Atheism is false

[Hani]

First of all: what is the point of calling yourselves "atheists", like you have a personal revenge or something with the notion of theism...

there are a lot of people who don't believe in ghosts but I don't see them calling themselves "Aghostists"... and I also don't see "Agoblinists" or "Amickey-mouseists"... so why do you specifically associate yourselves with the denial of deities ?! It's not an idea you know…it's just a rejection of one idea…

The definition of atheism is:

The denial of the existence of a god or gods (positive atheism).
or the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods (negative atheism)

The negative atheists are agnostics, but they don't know that... so anybody who believes in negative atheism should stop calling themselves atheists; you are agnostics and not atheists!

Atheism (positive atheism), is a very feeble creed and it is identical to theism in that they both use rationalism (mere reason) to assure positive facts! I've never seen any material or logical evidence that denies the existence of A god. Those are unattainable, and it's irrational to believe that you can prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist! How would you ever do that!

I know that it's easy to proof that the Christian or Islamic Gods don't exist, but this is not a proof against the existence of ANY god, which what the definition of atheism states…

So it's clear how the definition of atheism is corrupt, and the designation of it is pointless… it should really be abolished from describing irreligious people…

I don't like the word agnostic either, because it is too doesn't have any sense; it means that I don't know! Well, I prefer to associate myself with something that I know or something that I don't deny instead!

 

[spidergoat]

First of all, I am only an atheist in relation to theists. Since I'm often discussing the theist's basic premise, I do run the risk of identifiying myself with an atheist movement. However, privately or in other arenas, I'm more of a Taoist. Taoism is a kind of negative atheism.

I disagree with your assertion that positive atheism, or denial of the existence of a god or gods, is identical in it's use of reason to theism. Theism is based on faith in things that are not rational, like miracles.

I also disagree that positive atheism asserts that God can be proven not to exist with 100% certainty. There are many irrational things that cannot be proven not to exist, but it is sufficient to prove that they are highly unlikely. Theism contains assertions that can be analyzed, if not tested directly.



Not to confuse the issue even more, but I believe that Jesus described a kind of negative atheism, and his concept of God was more like Gnosticism, Pantheism, or Taoism than modern Christianity.

 

[superluminal]

First of all: what is the point of calling yourselves "atheists", like you have a personal revenge or something with the notion of theism...

I agree with spidergoat. Although I'm more of a buddhist m'self.

As for the personal revenge thing, nah. I have a strong sense that without the influence of theism in the world, we'd be a lot better off as a species. I've heard all of the arguments against this so don't even bother. Those who've been tortured and killed throughout history at the hands of those doing god's will might have something to say about it.

 

[Sarkus]

The negative atheists are agnostics, but they don't know that... so anybody who believes in negative atheism should stop calling themselves atheists; you are agnostics and not atheists!

LOL!
How many times has this been stated!

Agnosticism often gives rise to (weak) atheism but they are NOT the same thing.
Agnosticism is a stance on epistemology with regard to a god - e.g. whether it is possible to "know" god - and whether that knowledge has any value.

Atheism is merely about "belief" - or lack thereof.

Just because YOU can not differentiate between the two does not make one iota of difference to reality.

I myself am an agnostic atheist.
It is possible to be a non-agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist and also a non-agnostic theist.




The rest of your post is similar drivel - and does nothing other than expose your lack of understanding of the concepts and terminology involved.

"If you know so little it is often advisable not to demonstrate it." as someone possibly once said.

 

[draqon]

1) The denial of the existence of a god or gods (positive atheism).
2) the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods (negative atheism)

1) I dont deny existence of a god, because there is no god to begin with. There is no god to deny. There was no god and never will be.

2) I dont lack a belief in existence of god or gods...because there are no god and gods to begin with to have lack of belief in.

We are PeoPle of Earth, we are Part of this universe that created us through millions of years.

 

[Boss Foxx]

Yawn. Silly me to think one more "You're not really an atheist" thread would come along and might actually bring something new to the table. I'm far too optimistic at times.

 

[Godless]

Oh! it's often the SOS around here Foxx.

 

[VitalOne]

1) I dont deny existence of a god, because there is no god to begin with. There is no god to deny. There was no god and never will be.

2) I dont lack a belief in existence of god or gods...because there are no god and gods to begin with to have lack of belief in.

We are PeoPle of Earth, we are Part of this universe that created us through millions of years.

Woah, an all-knowing atheist speaks, having knowledge of all, they can easily determine what is true with our without evidence....through their logic if no evidence is currently avaiable for or against an idea, the idea must be 100% false....this guy would be believing an electron was the smallest particle in the 1950s because thats what the current evidence held...what a fuckin moron

 

[superluminal]

Woah, an all-knowing atheist speaks, having knowledge of all, they can easily determine what is true with our without evidence....through their logic if no evidence is currently avaiable for or against an idea, the idea must be 100% false.

Liar. Why spew such lying shit when we've already explained our position thousands of times? Your statement is one of the stupidest things I've read here today. No atheist ever takes the absurd position you've stated.

What are you afraid of that you have to lie to make yourself feel better?

 

[VitalOne]

Liar. Why spew such lying shit when we've already explained our position thousands of times? Your statement is one of the stupidest things I've read here today. No atheist ever takes the absurd position you've stated.

What are you afraid of that you have to lie to make yourself feel better?

Woah, you really showed me all you did was call me liar because you can't say anything else...no arguments at all because everything I said was true....if you don't hold the stance then explain don't say oh you're a liar

 

[Medicine*Woman]

First of all: what is the point of calling yourselves "atheists", like you have a personal revenge or something with the notion of theism...

*************
M*W: Calling ourselves "atheists," in no way implies we are vengeful against theists! We simply don't believe in gods and other supernatural beings. I think you are misunderstanding the designation.

there are a lot of people who don't believe in ghosts but I don't see them calling themselves "Aghostists"... and I also don't see "Agoblinists" or "Amickey-mouseists"... so why do you specifically associate yourselves with the denial of deities ?! It's not an idea you know…it's just a rejection of one idea…

*************
M*W: Good point, although "ghosts" and "goblins" and the like would be considered as "supernatural beings." Mickey Mouse, on the other hand, is not a "supernatural being" in the literal sense of the word. In some camps, Mickey Mouse could definitely be considered a deity of sorts. After all, he's known for his charisma and tenure in of bringing happiness to the world. He's outlived many of his peers (if you could dare call them 'peers'). Mickey has been resurrected many times over the past half-century, and he still maintains the stature of a 'god.' He is worshipped by billions all over the world, and I would bet that he holds more adoring adherents than the entirety of christianity! Mickey's ministry has crossed over all nationalities, faiths, religions, cultures, ethnicities and political affiliations. He's known and loved for his honesty, caring demeanor, and his gift of bringing happiness to children of all ages. He is omnipresent in that he can be seen in Anaheim, California, Orlando, Florida, and Paris, France, all at the same time while his mission is being broadcast on televisions worldwide. If there were a true savior, I would say it was Mickey Mouse, and not one time has he ever asked for any monetary donations to be sent to him to support his humanitarian cause!

The definition of atheism is: The denial of the existence of a god or gods (positive atheism). or the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods (negative atheism)

*************
M*W: I'm not sure your definition is exactly correct. 'Denial' and 'lack of belief' are pretty much the same animal. The word 'denial' is not necessarily 'positive,' and the 'lack of belief' is not necessarily a negative connotation.

The negative atheists are agnostics, but they don't know that... so anybody who believes in negative atheism should stop calling themselves atheists; you are agnostics and not atheists!

*************
M*W: Just because a-theists have an "a" meaning "lack of" theism, does not mean they are negative nor should we stop calling ourselves "atheists." We are not "agnostic." That means "without knowledge." We've have the knowledge, but we deny belief in it. I believe this may be the same interpretation as other christians have of atheists. We DO have the knowledge. Many think we've never heard of Jesus or christianity, therefore, we don't know and are "agnostic," but this is not the case. In fact, we probably know more about your religion than you do!

Atheism (positive atheism), is a very feeble creed and it is identical to theism in that they both use rationalism (mere reason) to assure positive facts! I've never seen any material or logical evidence that denies the existence of A god. Those are unattainable, and it's irrational to believe that you can prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist! How would you ever do that!

*************
M*W: Atheism is NOT identical to theism! Atheists form their understanding from knowledge just as christians think they do. Proving the non-existence of something would be like proving that Mickey Mouse wasn't real. That can't be proven either. Also, one cannot prove a negative. Using the word "feeble" to describe atheism is the same as saying christianity is a "feeble creed." Atheism has no "creed." It is not a religion, and it does not require that you believe anything.

I know that it's easy to proof that the Christian or Islamic Gods don't exist, but this is not a proof against the existence of ANY god, which what the definition of atheism states…

*************
M*W: Atheists don't believe in supernatural beings. This includes gods and other deities, angels, devils, satans, mythological serpents, ghosts, goblins, leprechauns, trolls, gnomes, ETs, fairies and such. By the same token, atheists don't believe in any of the religions affiliated with these characters.

So it's clear how the definition of atheism is corrupt, and the designation of it is pointless… it should really be abolished from describing irreligious people…

*************
M*W: "Atheism" is probably the most concise, to the point, and simplest word to describe us. It literally means, "without belief in god(s)."

I don't like the word agnostic either, because it is too doesn't have any sense; it means that I don't know! Well, I prefer to associate myself with something that I know or something that I don't deny instead!

*************
M*W: "Agnostic" is also a concise, to the point, and simple word to describe those who don't know what they believe. It literally means, "one without knowledge." It does not pertain to any particular religious belief, although it is more widely used to describe a lack of knowledge about god/religion. So, literally, one could be "agnostic" about evolution, anthropology, religion, astrology, psychic ability, Mickey Mouse, or god(s).

The way to cure the problem of "atheism," "agnosticism" or "religious delusion," is to read everything you can on these subjects.

 

[superluminal]

Woah, you really showed me all you did was call me liar because you can't say anything else...no arguments at all because everything I said was true....if you don't hold the stance then explain don't say oh you're a liar

You want me to explain, again, to you what the typical atheist stance is regarding this? Hummpphh. Not only are you a liar (you already know where we stand) but you're lazy too. Study what it means to be an atheist. There are hundreds of good websites out there. But you already know. You just have nothing left but lies to support your position. Pitiful.

 

[Sock puppet path]

First of all: what is the point of calling yourselves "atheists", like you have a personal revenge or something with the notion of theism...

there are a lot of people who don't believe in ghosts but I don't see them calling themselves "Aghostists"... and I also don't see "Agoblinists" or "Amickey-mouseists"... so why do you specifically associate yourselves with the denial of deities ?! It's not an idea you know…it's just a rejection of one idea…

Can you list the societies which have a majority of ghostists and goblinists and mickey-mouseists who try to impose thier values upon society at large?

The definition of atheism is:

The denial of the existence of a god or gods (positive atheism).
or the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods (negative atheism)

why are you so frightened by this??? Should we call ourselves theists?

the rest is just meaningless rambling no need to reply.

 

[S.A.M.]

You want me to explain, again, to you what the typical atheist stance is regarding this? Hummpphh. Not only are you a liar (you already know where we stand) but you're lazy too. Study what it means to be an atheist. There are hundreds of good websites out there. But you already know. You just have nothing left but lies to support your position. Pitiful.

So you concede the possibility that there may be a God, you simply choose not to believe in that possibility, is that right?

 

[superluminal]

So you concede the possibility that there may be a God, you simply choose not to believe in that possibility, is that right?

Absolutely, 100% correct young lady.

I will clarify by stating that I also believe in the possibility that all of the molecules in your underwear may suddenly find themselves quantum-tunnelled 3 feet to the left of where you are currently sitting. But the probability or likelyhood of this is pretty damned small. Vanishingly small. I would not found a society or religion (ha!) based on this.

Just so, I find the probability or likelyhood of a god just as vanishingly small. Therefore, basing an entire world view on such a thing is fairly rediculous. Right?

 

[S.A.M.]

Absolutely, 100% correct young lady.

I will clarify by stating that I also believe in the possibility that all of the molecules in your underwear may suddenly find themselves quantum-tunnelled 3 feet to the left of where you are currently sitting. But the probability or likelyhood of this is pretty damned small. Vanishingly small. I would not found a society or religion (ha!) based on this.

Just so, I find the probability or likelyhood of a god just as vanishingly small. Therefore, basing an entire world view on such a thing is fairly rediculous. Right?

So its just semantics then. Interesting. The more I learn about atheists the more their rationality impresses me.

PS the probability at this moment is zero.

 

[superluminal]

So its just semantics then. Interesting. The more I learn about atheists the more their rationality impresses me.

PS the probability at this moment is zero.

Semantics? Just semantics? Wow. The more I learn about theists the more their ablity to obfuscate, deflect and otherwise turn the conversation 180 degrees from any meaningful questioning really, really impresses me.

 

[Hani]

ok... there is an error indeed. My first post should be about positive atheism solely, and negative atheism and agnosticism are out of the subject.

so positive atheism is false, and its as untenable as theism is.

I disagree with your assertion that positive atheism, or denial of the existence of a god or gods, is identical in it's use of reason to theism. Theism is based on faith in things that are not rational, like miracles.

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and not necessarily any other beliefs.

I also disagree that positive atheism asserts that God can be proven not to exist with 100% certainty. There are many irrational things that cannot be proven not to exist, but it is sufficient to prove that they are highly unlikely. Theism contains assertions that can be analyzed, if not tested directly.

This is a rule that is only valid in SCEINCE. It is just a scientific convention and not a way of true metaphysical denial of anything… Highly unlikely is not nonexistent, and the fact that some atheists decided to arbitrarily make unequals be equals is irrelevant…

1) I dont deny existence of a god, because there is no god to begin with. There is no god to deny. There was no god and never will be.

2) I dont lack a belief in existence of god or gods...because there are no god and gods to begin with to have lack of belief in.

We are PeoPle of Earth, we are Part of this universe that created us through millions of years.

Ok...deny means to reject an idea and not an object…you don't deny a god but the idea that there is a god…I don't know about English but this is what atheism is anyway…

 

[superluminal]

PS the probability at this moment is zero.

No. It's never zero. But so close to zero that the number of zeroes right of the dp would fill a freakin' book.

 

[spidergoat]

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and not necessarily any other beliefs.

What is the reason to believe in God that is also rational?

This is a rule that is only valid in SCEINCE.

It is not rational to believe something that is highly unlikely. That's not just science, that's reality. If the probability that the next person to visit your house will kill you is .0001%, would it be rational to shoot through the door the next time the doorbell rings?

Highly unlikely is not nonexistent, and the fact that some atheists decided to arbitrarily make unequals be equals is irrelevant…

I think I have just demonstrated that it is reasonable to reject highly unlikely propositions. A truly rational atheist would re-evaluate their assumptions if any new evidence would emerge, rather than assert that there is no God and nothing could convince them otherwise.