Reasonable Faith Forums

Archived => Presumption of Atheism => Topic started by: joppe on August 24, 2013, 08:08:12 am

Title: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on August 24, 2013, 08:08:12 am
There is a way of thinking in the popular culture that
-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism

So how we can change that?
I really would like to change that since that clearly isn't true.

What other assumptions can you list?
I think there were some others but I don't remember them all :(

EDIT:
I think I'll make a list of the assumptions:

-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism
-Theists are stupid and uneducated
-Theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old
-Theists believe that evolution never occurred
-Atheism is the default position
-Atheism is 'lack of belief' in god(s)
-There is no such thing as agnosticism, ignosticism or apatheism - they are created by theists in order to redefine atheism
-Everyone is an atheist
-One can not believe in God and be reasonable at the same time
-Faith is not reasonable
-ALL theists are creationists
-Atheists always think for themselves
-Theists are just sheep that believe what they are told to believe
-Theists think that human was created 6000 years ago
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-Naturalism is the 'lack of belief' in supernaturalism
-More science means less religion
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-The quantum vacuum is nothing
-Jesus never existed
-There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc...
-The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain
-There are no spiritual things
-Naturalism is true by default
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: False Entity on August 24, 2013, 11:07:19 am
Theists are stupid because we know for a fact that the world isn't 6,000 years old and there was no Adam and Eve. Atheists FTW.

I wish there was a sarcasm font.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on August 24, 2013, 02:13:38 pm
Theists are stupid because we know for a fact that the world isn't 6,000 years old and there was no Adam and Eve. Atheists FTW.

I wish there was a sarcasm font.

Yes, that is one ASSUMTPION of atheists. Why think that ALL theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old? It is never said in the Bible.
That is simply a straw-man argument.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: False Entity on August 24, 2013, 02:18:16 pm
Theists are stupid because we know for a fact that the world isn't 6,000 years old and there was no Adam and Eve. Atheists FTW.

I wish there was a sarcasm font.

Yes, that is one ASSUMTPION of atheists. Why think that ALL theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old? It is never said in the Bible.
That is simply a straw-man argument.

There's also been a different use of "Creationist". Apparently if you believe in God, then you're a Creationist, according to some Atheists. Go figure.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on August 25, 2013, 01:36:34 pm
I have updated the list multiple times now.
Whoa, I didn't realize how much I could think of. There are many more and I will keep updating the list.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: Ruffen on August 25, 2013, 06:04:50 pm
Theists are stupid because we know for a fact that the world isn't 6,000 years old and there was no Adam and Eve. Atheists FTW.

I wish there was a sarcasm font.

Yes, that is one ASSUMTPION of atheists. Why think that ALL theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old? It is never said in the Bible.
That is simply a straw-man argument.

It is not said directly in the Bible, but the Bible sums up the bloodline of Jesus (or not exactly the bloodline as it goes via his father Joseph who wasn't actually his father) all the way back to Adam and Eve. It also states the age of each person at the time they had their son.

From there it's a simple addition exercise to add up how many years there must have been between Adam and Jesus, and the answer is about 4,000 years. Add that to about 2,000 years that have passed since Jesus, and you have the figure of 6,000 years.

So the Bible does indeed contain false information about the age of the world.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: False Entity on August 26, 2013, 07:59:35 pm
Either

1) The genealogies have gaps

or

2) The genealogies aren't about historical people, and convey deeper meaning

You are also assuming that Adam was created the same day as the universe. Why? The best you could say here is that man started to exist 6,000 years ago, which would contradict modern science.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on September 28, 2013, 03:15:19 pm
List updated.

Whoa, I never thought there would be so many assumptions!!
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: KingVoid on September 29, 2013, 02:20:25 am
Since when do atheists need assumptions?

"I do not believe in God"

Anyone who says this, is by definition, an atheist. Even if they make absolutely no claims about science, philosophy, the nature of reality, or any of that.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on September 29, 2013, 08:34:46 am
Since when do atheists need assumptions?

"I do not believe in God"

Anyone who says this, is by definition, an atheist. Even if they make absolutely no claims about science, philosophy, the nature of reality, or any of that.

Just take a look at the list. Your assumption is included.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: wholesoul on January 18, 2014, 02:49:41 pm
There is a new atheistic tactic for trying to debunk Theism, especially Christianity.

First, let me say that the foundational Materialism that is at the core of atheistic thinking (i.e., there is only the material world and no supernatural one) has been disproved by experiments done by [Quantum] physicists (See Planck, Bell's Inequality, Aspect's experiment, Zeilinger's Non-local variable Theory, Haisch, Kochen-Specker Theorem, Leggett-Garg Inequality namely) (nature.com). Atheists either don't know, don't care, or flat-out deny this scientific evidence of the illusion of Materialism because it would become a logical incohesion since Atheism is all about Materialism. In short, Atheism would be gutted.

The new attack on Christianity can be found in two books written by the same author - Hannah Orion. Both are essentially arguing a co-option of Christianity by Atheism. The first book is entitled "Jesus Christ Atheist" and the second is entitled "There Are No Such Things As Gods." Both books try to make the ridiculous and counter-factual case that Christianity, beginning with Jesus Christ himself, was really an atheistic leader and movement [that somehow went wrong]. I am using the author's, publisher's, or seller's description of the books.

Second, Atheist are well known for their dialectical method of argument (i.e., finding inconsistencies or absurdities in the arguments of others, hence their love affair with [Informal] Logical Fallacies). However, true thinkers know that there are limits to logic and science. With respect to logic, there is the Fallacy Fallacy that says, "To say that an argument is fallacious is to claim that there is no sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing (emphasis mine) about the truth-value of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted (emphasis mine) to conclude that a proposition is false simply because some argument for it is fallacious." (See http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html). And yet, we see Atheist after Atheist playing the "Name that fallacy!"or "Spot the fallacy and instantly falsify the conclusion." game all the time. With respect to science, it cannot ever prove such things as Mathematical, Logical, Metaphysical, Ethical, Aesthetic, or even [some] Scientific principles or presuppositions); neither Logic or Science are universal tools or panaceas to get at Truth.

Atheists have not even effectively countered the five known logical or science arguments for God as debated by Dr. Craig. Several prominent Atheist have failed to counter these arguments. Instead they often resorted to blaming God for the Evil in the World type of arguments. We can see through that it is not about what argument is the most reasonable; it is all about what argument is likeable or acceptable in the Atheist's personal philosophy. Logic is being "misunderstood and misused" by Atheists themselves who should be strict adherents to the rules and proper uses of Logic. They are not. By definition they are Sophists who use elaborate and devious argumentation to score points or win popularity in arguments only. (dictionary.search.yahoo.com) What is really involved is Orr's Law that states "The finder finds what the seeker seeks." Naturally, the finder and the seeker (being the same person) will not knowingly oppose each other.  (http://weirdoverse.com/orrs-law-2/). In other words, people will reach conclusions that they have pre-established or that fortifies their worldview. Atheist are not exempt from the human foible of needing to [attempt to] escape cognitive dissonance, the long list of cognitive biases, or just the emotional satisfaction of having one's worldview approved, confirmed, or validated. (See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases). It would be highly unbecoming and contradictory for Atheists to avail themselves of the a transcendent route (i.e., abstract thinking) in order to somehow rise above cognitive biases since their own belief system does not recognize or prohibits such a mental faculty (i.e., at most, the brain is running a nifty evolutionary program geared for survival - not truth finding). Moreover, the transcendent route would be more subjective than objective. In fact, according to Evolutionary Psychology, all thinking is really just information processing that is regulated by the so-called Survival Instinct. In other words, our brains were designed so that we live through the day and not for pure abstract thinking or truth finding. (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Evolutionary_psychology)

Orion's revisionism and recasting of Christianity as an atheistic philosophy, at its core and intent, takes the cake and tries to rewrite historical facts to suit her atheistic perspective and philosophy. Rationalizations are not being rational and facts can be interpreted in any number of ways depending on one's worldview. Another pesky problem for Atheist who somehow think thoughts and feelings can be separated cleanly for the sake of being objective. Behavior Economics, in experiment after experiment, have shown that both thoughts and feelings go into our thinking and decision-making. They cannot be compartmentalized. I have to wonder if Orion is not trying some form of, "If you can't beat their arguments, incorporate them" kind of attack.

Third, I look at Atheism through a Social Psychology lens. Almost all Atheist I have encountered are really ANTI-Theists. If it is against God they believe it without question (so much for Free-Thinking); if they like it then it is applied logic; if spokespersons for Atheists say it then it must be the objective truth automatically. These behaviors make Atheism sound more like a cult to me. When one tells them that their "There is no God." is a claim of knowledge, they give a "No, it is a belief in unbelief" or "It is a lack of belief in God(s)" kind of counterargument. Then Atheism is really another name for or a dressed up form of Nihilism. If Nihilism is their true position then this is just an extreme form of skepticism that would necessarily include being skeptical about any product of mind - Theists as well as their own. Yet, we see Atheists speaking and writing with confidence and conviction that there is no God. A lack of logical cohesiveness. Also, even the Nihilist position in itself is a tautological position because it says something similar to, "There is no such thing as cold; there's only the absence of heat." Again, a clever dodge or subterfuge to avoid having to provide proof for their philosophical position. Atheism cum Nihilism is defined as, "...the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." (http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/) So, in order to avoid the shift in the burden of proof, Atheist do a definition sleight-of-hand that denotes the same definition of Nihilism, which puts them in a worse philosophical predicament because the redefinition would obliterate Atheism too. This belies the Atheist's condescension, vehemence, and activism that often expresses itself in their snark or outright offensive comments. One would only take on such an aggressive attitude if they were standing up for or defending something. Otherwise, they would literally be getting worked up over nothing or non-existence. Please note, I know there are different variants of Nihilism, but I am using the general definition here.

Frankly, the Atheist I have encountered are unread, unsophisticated, unintellectual, irrational (i.e., angry, mean, and hate-filled) and otherwise outright behaving in a repugnant manner. Several atheists I exchanged messages with talked about Empiricism, yet when I questioned if they had read the main work of Sextus Empiricus (the founder of the Empirical school of philosophy) they said no; one even went as far to say that "...there was no need to read it." When I told them their position is from the defunct school of scientific philosophy known as Logical-Empiricism, many still pushed forth the "If it is not observable, it does not exist" argument that was just a reiteration of the Logical-Empirical school of thought! Again, Atheists are not being up-to-date on where science is or accepting factual statements in order to maintain their belief, despite objective contrary information.

Too many Atheist use their philosophy (i.e., belief system) as a license to be, to put it politely, arrogant jerks. In large measure, atheism is another form of a youthful rebellion against anything religious or spiritual, a left-Brain dominated worldview, and, old-fashioned zealotry or bigotry. Again, you cannot believe in anything if you simultaneously believe in nothing (i.e., Nihilism). The point about bigotry is ironic because this is what Atheists accuse Theists of being. However, the Atheists' extremism is okay in the defense or promotion of Atheism. Atheist have all the main hallmarks of a cult beginning with fanaticism.

Overall, Atheist are nothing more than Echoist (i.e., repeating what resonates with them emotionally and slogans). They take vociferous nastiness as validation of THEIR [subjective] truth all under the cover of words like objective, empirical, rational, scientific, or logical. They have this superior notion that if a Theist disengages from an exchange that they won and have proven God does not exist. However, what they fail to realize is that people leave the Atheists to their own devices because they, sooner or late, recognize the sophistry being used by the Atheists, get tired of hearing atheistic slogans repetitively, or see the futility of arguing with someone who resorts to [vicious] personal attacks. The preceding last point is in fact the hallmark of their contradictory behavior; every Atheist I have engaged either are involved in hero-worshiping and living with a "huge chip on the shoulder." If Atheists were truly motivated by objective, empirical, rational, etc., arguments or thinking then they wouldn't need to behave so irascible or try to pick a verbal fight with anyone who even smells like they are challenging their beliefs. Try asking an honest question about Evolution and you get labelled a Creationist right from the word go. Atheism is not Free-Thinking, it is just another form of dogmatism. This is what they always accuse Theists of being.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on January 22, 2014, 03:22:31 pm
Thank you, wholesoul, for an interesting text!
I totally agree with you with many of your points. I have had exactly the same experience with atheists (I am surrounded by them since I live in a secular country).
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on February 16, 2014, 06:26:15 am
List updated.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: ssunlimited on May 24, 2014, 12:48:56 am
Add these to the list of assumptions of atheists:

- There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc...
- The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain
- There are no spiritual things
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on June 03, 2014, 10:24:35 am
Add these to the list of assumptions of atheists:

- There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc...
- The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain
- There are no spiritual things

Added!!
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: Rob Heusdens on June 11, 2014, 11:47:01 am
There is a new atheistic tactic for trying to debunk Theism, especially Christianity.

First, let me say that the foundational Materialism that is at the core of atheistic thinking (i.e., there is only the material world and no supernatural one) has been disproved by experiments done by [Quantum] physicists (See Planck, Bell's Inequality, Aspect's experiment, Zeilinger's Non-local variable Theory, Haisch, Kochen-Specker Theorem, Leggett-Garg Inequality namely) (nature.com). Atheists either don't know, don't care, or flat-out deny this scientific evidence of the illusion of Materialism because it would become a logical incohesion since Atheism is all about Materialism. In short, Atheism would be gutted.


No phsycist who adhere to Quantum Mechanics attribute the sometimes rather weird outcomes of QM experiments to the existence of some deity. QM is not falsifying materialism, but just speciies the behaviour of matter at the micro scales.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: demosthenes on July 24, 2014, 04:32:53 pm
Atheist: we exist.
Atheist: maybe there is no reason.
Atheist: maybe the human language is not consistent and belief is a linguistic/neurophysical feedback loop of varying radius.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: Gladius on August 13, 2014, 12:10:43 am
There is a way of thinking in the popular culture that
-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism

So how we can change that?
I really would like to change that since that clearly isn't true.

What other assumptions can you list?
I think there were some others but I don't remember them all :(

EDIT:
I think I'll make a list of the assumptions:

-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism
-Theists are stupid and uneducated
-Theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old
-Theists believe that evolution never occurred
-Atheism is the default position
-Atheism is 'lack of belief' in god(s)
-There is no such thing as agnosticism, ignosticism or apatheism - they are created by theists in order to redefine atheism
-Everyone is an atheist
-One can not believe in God and be reasonable at the same time
-Faith is not reasonable
-ALL theists are creationists
-Atheists always think for themselves
-Theists are just sheep that believe what they are told to believe
-Theists think that human was created 6000 years ago
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-Naturalism is the 'lack of belief' in supernaturalism
-More science means less religion
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-The quantum vacuum is nothing
-Jesus never existed
-There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc...
-The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain
-There are no spiritual things
-Naturalism is true by default

Now all you need to do is falsify them and you might have achieved something.

Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: hereLiesThisTroper on August 13, 2014, 04:05:03 am
Now all you need to do is falsify them and you might have achieved something.

I do not understand the purpose of that comment. It seems to me that you want the OP to falsify them because that would be an achievement of something.

But I question, why do you wish for the OP achieve something that was not his original intention? He just wanted a list of common atheist assumptions and people replied to him.

I think, for the purpose of the thread, he had already achieved what he wanted to achieved.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: Gladius on August 13, 2014, 10:48:59 pm
If you say so, but it's not much of an achievement.

Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: joppe on August 20, 2014, 05:57:23 am
There is a way of thinking in the popular culture that
-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism

So how we can change that?
I really would like to change that since that clearly isn't true.

What other assumptions can you list?
I think there were some others but I don't remember them all :(

EDIT:
I think I'll make a list of the assumptions:

-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism
-Theists are stupid and uneducated
-Theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old
-Theists believe that evolution never occurred
-Atheism is the default position
-Atheism is 'lack of belief' in god(s)
-There is no such thing as agnosticism, ignosticism or apatheism - they are created by theists in order to redefine atheism
-Everyone is an atheist
-One can not believe in God and be reasonable at the same time
-Faith is not reasonable
-ALL theists are creationists
-Atheists always think for themselves
-Theists are just sheep that believe what they are told to believe
-Theists think that human was created 6000 years ago
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-Naturalism is the 'lack of belief' in supernaturalism
-More science means less religion
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-The quantum vacuum is nothing
-Jesus never existed
-There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc...
-The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain
-There are no spiritual things
-Naturalism is true by default

Now all you need to do is falsify them and you might have achieved something.

Claims made by the atheists have no evidence. Therefore I can dismiss those claims without evidence.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: little_monkey on February 29, 2016, 03:39:29 pm
The list is a strawman.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Period.

Anything that is said after that does NOT reflect atheism, only the additional beliefs of that individual.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: loganonekenobi on March 24, 2016, 10:51:56 am
i can address some of these assumptions to a degree.  No one is intelligent or unintelligent due to religious belief. Many atheists forget why that is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y201QzDdzbg
However the religious doctrine tells the adherents to consider the non-believer unwise
Proverbs 1:7
from this proverb I get that the only difference to God between wise and unwise is belief in him.
Just want to remind my theist brother/sister to judge not and all that. I say let your god do that.
Science has reveal the mysteries that were once the realm of the supernatural but only for the last 500 years or so.  That's not very long compared to human history (some 10,000 years or so of civilization).
The assumption is that eventually all mysteries will be revealed.  So far no god has been behind any solved mystery. If you can in a POSITIVE way (not god of the gaps or negative way) show me different then I will adjust my view to fit the evidence.
However it would be arrogant to assume that this trend will continue indefinitely.  we may indeed find a god at the end of a mystery.  As a scholar we must live in the present and not fall to the temptation to assume the future of discovery. We cannot make claims of truth without solid evidence.  It is okay for an atheist to simply say "I don't know".
However, the religious make claims of the past, present, and future based on less than solid evidence and usually on nothing more than faith. In fact if the theist doubts and questions then he/see may risk God's wrath. This would not be a real problem except that until secularization become accepted instead of illegal this non fact based idea was literally to die for and kill for.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Please remember these people when you want to cry foul to the atheist.  understand I loath the action of those who try to forcefully destroy the religious as well (China,Russia).
We as humans have imagination.  Due to this we can imagine that there may be a continuation of existence after the body dies.  In fact most hope so.  However, even with near death experiences, no  evidence exists of life after death because in NDEs the brain is not truly dead. But that does not mean that we can totally write off life after death.  It may simply mean that our science can't see past death.
We are in a novel place and time when we can discuss this sort of thing without one of us being killed for heresy or treason. Now i ask you, would you want the heresy rules to return to silence me?  I have seen post of some (on other forums) that would.

Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: elisur on September 24, 2016, 01:43:08 am
There is a way of thinking in the popular culture that
-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism

So how we can change that?
I really would like to change that since that clearly isn't true.

What other assumptions can you list?
I think there were some others but I don't remember them all :(

EDIT:
I think I'll make a list of the assumptions:

-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism
-Theists are stupid and uneducated
-Theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old
-Theists believe that evolution never occurred
-Atheism is the default position
-Atheism is 'lack of belief' in god(s)
-There is no such thing as agnosticism, ignosticism or apatheism - they are created by theists in order to redefine atheism
-Everyone is an atheist
-One can not believe in God and be reasonable at the same time
-Faith is not reasonable
-ALL theists are creationists
-Atheists always think for themselves
-Theists are just sheep that believe what they are told to believe
-Theists think that human was created 6000 years ago
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-Naturalism is the 'lack of belief' in supernaturalism
-More science means less religion
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-The quantum vacuum is nothing
-Jesus never existed
-There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc...
-The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain
-There are no spiritual things
-Naturalism is true by default

I am new a the forum but what I found was that for atheist "to understand something" automatically means that it was taken away from God, but I find so difficult to grasp, and I am going to try an example, I like to understand things working inside my car, but it doesn´t mean that i can take out the company´s logo and say that the company doesn´t exist anymore because I understood 4% on how the car was made... Even if I undertood 96% on the way it was made I am not entitled to dump the creator. But I would really like to read some reference about this particular issue.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: UnreasonableFaith on October 20, 2016, 06:33:02 am
There is a way of thinking in the popular culture that
-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism

So how we can change that?
I really would like to change that since that clearly isn't true.

What other assumptions can you list?
I think there were some others but I don't remember them all :(

EDIT:
I think I'll make a list of the assumptions:

-Atheists are rational and have evidence on their side
-Science supports atheism and destroys theism
-Theists are stupid and uneducated
-Theists think that the Earth is 6000 years old
-Theists believe that evolution never occurred
-Atheism is the default position
-Atheism is 'lack of belief' in god(s)
-There is no such thing as agnosticism, ignosticism or apatheism - they are created by theists in order to redefine atheism
-Everyone is an atheist
-One can not believe in God and be reasonable at the same time
-Faith is not reasonable
-ALL theists are creationists
-Atheists always think for themselves
-Theists are just sheep that believe what they are told to believe
-Theists think that human was created 6000 years ago
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-Naturalism is the 'lack of belief' in supernaturalism
-More science means less religion
-Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing
-The quantum vacuum is nothing
-Jesus never existed
-There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc...
-The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain
-There are no spiritual things
-Naturalism is true by default

I don't understand your usage of a word assumption, that's one thing, the second one is that many things you mentionedsimply are true with general regard to atheists (I guess that's what you intended to mean) but I don't understand why would you like to change people's minds about them since they're true.

Naturalism and atheism are indeed both default positions, I think it goes without saying, not believing in something is always default, otherwise you end up believing in everything including contradictory things.

Science supports atheism in a sense that gradually and cosntantly reduces necessity for the existence of god, it's plain and obvious pattern namely as time goes on god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller.

Atheism for most of people who call themselves atheists indeed means "lack of belief in god" what's wrong with that?

"One can not believe in God and be reasonable at the same time" - holding unreasonable belief means a person who holds it is indeed unreasonable at least with respect to that one thing. You can argue that there are plenty of arguments that try to justify and rationalise belief in god but the point is they're simply not convincing enough.

Whether faith is reasonable or not depends on what you mean by faith. To me personally faith means belief not based on reason, and that's exact definition of what unreasonable belief means.

Naturalism by definition precludes supernaturalism, again your usage of word assumption doesn't make sense to me.

"Things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing" - It's widely accepted fact among physicists working on quantum mechanics but I guess it depends on your definition of nothing.

"The quantum vacuum is nothing" - it's the best nothing we can get, absolute nothing some apologists like to talk about may be nothing more than philosophical concept or idea.

"The mind is a product of the brain and cannot survive without the brain" - All evidence points in this direction if you call it an assumption, then well, I guess by your standard we can at best only assume the earth is round, right?

"There are no spiritual things" - no proof, no evidence, why would you like people to change their minds on a subject without presenting them with some evidence?

"There is no afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, purgatory etc..." Again what would you like to change about this one? You want people to presuppose these things exist or what?

I sincirely don't understand what's your problem with respect to those things.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: MarcA on October 20, 2016, 11:58:06 am
@joppe

As I see it, most of the "assumptions" are not that clear and at least vague / discussible. UnreasonableFaith, for example, made a few claims I would wholeheartedly reject. For example atheism as the default mode or that there is no evidence for spiritual things, mind independent of brain or the afterlife.

Of course people evaluate evidence on the basis of prior experience. So we are not objective anyway and will debate about such points forever and ever.
Title: Re: The assumptions of atheists
Post by: aleph naught on October 20, 2016, 12:17:34 pm
Dig, dig grave digger! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79llXVDWbCQ)