Atheism starts with an illogical premise

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx


No, he is not pulling a strawmen nor is he begging the question. There is sufficient evidence that many atheists claim lack of belief rather than disbelief when backed into a corner. There is sufficient evidence for this and I don't think his premise is based on insufficient evidence. You can peruse google and find that many people define atheism as a lack of belief in God. You can get involved in many debates on the nature of atheism and see for yourself the premise is not so far-fetched. Perhaps you should do that and get back to me. I presumed nothing about you, but you falsely accused me of that. Obviously he doesn't mean all atheists but you are treating it like that is what he meant. Who is playing word games now?

Nice strawman, but that is not what I meant about google, and you know it, but you are misrepresenting my argument.

Your post actually doesn`t make sense.
Adult individuals do not believe in Santa, do they? Nobody needs to deny his existence because everyone agrees on that matter. And by your logic, if we deny Santa exists, we acknowledge his existence...

I fail to see where this is going. If the OP is trying to come up with a 'gotcha!' to reinforce their own beliefs, it's a strange way of believing... I know many people of faith, and that faith comes from within, rather than at the expense of others.

Okay, let's say that that in order to not believe in a deity I have to acknowledge his/her/its existence. Okay, I don't believe. What now?

Do you win something? Feel better about yourself?
Did you change my mind? Not a bit of it.

I get confused by these type of threads. It changes nothing. It proves nothing. The OP gets to feel smug for a minute or two, and possibly has dinner party conversation, but no atheists are harmed in the process. Nobody suddenly has an epiphany and says, "Oh, I see. I must believe in your deity! I'm off to buy a Bible."

Pointless.

WWFSMD?

Atheism doesn't start with a premise. When I was born I wasn't premising anything, neither were close to a billion other atheists.

You are right about one thing though. As a word it serves no purpose. Having a label for someone who doesn't believe is a bit odd. Then again though you have to consider historically only a very small percentage didn't hold this beliefs, so it made sense that society as it were tagged them.

In a few centuries or two atheism will fall out of use as the majority will be without belief in God and they'll be no reason to use the word.

reply to post by 547000

There is sufficient evidence that many atheists claim lack of belief rather than disbelief when backed into a corner.

They’re essentially the same thing. If you disbelieve in something’s existence then you must necessarily lack a belief in that things existence since to not lack a belief is to have belief.

And the characterisation of this position as one of last resort is unfair; people don’t claim this when backed into a corner some people just take this position from the outset. Some believe that god does not exist and some just don’t believe in god, two very different positions.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
In order for Atheist to say they have a lack of belief in God they implicitly acknowledge God's existence. Your lack of belief in God has to be predicated on his existence or it's just illogical.

No. If they say they have no belief in God it means they're aware of the concept of God. Not that they acknowledge his existence.

If i told you I'm an alien and you denied it. Would way say you acknowledge I'm an alien?

I can see why you think you're onto something but in actuality you've just confused yourself into a position of stupidity.

One can be Atheist without acknowledging or being aware of the concept of God of deities. When you're born you're an Atheist. For an example.

reply to post by Mike_A


Maybe some atheists do mean it on the outset, but many I have encountered say they believe there is no God and then when it is suggested it is a stance they invert it to a lack of belief in God. When the latter is suggested to be an untenable premise, they invert it back into the former and basically the whole thread becomes a game of semantics.

They are not the same thing though, at least not in the way the two terms are used. The first is a belief, the latter is not--at least that's the game of semantics being used, so they can claim to have no faith when accused of believing something without evidence.

Without reading the whole thread I'm sure someone has pointed out the obvious: that the OP's claim is built on an illogical premise.

Atheism must be the most misunderstood viewpoint there is.

My only thing with Atheists is that their argument(the ones I have discussed the topic with) begins with "If there's a God, who created him? Where did he come from? How could he have already existed?"-basically saying that if man can't comprehend it, then it must not be real- while at the same time fully believing and accepting that the Big Bang just randomly came out of nowhere and created everything we have now, including the sub-molecular coincidences that allow life and our planet to even exist as we have it.

If you're gonna use a general rule of thought, it must apply equally to both sides lest we fall into an argument where someone says 2 plus 2 can't equal 11 unless I say its possible and it works in favor of my beliefs and agenda. Where did the Big Bang come from? What started it? What was before the Big bang? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? See?

To be a science bound atheist is a contradiction in and of itself. It means that you believe that the greatest most miraculous "order" ever came out of total, un-describable chaos, and that a closed system somehow became much, much BETTER over time, which is a blasphemous concept in science. So in order to be atheist, you must as a result, believe fundamental parts of established science are just as fake.

Second, people believe in black holes without seeing them directly, simply by how their gravity affects the surrounding stars EVEN THOUGH by our own laws of physics a black hole makes NO sense whatsoever... matter just vanishes into nothing and is gone forever? That's also complete blasphemy in the face of science. And yet we have total faith in something that is contrary to what science and math tells us based on how it affects things that are subject to its influence.

I could equally say God exists because his grace can be seen through the miracles that can and DO result from prayer such as someone who has been paralyzed for YEARS suddenly regaining the ability to walk or a hardened criminal suddenly dropping all of his bad ways and the money that comes along with it to be a better person for seemingly no reason at all.

Atheists don't disbelieve God because they think its impossible for such a being to exist, they disbelieve because its inconvenient to their day to day lives to believe such a being exists.

Is it easier for one to accept that they will have to answer for un-repented wrongdoing at the end of their life or that they can do whatever they want to whoever they want without ANY fear of punishment from a power that is supremely greater than us? Obviously the latter is more convenient... and I even admit that I "get it"... when I was a kid and snuck a few cookies before dinner, it was easier to believe I could run to my room and eat them before mom found out than to think she'll be able to notice the obviously missing cookies from the pack and fuss me out. No one wants to believe that they are in the wrong, its a part of our ego to think its the world around us that must be wrong and we are just reacting to this "flawed" world. Such as, "I only get drunk because my job stresses me out and drinking helps me cope..." or "I sell drugs because my family is at home starving and working at Mcdonald's isn't enough to get them the things I would like to..." or "I had sex with that random girl because she was hot and was down for the cause..." Its not my fault, I'm just reacting.

In the cookie example, I thought the rule was stupid because I believed I would still be able to finish dinner even though I had the cookies therefore I felt it was ok to disobey a rule from my mother. In my mind, I wasn't in the wrong, her rule was just stupid therefore I didn't need to follow it. And I think that's one of the hang-ups (along with stone-throwing extremist Christians) people have with the Bible/God.

Just my 92 cents...

Originally posted by Watts
My only thing with Atheists is that their argument(the ones I have discussed the topic with) begins with "If there's a God, who created him? Where did he come from? How could he have already existed?"-basically saying that if man can't comprehend it, then it must not be real- while at the same time fully believing and accepting that the Big Bang just randomly came out of nowhere and created everything we have now, including the sub-molecular coincidences that allow life and our planet to even exist as we have it.

Infinite regress is impossible to avoid if one invokes creationism as an answer to universe origins.

If you're gonna use a general rule of thought, it must apply equally to both sides lest we fall into an argument where someone says 2 plus 2 can't equal 11 unless I say its possible and it works in favor of my beliefs and agenda. Where did the Big Bang come from? What started it? What was before the Big bang? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? And before that? See?

Since time began with the Big Bang, there really can be no "before the Big Bang".

To be a science bound atheist is a contradiction in and of itself. It means that you believe that the greatest most miraculous "order" ever came out of total, un-describable chaos, and that a closed system somehow became much, much BETTER over time, which is a blasphemous concept in science. So in order to be atheist, you must as a result, believe fundamental parts of established science are just as fake.

It sounds as if you're invoking the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. Though I don't believe you've substantiated your claims.

Second, people believe in black holes without seeing them directly, simply by how their gravity affects the surrounding stars EVEN THOUGH by our own laws of physics a black hole makes NO sense whatsoever... matter just vanishes into nothing and is gone forever? That's also complete blasphemy in the face of science. And yet we have total faith in something that is contrary to what science and math tells us.

Black holes exist and "make sense" to the laws of physics.

I could equally say God exists because his grace can be seen through the miracles that can result from prayer such as someone who has been paralyzed for YEARS suddenly regaining the ability to walk or a hardened criminal suddenly dropping all of his bad ways and the money that comes along with it to be a better person for seemingly no reason at all.

Healing and behavior changes have explanations other than supernatural miracles.

Atheists don't disbelieve God because they think its impossible for such a being to exist, they disbelieve because its inconvenient to their day to day lives to believe such a being exists.

Actually it's because it's irrational to believe in the existence of something which has no evidence whatsoever to establish its existence.

Is it easier for one to accept that they will have to answer for un-repented wrongdoing at the end of their life or that they can do whatever they want to whoever they want without ANY fear of punishment from a power that is supremely greater than us? Obviously the latter is more convenient... and I even admit that I "get it"... when I was a kid and snuck a few cookies before dinner, it was easier to believe I could run to my room and eat them before mom found out than to think she'll be able to notice the obviously missing cookies from the pack and fuss me out. No one wants to believe that they are in the wrong, its a part of our ego to think its the world around us that must be wrong and we are just reacting to this "flawed" world.

There is no logic to believe that atheists actually secretly believe in a posthumous justice deity, but they just pretend not to believe in it so they can sin.

In the cookie example, I thought the rule was stupid because I believed I would still be able to finish dinner even though I had the cookies therefore I felt it was ok to disobey a rule from my mother. In my mind, I wasn't in the wrong, her rule was just stupid therefore I didn't need to follow it. And I think that's one of the hang-ups people have with the Bible/God.

Perhaps the problem is that you're trying to interpret atheism from the experiences of a 5 year old.

It would be better to have an actual understanding of atheism before posting your inductive reasoning against it based on your misconceptions.

reply to post by cLOUDDEAD


You can't just say something is without proof. Next you're going to say that's "Faith" it very well may be but the point is there is no proof. No matter how you spin it there is no physical evidence for god.

Another issue that I have is that theists will automatically assume that 'their god' is to be acknowledged in the form that is acceptable to their faith. If you were to say, "Okay, now I do acknowledge that there is a god, but she's black, and has forty arms, spits fire, and eats only armadillo meat with chocolate sauce." the standard reply is, "Oh, you're just being silly and ridiculing my faith." However, they haven't proven that their god isn't as you described because you can't prove a negative. Their argument is that you, by not believing MUST believe, but their criteria for believing is limited.

Again, I want to know what the OP is trying to do here. What is the logical outcome? Will the non-believers all suddenly have a change of heart based on the skewed logic that by not believing Atheists are acknowledging the deity's existence?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

You don't have a lack of belief in Santa Claus or a lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy.

Actually, I don't believe in Santa or the tooth fairy either...or unicorns, elves, gods with giant elephant heads, and other myths that aren't backed up by objective evidence either.

You can have a lack of belief in Islam or Christianity but not a lack of belief in God because there's no need to have a lack of belief in an entity you say doesn't exist.

Why would I disbelieve the existence of Islam or Christianity? Those religions clearly exist...even if their base premise isn't backed up by evidence. I don't believe in god(s) because of the utter lack of objective evidence suggesting he/she/it/they even exist.

In order for Atheist to say they have a lack of belief in God they implicitly acknowledge God's existence.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If people ran around claiming unicorns exist, I'd show a lack of belief until they present evidence. That lack of belief definitely isn't an acknowledgement that unicorns exist...and the same goes for the whole "god" thing.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again, Atheism is illogical.

How can you have a lack of belief in an entity that you say doesn't exist? The reason you don't say you have a lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa is because you don't believe they exist and to have a lack of belief in a non existent entity would be illogical.

You can say you have a lack of belief in Christianity or Islam because you don't question the existence of the religions. In order for you to say you have a lack of belief in God, you would first have to acknowledge His Existence or you would be standing on illogical grounds.

What exists are thoughts in the minds of those that believe a god exists. I do not entertain those thoughts, but others do. Not entertaining those thoughts does not imply they do not exist in another's mind, anymore than their entertainment of such thoughts implies they exist in my mind just because it does in theirs.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Infinite regress is impossible to avoid if one invokes creationism as an answer to universe origins.

What if God is the primary cause of all things? No causes before God since God is the root of the event tree, by definition. "I am the Alpha and the Omega."

Since time began with the Big Bang, there really can be no "before the Big Bang".

How can time ever begin? Only measurements of time relative to a reference event can be measured. How can we absolutely measure time and not relatively to material singularity?

It sounds as if you're invoking the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. Though I don't believe you've substantiated your claims.

Do you think the universe is a closed system and is only material in nature?

As for the rest, I have no comment to make.

reply to post by 547000

I often use the terms interchangably. It usually starts off with someone wanting to tell me about the good news. I tell them I'm an atheist and that I don't believe god exists. If they could just leave it at that then all would be fine. They can't though. They start pulling out texts and quoting scripture. This is the point where I tell them that I don't believe. What I mean is that I don't believe in their book or stories which is what they are trying to use to show that god exisits but it is also just as easy to say I don't believe in god. The reason the term is used is because you labled the guy in the story "god" and I'm just pointing out that I don't believe he exists.

I fail to see how this is illogical. On the other hand I do believe in Christianity and Islam because these faiths and their followers do exist.

If you can understand the similarities and differences of these two words:

Sexual: relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes.
Asexual: devoid of sexuality.

Then why would it be hard to understand that:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods
Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of god or gods

reply to post by daskakik


That's all well and good, but what exactly does this have to do with falsifying the premise "Atheism is often defined as a lack of belief in God"?

Okay, let's say God is out there, or Gods as the case may be. Since each religion has it's own god, which is the right one? What if I decide not to believe in your god but one of a different religion? You do understand that each religion believes their god is the only one, right? So then, you have millions of very deluded people out there or you have a god convention happening in heaven.

Now, tell me about your religion and which god you follow and maybe I will go along with you. But if I decide to follow a different god than the one you profess, am I still wrong? Or is it just necessary I believe in something? What if I want to follow a god worshiped by many millions, and the name of this god is Zeus or Thor or Isis? Or is it just the modern gods i can believe in?

You see, just proclaiming "I believe" is a very narrow view on gods in general. And religion is it's own worst enemy when you take a real look at it. Yeah, the gods that came out ahead are the ones with the best publishers. And that is how you perpetuate the myth. "See this book, it was written by mystical means, trust me, believe me. Because if you don't you will burn in Hell forever." Belief by intimidation = religion.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Mike_A

 

I have encountered say they believe there is no God and then when it is suggested it is a stance they invert it to a lack of belief in God. When the latter is suggested to be an untenable premise, they invert it back into the former and basically the whole thread becomes a game of semantics.

Atheists sometimes have to do a dance around the subject of belief when confronted by believers in order to avoid confrontation. I've been put there in that spot many times and can say lack of faith in order to imply that this applies only to me personally and does not need to offend anyone else. The faithless and the faithful are an ocean apart in point of view, attempts to meet someplace in the middle are never easy or clear cut.

Trust your own faith let the atheists be the mean no harm to you