Argument against atheism

[Apollo Rhetor]

I see these forums have many atheists. Atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" (WordNet). Agnosticism is "a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; 'agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence'" (WordNet).

Consider that:
1. No atheist knows everything
2. God could hide Himself in what people do not know
Therefore:
3. No atheist can know God does not exist in what they do not know

How can anyone rationally be an atheist? You have no proof that God does not exist in what you do not know. Therefore the closest to an atheist one can ever hope to rationally be is an agnostic.

I understand that many of you probably call yourselves atheists, insofar as you reject all the gods that you have heard of. That's a different story altogether. But, at the heart of it, atheism is an irrational position.

 

[DrLao]

Fine, we're agnostic. You win. What difference does it make?

 

[Fiendishjester]

The evidence going either way is subjective, and therefore it is not any more irrational to be an atheist than it is to be a Christian. If you look at your own WordNet definition, it says "a belief" that there is no God. Atheism derives somewhat from Agnosticism. Since God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven (with objective evidence), the only thing that remains is belief in that existence or nonexistence. If you choose to believe in a God, than you are a theist. If you choose not to believe in a God, than you are an atheist. In short, your position is based on the same rationality and logic as that of an atheist.

 

[MediocrityInAction]

The evidence going either way is subjective, and therefore it is not any more irrational to be an atheist than it is to be a Christian. If you look at your own WordNet definition, it says "a belief" that there is no God. Atheism derives somewhat from Agnosticism. Since God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven (with objective evidence), the only thing that remains is belief in that existence or nonexistence. If you choose to believe in a God, than you are a theist. If you choose not to believe in a God, than you are an atheist. In short, your position is based on the same rationality and logic as that of an atheist.

What he said.

 

[MediocrityInAction]

But as an addendum, would you agree that the primary, and sole true reason according to your logic, Tyreth, for believing in the Christisn god is faith? You invalidate other options with your argument. If my atheism is based on faith, then how can I be any less of an atheist than you are a Christian?

 

[Nathan David]

Since know Christian can know everything, you can't know that Odin doesn't exist.

See you in Niflheim.

 

[Ampmonster]

lol. that was funny.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

You know what, the bible is historically correct, scientifically correct, and archeologically correct but I realize that it doesn't mean anything to an atheist, as long as we christians cannot show them God then they will be content on not believing...I think we christians should stop arguing with them, it's getting useless. If they don't want to see the truth, then they won't no matter how many things that proves the bible, they will always find a way to say that that research is not valid. Just do as Jesus say and show love to everyone and love your neightbor as yourself. There is a reason he preached about LOVE. God bless each and every one of you.

 

[Ampmonster]

listen Atheists, faith in God works backwards from everything else. when your deciding what car to buy you learn everything you can about it, then decide.
With Faith, you go with God then things are revealed to you. you cant think all us believers are just nuts can you?

 

[Ampmonster]

Jesus is real I felt his presence jsut last night!!!!!!

 

[Jacey]

You know what, the bible is historically correct, scientifically correct, and archeologically correct

"pi is exactly 3"
-Professor from the Simpsons

 

[Nathan David]

You know what, the bible is historically correct

Not entirely

scientifically correct

It reflects the scientific knowledge of the time and place it was written (OT: a Jewish community in Babylon, 5th Century BC. NT: Judea and the Eastern Roman Empire, late 1st-early 2nd Century AD)

and archeologically correct

What does "archaeologically correct" mean? Some of the historical narratives in the Bible line up with archaeological finds, but others do not. There is no archaeological evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt or migrating from Egypt to Judea, for example. And archeology cannot confirm the stories of miracles.

 

[Nathan David]

"pi is exactly 3"
-Professor from the Simpsons

Don't forget insects having four legs, and hares chewing their cud.

 

[Arikay]

Others have pointed it out, but.

1) few atheists claim to know everything.
2) Yep, but so could unicorns, or Krishna.
3) No atheist can Know, but they can believe a god does not exist based on what they feel is a lack of evidence, and a lack of need.

I would say that wordnet needs better definitions.
Atheism is literally "without or lack of belief in god or gods"
The original form of agnostic is someone who does not know. It has later become someone who believes they can not know.

Most atheists are weak atheists, although ive begun saying Agnostic Atheists because people understand it more. They do not claim to know, they only claim to believe based on what they currently know.


daydreamergurl15: The bible is often not historically correct, scientifically correct or archeologically correct (that would go with historical I guess). The few times that it is, does not mean its anymore the truth when it comes to god than HarryPotter, afterall, London is a real city, but that doesn't mean Hogswart is a real place.

I see these forums have many atheists. Atheism is "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" (WordNet). Agnosticism is "a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; 'agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence'" (WordNet).

Consider that:
1. No atheist knows everything
2. God could hide Himself in what people do not know
Therefore:
3. No atheist can know God does not exist in what they do not know

How can anyone rationally be an atheist? You have no proof that God does not exist in what you do not know. Therefore the closest to an atheist one can ever hope to rationally be is an agnostic.

I understand that many of you probably call yourselves atheists, insofar as you reject all the gods that you have heard of. That's a different story altogether. But, at the heart of it, atheism is an irrational position.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

The evidence going either way is subjective, and therefore it is not any more irrational to be an atheist than it is to be a Christian. If you look at your own WordNet definition, it says "a belief" that there is no God. Atheism derives somewhat from Agnosticism. Since God's existence can neither be proven nor disproven (with objective evidence), the only thing that remains is belief in that existence or nonexistence.

It is far easier to prove something exists than it is to prove something doesn't exist. And in my mind, the rational evidence of God and the accuracy of the Bible is by far enough. But more on this soon:

NOTE: This is in response to another person, but related -

But as an addendum, would you agree that the primary, and sole true reason according to your logic, Tyreth, for believing in the Christisn god is faith? You invalidate other options with your argument. If my atheism is based on faith, then how can I be any less of an atheist than you are a Christian?

I notice your footnote makes a similar argument. You are using a false definition of faith, which unfortunately many Christians also hold to. There are two common meanings for faith:
1. Believing in something without proof - hence, needing faith because there is no proof
2. Trusting in something with proof - you have faith, because the thing has proved itself worthy of your trust

The second is the true, Christian, definition of faith. We trust in God and Christ precisely because they have proven themselves, not because they haven't.
A (hypothetical) example may be good. I have a friend who I have seen drive a rally car in many races, and he has demonstrated his skill in such a car. He never misses a corner, never scrapes a tree, and makes it around the track in record time. One day, a friend is kidnapped, and we must rescue this friend from the clutches of a villain before an hour has passed. My friend asks that he drives us through a forest of winding roads in his rally car. I agree. I put my faith in him - I trust him, because he has demonstrated himself able. Another definition, from Wordnet, for faith, "complete confidence in a person or plan etc".

So as you can see, I consider atheism to be far less rational. While my Christian faith is based on truth and evidence, yours you admit freely is based on not having proof - a guess that you have no idea is true or not. Which was my original argument.
I am not agnostic, so therefore I do not agree with the reasoning that we cannot prove or disprove God's existence. But this thread is not the place to discuss such proofs.

This is one of the reasons I find the little 'atheism' icon you have of a brain irritating, because I consider atheism to be an irrational position.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I would say that wordnet needs better definitions.
Atheism is literally "without or lack of belief in god or gods"
The original form of agnostic is someone who does not know. It has later become someone who believes they can not know.

Perhaps wordnet does not need better definitions, but rather you need to better describe your position to others. It seems to me that if you are of the opinion that you do not know, rather than you cannot know, then you could still call yourself agnostic and cause less confusion than if you label yourself atheist.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Don't forget insects having four legs, and hares chewing their cud.

Regarding pi, and all these other things, I'm surprised evolutionists make claims that creationists use arguments that have been proven wrong, but go on and do the same things themselves:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/494.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-151b.htm

But all this is beyond the scope of the thread topic.

 

[Arikay]

You misunderstand me.

My position: I dont know but I Believe that god does not exist, because of the lack of evidence (both physical and personal) and a lack of need.

The problem with the wordnet definitions is that they appear to only use the "strong" definitions of the words, when if fact there are commonly two positions.

Two that they left out,
-Weak atheism: A lack of belief in god.
This is closest to the break down of the word,
A = lack or without
The(theos) = god or gods
ism = belief

-Weak agnostic: I dont know.
(It should be noted, that weak and strong are rarly used for agnostic, but I have started using them, because there is a difference between "I dont know" and "I cant know")


Most atheists are weak atheists.

I am basically a weak atheist, but as I said before, I call myself agnostic atheist because of the confusion, but agnostic atheist is very similar to weak atheist.

Perhaps wordnet does not need better definitions, but rather you need to better describe your position to others. It seems to me that if you are of the opinion that you do not know, rather than you cannot know, then you could still call yourself agnostic and cause less confusion than if you label yourself atheist.

 

[Philosoft]

So as you can see, I consider atheism to be far less rational. While my Christian faith is based on truth and evidence, yours you admit freely is based on not having proof - a guess that you have no idea is true or not. Which was my original argument.
I am not agnostic, so therefore I do not agree with the reasoning that we cannot prove or disprove God's existence. But this thread is not the place to discuss such proofs.

This is one of the reasons I find the little 'atheism' icon you have of a brain irritating, because I consider atheism to be an irrational position.

If you assume the absolute, metaphysical truth of your position at any point in the reasoning process, then I would say you forfeit any claim to "rationality." One of the consequences of the Problem of Induction is that ontologies are unprovable within the system itself. It is impossible, within an infinite system, to observe every conceivable state-of-affairs, to ensure that they are all consistent with one's ontology.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : daydreamergurl15

You know what, the bible is historically correct, scientifically correct, and archeologically correct but I realize that it doesn't mean anything to an atheist, as long as we christians cannot show them God then they will be content on not believing...I think we christians should stop arguing with them, it's getting useless. If they don't want to see the truth, then they won't no matter how many things that proves the bible, they will always find a way to say that that research is not valid. Just do as Jesus say and show love to everyone and love your neightbor as yourself. There is a reason he preached about LOVE. God bless each and every one of you.

One could argue about the scientific, historic and archeological accuracy of the bible and point to any number of discrepancies. For example the biblical claim that bats are not mammals but actually birds, that rabbits chew cud, that the earth is flat. Suffice to say that the bible wile not wholly accurate in terms of history, archeology and science contains information that is accurate. However the Odyssey and the Iliad contain information that is historically, archeologically and scientifically accurate, by your reasoning the information contained within these books must also be true.