Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Post Reply New Topic

Whenever I see an argument against the existence of God, against the Bible, against Christianity, or yet another ploy of "it's not my job to provide proof!", I wonder to myself, "has this been said before?". And the answer to that question is almost certainly, "yes".

For "free-thinkers" I suppose it must be difficult not to think up original arguments.

Here is a good view of the Internet: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the chatter abideth for ever."

I think it might be Richard Dawkins job to provide proof.

Would it be fair to say that in the lifetime of the internet, literalist Christians haven't said any things that they have been saying for 2000 years?

That is to say, in the last 20 years what original things are Christians saying? If they deviate too far from canon, dont they fail to maintain their Christianity?

Not quite, the views of Augustine concerning Noah's Ark compared to Werner Gitt's sinks that, but either way, we as Christians are supposedly hindered in our thoughts as you describe above. Should not the "free thinkers", those who don't have to conform to any canon or ideology ideally, be able to say things which haven't been said by others? Not following leaders and priests, which would be just to quote them either to the word or paraphrasically. Why are the unhindered allowing themselves to be hindered?

What else can be said. Why is it up to the non believers to disprove the believers. Considering the majority of religionists want the rest of us to live our life's according to their beliefs surely it is up to them to prove the voracity of their claims. Anyhow science is continuously disproving long held religious beliefs. What more do you want us to do; find god and get him to deny his existence?

Those questions are discussed at least since we have something like a western philosophy - in other words: Since roughly 2500 years. Some of the brightest minds in history thought about this questions.

I would therefore say that it is quite hard to find here a new argument. Especially the promoters of religion still do not show logical consistent answers to some of the arguments around since Epicurus.

Everyone holds their own beliefs as verity, why should only one side try to show its veracity? Verily, you think, but can you tell me how and then verify such statements? It is sometimes very difficult to show the other side how one thinks.

Meh, the Stoics were cooler anyway. Go Cicero! Darn regime shift.

I think I understood you wrong then.

I dont think religious people are hindered intellectually in any way.

Christian points of disagreement with Atheists are no more vast than points of disagreement between some Atheists. For example, humanists and new age spiritualists.

Atheists have no inherit neurological advantage either.

But the Stoics were not necessary atheists. They often referred to the gods, but in a very sober way, or even agnostic way, and do not rely in their moral judgement on the existence of gods, but on the reason as the common bond between all humans. The Stoics saw moral behaviour not as something which has to do with external factors (other humans, gods, etc.) but with the inner state of the human reason.

The burden of proof is with those who make the affirmative assertion. It is up to the God people to show that God exists. So far there is no empirical evidence to this end. An atheist is simply taking the position that the assertion of God existence is unproved empirically.

Those who make extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof to support those claims.

With zillion dollar technology and instruments no one has yet caught a glimpse of God. Not once, not ever. Those who claim God exists only reiterate their belief. They have yet to show empirical evidence. There is more evidence for the existence of atoms than there is for the existence of God, although neither has been seen.


ruveyn

Religion encompasses many aspects of belief. For centuries there was little or no answers to many of religions proposals. Beyond that, religious enforcement severely punished doubts about religion's veracity. At least in much of the West the brutalities of religious enforcement have dramatically decreased. Nevertheless, even in the USA which loudly proclaims religious freedom, to declare one's self an atheist incurs, frequently, severe social consequences. In Muslim countries the penalties for expressing personal doubts is quickly enforced by violent savage brutalities.

With the advent of secular science many if not all of the unknowns claimed to be answered by religion have been demonstrated to be totally false. And the new discoveries have rewarded the world with all sorts of life improvements and daily rewards which religion is helpless to offer. If these can be accepted as arguments, they are unanswerable by anybody with the minimum of good sense.

Religious morality has, through the centuries, more frequently demonstrated inherent hypocrisy than general benefit because it is so far out of line with necessary practices and basic human nature. What is most disheartening is that these basically unacceptable behaviors have been exhibited by the highest officials in religious organizations thus demonstrating how ineffectual the dogmas have been.

Lets think we would be in the year 130, in the time of the reign of Hadrian, and an atheist would argue against the existence of the Roman Gods (Jupiter, Juno, Minerva and the whole club). How anyone could prove their non-existence? A faithful believer could even argue, quite well, that the state of Roman Empire, its grandness, the Pax Romana, the priorly unseen wealth and the well ordered state are only possible by the intervention of those gods. How else could a tiny city state turn into the dominating power of the whole known world?

You could easily build such arguments for all periods of dominating empires at the hight of their reign and their respective religions (Zoroastrianism in Persia, the cults of Latin America prior Columbus, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, etc.).

Yes, I know about the Stoics, I have read De Natura Deorum.

Some of their arguments for design in nature have commonality with Paley, others not.

this is a ridiculous example. An investigation into the contributing factors would easily show how the Roman empire had risen, this of course does not mean that the god believers would not chop the investigators head off but denying scientific investigation does not prove the existence of god, it just demonstrates the stubbornness of the god believers

(bold by me): That's exactly the point I wanted to make; I thought it would be clear.