“We have to know what something is before we make a case against it.”

I oppose concepts of gods that people actually consider true. If nobody believes a thing, then there really is nothing to oppose about it.

You don’t have to define what something is to disbelieve it. Without actual content to the idea, disbelief is the default.

Posted: July 17th 2010

See all questions answered by Mike the Infidel

Why do we have to know what it is before we can make a case against it? If somebody tells me something exist, it’s up to them to define what that thing is.

I’ve yet to come across a coherent definition for what god is, so I think it’s hard to discuss whether he/she/they/it exists.

Posted: July 8th 2010

See all questions answered by Eric_PK

We have to know what something is before we make a case against it.

This illustrates a common misconception about atheists and atheism. I don’t see myself as “making a case against God” at all. I don’t think that the very concept of gods has legitimacy, never mind specific versions of that concept, such as the Judeo-Christian version.

Even though it’s fiction, that concept alone isn’t that problematic to me, any more than any other idealistic concept might be. So what’s the problem? People are the problem. People who have taken this abstract concept, put a name to it, loaded it up with their own very human wishes and concerns, and think that they have found some sort of truth. Then, since they have the “truth”, they are therefore “Right”, and have the right to push that “truth” on to others. After all, they have “seen the light”, and know better than you. Right? No.

I’m not anti-“God”. How can I be against something that probably doesn’t exist? Why would I lend your particular conception of “God” a legitimacy it doesn’t deserve? There is no atheistic definition of “God” for you to debate. It is whatever you say it is, and talk is cheap.

Posted: July 6th 2010

See all questions answered by brian thomson

I’m as shaky on the ontology of gods as everyone else, but I disagree with you in part; you don’t have to know exactly what a god is in order to make a case against it. You can potentially show it to be unlikely based on a single supposed characteristic.

For a separate example I’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of lately, you don’t need to know that a bat is a mammal or that it can navigate in the dark to deduce that there are none living in your attic. All you have to know is that bats constantly poop in their own cave or equivalent. If you search your attic during the day and find no deposits of guano, it may not be absolutely certain that there are no bats but the only way there could be is if someone secretly swept up before your search.

Likewise, there’s a case to be made against theistic gods (though not necessarily a watertight one) using just two of their agreed characteristics: they are all-powerful, and they desire belief from everyone. The very existence of more than one religion, let alone atheists, tells us that any real theistic god isn’t getting what it wants, despite its absolute power. That appears blatantly contradictory, and requires some form of special pleading to reconcile.

Posted: July 5th 2010

See all questions answered by SmartLX

Here are some answers to a recent question similar to yours.

God is whatever the believer what it to be, even when that believer follows a religious brand, the actual sense of god is tweaked by the believer to make it custom made. Hence, nobody can possibly define god except the individual believer. A bit like love actually.

Posted: July 5th 2010

See all questions answered by logicel