Why are atheists fools?

[VitalOne]

Can atheists explain themselves?

They say "There's no evidence of God, and even though I can NEVER EVER tell you what can be considered evidence of God that can't be considered a "god of the gaps", it means God doesn't exist"

And then continue "Since there's no evidence of God, when there shouldn't be evidence of God present, it indicates that the existence of God is unlikely"

And also "I know that what the current evidence shows isn't the actual truth, but I'll ONLY believe in what the current evidence shows at the present time, even though I know its not the actual truth, but an incomplete image with many things missing, I'll still pretend its true and ONLY believe it, everything else must be false until proven true"

Or how about "Well I don't believe in Zeus or a Flying Spagehtti Monster, so even though the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with this, I'll pretend it does, and say see I don't believe in God either"

Or how about "There's no scientific evidence of the supernatural, and even though by default since science is naturalism and cannot have anything supernatural in it, this means nothing supernatural exists"

So why are you atheists so foolish, yet try to appear smarter and superior to everyone else? Almost every atheistic argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable

 

[draqon]

because atheists don't want God to exist.

God means that which is above them, God means we can never have such power of will higher or same as God.

 

[Roman]

You know, it'd be nice if Creationists could lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions of God's existence, then come up with the experiments and research to show that he exists.

Atheists don't believe in a god; it's not up to them to show that there isn't one, it's up to Creationists to provide evidence that there is one. Why should atheists do all the work for you lazy fucks? Because you don't understand empiricism?

 

[ylooshi]

The very nature of the OP's question in the title presents us with a serious logical fallacy, namely the complex question. "Why are atheists fools?" doesn't just ask a single quesiton, it also implies another, which is "are atheists fools?" Since the OP hasn't established this, and his poorly constructed opening post only touches on his ignorance and misunderstanding of atheism, science and rational thought rather than presenting any demonstrable data.

The very nature of this thread is, itself, an ad hominem attack on atheism by someone who appears to be overly superstitious and irrational and offended that there are those that do not subscribe to his superstitions and lack of rational thought.

Sorry, but your argument falls flat on its face from the get go. You should start over and ask the implied question that your fallacy has created and deal with that before moving on to the second.

I'm sure you won't first be interested in demonstrating the "foolishness" of atheism since that will require rational and logical thought, critical analysis and skeptical inquiry. Such intellectual tools are difficult for the paranormalist to master and, when they do, they usually abandon their superstitions and paranormal beliefs.

 

[Michael]

Such intellectual tools are difficult for the paranormalist to master and, when they do, they usually abandon their superstitions and paranormal beliefs.

Exactly why paranormalists (great term) refuse to even enter into a serious debate where said tools are prerequisite.

 

[SkinWalker]

This thread is clearly trolling and baiting. Ylooshi is correct on the complex question, but more to the point, the OP is an ad hominem. I'll no sooner allow this thread to exist here as one titled "why are theists fools?" Neither of these would be appropriate unless verifiable data is supplanted to demonstrate one or the other group are truly "fools" as a whole.

Clearly, individuals within these groups can be (and, invariably, are) fools, however attempting to apply this trait from individuals to the entire collective of either theists or atheists is a fallacy of composition arising from a hasty generalization.

Sorry... thread closed. And if any atheist/agnostic starts a thread on "why are theists fools?" it'll be closed too.

 

[Cris]

Vitalone,

Can atheists explain themselves?

Certainly and easily since you are in error in every respect.

They say "There's no evidence of God, and even though I can NEVER EVER tell you what can be considered evidence of God that can't be considered a "god of the gaps", it means God doesn't exist"

The reasoning atheist doesn’t say that but rather concludes that absence of evidence is not proof of absence and leaves the question of whether there might be gods as an open issue.

And then continue "Since there's no evidence of God, when there shouldn't be evidence of God present, it indicates that the existence of God is unlikely"

Your sentence structure is somewhat confusing so I am not sure of your point. I’ll simply refer you to my statement above.

And also "I know that what the current evidence shows isn't the actual truth, but I'll ONLY believe in what the current evidence shows at the present time, even though I know its not the actual truth, but an incomplete image with many things missing, I'll still pretend its true and ONLY believe it, everything else must be false until proven true"

No, quite wrong. I think in all the debates here you still have not grasped the basic flaw in your perspective on atheism. One is not forced to believe anything. There is no need or urgency to make a choice. There is no necessity in the absence of evidence for a proposition to then conclude it is false, one may simply state they do not know or just leave the question open.

Or how about "Well I don't believe in Zeus or a Flying Spagehtti Monster, so even though the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with this, I'll pretend it does, and say see I don't believe in God either"

Your problem here is that you are convinced that God does exist and you cannot properly comprehend how others would see the absence of evidence for any imaginary object to have equal weight. This means that until, or if, evidence for your god surfaces then it remains just another imaginary object.

Or how about "There's no scientific evidence of the supernatural, and even though by default since science is naturalism and cannot have anything supernatural in it, this means nothing supernatural exists"

This issue appears to demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific approach and you reiterate your previous errors. Science makes no assumptions about the supernatural or deliberately ignores the concept. Simply put – if something can be detected then science will be able to examine it. It is not that science is based on the natural but that nothing other than the natural has ever been detected.

So why are you atheists so foolish, yet try to appear smarter and superior to everyone else? Almost every atheistic argument is 100% illogical, irrational, and unreasonable

I hope from my explanations above that you realize that it is merely your erroneous perceptions and misunderstandings that you offer this false premise.

 

[Cris]

Skin,

Hmm - I'm not particularly sensitive to being called a fool since the OP was so wonderfully wrong. I thought the thread offered a good opportunity to educate.

Vitalone,

If you want to respond to our posts then I recommend you begin another thread with a less "tantalizing" title.