| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"~Glorious Sensation~" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2005 07:12:03 PM |
| Object: |
Is Atheism viable? |
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God's
existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
--
Most of my quotes are from:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm
http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ http://www.christianquotes.org/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Let no one be found among you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination
or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who
is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deut 18:10
http://www.christiananswers.net/
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 11:07:59 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> writes:
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position.
Which is why one must go deeper, beyond "atheism," to the
suppositions that support theism and refute them completely.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism.
You don't read much, do you?A
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
Not a single one of those is "evidence," and only a fool claims
otherwise.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
01 Sep 2005 11:21:27 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:87pssdcijk.fsf@drizzle.com...
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> writes:
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position.
Which is why one must go deeper, beyond "atheism," to the
suppositions that support theism and refute them completely.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism.
You don't read much, do you?A
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
Not a single one of those is "evidence," and only a fool claims
otherwise.
LOL Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested
in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. Tell us Elf, what kind of
"evidence" would convince you of love? Would someone risking his/her life to
save yours and losing it in the attempt convince you? Now what more, if you
don't deserve to have your life saved, and the other doesn't deserve to lose
His, yet He still cares about you enough to risk His life for you?
Pastor Frank
THE MANDATE OF JESUS
**Jesus in Lk:4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind.
**Jesus in Mk:2:17: When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are
whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to
call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
**Jesus in Lk:9:56: For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives,
but to save them.
**Jesus Mt:18:11: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
**Jesus in Jn:12:47: And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge
him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
**Jesus in Mt:11:28-30 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened,
and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am
gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my
yoke is easy and my burden is light."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
18 Aug 2005 06:41:36 PM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2005 21:07:59 -0700, "Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> writes:
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position.
Which is why one must go deeper, beyond "atheism," to the
suppositions that support theism and refute them completely.
Ha ha. You know why creationists spend all their time trying to refute evolution.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism.
You don't read much, do you?A
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
Not a single one of those is "evidence," and only a fool claims
otherwise.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
"The apocalypse may be closer at hand than even John Derbyshire thinks:
what the hell is Elf Sternberg doing reading Derb's columns?"
-- Charles Murtaugh
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 08:13:55 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
Is Atheism viable?
All you have to do to prove that atheism is not viable is to provide some
real world, objective, verifiable evidence for the existence of your god-
thingy. Until then, you're just another xian fool blowing smoke out your
*****.
(Snip religious *****)
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 08:01:10 AM |
|
|
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
Is Atheism viable?
What kind of idiot would ask such a stupid fucking question ?
Oh, I know...a fucking religious nutter !
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the
reasonable notion that you should base your actions on reality,
you are too often led to accept, without much questioning,
someone else's version of what that reality is. It is a crucial
act of independent thinking to be skeptical of someone else's
description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 08:20:52 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing
in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given
to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't
to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that
in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very
difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis
of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice
cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not
at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it
being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for
God's
existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove
there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible.
At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world.
At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences
presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's
existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
themselves.
--
Most of my quotes are from:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm
http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ http://www.christianquotes.org/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Let no one be found among
you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices
divination
or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or
who
is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deut 18:10
http://www.christiananswers.net/
Same old same old...
*You* have the position of defence... not I.
Using your ice cream factory on Jupiter analogy. If i make the claim that it
*does* exist I should show evidence for this. If I cant there is no reason
to assume I am correct and it can be dismissed.
*You* are the one peddling an ice cream factory story .. you claim you have
evidence.. BBBZZZZTTTTTTTTT .... no you dont. You have an old book that
*claims* some people lived and performed certain things. *THATS IT* ... no
support from outside apart from your desire that it be true.
Please come back when you have something new to offer ... but I am not
holding my breath.
Steve
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mary Wanna" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
22 Aug 2005 06:05:57 PM |
|
|
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing
in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not
exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc.
Believing on the other hand is negativism in the same degree as one needs to
reject and deny all other gods in the process of believing in their own
version.
Which ever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.
Actually, it is a positive position as it has tremendous faith in all that
cannot be substantiated.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
I would agree, there are also no proofs in the existance of invisible pink
unicorns hiding under my bed.
Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some
proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably
insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe?
Easy, just make an attempt define god and you will contradict your belief in
god.
How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You
can't. Besides, if there were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists
would be continually using it.
And vice versa
But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very
difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a
negative.
Agreed, just like the pink invisible unicorns under my bed, which are there
by faith alone. Thats all I need for their existence.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Not true. One must have faith in what they accept to be true. An atheist
rejects the premise of the argument.(god exists) It is a mere assertion. An
assertion that leaves the asserter with the burden of proof since they are
making the claim. You should know the difference or do you?
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis
of adhering to atheism.
Rightly so as it does not apply.
Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences
presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual credence to
their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no
theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences
There is no such thing as theistic proofs and evidences! Or did you know
that?
that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.
Thats new to me.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position.
Or so says the religionist
If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter,
does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting
merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply
claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible
option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to
claim viability in their atheism.
Atheism is the result of a lack of evidence for the assertion that there is
a god. Sue the Atheists for your lack of evidence for your assertions! for
heaven sakes
They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence
for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter
and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the
position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for
God's existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an
eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.
Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does
not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually
indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing
evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no
evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that
possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the
evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means
that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice.
The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so
far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This
would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can
only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
themselves.
Critical thinking does not lead to god. That is why education is the great
destroyer of faith.
MW
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 02:25:39 AM |
|
|
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing
in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not
exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor
is given to atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't
to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does
not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After
all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove
that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if
there were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be
continually using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof
supporting atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is
very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to
prove a negative.
Negatives are easy to prove. For instance, there is no 50 foot fire
breathing dragon in my garage. If you open the door and look in my garage,
that negative is proved. All that one needs to prove a negative claim is a
testable quality.
It's when one goes out of one's way to eliminate any testable qualities with
ad hoc excuses that it becomes impossible:
"Oh, the dragon is invisible!"
"Oh yeah, it's also intangible!"
"It's fire breath is...Ummm...room temperature? Yeah, that's it, room
temperature!"
All of which sounds suspiciously similar to:
"God is invisible!"
"God is intangible!"
"He doesn't do tests!"
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
18 Aug 2005 07:35:40 PM |
|
|
~Glorious Sensation~ wrote:
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
There can well be sound arguments (= proofs) with "It is not the case
that God exists" as conclusion.
And there in fact are valid atheological arguments, which are also
considered sound by the atheists.
The theists may deny that there actually *are* any sound atheological
arguments, but they cannot justifiably maintain that there *cannot be*
any sound atheological arguments on principle, for if the premises of
the valid atheological arguments turn out to be true, then there are
perfect proofs of God's nonexistence.
So all the theists may claim is:
"God's nonexistence has not yet been proven!"
What they cannot claim is:
"God's nonexistence cannot be proven on principle!"
The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Then how do you prove the following negative:
"There can be no proof of a negative." (?)
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
That's a non sequitur!
As I already pointed up, there in fact are logically valid atheological
arguments, which are also considered sound by the atheists. That you as
a theist happen to deny the soundness of those arguments (by refusing
to call them "proofs") does not mean at all that all atheists cannot
help but be mere faith atheists.
An atheist can very well be rationally justified in firmly believing in
God's nonexistence!
(This is not supposed to mean that atheism is infallible or
indefeasible. But one doesn't have to claim to possess absolute
knowledge in order for one to be justified in firmly believing or
disbelieving something. So to call everybody firmly believing in God's
nonexistence a dogmatist is inappropriate!)
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
18 Aug 2005 08:41:14 PM |
|
|
piggybacking
On 18 Aug 2005 17:35:40 -0700, "Paul Holbach" <paulholbachDELETETHENAME@freenet.de> tells that:
~Glorious Sensation~ wrote:
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism.
You have a comprehension problem, but to be fair to you, it is based largely in the
vagaries of English pronunciation (assuming that's the language in which you -- for
the sake of argument -- "think" about these issues.
You see, the word is composed of a Greek prefix meaning "no, none, none of" and a root
meaning gods. The *English* word it relates to is "theism", which is the **belief**, not
the *fact*, that there are gods. The 'a-' of that is not a counterproposition that there
are no gods. It is, instead, the 'not' subscribing to a belief that there are. ("I don't
believe you"; not "no, you are wrong".) There's a big difference. (Very roughly like the
idea that when you sit on a jury and see that the prosecution's case is not proven to the
standard 'beyond a reasonable doubt' you are compelled by conscience and law to vote
"not guilty", without necessarily having the belief that the accused is innocent. I can't
be sure that your gawd is innocent of existing, or even of having created the universe, but
I am certain that your side has done a *****-poor job of making your case beyond
galaxy-sized doubts. I therefore am compelled by sanity and the law of intellectual
integrity (to speak nothing of parsimony) to vote it "not guilty" of those charges.
Atheism should rightly be pronounced (if language were susceptible to reason)
a- (with a minor accent) THE- (major accent) ism, to display the fact that it is a
not holding theism as a belief, rather than the current accent-on-the-first-syllable
word that makes it sound as though we worship the gawd Athey.
There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
That's variable, depending on what gawd you want. Most of the ones we ever hear about
are self-refuting by virtue of their proposed attributes, but that's a bit of an advanced
topic for this stage of the discussion.
The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove
You couldn't be more tragically, comically wrong. I have absolutely nothing to prove;
decency demands that you accept my word that I don't believe in any gods. That's
the thing that makes me an atheist, just as your believing that there are gods makes
you a theist (and not, for instance, your having any proof that your mental cartoon
corresponds to the ultimate reality.)
since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Oh? I assert emphatically that you are not posting as a sincere atheist.
How hard would that be to prove?
I could also prove that there are no frozen elephants-on-a-stick in my freezer
right now, merely by looking there (though *you* would be deprived of certainty.)
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth
No, no. I already corrected you about that. My beliefs (and disbeliefs) are as I claim
they are, without any duty to prove that that is how I believe. I am not interested in
developing proof that I'm "right" in everything that I do or do not believe, since this
would take up all the time it takes to live my life, leaving me with no time to *live*
it. Yanno what? My position on the correctness or wrongness of your gawd-beliefs is
a fair deal less important to me in my daily living than whether the pizza-delivery boy
brings the product sticking to the top of the box.
and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Oh pooh! How much faith do you need to not believe the claim I now announce, that
your mother's gynecologist's realtor's pet vole is currently sitting in the room with me,
drinking beer? Are you not content merely to shrug and say that it doesn't seem
probable enough to be aroused enough to care, one way or the other? Do you have to
risk an aneurism getting all hot and bothered about how my claim could be defintively
disproven? Can you not simply regard it as a crank claim, or at best, a conceit?
(Everyone is the poster's mother's gynecologist's realtor's vole The poster's mother's
gynecologist's realtor's vole is *love*.)
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Aug 2005 05:05:37 AM |
|
|
I seem to be doing quite well.
I'm a happy, law abiding, generally well liked individual.
Shame you can't say the same.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 08:51:37 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:12:03 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious
Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism.
That's because none are needed. It's not a faith--it's a
conclusion based on the complete lack of evidence for the theistic
side.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 01:18:20 AM |
|
|
In article <ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
"~Glorious Sensation~" <inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
How do you disprove a negative? Prove to me that there are no invisible
little green men living in caves 100 miles underneath the surface of
Mars. Go ahead.
Atheism is lack of belief gods, period. I see no evidence for the
existence of gods, therefore no reason to believe in, let alone worship
them.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 08:50:04 PM |
|
|
In episode <ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Sensation~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
Is Atheism viable?
For *what?
Where do you idiots get this nonsense?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing
in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given
to atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
Duh you can't prove a negative. What's that to do with anything?
<snip remaining tripe>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 08:06:26 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In episode <ddtvcj$o2n$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, ~Glorious
Sensation~ burst into the room and exclaimed:
Is Atheism viable?
For *what?
Where do you idiots get this nonsense?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing
in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given
to atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
Duh you can't prove a negative. What's that to do with anything?
It has to do with the fact that they can't prove their positive assertions
about God. They are forbidden by their scriptures to even try. Therefore, it is
OF COURSE necessary for those who disagree with the theist assertions about God
to prove *their* point. God has spoken, QED.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be
mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not
consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists
in professing to believe what one does not believe. It
is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may
so express it, that mental lying has produced in society.
When man has so far corrupted and prostituted the
chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional
belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared
himself for the commission of every other crime."
- Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 09:52:56 PM |
|
|
Theists can see atheists, athiests can see theists. Why is it that
only believers can see God? It seems that He would make Himself known
to non-believers to save them, since this is his objective.
Why would God welcome a repentant mass murderer or child abuser,
(Catholics take notice), before he accepts a person who's lead a moral
life without believing?
Is God a sociopath playing a perverse game of reverse psychology?
.
|
|
|
| User: "john r howell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 12:31:35 AM |
|
|
You will never be allowed in the "House Of God" You have committed
the worst sin. You are thinking outside the box. Otherwise you are using
logic and reason, and that is no-no for true believers. St John the
Atheist
<janospetrik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124247176.842230.77320@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Theists can see atheists, athiests can see theists. Why is it that
only believers can see God? It seems that He would make Himself known
to non-believers to save them, since this is his objective.
Why would God welcome a repentant mass murderer or child abuser,
(Catholics take notice), before he accepts a person who's lead a moral
life without believing?
Is God a sociopath playing a perverse game of reverse psychology?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 07:47:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:12:03 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Sensation~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
No, moron - WE'RE JUST PEOPLE WHO AREN'T THEIST. Why is this so hard
for you to grasp?
It's only a position in the imagination of those too stupid to
understand that it is the absence of their theistic position.
Because if you kept your yap shut about it nobody would give a toss.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
It's not our problem, moron.
No matter how seriously you take it, the world does not revolve around
your religion.
[rest of this stupidity, dishonesty and libel deleted]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 10:53:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:12:03 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Sensation~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is Atheism viable?
It is indeed. In fact, given the available objective evidence, or more to the
point, the lack of it, atheism is the *only* intellectually viable position.
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. As such, it's no more a
negative position than the lack of belief in elves, fairies or unicorns. It is,
in fact, the logical default. Truth be told, if Christians were content to mind
their own business and let non-Christians, including atheists, mind ours, our
lack of belief would have no significant impact on your lives at all. It's only
when Christians attempt to force their religion where it doesn't belong (as so
many of them do, and as you are doing here) that religious belief or the lack of
it becomes an issue.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
You seem to be missing the point here, Spike. The burden of proof isn't on the
atheist. It's on the one claiming that a god exists. And so far, I haven't seen
anything that could even remotely be considered proof from anyone on that side
of the fence.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Nor are there any proofs that there *is* a God. The atheist's position is not
based on faith, but rather on the fact that when no evidence can be presented to
indicate that a proposition is true, there is no logical reason to accept it as
true. Be it gods, leprechauns, vampires or the Loch Ness Monster, if the ones
claiming the existence of these things cannot back up their claims with
convincing objective evidence, there's no rational reason to believe them.
And that, my friend, is what it all comes down to. You're saying God exists.
We're saying we don't believe you. It's that simple. We don't believe your
claims because to date you've presented no empirical proof of them, and as long
as that complete lack of corroborating evidence persists, the atheist position
is logically unassailable. No matter how hard you try, there is no way you can
ever logically prove us wrong. The only way to do that is by presenting real,
testable empirical evidence that your god, or indeed any god, in fact exists.
You've been striking out for 2000 years. I don't expect a grand slam any time
soon.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
Perhaps if the "evidence" for theistic claims was actually based on objective
data rather than subjective interpretation and wishful thinking, it wouldn't be
so easily refuted.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy,
Cite even one.
Jesus' resurrection,
Which everyone other than the authors of your holy book seems to have missed.
the Transcendental
Argument,
Which is fatally flawed from the start and convincing only to one who already
believes.
the entropy problem, etc.
There is no entropy problem. By that statement, you prove nothing beyond your
own lack of knowledge.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God's
existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
Yet another lame attempt to shift the burden of proof duly noted.
I don't know about you, Sparky, but I'd say that when countless believers have
tried and failed for 2000 years to present any such evidence, it's time to throw
in the towel.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity.
Here's a novel idea, Spike. Perhaps if you left us alone, we'd leave you alone.
Worth a shot, eh?
It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum.
Claims for which they have never in the history of their religion been able to
present the slightest shred of objective evidence.
They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
Self-righteous ad hominem noted, as is your total failure to present any
evidence whatsoever for your own position.
BTW, I hate to keep harping on this evidence thing, Sunshine, but that's what
it's all about. Evidence. And you have none. Only belief, which proves nothing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 08:45:46 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:12:03 +0000 (UTC), "~Glorious Sensation~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is Atheism viable?
Yes: it is, in fact, the default position, until theists present a
shred of evidence to support their claims that some kind of deity
exists. Until then, there is no rational reason to believe in such a
thing.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
18 Aug 2005 06:46:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:12:03 +0000, ~Glorious Sensation~ wrote:
Is Atheism viable?
Judging from the posts here (alt.atheism), the average atheist is way
better off than the average theist. If I were a theist, I would be more
worried if theism is viable. It certainly doesn't have a very enviable
track record so far....
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
16 Aug 2005 08:25:20 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet ~Glorious Sensation~
(inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Is Atheism viable?
Holy Jesus Shitcrackers, here we go again. OK, I'll play.
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not
believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not
exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever
flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.
Christianity is a death cult. It was founded over the fear of death.
But it fails to prepare its followers for the inevitable, choosing
instead to lie to them, asserting that they will live forever. This
comes down from the highest of all authorities, of course, a guy in a
dress with a pointed hat.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since
you can't prove a negative regarding God's existence.
In discussions with Christians, I have never seen one iota of the
bountiful evidence they claim exists in their god's favor. They all talk
of their "experience" with gawd, or how "gawd" answered their prayers,
yet they can not reproduce this experience in front of a witness or video
camera.
Of course, that
isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that
God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably
insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the
universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is
no God? You can't. Besides, if there were a proof of God's
non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we
don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or
denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if
not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are
no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by
faith.
How does a Christian prove his god exists? See those trees over there?
Those are his work. Look in the mirror, do you see your eyeball? I
can't imagine how something that complex can evolve in any amount of
time, so there must be a god. The earth's atmosphere is made up of
exactly the right compounds that we need to sustain life, gawd made it
just for us. Just like he made that hole over there exactly the right
size for the puddle it contains. Isn't life a miracle?
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the
basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and
negate any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give
intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an
evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their
position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the
negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its
self-justification to self-proclaimed life.
Christians, of course, cannot co-exist with others who do not agree with
their faith. The very idea that someone could believe in "something
else" causes a serious cloud of doubt to be cast over their own weak
faith. This is why they strike out in anger against those who differ
from them, as there can only be one true faith for salvation. The funny
thing is, the Catholics insist they are the one true faith, and so do the
Protestants, the Baptists, the Mormons, and the Fundamentalists.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility.
In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating
that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that
it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there
is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually
defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a
possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on
nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is
not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their
atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There
is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream
factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon
and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
Christians have many so-called evidences for their god, as discussed
previously, but their most profound evidence comes from their scripture
itself. This is the part of their doctrine that I find the most
entertaining, since not one of them realizes they are using the stories
in the bible to prove other stories in the bible without connecting any
of it to reality. And they are blind to the fact that I could use the
same reasoning to prove that clowns can turn into large spiders by
quoting chapter and verse from Stephen King's "It".
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences
for God's
existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an
eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage.
Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God
does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is
intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that
there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They
cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot
know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the
atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences
presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must
acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been
undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would
make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can
only be skeptical of God's existence.
Christians love to strike out angrily at atheists, asking them to supply
proof that there is no god. Yet another logical fallacy is introduced
here, as they are the ones making the claim that there is a god that
needs to be disproven. This fallacy is known as Circulus In
Demonstrando, where the premise of their argument is assumed, then used
as evidence to arrive at the same conclusion. Christians think their god
is as real as a doggy in a pet store window. In presupposing the
existence of their god their fantasy world becomes real to them, and they
cannot figure out how anyone can have the audacity to deny it.
Therefore, atheists, to them, must be regarded as evil minions of Satan,
another of their presupposed characters.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like
the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it:
themselves.
Of course, your average Christian is not really interested in attacking
atheists or members of other Christian faiths as a moral issue. It's a
very personal one. After all, it's all about personal salvation by
believing in a personal savior. They are only interested in getting
themselves into heaven, and making sure that the heaven they get into
does not contain souls that are different from them. This is why they
invented hell, a celestial slum, so to speak, where they can mentally
dispose of all those who have crossed them. Ask a Christian some time,
if you dare, if a member of their family converts to Islam, where will
they go when they die?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
______________
'03 XVS650A
'04 XVS1100
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
19 Aug 2005 12:01:06 AM |
|
|
Christians, of course, cannot co-exist with others who do not agree
with
their faith. The very idea that someone could believe in "something
else" causes a serious cloud of doubt to be cast over their own weak
faith. This is why they strike out in anger against those who differ
from them, as there can only be one true faith for salvation. The
funny
thing is, the Catholics insist they are the one true faith, and so do
the
Protestants, the Baptists, the Mormons, and the Fundamentalists.
This sounds more like Islam than anything else.
Christians don't advocate killing people who don't agree with their
delusions. (At least not for the last few hundred years, pro-lifers
excepted).
Islam preaches it daily, in every mosque around the world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
17 Aug 2005 01:26:26 AM |
|
|
~Glorious Sensation~ wrote:
After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe?
<sigh>
Which god?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Atheism viable? |
03 Sep 2005 02:01:42 PM |
|
|
~Glorious Sensation~ wrote:
Is Atheism viable?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in
a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise
any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to
atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the
validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in
atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you
can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to
say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not
exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all,
how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in
all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there
were a proof of God's non-existence, then atheists would be continually
using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting
atheism or denying God's existence. The atheist position is very difficult,
if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative.
Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheism's truth and there are no
proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of
adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate
any evidences presented for God's existence in order to give intellectual
credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in
which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more
intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and
evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed
life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually
defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In
other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that
something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise
to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream
factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a
position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at
all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being
a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for
atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more
than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there
really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step
up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice
cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as
fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental
Argument, the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for God's
existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness
testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism
cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there
is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At
best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God
so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because
the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At
best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been
insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented
in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there
may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the
existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an
agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of God's existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because
Christianity makes very high claims concerning God's existence which
challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the
vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
--
Most of my quotes are from:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm
http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ http://www.christianquotes.org/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Let no one be found among you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination
or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who
is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deut 18:10
http://www.christiananswers.net/
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGH, one more troll.
Why do they so hate atheists?
Dude, have you never heard of "live and let live"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
