Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2014, 11:24 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 11:22 PM)CindysRain Wrote:  Even though I didn't get to post the one, and probably only, atheist statement that I know, I did get it right! Patting myself on the back now. Banana_zorro

You did good Smile

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
03-08-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 11:14 PM)hbl Wrote:  Atheism is a belief in absence of God so the belief in absence is not an absence of belief.

Facepalm

Another one of THESE idiots...

Okay, here we go. I'll space the logical process out nice and easy for ya:

If I say "God exists."

You can either believe the claim, or not believe the claim.

If you do not believe it, you are not required to then manufacture some adamant belief that the universe must not have any gods.

Lets examine some potential responses:

"I don't believe you" - When the claim is not accepted. This is a statement of disbelief.

"God(s) do not exist" - When the claim is not accepted. This is a statement of belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
03-08-2014, 11:45 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
To continue from my last post:

The acceptance or non-acceptance of the claim "God exists." can be broken down as follows:

Accept the claim: Theist

Reject the claim: Atheist


Those who accept the claim (theists) may then make the following claims:

"I believe in God. I know God exists.": Gnostic Theist
"I believe in God, but I am not sure." Agnostic Theist

Those who reject the claim (atheists) may then make the following claims:

"I do not believe in God. I know God does not exist.": Gnostic Atheist
"I do not believe in God, but I am not sure.": Agnostic Atheist

You may notice that someone who identifies as agnostic may believe or disbelieve in god(s).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WeAreTheCosmos's post
03-08-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
OP, you make a weak case for some kinda uncreated creator and then you try to skip straight to "Oooo, but who could this guy be?", where you'll do the big reveal and tell us it's Jesus. We're still stuck at the "bullshit" stage when we look at your argument for Mr Uncreated Creator.

In any case many of us already found Jesus and chucked the bastard. You are unlikely to succeed in converting us. Why dontcha get some funding from your stupid factory megachurch and find some desperate people? Desperate people *always* like to hear about Jesus, if they get food too. You'll save lots of them... Lots more than you will by beating your head against a wall here Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
04-08-2014, 12:08 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
I am not sure I believe in the ism part?

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dee's post
04-08-2014, 12:09 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2014 12:42 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Parsing poll question... parsing...

... ugh. DANG, that's a grammatical mess.

I'll say, yes. I do believe that atheism exists. It's about the only way to interpret the question so that it makes any sense.

But the bottom line is, OP don't know what atheism is, if he's asking questions like "do you believe in atheism?"

All right, now. Moving on to the badly-repackaged, poorly expressed, WLC boilerplate...

(At least, I'm assuming it's WLC. It's reads like his normal hit list. But then a lot of apologists pick up the same snippets bouncing around their echo chamber, so who knows?)

(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  The reason I don't believe in atheism is because something can't come from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. For example, a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist.

It's easy to get a square circle. Just use the 1-norm or the infinity-norm. Sure, we're abandoning Euclidean geometry, but there are places in the universe (heavy gravity wells) that are non-Euclidean. Among other things that WLC needs to stop pretending he knows, is geometry. Yes, it's an irrelevant aside. But it just irks me when people talk about math as if they are actually experts on it, when they obviously aren't.

Yes, this is directed as the OP, as WELL as WLC or whoever he's plagiarizing.

(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  Likewise, non-existence can't cause nature or the universe to come into being. Krauss would be wrong as well, because that which doesn't exist can't split into something. It doesn't exist.

Krauss is describing vacuum energy (which does exist, at least to the best of my understanding of theoretical physics, which is... not complete) dividing into something. It's an interesting model, which neither you nor I are a tenth of the way competent enough to comment upon. But no, the model does not explain how vacuum energy came to exist in the first place. Nor is it meant to.

(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  And nature can't always have existed either, because if it did, you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now in an infinite regression of cause and effects, so you should have already happened. Moreover, infinite regress is inherently self-contradictory because if there was this past eternity of cause and effects as part of nature, the universe or universes, then a past eternity should continue to go on for eternity, never reaching this point in the here and now. Thus, past eternity is a man made construct, but doesn't exist in reality.

... okay, there are three things wrong with this.

1: Assuming that "we" haven't already happened. This discounts, without the least basis in argument or observation the possibility of a cyclical model of time, which is one of the standard alternatives put forward to... this. "If I just ignore the alternatives, God is the only option. I ignore the alternatives. Therefore, God." It's... not the most convincing of syllogisms.

2: Assuming that "we" should have happened, given an infinite past. Though the OP doesn't expound on how or why we would think this, when presented by WLC and other apologists this is an argument from probability... essentially applying the law of averages. To which I have to say...

STOP PRETENDING YOU'RE AN EXPERT ON MATH!

(I'll grant that the OP might not be pretending to be an expert on math, simply having cribbed WLC on the point and not understanding why WLC, or whoever, was saying it. If so, please pass it back to WLC.)

The law of averages only kicks in when something has a probability that is not zero. But just because something has zero probability, doesn't mean it's impossible. If you're not an expert on math, allow me to clarify. Something with zero probability might be, theoretically, possible, but is so unlikely that its probability is lower than any positive number we can name. This doesn't make it impossible to get a result like that. Sometimes, results like that are ALL we can get. For example, take one of the most basic probability distributions there is: A uniform distribution on the interval [0,1]. The probability of getting EXACTLY 0.5 in an experiment with this pdf is virtually zero. That's because EVERY number in [0,1] has exactly the same probability of being the outcome, there are infinitely many, and the integration of all probabilities of the outcome space must be 1. ANY number that will result, will have had virtually zero probability of being picked. We are guaranteed to get something with zero probability. And when that happens, the law of averages need not apply. At the root of the problem is that we're dealing with an uncountable infinity, here, specifically something with continuum cardinality. There is NO guarantee, or even probabilistic likelihood, of getting a particular outcome, even if we repeat the experiment an infinite number of times. It might be worse with determining whether "we" exist. There's no guarantee that the outcome domain that includes our existence is limited to continuum cardinality. It might be on the order of function-space cardinality, or even bigger.

If you didn't follow that? STOP PRETENDING YOU'RE AN EXPERT ON MATH!

The other problem with applying the law of averages in this case, is that the law of averages only works if the probability is fixed over all the experiments. There is no reason at all to assume that the probability of our existing is fixed over each experiment (that is to say, over each interval of time we're wondering whether we existed in). If anything, the notion of cause and effect suggest more of a Markhov chain, something that strongly indicates dependency on previous states, rather than independence.

If you didn't follow that? STOP PRETENDING YOU'RE AN EXPERT ON MATH! Either pick up a bunch of textbooks and actually become an expert, or stop trying to convince people who know math that math proves God. ... oh, and also, stop trying to convince people who DON'T know math that math proves God. Preying on someone's inadequacies like that is just wrong. (And again, this might be something for the OP to relay back to his/her source, rather than something that should be directly targeted at the OP.)

3) Also, the "infinite regress is impossible" thing? That's an artifice of Greek mathematics, which were woefully flawed and incomplete, especially regarding matters of the infinite, the infinitesimal, and anything that cannot be expressed as a positive ratio of whole numbers. I can go on for pages about it, but suffice to say that this flaw in Greek mathematics infected Greek philosophy, including Aristotle. Mathematicians fixed the problems by... oh, I'd say 19th century at the latest, it's a bit hard to pinpoint, depending on how you cut it we could say as early as the Renaissance. In any case, over a century ago, at least. Not one apologist has bothered updating the arguments that they're cribbing from Aristotle to reflect this (including the Cosmological argument), and most of them don't even realize that there is nothing inherently wrong with infinite regress. That's because they need to STOP PRETENDING THEY'RE EXPERTS ON MATH! Seriously, you're embarrassing yourselves. Zeno pointed out the paradoxes of Greek mathematics almost two and a half MILLENIA ago. Even by the standards of Christian apologists, that's a LONG time to be plugging your ears and going "LALALALALA!"

The bottom line of all this is that an infinite universe is perfectly viable.

There are a great many reasons, based on astronomy, physics, and other types of actual science (rather than navel-gazing like the above) to believe that the universe as we know it did begin to exist at one point. Whether this was an uncaused cause in itself, or a transition from a previous (and presently unknown) state of existence, is beyond the ability of modern science to penetrate. There are a great many models that might account for this, but this is all speculation, and the correct answer for the origins of the universe is "we don't know". It is not, "we don't know, therefore, it was God".

(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Knowing this, we know, therefore, that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. If you ask me what I mean by the term God, the first thing I would tell you is that this is the 'uncreated Creator'.

OH YEAH, this is WLC boilerplate.

Okay, first of all? Outside space? Totally unsupported. You just made that up right now. And "outside time" is... well, impossible for someone or something whose defining character is having DONE something like creating. For example, let's say God created a bunch of stuff, and after that rested. If God is outside time, then how could God do one thing (create) and another (rest)? The very notion of a chronology is inapplicable to something outside of time. If God is outside of time, then he can't transition from a state of making animals, to having finished making animals, to drowning all of them in a temper tantrum. That very model of before-and-after is meaningless outside time. The concept of a creator outside of time is so much gibberish.

(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  Knowing that God exists, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself as only one faith can be true because God does not contradict Himself. He makes Himself known rather than unknown as we have already seen by this proof. What else does He reveal about Himself?

.... wait, where did "himself" come from? How's this thing a "he", and not a "she" or an "it" or a "they"? Does God have a dong? A timeless dong that is so small that it doesn't exist in space? Has God revealed His infinitely miniscule dong to us? Is it incumbent upon us to find out where God revealed His miniscule dong?

Okay, fine. Stupid pronoun choice is stupid. Moving on to some OTHER dickish assumptions...

You're assuming some manner of revelation from this God, completely ignoring the possibility of deism. You're assuming that this revelation is anywhere we CAN see it, rather than aimed at a bunch of little grey men living on a planet 800 light years away... or in another galaxy in another group entirely. You're assuming that this revelation has already happened, rather than being about to happen when, say, we manage to pull off crewed interplanetary or interstellar travel. You're assuming that God isn't a dick (but, apparently, has a dick) who speaks contradictory things out of both sides of "his" mouth just to watch us squirm... say, to "create evil" or "strife between nations" or however you translate that part of the Bible. And, when you get down to it, you're assuming that this proof is valid. Which, as previously shown, it isn't.

EDIT: Also, where in the argument did this creator-thingy become sapient?

As we can see by this "proof", all that it reveals is credulity and confirmation bias by those desperate for some sign that they aren't getting.

I really hope you didn't pay good money for whatever book you paraphrased this out of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
04-08-2014, 12:31 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 11:03 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 10:57 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  You must not understand sarcasm

Chalk that one up for still nobody can be found to even believe in FSM. I don't think that helps your case. I think it hurts it.

Doubling down on FSM! Priceless. This thread is a goldmine. Laughat

Am I just trolling here? Sorry. Just catching up on all of the proselytizing. Facepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bobsyeruncle's post
04-08-2014, 12:36 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Something can't come from nothing...

....except his God. That SOB can come from wherever the hell he wants and there's not a Him damn thing you can do about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
04-08-2014, 12:47 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2014 01:02 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 08:40 PM)hbl Wrote:  The reason I don't believe in atheism is because something can't come from nothing. That which does not exist can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. For example, a square circle can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Likewise, non-existence can't cause nature or the universe to come into being. Krauss would be wrong as well, because that which doesn't exist can't split into something. It doesn't exist.

And nature can't always have existed either, because if it did, you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now in an infinite regression of cause and effects, so you should have already happened.

Moreover, infinite regress is inherently self-contradictory because if there was this past eternity of cause and effects as part of nature, the universe or universes, then a past eternity should continue to go on for eternity, never reaching this point in the here and now. Thus, past eternity is a man made construct, but doesn't exist in reality.

Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Knowing this, we know, therefore, that nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. If you ask me what I mean by the term God, the first thing I would tell you is that this is the 'uncreated Creator'.

Yo, OP, let me get this straight:

You say that god exists, and does so by virtue of a specially pleaded exemption to your prior stated rule that all things which exist require creation?

Being 'outside space and time' doesn't help your argument whatsoever when it comes to this contradiction. First of all; for anything to exist, it by definition must be within space and time; if you want to posit that your god exists, you must posit as well that it occupies a part of space-time.
Secondly; in order for action to occur, there must be time; if you wish to posit that god did anything at all, you must also posit that it is itself, within time.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Free Thought's post
04-08-2014, 01:28 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2014 01:38 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(03-08-2014 11:10 PM)hbl Wrote:  Do you know what I like about your claim? You have no evidence for any of it like I have evidence as was given in the opening post.

You are just assuming that there is no evidence for the non-existence of your god because you yourself don't know about it.

What 'evidence' do you have? An inconsistent book full of factual errors and nebulous concepts that cannot be explained written by people in the bronze and iron ages.

What evidence does the gnostic atheist have?

Scientific knowledge obtained using the scientific method which requires evidence to be clearly defined, falsifiable and reproducible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: