199 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ricardo's picture
as refuting William Lane

as refuting William Lane Craig who claims.
that there is no presumption for atheism because it is distinct from agnosticism?

Cognostic's picture

Doesn't WLC insist Atheism is a World View that makes assumptions about the world and that is what distinguishes it from agnosticism?

In both cases he is wrong. Atheism is a "Lack of belief in God" while Agnosticism is a "Lack of knowledge of god." The two positions are not mutually exclusive in that an Atheist or a Christian can be Agnostic as well.

Sheldon's picture
There is only one argument

There is only one argument against atheism, and that would be that sufficient objective evidence could be demonstrated for the existence of a deity, and we know it cannot else theists would do so, yet neverx do. Anything else is a biased arbitrary standard, that closed minded theists set, to hypocritically pretend their deity has any more merit than any of the others humans have created.

If subjective arguments contain no objective evidence validate Allah or Jesus then they can equally apply to Zeus and Apollo et all, and defining a deity to suit your assumptions about the origins of the universe is a meaningless and fallacious exercise.

Ricardo's picture
The Presumption of Atheism

The Presumption of Atheism
is the main argument
against atheism?
How to destroy this argument?

Sheldon's picture
"Ricardo "The Presumption of

"Ricardo "The Presumption of Atheism is the main argument against atheism?"

What presumption? Atheism makes no presumptions, it is merely the lack or absence of belief.

David Killens's picture
"How to destroy this argument

"How to destroy this argument?"

Ask the claimant to prove atheists have a presumption. They made the assertion, make them prove it.

Cognostic's picture
@Ricardo? "The presumption

@Ricardo? "The presumption of atheism?" (You mean WLC's presumptions about Atheism I think.)
Atheists assert, "I do not believe in a god or gods." How is that a presumption? In my opinion WLC builds a "Straw Man" case against atheism. He uses phrases like, "From the atheist point of view." or "From the atheist world view." There is no atheist point of view or world view coming from atheism. He then moves on to "Atheist think the world just popped into existence from nothing." He does this, regardless of the fact that the Atheist has said nothing about the origin of the universe. (So he builds straw man assertions atop straw man assertions). He then proceeds to make all sorts of other assumptions "Based on the Atheist World View." Each and every assertion he makes is factually and obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about atheism. The problem is that the theists lap it up like thirsty dogs and think WLC is saying something profound. WLC is dishonest in his debate tactics in that he never addresses the atheist definition of atheism and he knows it. Unlike his opponents, he is extremely experienced in debate and he makes it sound like he is addressing atheism. His debates are masterfully crafted to include so many topics, subtopics and points that his opponents, unless equally experienced, will have no ability to address them all. William them gloats with the eventual come-back, "Well, you didn't address this, this, this, or this....bla bla bla.... and then makes another 10 or 12 erroneous points attached to the original straw man bullshit. WLC, in my opinion, is a first class con man. I would let him sell used cars for me any day of the week.

Sheldon's picture
So are theists claiming that

So are theists claiming that they are making separate assumptions for each deity they don't believe in then? So one less assumption from thousands they claim atheism is making?

I should like to see WLC demonstrate objective evidence for each of the assumptions he claims are necessary for him to believe that all the thousands of deities humans have created don't exist, barring one of course. As this is his own arbitrary standard, one assumes he doesn't give his own beliefs a free pass here? Then he can he demonstrate objective evidence for the existence of that one deity he claims is real among all the thousands of faked, to show how it differs in any objective way from all the others?

He's actually making his position less tenable by reversing the burden of proof.

Ricardo's picture
the argument that there is a

The argument that there is a lack of empirical evidence is refuted by theists who claim that this argument is an Existential Data Fallacy - the implication or claim that there is an absence of observation or data that supports an idea, when in fact no observational study has been made. conducted by science on the topic at hand.

Sheldon's picture
"no observational study has

"no observational study has been made. conducted by science on the topic at hand."

Science has made no study of unicorns, mermaids, or garden fairies either. I'm not sure I see what point theists are trying to make. If there is evidence for any deity then let theists who make this claim present it, science is under no obligation to go looking is a method for studying reality, not for validating woo woo myths, and this then is why theists have always been so antagonist towards science. The real hypocrisy is that they are always happy to acceppt scientific advances, as long as they don't contradict their archaic myths in any way.

When was the last time you heard a creationist deny the theory of relativity or germ theory, or Newtons theories on gravity? It always astounds me that they think we won't see such obvious bias, or what it means, yet they seem genuinely affronted when you point it out. Breezy made me laugh on this constantly, with his grandiose self aggrandising claims fr scientific literacy. Despite how arrogant and obnoxious he could be, I am not convinced he actually understood the irony of such claims alongside his denials if scientific facts like evolution. Though undoubtedly much of what he wrote was the rankest dishonesty of course, but then that is creationism to its core, rank dishonesty.

David Killens's picture
Science follows the evidence.

Science follows the evidence. Since there is no evidence for any god but hearsay and folk tales, nothing to examine or study.

Ricardo's picture
Is atheism based on scientism

Is atheism based on scientism?

Tin-Man's picture
@Ricardo Re: "Is atheism

@Ricardo Re: "Is atheism based on scientism?"

Huh? What the hell is scientism??? Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god(s). Period. As for why any individual atheist does not believe, the reason(s) is/are unique to that individual. In other words, atheism is not determined by any single generalized "base". Every atheist has his/her own personal "basis" that is almost as unique as a fingerprint. Why in the world do theists have such a difficult time understanding this?... *scratching head in bewilderment*...

David Killens's picture
@ Ricardo

@ Ricardo

"Is atheism based on scientism?"

Science is not an "ism" but just a methodology. It has been proven to be the most effective and consistent method in examining and describing phenomena.

For me personally, my realization I was an atheist came from an enquiring and skeptical mind. And that came from just reading the bible. Confirmation and reinforcement in my position came later from science, that has proven a lot of stories from the bible as sheer crap.

From Wiki:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge."

Algebe's picture
@Ricardo: Is atheism based on

@Ricardo: Is atheism based on scientism?

That's a good question. Scientism can be defined as uncritical reliance on science to provide answers to all questions. At its worst, it can lead to the uncritical acceptance of disastrous ideas presented in scientific guise, such as eugenics, racial hygiene, Lysenkoism, and the anti-vax nonsense.

I think most atheists have a healthy respect for science, but we are by definition committed to skeptical and critical thinking about science as much as religion. Most of the atheists posting on this site seem find anti-vaxxers as irritating as creationists. So I would say that atheism is not based on scientism.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ricardo - Is atheism based on

Ricardo - Is atheism based on scientism?

It might be for some people; but that isn't true for many atheists. For me, science had nothing to do with it.

Sheldon's picture
Atheism is simply the absence

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in any deity, scientism is a made up nonsense word that has no basis in reality, created by people who want to hold beliefs that are not supported by any objective evidence, who then sulk because science either does not support their chosen myth, or roundly refutes it.

Is your disbelief in mermaids simply scientism?

Calilasseia's picture
This guy really is posting

This guy really is posting some weapons grade shit, isn't he?


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.