Argument against atheism

[Arikay]

I think it depends on how well you say it, and back it up.

I would be interested in what you said in your last post here, because I didn't understand what you ment.

I am not leaving b/c ppl don't agree, I'm leaving b/c no matter what I say you won't believe me so why waste my time.

 

[Philosoft]

A.D. does not mean After Death. Its a latin phase, I would try to spell it, but then I would look stupid. It means "In the year of our lord" Which basically means that anything during Jesus's life and after his death should be called A.D.

Anno Domini

 

[PaulM]

2. God could hide Himself in what people do not know

Riiight! Maybe we atheists have just accidentally overlooked god! Maybe your infinite, tri-omni god has just slipped behind the couch, or something, and that's why we think there isn't one!

Look, there are no gods. I'm not claiming to have absolute proof of it, but I'm pretty sure about it. I'm sure enough to be definite. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

I'll also go on record and say that there are no unicorns, either. I suppose it's possible that they may have slipped behind the couch too, next to god, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[PaulM]

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

You mean, including the bit with the talking snake?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

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."

I'm unsure what you are saying here at all. Are you saying if I need to make an assumption about anything then I am no longer being "rational"?

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.

Thus where science comes in, if I understand correctly. Scientific theories must be falsifiable. No scientific theory is ever "true", it is just a good explanation until it is proven false.
The word "ontology" is rather unfamiliar to me, so the purpose of this post eludes me.

At any rate, my argument was deductive, not inductive.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

[/color]
And yet there exists no rational evidence or sound philosophical argument supporting the belief in any Divine being much less the Christian God.

I disagree, but that is beyond the scope of the topic of this thread. You can prove something does exist, but usually it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist - unless you are specific about the parameters of its existence. For example, I can't prove that there isn't a raptor alive somewhere. However, I can prove that there isn't one alive in my room at this time.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

You have no proof that God does exist. If you had proof, you wouldn't need belief. Nobody "believes" a fact. Nobody has "faith" in a fact.

A false argument which I addressed in this thread. I'm guessing you just read the first post, so if you look down further you will see my response to this.

By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Because there is no proof either way, nobody truly knows. Theism is as irrational a position as atheism.

If your definition of faith was correct, then yes everyone *should* be agnostic. However, not everyone is. An agnostic is a person who believes they do not or cannot know if there is a God. So agnostic is a label that reflects personal belief, not a constant of the universe (eg, that God cannot be known).

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Tyreth, you say that your position has evidence and proof behind it, while the atheists' positions are based on a lack of proof. This does not make your position any more viable. As I stated before in my first post, the evidence pointing to the existence of God is subjective.

Not a good argument. You are basically saying "the evidence you, Tyreth, have for the existence of God is subjective, even though I have not seen it."

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Riiight! Maybe we atheists have just accidentally overlooked god! Maybe your infinite, tri-omni god has just slipped behind the couch, or something, and that's why we think there isn't one!

Look, there are no gods. I'm not claiming to have absolute proof of it, but I'm pretty sure about it. I'm sure enough to be definite. I suppose I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

I'll also go on record and say that there are no unicorns, either. I suppose it's possible that they may have slipped behind the couch too, next to god, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

You could be wrong, you admit, therefore you should be an agnostic. As long as you say you are an atheist, you are being irrational. Of course, the title agnostic usually holds a lot less prestige than the title atheist. At one time in history, I hear, the title atheist was viewed with some disdain in intellectual communities - now unfortunately christianity is.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

One more post - sorry for so much spam, but when it's one Christian replying to so many atheists, it's hard not to.

This thread is occasionally straying off topic - references to rabbits "chewing the cud" and so on should be in the creation vs evolution thread, or somewhere else. I've answered those things before anyway. This thread is merely about the rationality of a strict atheist position.

 

[Arikay]

Tyreth, im curious, are you atheistic towards non christians gods, do you believe that Odin, for example, does not exist? Why?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Tyreth, im curious, are you atheistic towards non christians gods, do you believe that Odin, for example, does not exist? Why?

It is a simple matter to demonstrate Odin to be nothing more than a dumb (mute) idol once one accepts the premise that the Christian God is the true God. If you are interested in the exact reasoning, I can show you - but to summarise, if the Christian God is true, then no other god(s) can be.

 

[Arikay]

So you believe that your god is the correct one, similar to how other religions believe their god is the correct one? Is there anything that sets you apart from other religions, or is it just faith?

It is a simple matter to demonstrate Odin to be nothing more than a dumb (mute) idol once one accepts the premise that the Christian God is the true God. If you are interested in the exact reasoning, I can show you - but to summarise, if the Christian God is true, then no other god(s) can be.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

So you believe that your god is the correct one, similar to how other religions believe their god is the correct one? Is there anything that sets you apart from other religions, or is it just faith?

Different, because my belief in God is rational, while theirs is based on spurious superstition and myths.
But such proofs and arguments are beyond the scope of this thread, which is an attack on atheism. If you want to discuss such proofs, it will be best left to another time

 

[Arikay]

Why is you belief rational and theirs isn't?

BTW, wasn't a very good attack.

Different, because my belief in God is rational, while theirs is based on spurious superstition and myths.
But such proofs and arguments are beyond the scope of this thread, which is an attack on atheism. If you want to discuss such proofs, it will be best left to another time

 

[Routerider]

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

That was probably gas.

 

[Fiendishjester]

Tyreth: How can your belief be rational while theirs isn't? I already pointed out that the logic behind atheism, and any form of theism, including Christianity, is exactly the same.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : tyreth

I disagree, but that is beyond the scope of the topic of this thread. You can prove something does exist, but usually it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist - unless you are specific about the parameters of its existence. For example, I can't prove that there isn't a raptor alive somewhere. However, I can prove that there isn't one alive in my room at this time.

Can you prove that your God is alive in your room?

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : tyreth

Different, because my belief in God is rational, while theirs is based on spurious superstition and myths.
But such proofs and arguments are beyond the scope of this thread, which is an attack on atheism. If you want to discuss such proofs, it will be best left to another time

Please explain why your belief in a mythic deity is rational but my belief in any number of mythic deities (including yours) is irrational.

 

[Philosoft]

I'm unsure what you are saying here at all. Are you saying if I need to make an assumption about anything then I am no longer being "rational"?

No. I'm saying if you make an assumption, followed by a statement like, "The assumption I just made is irrefutably true," you are acting irrationally.

Thus where science comes in, if I understand correctly. Scientific theories must be falsifiable. No scientific theory is ever "true", it is just a good explanation until it is proven false.
The word "ontology" is rather unfamiliar to me, so the purpose of this post eludes me.

An ontology is not a scientific theory. In fact, it has ultimately nothing to do with empirical science. An ontology is a philosophical/metaphysical description of ultimate reality.

At any rate, my argument was deductive, not inductive.

Fine, but I was challenging your premise that your "Christian faith is based on truth..." I really needn't have introduced the PoI, as question begging adequately describes the fallacy you are committing.