If we try to identify the different nontheist/antitheist arguments that have been proposed, and classify them by their simmilarities, which arguments would you include, and how would you classify them?
For example, there are several arguments whose general form is "the definition of God is self-contradictory" (e.g. "an immaterial matter", "a mind outside time"), or "the burden of proof is on theists", or "the hypothesis that gods are fictional fits better with our current evidence" (inference to the best explanation), or "the lack of evidence justifies an agnostic stance about gods". There are sets of arguments whose goals are defensive (they answer a criticism to atheism), or anti-theist (they strenghten a justification for an anti-theist thesis), or non-theist (they weaken a justification for a pro-theist thesis). There are arguments focused on epistemic or non-epistemic issues (e.g. pragmatic reasons).
I'm using "atheism" to include both antitheism (positive/strong atheism) and non-theism (negative/weak atheism). I assume that anti-supernaturalism implies atheism of supernatural gods, so anti-supernaturalist arguments can also be included here. I also assume that neutralism and agnosticism are cases of non-theism, so pro-neutralist and pro-agnostic arguments can also be included here.
What I'm proposing here is not to discuss the soundness of the arguments themselves (other posts can be opened for that), but (1) to identify as much arguments as possible (with their sources, if possible), and (2) to discuss the categories for their classification.

There are two basic kinds of atheological arguments:

1. Logical or rational (a priori) arguments for the impossibility of the existence (the necessary nonexistence) of God or other gods.

2. Empirical (a posteriori) arguments for the improbability of the existence (the probable nonexistence) of God or other gods.

A Priori and A Posteriori: http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

Teuton wrote:There are two basic kinds of atheological arguments:
1. Logical or rational, a priori arguments for the impossibility of the existence of God or other gods.
2. Empirical, a posteriori arguments for the improbability of the existence of God or other gods.
A Priori and A Posteriori: http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

Which atheological arguments would you include in each category?

For example, the important argument from evil comes in two versions, with the one belonging to 1 and the other one to 2:

"There is no single argument from evil. Instead, it is found that there are numerous arguments that can be classified into two families. The members of one group conclude that the theistic God cannot exist; the members of the other group attempt to show that the existence of such a being is improbable. The former arguments are described as logical, deductive or a priori and the latter are understood as evidential, inductive or a posteriori."

(http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... /evil.html)

Teuton wrote:There are two basic kinds of atheological arguments:
1. Logical or rational (a priori) arguments for the impossibility of the existence (the necessary nonexistence) of God or other gods.
2. Empirical (a posteriori) arguments for the improbability of the existence (the probable nonexistence) of God or other gods.
A Priori and A Posteriori: http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

"The a priori/a posteriori distinction is sometimes applied to things other than ways of knowing, for instance, to propositions and arguments. An a priori proposition is one that is knowable a priori and an a priori argument is one the premises of which are a priori propositions. Correspondingly, an a posteriori proposition is knowable a posteriori, while an a posteriori argument is one the premises of which are a posteriori propositions. (An argument is typically regarded as a posteriori if it is comprised of a combination of a priori and a posteriori premises.)"

If the author is right, then even the logical argument from evil is an a posteriori argument, because it contains the premise that evil exists, which proposition is not knowable a priori, i.e. experience/perception-independently:

1. Necessarily, if God exists, then evil doesn't exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, necessarily, God doesn't exist.

Ignosticism: There is no coherent definition of this god being, it's not possible to believe or disbelieve in something for which there are no exclusive and clearly defined characteristics.

Posttheism: The question of god's existence is about as meaningful as questioning the existence of other supernatural entities - the idea certainly, exists, but it's just a fabrication of ancient culture, whose limited understanding made god a metaphysical necessity, that has been retained into the present without any of the original metaphysical necessity, and is thoroughly obsolete.

I don't see that any of the arguments mentioned above are "atheist" arguments. They are all counters to theist arguments as far as I can see. Is there any such thing as an "atheist" argument which stands alone, one which is not simply a counter to the arguments (largely as bare assertions) made by theists?

What Fenrir said. If there were no theist arguments then no atheist arguments would be needed or noticed. A taxonomy of atheist arguments purports to shift the burden of proof by treating them stand-alone.

Classify theistic arguments and then classify counter-arguments. That some atheistic arguments may counter more than one theistic argument is simply economical.

It's a null category. There are no 'atheist arguments'.

Dive deep into the rathole of philosophy and theology all you like it still doesn't change the fact that atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

There is no argument. I have no belief in such entities. Would you care to argue with that?

Like the 3 posts above said.

Projecting lifelike attributes where non are inferred is nonsense.

Without someone claiming that "my hammer is plotting revenge" counter arguments are unnecessary.

Classify that how you like.

Onyx8 wrote:It's a null category. There are no 'atheist arguments'.

We're talking about arguments for positive atheism, i.e. for antitheism rather than for mere nontheism or agnostic neutralism.
And there is such a thing as what Alvin Plantinga calls natural atheology, which attempts to show that theism is (probably) false or that, at any rate, the belief in theism is irrational or unreasonable.

"There are basically two kinds of arguments for the nonexistence of God: arguments for the improbability of God and arguments for the impossibility of God. Briefly, an argument for the improbability of God assumes that God can exist but argues that the weight of evidence is against God's actual existence; an argument for the impossibility of God argues that the concept of God is logically contradictory and therefore God, like a square circle, cannot exist."

(Martin, Michael, and Ricki Monnier, eds. Introduction to The Impossibility of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2003. p. 14)

I would add: "…an argument for the impossibility of God argues that the concept of God is logically contradictory or ontologically/metaphysically absurd and therefore God…cannot exist."

Onyx8 wrote:It's a null category. There are no 'atheist arguments'.
Dive deep into the rathole of philosophy and theology all you like it still doesn't change the fact that atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.
There is no argument. I have no belief in such entities. Would you care to argue with that?

An argument is a set of premises that attempt to justify a thesis. The word "atheism" is not only used to refer to "the lack of belief in a god or gods": it's also used to refer to the thesis that "there are no gods" and to the metathesis that "the thesis that there are no gods is more justified than the opposite thesis that there are gods".
In this sense, your claim is wrong: there are several sets of premises that attempt to justify the thesis that "there are no gods" and the metathesis that "the thesis that there are no gods is more justified than the opposite thesis that there are gods". You might claim that you don't use those arguments, or that you're not interested in those arguments, or that you don't think those arguments are necessary, but this doesn't justify your claim that they don't exist.

Create a taxonomy of the arguments that are generally put forward for the existence of God, a god or some gods. The rebuttals to those arguments will fall into the same category, presumably.

Then leave an empty space at the end for the defining argument of atheism

Logical arguments for atheism: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... gical.html

We can distinguish between arguments for negative atheism, which are in effect arguments for agnostic neutralism, and arguments for positive atheism.

seeker wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:It's a null category. There are no 'atheist arguments'.
Dive deep into the rathole of philosophy and theology all you like it still doesn't change the fact that atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.
There is no argument. I have no belief in such entities. Would you care to argue with that?

An argument is a set of premises that attempt to justify a thesis. The word "atheism" is not only used to refer to "the lack of belief in a god or gods": it's also used to refer to the thesis that "there are no gods" and to the metathesis that "the thesis that there are no gods is more justified than the opposite thesis that there are gods".
In this sense, your claim is wrong: there are several sets of premises that attempt to justify the thesis that "there are no gods" and the metathesis that "the thesis that there are no gods is more justified than the opposite thesis that there are gods". You might claim that you don't use those arguments, or that you're not interested in those arguments, or that you don't think those arguments are necessary, but this doesn't justify your claim that they don't exist.

Well, I'll leave you to it then.

Nebogipfel wrote:Then leave an empty space at the end for the defining argument of atheism

The defining argument: It's friday!

Teuton wrote:Logical arguments for atheism: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... gical.html

Arguments for Atheism: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ments.html

"There are two types of atheological arguments:

* Logical Arguments attempt to show that the concept of God is self-contradictory or logically inconsistent with some known fact.

* Evidential Arguments attempt to show that certain known facts that are consistent with theism nevertheless provide evidence against it."

Atheological Arguments for Atheism: http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsag ... theism.htm

Teuton wrote:We're talking about arguments for positive atheism, i.e. for antitheism rather than for mere nontheism or agnostic neutralism.

Selective reading. See here in the OP (my emphasis):

seeker wrote:If we try to identify the different nontheist/antitheist arguments that have been proposed, and classify them by their simmilarities, which arguments would you include, and how would you classify them?