Getting random stuff organised
The Problem of Evil — which I prefer to call the Problem of Suffering — is an argument against a particular type of theism. It takes the following form: The argument is logically bulletproof, even if the premises are scaled down considerably. Even a benevolent god who is not omnipotent and omniscient, but merely powerful …
Continue reading “Robots and zombies– is this the silliest theist ‘argument’ of them all?”
In courtroom procedure, there is a concept of ‘best evidence’. If you are trying to show that a claim is true, you are obliged to produce the best evidence you can; and if you don’t, then the evidence that you do produce is regarded with scepticism. It implies that something about the ‘best evidence’ would actually damage …
Here’s Jermey’s Wager: If gods don’t exist, there’s nothing to lose by not believing in them. If gods exist and are reasonable, they won’t penalise you for following the evidence and refusing to believe in them. So there’s nothing to lose by not believing in them. If gods exist and are not reasonable, there’s no way of …
Very few Christians worry about whether their beliefs are incorrect and Buddhists, or Hindus, or Moslems, or Sikhs, are actually correct. And that’s usually because they know there is no evidence for the beliefs of Buddhists, or Hindus, or Moslems, or Sikhs. Very few Buddhists worry about whether their beliefs are incorrect and Christians or …
You are probably very, very certain that there are no live elephants in the room there with you right now. In fact you are probably so certain as to claim that you ‘know’ it for a fact. And if someone asked you ‘How do you know?’ you would probably respond by saying that live elephants were big and …
Because they are useful analogies. They provide a way for us to try and get past the childhood indoctrination that causes many theists to start from the unassailable assumption that gods exist. Rather than trying to overcome that directly, we can draw parallels between gods and other entities which theists clearly regard as fictional. Hopefully, …
All the evidence supports atheism. There are no reliable observations which require the postulation of gods to explain them. That’s as good as it gets for a negative claim. The evidence for atheism is exactly the same as the evidence that there are no live fully-grown elephants in your bathroom, right now. You can go to your bathroom …
Some atheists do. Others—like the millions of atheists in China—have probably never heard of philosophical arguments regarding gods. But for those atheists who are aware of these alleged arguments and don’t bother to engage in them, the reasons include: The arguments don’t relate to what people actually understand ‘gods’ to mean. Often the conclusions reached …
Continue reading “Why don’t atheists like to philosophically argue the existence of the gods?”
You are entitled to believe anything you like for any reasons that you like, though if your beliefs negatively affect your behaviour, the people around you are equally entitled to try and change them. But if you hope or plan to convert anyone else, or persuade them that your beliefs are true, then you will …
Everything that atheists say about gods is simply a reflection of what has been said to them by theists. Most atheists realise that what theists have to say is often wildly inconsistent, so when they are responding to theist claims they will adapt their replies to suit whatever type of god their opponent appears to …
Jon's Quora content