189 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 home 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.


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.