The Absurdity of Atheism

[Charlemagne_III]

If you tell me “God doesn’t exist! We weren’t created, we always just…were!” You absolutely have the burden of proof to show me why that’s so. A lack of belief is still a belief. You can use alien examples all you want, but the person making the claim has the burden of proof.

I agree. The burden of proof goes both ways for any contrary claims.

A claim that the universe is infinite requires as much proof as the claim that it is finite.

But the infinity of the universe and the non-existence of God are equally unprovable.

Whereas the existence of a finite universe and God has been demonstrated over and over.

You may disagree with the proofs, but they at least offer themselves as plausible propositions, whereas we cannot even begin to prove the infinity of the universe or the non-existence of God.

 

[owr39]

I agree. The burden of proof goes both ways for any contrary claims.

A claim that the universe is infinite requires as much proof as the claim that it is finite.

But the infinity of the universe and the non-existence of God are equally unprovable.

Whereas the existence of a finite universe and God has been demonstrated over and over.

You may disagree with the proofs, but they at least offer themselves as plausible propositions, whereas we cannot even begin to prove the infinity of the universe or the non-existence of God.

Exactly. They are both unprovable. Which is why the burden of proof argument falls flat in a debate like this.

 

[Bradski]

Seems that last post of mine was something of a waste of my time typing it.

If you tell me "God doesn’t exist…!’

I won’t. I promise. See if you can find anyone on this forum who will. I’d be interested to have a chat with him or her about it.

A lack of belief is still a belief.

As you will. But don’t forget to let me know when you find someone.

 

[owr39]

Seems that last post of mine was something of a waste of my time typing it.

I won’t. I promise. See if you can find anyone on this forum who will. I’d be interested to have a chat with him or her about it.

As you will. But don’t forget to let me know when you find someone.

I’m not looking for anyone bud. I’m using it as an example to your alien example. However, if I do find someone, I won’t pester them with giving me a burden of proof. I’m totally fine with agreeing to disagree.

 

[tonyrey]

An appeal to ignorance is hardly an “awesome” explanation…

To base one’s entire life on the dogmatic assumption that** there is no God **undoubtedly amounts to an appeal to ignorance - and that is the direct consequence of ignoring the significance of a lack of knowledge. Negations are often far more significant than affirmations. Atheism is based on a defective scientific hypothesis such as “The universe explains itself”. You have given the game away by referring to God as “the Flying Spaghetti Monster (aka God)”. Your sarcasm is a trap which has caught you by exposing your irrational rejection of theism!

Quite to the contrary… it invokes and encourages further investigation instead of dogmatically asserting that an “unknowable being, using unimaginable ways made it somehow happen”. That IS an appeal to ignorance. Admitting the lack of knowledge (e.g. about the origin of abiogenesis) is NOT an appeal to ignorance. On the other hand to argue that SINCE we don’t have an explanation to its origin and therefore we presume that it MUST have been “created” by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (aka God) IS an argument from ignorance. Just a friendly help to make sure that next time you will not make such an elementary mistake.

The dogmatism exists in your imagination. The Church has always insisted on the importance of faith based on Revelation rather than scientific theories whereas you imply that science alone is ultimately capable of explaining the existence of not only persons but also the entire universe. The elementary mistake is committed by those who dogmatically insist that **belief in God is equivalent to belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster **as if there is no doubt whatsoever that atheism is true! It doesn’t pay to be sarcastic…

 

[tonyrey]

To assert there is no God is a dogmatic assertion if ever there was one!

Atheists disagree on details but they are united in their dogmatic assertion that there is no God.

Nope. Many, if not most, atheists do not make such an assertion. The only thing that is common to atheists is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

But I and several other contributors have pointed this out to you and others on this thread on several occasions. I can’t understand your continued refusal to accept this, and your repeated mis-representation of what atheism is, unless it’s intended to deliberately provoke. But perhaps you can explain the reason.I would agree.

. It was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed out that in life it is impossible to sit on the fence and remain uncommitted. In practice atheists** ignore** the possibility that God exists. Otherwise they would pray on the off-chance of being heard. “By their fruits you shall know them…” Or in King Lear’s words “Nothing shall come of nothing”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As you will. But don’t forget to let me know when you find someone.

With every post you yourself tell us there is no God with the “atheist” after your name.

 

[Solmyr]

A lack of belief is still a belief.

If that would be true then being bald would be a hairstyle…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If you tell me that you believe that we have been visited by aliens, then I will probably ask you why you believe that. There must be some evidence otherwise you wouldn’t hold the belief. If I don’t think that the evidence is convincing, I won’t believe it myself.
But it would then be fairly ridiculous for you to demand from me in response for evidence that we haven’t been visited by aliens. I wouldn’t have evidence that we haven’t been visited (exceptionally difficult to furnish) - it’s simply that you haven’t offered acceptable evidence for it having happened.
However, having said that, if I were to stand on a street corner with a placard saying: ‘God does not Exist’, then you would be quite within your rights to ask me for proof.
It might be a good idea, when conversing with atheists, if you ask them at the outset if they would be prepared to take over holding the placard for a while.
I don’t know any atheist, certainly all the one’s I know on this forum, who would be prepared to do so.

I am not on UFO forums calling myself an aalienist.
Nor do I frequent atheist forums telling people that they have no evidence that there is no God.
I don’t stand on street corners with placards and I am sure no one else here does.

The point of this thread is to address the observation that any attempt to justify atheism sounds absurd.
You don’t say you have no religious affiliation; you say you are an atheist.
But you give no reason for calling yourself that other than that you have not had any convincing proof that there is a God.
Let me state it in my own way. God involves a relationship. He is perfect relationality in Himself as the Trinity. I’ve lost you already: I know it.
You don’t want to know God and claim that there is no proof.
So, why do you continue to bang your head against the Catholic wall?
This is absurd to the nth degree.

Religion is all about the growing of one’s relationship with the Divine.
There are many different ways this is accomplished by different people in different cultures in search of the one living and eternal Truth, which is beautiful and good.

There is no argument possible when one is intent on learning.
It is a matter of listening and attempting to understand, trying to gain a greater perspective and deeper insight into one’s own nature and That from which one’s existence is grounded.

 

[inocente]

If you tell me “God doesn’t exist! We weren’t created, we always just…were!” You absolutely have the burden of proof to show me why that’s so. A lack of belief is still a belief. You can use alien examples all you want, but the person making the claim has the burden of proof.

You allege here that Bradski said we always just were. Suppose Bradski says he doesn’t believe you, he never said that, and takes you to court.

Are you saying the judge would tell Bradski that as he’s the one who lacks belief, he must somehow prove he never said it, ever? Or do you think the judge would instead ask you to quote the post in which you claim he said it?

I mean I’ve no idea whether Bradski ever said it, I’m interested in your logic on burden of proof. btw I think the thread has shown again that there’s no way to prove or disprove the existence of God,

 

[Solmyr]

You allege here that Bradski said we always just were. Suppose Bradski says he doesn’t believe you, he never said that, and takes you to court.

Are you saying the judge would tell Bradski that as he’s the one who lacks belief, he must somehow prove he never said it, ever? Or do you think the judge would instead ask you to quote the post in which you claim he said it?

I mean I’ve no idea whether Bradski ever said it,** I’m interested in your logic on burden of proof**.

I had to remember this wonderful exchange from Heller’s “Catch 22”, which almost perfectly mirrors the problem at hand: goodreads.com/quotes/418411-just-what-the-hell-did-you-mean-you-bastard-when

“Just what the hell did you mean, you bastard, when you said we couldn’t punish you?" said the corporal who could take shorthand reading from his steno pad.

“All right,” said the colonel. “Just what the hell did you mean?”

“I didn’t say you couldn’t punish me, sir.”

“When,” asked the colonel.

“When what, sir?”

“Now you’re asking me questions again.”

“I’m sorry, sir. I’m afraid I don’t understand your question.”

“When didn’t you say we couldn’t punish you? Don’t you understand my question?”

“No, sir, I don’t understand.”

“You’ve just told us that. Now suppose you answer my question.”

“But how can I answer it?”

“That’s another question you’re asking me.”

“I’m sorry, sir. But I don’t know how to answer it. I never said you couldn’t punish me.”

“Now you’re telling us what you did say. I’m asking you to tell us when you didn’t say it.”

Clevinger took a deep breath. "I always didn’t say you couldn’t punish me, sir.”

To ask to “disprove” God’s existence is about as nonsensical as to ask: “when didn’t you say something”… There are at least two different types of logic: “1) human logic and 2) military logic”. Looks like the “military logic” is not restricted to the military alone.

 

[NM505StKate]

I don’t know where to start in reply because I missed a page of responses. Umm Morning everyone!

 

[clem456]

I had to remember this wonderful exchange from Heller’s “Catch 22”, which almost perfectly mirrors the problem at hand: goodreads.com/quotes/418411-just-what-the-hell-did-you-mean-you-bastard-when

To ask to “disprove” God’s existence is about as nonsensical as to ask: “when didn’t you say something”… There are at least two different types of logic: “1) human logic and 2) military logic”. Looks like the “military logic” is not restricted to the military alone.

For you and Bradski, Kate (who may or may not be Catholic but posts as an atheist)
I come to this forum to proclaim my sig line below. I believe it is the best news for every person and every person should hear it and understand it.

Why. are. you. here ?
That seems like a fair and honest question that should elicit a simple and direct answer.

 

[owr39]

You allege here that Bradski said we always just were. Suppose Bradski says he doesn’t believe you, he never said that, and takes you to court.

Are you saying the judge would tell Bradski that as he’s the one who lacks belief, he must somehow prove he never said it, ever? Or do you think the judge would instead ask you to quote the post in which you claim he said it?

I mean I’ve no idea whether Bradski ever said it, I’m interested in your logic on burden of proof. btw I think the thread has shown again that there’s no way to prove or disprove the existence of God,

The waters are getting muddy here. Before I was even in this discussion I felt the definitions were pretty simple…

Theist - You believe in God. You believe we have a creator.

Agnostic - You aren’t sure if God exists. Unsure how we were created.

Atheist - You believe God doesn’t exist. You believe we don’t have a creator.

Can we agree that those are pretty acceptable definitions?

Claiming you’re an Atheist and your argument is either “There isn’t enough proof.” or “I don’t know” is the same as a Theist saying their proof is “My faith”.

I agree, nobody can win this argument. Which is why I think it’s funny someone is repeatedly demanding proof.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . To ask to “disprove” God’s existence is about as nonsensical as to ask: “when didn’t you say something”… There are at least two different types of logic: “1) human logic and 2) military logic”. Looks like the “military logic” is not restricted to the military alone.

One builds a relationship with God and becoming more Christ-like thereby comes to know Him as Father. That’s the short of it.

Atheists here are saying they have thus labelled themselves because they have no proof of His existence.

People have responded that you know Him through a relationship, guided by the Holy Spirit.
It is personal and shared through His Church.
To which the reply is “prove it”.

The proof is given as personal testimony, and by reference to scripture.and tradition.
Without taking any steps along that bridge which God has provided, at least the atheists who post here say that it makes no sense.
The proof is not considered valid.

How can one prove that there exist colours to those who refuse to open their eyes?

In the end one resorts to, “You prove there isn’t.”
Of course this causes a scandal among the atheists, stating the obvious that one cannot prove the nonexistence of God.
Wouldn’t this be a reason not to be an atheist, if atheism is held to be based on reason and not faith?

The logic in Catch 22, the way I see it, represents atheistic logic.

 

[DrTaffy]

For you and Bradski, Kate (who may or may not be Catholic but posts as an atheist)

Reminder, from the forum guidelines:

It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs

I come to this forum to proclaim my sig line below.

Extraordinary thing to do.

Why come to ‘proclaim’ that to people who by definition already believe it? Granted, there are other faiths here, but you seem rather hostile to our presence.

Why. are. you. here ?
That seems like a fair and honest question that should elicit a simple and direct answer.

I cannot answer for them, but is it so hard to believe that discussing your views with those who do not share them might be more productive than discussing them with those that do?

 

[clem456]

Reminder, from the forum guidelines:

Perhaps you’ve noticed we have a person identifying as a Catholic while making stridently atheistic posts.
Have you noticed that? Or do the rules only apply to a-atheists, and not atheists?

Why come to ‘proclaim’ that to people who by definition already believe it? Granted, there are other faiths here, but you seem rather hostile to our presence.

I just think it’s good to have honest discussion. Is that difficult?

I cannot answer for them, but is it so hard to believe that discussing your views with those who do not share them might be more productive than discussing them with those that do?

That would be great.
Again. Honest discussion.
If atheists don’t believe, why are you here?

 

[NM505StKate]

I like honest discussion. I am enjoying the way this is flowing. I question because it is fair to do so. One should seek the truth yes? Then why the conflict?

 

[Aloysium]

Questioning the label a person applies to themselves is not questioning the sincerity of their beliefs. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . .

 

[Nixbits]

owr39:

Atheist - You believe God doesn’t exist. You believe we don’t have a creator.
Can we agree that those are pretty acceptable definitions?

How can you seriously ask this question when, in post after post, people have pointed out that this is not the definition of ‘atheist’ that they themselves use?
I am an atheist and no, I don’t agree with your definition.

clem456:

If atheists don’t believe, why are you here?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am here to learn more about the religion in which I was raised, and to try to understand why theists believe what they believe.