It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Kashai
Can you prove that God cannot exist???
I have provided evidence that God can related to the current reality of what is understood of Nature.
I am not interested in your Woo Woo fantasy world were a negative can be proven.
What is the problem with that?
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Kashai
That isn't an accepted definition of atheism. That is one paper from one person who has an opinion that isn't backed up by evidence.
What Is Atheism?
No one asks this question enough. The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.
Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."
Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.
Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."
The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.
atheists.org...
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: mOjOm
Then you are not an Atheist and should not be commenting upon a discussion related to why Atheist are wrong based upon what in reality is known.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Grimpachi
And you should get over the fact that your belief is based solely on intuition just as in religion.
Case in point wolf147 who claimed to be better educated than theists which of course is absurd.
Atheist are not better than Theist and Theist are not better than Atheist.
Any thoughts?
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: peter vlar
Ok you got me for this last post tonight
Just in general to the discussion Stanford University upon a world scale in respect to Philosophy is acknowledged respectively. As the equivalent to Oxford University in relation to Physics.
In direct to you response I am a person who relates to Genesis as the result of society converting from Hunter/Gatherers to an Agrarian society the in essence lasted about until A.D 1895 respectively.
I am a Caribbean Indian that was raised up until the age of 7 in relation to Western Hemispheric culture prior to the European Invasion. I was then exposed to Judea-Christian culture to the extent that I qualified to run as principal a school where the students were accused of murder but had no convictions.
One particular patient has as much as 12 such accusations but was never convicted.
Beyond that I have other experiences but......
Atheism in potential is wrong because there is not evidence to support it.
Substantive evidence has been offered that Reality is not Random, and therefore the Universe was created.
Any thoughts on getting over that?
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Grimpachi
And you should get over the fact that your belief is based solely on intuition just as in religion.
Intuition
Noun
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
Case in point wolf147 who claimed to be better educated than theists which of course is absurd.
Atheist are not better than Theist and Theist are not better than Atheist.
Existential fallacy – an argument that has a universal premise and a particular conclusion
Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.
Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.
False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.
Intentionality fallacy – the insistence that the ultimate meaning of an expression must be consistent with the intention of the person from whom the communication originated (e.g. a work of fiction that is widely received as a blatant allegory must necessarily not be regarded as such if the author intended it not to be so.)
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of events taking place.
Naturalistic fallacy[47] (anti-naturalistic fallacy[48]) – inferring impossibility to infer any instance of ought from is from the general invalidity of is-ought fallacy mentioned above. For instance, is P lor neg P does imply ought P lor neg P for any proposition P, although the naturalistic fallacy would falsely declare such an inference invalid. Naturalistic fallacy is an instance of argument from fallacy.
Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.