally do not. Anywho, if you want to know where I stand, reread the part where I talk about it.

Nowadays people believe the FSM doesn't exist. They go beyond that and say there are no giant space gnomes and no rainbow-dinosaurs hiding in the center of Saturn.

That's not science damn it!"

If it hasn't been applied to the scientific method, no, its not science. Oh wait, you used sarcasm... I forgot that trumps logic.

Whatever. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you'll believe it.

I would need good reason to, have yet to see it.

I forgot to add:

Don't even try to say you're agnostic to the FSM. You're not and so you're as bad as the "atheism" you criticize, that's hypocrisy.

I believe the FSM does not exist, but that belief isn't strictly justified, and i am aware of this. Nevertheless, it wouldn't matter if I were a hypocrite anyway. If I say smoking cigarettes are bad for you, but I am a avid smoker, that doesn't somehow make cigarettes not bad for you just because I was being hypocritical. The arguments either stand on their own or do not stand on their own. I, personally, am irrelevant to them.

There's no point in breaking down atheism the way you've done. For one, you assume a lot of things about atheism that simply aren't true. Your "justifications" are bogus and don't, in any way, speak for all atheists. Why are you delving into this so extensively? Atheism is simply lack of god belief. You can't attribute it to a certain way of thinking. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of god belief - period.

if you don't agree with the specific definition of atheism I used, then these arguments do not apply. I figured that was a given, along with the fact that it would be foolish to attempt to address all subcategories of atheism in one fell swoop. Many sub-sects of atheism claim different things (weak atheism vs string atheism for example). I had to use an operant definition to avoid any confusion about what exactly i was referring to when I said "atheism". Its not my problem that you ignore it.

Atheism is not a movement - it's a lack of god belief. You make it sound like we're zombies rising up from grave to attack religion. And not all atheists question, analyze, or critique religions at all. Some choose not to associate themselves with religion period. You're already assuming things about atheism that are completely false. It floors me that you think you can break down atheism when you're not even correctly defining it.

I already mentioned the reasons behind using operant definitions, and even provided an operant definition of the the term "operant definition". I hope that clears things up. Oh, and the term 'movement' is irrelevant to the arguments I asserted...your seem to be splitting hairs.

What are you talking about? Atheism is under constant scrutiny. Why do you think that, in America at least, atheists are the most mistrusted minority? The only reason you think atheism is examined less is because...there's nothing to examine! It's lack of god belief - nothing more, nothing less. It's not a mind-blowing concept if you take it at face value. Religion and theists are obviously examined more because there's a lot more to examine and falsify.

Oh but there is a lot to examine, at least when it comes to the belief that God does not exist. You do see the difference between not necessarily believing something exists and believing something doesn't exist, don't you? If you don't, reflect on it until you do. One asserts a claim (and along with it comes the burden of proving the claim) the other does not.

Your admitted bias and lack of understanding already makes you completely unfit to critique atheism. In the following rebuttal, I will tell you why.

Yeah, nice try. The arguments are valid assuming the form of atheism decided to critique. Because I made it perfectly clear what specifically I mean when I said atheism, a number of your arguments are N/A because they hinge upon me making false assumption. But I didn't, which was the whole point of using an operant definition.

I don't get why you're making this distinction in the first place. Who, exactly, doesn't believe in the "concept" of God? God is a relatively easy idea to conceive of - it's the believing part that's a bit more difficult for some, namely, atheists.

Again, if you do not understand why I made the distinction between not having a belief regarding the existence of God and having the belief that God does not exist, then I assume you do not understand the difference between the two. If this is true, you are not fit to critique that argument.

'm pretty certain that not believing God's existence and the belief in God's non-existence are the same thing. Sounds like a bit of fancy word rearranging. All this talk of having a concept and certain characteristics is irrelevant. If I grew up on a remote island where the idea of a god or gods was never proposed and I never had a concept or knew certain characteristics of this/these god(s) that would still technically make me an atheist. Atheist = lack of god belief. My island self would still have a lack of god belief regardless of knowing what a god is so my island self would still be an atheist.

Defining a concept is of the utmost importance in determining whether or not it is a valid or invalid concept, otherwise what exactly is it that you are examining? And how could even begin to think otherwise? Its common sense. And if I were using that specific defintion of Atheism, you may be correct. But I'm not. I'm not saying these type of 'atheists' do not exist, Im just saying that my arguments weren't referring to that specific form of atheism. I made that clear in the first paragraph, so you bringing it up over and over again is just a waist of time.

What is this ambiguous gray area of knowing/not knowing you keep talking about? This is pretty black and white. Either you believe in god or you don't regardless of your knowledge or concept of god. If you don't believe in god, you're an atheist. If you do believe in god, you're a theist. Pretty simple, really.

Perhaps your intellectual palette isn't sensitive enough to distinguish the difference between having and not having a belief. Either that or you forget that believing God doesn't exist is itself a belief. Again, this may just be the result of you using a different definition of atheism than I...which was a problem I tried to avoid by using an operant definition. It obviously worked like a charm.

Atheism is neither science, philosophy, or faith. I don't know how you can so deeply misconstrue such a simple meaning. Your justifications are merely your interpretation of what you think atheists "believe" - all of which do not apply to all atheists everywhere or atheism in general.

I have never heard an atheist assert that there's overwhelming scientific evidence to proof the non-existence of God. If you've heard this, again, it's irrelevant because that does not speak for all atheists. The way you described it later on in your paragraph sounds more accurate. Most atheists will probably agree that because there's no evidence to support a god, it's simply natural to disregard the fairytale of a god. Any logical person believes things because they are facts that can be proven. God simply can't be proven - just like green elves, pink unicorns, and the FSM can't be proven.

I defined the term I was using for a reason, and that reason was so that people like you wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that I was talking about something I really wasn't talking about...such as,oh I dunno, anything that isn't the belief that God doesn't exist...yeah this is getting old quick.

Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds?
"Again, the only scientific support A-elfism has is that there is no scientific evidence of the existence of elves."
Ethen, you and I need to rethink our lack of belief in elves because ALL we have to support us is the lack of evidence that they exist!

Do you see what I mean?

So basically you admit that the only reason to believe that God doesn't exist is because there is no contrary evidence (i.e. evidence that God does exist). Yeah, thats what I said before...and that same argument can be used to justify the existence of the FSM and a Supernatural God because there is no contrary evidence of those things either. I don't think you have really looked into the whole 'missing evidence' reasoning hard enough. An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Your justification is clearly flawed. Do you honestly think people could go through life thinking like that? Why would I believe in something just because there was no evidence to support that it didn't exist? That is so ass-backwards, it's not even funny. This way of thinking wouldn't help anybody - theist or atheist. If I were a theist, how could I believe in the Christian God, when it's possible to believe in all these other gods? Why not? There's no evidence that they don't exist.

This kind of thinking would simply lead our world into madness. We can't believe in everything just because there's nothing to prove it's non-existence so instead we rely on evidence to prove that certain things are true and do exist.

I never said it was a practical way of thinking, but then again, simply because its impractical to have positive evidence of everything we believe in doesn't mean that positive evidence isn't still a requisite for the type of justification atheists claim to have. It is a requisite...oh, and when I say atheist I mean "someone who believe God does not exist".

Atheism doesn't utilize specific logic. Again, you're assuming more things about atheism that are untrue.

Wrong, your assuming I am talking about all forms and variations of atheism...despite me defining which specific form I intended to address.

Person 1? Person 2? Who cares? Again, this is ALL completely irrelevant to atheism. You're equating atheism with the scientific community. I, along with many other atheists, don't believe in a god or gods because there is nothing to compel me to believe - no evidence, no magical giant finger spelling my name out in the clouds. Just like you don't believe in unicorns, hobbits, or one-eyed eight foot cyclops people. Although, I don't know - judging by the logic of your last "justification" for atheism, maybe you do believe in all those things.

You should care because it makes a very valid point y...the difference in credibility/justification between hearsay and non-hearsay. And no, I am not equivocating atheism and science...in fact I made an argument refuting that exact assumption because many atheists do think that are the same thing (Argument # 4). And unlike atheists, I do not believe something is true simply because there is no proof against it. Again, using the operant definition of Atheism, that is.

OK, so, assuming you're a Christian or at least religious...

Let me stop you there...I'm neither (reread if you missed the part where I clearly described my beliefs on the subject), and as already I explained above, it wouldn't matter if I were religious and/or a hypocrite anyway. None of that has any actual barring on the arguments I made. Nice try though.

Regardless, all you've said above is also irrelevant. Atheism and science are not synonymous. The lack of god belief often fits nicely with scientific thought simply because much of science contradicts an astounding amount of what religious folks do (or did) believe. Science, however, does not contradict atheists lack of god belief. In fact, it's just confirming our lack of belief more and more as science progresses.

Never said atheism and science were synonyms (in fact, i said the opposite), never said I was taking about the lack of belief regarding the existence of God (in fact, said the opposite), and no...science isn't confirming anything atheistic. This was my point. People like you mistake an absence of evidence as evidence of absence...but science doesn't work this way. No claim is true by default or until proven otherwise...theism and atheism alike. And besides, if thats what you consider "confirming" a belief, then all of this evidence confirm the FSM and a Supernatural God to the same degree...since you can apparently confirm something with a sheer lack of evidence.

You have a very gross misunderstanding of how science works. You're describing science like it's about bunch of grade school kids playing the game telephone where they whisper messages to each other through the grapevine. This is not how science is done. It's not testimony - it's credited scientific journals that have been tested, often by many scientists, over and over again.

You missed the point...and not suprisingly because you blew off the "person1 person 2" analogy. The scientific journals ARE testimony, testimony of evidence. They are merely findings passed on via language (words etc)...that makes it testimony by definition. And yes, those journals are verified by a handful of scientists before that are accepted by the community...but even still, at least 99.9% of the scientists who make up the community do not verify them. If these 99.9% of scientists do not verify the findings, they must then assume they are true by way of testimony (journals). C'mon its not that complicated.

Also, your equating this with a UFO sighting is very unrealistic. If it were me in that position, I wouldn't automatically believe my friend just because they said they saw a UFO. If I didn't see it myself - in other words, if there was no EVIDENCE - then I wouldn't believe it. You talk as though science is merely hearsay - gossip passed on from scientist to scientist. That is not how things are done. If there's no evidence, there's no science.

OMG are you serious? You seriously do not understand the point of the analogy...or are you just being difficult for the sake of argument? I was illustrating the difference between seeing evidence and hearing evidence. You friends saw evidence (the actual physical UFO up close and personal) and you heard evidence (their testimony of the evidence they had). Like you said, one is much more credible than the other...and since you, and most atheists, haven't actually SEEN any evidence (though many have heard the evidence) they do not have good enough reason to use evidence as justification.

This is not a "justification" for atheism...

No shit, thats why it doesn't make sense to defend atheism by attacking a religion/s.

You can believe all you want, buddy. All I can say to end this long rebuttal is there's belief or non-belief. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe a ball will drop to the ground the moment I let it go. I believe you have are completely wrong in your assumptions about atheism. I do not believe in a pink unicorns because there's never been any fossils, photos, videos, or flocks of pink wings across the sky to prove their existence - no evidence in other words. Now replace "pink unicorns" with "god."

You are right, there is only belief and non-belief. The problem is that the belief that there is no God is not a non-belief, obviously its a belief. A non-belief is something that makes no assertions about something else. The assertion there is no God is clearly an assertion, and therefore isn't a "non-belief". But again, if you are talking about a different definition of atheism, it was a given that none of this concerned you in the first place.

Ethen, what is the probability that a single mind deliberately created the universe and its laws? What is the probability that the single mind exists without a body? What is the probability that the single mind is invisible? What is the probability that the single mind is everywhere at once and perceiving all that goes on? What is the probability that the single mind has emotions even though it is not the result of the evolution of survival abilities? What is the probability that the single mind has ALL of those qualities?

You tell me, your the one who asserts God is an improbability. And be specific, I'd like to see exactly how someone goes about calculating those odds lol

I am not sure how you define "God", but the standard definition involves all of those qualities. Maybe you should give us a definition of "God" so we can know exactly what you consider an "atheist".

Believing in the falsehood of a highly improbable notion that does not show up on reality's radar and goes against the laws of reality as we have always observed them and as the generally proven worthy (through developments that we experience directly) scientific community at large has shown them to be is logical. Believing in the truth of such a highly improbable notion is not logical. Believing that the issue is something like a toss up is not logical either. Atheism is logical.

I personally do not assume anything of God because i can't trick myself into thinking I have good enough reason to. But if we are going off of the "standard definition" God is also supernatural...which means the lack of natural/physical evidence only confirms his supernatural nature (if we assume the absence of evidence can imply anything, that is...if you are reading this kaeraz this is what i'm talking about). Besides, probability has no bearing outside of the physical universe/reality it is based in...so all of those reasons you just stated would be moot (assuming the standard definition of God). Those reasons would only make sense assuming a physical/natural God...not a non-physical/supernatural God. But as you can see, it all kinda falls apart if you don't assume a physical God.

I still want to get to the bottom of why you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. You said recently that you believe he does not exist because you have no reason to believe that he does and that you have "faith" that he does not exist. I think it goes deeper than that, and I would really like to see what all is behind your belief that the FSM does not exist. I am willing to bet that your argument, if you ever stated the full details of it, would sound a lot like what I just said in the above paragraphs.

It may, but that would only be a problem for me if I claim my belief that the FSM doesn't exist was something more than faith. Thats precisely why its a problem for you, however. I'm not saying its not reasonable to assume that thing do not exist if there is no evidence of it existing...i'm not unreasonable. I just want to show that this line of reasoning isn't powerful or seamless as people make it out to be. Its far from what I would consider a "strong" argument, though I admit it is a practical one.

You didn't define God in a way that would be appropriate to a thread like this. Tell me exactly what God is in terms of something that can readily be perceived by any human mind and be agreed upon to be a valid basis for a discussion such as this.

I can't tell you what exactly God is because i do not know what God is, if God is even anything. But, it seems we are going to go off of of the 'standard definition', which is to say the common interpretation of what God is ..which is one I am temporarily assuming just for the sake of argument. Something like "God is supernatural, aware, and the creator of the universe."

Please add on what basis you are creating the definition. Because it has any relationship to reality whatsoever or just because it's the most common usage of the term?

Its merely the common, unsubstantiated understanding of the concept.How about you?

If the latter, does it actually have any relationship to reality whatsoever and if yes, present evidence.

Can't say one way or the other for obvious reasons, and you?

If not, how do you figure you are in the position to define something said to be non-fictional if you haven't even perceived it yet?

I never said God was non-fictional, thats a theistic claim and I made no such thing. I never said God was fictional either, thats an atheistic claim and I made no such thing. Both claims require definitions, and thus the burden of proof of those defintions is on those making the claims about God. I do not assert claims of God, and therefore have no burden to prove anything God related...though I do reserve the right to assume my opponents definition as a means of refuting his argument without having to defend that definitions myself (its called Reductio ad Absurdum.) How do you answer these same questions?

Where is the actual basis for defining a word claimed to be pertaining to a real phenomenon?

Ask my opponent, I am assuming his definition for the sake of argument. How about you?

Wouldn't you know that words define phenomena once perceived so as to be capable of referring to them in a much more efficient and intersubjectively valid way?

Words define other words, and phenomena are not vitally connected to the words or definitions we attach to them to. Language is ultimately baseless in regards to objective reality, but thats besides the point (I think lol)

How do you square this with the constant usage of a term the reference of which you yourself admit not to have any evidence for?

Its a formal technique is logic called reductio ad absurdum. I assume a premise/s simply for the sake of argument (and therefore have no burden to justify the assumption), and use the assumed premises to refute the argument ofthe person assuming them. Its very handy, as you can see.

Are you now using the word 'God' only in reference to what's going on in people's minds or are you actually still proposing a phenomenon that you can't even point at?

peoples minds, since I am assuming their unsubstantiated premises.

If you fail to provide a viable definition, you are for the most part of your post using a word without meaning, the meaning of which in your head is based on something that does not pertain to something intersubjectively valid because it has never been perceived. How do you figure it is meaningful to talk about something such as 'God' if it's impossible to present an intersubjectively valid definition due to lack of evidence?

You tell me. I'm not the one making claims of God, and therefore I do not have any burden to define God. Atheists do, however, since they claim God doesn't exist.

Lack of evidence for what even?

I am not responsible for answering this questions because Atheists are the ones claiming to have it! They are responsible, not I. I just assume my opponents premises. The burden to justify them, however, remains the opponents responsibility. Its a way of giving the opponent the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. The doubt doesn't become my problem simply because I momentarily assume its resolution...c'mon now.

Lack of evidence and the incapability to provide an accurate definition for a proposed concept are principally synonymous. It means that you don't know what you're talking about in the very meaning of the idiom.

it was never my burden to define God in the first place, its the burden of those who claims truths of God and I never did any such thing. So perhaps its time you start answering these very valid questions (they are good questions, I must hand it to you).

You're proposing a phenomenon out of the blue and if you wish the discussion to go any further than that, you must first justify this proposal as something that is more reasonable than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why is it more reasonable? On what basis?

Again, that is not my burden because I make not claims of this phenomenon...i simply assume the claims of my opponent for sake of argument, and so the burden falls on my opposition. After all, there would be nothing to argue against unless my opponent, first and foremost, defined the concepts in question. So lets have it, answers to each and everyone one of the questions you attempted to pawn off on me...

BTW there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the nonexistence of [any omnipotent benevolent god]. Example: Hurricane Katrina.

Who says God has to be benevolent in order to exist?

The Magic Space Wizard works in mysterious ways that you cannot understand.*

Since when do people claim God lives in space...or is that merely the manifestation of you unrefined thoughts regarding the implications of a supernatural God?

Well, aslong as you didn't say god, period.

That may have just been sarcasm, but in a way its true. Those qualities Kaeraz gave God are clearly very important to the issue.

If that's the best critique of atheism you have........... theists are wayyyy behind.

Wow, somehow...without using argument, logic, or reason...you managed to refute everything I just said. Well done.

p.s. I am not a theist and those weren't theistic arguments because they can also apply to theism. D'oh!

I'll restrain myself from going into tearing this post apart at the seams, since several people have already covered details that bothered me.

The main problem with it is in assuming that atheists are some organized group that all have the same set of beliefs, standards, morals, and philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I didn't mean to give the impression I thought that way...but hats funny because every time I ask an atheist why he believes there is no God, they always say "because we have evidence". You are right though, there is no "we", and there is no "we have evidence" either. You either personally have evidence or you don't. 99.9% don't (since they are just regular joes) and the other .1% (atheists that are scientists) do, but its severely insufficient. Good point!

I've never encountered an organized Atheist group of any kind (not saying they don't exist, but I've never seen one.)

Nor have I ever encountered athiest pickets, protests, newsletters, weekend TV shows, or houses of (non-) worship.

Apparently Korittke has. Anyway, Atheism being an official "movement" is not really all that vital to my argument.

hmm your logic seems flawed to me... You seem to suggest that to be able to have a lack of believe in something, you must believe in parts of it or know of it, you then say you cannot know what God is like so how can you have a alck of believe.

I think you are going off of a definition other than the one I decided to use (Kaeraz made this same mistake). Those arguments do not apply to a lack of belief of God, they only apply to the belief that God doesn't exist.

Generally i think you;d go by the description that is given in all the Holy books of this world, especially since they claim to be the word of God at least in part.

Which one and why?

I disagree that you must have some kind of part believe in something to lack believe in it. I do not believe that the core of this Earth is made of Ice, an ice which gives out heat without melting itself. This is because it is simply not logical. A better example is that i don't believe gnomes steal items from my house when i sleep, i don't have evidence to say they don;t exist or have knowledge of them, but it is illogical to say they exist. So i don't believe it if i am told it, that is how my lack of believe in God works.

How exactly do you determine that God doesn't make sense unless youfirst assume certain criteria of God? After all, it is the criteria that supposedly doesn't make sense, correct? Further more, how do you know your criteria is valid, and what makes you sure enough to rule out the entire possibility of a God-like being? Or in other words, what doesn't make sense about the concept of a God...and why are you so sure those exact qualities must be true of a God in order to for that god to exist?

Also there is no Atheist movement

Then I don't want to catch you claiming justification in the fact that you have scientific reason to believe a God doesn't exist, because without personally doing credible scientific experiments yourself, and without a "we", you have nothing scientific to justify that belief. All you have it your own experiences, and none of those were empirical tests.

.. no nation wide single structure which controls all people with Atheist views!!!!

It;s funny that i've never heard of a single one of them in my life...

Ok fine most atheists don;t attend Atheist clubs.

Atheism being an official movement is not vital to my argument. Trying to refute that claim is fine, but is has no implication to the other argument, or my point as a whole. So knock yourself out if you want, you're waisting your time.

Most likely because there is only one shared Atheist view.

Really? I could have sworn I have seen a whole series different forms of atheism.

I guess I can say that some of the things you said are true in a way. One important thing though is that we all live in this universe and that we've decided on what reality is. Generaly speaking... Atheists run their experiences through a "reality" filter before deciding on whether to believe or not, while religious people don't. That's how I see it.

A normal dream for one person can be a vision sent from god for the other.

Well thank you.

That's a pretty long answer.

I can't tell you what exactly God is because i do not know what God is, if God is even anything. But, it seems we are going to go off of of the 'standard definition', which is to say the common interpretation of what God is ..which is one I am temporarily assuming just for the sake of argument. Something like "God is supernatural, aware, and the creator of the universe."

Its merely the common, unsubstantiated understanding of the concept.How about you?

I work with what's given to me.

Can't say one way or the other for obvious reasons, and you?

If the word was not created to refer to an already perceived real phenomenon, I assume it to be meaningless. Then it doesn't refer to anything except that which is in one's own mind and then there is no basis for a claim that this has anything to do with reality at all.

The claim that a flying pink unicorn exists is much more meaningful than the idea that God exists. All aspects of the flying pink unicorn can readily be imagined and in fact, would be easy to reproduce by spray-painting a horse and letting it dangle on a rope. There is a faint connection to reality through the horse, the color pink and the idea of freely moving through the air. These are simply combined to form the flying pink unicorn.

With God, there is not even the faintest reference to reality. It doesn't mean anything - at all. If he's claimed to be supernatural, it is, in fact, impossible to perceive him which makes the term all the more absurd to use.

I never said God was non-fictional, thats a theistic claim and I made no such thing. I never said God was fictional either, thats an atheistic claim and I made no such thing. Both claims require definitions, and thus the burden of proof of those defintions is on those making the claims about God.

That is correct. However, most atheists do not argue from definitions they themselves provide, but merely reject those of the theists, hence a-theism.

I do not assert claims of God, and therefore have no burden to prove anything God related...though I do reserve the right to assume my opponents definition as a means of refuting his argument without having to defend that definitions myself (its called Reductio ad Absurdum.) How do you answer these same questions?

As you do. But I think that goes for most atheists. Even though you noted your definition of atheism in the thread, I would more readily argue that atheism is simply the absence of belief in god and the rejection of theistic claims. Not the formation of new claims.

There is almost no atheist who would argue that it is impossible for something vaguely similar to the God-concept to exist in reality.

Ask my opponent, I am assuming his definition for the sake of argument. How about you?

Same. That's why I was asking you for the definition. When you are arguing against a-theism, the definition of God must by given so as to make the argument relevant. However, a-theism is merely the rejection of theism. Atheism is the response to theism, not a position in and of itself.

Reality
Theists: make claim.
Atheist: reject claim.
Person criticizing atheism: is inevitably defending the theistic claim

Your concept
Theists: make claim
Atheist: Respond to claim by proposing opposite claim.
Person criticizing atheism: criticizes both theism and atheism at the same time by arguing the parallel formation of unsubstantiated claims.

Your concept != reality.

Words define other words, and phenomena are not vitally connected to the words or definitions we attach to them to. Language is ultimately baseless in regards to objective reality, but thats besides the point (I think lol)

I think it's an important point. Arguing theology is mostly arguing semantics. If we don't actually know what the word God is in reference to in the real world, how are we to know when it starts being in reference to something? Well, we don't. Because the word God refers to an internal phenomenon and not an external. It's a purely arbitrary concept and decision to make. For all we know I could start calling elephants "God" and it would mean that God exists (in the scope of my usage of the word).

You tell me. I'm not the one making claims of God, and therefore I do not have any burden to define God. Atheists do, however, since they claim God doesn't exist.
I am not responsible for answering this questions because Atheists are the ones claiming to have it! They are responsible, not I. I just assume my opponents premises. The burden to justify them, however, remains the opponents responsibility. Its a way of giving the opponent the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. The doubt doesn't become my problem simply because I momentarily assume its resolution...c'mon now.
it was never my burden to define God in the first place, its the burden of those who claims truths of God and I never did any such thing. So perhaps its time you start answering these very valid questions (they are good questions, I must hand it to you).
Again, that is not my burden because I make not claims of this phenomenon...i simply assume the claims of my opponent for sake of argument, and so the burden falls on my opposition. After all, there would be nothing to argue against unless my opponent, first and foremost, defined the concepts in question. So lets have it, answers to each and everyone one of the questions you attempted to pawn off on me...

Well, I think this is again one of those situations where you are using the word atheist in a manner that most atheists would not self-identify as. Atheists simply reject theistic claims by means of reason and do not propose similar claims in opposition to them. They merely reject unsubstantiated claims and then go their ways.

Another important point is this: Believing that God exists is a positive belief and it implies a claim about the nature of the universe. The belief and the claim CANNOT be disconnected. However, it is entirely possible to believe that God does NOT exist and still NOT claim that this is a fact in its entirety. The reason for this is that it is reasonable to believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence. A negative belief does not need evidence to be reasonable. A negative claim is even IMPOSSIBLE to provide evidence for.

It is possible to provide evidence for god, but it is impossible to provide evidence for his non-existence. This in itself should be enough to show that even an atheistic claim is not of the same nature as a theistic claim.

Let me stretch this even further.
Before Einstein came along, it was reasonable to believe that Newton basically explained physics all the way. It was wrong but still reasonable. It was NOT dogmatic, it was simply a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence presented. This belief alone did not imply the claim that it was in fact impossible for Newton's theories to be superseded by something better!
Only nowadays it is unreasonable to believe that Newton fully explains physical phenomena.

If you redefine atheism as "Lack of belief in God" and assume that the majority of atheists considers it theoretically possible for a God to exist, you would
a) actually refer to the type of atheism that most atheists self-identify as.
b) would have a much harder time creating arguments against it.

Originally Posted by ethen

Many sub-sects of atheism claim different things (weak atheism vs string atheism for example).

There are no "sub-sects" of atheism.

There are infinite definitions for "god", arguing about it's existence without first defining the word makes as much sense as debating whether or not Bhraktdyr exists. Depending on the given definition, the atheist will display either strong or weak atheism.

An atheist is an atheist.

If it hasn't been applied to the scientific method, no, its not science. Oh wait, you used sarcasm... I forgot that trumps logic.

No, I used logic with sarcasm to illustrate my point.

We have no proof giant space gnomes don't exist. However, their existence would go against scientifically tested knowledge and defy logic, since there's no proof going for them either, the claim is as good as something completely made up on the spot. (just like personal gods).

It's illogical, therefore I don't believe in giant space gnomes hiding in Saturn, just like I don't believe in the FSM, the christian god, allah, zeus, etc. Until some kind of evidence the claims weren't pulled out of someone's ass, I don't believe or believe they don't exist in case of utter silliness (every god listed above).

I believe the FSM does not exist(...)

You're not agnostic then.

There's no more proof for one god than for another. If you follow the "no proof against it" model, you should be agnostic to every conceivable god.