What are the absolute best and worst arguments for atheism?

[Danhalen]

The best argument for atheism is the complete lack of evidence to suggest theism is justified.

I do not know what I would consider the worst argument for atheism. There are people who claim atheism for irrational reasons, but I think that is another matter.

[Griggsy]

I am with John Powell . I add the ignotist argument which says that God has no meaning ,'hid[ing] our ignorance behind a theoligcal fig leaf ," making the unimformative tautology that God wills what He wills. Also the Meslier-Martin -Lamberth refutation of the free will defense does a fine job. See my threads ! Google morgan-lynn lamberth for more from me , not to self -promote . Thanks to all who have commented on my threads !

[Griggsy]

Atheists and others are wrong to prattle that Tertullian declares that he believes in Christianity ,because it's absurd. He believed the opposite of that. That reflects Soren Kierkegaard's view in effect.
No, super naturalists and paranormalists aren't dumb: the smarter they are, the more recondite and jejune argumentation they bring forth! That illustrates the rationalists' fallacy that with education, there would be less superstition.
Some atheists are fools like that Darby of my birth state of Alabama. Ayn Rand used her untested intuitions for her philosophy that other atheists uphold irrationally. Some are silly paranormalists like Charles Ducasse was.
Not all atheists are humanists, naturalists and rationalists but [COLOR="indigo"]rather fools! And this is not to call for purity but for rationality!
Alas, the great skeptic, Martin Gardiner is a fideistic deist!

[SatanTheAlien]

QUOTE=sylas;1734354]My personal choices:

Best -- or at least the one I find persuasive

We don't know what "consciousness" is.... but indications are that it is not a distinct thing, but a property of a physical body with the capacity for thought and reflection. There's almost certainly more to it than that alone (IMO), but this seems to be a starting prerequisit for all our experience of consciousness, will, thought, choice.

Take a conscious person, knock them on the head; they become unconscious. It's not that something "goes away", but that something "stops working"; as far as we can tell. We damage the physical frame, the capacity for consciousness changes or is lost.

Drugs can have permanent or temporary effects on a personality; so can trauma. Major brain injurity is often linked to significant changes in personality. So the personality is (apparently) not something distinct from the physical frame, but tightly linked to it. The idea of a disembodied will, or personality, or intelligence, does not seem to be how these things work out. There's a body; a frame of some kind; which exhibits personality, or will, or intelligence. [/QUOTE]

Just a quick comment on consciousness. It is possible that we are another physical thing, such a thing that I will call nam. If nam is of itself conscious, and when it interfaces with the human body it develops a secondary conscious, much like a split personality, then naturally, if you were to harm the brain, you would harm that secondary consciousness that we call human consciousness. Thus all scientific examinations of human consciousness that you pointed out would hold true. However, after death, nam would continue living, and would no longer have its split personality, human consciousness.


A Good Argument

In my opinion, here is a good argument for atheism. God cannot be imagined. No one tells us what God is exactly, and any attempts they make at doing so result in the description of a physical being. They only say what God does, such as create, but that doesn't tell me what God is. Because I don't know what God is exactly, I have no reason to believe, for why should I believe in something that I don't know what I am believing in?

Furthermore, I have no way to know if this being is truly eternal, and even if it existed, it has no way to prove it is eternal. Anything it does, I can by abduction rule out.

Another good argument, IMO, is that if a supreme being existed, and if he at all related information to us humans, that information would be so clearly from a higher intelligence, that all humans would at least admit it was from extraterrestrials, but no such information exists on earth. All such ideas and claims supposedly coming from God, trough man, is information that is in no way astounding or beyond the intelligent of man to come up with. We can at least see from this, that there are no holy books. It doesn't rule out God completely, however.

[Griggsy]

[IStanHolyDwvil. yes, that underscores the argument from physical mind that as He has no body, He has no brain and thus no mind, so He can neither think nor act, and thus cannot exist per ignostiicism. And thus also there exists no souls! Contrary to that sophist Alvin Plantinga, this is no petty arguments. He cannot define ,postulate or use faith to instantiate Him!
And the other good argument that you notes is Schellenberg's argument form hiddenness, which also undercores ignosticism as being nebulous.
Satan, thanks for this fine post and please respond to my threads! See my profile to fine them. You'd be a great asset for them
Zorathruster, hello!][/I]

Folks, please cccheckout the blog Carneades 2 Bloggers and Ratinalist 2 Google's blog spot.

[SatanTheAlien]

[IStanHolyDwvil. yes, that underscores the argument from physical mind that as He has no body, He has no brain and thus no mind, so He can neither think nor act, and thus cannot exist per ignostiicism. And thus also there exists no souls! Contrary to that sophist Alvin Plantinga, this is no petty arguments. He cannot define ,postulate or use faith to instantiate Him!
And the other good argument that you notes is Schellenberg's argument form hiddenness, which also undercores ignosticism as being nebulous.
Satan, thanks for this fine post and please respond to my threads! See my profile to fine them. You'd be a great asset for them
Zorathruster, hello!][/I]

Folks, please cccheckout the blog Carneades 2 Bloggers and Ratinalist 2 Google's blog spot.

Cool, man. I will definitely, try to do so.

Oh, I just wanted to expand on something. If then the nam existed, that is a physical form, not a soul, that indeed interfaces with the human body, and only while it interfaces with the human body do we have human consciousness, then because it is physical, it too would have some form, and within that form it would have a smaller more complex form compared to the brain. This form is what would give nam consciousness. Of course, there is no way to test this idea yet, as even if it were true our instraments are too primitive to do so.

It could also explain why some people in vegetative states appear to have nothing physically wrong with their brain. If the nam-human connection were not totally in tact, such a vegetative state could arise, since in this case human consciousness would result from the nam interfacing with the body correctly.

So my point is, if we ever had scientific evidence for the nam, that would pretty much rule out the soul. I think most people would at that point stop believing in souls, that is some spiritual or supernatural thing. It would only be a step from there to question if anything spiritual or supernatural existed, such as God.

[straggler]

I'm just wondering here, but what are the best.worst arguments for atheism?

I know that using faith as imaginative works: because faith is non analytical and expiramental. It is a faction of inference and faith, or commonly called imagination. I proved that this reasoning (even though, as seen in QFT, that imagination is critical) is not valid by itself.

I don't know of any other strong ones at the moment, hence the reason for my post. Also, what are the worst ones we atheists could use anyway?

An argument for atheism:

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God
You don't believe in God?
You are an atheist

An argument against atheism:

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God
You believe in God?
You are not an atheist.

[Griggsy]

One dumb atheist argument finds God as not able to be omnipotent is say He cannot make a stone so heavy that He could not lift it, No, that is not one of incompatibility arguments making for ignosticism as here it is so incoherent itself!
On the other hand a dumb theist one is similar but here Jako MIklos states that God is the maker of logic. Logic and the law of causality precede His acting so that He cannot be the Primary Cause!
That bane affects us all to some extent!
Miklos, a deist, in his '" Confronting Believers has some powerful things to say against Christianity but not so valid ones against atheism, I think. Anyway, t'is a good book for all!

[Senpeko]

Best arguments show why naturalism makes the most sense of the world we live in.

Okay arguments appeal to skepticism in various supernatural schemes. However, if atheism is taken as a positive assertion, this won't do. (Since the burden of proof falls on whoever makes a claim.)

Horrible arguments focus entirely on flaws in other people's worldviews. "Christianity is false, ergo there are no supernatural beings" is ridiculous.

Also, "God is mean so I don't believe in Him." -- What is that, atheistic fideism? Blech!