There is no such thing as an Athiest

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Baronz
By definition god is all knowing, so to be sure there was no god would require absolute knowledge to be sure, and when you reached that level you would be "god".

it makes sense philosophically, but its really just BS

By definition the invisible pink unicorn is all-knowing. So to be sure that there is no invisible pink unicorn you need absolute knowledge...

ZV

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Honestly, I Believe, that just because someone believes there is no god, does not mean they believe they are all knowing. What if they believe there is no such thing as an all knowing being, and that everything must be learned on their own?


On another side note, if there is no god, what created the universe and all things? How did the big bang's particles become existent, how did space itself get there, how did whatever made space get there get there? There is an infinite amount of questions, which may be possible to answer, perhaps, we are living in a flawed universe, where there is an infinte level of information which cannot be explained, what if the universe is mathmatically incorrect, then in essence, anything is possible.

Hang on....I think all the monkey with typewriters are almost finished.....

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

they claim that there is no God, therefore admitting to the fact that they are omniscent (all knowing?), therefore putting themselves in the place of God because only God is all knowing....

Well, this is the stupidiest logic i've ever heard before.

As for real athiest... we're ALL born atheist. Nobody is born knowing God, they're taught it.

A friend of mine and I got into a short debate on this a while back.

*IF* a child was raised with NO religious influences, was kept totally unaware of religion and a God or gods or reincarnation or karma or whatever, would that child naturally wonder or believe something created the earth and life upon it? (Assuming the child was given scientific answers/reasons to its questions about why things work or how we got here, etc.)

It's natural for the mind to try to conceive stuff in order to make sense of the world. Depending on their experiences, they may conceive how nature works differently... if they're living relatively close to nature and animals, their conception of the world will tend more towards nature. If they're raised by strict parents and in a strict society, they may conceive the world more orderly, and may have a concept of a creator or creators. But the fact is, the Christian notion of God would be as randomly possible as any other possible belief.

 

[Glitchny]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A true atheist is no more intelligent than the believer that they ridicule. If somebody can claim there is no god, they obviously can't claim (without having the power of god) that they know totally that there is not one. Regardless of one's following, be it devout religious freak or not, at the LEAST somebody has to achknowledge that there may be a god. To say with a straight face that there absolutely is not one is simply groundless. Can't prove there is and can't prove there isn't. And, I'm out of the thread.

i agree with allmighty skoorb, to say that u know for sure is impossible, and to say that he isnt there for sure is impossible. so either way you beleive you are still making a claim that u cant justify

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: WRXFanatic
ok...this is just something i thought about....how do actual athiests exist?
they claim that there is no God, therefore admitting to the fact that they are omniscent (all knowing?), therefore putting themselves in the place of God because only God is all knowing....

any thoughts?

Umm...

So I assume you believe there is a God? Are you omniscient to "know" that?

 

[ThaPerculator]

Saying a Atheist claims to be all-knowing because they assume a viewpoint on creationism is ridiculous. both Theists and atheists claim a viewpoint on creationism... does that mean that Theists are all-knowing because they claim a viewpoint, hence pretend to KNOW???

Theism and Atheism are beliefs. Beliefs do not have anything to do with experience. You can not experience creationism, hence it is a belief and not knowledge, therefore all of these stupid arguments pertaining to the subject.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
On another side note, if there is no god, what created the universe and all things? How did the big bang's particles become existent, how did space itself get there, how did whatever made space get there get there? There is an infinite amount of questions, which may be possible to answer, perhaps, we are living in a flawed universe, where there is an infinte level of information which cannot be explained, what if the universe is mathmatically incorrect, then in essence, anything is possible.

This is an interesting question, in essence it is asking what is the first mover. Is the universe the un-caused first mover or is there another un-caused first-mover that caused the universe? Or, is there an un-caused first mover that created the second mover that created the universe? It's a question of where the chain ends and to be completely honest, it doesn't make a whit of difference to our "reality" (i.e. our day-to-day observations of the physical world) where that chain ends. There is no good reason to assume that the universe itself is the un-caused first mover, but there is no real reason not to assume it either. It all boils down to faith.

ZV

 

[stormbv]

I have enough irrational thoughts to deal with...I don't have the energy to blindly believe in God.

 

[Vic]

The proper way to make this argument is to say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a believer. Because there is absolutely no evidence nor facts to make either argument, both require faith in order to claim to believe with any certainty (albeit opposing beliefs).

 

[EvilYoda]

too bad I missed this thread at it's conception...would've been fun to read the replies pop up.

And yeah, your argument sucks...it's just convenient that I'm an atheist, and I happen to know everything. Not everybody's like me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: stormbv
I have enough irrational thoughts to deal with...I don't have the energy to blindly believe in God.

Ahh... but you have enough energy to blindly not believe?

Denial does not prevent the argument of faith from rationally working both ways.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A true atheist is no more intelligent than the believer that they ridicule. If somebody can claim there is no god, they obviously can't claim (without having the power of god) that they know totally that there is not one. Regardless of one's following, be it devout religious freak or not, at the LEAST somebody has to achknowledge that there may be a god. To say with a straight face that there absolutely is not one is simply groundless. Can't prove there is and can't prove there isn't. And, I'm out of the thread.

That's because you're intellectually lazy. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. The person rejecting the assertation NEEDS NOT PROVE ANYTHING. If somebody claims they have the cure for cancer, it's their burden to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Can you disprove that the dodo bird taught humans how to speak 20,000 years ago? No you can't, so it must have been possible that they did.

This is BASIC critical thinking and philosophy.

I can't believe anybody with more than a high school education can make this fallacy.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

But... Didn't you know that the Bible, although written by men, clearly proofs that God exists?
After all, it says God exists, and it says everything in the book is true! So there you are, God must exist!

 

[ThaPerculator]

Ahh... but you have enough energy to blindly not believe?

Just like you have enough energy to not drink the magic kool-aid and ride in a spaceship behind hale-bopp.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
That's because you're intellectually lazy. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. The person rejecting the assertation NEEDS NOT PROVE ANYTHING. If somebody claims they have the cure for cancer, it's their burden to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Can you disprove that the dodo bird taught humans how to speak 20,000 years ago? No you can't, so it must have been possible that they did.

This is BASIC critical thinking and philosophy.

While I agree that the onus of proof is on the one making the claim, I think you're overlooking the glaring fact that atheists are also making a claim.

One side claims there is, the other claims there is not.

And I see the next argument coming, so I will counter it beforehand: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- another basic of critical thinking and philosophy.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A true atheist is no more intelligent than the believer that they ridicule. If somebody can claim there is no god, they obviously can't claim (without having the power of god) that they know totally that there is not one. Regardless of one's following, be it devout religious freak or not, at the LEAST somebody has to achknowledge that there may be a god. To say with a straight face that there absolutely is not one is simply groundless. Can't prove there is and can't prove there isn't. And, I'm out of the thread.

That's because you're intellectually lazy. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. The person rejecting the assertation NEEDS NOT PROVE ANYTHING. If somebody claims they have the cure for cancer, it's their burden to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Can you disprove that the dodo bird taught humans how to speak 20,000 years ago? No you can't, so it must have been possible that they did.

This is BASIC critical thinking and philosophy.

You are likewise making the claim that a god does not exist. The only thing we know is that there may or may not be a god. You can be a strong agnostic without making a claim and without having to provide proof, but the second you claim that it is impossible for you to be wrong in your belief that there is no god then you are making a claim and you are required to support it.

That's even more basic thinking.

ZV

 

[loup garou]

No reply from the OP in 30 minutes and people are still arguing. Troll-mission accomplished.

 

[CPA]

Man, why do I read these threads. I hate them.

Now I'm going to start thinking about death and when I start thinking about death, it makes me want to puke....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator

Ahh... but you have enough energy to blindly not believe?

Just like you have enough energy to not drink the magic kool-aid and ride in a spaceship behind hale-bopp.

Ah... ad hominem

Hey, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps this is the wrong thread to do it in because the OP was obviously stupid flamebait, but I just felt someone had to. I mean, can you look at your belief structure objectively? Or will you deny it by making the clearly false claim that you have no belief structure?

 

That's because you're intellectually lazy. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. The person rejecting the assertation NEEDS NOT PROVE ANYTHING. If somebody claims they have the cure for cancer, it's their burden to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Can you disprove that the dodo bird taught humans how to speak 20,000 years ago? No you can't, so it must have been possible that they did.

This is BASIC critical thinking and philosophy.

I can't believe anybody with more than a high school education can make this fallacy.

So you read Ameesh's debate thread.
Round of applause.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
That's because you're intellectually lazy. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. The person rejecting the assertation NEEDS NOT PROVE ANYTHING. If somebody claims they have the cure for cancer, it's their burden to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Can you disprove that the dodo bird taught humans how to speak 20,000 years ago? No you can't, so it must have been possible that they did.

This is BASIC critical thinking and philosophy.

While I agree that the onus of proof is on the one making the claim, I think you're overlooking the glaring fact that atheists are also making a claim.

One side claims there is, the other claims there is not.

And I see the next argument coming, so I will counter it beforehand: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- another basic of critical thinking and philosophy.

That's because you're ignorant as to how atheists make their 'claim'. Of course you're not going to have empirical evidence for a negative, but you certainly do have empirical evidence and logical arguments agaist certain statements... such as the CHRISTIAN creator God does not exist. You really don't think that atheists assert this simply from blind faith do you? No, there is evidence all around us... evidence that contradicts this notion of the creator God... and many logical arguments, some of my favorites come from Hume.

 

[stormbv]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: stormbv
I have enough irrational thoughts to deal with...I don't have the energy to blindly believe in God.

Ahh... but you have enough energy to blindly not believe?

Denial does not prevent the argument of faith from rationally working both ways.

To clarify, I don't think you can believe in God OR be an atheist when thinking rationally about the subject. It's an unanswerable question that's beyond reason...so I'll just sit on the fence with indecision.

 

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A true atheist is no more intelligent than the believer that they ridicule. If somebody can claim there is no god, they obviously can't claim (without having the power of god)

the power of who? if there is no god to an atheist, how can one have the power of something that doesn't exist? i somewhat agree with the first sentence, but you seem to be coming from a viewpoint of a theist.

 

[dmw16]

That is the weakest train of logic ever...

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Skoorb
A true atheist is no more intelligent than the believer that they ridicule. If somebody can claim there is no god, they obviously can't claim (without having the power of god) that they know totally that there is not one. Regardless of one's following, be it devout religious freak or not, at the LEAST somebody has to achknowledge that there may be a god. To say with a straight face that there absolutely is not one is simply groundless. Can't prove there is and can't prove there isn't. And, I'm out of the thread.

That's because you're intellectually lazy. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim. The person rejecting the assertation NEEDS NOT PROVE ANYTHING. If somebody claims they have the cure for cancer, it's their burden to prove it, not mine to disprove it. Can you disprove that the dodo bird taught humans how to speak 20,000 years ago? No you can't, so it must have been possible that they did.

This is BASIC critical thinking and philosophy.

You are likewise making the claim that a god does not exist. The only thing we know is that there may or may not be a god. You can be a strong agnostic without making a claim and without having to provide proof, but the second you claim that it is impossible for you to be wrong in your belief that there is no god then you are making a claim and you are required to support it.

That's even more basic thinking.

Well then i also know that the dodo bird may have or may not have taught us language 20,000 years ago. I may also know that this reality that we live in is nothing more than that the earth is a piece of turd that some alien pooped out, and that we're highly evolved germs on this piece of turd. What we know of as an eon is nothing more than a single second to this alien, and that when he finally flushes us down the toilet, we're gone for good. Heck, why have any rationale whatsoever, we can believe in whatever we want!