Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

The aliens have taught us that burden of proof is a crutch for the infidels.

I started giving the alien my money. The tape around their green suits looked kinda corny. I saw them taking off the suits and they looked just like humans underneath. I still think they are aliens and they can make sweet love to me by the campfire.

Burden of proof now rests with the infidels. You would understand if you were a believer.

I'd give you evidence but you can't comprehend it until you truley believe.

12/13

0 Replies

Without any evidence supporting your claim, I will ignore you. Now you're just talking, and you sound like you have mental illness. What you say is inconsistent with evidence in the material world. Have fun with the aliens, and come back when you want to play philosophy.

0 Replies

I just posted a response to Portal. Where did it go?

0 Replies

it went to that galaxy far, far, away.......

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Without any evidence supporting your claim, I will ignore you. Now you're just talking, and you sound like you have mental illness. What you say is inconsistent with evidence in the material world. Have fun with the aliens, and come back when you want to play philosophy.

I think you took the game about alien love monkeys a little too seriously.

0 Replies

did someone mention love monkeys . . . is this thread going to get interesting again?

0 Replies

it's only on the fringes now, but the potential is there......

0 Replies

i once taught that atheism was a very possible and perhaps logical view to take. but now i've come to the conclusion that nobody can be a true atheist.
the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic lies in the level of certainty and i don't think anybody can say that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no higher power. in other words, i don't think any atheist is any more certain that there is no higher power than an agnostic is. to be that certain would require a tremendous amount of faith.

0 Replies

ye, It's just that I'd rather live my life without worrying about whether there is or there isn't or maybe, and I run my life as a atheist. Nothing I have observed in my life shows or proves any god exists. That's good enough for me.

0 Replies

i don't think agnostics worry too much about it either. and they run their life no differently.

just like i don't think about whether there is alien life out there too much. and it doesn't affect my life one way or the other. and i have seen no proof of alien life. but i'm not going to say that there absolutely is no alien life.

if you ask anyone of any religion how sure they are that their religion is right, most of the answers will vary from 99-100%. so is an atheist 99-100% sure that there is no god?

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

This is where mr. Apisa is wrong and why an agnostic can deny the existence of individual dieties (they are attributed interaction with the material world), but not the general concept of g-d.

I think the "missing post" was the result of me hitting the wrong key before. Here is the response I gave as best I can reconstruct it.

Portal, have no idea of where you got the idea that I say an agnostic cannot deny the existence of individual deities -- but I haven't. Agnostics are certainly as free as anyone else to make guess about whether or not something exists -- and they are certainly free to evaluate "evidence" and come to conclusions.

I think, for instance, that an open-minded evaluation of the Bible would would consider that book to be primarily a (rather self-serving) history of the early Hebrew people -- intersperced with an almost comical theology/mythology.

I think an open-minded evaluation of the god described in the Bible would not only uncover a murderous, barbaric, quick-to-anger, vengeful, revenge ridden, slow to forgive, jealous, demanding, tyrannical, petty god -- but would lead almost anyone willing to continue their open-mindedness to observe that the god is almost certainly a fictional creation of the early Hebrews who wrote this stuff.

I hope I have made my position clear, Portal.

BTW, although I took strong exception to your "proof" comment early on in this thread, your recent posts have been right on the money -- EXCEPT for your evaluation of Craven.

I think Craven was pulling your chain a bit -- and I think you bought into it. Craven has a lot more substance than you are giving him credit for right now.

Just yank his chain back.

That's what works best.

0 Replies

Regarding the initial comments in your last post directed to me, Craven, allow me to reiterate something I've said several times:

I have no problem with your beliefs.

I don't necessarily agree with them -- and some I consider to be decidedly long shots, but your beliefs are your beliefs.

In any case, you wrote:

Quote:

I do not think there are "two most significant" pieces. I do think that there are many many small details that point to a conclusion. BTW, you seem to overrate my certainty. I have said that there is evidence. I have rarely qualified it so positively.

Good. It sounds like there is more agnosticism in your thinking than appears at first blush - and naturally, I consider that to be a plus.

Quote:

Here is a quickie, selected at random:

"Too good to be true", the creation of a diety satisfies man's desires so much that the "too good to be true" factor comes in. Sure, "too good" does not preclude "true" but when I earlier mentioned the understanding of the nature of your friends I was referencing this.

Understanding human nature is to know that humans want a god. Our long history of making them up shows that this satisfies some basic needs.

I suggest that this is evidence as to their human creation and evidence that points to human creation is evidence against a god (BUT NOT PROOF).

Well, you are certainly entitled to think that this argument is evidence in favor of there being no gods - but I could not disagree more.

I have several reasons for feeling that way:

1) Fact is, this argument is almost identical to arguments used by theists to SUPPORT the notion that there is a God.

"Why have people always believed in gods, if not because there is a God putting that notion in their minds?" is the way they put that notion. It is, I submit, a poster child for the "ambiguous piece of evidence."

2) while I might agree that the fact that gods seem to satisfy a need in people "is evidence as to their human creation" (not especially strong evidence) -- I can think of no logical argument that "evidence that current gods are of human creation" is evidence that there are no gods.

That is an illogical leap -- and is purely gratuitous (and, it might be argued, a variation on the "converse evidence" which you say you do not rely on.

Not to go into another diversion, but it would be just as illogical to say that "evidence that supposed alien encounters on Earth is simply human delusion" -- is evidence that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.

Both are illogical conclusions and do not derive from the premises as stated.

3) In essence, you are suggesting that since humans apparently have a (an innate) motive for creating gods - that is evidence that there are no gods. Stated that way, the lack of logic in the notion becomes more apparent.

In any case, even supposing your guess (my guess too) is correct that all gods currently worshiped are human created fiction - to further suppose that because all the gods currently being worshiped are absurd (and most are indeed absurd) - does not mean there are no gods - and does not logically point in that direction at all.

At best, it points in the direction that theists are barking up a wrong tree on their ideas of what any gods that might exist - are actually like.

I would hope, Craven, that this is not a strong example of the evidence you say persuades you that the notion "there are no gods" is sufficiently more realistic than "there is a God" -- so that "I do not know and the evidence is too ambiguous to persuade me to guess in either direction" becomes a non-player.

I'd like to hear some more of the "many, many small details" that you say point in the direction of there being no gods.

Let me be out front about this, Craven. With all the respect in the world - I consider the atheistic contention "many small pieces have to be considered as a whole" - to be very much like the theistic contention "God cannot be seen." Arguments like that seem to me to be designed specifically to put rebuttal argument at an unnecessary disadvantage.

Let's discuss what you think of what I have said here - and discuss any other "small details" that you'd like to offer - so that your position does not become "God cannot be seen."

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

It is of definition arguments, which is what you were arguing about. If not from the dictionary, where do you get your definitions of words from? It's not like you personally invented the english language. You can interpret a word however you would like, but the dictionary is the standard philosophical and english agreement on the definitions of words. Do you have a better suggestion for common agreement of definitions?

The agreement on the meaning of words is what makes those words meaningful and communicative.

Definitions vary slightly from place to place and person to person, that's why we have several different dictionaries with slightly different definitions. Language is a living, breathing entity, not some dead thing you can mount in a book. The dictionary only lists the most widely accepted definitions at the current moment and they are constantly updating themsleves, changing definitions and adding new words as the language evolves.

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

i once taught that atheism was a very possible and perhaps logical view to take. but now i've come to the conclusion that nobody can be a true atheist.
the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic lies in the level of certainty and i don't think anybody can say that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no higher power. in other words, i don't think any atheist is any more certain that there is no higher power than an agnostic is. to be that certain would require a tremendous amount of faith.

The problem is that Frank is arguing apples and oranges. He is *BOTH* an agnostic *AND* an atheist. Every single person on this planet is *BOTH* a gnostic/agnostic and a theist/atheist. They are two very different things. One deals with knowledge, the other with belief.

This entire argument is based on misconceptions.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

ye110man wrote:
i once taught that atheism was a very possible and perhaps logical view to take. but now i've come to the conclusion that nobody can be a true atheist.
the distinction between an atheist and an agnostic lies in the level of certainty and i don't think anybody can say that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no higher power. in other words, i don't think any atheist is any more certain that there is no higher power than an agnostic is. to be that certain would require a tremendous amount of faith.

The problem is that Frank is arguing apples and oranges. He is *BOTH* an agnostic *AND* an atheist. Every single person on this planet is *BOTH* a gnostic/agnostic and a theist/atheist. They are two very different things. One deals with knowledge, the other with belief.

This entire argument is based on misconceptions.

Nonsense!

0 Replies

Quote:

The problem is that Frank is arguing apples and oranges.

No I am not!

And it is my experience that most of the time when someone uses that argument, they are doing so simply because they have nothing to back up whatever objections they actually have.

Quote:

He is *BOTH* an agnostic *AND* an atheist.

Oh really! And is that because you say so -- or has that been ordained in some Holy Book to which you have access?

Give me your definition of agnostic and your definition of atheist -- and then tell me why you are guessing that I am both.

Quote:

Every single person on this planet is *BOTH* a gnostic/agnostic and a theist/atheist.

How do you know what every single person on this planet is or is not? Sounds to me as though you are biting off a great deal more than you can chew.

Quote:

They are two very different things.

In light of your previous thoughts and assertions, this doesn't even make sense.

Quote:

One deals with knowledge, the other with belief.

Huh???

Quote:

This entire argument is based on misconceptions.

I have a feeling this sentence says something you truly did not intend for it to say. However, taking your words as written:

That was very astute of you to realize that, Cephus. But it does call into question why, knowing it is based on misconceptions, you even bothered to present the argument.

0 Replies

Yelloman and Frank most particularly, with a bow to cephus,

I prefer to define an Athiest as a person who is unable ( due perhaps to a mental insufficiency ) to imagine any god that would be worthy of the name.

A Big Banger is unable to imagine an infinity or a God, but perfectly able to imagine one dimensional objects, parallel universes, and extra dimensions.

An Abrahamic worshipper is unable to imagine a material existence, infinity, or purposelessness.

So I declare that God exists Exclamation

Huzzah Huzzah, God exists Exclamation

----- in the imaginations of His adherants.

Since He apparently exists in a mind that may or may not have an imagination which encompasses reality (whatever it is), the Athiests will never be able to refute Him satisfactorily. One exists according to the perceptions of the believers.

Since it is impossible for an Athiest (best sense of the word) Laughing

to imagine a god it is equally doubtful that the existence of one will ever be satisfactorily shown.

However each camp considers the other "irrational". This, to say the least, presents humanity with a dilemma.

Perhaps the sages that wrote "Revelations" recognized this facet of human nature. This would mean that the battle between "Good and Evil", between "God and Satan" or the Darkness and the Light will go on as long as there are humans. Crying or Very sad

That is how I personally view Armageddon. The Bible writers were generally astute observers of human nature, writing for the audience of their time. As usual, I beg to differ with the conclusions, not the observations 2 Cents

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

it is impossible for an Athiest to imagine a god

I am an atheist.

I will attempt to imagine a god.......

I have succeeded.

I also note that I have done so on many occasions. I conclude that your statement is false.

Frank,

We'll have to talk later. I gotta make hay.

0 Replies

Craven, Please describe the "God" that you imagined.

I have noticed that the most facile definitions of a god come from those people whose reality does not seem to have a good approximation to observations.

Mores the pity!!

0 Replies

I have imagined many. The lastest was not anthropomorphized yet was bi-polar.

0 Replies

Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know