(no subject)
Stupid people piss me off
And no, I don't mean "Believing in God" is stupid.
EDIT 1:
I realize that you guys probably won't be able to see this.
Basically, Devin posted something from a book which he claimed refuted atheism, and in the comments went on to say that atheism is a religion, and that atheism said it was OK to lie, steal and kill.
EDIT 2: Fuck it, here's the whole post:
Pulled from the book Christianity for Skeptics:
Standard arguments employed by atheistic apologists:
1. The existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil.
This objection does not logically deny the existence of God but merely questions or challenges God's character or means of operation. The existence of evil is not compatible with the existence of God. There is no logical contradiction. In order to make a contradiction the atheist must introduce new premises or assumptions. The atheist presumes a world view because of a prior assumption which he entertains which is, "Evil should not exist with God." This assumption "begs the question."
Devin's note: I should also point out that along with this, I found a striking argument for Christianity pertaining to evil in this book:
A world where nothing could go wrong would in fact be a world without God.
Think about it ;) (and this notion is what made C.S. Lewis convert to Christianity!)
2. God is a projection of man's imagination.
This objection invented by Feuerbach and popularized by Freud is without substance. The argument is guilty of committing the "genetic fallacy." In the genetic fallacy one seeks to discredit a view by merely going to its origin. One does not disprove a belief by merely going back and describing how that belief originated. You do not refute a belief by simply dating it or explaining its origin. The psychological objection is not a logical explanatin but a logical fallacy.
3. Since God cannot be scientifically demonstrated, God cannot exist.
The person who seeks to refute God on the basis of science commits the fallacy of reductionism or scientism. To test God on the basis of science is to use a false criterion. Science is useful in testing a number of phenomena, but to suggest that God must fit the scientific dress is arbitrary and wrongheaded. Science is useful for testing some things but not all things. This objection is also guilty of committing the categorical fallacy, e.g. "Tell me, what is the taste of blue?" The person who argues all things must be tested by science is not able to test the assertion "All things must be tested by science." How does one test love, values, morals, logic, beauty, etc. scientifically?
4. People believe in God because they are culturally conditioned.
This argument if taken to its logical conclusion would not only refute Chrisitanity but also the atheistic beliefs. The person who advocates this assumption must also be prepared to be judged by this principle. If all beliefs are conditioned, then the unbeliever is also conditioned not to believe. This is a two-edged sword which will not only kill your enemy but will also kill you. The atheists cannot claim special privileges and escape philosophical scrutiny. To suggest that only religious people have hang-ups is to propose a false psychology, a quesionable sociology, and an unverified scientific theory.
5. The idea of God is nonsensical like the idea of square-circles.
This is a straw man argument. The person defines God arbitrarily and subjectively, that God is equivalent to a square circle. Such a move is really in essence building a straw man: in this method you define your opponent's position conveniently in order to shoot him down. To suggest that God is like a square circle is arbitrary. The atheist has no logical or epistemological ground for making this assumption.
6. If God made the world who made God?
This objection presupposes that God hada beginning. The argument "Everything has a cuase, God is a thing, therefore God must have a cause" is a simple version of another "straw man" argument. Here the atheist subjectively and arbitrarily equates God to the order of the created and finite thing. By setting God up on the level of the created, the atheist insists that God must have a cause too. From a logical point of view, "Everything that begins has a cause," but not as the atheists irrationally argue, "Everything must have a cause." Only finite beings and effects need causes; God by definition and essence is not an effect or something made. God is the unmade eternal Creator of the universe. To argue that an unmade being is a contradiction, the atheist must explain how one could maintain the concept of an "uncaused universe." What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
7. Since there is no evidence of God's existence, God does not exist.
The logical response to this objection is to first examine the nature of evidence - what constitutes evidence. Since there is a great amount of dispute as to what is legitimate evidence, we must first settle the issue of evidence. Since the nature and existence of God is unlike any other issue or category, one must approach God's existence axiomatically. If God is the basic ground of reality, then the issue of God's existence is not on the same plane as the issue of the existence of finite elements like humans and potatoes. For example, take the nature of air: debating the existence of God, in a sense, is like debating the existence of air while breathing. If God is the crator of the universe, then he is the necessary pre-condition for all of reality. If God exists, he is the essential element for all existence.
^^^And there is substantial evidence that supports this, both scientifically and historically.^^^
Bring on the debates!
Chris Truex
All this this means is that you can't disprove some sort of god. It also means you can't PROVE it. Congratulations, you're an agnostic. Or a Deist.
The argument for atheism is this: prove it. Theists are the ones making the claim, that God exists. The onus of proof is on the claimant, not on the skeptic. Atheists hold that in a situation that lacks proof, they have no reason to believe. That's not to say that God doesn't exist, but you are starting with the baseline of: God exists, and atheists disbelieve that. An atheist begins with the fact that there is no evidence of God; the believer must provide a reason for the atheist to believe.... Read More
Therefore, number seven is completely wrong. The statement isn't that since there is no evidence of God's existence, therefore God does not exist. The REAL argument is that since there is no evidence of God's existence, there is no reason to believe. Completely different, and a difference often missed by believers.
David Evans
I gotta agree with Chris
Valerie Paul Lifer
but an athiest starts out with a believe that is never proved - the belief that God does not exist. evidence is arbitary. if you look at early/ancient cultures they all have a store about a flood covered the entire earth and only one family who had listened to Someone had built a big boat and had survived.
athiest are making a claim, if you are... Read More an athiest you have a belief system of your own - prove that! instead of trying to dis-prove someone else's belief system why don't you try to prove your own - prove that there is no Superme Being, prove that we all came from soup or a giant comet, prove what you believe and you will find that you probably don't believe in what athiests actually do believe in. athiesism is a religion - it is a belief system.
David Evans
Valerie, we are not attempting to get into a theological/philosophical debate. Chris merely commented on something that was flawed in its own right (the logic of Devin's post). Neither of us are trying to change your beliefs nor do we even want to. As far as your comment on "the flood" story, I am well versed in classics (not to say I know all, ... Read Morebecause I don't), but it is discussed in some of those classes, the parallels between the Christian beliefs and those that pre-date Christianity. The flood was something that was first noted around 2000 BCE and we cannot be sure that they did not get the story from other Sumerians, just as many subsequent religions have also noted it. Now this does not prove that there was no flood, but instead I am saying that this was recorded at least 2 millennia before Christian documents, making it hearsay. Once again we are not attacking religious individuals because we do not care (noting that neither us us are atheists, but rather agnostics).
Devin Martin
No disrespect Chris and David, but what I don't get is how you two who both admit that they are agnostic are so adamant about supporting atheism, a RELIGION. If you two are so bent out of shape to supprt atheism so much, why don't you become atheists then? And does really living a life without a belief in God really much better? REALLY? I've been ... Read Moredown that road before, it's not worth it, believe me.
By the way, your circular arguments don't amount to snuff. And Chris, if you can so confidently disprove the Christian argument for #7, then why didn't you disprove points #1-6?
Chris Truex
Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of one. They see no evidence for God, thus they do not believe. I have a few quibbles, but it's a fairly small debate.
I don't become an atheist because I disagree that you can conclude that there is no God. I don't personally believe in God, but that doesn't mean that there CAN'T be. But I digress.
I ... Read Moredidn't bother addressing those other points because they have jack diddily to do with Christianity. All those have to do with some neutral, hands-off, Deist-style deity. Not a Christian God who grants prayers, does miracles, etc. I have never, EVER seen evidence of a God interacting with the physical world. And no, the paradolia of seeing "The Virgin Mary" burnt into toast doesn't count.
As to my life as a non believer, I'm doing just fine, thank you. I have good friends, good family, doing well in school, I've never been suicidal, I've never killed anyone, never felt a desire to steal or defame anyone. Frankly, I don't see what believing in a god would do to improve my life. I wasn't angry with God, or anything retarded like ... Read Morethat; I had a perfectly good experience with religion in my youth. I just realized that I couldn't rationalize believing in something without evidence.
Also, Devin, there were no circular arguments above. Don't know what you're talking about. Anywhoo, the quality of life after belief is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe believing that Ewoks live in my toilet would make my life better, but that doesn't mean that the belief is based in reality (and again, I don't agree that belief makes life better).
And Devin, pulling the old "if you love it so much, why don't you MARRY it" line out is pretty lame.
Devin Martin
First Chris, I'm not saying that if you "love" atheism so much line, but the comments make it almost abundantly clear that both you and David are adamant agnostics, albeit atheists.
Aside from that, the fact that you claim that you live a decent lifestlye proves that you are merely contradicting yourself, no matter if you're agnostic or not. Allow... Read More me to explain.
Under the religions (yes, they are BOTH religions, no matter how much you want to dispute them) of agnosticism or atheism, the general presumption is that there are no moral absolutes, that everything is relative. By admitting being an agnostic or whatever, you are contradicting yourself by saying that you've led a good life so far, good grades, never killed anyone, etc. By believing that there is no God, you are denouncing the fact that without God, there are no moral absolutes, so therefore, you are allowed to kill, steal, lie, etc. because your religion tells you you can.
However, by being an atheist, you are denying that such morals exist because there is no God to enforce them. So my question to you would be, what is keeping you from killing, stealing, lying, etc.? Laws made by man? Or is there SOME structure of absolute morality in your life? To you, there should be relative morality, but since that ... Read Moreis logically untrue, that cannot be. No matter how you slice it, the agnostic OR atheist is in contradiction with himself, not to mention having to know EVERYTHING to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist.
Even Einstein said that he only knows "one half of one percent" ;)
I posted
I am an atheist. I am so because, when confronted with the question after many years of thought on the matter, if I asked myself if I really actually believe in a supernatural supreme power called God, I could not honestly answer yes.
And no, it's not a religion. A religion is many things, while Atheism is a word that describes one specific thing... Read More, an absence of belief in deities. A better description for atheism is "Philosophical Theory". My belief structure is simply that I believe in the natural world with which I interact, and therefore if, as the above poster suggests, I need to "prove my beliefs" I can do so quite easily.
I am a bit taken aback that you say "You are allowed to kill, steal, lie, etc. because [atheism] tells you you can." This is completely ridiculous, as atheism doesn't tell anyone anything. It's a absence of a belief in a deity. It has no organization, structure, symbols, rules or texts to communicate morals or lessons.
I received in reply, from some random girl:
atheism is a religion - it is a set of beliefs. the belief in evolution, the belief that there is not a supreme being, the belief that there is nothing after life on this planet, the belief that your life is insignificant, the belief that there is no absolute morals - only what is personal or governmental percieved as right and wrong, the belief that life has no purpose, the belief that the universe has no purpose
I replied
No, it's not. It is a word that means one thing. No belief in a deity. The fact that your religion which includes supreme beings brings with it a host of other beliefs does not mean that atheism brings with it the opposite of all those beliefs.
a- is a prefix which means "without" or "no"
theism is a word which means "Belief in at least one deity"
A specific atheist may believe all or some of the things you listed, but as atheism is not a religion, he may believe few or none of them as well.
There is no "Atheist Bible" which lists the things atheists have to believe or adhere to. It just means we don't think there is a god. That's all. There is no implicit or explicit canon which all atheists adhere to.
And no, I don't mean "Believing in God" is stupid.
EDIT 1:
I realize that you guys probably won't be able to see this.
Basically, Devin posted something from a book which he claimed refuted atheism, and in the comments went on to say that atheism is a religion, and that atheism said it was OK to lie, steal and kill.
EDIT 2: Fuck it, here's the whole post:
Pulled from the book Christianity for Skeptics:
Standard arguments employed by atheistic apologists:
1. The existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil.
This objection does not logically deny the existence of God but merely questions or challenges God's character or means of operation. The existence of evil is not compatible with the existence of God. There is no logical contradiction. In order to make a contradiction the atheist must introduce new premises or assumptions. The atheist presumes a world view because of a prior assumption which he entertains which is, "Evil should not exist with God." This assumption "begs the question."
Devin's note: I should also point out that along with this, I found a striking argument for Christianity pertaining to evil in this book:
A world where nothing could go wrong would in fact be a world without God.
Think about it ;) (and this notion is what made C.S. Lewis convert to Christianity!)
2. God is a projection of man's imagination.
This objection invented by Feuerbach and popularized by Freud is without substance. The argument is guilty of committing the "genetic fallacy." In the genetic fallacy one seeks to discredit a view by merely going to its origin. One does not disprove a belief by merely going back and describing how that belief originated. You do not refute a belief by simply dating it or explaining its origin. The psychological objection is not a logical explanatin but a logical fallacy.
3. Since God cannot be scientifically demonstrated, God cannot exist.
The person who seeks to refute God on the basis of science commits the fallacy of reductionism or scientism. To test God on the basis of science is to use a false criterion. Science is useful in testing a number of phenomena, but to suggest that God must fit the scientific dress is arbitrary and wrongheaded. Science is useful for testing some things but not all things. This objection is also guilty of committing the categorical fallacy, e.g. "Tell me, what is the taste of blue?" The person who argues all things must be tested by science is not able to test the assertion "All things must be tested by science." How does one test love, values, morals, logic, beauty, etc. scientifically?
4. People believe in God because they are culturally conditioned.
This argument if taken to its logical conclusion would not only refute Chrisitanity but also the atheistic beliefs. The person who advocates this assumption must also be prepared to be judged by this principle. If all beliefs are conditioned, then the unbeliever is also conditioned not to believe. This is a two-edged sword which will not only kill your enemy but will also kill you. The atheists cannot claim special privileges and escape philosophical scrutiny. To suggest that only religious people have hang-ups is to propose a false psychology, a quesionable sociology, and an unverified scientific theory.
5. The idea of God is nonsensical like the idea of square-circles.
This is a straw man argument. The person defines God arbitrarily and subjectively, that God is equivalent to a square circle. Such a move is really in essence building a straw man: in this method you define your opponent's position conveniently in order to shoot him down. To suggest that God is like a square circle is arbitrary. The atheist has no logical or epistemological ground for making this assumption.
6. If God made the world who made God?
This objection presupposes that God hada beginning. The argument "Everything has a cuase, God is a thing, therefore God must have a cause" is a simple version of another "straw man" argument. Here the atheist subjectively and arbitrarily equates God to the order of the created and finite thing. By setting God up on the level of the created, the atheist insists that God must have a cause too. From a logical point of view, "Everything that begins has a cause," but not as the atheists irrationally argue, "Everything must have a cause." Only finite beings and effects need causes; God by definition and essence is not an effect or something made. God is the unmade eternal Creator of the universe. To argue that an unmade being is a contradiction, the atheist must explain how one could maintain the concept of an "uncaused universe." What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
7. Since there is no evidence of God's existence, God does not exist.
The logical response to this objection is to first examine the nature of evidence - what constitutes evidence. Since there is a great amount of dispute as to what is legitimate evidence, we must first settle the issue of evidence. Since the nature and existence of God is unlike any other issue or category, one must approach God's existence axiomatically. If God is the basic ground of reality, then the issue of God's existence is not on the same plane as the issue of the existence of finite elements like humans and potatoes. For example, take the nature of air: debating the existence of God, in a sense, is like debating the existence of air while breathing. If God is the crator of the universe, then he is the necessary pre-condition for all of reality. If God exists, he is the essential element for all existence.
^^^And there is substantial evidence that supports this, both scientifically and historically.^^^
Bring on the debates!
Chris Truex
All this this means is that you can't disprove some sort of god. It also means you can't PROVE it. Congratulations, you're an agnostic. Or a Deist.
The argument for atheism is this: prove it. Theists are the ones making the claim, that God exists. The onus of proof is on the claimant, not on the skeptic. Atheists hold that in a situation that lacks proof, they have no reason to believe. That's not to say that God doesn't exist, but you are starting with the baseline of: God exists, and atheists disbelieve that. An atheist begins with the fact that there is no evidence of God; the believer must provide a reason for the atheist to believe.... Read More
Therefore, number seven is completely wrong. The statement isn't that since there is no evidence of God's existence, therefore God does not exist. The REAL argument is that since there is no evidence of God's existence, there is no reason to believe. Completely different, and a difference often missed by believers.
David Evans
I gotta agree with Chris
Valerie Paul Lifer
but an athiest starts out with a believe that is never proved - the belief that God does not exist. evidence is arbitary. if you look at early/ancient cultures they all have a store about a flood covered the entire earth and only one family who had listened to Someone had built a big boat and had survived.
athiest are making a claim, if you are... Read More an athiest you have a belief system of your own - prove that! instead of trying to dis-prove someone else's belief system why don't you try to prove your own - prove that there is no Superme Being, prove that we all came from soup or a giant comet, prove what you believe and you will find that you probably don't believe in what athiests actually do believe in. athiesism is a religion - it is a belief system.
David Evans
Valerie, we are not attempting to get into a theological/philosophical debate. Chris merely commented on something that was flawed in its own right (the logic of Devin's post). Neither of us are trying to change your beliefs nor do we even want to. As far as your comment on "the flood" story, I am well versed in classics (not to say I know all, ... Read Morebecause I don't), but it is discussed in some of those classes, the parallels between the Christian beliefs and those that pre-date Christianity. The flood was something that was first noted around 2000 BCE and we cannot be sure that they did not get the story from other Sumerians, just as many subsequent religions have also noted it. Now this does not prove that there was no flood, but instead I am saying that this was recorded at least 2 millennia before Christian documents, making it hearsay. Once again we are not attacking religious individuals because we do not care (noting that neither us us are atheists, but rather agnostics).
Devin Martin
No disrespect Chris and David, but what I don't get is how you two who both admit that they are agnostic are so adamant about supporting atheism, a RELIGION. If you two are so bent out of shape to supprt atheism so much, why don't you become atheists then? And does really living a life without a belief in God really much better? REALLY? I've been ... Read Moredown that road before, it's not worth it, believe me.
By the way, your circular arguments don't amount to snuff. And Chris, if you can so confidently disprove the Christian argument for #7, then why didn't you disprove points #1-6?
Chris Truex
Atheism isn't a religion, it's a lack of one. They see no evidence for God, thus they do not believe. I have a few quibbles, but it's a fairly small debate.
I don't become an atheist because I disagree that you can conclude that there is no God. I don't personally believe in God, but that doesn't mean that there CAN'T be. But I digress.
I ... Read Moredidn't bother addressing those other points because they have jack diddily to do with Christianity. All those have to do with some neutral, hands-off, Deist-style deity. Not a Christian God who grants prayers, does miracles, etc. I have never, EVER seen evidence of a God interacting with the physical world. And no, the paradolia of seeing "The Virgin Mary" burnt into toast doesn't count.
As to my life as a non believer, I'm doing just fine, thank you. I have good friends, good family, doing well in school, I've never been suicidal, I've never killed anyone, never felt a desire to steal or defame anyone. Frankly, I don't see what believing in a god would do to improve my life. I wasn't angry with God, or anything retarded like ... Read Morethat; I had a perfectly good experience with religion in my youth. I just realized that I couldn't rationalize believing in something without evidence.
Also, Devin, there were no circular arguments above. Don't know what you're talking about. Anywhoo, the quality of life after belief is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Maybe believing that Ewoks live in my toilet would make my life better, but that doesn't mean that the belief is based in reality (and again, I don't agree that belief makes life better).
And Devin, pulling the old "if you love it so much, why don't you MARRY it" line out is pretty lame.
Devin Martin
First Chris, I'm not saying that if you "love" atheism so much line, but the comments make it almost abundantly clear that both you and David are adamant agnostics, albeit atheists.
Aside from that, the fact that you claim that you live a decent lifestlye proves that you are merely contradicting yourself, no matter if you're agnostic or not. Allow... Read More me to explain.
Under the religions (yes, they are BOTH religions, no matter how much you want to dispute them) of agnosticism or atheism, the general presumption is that there are no moral absolutes, that everything is relative. By admitting being an agnostic or whatever, you are contradicting yourself by saying that you've led a good life so far, good grades, never killed anyone, etc. By believing that there is no God, you are denouncing the fact that without God, there are no moral absolutes, so therefore, you are allowed to kill, steal, lie, etc. because your religion tells you you can.
However, by being an atheist, you are denying that such morals exist because there is no God to enforce them. So my question to you would be, what is keeping you from killing, stealing, lying, etc.? Laws made by man? Or is there SOME structure of absolute morality in your life? To you, there should be relative morality, but since that ... Read Moreis logically untrue, that cannot be. No matter how you slice it, the agnostic OR atheist is in contradiction with himself, not to mention having to know EVERYTHING to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist.
Even Einstein said that he only knows "one half of one percent" ;)
I posted
I am an atheist. I am so because, when confronted with the question after many years of thought on the matter, if I asked myself if I really actually believe in a supernatural supreme power called God, I could not honestly answer yes.
And no, it's not a religion. A religion is many things, while Atheism is a word that describes one specific thing... Read More, an absence of belief in deities. A better description for atheism is "Philosophical Theory". My belief structure is simply that I believe in the natural world with which I interact, and therefore if, as the above poster suggests, I need to "prove my beliefs" I can do so quite easily.
I am a bit taken aback that you say "You are allowed to kill, steal, lie, etc. because [atheism] tells you you can." This is completely ridiculous, as atheism doesn't tell anyone anything. It's a absence of a belief in a deity. It has no organization, structure, symbols, rules or texts to communicate morals or lessons.
I received in reply, from some random girl:
atheism is a religion - it is a set of beliefs. the belief in evolution, the belief that there is not a supreme being, the belief that there is nothing after life on this planet, the belief that your life is insignificant, the belief that there is no absolute morals - only what is personal or governmental percieved as right and wrong, the belief that life has no purpose, the belief that the universe has no purpose
I replied
No, it's not. It is a word that means one thing. No belief in a deity. The fact that your religion which includes supreme beings brings with it a host of other beliefs does not mean that atheism brings with it the opposite of all those beliefs.
a- is a prefix which means "without" or "no"
theism is a word which means "Belief in at least one deity"
A specific atheist may believe all or some of the things you listed, but as atheism is not a religion, he may believe few or none of them as well.
There is no "Atheist Bible" which lists the things atheists have to believe or adhere to. It just means we don't think there is a god. That's all. There is no implicit or explicit canon which all atheists adhere to.