Comments on: Three Bad Reasons for Being an Atheist

By: Guest

Guest — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:07:19 +0000

Wow, what a bunch of horseshit. There is no evidence for what any religion claims to be fact, period (compelling or non-compelling or totally super-duper compelling, I don't give a shit). For fuck's sake people, don't overthink this.

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:58:24 +0000

His point seems to be that there are no coherent definitions or explanations of any gods, whether it is the Christian God or something else. So I took it as a more universal reason. Although I am sympathetic to what you have to say concerning compelling evidence.

By: Cheez

Cheez — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:27:00 +0000

I think the reason provided as to why Raymond is an atheist is a bad reason. It only mentions not believing in God. The capital letter suggests that it is a reference to a specific god. An atheist does not believe in any deity. An argument that only holds for certain deities is a bad one. Also, by making the point to say "compelling evidence" nullifies the definition of evidence in the first place. I could argue that someones claim of a miracle is evidence for or evidence against a deity depending on what assumptions I'm making. Anything could be evidence for anything else so saying "no evidence" is impossible.

By: James Tracy

James Tracy — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:20:25 +0000

Believers might point to the Bible, miracles, or design in nature as evidence of god's existence. Raymond would argue that this is evidence, just not conclusive or compelling evidence.

By: Keith Watson

Keith Watson — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:18:02 +0000

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in god. I tried to believe for years, but I can no more choose to believe that than I can choose to believe that I can stare at the sun and make it go out.

By: CMK

CMK — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:07:50 +0000

So what is the not so compelling evidence? I'm comfortable saying there is no evidence because I've seen no evidence. Does that make sense? Also, I don't realy care what Theists think or say. Should I care that my 5 year old argues there is a monster in his closet and take this seriously?

By: Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:26:16 +0000

I'm in agreement with Tallis though, and am an atheist for much the same reason he his. God, as purported to be by believers, just doesn't make sense.

When I say there is no evidence to support a belief in God, I'm genmerally using "no evidence" as a shorter version of "no compelling evidence". As Tallis notes, "[supposed] Miracles, scriptures, the testimony of priests and prophets etc" may well be counted as contestable evidence for God, but to my mind it is no evidence at all, let alone compelling evidence. But I take his point that it is contested evidence, and think he does have a point in that we really ought to be specific and say "no compelling evidence". It is more precise, and therfore accurate, and it also has the advantage of not allowing Theists to dismiss arguments for atheism as naysaying nonsense; that atheists aren't willing to look at the evidence. We have, and we do, but find it uncompelling.

Also, having a basic understanding of the nature of the universe as explained through the scientific method makes God redundant. I wouldn't say that forms the basis of my atheism, but it certainly does heavliy inform it.