You haven't proved atheism is false, because you didn't understand the definition. Or, you are taking one dictionary's definition as a the ultimate judge of a philosophical position.
Atheism is false
- Thread starter Hani
- Start date
Close.
Advanced humans know that religion enslaves the weak minded... but that doesn't mean we can't have our own personal system of beliefs....
I don't call myself an atheist out of personal revenge or hostility. I call myself an atheist because if someone asks me what religion I am, I need a word for one who does not believe in any god, and that word is 'atheist'. If the word was 'asshole' then next time someone asked me that I'd refer to myself an as 'asshole'.
The possibility is easy to credit, it's the gods available for approval that present difficulties.SAM said:
It's not so easy to just believe in something that appears to be such arrant and obviously ill-motivated nonsense. The choice is a loaded one. As soon as I attempt to choose to believe in a God, the many mutually exclusive and inter-denominationally hostile possibilities bunch up and refuse to anoint a preference.
And the constant referrals to "mere reason" and the like - reason is not sufficient, of course, but it is necessary, eh? Because reason alone is insufficient, we are to give credence to that which denies reason ?
Either way, I still don't believe in god.
kerux
Registered Senior Member
In my opinion
In my own opinion, atheism is a profiteering system of thinking whose subjects are being blinded by teaching them that a god or gods to become should appear physically. REMEMBER Zeus?
In my own opinion, atheism is a profiteering system of thinking whose subjects are being blinded by teaching them that a god or gods to become should appear physically. REMEMBER Zeus?
In addition, where are the "profits" of atheism? I have property taxes to pay in a month and would like to access them.
Surely they wouldn't be in the Bentleys, $23,000 toilets, and trips to Fiji and Hawaii reaped by evangelicals. Now that's profiteering!
Surely they wouldn't be in the Bentleys, $23,000 toilets, and trips to Fiji and Hawaii reaped by evangelicals. Now that's profiteering!
I think that you are forgetting one key point. If one claims something DOES exist, the burden of proof lies with them. If I told you Bigfoot DOES exist, I would not cross my arms and dare you to prove me wrong. I would gather all available evdence and present it to you. If the evidence I presented could not verified using the scientific method, you could be forgiven for not believing in Bigfoot. And I like how you put MERE REASON in parenthesis.
An agnostic believes that you cannot know if there is a god. Not that the do not know, they cannot know. But, many atheists do contridict themselves. Of course there is no reason do directly attack a certain religion.
We make the claim, you have to prove us wrong. We say we believe something, and we may not care if you agree with us. It is your job to tell us, and prove to us that we are wrong.
I thought we talked about this. Do you mean if I make a claim, like Santa Clause works for the CIA, that you must try and disprove it?
It's ignorant assertions of what atheism is from the perspective of the superstitious that inspires me to just settle for rationalist instead if I must have a label. If being an atheist means that I'm "denying" some superstitious believers god (whichever god they hold to be true); or if being an atheist means that I'm making a positive claim that gods do not exist -then I'm not an atheist.
I'm without gods. I don't believe in gods. I don't see any rational or good reason to accept anyone's god(s). I don't accept that it is ultimately unknowable in the sense that the god hypothesis isn't testable by science. But I don't accept the definition that I'm "denying" or "claiming against" the existence of gods. I never met a god. Nor have I examined every possible location in the universe that might hide a god. So one might be sitting there, waiting for its rock to be turned over.
But rational understanding and perspective leaves me no reason to live my life as if a god exists and it definitely doesn't require that I accept one of the hundreds of thousands of gods that have been claimed by man in the present and past as being THE god. Its completely irrational to believe that the Christian god is the right one when there are so many to chose from. Nor is it rational to believe that *all* the gods of humanity are the same one with different names since even a casual understanding of human religions reveals that most have contradictory and competing characteristics.
Oh, and finally, there are plenty of reasons to attack religions. They make claims that are complete nonsense and have the potential to be deleterious to society through violence or harmful beliefs such as condoms spread HIV/AIDs. And so on.
I'm without gods. I don't believe in gods. I don't see any rational or good reason to accept anyone's god(s). I don't accept that it is ultimately unknowable in the sense that the god hypothesis isn't testable by science. But I don't accept the definition that I'm "denying" or "claiming against" the existence of gods. I never met a god. Nor have I examined every possible location in the universe that might hide a god. So one might be sitting there, waiting for its rock to be turned over.
But rational understanding and perspective leaves me no reason to live my life as if a god exists and it definitely doesn't require that I accept one of the hundreds of thousands of gods that have been claimed by man in the present and past as being THE god. Its completely irrational to believe that the Christian god is the right one when there are so many to chose from. Nor is it rational to believe that *all* the gods of humanity are the same one with different names since even a casual understanding of human religions reveals that most have contradictory and competing characteristics.
Oh, and finally, there are plenty of reasons to attack religions. They make claims that are complete nonsense and have the potential to be deleterious to society through violence or harmful beliefs such as condoms spread HIV/AIDs. And so on.
I think you'll find that he asked for "real objects" - not concepts like justice, or descriptions of processes, like people's minds.
Or are you just being deliberately fallacious, throwing around that of which you seem to have little real understanding, in order to provoke?
:shrug:
there's certainly no "real" evidence for your analysis of people's minds
and for someone who advocates ethical issues (aka fallaciousness) are essentially outside of reality, you sure are uptight