How to Argue for Atheism Effectively

[DrewPaul]

Poor atheists. Even though the USA is becoming ever more secular only a small percentage of people identify as atheists. One reason is the affectation of many atheists, who think its good to be arrogant know it all's who deride and demean anyone for believing we owe our existence to a Creator. They think its a good argument to equate belief in Santa Claus with belief in God, or equate belief in God with fairies or unicorns or invisible pink elephants. These kind of arguments always make a big splash with a peanut gallery full of fellow atheists but they don't move the needle in the market place of ideas. The anger atheists often express isn't really directed at the belief in God, what they really despise is religious belief. That's what gives them the most heartburn. The core of many religious beliefs, is the existence of a Creator of the universe. However belief in the existence of a Creator is shared by many religions including folks who don't subscribe to any particular religion.

Attacking religious beliefs might convince some folks their religious beliefs are suspect...but it won't convince anyone a Creator isn't responsible for the existence of the universe. Theism by itself isn't a religious belief. Its a philosophical belief that the universe was caused by a Creator also known as God.

How should atheists argue no God or Creator of the universe exists? They need to drop the argument there is no evidence that supports belief in a Creator who caused the universe. This will be very difficult for atheists because for many this isn't just a claim, its the Gospel according to atheists. Its an incontestable sacred cow axiom for most atheists. At first blush it makes sense, if there actually is no evidence, no facts or data that support theism then its perfectly reasonable to reject or deny the claim. The problem is its a false claim. Evidence are facts that make a claim more probably true. Theism is the belief God caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable. Those things have to be true for theism to be true. The fact the universe is in an exacting configuration with mindbogglingly tight parameters to allow intelligent life to exist makes the claim it was intentionally caused more probable than minus the fact.

Atheism minus all the rancor and demonizing of theists, is the belief God doesn't exist and no Creator is necessary. Atheism literally means without or not God. Meaning the existence of the universe and life occurred without a Creator. Having a little humility and admit its a counter belief and they don't know for a fact God doesn't exist or know for a fact a Creator wasn't necessary would go a long way to make a more reasonable appeal. Atheists should argue the same way everyone does to make a case. You argue from known facts that tend to support your conviction.

1. The universe exists

Wait didn't someone use that fact in favor of theism? It also makes the claim it was caused by natural forces more probable than if it didn't exist.

2. We've only observed natural forces.

One can argue from this fact its natural forces all the way down.

3. Complexity in biology is the result of a natural unguided process evolution

It can be argued from this fact that truly complex things (probably nothing more complex than the human brain) can be caused by time and chance by random forces. No creator necessary.

4. The universe is 13.8 billion years old and most of it uninhabitable.

If it was intentionally created it would have been done better and more space would be habitable.

Drop the rancor, the animosity, the hatred and disgust because people have the gall to believe something don't. Admit atheism is a belief not an obvious irrefutable fact. Make your case without passion or prejudice. Call it an honest opinion.

 

[Mr Person]

Yes, let's all follow a theist whose belief is inherently irrational (faith) when that theist tells us how we're allowed to justify not believing in his chosen god....

​

How should atheists argue no God or Creator of the universe exists? They need to drop the argument there is no evidence that supports belief in a Creator who caused the universe. This will be very difficult for atheists because for many this isn't just a claim, its the Gospel according to atheists. Its an incontestable sacred cow axiom for most atheists. At first blush it makes sense, if there actually is no evidence, no facts or data that support theism then its perfectly reasonable to reject or deny the claim. The problem is its a false claim. Evidence are facts that make a claim more probably true. Theism is the belief God caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable. Those things have to be true for theism to be true. The fact the universe is in an exacting configuration with mindbogglingly tight parameters to allow intelligent life to exist makes the claim it was intentionally caused more probable than minus the fact.​

This is one of the most profound examples of failing to understand the basic rules of logic.

It's like saying that there is evidence that invisible goblins make grass green because I claimed that this was the case, and don't you know it, the grass is green. Yikes!
No, that's incredibly stupid. I only said that invisible goblins make the grass green because grass happens to be green. That doesn't convert the grass being green into evidence of invisible goblins.

Double yikes!

 

[DrewPaul]

It's like saying that there is evidence that invisible goblins make grass green because I claimed that this was the case, and don't you know it, the grass is green. Yikes!

No, its not like that all. Its much more like the nasty, arrogant know it all arguments atheists typically make that only makes a splash with fellow atheists. Its feeds into the perception that atheists are assholes.

 

[mrjurrs]

Poor atheists. Even though the USA is becoming ever more secular only a small percentage of people identify as atheists. One reason is the affectation of many atheists, who think its good to be arrogant know it all's who deride and demean anyone for believing we owe our existence to a Creator. They think its a good argument to equate belief in Santa Claus with belief in God, or equate belief in God with fairies or unicorns or invisible pink elephants. These kind of arguments always make a big splash with a peanut gallery full of fellow atheists but they don't move the needle in the market place of ideas. The anger atheists often express isn't really directed at the belief in God, what they really despise is religious belief. That's what gives them the most heartburn. The core of many religious beliefs, is the existence of a Creator of the universe. However belief in the existence of a Creator is shared by many religions including folks who don't subscribe to any particular religion.

Attacking religious beliefs might convince some folks their religious beliefs are suspect...but it won't convince anyone a Creator isn't responsible for the existence of the universe. Theism by itself isn't a religious belief. Its a philosophical belief that the universe was caused by a Creator also known as God.

How should atheists argue no God or Creator of the universe exists? They need to drop the argument there is no evidence that supports belief in a Creator who caused the universe. This will be very difficult for atheists because for many this isn't just a claim, its the Gospel according to atheists. Its an incontestable sacred cow axiom for most atheists. At first blush it makes sense, if there actually is no evidence, no facts or data that support theism then its perfectly reasonable to reject or deny the claim. The problem is its a false claim. Evidence are facts that make a claim more probably true. Theism is the belief God caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable. Those things have to be true for theism to be true. The fact the universe is in an exacting configuration with mindbogglingly tight parameters to allow intelligent life to exist makes the claim it was intentionally caused more probable than minus the fact.

Atheism minus all the rancor and demonizing of theists, is the belief God doesn't exist and no Creator is necessary. Atheism literally means without or not God. Meaning the existence of the universe and life occurred without a Creator. Having a little humility and admit its a counter belief and they don't know for a fact God doesn't exist or know for a fact a Creator wasn't necessary would go a long way to make a more reasonable appeal. Atheists should argue the same way everyone does to make a case. You argue from known facts that tend to support your conviction.

1. The universe exists

Wait didn't someone use that fact in favor of theism? It also makes the claim it was caused by natural forces more probable than if it didn't exist.

2. We've only observed natural forces.

One can argue from this fact its natural forces all the way down.

3. Complexity in biology is the result of a natural unguided process evolution

It can be argued from this fact that truly complex things (probably nothing more complex than the human brain) can be caused by time and chance by random forces. No creator necessary.

4. The universe is 13.8 billion years old and most of it uninhabitable.

If it was intentionally created it would have been done better and more space would be habitable.

Drop the rancor, the animosity, the hatred and disgust because people have the gall to believe something don't. Admit atheism is a belief not an obvious irrefutable fact. Make your case without passion or prejudice. Call it an honest opinion.

What is the difference in belief in a particular god and belief in Santa Claus.

I think you'd find less rancor among the non-believers if the believers were not so hung up on 'Our god is the only true god'. I mean, how do they know that any better than an atheist knows there are no gods.

 

[Slavister]

No, its not like that all.

Yes, it's exactly like that.

"Theism is the belief God caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

is exactly like

"invisible goblins make the grass green because grass happens to be green"

It is also exactly like

"PaperClipism is the belief paper clips caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

 

[ataraxia]

They need to drop the argument there is no evidence that supports belief in a Creator who caused the universe. This will be very difficult for atheists because for many this isn't just a claim, its the Gospel according to atheists.

Not really. Richard Dawkins, for example, is probably one of the most famous (or infamous) atheists in the world. But ultimately, even he will readily admit that it's at least POSSIBLE that a creator god exists- much the same way that it's POSSIBLE that Santa or the tooth fairy exist. It's not that it's Gospel. It's just there's no reason to believe it. But possible? Sure. Lots of things are possible. Heck, it's even possible that the Lord Ganesha exists and he was the one who created the world.

 

[DrewPaul]

I think you'd find less rancor among the non-believers if the believers were not so hung up on 'Our god is the only true god'. I mean, how do they know that any better than an atheist knows there are no gods.

I'll give you that one. Religious zealots can be the most intolerable obnoxious people known on the face of the earth.

What is the difference in belief in a particular god and belief in Santa Claus.

For one sane rational adults don't believe a person known as Santa Claus delivers presents on Christmas eve. The reason they don't believe in Santa Claus is because a far more reasonable explanation exists, that the presents come from friends and family. What's the more reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe in an exacting configuration to allow the existence of intelligent beings? There is no similarity its a piss poor argument.

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes, it's exactly like that.

"Theism is the belief God caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

is exactly like

"invisible goblins make the grass green because grass happens to be green"

It is also exactly like

"PaperClipism is the belief paper clips caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

It is also exactly like

"Mindless natural forces without plan, intent, physics degree caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

 

[Slavister]

It is also exactly like

"Mindless natural forces without plan, intent, physics degree caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

Yes it is exactly like that... And no atheist I know of ever used this "logic" (LOL!) as evidence in any of their arguments. (And if they did, they'd be just like you.)

 

[mrjurrs]

I'll give you that one. Religious zealots can be the most intolerable obnoxious people known on the face of the earth.



For one sane rational adults don't believe a person known as Santa Claus delivers presents on Christmas eve. The reason they don't believe in Santa Claus is because a far more reasonable explanation exists, that the presents come from friends and family. What's the more reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe in an exacting configuration to allow the existence of intelligent beings? There is no similarity its a piss poor argument.

I disagree. Most sane rational adults know that someone doesn't die and rise again after three days. That they can't feed a multitude with a loaf of bread and a jug of wine. They choose top believe. The same way I choose to believe in Santa Claus.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Atheism literally means without or not God.

No, athiesm literally means a lack of theism.

 

[BabaVoss]

I didn't read all that. I'm just curious - why do you think anyone wants to "argue for atheism?" I mean, I'm an atheist but I don't go around arguing with people or trying to convince them I'm right. A few people do that who are selling books, I'm sure, but most atheists have made their personal decision about this and have moved on. They don't care. There no value in proselytizing for atheism. There is no church, and no one is counting how many converts you brought into the fold. Its just not a thing.

I'm happy to discuss it if someone really wants to, and I will respect their beliefs as long as they offer me the same courtesy.

You aren't an atheist. What are you proposing whatever this is?

 

[Gozaburo]

Not really. Richard Dawkins, for example, is probably one of the most famous (or infamous) atheists in the world. But ultimately, even he will readily admit that it's at least POSSIBLE that a creator god exists- much the same way that it's POSSIBLE that Santa or the tooth fairy exist. It's not that it's Gospel. It's just there's no reason to believe it. But possible? Sure. Lots of things are possible. Heck, it's even possible that the Lord Ganesha exists and he was the one who created the world.

Richard Dawkins is like the Bill Nye of Atheism and skepticism. Sure, he's entertaining to the uninformed midwit, but his criticisms fall apart completely when opened to more scholarly criticisms of naturalism and materialism.

To be fair, he's only really debated apologists which are his equivalent for the most part.

 

[DrewPaul]

Not really. Richard Dawkins, for example, is probably one of the most famous (or infamous) atheists in the world. But ultimately, even he will readily admit that it's at least POSSIBLE that a creator god exists- much the same way that it's POSSIBLE that Santa or the tooth fairy exist. It's not that it's Gospel. It's just there's no reason to believe it. But possible? Sure. Lots of things are possible. Heck, it's even possible that the Lord Ganesha exists and he was the one who created the world.

He made that argument? What a jackass. Are you telling me you couldn't easily, with your eyes closed disprove the claim (no one actually makes) that Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve? Are you telling me that 80% of the people in the world believe in Santa Claus like the do in a Creator? Anyone can disprove the claim that fairies leave money under a pillow.

If these are the same thing why hasn't he just gone about giving us a rational explanation for why the universe exists and is precisely configured for human beings to exist? Why the bait and switch? What's his alternate explanation that makes the claim it was intentionally caused look foolish like he could with Santa or fairies. Its because he hasn't a clue how a universe that supports human life came into existence.

Are the arguments I made in favor of atheism just not sexy enough?

1. The universe exists

Wait didn't someone use that fact in favor of theism? It also makes the claim it was caused by natural forces more probable than if it didn't exist.

2. We've only observed natural forces.

One can argue from this fact its natural forces all the way down.

3. Complexity in biology is the result of a natural unguided process evolution

It can be argued from this fact that truly complex things (probably nothing more complex than the human brain) can be caused by time and chance by random forces. No creator necessary.

4. The universe is 13.8 billion years old and most of it uninhabitable.

If it was intentionally created it would have been done better and more space would be habitable.

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes it is exactly like that... And no atheist I know of ever used this "logic" (LOL!) as evidence in any of their arguments. (And if they did, they'd be just like you.)

Smart and handsome also? They don't use it because its a terribly weak argument.

For example which would be more incredible and miraculous? A laptop coming into existence by planning, designing and engineering or by natural mindless forces that never intended a laptop to exist and just stumbled on the formula by sheer accident.

 

[Mr Person]

No, its not like that all. Its much more like the nasty, arrogant know it all arguments atheists typically make that only makes a splash with fellow atheists. Its feeds into the perception that atheists are assholes.

Yes, it's exactly like that.

"Theism is the belief God caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

is exactly like

"invisible goblins make the grass green because grass happens to be green"

It is also exactly like

"PaperClipism is the belief paper clips caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable."

And so do paperclips! That HAS to be the answer!

Here's the problem, @DrewPaul: you don't know how things work.

 

[Slavister]

They don't use it because its a terribly weak argument.

It's not a strong or weak argument. It's not an argument at all because your argument is NOT logical. Simple as that.

But you'll keep pushing it 'cuz it's not like you have actual evidence.

 

[AGENT J]

Poor atheists. Even though the USA is becoming ever more secular only a small percentage of people identify as atheists. One reason is the affectation of many atheists, who think its good to be arrogant know it all's who deride and demean anyone for believing we owe our existence to a Creator. They think its a good argument to equate belief in Santa Claus with belief in God, or equate belief in God with fairies or unicorns or invisible pink elephants. These kind of arguments always make a big splash with a peanut gallery full of fellow atheists but they don't move the needle in the market place of ideas. The anger atheists often express isn't really directed at the belief in God, what they really despise is religious belief. That's what gives them the most heartburn. The core of many religious beliefs, is the existence of a Creator of the universe. However belief in the existence of a Creator is shared by many religions including folks who don't subscribe to any particular religion.

Attacking religious beliefs might convince some folks their religious beliefs are suspect...but it won't convince anyone a Creator isn't responsible for the existence of the universe. Theism by itself isn't a religious belief. Its a philosophical belief that the universe was caused by a Creator also known as God.

How should atheists argue no God or Creator of the universe exists? They need to drop the argument there is no evidence that supports belief in a Creator who caused the universe. This will be very difficult for atheists because for many this isn't just a claim, its the Gospel according to atheists. Its an incontestable sacred cow axiom for most atheists. At first blush it makes sense, if there actually is no evidence, no facts or data that support theism then its perfectly reasonable to reject or deny the claim. The problem is its a false claim. Evidence are facts that make a claim more probably true. Theism is the belief God caused the universe and intelligent life to exist. The fact the universe and intelligent life exists makes the claim more probable. Those things have to be true for theism to be true. The fact the universe is in an exacting configuration with mindbogglingly tight parameters to allow intelligent life to exist makes the claim it was intentionally caused more probable than minus the fact.

Atheism minus all the rancor and demonizing of theists, is the belief God doesn't exist and no Creator is necessary. Atheism literally means without or not God. Meaning the existence of the universe and life occurred without a Creator. Having a little humility and admit its a counter belief and they don't know for a fact God doesn't exist or know for a fact a Creator wasn't necessary would go a long way to make a more reasonable appeal. Atheists should argue the same way everyone does to make a case. You argue from known facts that tend to support your conviction.

1. The universe exists

Wait didn't someone use that fact in favor of theism? It also makes the claim it was caused by natural forces more probable than if it didn't exist.

2. We've only observed natural forces.

One can argue from this fact its natural forces all the way down.

3. Complexity in biology is the result of a natural unguided process evolution

It can be argued from this fact that truly complex things (probably nothing more complex than the human brain) can be caused by time and chance by random forces. No creator necessary.

4. The universe is 13.8 billion years old and most of it uninhabitable.

If it was intentionally created it would have been done better and more space would be habitable.

Drop the rancor, the animosity, the hatred and disgust because people have the gall to believe something don't. Admit atheism is a belief not an obvious irrefutable fact. Make your case without passion or prejudice. Call it an honest opinion.

im not an atheist and i see no reason atheism needs to be effectively be "argued"
atheism is also not a belief system, nor do I know any group that calls "atheism" an obvious irrefutable fact.

seems your whole OP is made up based on your own beliefs, propaganda and talking points
is it possible to make strawmen claims before the topic is even open? lol /sarcasm

I have faith in my religion and that's it, faith
logically there's no real reason to believe it and its certainly not more logical than not believing (which is atheism) and im totally fine with that

 

[ataraxia]

He made that argument? What a jackass. Are you telling me you couldn't easily, with your eyes closed disprove the claim (no one actually makes) that Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve? Are you telling me that 80% of the people in the world believe in Santa Claus like the do in a Creator?

Lots of cultures believe lots of crazy things. 80% of the people in the whole world... well, no, actually almost 100% of them, believed that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Did that make it right?

If these are the same thing why hasn't he just gone about giving us a rational explanation for why the universe exists and is precisely configured for human beings to exist? Why the bait and switch? What's his alternate explanation that makes the claim it was intentionally caused look foolish like he could with Santa or fairies. Its because he hasn't a clue how a universe that supports human life came into existence.

There are potential answers to those questions- like Darwinian evolution and M-theory in physics. But even if you are not familiar with them, and/or don't believe them- why would that make a creator God the only answer? Humans have always said "God did it" when they didn't understand something. They used to think that lightning strikes were because God was angry. But as we understood more about how lightning works, we no longer believe that.

So although it's possible that there is a God and he created the universe, there are lots of other possibilities- some of which we may not have even thought about yet. Why do you think we should just not try to come up with any other answers other than just "God musta done it"? That answer has always been wrong in the past. Who is to say it's right now?

 

[ataraxia]

Richard Dawkins is like the Bill Nye of Atheism and skepticism. Sure, he's entertaining to the uninformed midwit, but his criticisms fall apart completely when opened to more scholarly criticisms of naturalism and materialism.

To be fair, he's only really debated apologists which are his equivalent for the most part.

OK, maybe.

But the point remains that most atheists, like Dawkins, will admit that it is POSSIBLE at least that a creator God exists.

But lots of other things are possible as well: like that there are parallel universes. I wouldn't go about living my life as if that's real though. These are all just wild speculations.

 

[Loulit01]

Atheism is the belief no gods exist. I don't believe gods exist, I'm an atheist. Is it possible gods exist? I suppose. But I'm still an atheist. Hey, it's possible the Jets will win the Super Bowl... Okay, went too far there.

 

[Slavister]

But lots of other things are possible as well: like that there are parallel universes. I wouldn't go about living my life as if that's real though.

How would you live your life differently if you knew parallel universes are a reality?

 

[Gozaburo]

OK, maybe.

But the point remains that most atheists, like Dawkins, will admit that it is POSSIBLE at least that a creator God exists.

But lots of other things are possible as well: like that there are parallel universes. I wouldn't go about living my life as if that's real though. These are all just wild speculations.

I find most debates on God's existence boil down to this: some people believe in the value of discussing metaphysics and epistemology, and some people do not. The brick wall I typically run into when discussing this subject with Atheists is that they claim a worldview based on empiricism, but are not willing to give any justification or foundation for their worldview past matter "existing", whatever that means.

If the Atheist is an honest materialist, he/she would understand that critical reasoning processes like induction would literally be impossible, rendering the scientific method completely incoherent. David Hume points this out as being one pretty critical problem for materialist and naturalist thinkers, but most Atheists/skeptics are not even familiar with that conversation.

 

[DrewPaul]

Lots of cultures believe lots of crazy things. 80% of the people in the whole world... well, no, actually almost 100% of them, believed that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Did that make it right?

No it didn't. Almost no one believes in a flat earth now right? This is because there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence the earth is round and people are mostly reasonable and rational. Is there overwhelming evidence that mindless forces came into existence somehow and caused a universe with the exacting conditions for life to exist? If there was most people would accept such overwhelming evidence and agree the universe was caused unintentionally by mindless forces. So its a classic bait and switch argument. If the claim God caused the universe was the same as the earth is flat most people would no longer believe God caused the universe.

There are potential answers to those questions- like Darwinian evolution and M-theory in physics. But even if you are not familiar with them, and/or don't believe them- why would that make a creator God the only answer? Humans have always said "God did it" when they didn't understand something. They used to think that lightning strikes were because God was angry. But as we understood more about how lightning works, we no longer believe that.

Not any longer why is that? Because they have a better explanation and people are rational beings who want to know the truth.

So although it's possible that there is a God and he created the universe, there are lots of other possibilities- some of which we may not have even thought about yet. Why do you think we should just not try to come up with any other answers other than just "God musta done it"? That answer has always been wrong in the past. Who is to say it's right now?

That is the question. Nature did it or God did it. The answer is we don't know. So there is no reason for anyone to mock or ridicule the belief, or the disbelief.

 

[DrewPaul]

No, athiesm literally means a lack of theism.

May 5, 2021 — The “a” in atheist, in Greek, means “without.” Theo, or Theos, in Greek, means “god.” Therefore, “atheist” simply means without god, or without ...