If atheists are right - how come there are so few of them?
- Thread starter John J. Bannan
- Start date
Well I did try, but the atheists simply end up telling me how bad theists are. :shrug:
Really? How bad are theists?
Of course needless to say, a personal opinion does not then mean that 'atheism' is anti-theism. You are assigning your own definitions and seemingly just because you've run into a few argumentative people that call themselves atheists.
To prove a generic 'God' does not exist in the absence of any supportive evidence cannot be done. Negatives cannot be proven in matters of existence without a relationship to reality. For example, you cannot disprove that the 'Zamboombafoo' dimension does not exist. If there is a generic 'God' or a generic 'Zaboombafoo' dimension, no human knows anything about them.
To provie a specific human claim of 'God' does not exist is simple. Absence of evidence, incorrect assertions about objective reality, and contradictory assertions do the trick in a jiffy.
And no, logically 'God' is not a placeholder for gaps in knowledge... i.e. it is not a truth substitue. Humans may make it a truth substitute and that is a psyhchological behavior that quality education tends to reduce.
oh please, god does not exsist, and also Dr's are not Gods, in fact many of them make serious and life changing mistakes, they cannot walk on water, they cannot turn water into wine, they cannot fly, they cannot disapeer, they cannot ............etc etc........until i am given 100% proof that god exsists i will carry on not beliveing, i have read the bible and from what i can tell it is just a good story and nothing else, i have also read the book of Mormon and i cannot see any faith in either of them.
None whatsoever.
In completely different dieties? What this is evidence for is Anthropomorphization. Take any physical or psychological traits and stick them on *something*. Put them on a rabbit and you have Bugs Bunny. Put them on a car and you have Herbie. Put them on reality and you have 'God'.
There is no objective evidence that miracles exist.
The existence of the universe is evidence that the universe exists. It is an instance of *something*. What it is not is evidence for is an omnipotent life form.
They are evidence for human psychological need and evolutionary traits that promote grouping and sharing of resources. What they are not evidence for is an omnipotent life form.
It is indeed evidence, but it is not supportive evidnece of the claim "God exists". In fact some of the evidence listed works against the claim.
OMG thats funny
You're welcome to provide me with the basis for atheism yourself.
I'd be interested to hear of reasons other than anti-theism.
You're welcome to provide me with the basis for atheism yourself.
I'd be interested to hear of reasons other than anti-theism.
Heh, I'm not really sure why he's arguing with you about this either.
Antitheist
Antitheist \An`ti*the"ist\, n. A disbeliever in the existence of God.
As a word it seems fine. Unless there are some connotations associated with it that SnakeLord doesn't agree with, I don't see what the problem is.
Well, when you think about it... do you know of a single instance of *nothing* (absence of everything / anything)? Is there anywhere that *nothing* exists? It doesn't appear to be real. It stands to reason that *something* doesn't magically replace *nothing*; hence, the implication is that *something* has always existed. In other words, the universe may not have "come into existence". Current cosmological and physics knowledge strongly suggests that our universe may be a blip of change (anywhere from unique to cyclical) in an ever-changing reality.
The content of reality (ex. people, planets, stars, etc.) tends to undergo changes that humans percieve has having a beginning and end. To some degree, we're genetically inclined to perceive things that way as it promotes our survival. This makes it difficult to understand that reality itself doesn't appear to have a 'starting' or 'ending' point. The question "How did reality come into existence" may very well be a flawed question because of this.
Each person also has limitations in knowledge, intelligence, and skill at analysis.
In a groupthink setting where people are not experts in the subject matter, often the loudest voices influence people to follow the concensus. In a non groupthink setting where people are not experts in the subject matter, concensus is normally the result of a high degree of self-evidence that can be reproduced by the average joe or it is the result of common human behavior.
I think the presecution and defense have alot to do with it. It is their job to make things self-evident.
I've met atheists who I definitely consider militant. God belief is evil in their eyes. God belief is the reason for all war to them. They are out there and they are freaky weird! There are militant Christians and Muslims. Is it any odder that there are militant atheists?
And why do I need to replace God with something? Its not like he's provable. If believers have faith he exists, then I have faith he doesn't. Its good enough for me but for some reason its not good enough for believers.
And why do I need to replace God with something? Its not like he's provable. If believers have faith he exists, then I have faith he doesn't. Its good enough for me but for some reason its not good enough for believers.
I think what he is referring to is a distinction between someone whom lacks a belief in 'God' and someone whom opposes Theism.
Well thats illuminating. :bugeye:
Its obvious that some of those who lack a belief in God embrace theism.
