Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[2 King]

If it is operated by god or invisible pink unicorns, sure.

Is atheism viable?

sorry for the mini-questions. IT's all for the purpose of getting an idea.

 

[sidhe]

True, but in the article I read on National Geographic or something like that, One of the motives specifically included "Proving that there is a deity". Or maybe it wasn't a motive but rather an extra as in, "With this research we could potentially prove the existence of God."

Your lack of concrete reference makes The Librarian sad. See the Sad Librarian be sad.

Yes, our views on the word theory is different. Why not just call it a fact? because they risk their accountability and dignity. If they have risk, they call it a theory. I personally don't know of anyone who dosen't believe in gravity. After all, their science is better at proving gravity over proving evolution in a micro-biological POV.

A scientific theory is different than a colloquial theory. It isn't a matter of risk, but can we actually observe the entire process as it happens? In the case of evolution, no - it's based on the fossil record, genetics, etc. We can prove it happened, but we can't directly observe the entire process.

 

[2 King]

I see no reason to conclude knowledge based on the absense of knowledge. I think that's a downright silly position to hold.

There you go. You basically answered why Atheists aren't viable.

I posted something yesterday, that if read, would have answered this question. Heck, here it is again: Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks, I read it. I also read what WoE wrote.

No. That's easy to understand. What you apparently don't understand is how natural selection works.

That's a possibilty.

What is this based on? Belief or facts?

I thought facts is something everyone could agree on? beliefs not so.
Belief IMO.

Who is stopping you? Go for it. I love it when religions make claims that pertain to physical reality. It shows their true colors, and the legitimacy of their source.

Yeah I got caught up in conversation alot. Gotta work on that

Every animal is unique in their own way. Including the animal called human.

Ok.....

 

[Rasta]

Is atheism viable?

sorry for the mini-questions. IT's all for the purpose of getting an idea.

Yes it is. In 2000 the estimated number of non-religious people in the US was 2%. Now it is around 15%. Major Religions Ranked by Size

Scientists, who are at the forfront of new information and knowledge, by a majority, do not believe in god. Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"  July 23, 1998

Seriously, read the article, notice the trend.

 

[2 King]

Your lack of concrete reference makes The Librarian sad. See the Sad Librarian be sad.

Strictly opinion.

A scientific theory is different than a colloquial theory. It isn't a matter of risk, but can we actually observe the entire process as it happens? In the case of evolution, no - it's based on the fossil record, genetics, etc. We can prove it happened, but we can't directly observe the entire process

Based on human reason and lack of faith. or more importantly, the famous words of all Atheists, "Lack of belief in God"
Likewise, we can't observe how creation happened. Therefore...speculation.

 

[Rasta]

There you go. You basically answered why Atheists aren't viable.

How do atheists claim knowledge in the absense of knowledge? I can explain in depth how theists claim knowledge in the absense of knowledge.

Thanks, I read it.

Nice. So that answers your question right?

I thought facts is something everyone could agree on? beliefs not so.
Belief IMO.

Everybody doesn't need to believe in facts for facts to be true. It is a fact that the earth is round. Yet, the flat earth society still exists.

Ok.....

Seriously think about it. Human beings are utterly pathetic creatures were it not for our oversized brain.

 

[Rasta]

Based on human reason and lack of faith. or more importantly, the famous words of all Atheists, "Lack of belief in God"
Likewise, we can't observe how creation happened. Therefore...speculation.

With absolutely no concrete evidence to give said speculation any weight.

 

[2 King]

How do atheists claim knowledge in the absense of knowledge? I can explain in depth how theists claim knowledge in the absense of knowledge.

Knowledge of there is no God. (Perferably the Christian God , yeah, I'm Bias) When there is no proof of no God?

Nice. So that answers your question right?

Sorta, were it not for the "Beating around the Bush" type of apporach.

Everybody doesn't need to believe in facts for facts to be true. It is a fact that the earth is round. Yet, the flat earth society still exists.

Good point.

were it not for our oversized brain.

And our good looks

 

[2 King]

With absolutely no concrete evidence to give said speculation any weight.

This leads me back to say.....
how much evidence it takes to make a fact.

Also, it soely depends on the willingness to conform, and someone's interpretation of "Enough to convince me".

Like you said, there are still people in this world who believe in "Flat earth" even when concrete evidence is in their face.

 

[Rasta]

Knowledge of there is no God. (Perferably the Christian God , yeah, I'm Bias) When there is no proof of no God?

This is a strawman argument. I've told you before that I disbelieve in god. I do not claim to possess knowledge about gorgons, griffins, ghosts, hydra, genies, angels, demons, spirits, reptillian overlords from distant galaxies, or god. Yet I disbelieve in them all. I'm guessing you disbelieve in most of them.

Sorta, were it not for the "Beating around the Bush" type of apporach.

You mean the honesty of scientists of not claiming knowledge unless it is knowledge?

And our good looks

LOL!! Yeah, that helps.

 

[2 King]

This is a strawman argument. I've told you before that I disbelieve in god. I do not claim to possess knowledge about gorgons, griffins, ghosts, hydra, genies, angels, demons, spirits, reptillian overlords from distant galaxies, or god. Yet I disbelieve in them all. I'm guessing you disbelieve in most of them.

Well, atleast you don't call strawman as often as the people on the General Theology Sub-forum.

you weren't exactly my target audience for this argument. Unless you fit into the Category of Agnostic Atheist. Though I'm not sure there is such a category. Yeah, I disbelieve in most of them. Mainly for the same reason you disbelieve in the Christian deity. So I get where you coming off at.

Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually.

You mean the honesty of scientists of not claiming knowledge unless it is knowledge?

No....They did their part . Maybe I was mistaken to have subjected the "Beating around the bush" analogy

LOL!! Yeah, that helps.

It certainly does.

 

[2 King]

www.creation.com/atheism

 

[Rasta]

you weren't exactly my target audience for this argument. Unless you fit into the Category of Agnostic Atheist. Though I'm not sure there is such a category.

Yes. I do identify as an agnostic atheist. Categories are simply labels used for convention.

Yeah, I disbelieve in most of them. Mainly for the same reason you disbelieve in the Christian deity. So I get where you coming off at.

Cool.

Atheism is impossible if held positively.

Just as theism is, I agree though.

Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs. It cannot prove itself true. It is a very weak place to be intellectually.

It is not a weak place at all. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claims. Negative positions of belief can never be proven true, just like your disbelief in Thor, Loki, Shiva, Anubis, Thoth, Re, Set, Baal, Aphrodite, Aries, and Amaterasu, among others.

 

[2 King]

It is not a weak place at all. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claims. Negative positions of belief can never be proven true, just like your disbelief in Thor, Loki, Shiva, Anubis, Thoth, Re, Set, Baal, Aphrodite, Aries, and Amaterasu, among others.

Many atheists hold to the positive position that there is no god. As you stated it is necessary upon those who makes claims to provide evidence.
It is the atheists who claim there is no God who must prove their point.

 

[Rasta]

www.creation.com/atheism

You should always get your info from the source directly. It is poor form to learn about atheism from Christians, just as it would be to learn about Christianity from atheists.

 

[Rasta]

Many atheists hold to the positive position that there is no god. As you stated it is necessary upon those who makes claims to provide evidence.
It is the atheists who claim there is no God who must prove their point.

I only know of one athiest on this site that fits this criteria. I don't know any atheists personally who fit this criteria. The vast majority of theists however do fit the criteria.

 

[2 King]

You should always get your info from the source directly. It is poor form to learn about atheism from Christians, just as it would be to learn about Christianity from atheists.

Eaxctly!
Likewise also.

I don't even use that site, I just recently learned about it a few minutes ago. I haven't even read through it.

I persoanlly get most of my info from the horse's mouth at the Annual Atheist Convention. From there I use logical thought to create branches and Extra-Atheism to fit their belief systematics. Or, more simply put, I put two and two together.

Of course not all my thoughts on Atheism are correct

 

[Isambard]

www.creation.com/atheism

BWAHAHAHAHA!

"establish an atheist religion........atheology"

 

[Super_Rational]

All of this applies directly to perspective. To suggest that there was something before nothing suggests that there is a God. Microbologists can believe invisible matter is God.
Actually, scientists nowadays are trying to prove the existence of God with a great underground project in Germany. I think it has something to do with Dark matter and the "God Particle".

Scientists are trying to prove the existence of god? C'mon are you kidding me? The "god particle" is just a nickname & in no way means they're searching for god. Subatomic particles? Yes. God? No.

You fail obviously, to see that bacteria, is....well....it's bacteria still.

Uhh...no kidding. But you're right, bacteria is still bacteria. That's why it's still called bacteria.

You still haven't answered me. Why are you avoiding the question? Why does something have to undergo large evolutionary changes if it is currently well-suited to it's environment the way it already is? This is the foundation of natural selection. Just b/c something may have evolved from bacteria, however, doesn't mean that bacteria must go extinct. We have diversity b/c more than one living thing may be well-suited for its environment. Take your jesus glasses off for a minute.

Unless you'd go as far as to say, we are all made of bacteria, well that would totally re-define a lot of things.

Don't start suggesting that I'm saying that.

To suggest that bacteria of the millions upon billions of years formed into life is pure specualation and is truly false.

Even if it can be documented by multiple lines of evidence?

We have moral accountability, have a sense of planning the future, and the ability to communicate abstract ideas via abstract symbols.

Now what does this have to do with us or bacteria evolving again? I hope you're not getting into the evolution/morality argument. That dead horse has been beaten to a pulp.

 

[Super_Rational]

Atheism is impossible if held positively. Atheism only exists in a vacuum. It must disprove theistic proofs.

"Theistic proof" is an oxymoron. There are none, & never will be. The burden of proof lies on those who say god exists, biblical creation is true, the bible is the word of god, etc, etc.

It is a very weak place to be intellectually.

More weak than believing in something based off a 2000 yr old book where there are hundreds of contradictory religions, & where the god cannot be detected by any possible sense b/c it wishes to remain completely invisible? Hey, if it makes you feel better.