What would it take to disprove atheism?

[VProud]

I'm sorry, what's that? Atheists are attacking the character of believers?

It really does happen. There's a fair amount of snide on both sides, honestly.

 

[JGG]

Honestly, I don't see why Atheism is seen as smart. To actively claim that there cannot be such a thing as God is arrogant, in my honest opinion.
Nobody can really, truly, honestly know either way.

Most atheists tend not to say there cannot be such thing as God. Believers make this claim to set up their opposition.

 

[Lollerskates]

I'm sorry, what's that? Atheists are attacking the character of believers?

Some do. Many on this forum. Jump to the Ethics and Morality forum, or the Creation and Evolution forum, and have a look.

 

[VProud]

Most atheists tend not to say there cannot be such thing as God. Believers make this claim to set up their opposition.

Well, that's the difference between Gnostic and Agnostic Atheism.

But, lets try to look at this from a believers preservative:
To them, you have this situation:

God exists/ Bleieve in him ---> Something good happens.
God Exists / Don't believe in him ---> Neutral / something bad happens.

God does not exist / Believe in him ---? Neutral
God does not exist / Don't believe in him ---> Neutral.

This combined with the fact that they honestly believe God does exist and that believing in him is such a great thing that it's no astonishing to think that they may be of the opinion that in order for someone to even conceive of not believing in him they must be positively sure he does not exist.

 

[JGG]

Some do. Many on this forum. Jump to the Ethics and Morality forum, or the Creation and Evolution forum, and have a look.

Perhaps you can give me an example.

 

[Lollerskates]

Perhaps you can give me an example.

No. You can see for yourself; I gave you two forums full of it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps you can give me an example.

I'd freely admit to it. Some of the posters of lowest character are believers... and they feel this forum puts them beyond reproach. I've no problem calling them out for what they are.

 

[JGG]

No. You can see for yourself; I gave you two forums full of it.

Like this...?

“atheist are shallow minded people,”

Or this...?

“So to me an athiest is a lesser person who is closed minded and shallow.”

Or these...?

“I like your Give Me Give Me Give Me attitude [poster], just like many of the atheists around here, you just want to take, seemingly.”

“Atheists don’t believe in God—-no surprise when they’re not honest! LOL…they have no accountability, right!? “

"The only way a Christian can legitimately believe in evolution would be to believe a Christian is more evolved than a non-Christian.”

Oh wait, that's not quite right...

 

[Lollerskates]

Like this...?

“atheist are shallow minded people,”

Or this...?

“So to me an athiest is a lesser person who is closed minded and shallow.”

Or these...?

“I like your Give Me Give Me Give Me attitude [poster], just like many of the atheists around here, you just want to take, seemingly.”

“Atheists don’t believe in God—-no surprise when they’re not honest! LOL…they have no accountability, right!? “

"The only way a Christian can legitimately believe in evolution would be to believe a Christian is more evolved than a non-Christian.”

Oh wait, that's not quite right...

It isn't right because these are examples of Christians attacking atheists, I presume.

We are looking for ATHEISTS attacking CHRISTIANS. Try again, or ask Ana The Ist where he goes (since he told us he does it sometimes.)

 

[JGG]

It isn't right because these are examples of Christians attacking atheists, I presume.

We are looking for ATHEISTS attacking CHRISTIANS. Try again, or ask Ana The Ist where he goes (since he told us he does it sometimes.)

Oh, I see. I agree with ana, when these folks make these comments, I'll call them on it as well, usually because fellow believers will not.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It isn't right because these are examples of Christians attacking atheists, I presume.

We are looking for ATHEISTS attacking CHRISTIANS. Try again, or ask Ana The Ist where he goes (since he told us he does it sometimes.)

Well in all honesty I'm much more clever about it than the average christian on here. I remember a good example but I think they deleted that thread.

Of course maybe you missed the point here...

 

[The-Doctor]

I'm fairly easy on that ...how about a large chocolate muffin!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Honestly, I don't see why Atheism is seen as smart. To actively claim that there cannot be such a thing as God is arrogant, in my honest opinion.

Few atheists make this claim. Even an anti-theist such as Richard Dawkins does not say this.

The typical atheist says that there is insufficient reason to believe that any divine beings exist, and so the rational position to take is the default one of non-belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe the main reason to disprove atheism, or even show something else exists, is that atheism has become culturally and academically synonymous with "logic, reason and intelligence." As if, any other theist, pagan, or believer in something else does not use logic, reason or have intelligence. For example, in science (especially the big three: chemistry, biology and physics,) one can become a social pariah for open profession of any theism, and an academic shun. People are usually negatively judged when told they are believers and followers of any thing.

My friend, who is currently completing his PhD in microbiology, is a Christian, and very open about it. To my knowledge, he has experienced no adverse social ramifications for his belief.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Honestly, I don't see why Atheism is seen as smart. To actively claim that there cannot be such a thing as God is arrogant, in my honest opinion.
Nobody can really, truly, honestly know either way.

But I get your point. It's a shame that it's so hard for humans to accept others.

Well, no more arrogant than asserting that such a being definitely does exist even though one cannot substantiate that claim.

 

[True Scotsman]

Honestly, I don't see why Atheism is seen as smart. To actively claim that there cannot be such a thing as God is arrogant, in my honest opinion.
Nobody can really, truly, honestly know either way.

But I get your point. It's a shame that it's so hard for humans to accept others.

Yes anybody can know and it really doesn't take all that much intellect to know.

Is it arrogant to claim that there is no such thing as a square circle? Do we need to hold out for the possibility that there is a square circle hiding in some corner of the universe that we haven't visited yet? Do we need to be agnostic on the question of whether square circles exists because we can never be certain that they don't exist? No we do not.

A contradiction can not exist in reality. The concept of gods is just that from top to bottom. It contradicts every principle of a valid metaphysics or fundamental view of the universe.

God is supposed to be infinite. Well nothing can be infinite because to exist is to have a specific nature or set of attributes. Something that is infinite would have no specific identity. The concept of gods contradicts the law of identity.

God is supposed to be omnipotent which means it can do anything including make things act against their nature which again contradicts the law of identity. Things exist possessing specific attributes and can only act in accordance with their nature. Since existence and identity are one and the same this contradicts the axiom of existence.

God is supposed to be a consciousness that created every object distinct from itself but this is a contradiction. There can be no such thing as a consciousness with no objects to be conscious of. Before any consciousness could be conscious it would have to be conscious of something external to itself first before it could know it was conscious. The concept of gods contradicts the principle that consciousness is consciousness of something as apposed to nothing.

God is supposed to have created everything in existence by an act of conscious will. It is said to give each thing its identity and is said to be able to change any thing's identity by an act of conscious will. It is said to be able to suspend the laws of nature. It is said maintain existence through its will. This violates the principle of the primacy of existence, that things are what they are independent of anyone's conscious action, anyone's.

All of these concepts, existence, identity, consciousness and the primacy of existence are self evidently true and directly observable. They are also inescapable and irrefutable. the concept of god contradicts all four.

So we do not have to look under every rock and in every corner of the Universe. We need not be omniscient to say that the concept of gods is invalid just as the concept of a square circle is invalid. It is not the lack of belief in gods that needs to be defended but the belief in them.

When I write these things I am not attacking anyone personally. I'm attacking an idea. There should be no such thing as an idea that is exempt from scrutiny and criticism. If I don't accept someones ideas it doesn't mean that I don't accept them. I just think they are wrong in their thinking about that specific idea.

 

[VProud]

Yes anybody can know and it really doesn't take all that much intellect to know.

Is it arrogant to claim that there is no such thing as a square circle? Do we need to hold out for the possibility that there is a square circle hiding in some corner of the universe that we haven't visited yet? Do we need to be agnostic on the question of whether square circles exists because we can never be certain that they don't exist? No we do not.

A contradiction can not exist in reality. The concept of gods is just that from top to bottom. It contradicts every principle of a valid metaphysics or fundamental view of the universe.

God is supposed to be infinite. Well nothing can be infinite because to exist is to have a specific nature or set of attributes. Something that is infinite would have no specific identity. The concept of gods contradicts the law of identity.

God is supposed to be omnipotent which means it can do anything including make things act against their nature which again contradicts the law of identity. Things exist possessing specific attributes and can only act in accordance with their nature. Since existence and identity are one and the same this contradicts the axiom of existence.

God is supposed to be a consciousness that created every object distinct from itself but this is a contradiction. There can be no such thing as a consciousness with no objects to be conscious of. Before any consciousness could be conscious it would have to be conscious of something external to itself first before it could know it was conscious. The concept of gods contradicts the principle that consciousness is consciousness of something as apposed to nothing.

God is supposed to have created everything in existence by an act of conscious will. It is said to give each thing its identity and is said to be able to change any thing's identity by an act of conscious will. It is said to be able to suspend the laws of nature. It is said maintain existence through its will. This violates the principle of the primacy of existence, that things are what they are independent of anyone's conscious action, anyone's.

All of these concepts, existence, identity, consciousness and the primacy of existence are self evidently true and directly observable. They are also inescapable and irrefutable. the concept of god contradicts all four.

So we do not have to look under every rock and in every corner of the Universe. We need not be omniscient to say that the concept of gods is invalid just as the concept of a square circle is invalid. It is not the lack of belief in gods that needs to be defended but the belief in them.

When I write these things I am not attacking anyone personally. I'm attacking an idea. There should be no such thing as an idea that is exempt from scrutiny and criticism. If I don't accept someones ideas it doesn't mean that I don't accept them. I just think they are wrong in their thinking about that specific idea.

No, you cannot know.
There are no laws of nature that prevent the existence of a God-Like being existing.
The idea of a God it's self is not a contradiction of what we observe.

Do you know what WAS a contradiction of what we observe? The Higgs-Boson (Predicted with 96% certainty that it would no exist. Until we found it.). Quantum Tunneling. Special Relativity.

A key point of science is being able to think outside of the box, to challenge what we deem as possible, we have enough people who are deep seated in what they think is reality, we need people who can look at the impossible and ask 'why not?'
Now I do not believe God exists, but to outright say it is not possible in any way under any circumstance is absurd, in my honest opinion.

Comparing a square circle to the idea of a God is inherently flawed and misleading.
A square circle is contradictory to it's self. It's a 'non-thing.' We can be absolutely certain that they do not exist, since 'square circle' is not even a statement, it makes no sense unto it's self, it disproves it's self.

The idea of a God is not contradictory to it's self, and does not contradict what we observe.

No offense intended, but you do not understand what omnipotent means. It's not the infinite power, it's maximum power. It's not the ability to do anything, it's the ability to do anything that is possible.
The Bible even says: "God cannot lie." - He cannot change his own nature.
Nor can he make 1+1=2 or make an object so large he cant lift it and then lift it.
It is never implied or stated that he can do such things, omnipotence simply does not mean that.
Once again, it's maximum power, not infinite.

Besides, who said I was talking about specifically the Christian God?

There is a lack of evidence. But there is no direct evidence against it.

"There can be no such thing as a consciousness with no objects to be conscious of." Why? We still have problems with knowing what consciousness is, where it comes from, and are you claiming that it must apply to all beings in the same way it applies to us?
What we experience as consciousness would probably be vastly different from what a God-like being would experience it to be.

No offense, but I feel like you can't see past your own personal experience or logic.

Our logic is flawed, our experience is small. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics told us that. We do not know the nature of existence, we do not know why the natural laws are they way they are, we do not know what sentience is, we do not know where fundamental properties of particles come from.

In all that space, all that vastness of things we do not know, there is certainly room for things to exist in ways we cannot understand, higher dimensions of space, of time, negative energy, etc, etc.

We know so little.



Anyway, to those saying that Atheists simply claim there is a lack of evidence, that's Agnostic-Atheism.
Gnostic-Atheism is the idea that a God positively does not exist, and yes, I believe Gnostic-Theism is just as arrogant.

 

[Chany]

Define omnipotence. Just as single sentence or two should suffice.

 

[True Scotsman]

No, you cannot know.
There are no laws of nature that prevent the existence of a God-Like being existing.
The idea of a God it's self is not a contradiction of what we observe.

Do you know what WAS a contradiction of what we observe? The Higgs-Boson (Predicted with 96% certainty that it would no exist. Until we found it.). Quantum Tunneling. Special Relativity.

A key point of science is being able to think outside of the box, to challenge what we deem as possible, we have enough people who are deep seated in what they think is reality, we need people who can look at the impossible and ask 'why not?'
Now I do not believe God exists, but to outright say it is not possible in any way under any circumstance is absurd, in my honest opinion.

Comparing a square circle to the idea of a God is inherently flawed and misleading.
A square circle is contradictory to it's self. It's a 'non-thing.' We can be absolutely certain that they do not exist, since 'square circle' is not even a statement, it makes no sense unto it's self, it disproves it's self.

The idea of a God is not contradictory to it's self, and does not contradict what we observe.

No offense intended, but you do not understand what omnipotent means. It's not the infinite power, it's maximum power. It's not the ability to do anything, it's the ability to do anything that is possible.
The Bible even says: "God cannot lie." - He cannot change his own nature.
Nor can he make 1+1=2 or make an object so large he cant lift it and then lift it.
It is never implied or stated that he can do such things, omnipotence simply does not mean that.
Once again, it's maximum power, not infinite.

Besides, who said I was talking about specifically the Christian God?

There is a lack of evidence. But there is no direct evidence against it.

"There can be no such thing as a consciousness with no objects to be conscious of." Why? We still have problems with knowing what consciousness is, where it comes from, and are you claiming that it must apply to all beings in the same way it applies to us?
What we experience as consciousness would probably be vastly different from what a God-like being would experience it to be.

No offense, but I feel like you can't see past your own personal experience or logic.

Our logic is flawed, our experience is small. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics told us that. We do not know the nature of existence, we do not know why the natural laws are they way they are, we do not know what sentience is, we do not know where fundamental properties of particles come from.

In all that space, all that vastness of things we do not know, there is certainly room for things to exist in ways we cannot understand, higher dimensions of space, of time, negative energy, etc, etc.

We know so little.



Anyway, to those saying that Atheists simply claim there is a lack of evidence, that's Agnostic-Atheism.
Gnostic-Atheism is the idea that a God positively does not exist, and yes, I believe Gnostic-Theism is just as arrogant.

Can you tell me how the concept which is called "God" does not violate the primacy of existence principle?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Anyway, to those saying that Atheists simply claim there is a lack of evidence, that's Agnostic-Atheism.
Gnostic-Atheism is the idea that a God positively does not exist, and yes, I believe Gnostic-Theism is just as arrogant.

What if I told you i had a god who created me for a specific purpose, who loved me and had a plan for my whole life, who watched over me, who created everything in this world for me and a universe for my world, who died for me, who came to earth to extend an invitation to be with him forever when I die....and it's all for me and not anyone who believes otherwise....?

Would that sound less or more arrogant than simply saying "god doesn't exist"?