Thoughts on these points?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2012, 10:02 PM
Thoughts on these points?
Atheism is formally irrational on these counts:
1. An acceptance of empiricism even though it was rejected by epistemologists as a logical contradiction decades ago. To accept a logical contradiction as true is the formal definition of irrationality.
2. Atheists rely on the Fallacy of Incredulity. An argument relying on a logical fallacy is automatically false. Thus the atheist is informally irrational.
3. Atheists have logically inconsistent beliefs by showing they accept similarly or less evidenced propositions than those they disbelieve. Thus the atheist is irrational in the sense of being intellectually dishonest.
4. The Atheist has no rational basis for their objections to theistic belief.
Do any/all of these make sense?
Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2012, 11:17 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2012 11:29 PM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Thoughts on these points?
(18-06-2012 10:02 PM)StevenAllan Wrote:  Atheism is formally irrational on these counts:
1. An acceptance of empiricism even though it was rejected by epistemologists as a logical contradiction decades ago. To accept a logical contradiction as true is the formal definition of irrationality.
2. Atheists rely on the Fallacy of Incredulity. An argument relying on a logical fallacy is automatically false. Thus the atheist is informally irrational.
3. Atheists have logically inconsistent beliefs by showing they accept similarly or less evidenced propositions than those they disbelieve. Thus the atheist is irrational in the sense of being intellectually dishonest.
4. The Atheist has no rational basis for their objections to theistic belief.
Do any/all of these make sense?
Thank you.
1. Are you pulling these things out your ass? Where did you get this from?
2. I could easily imagine a God, doesn't mean he is there.
3. Belief in what exactly, all atheists have in common is the disbelief in a Deity, nothing less nothing more.
4. I have one. Religion, through out history, has proven not only to be poorly contructed in terms of dealing with reality, but to be detrimental to society and peoples. It spreads intolerance and bigotry. It makes you settle with flase answers. If the Bibale is wrong about our origins, what else could it be wrong about?

None of these make sense, unless you have evidence to back up the assertions you put out.... Basically.....



Citation needed.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
18-06-2012, 11:27 PM (This post was last modified: 19-06-2012 08:13 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Thoughts on these points?
And this is exactly why Creationists still exist. They put their fingers in their ears and go like "Lalalalala I can't hear you!" while spouting out their easily refutable arguments.

Edit: Typo fixed.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
18-06-2012, 11:31 PM
RE: Thoughts on these points?
(18-06-2012 11:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And this is exactly why Creationists still exist. They put their fingers and their ears and go like "Lalalalala I can't hear you!" while spouting out their easily refutable arguments.
Hey! You're here! What about school? You should rep me again, for teaching basic evolution, lol Big Grin

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2012, 11:34 PM
RE: Thoughts on these points?
(18-06-2012 11:31 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(18-06-2012 11:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  And this is exactly why Creationists still exist. They put their fingers and their ears and go like "Lalalalala I can't hear you!" while spouting out their easily refutable arguments.
Hey! You're here! What about school? You should rep me again, for teaching basic evolution, lol Big Grin
Just kidding bro...

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2012, 11:47 PM
RE: Thoughts on these points?
Welcome to the forum. I will assume you're a theist rather than an atheist playing devil's advocate for the responses.

1. Sooooo theists won't listen to scientists, but will use philosophers as their logical foundations? As long as the philosophers in question are on your side though, right? Already you're off to a flawed premise; that atheists or atheism has any collective mandate or shared behaviors. There are empiricist atheists and there are theoretical atheists (theoretical not being used a modifier of the word atheist here). If anything, atheists are anything BUT empiricists. Most of us believe firmly in the Big Bang theory, even though none of us could ever hope to experience it. We accept logical deductive ideas first presented to mankind as theoretical hypotheses that were later strengthened under scrutiny. The theory of your god, however, crumbles even under hypothetical scrutiny. And yet, you continue to believe. Therefore it's not that we are strict empiricists, but rather that you irrational in your rejection of the established system of the scientific method.

2. A theist accusing atheists of relying on logical fallacies. Now that's rich. The fallacy of incredulity is essentially the argument that we atheists "have no imagination." We can't conceive of a god, therefore we conclude that it doesn't exist. First, this argument is silly. I also can't imagine what a square triangle would look like. Is my lack of imagination any proof that a square triangle exists or doesn't exist? No. And no atheist anywhere uses the argument, "well God is really hard to imagine so therefore he doesn't exist." Also, I can absolutely imagine the Judeo-Christian God. He is defined quite clearly in the Bible. He is a monster who deserves no praise or worship.

3. Where do you get this crap? What beliefs are you referring to that has LESS evidence that a telepathic magician and his zombie son? It's rather hard to have LESS evidence than the ZERO evidence that exists for the Christian god.

4. What the fuck are you talking about? Theists have dedicated their lives to threatening the atheist with eternal punishment and hindering the progress of human knowledge and moral evolution. They are keeping us in the dark ages because they are afraid of a fairy tale. That's like saying the Jews had no rational basis for objecting to the nazi belief.


Holy tap dancing Christ, son. Research research research. Read something other than answersingenesis and be a little more honest with yourself.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Buddy Christ's post
18-06-2012, 11:52 PM
RE: Thoughts on these points?
Tee hee. Silly Christian. Didn't realize we had buddy Christ here to utterly demolish those childishly constructed "points", Didja?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stark Raving's post
18-06-2012, 11:52 PM
RE: Thoughts on these points?
wut?

Sorry, but if this passes as a form of argument to you, then you need some practice...

Quote: 1. An acceptance of empiricism even though it was rejected by epistemologists as a logical contradiction decades ago. To accept a logical contradiction as true is the formal definition of irrationality.

Source? I care not for the meaningless babble of philosophers and metaphysics, insomuch as they rarely produce anything of substance. Do you know what does produce things of substance? The scientific method, which builds upon observations, using our senses - aided by instrumentation. Sure, some methodology must be done to correct for our senses' incorrect perception of some things, but knowledge based on experience and our senses is hardly a "logical contradiction." (do you know what "contradiction" means?)

Quote: 2. Atheists rely on the Fallacy of Incredulity. An argument relying on a logical fallacy is automatically false. Thus the atheist is informally irrational.

Really? That's what you're going to use to argue against atheists? It is the cornerstone of theist arguments, nearly all of whom I've argued with have at one point or another argued that "you can't prove God doesn't exist!" or "Evolution makes no sense! How can it all be random? It's all lies!" We have no argument to make. In fact, we make no argument - we simply reject yours. We reject the theist's argument that God does exist, very few will argue that they are sure that a god doesn't exist (to be absolutely, 100% sure of anything is to be illogical). One may prove that a particular definition of a god does not exist (by showing that parts of the definition are contradictory or counter to known observations), but it is not possible to prove that the vague concept of a deity doesn't exist.

Quote: 3. Atheists have logically inconsistent beliefs by showing they accept similarly or less evidenced propositions than those they disbelieve. Thus the atheist is irrational in the sense of being intellectually dishonest.

Name a few logically inconsistent beliefs shared by all (or a >75% majority of) atheists. I dare ya. There are some atheists I've run across that believed some woo, but the vast majority don't - particularly the intelligent ones.

Quote:4. The Atheist has no rational basis for their objections to theistic belief.

Okay then, as long as we're making baseless, random arguments: "The Theist has no rational basis for their theistic belief."

I, for one, can name plenty of rational objections to theistic belief: the Problem of Evil, the inefficacy of prayer, logical contradictions in the Bible, contradictions between the Bible and observations of the world (earth isn't a flat surface with a "firmament" holding up the heavens, based on four pillars, with four corners - all of which are referenced in the Bible, in non-poetic books [i.e. not Psalms])

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 12:55 AM
RE: Thoughts on these points?
[Image: fb3fb929-ea63-4d82-a9de-752060850816.jpg]

Y U no have pointy?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
19-06-2012, 05:03 AM
RE: Thoughts on these points?
Please, don't tell atheists what atheists believe. You're misrepresenting us on every count. If you don't want to attack a straw man, why don't you pose the questions in a way that actually draws out our beliefs, and then you can attack those reasonably.

We're not "incredulous" about your God any more than you are of Allah. We're skeptical, which is the most logically consistent position to take in the face of a lack of evidence. Empiricism and science in general give us the best answers for practically every question we pose, and there's no reason that they can't answer our religious questions as well. The assertion that these have been rejected isn't even close to true. Philosophers had a lot to do with The Enlightenment.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: