There is no such thing as an Athiest

[Anubis]

when did I ever say i was all knowing??? wel NEVER. but i dont beleive in god

thats the worst logic ever

 

[Richdog]

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?

What crap. All an atheist is saying is that they don't believe in God, they're not saying they know there's not a God.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
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.

No one mentioned the Christian God in particular. The argument was simply "God". And I see no more evidence that contradicts that notion of God (in general, not specific) than supports it.
Quite the contrary, on a personal level, I see the orderly physical universe as evidence to support, while most atheists I know see the disorderliness of animal and human societies as evidence to contradict.
And whether an individual chooses to agree with or dispute the unproven CLAIM of another individual, despite all logical arguments, does not change the fact that it is still an unproven CLAIM, nor that the other side still has their own logical arguments for their unproven claim.

I look at it this way. If a person approaches an argument or subject with certain prejudice or bias, they WILL find evidence and logical arguments to support that prejudice or bias, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. It's called not being objective.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

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!

Yes. Exactly. You may not like that this is so, but it is. There are varying degrees of unlikelihood, but you cannot claim to be certain.

ZV

 

[dguy6789]

Ok guys, im gonna go on a quest to become all knowing, ill get back to you in a few years and tell you if there is a god. :beer:

 

[dafatha00]

You suck

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moralpanic
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.

No one mentioned the Christian God in particular. The argument was simply "God". And I see no more evidence that contradicts that notion of God (in general, not specific) than supports it.
Quite the contrary, on a personal level, I see the orderly physical universe as evidence to support, while most atheists I know see the disorderliness of animal and human societies as evidence to contradict.
And whether an individual chooses to agree with or dispute the unproven CLAIM of another individual, despite all logical arguments, does not change the fact that it is still an unproven CLAIM, nor that the other side still has their own logical arguments for their unproven claim.

I look at it this way. If a person approaches an argument or subject with certain prejudice or bias, they WILL find evidence and logical arguments to support that prejudice or bias, regardless of how ridiculous it might be. It's called not being objective.

Well, it's pretty obvious that people are referring to the Christian and Creator God when they're speaking about 'God'... and that's how the arguments are made. What is God but somebody's definition and conception? And that's what the arguments are made against. If somebody referred to God as the balance of energy that exploded into the big bang and then formed into the universe as we know it, then that's my God. The God i don't believe in is the Christian Creator God, that God that people asserts that made humans from Adam and Eve, that flooded the world and all was saved because of some guy and his boat, the God that says there is a heaven and hell, etc. You must have specifics to argue against, and unless you're completely clueless, there are plenty of it in the atheist literature.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

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!

Yes. Exactly. You may not like that this is so, but it is. There are varying degrees of unlikelihood, but you cannot claim to be certain.

ZV

I can certainly claim for certain there is no Christian God, if the Christian God's criteria is that humans came from Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, that Noah had an Ark that saved the world from a flood by having 2 of every animal.

 

[ThaPerculator]

Here's an analogy to explain theism and atheism.

An officer is interviewing you because your child is dead. You claim "The Dingoes Ate My Baby!!!!". The officer is netiher partial to you, or your alleged baby-eating dingoes. You do not give more than a reasonable doubt that baby-eating dingoes exist in your local, let alone physically ate your baby.

Therefore, when the officer is asked "Do you believe the dingoes ate the baby?" He says no. There was not enough evidence to prove dingoes ate the baby. He is against the absolute theory of yours, Babyeatingdingoism, so therefore he is an Ababyeatingdingoist.

Nowhere does the officer claim that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He just is against your claims of babyeatingdingoism. He could care less if baby eating doges exist, other than that of curiosity. He has no obligation to prove that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He has better things to do with his time as a officer.

The burden of proof is always held in the hand of the one making the claim. Therefore if you claim theism, you have to prove it is true. Being an atheist does not make any claims. It just proves that you are against the theory/ideal of Theism. Claiming to be an atheist does not mean you believe that god does not exist, it means that you do not believe in the theory of theism, and therefore don't have to tell anyone your personal theory of how we came to be. End of story.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Here's an analogy to explain theism and atheism.

An officer is interviewing you because your child is dead. You claim "The Dingoes Ate My Baby!!!!". The officer is netiher partial to you, or your alleged baby-eating dingoes. You do not give more than a reasonable doubt that baby-eating dingoes exist in your local, let alone physically ate your baby.

Therefore, when the officer is asked "Do you believe the dingoes ate the baby?" He says no. There was not enough evidence to prove dingoes ate the baby. He is against the absolute theory of yours, Babyeatingdingoism, so therefore he is an Ababyeatingdingoist.

Nowhere does the officer claim that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He just is against your claims of babyeatingdingoism. He could care less if baby eating doges exist, other than that of curiosity. He has no obligation to prove that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He has better things to do with his time as a officer.

The burden of proof is always held in the hand of the one making the claim. Therefore if you claim theism, you have to prove it is true. Being an atheist does not make any claims. It just proves that you are against the theory/ideal of Theism. Claiming to be an atheist does not mean you believe that god does not exist, it means that you do not believe in the theory of theism, and therefore don't have to tell anyone your personal theory of how we came to be. End of story.

Very nice! You don't mind if i steal this from you for future arguments, do you?

 

[ThaPerculator]

Very nice! You don't mind if i steal this from you for future arguments, do you?

Please do. I'm sick of arguing this point lol.

 

[matt426malm]

Why is the burden of proof put on the atheists. When you make a calim YOU back it up, this isn't a court of law you aren't right until proven wrong. I don't know that there is no god. I think that the universe came into existence out of nothing. Like how in quantum mechanics matter is constantly generated out of nothing and then cancles out. I think that matter/energy some how equal zero so they came out of nothing but essentially are nothing; my belief. (I am an atheist at heart and a strong agnostic when arguing with religon)

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: waylman
we dont know for sure it there is no god, it is just our belief. so, we are not really all knowing.

Isn't that the agnostic belief?

I thought agnostics were unsure and atheists were sure there was no god.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Here's an analogy to explain theism and atheism.

An officer is interviewing you because your child is dead. You claim "The Dingoes Ate My Baby!!!!". The officer is netiher partial to you, or your alleged baby-eating dingoes. You do not give more than a reasonable doubt that baby-eating dingoes exist in your local, let alone physically ate your baby.

Therefore, when the officer is asked "Do you believe the dingoes ate the baby?" He says no. There was not enough evidence to prove dingoes ate the baby. He is against the absolute theory of yours, Babyeatingdingoism, so therefore he is an Ababyeatingdingoist.

Nowhere does the officer claim that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He just is against your claims of babyeatingdingoism. He could care less if baby eating doges exist, other than that of curiosity. He has no obligation to prove that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He has better things to do with his time as a officer.

The burden of proof is always held in the hand of the one making the claim. Therefore if you claim theism, you have to prove it is true. Being an atheist does not make any claims. It just proves that you are against the theory/ideal of Theism. Claiming to be an atheist does not mean you believe that god does not exist, it means that you do not believe in the theory of theism, and therefore don't have to tell anyone your personal theory of how we came to be. End of story.

Incorrect.

Atheism is defined as a positive claim that the is no god (of any sort) in existance.

What you call "atheism", and what Moralpanic is also calling "atheism" is, in reality, strong agnosticism.

To put this bluntly, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT YOU ARE WRONG, I AM ARGUING THAT YOU ARE USING THE WRONG TERMS TO DENOTE YOUR POSITION. This is nothing more than the both of you using the term "atheism" incorrectly. I have already said this multiple times though you continue to seem incapable of understanding simple definitions.

ZV

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: matt426malm
Why is the burden of proof put on the atheists. When you make a calim YOU back it up, this isn't a court of law you aren't right until proven wrong. I don't know that there is no god. I think that the universe came into existence out of nothing. Like how in quantum mechanics matter is constantly generated out of nothing and then cancles out. I think that matter/energy some how equal zero so they came out of nothing but essentially are nothing; my belief. (I am an atheist at heart and a strong agnostic when arguing with religon)

Finally, someone who uses the terminology correctly. Thank you.

ZV

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: conjur

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?

There's your flaw.

<--- runs off to grab the popcorn and the lawn chair

Zim, you got the :beer:?

Since he seems to be awful slow on the uptake ...

:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:
:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:
:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:
:beer::beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:

There's a 2-4

- M4H

 

[DainBramaged]

There was a book called, "God Doesn't Believe in the Athiest, Proof the Athiest Doesn't Exist". When I saw it, I LMAO at the title.

 

[godspeedx]

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?

An atheist would say that there is no God, so how can they be putting themselves in the place of something that, to them, doesn't exist?

Also, it does not mean that they are omniscient if they are certain about one thing. I know that my fan is spinning right now, but that doesn't mean I'm omniscient, just knowledgeable in one subject.

I am not an atheist.

 

[matt426malm]

<-------Looks down at hand as it vanishes...... Then blinks out of existince.

 

[godspeedx]

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

Who said you have to blindly believe in God?

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
goddamit how is it possible that your god made you so fvcking stupid?

lmao :beer::beer:

 

[iwearnosox]

Michael Jackson ate my baby! You bastard!

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: godspeedx

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

Who said you have to blindly believe in God?

Yeah people who believe in God aren't blind just nearsighted. Just kidding

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: ThaPerculator
Here's an analogy to explain theism and atheism.

An officer is interviewing you because your child is dead. You claim "The Dingoes Ate My Baby!!!!". The officer is netiher partial to you, or your alleged baby-eating dingoes. You do not give more than a reasonable doubt that baby-eating dingoes exist in your local, let alone physically ate your baby.

Therefore, when the officer is asked "Do you believe the dingoes ate the baby?" He says no. There was not enough evidence to prove dingoes ate the baby. He is against the absolute theory of yours, Babyeatingdingoism, so therefore he is an Ababyeatingdingoist.

Nowhere does the officer claim that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He just is against your claims of babyeatingdingoism. He could care less if baby eating doges exist, other than that of curiosity. He has no obligation to prove that baby eating dingoes do not exist. He has better things to do with his time as a officer.

The burden of proof is always held in the hand of the one making the claim. Therefore if you claim theism, you have to prove it is true. Being an atheist does not make any claims. It just proves that you are against the theory/ideal of Theism. Claiming to be an atheist does not mean you believe that god does not exist, it means that you do not believe in the theory of theism, and therefore don't have to tell anyone your personal theory of how we came to be. End of story.

Incorrect.

Atheism is defined as a positive claim that the is no god (of any sort) in existance.

What you call "atheism", and what Moralpanic is also calling "atheism" is, in reality, strong agnosticism.

To put this bluntly, I AM NOT ARGUING THAT YOU ARE WRONG, I AM ARGUING THAT YOU ARE USING THE WRONG TERMS TO DENOTE YOUR POSITION. This is nothing more than the both of you using the term "atheism" incorrectly. I have already said this multiple times though you continue to seem incapable of understanding simple definitions.

ZV

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath&eacute;isme, from ath&eacute;e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

You're the one that's using the wrong term. An agnostic is somebody who is unsure if there is a God or not (no matter what religion), i'm firmly against the belief that there is a God. I believe the universe had a beginning, but it certainly wasn't created by an intelligent being.

An atheist, like you quote, disbelief in the existence of deities... and deities are intelligent beings that govern the universe.

 

[WRXFanatic]

--I can certainly claim for certain there is no Christian God, if the Christian God's criteria is that humans came from Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, that Noah had an Ark that saved the world from a flood by having 2 of every animal.---

how?

sorry i went out to store...didn't know this would be such a big thread...and incase anyone is wondering...i am a theist, yes, and a christian at that