...
bye bye- f0r3v3r
----Monkey Mak33---
Bye again.
Why Athiesim is a self defeating belief
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
- Status
Bye again.
xvortexbladex
Registered Member
counter argument
"Athiest means "no" "God". When a person says that they are an athiest, they are saying, I know that there is no God, therefore I believe one doesn't exist. BUT to have knowledge that there is no God, you would need to be all knowing. You would need to know every square inch of the universe, you would need to be able to see within people, through mountains, you would need to be all knowing and all seeing because how else would you know that God isn't hiding away somewhere off in another part of the universe, or within a person, or mountain? So in saying, I'm an Athiest, people are saying, I'm all knowing, and that means that they're God. So when someone say I'm an Atheist, they are actually saying, there is no God, I am God, both at the same time. WHAT A CONTRADICTION. No wonder most people don't have any guts and they settle for calling themselves Agnostics." -original quote
The first mistake occurs when you suppose that an atheist says that he "knows there is no God". How can anyone make that assertion? How does anyone know something exists if they cannot sense it in any way? Do we not rely only on our sense 100% of our time, that's the whole point of the phrase "use you head". But the latter sentence is just redundant. If no one can really tell if there is a God or no God, then how can anyone say they know for sure? We can only say, "to the best of our knowledge" and the same goes for any theist as well. If you meet any atheist who says they are all knowing, please tell me and I'll kick them for throwing the term "atheism" around so frivolously.
And as many others have responded to this post, agnosticism is not a stance on theism, it is a stance on epistomology, the philosophy of knowing. Some believe there are evidence to support God's existence, others find evidence to support that there is no God, then there are those who do not think there is enough evidence to support either claim.
"Athiest means "no" "God". When a person says that they are an athiest, they are saying, I know that there is no God, therefore I believe one doesn't exist. BUT to have knowledge that there is no God, you would need to be all knowing. You would need to know every square inch of the universe, you would need to be able to see within people, through mountains, you would need to be all knowing and all seeing because how else would you know that God isn't hiding away somewhere off in another part of the universe, or within a person, or mountain? So in saying, I'm an Athiest, people are saying, I'm all knowing, and that means that they're God. So when someone say I'm an Atheist, they are actually saying, there is no God, I am God, both at the same time. WHAT A CONTRADICTION. No wonder most people don't have any guts and they settle for calling themselves Agnostics." -original quote
The first mistake occurs when you suppose that an atheist says that he "knows there is no God". How can anyone make that assertion? How does anyone know something exists if they cannot sense it in any way? Do we not rely only on our sense 100% of our time, that's the whole point of the phrase "use you head". But the latter sentence is just redundant. If no one can really tell if there is a God or no God, then how can anyone say they know for sure? We can only say, "to the best of our knowledge" and the same goes for any theist as well. If you meet any atheist who says they are all knowing, please tell me and I'll kick them for throwing the term "atheism" around so frivolously.
And as many others have responded to this post, agnosticism is not a stance on theism, it is a stance on epistomology, the philosophy of knowing. Some believe there are evidence to support God's existence, others find evidence to support that there is no God, then there are those who do not think there is enough evidence to support either claim.
Religion makes suppositions that can be tested. Few atheists really say they can be 100% certain there is no God, that's bad science. They do say that the God as described in most religions has no supporting evidence, and is therefore an irrational belief. Rejecting scientific theories requires the same level of certainty.
xvortexbladex
Registered Member
Yes, religion can make suppositions that can be tested, but can it be confirmed? So far, there is none if not few of any claims being confirmed despite many tests. What scientific theories? That the earth is placed on pillars? That Jesus could see all four corners of the kingdoms? That the sun is a circle? That in Genesis, Earth and the plants are created before the stars to pull together debris or facilitate photosynthesis? That you can move mountains if you believe just enough? If you pray, and it is the will of some cosmic being, then it will come true? That there is an actual place where people are currently being roasted alive for their sins? That men really have 1 rib less than women? I can go on and on about claims by theists, even ones that is supposed to be about atomic weaponry and flight, but can any of them be substantiated through testing? I'd really like to see that.
Course not all atheist can say that God does not exist definitively, but neither could all theists say that there is one definitively. And not being able to say that there is 100% certainty for the nonexistence of something supernatural, does that constitute as bad science? Sounds like a good argument, but that's a non-sequitur. Science is meant to define the natural world, the supernatural is well...not natural, do you not see the incompatibility? That is why the subject of religion is often left for the philosophers and hence we have subjects like ontology. Otherwise, we have some rather questionable fields that falls under the category of pseudoscience due to unconvincing results after multiple tests.
Science has no boundries as to subject matter. A supernatural effect must be observable in the natural world, or not even religious people would claim that it happens. If there is any effect on the material world at all, then it can be subject to scientific scrutiny. If a supernatural effect could be shown to exist, this effect would be incorporated into science. Science does not specifically reject the supernatural, it only has so far because there has been no evidence for it.
We've been through this one. Agnosticism is not a stance regarding religion. You've got it wrong as I did when I came here. Look up the word "epistemology". Agnosticism is a stance regarding epistemology, NOT religion. Aitheism doesn't mean you "know" there is no god, it merely means you find no evidence supporting that there is.
Oh, and it's silly to say that you'd have to be "all knowing" to KNOW there isn't a god. You'd just have to know there isn't a god. Maybe there is a trick to knowing that which you're not aware of eh?
If you are really interested in the topic, look up a thread by ConsequentAithiest called "consistent or delimited agnosticism". It should shed some light on the scenario for you.
I could never believe or think that for no apparent reason something came out of nothing.
God created all things for his own glory and purpose.
Atheists claim they see no proof, but the Bible teaches that atheists are appointed to be atheists, they really have no choice in the matter.
Don't attack me on this; Not me, but the Bible says God made everything for his own purpose including atheists.
Einstein showed that space is curved, so even nothing isn't nothing. Quantum particles appear and disappear for no apparent reason, and show properties that would seem strange if they happened in the macro world.
The phrase "God made everything...including atheists", is a kind of logical fallacy. It really says nothing about the atheist proposition. It just means religious people anticipated the questions people would have about atheism and pretended to be omniscient.
The phrase "God made everything...including atheists", is a kind of logical fallacy. It really says nothing about the atheist proposition. It just means religious people anticipated the questions people would have about atheism and pretended to be omniscient.
devils-advocate
Registered Senior Member
Gullible...?
I have one question....
Why do people believe in ONE book? Why? It is so contradictory.
I can't grasp how people can be that gullible.
There are hundreds and possibly thousands of books that speak about evolution and science and how the world works. There have been independent free thinkers such as Einstein that have been slammed for saying something [and being able to back it up with solid evidence] and speaking out against the word of 'god' [referring to the 'christian' god].
I can't unuderstand you complete fools.
On another note I would be interested if someone would be so kind to inform me as to why christians seem to be completely against insest [well it is morally wrong...] but why then do they believe so heavily in the concept of Adam and Eve?
-"Don't take life so seriously, it isn't permanent"
I have one question....
Why do people believe in ONE book? Why? It is so contradictory.
I can't grasp how people can be that gullible.
There are hundreds and possibly thousands of books that speak about evolution and science and how the world works. There have been independent free thinkers such as Einstein that have been slammed for saying something [and being able to back it up with solid evidence] and speaking out against the word of 'god' [referring to the 'christian' god].
I can't unuderstand you complete fools.
On another note I would be interested if someone would be so kind to inform me as to why christians seem to be completely against insest [well it is morally wrong...] but why then do they believe so heavily in the concept of Adam and Eve?
-"Don't take life so seriously, it isn't permanent"
devils-advocate
Registered Senior Member
Chinese whispers
Isn't just religion proof positive that chinese whispers works on a global scale?
Isn't just religion proof positive that chinese whispers works on a global scale?
And often, it's not even that. Probably 70% of the time, if someone says they're an atheist, they simply lack belief in a deity rather than a belief that there is no deity.
Hence the necessary dichotomy between strong and weak atheism. It's not "just" semantics; it's needed to express the incredible difference between those mentalities.
Xvortex,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679
Well not really, in practice atheists are much more pragmatic, but, check out this thread that you can find in this forum’s FAQs…re definition of atheism.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679
What's "Athieism"? Never heard of that. But going after the OP's description of it...it certainly does sound like a made up belief.
-=-
WHY was this absurdity resurrected?
WHY was this absurdity resurrected?
- Status