ARGUMENTS AGAINST ATHEISM
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Science, without knowing everything, does not free the theist from providing evidence for his claims!
do theists refute this argument?
They arbitrarily deny it, I think refute is overstating their position.
@Ricardo: "do theists refute this argument?" ALL THE TIME.
@Cognostic: How do theists refute this argument?
this argument is irrefutable! Can any theist of this forum refute this argument?
@Ricardo: How do theists refute this argument?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ..... TEARS IN MY EYES...... SNIFF! SNIFF!
Theists don't refute anything. They avoid dealing with it by any means necessary. Shifting the burden of proof. Calling atheists prejudice against Christians. Making more inane assertions. Changing topics. Setting up a Straw Man and trying to knock it down. Intentionally misinterpreting data. Repeating the same shit over and over and over hoping for something different to happen. Quoting their favorite bible verse. Threatening atheists with hell. Asking about Pascal's Wager. "Aren't you afraid of Hell?" Making the inane assertion, "Well you have a free will, you can choose Hell if you want to. Hell is a choice." But when you assert that you choose not to go to Hell and not to believe in a God. Suddenly you don't have free will any more. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA......
A Christian Debunker, Now there is an oxymoron.
theists claim that the great hadron collider in the future will discover god!
When, and if, that time ever comes, that will be the time to believe it. Not a second before.
An unevidenced claim that predicts a future discovery, trying to lend some gravitas to itself by mentioning The Large Hadron Collider, can you really not see that this is nothing more than worthless vapid rhetoric?
I think he misread an article about the god particle....
"I think he misread an article about the god particle...."
That's pretty funny if it's true.
I thought so as well :)
Ricardo, based on the quantity of your varied questions, I must question if you are an atheist or theist. Your profile states atheist, but your behavior is one of a theist. If what you say is true, your theist friends are preying on your ignorance and using you as a punching bag.
So I throw down a challenge, tell your theist friends to grow a set and come in here themselves, and ask the questions. No more hiding in the shadows, either step out into the light or just fuck off like the cowards they are.
If they ask you anymore questions, direct them to this forum.
Tell them that I am waiting. Tell them to bring their best.
"theists claim that the great hadron collider in the future will discover god!"
Then they don't know what they are talking about. What they have latched onto is the Higgs Boson, also incorrectly referred to as the "God particle". The Higgs boson was an explanation to explain a gap in the Standard Model. It had nothing to do with a god, it offered an explanation on a very deep mystery, and actually worked towards disproving a god.
When the LHC was constructed, proving the Higgs boson was one of it's prime goals. In 2013 the observations matched the prediction, and in 2014 Peter Higgs and François Englert were awarded the Nobel.
Remember, tell your theist friends to BRING IT !!!!
@Ricardo: RE: Theist Claims... "Theists also claim..."
1. There is a magic man living beyond time and space that has a magic plan that will change his plan when you pray to him because he is in all things and loves you.
2, You can accept their claim and have a personal loving relationship with this god beyond the stars who is also personal and present but not detectable in any way or you can be tortured for all eternity in the pits of a fiery lake for your disbelief. The choice is yours.
3. You are personally responsible for the torturous death of a little Jewish rabbi who wondered about the cities of ancient Nazareth, Galilee, and Judea spitting in people's eyes to cure blindness, walking on water, feeding people bread and fish, and saying stupid shit like "Think not of tomorrow." to get people to abandon their families and livelihoods and follow him.
4. That a book called the "Bible" is historically accurate even thought it talks about a global flood that never happened and still covered the entire earth with water so a magic boat, large enough to carry two of every animal on the planet, could be built by 8 people over 55 to 75 years. It's a really good thing Noah, the boat builder, lived to be 500 years old and not just 40 like his contemporaries, or building this boat would have really taken up a significant part of his life.
5. The bible is historically accurate because this god thing from #1, tortured a bunch of Egyptians, with fire from the sky, plagues, and killing their first born sons, until a group of non-existent Jewish slaves were released from their bondage. Upon their release, they followed a non-existent idiot named Moses who got lost in a desert, that would have only taken a week to cross, for 40 years. Nevertheless; everyone is happy because the Moses guy leads them to the promised land just before the God thing kills him.
* I HATE TO BE CRASS; HOWEVER, I REALLY DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT ANYTHING A CHRISTIAN WOULD SAY REGARDING THE HADRON COLLIDER.
yes I will ask them to subscribe to this forum, which for me is the best forum about atheism!
yes they are afraid of this forum!
thank you all !
You will learn a lot yourself just by observing, and the next time they start to ask dumb questions, you will have more ammunition than you have now.
Afraid of this forum? Why?
An observation; it is people whose faith is weakest who are the most dogmatic .
A person confident in their faith does not need the constant reinforcement of the whore which is apologetics. One rarely sees such people hanging around an atheist forum .
PS since your arrival, I haven't bought your claim of being an atheist asking for friends . I think you are a theist who lacks courage . If this is untrue ,I look forward to reading something you post on your own behalf, expressing your own opinions. .
"Afraid of this forum? Why?"
God reads this forum.
Usually after he tires of reading people's minds and examining their dreams and prayers.
The contributing theists here have to becareful. If they screw up their apologetics and let atheists trample all over the tenets of their belief God is not happy and takes note.
Its the difference between a few extra feathers on their angel wings or latrine duty in hell.
I am atheist! except where I live most are theistic, thankfully they are tolerant here with atheists.
Why is the scientific method the only sure way to acquire knowledge? Is there any relationship between the scientific method and the non-existence or existence of God? I would like clarification from the members of this forum.
Ricardo, there are a number of ways to gain knowledge. Reading, listening, experiencing, schooling, practice...the list goes on. Mammalian infants, for example, know immediately how to suckle. But there is a difference between these sorts of routes to knowledge and just making shit up.
The scientific method is a procedure. Why would it have anything to do with people’s gods?
@Ricardo: The scientific method is not the only sure way to acquire knowledge. It is most certainly the best way we know of to test knowledge. Knowledge (what you believe to be true) can be amazingly faulty or justified true knowledge, all depending on how you "Justify" it. (What are the facts and evidence support the knowledge claim?) Knowledge itself is not just suddenly magically true.
What science does is set up ways to test knowledge. It takes the silly ideas out of your brain, designs tests, and then determines the validity of the silly idea. It the idea demonstrates a degree of reliability some conclusions can be made, future tests can be designed to focus a bit more, and then one day, if we are lucky, we will know something new. Science in all its forms is a method of inquiry that leads us to facts that are demonstrable, repeatable, and predictive of future events.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD:
No. There would be no relationship because something that is non-existent would not have any impact on the world at all. Science does not run about proving things are non-existent. Why would anyone do that. You could drive yourself insane running around trying to prove every inane assertion ever made was not real. THIS BRINGS US TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
If you want to assert something is real, you have the burden of proof to do so. If you have a new theory, a position, or some research findings, you must prove your assertions are valid with facts and evidence. Only then can science take a look at what you have gathered and how you have put things together. A God that has no effect at all on the world is completely beyond the bounds of scientific investigation. A personal god that responds to prayer and performs miracles, on the other hand, is completely examinable. That is how we know Miracles do not happen and prayer is useless. These events have been studied.
''They claim that it is possible to prove some negatives.''
It is possible to prove some negatives of course, for instance if I made the claim , there are no apples in the fruit bowl, That would be easy to show, so yes negatives can be proven.
However if i then claimed that in fact my fruit bowl contained lost of invisible, none material apples, that you can neither touch or smell, then that could not be proven one way or the other.
When a theist uses the excuse of you can prove negatives, point them to a whole host of equally silly gods as they claim and ask them to disprove that god.
Is there any relationship between atheism and empiricism and rationalism? Is atheism empirical or rational?
Is atheism skeptical and scientific?
Ricardo, you’re making this WAY more complex than it actually is! Atheism is the rejection of god claims. That’s it. Nothing more.
@Ricardo: You keep asking the same questions over and over. "Atheists" do not believe in God or gods. They can believe in all sorts of other crap, They can believe in crystal magic, chakras, flat earth, ki / chi, Nirvana, Karma, or anything else. This means they can not all be empiricists, neither can they all be rational.
Empiricism and rationalism are personal values that many atheists hold; however, I suspect these values are more common among the most outspoken among us.
I know for a fact that when atheists appear on the site who are not rational and do not rely on empiricism, they are challenged with the same vigor as the theists. They are asked over and over why they would choose to believe what they believe without evidence.
your atheism is not a dogmatic position either, is it provisional?
I am a Brazilian of little culture!
@Ricardo: RE: "Non-dogmatic Atheism"
Many on the site would certainly disagree with you. It is not necessarily my position, but rather, the position of the theist.
THERE IS NO ATHEIST POSITION ON ANY TOPIC. There is no Atheist dogma. There are no standardized beliefs. What is not provisional in atheism is the fact that Atheists do not believe in God or gods. Beyond that an Atheist's world view is their own.
This is really simple. You just ask yourself. "Do I believe in a God or gods." If the answer is "Yes," you are a theist. If the answer is "No," you are an atheist.
THAT'S IT. THERE IS NOTHING MORE. ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE SAYS ABOUT ATHEISM IS NOT ABOUT ATHEISM, BUT RATHER, ABOUT PERSONAL BELIEFS. (***It's about how they personally express their atheism.***)
Atheism has nothing to do with biology but we do talk about evolution. Atheism has nothing to do with cosmology but we do talk about the origins of life. Atheism has nothing to do with theology, but we do challenge it when theists present it.
Atheists are just people who do not believe in God or gods. That's it. Nothing more. Anything beyond that is part of a personal belief and not necessarily related to Atheism.
"Is there any relationship between atheism and empiricism and rationalism? Is atheism empirical or rational?
Is atheism skeptical and scientific?"
MOST atheists are rational and skeptical, but not all.
Some sects of Buddhism, for example, have no belief in gods, but they have other supernatural beliefs. Also, the Raelians, are a UFO cult, who have all sorts of silly beliefs, but they don't believe in gods.
Some of your phrasing is a bit strange (no offense). But for most atheists, their atheism stems from the lack of empirical evidence to support the claim that gods exist.
I'm not sure one could say that atheism is 'scientific', in the strictest sense of the word, but most atheist come to their disbelief in gods, based on the lack of demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support theist's claims that gods exist.
I was a skeptic before I identified as an atheist. My atheism is a natural outgrowth of skepticism, correctly applied to the god claim. My atheism is not a dogmatic position, it is a provisional one.
Your clarification was excellent!
thank you very much