Why I'm not an Atheist

[Holder of the Heel]

Oh dear god Strong Bad just spelled it out and failed. He just wants to believe in God, simple as that. We cannot win.

And no... apatheism is NOT what an atheist would call atheism.. atheism is what people would call atheism.

 

[The Nameless Wanderer]

Lmfao Religion threads...

 

[Oasis_S]

Someday, a biologist is going to genetically engineer a unicorn for KICKS, and then all the people that say they have unicorns in a box or what have you are going to feel really dumb.

 

[GwJ]

Lmfao Religion threads...

Thanks for the input.

 

[§witch]

You all have asperger's.

 

[john!]

Uh, no. There you are again shifting your burden of proof. If you are really going to shift the BoP onto me based on the reasoning behind that post, then your belief in god is an argument from ignorance by the looks of it.

I can't imagine how the universe could exist without god, therefore god.

ooooommmmmmmmggggggggg

i'm not shifting the BOP away from theists. i never have and never will. theism and atheism both require proof because they are two sides of the same coin.

i thought i made that crystal clear like 5 times. this is why i'm arguing as an agnostic. i can't argue as a theist in these debates or else atheists will whine about my belieefs and completely ignore their own

imma bust a cap in sum***** if they tell me something like this again rage

 

[Holder of the Heel]

stop shifting the BOP, you have to prove yourself just as much as anyone else

 

[Sucumbio]

lol dude, it's not that critical.

EDIT: ninja'd by the man who wants to see john! esploded

 

[john!]

stop shifting the BOP, you have to prove yourself just as much as anyone else

why u troll me so hard

 

[Luigitoilet]

You know, I usually don't scoff at the very concept of religious debate like some people.

In some cases, as when the participants are unagressively expressing their beliefs and opening their mind up to consider the other person's stance, it becomes an enlightening and humbling experience.

but in other cases the debate devolves into ridiculous meaningless semantics and labels, with people getting too emotionally involved and insulting each other more than making any sort of conversation point that has substance. see john's last posts or the people who are like "I don't feel like explaining my belief system in detail, so instead I'm just going to niggle over terms and debating obligations and rules."

my point is, if you are entering these kinds of discussions with the intent of proving someone wrong or flaunting your intellectual capacity, you are doing it wrong.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Dear John: please stop misrepresenting atheists. We make no claim. Thanks. Bye.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Haha I'm just messing. Let me attempt a /thread right here.

What you're trying to say is that you don't have a BOP both have BOPs, and that you are saying that one cannot be wholly disregarded with Gnostic certainty. What people are saying really is that it is simply far less likely it is a deity, and we are even unsure if it isn't even necessary. Throughout this thread it has been pretty well stated the likelihood for the atheist is superior in comparison to any theist, and thus if one must belief one or the other, the former is the correct choice until proven otherwise, keeping in mind that both are agnostic.

/thread? /thread?

For the love of Jesus Christ please /THREAD

 

[crawlshots]

You know, I usually don't scoff at the very concept of religious debate like some people.

In some cases, as when the participants are unagressively expressing their beliefs and opening their mind up to consider the other person's stance, it becomes an enlightening and humbling experience.

but in other cases the debate devolves into ridiculous meaningless semantics and labels, with people getting too emotionally involved and insulting each other more than making any sort of conversation point that has substance. see john's last post or the people who are like "I don't feel like explaining my belief system in detail, so instead I'm just going to niggle over terms and debating obligations and rules."

my point is, if you are entering these kinds of discussions with the intent of proving someone wrong or flaunting your intellectual capacity, you are doing it wrong.

Brilliant.
________

A few people have said that the Bible is historically inaccurate, contradictory, etc. For the sake of an open mind I want to hear why people think that. We can start with historically inaccurate.

 

[john!]

aww LT, you caught me at a bad time, most of my other posts have been much less rage-filled...

@HOTH what i don't understand is why atheism is by default the "correct choice" with a greater "likelihood". i showed you why believing in god is reasonable (more reasonable than believing in the FSM at least), now i'm waiting for an atheist to give me a reason not to believe in god.

 

[Dre89]

aww LT, you caught me at a bad time, most of my other posts have been much less rage-filled...

@HOTH what i don't understand is why atheism is by default the "correct choice" with a greater "likelihood". i showed you why believing in god is reasonable (more reasonable than believing in the FSM at least), now i'm waiting for an atheist to give me a reason not to believe in god.

Because the one making the positive claim is the one with the BoP. That's universally understood.

Claiming something to exist is a positive claim. Also universally understood.

Only the theist is making a positive claim. For an atheist to make a positive claim, they would have to say 'God does not exist'. Most don't, they simply say that they have no reason to believe in a God.

This stems from the principle of Occam's Razor, which says not to multiply beings beyond necessity. In other words, claiming the existence of a being which is not necessary is unreasonable, or is a theory inferior to a theory that doesn't claim an unnecessary being.

Now of course, the 'beyond necessity' part is controversial. Atheists simply assume that God being beyond necessity should be the default position, and that's largely due to a lack of understanding of metaphysics.

It sounds like I'm making two conflicting points here, but what I'm saying is that my first argument is what is commonly understood in contemporary philosophy of religion (theism being positive and negative atheism not being positive) and my second point about necessity and metaphysics is what I think it should be.

Regardless, your scientific arguments for God being reasonable don't really do much to say God is necessary, so it is kind of irrelevant in your case.

 

[GwJ]

I know you didn't read Dre's post last time, but please read it this time.

 

[john!]

Only the theist is making a positive claim. For an atheist to make a positive claim, they would have to say 'God does not exist'. Most don't, they simply say that they have no reason to believe in a God.

to say that "i have no reason to believe in god" is to make a judgment about the evidence currently available for and against the god proposition. since the judgment is not certain, the act of making the judgment requires a certain amount of faith, inversely proportional to the amount of evidence that supports your judgment.

I know you didn't read Dre's post last time, but please read it this time.

is this addressed at me?

do you "know" i didn't read dre's last post just like you "know" god doesn't exist? or... wait, is it that you "know" that atheists don't have a burden of proof? ****ing idiot.

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

you and most other atheists are the personification of the third category.

 

[GwJ]

John, don't start getting mad. You full well know the context that I used "know". How about you address the actual questions and not attack people?

 

[john!]

John, don't start getting mad. You full well know the context that I used "know". How about you address the actual questions and not attack people?

it's great to hear that people i'm trying to explain precise epistemological concepts to are so loose with language. that definitely facilitates debate and the exchange of ideas.

 

[GwJ]

Words and their meaning have a time and place. Learn some context, bro.

 

[john!]

please respond to the bold and underlined text, it's the best succinct explanation i can come up with for my position.

 

[GwJ]

to say that "i have no reason to believe in god" is to make a judgment about the evidence currently available for and against the god proposition. since the judgment is not certain, the act of making the judgment requires a certain amount of faith, inversely proportional to the amount of evidence that supports your judgment.

We've already addressed this multiple times.


I believe it's time to just put this thread out of its misery now.

 

[john!]

i'lll admit that i was a bit curious as to how you would avoid refuting my reasoning when it was posed in a simple two-sentence statement. i expected a more elaborate and subtle cop-out on your part.

instead it's just "already answered this, quick close down the thread before i have to answer it again!"

disappointed.

 

[GwJ]

You prove that a god exists, you need to prove that it NECESSARILY exists, not that "Well, it could work if this is true. It's reasonable to say god could exist if x, y, and z..."

I need, "God exists because X, Y, Z."

Until you do that, I have no qualms saying, "No, not good enough."

 

[Holder of the Heel]

"to say that "i have no reason to believe in god" is to make a judgment about the evidence currently available for and against the god proposition. since the judgment is not certain, the act of making the judgment requires a certain amount of faith, inversely proportional to the amount of evidence that supports your judgment."

Yes, proportional to the amount of evidence. We have to use induction for either position, but one requires significant less induction and also implies less inconsistencies if one draws religions to the deity answer. Therefore, it is indeed the "more proper" answer to say atheism is more likely, because well... it is. But that is all we have right now. Just because you are believing the less likely one doesn't mean you are wrong, or that we are wrong in saying yours is less likely because it is yours. It is hard to drop your faith knowing this, I understand, you don't have to, but it would follow that you would be retaining that faith in spite of the probabilities that are against your favor.

 

[john!]

You prove that a god exists, you need to prove that it NECESSARILY exists, not that "Well, it could work if this is true. It's reasonable to say god could exist if x, y, and z..."

I need, "God exists because X, Y, Z."

Until you do that, I have no qualms saying, "No, not good enough."

i'm not trying to prove that god exists. i'm trying to prove that atheism is not the most logical stance (when compared to pure agnosticism IF NOT agnostic theism)

Yes, proportional to the amount of evidence. We have to use induction for either position, but one requires significant less induction and also implies less inconsistencies if one draws religions to the deity answer. Therefore, it is indeed the "more proper" answer to say atheism is more likely, because well... it is.

i'm not talking about religions, i'm talking about god, and why does atheism require less induction? why does one judgment require less induction than another?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

First off, I am not talking about religion either, that is why I said "ANDalso implies less inconsistencies IF one draws religions to the deity answer", and showing it was in addition to a previous point, and if showing the second part is conditional. Second off, tons of judgments require less induction. We've been over this before. You have to assume and create a lot of unnecessary things with the deity answer as of right now as opposed to the atheistic side. You're last sentence is basically saying there is no difference between the amount of induction used to induct whether a lot of things are the case and when a smaller amount of things are the case. Wut?

The theistic answer is in much greater need of a shave with Occam's Razor than the atheist answer.

 

[GwJ]

Either a god exists or it doesn't. If you're trying to tell us atheism is illogical, you must be saying theism is then logical. And to do that, you must prove theism to be the most logical choice.

 

[john!]

Either a god exists or it doesn't. If you're trying to tell us atheism is illogical, you must be saying theism is then logical. And to do that, you must prove theism to be the most logical choice.

picture me pulling my hair out right now.

edit: are you trolling? how have i missed it until now...

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Okay, one final try and I'm out of this thread. Please pardon my inadequacy and point me in the direction of the specific post that delineates how theism is more logical and less inductive than atheism.

 

[GwJ]

picture me pulling my hair out right now.

edit: are you trolling? how have i missed it until now...

Can you just cut to the chase and either prove god to be necessary or prove theism to be more logical than atheism?

 

[john!]

remember this?

theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin

remember this?

i'm arguing from an agnostic point of view in this thread

my point is that theism and atheism are both somewhat illogical because they both require faith. i'm arguing against the idea that atheism is "more logical" because it doesn't have a burden of proof. i'm NOT arguing that theism is "more logical" than atheism. both are equally illogical.

 

[GwJ]

Oh, that's right. You were the one who was arguing form a point of view you didn't even hold.

Theism is a binary claim. Either god exists, or it doesn't. You can't argue from an agnostic point of view, because that doesn't assert or deny anything. You can only argue for or against a deity. If you're doing neither, I'm not sure why you're here.

 

[john!]

why would i argue for theism or atheism if both positions are illogical?

 

[GwJ]

You still haven't proven any of them are illogical.

 

[john!]

i did to any open-minded individual who read my posts and isn't scared that their worldview might be wrong.

 

[GwJ]

If you did, I sure as hell didn't see it. Could you post your argument in a single post so that it can be evaluated then?

 

[john!]

i just did, and you claimed you "already addressed it", then i told you that you never addressed it, then you misrepresented my position, then i corrected you, then you asked me to prove my position.

you're ****ing hilarious.

respond to the bold and underlined text.

 

[GwJ]

That was it? That was your claim? Please tell me there was more to it.

 

[john!]

That was it? That was your claim? Please tell me there was more to it.

yup.

and since atheists don't have evidence for their claim (since they don't think they have a burden of proof) it makes it quite illogical to be an atheist.