"Atheism" is an Irrational Religion

Theocrat said:
"Atheists" cannot know for sure there is no God, so all they can do is believe there is no God. Since "atheists" cannot prove the nonexistence of something, they have to believe in something which has no evidence to back it up. Therefore, "atheism" is a religion based on a belief which has no evidence for it to be true, and for that reason, it is the most irrational of all belief systems in history. :)
Click to expand...

Strawman.
 
pacelli said:
That's a great point that depends on one's pre-existing perception. To me, to assert that God does not exist is an extraordinary claim.
Click to expand...

What if I asserted that the Philistines god Baal doesn't exist, or that the Babylonian's god Marduke doesn't exist. Would that be considered an extrordinary claim? There is more of a "lack of evidence" to claim that these gods do not exist than there is evidence to claim that they do exist. The burden of proof falls in the lap of the believer.


pacelli said:
To an atheist, to assert that God exists is an extraordinary claim. All the non-atheist wants you to do is provide the extraordinary evidence. Yet, the next point in the debate from the atheist becomes, "you cannot prove a negative". If one cannot prove a negative, then why believe something that one cannot prove?
Click to expand...

The believer that claims God exists, and yet demands evidence from those who say that he doesn’t, is creating a mutually exclusive condition. To illustrate, I can ask a believer: “Can God do anything?” To this I might get a reply: “Yes, He can do anything as long as it is not evil or wicked.” Then I ask: “Can he make a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” That is like asking: “What would happen if God made both an unstoppable object and an unmovable object, and they slammed into each other?” The question is illogical. According to Christians, Jesus was God on Earth and the Son of God. And yet the Jews demanded proof, which he gave them. It wasn’t the other way around. They didn’t have to prove that He wasn’t God’s Son; instead they ridiculed His assertion that he was. The burden of proof was on Jesus.
 
shemdogg said:
it's more rational to believe that a wizard did it
Click to expand...

Hey now, not just a wizard, but a super duper omnipotent wizard.

Theo said:
"Atheists" cannot know for sure there is no God, so all they can do is believe there is no God.
Click to expand...

There is belief based on evidence, such as "I believe there is gravity". And then there is reason based on nothing but faith/mysticism.

I'd call myself an agnostic towards "God", but it seems most people do that just for the comfort of being neutral. I wouldn't call myself an agnostic towards the existence of Zeus or Horus, there is no good reason to believe either exist, therefor I do not believe in them.
 
Last edited:
"Christians" cannot know for sure there is a God, so all they can do is believe there is a God. Since "Christians" cannot prove the existence of something, they have to believe in something which has no evidence to back it up. Therefore, "Christianity" is a religion based on a belief which has no evidence for it to be true, and for that reason, it is the most irrational of all belief systems in history.
 
RedStripe said:
"Christians" cannot know for sure there is a God, so all they can do is believe there is a God. Since "Christians" cannot prove the existence of something, they have to believe in something which has no evidence to back it up. Therefore, "Christianity" is a religion based on a belief which has no evidence for it to be true, and for that reason, it is the most irrational of all belief systems in history.
Click to expand...

What about the Christian that knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God? Those Christians do not have to "believe" because they "know". Are they irrational?
 
"Atheists" cannot know for sure there is no Godzilla, so all they can do is believe there is no Godzilla. Since "atheists" cannot prove the nonexistence of something, they have to believe in something which has no evidence to back it up. Therefore, "atheism" is a religion based on a belief which has no evidence for it to be true, and for that reason, it is the most irrational of all belief systems in history.

Ah, fuck I just pwned myself. I don't believe in Godzilla, therefore my atheism causes me to have an irrational belief in something I can't back up, therefore my entire belief system is irrational. But... since I'm irrational, how could I have come up with this rationalization? Sooo, sooo confused. Perhaps I should drown out my confusion by turning all my energies into campaigning for abortion on demand, the abolishment of capitalism, the breakup of the family, the promotion of the Democrat Party, and the consumption of drugs. Damn you Godzilaaaaa!
foto,godzilla,hahaha,monstro,nuvem-ce136bf634cb827c9a03421f0fd72650_m.jpg
 
YumYum said:
What about the Christian that knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God? Those Christians do not have to "believe" because they "know". Are they irrational?
Click to expand...

Do they believe that they know? What's the difference between belief, knowledge, and opinion? Is there any difference at all? Is very concept of truth a construct of our own minds which, like the opposable thumb and our innate capacity for logical and mathematical reasoning, just another evolutionary/biological tool that has enabled our survival and success?

There are many people who claim to "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" truths of reality that are in direct contradiction to one another. Could they all be true? If not, how do we know which "knowledge" is correct, and which is not?
 
RedStripe said:
What's the difference between belief, knowledge, and opinion? Is there any difference at all?
Click to expand...

Damn straight there is.

The only reasons the line between knowledge and belief and faith is so fuzzy, is because you guys want it that way. You know your beliefs are based on irrational logic, so you say there must be something wrong with rationality and logic.

Take Obama for instance. He clearly does not meet the standards to win a Nobel Peace Prize. But hes Obama. Hes the chosen one. There clearly can not be something wrong with him, so there must be something wrong with the award standards. His term began after the nomination deadline? That cant be a problem for him, it must be a mistake in the deadline. He hasnt done anything peaceful? That cant be a problem with him, it must be a mistake in our understanding of peace.
 
Mitt Romneys sideburns said:
Damn straight there is.
Click to expand...

Alright. Please support your assertion (I know, it's harder than throwing around baseless accusations, but give it a shot).

The only reasons the line between knowledge and belief and faith is so fuzzy, is because you guys want it that way.
Click to expand...

1. Who is "you guys?"

2. You state that the line between knowledge/belief/faith is "fuzzy," as a matter of fact, and state that this fact is caused by the fact that 'we' want it that way (reread your own statement to confirm). Do you really believe that the collective will of a group of individuals is the source of what is and is not an objective fact?

3. Did I claim that there was no difference between knowledge, belief and faith, or did I just simply ask a question? (hint: scroll up)

You know your beliefs are based on irrational logic, so you say there must be something wrong with rationality and logic.
Click to expand...

1. If I don't believe in knowledge, how can I "know" what my beliefs are or what they are based on?

2. How can logic be irrational?

3. Did I say there was something "wrong" with rationality and logic, and what did I say was "wrong" with it?

Take Obama for instance. He clearly does not meet the standards to win a Nobel Peace Prize. But hes Obama. Hes the chosen one. There clearly can not be something wrong with him, so there must be something wrong with the award standards. His term began after the nomination deadline? That cant be a problem for him, it must be a mistake in the deadline. He hasnt done anything peaceful? That cant be a problem with him, it must be a mistake in our understanding of peace.
Click to expand...

1. Is this is an attempt to illustrate epistemological principles?

2. What point are you attempting to illustrate?
 
RedStripe said:
What point are you attempting to illustrate?
Click to expand...

Take "Obama" in that paragraph, and replace it with your belief in "God"

When I was arguing with Theocrat last year, he admitted that belief in God was illogical. He therefore concluded that there must be something wrong with Logic. Many of the rest of you guys wont go as far as admitting your belief is illogical. You may not even consciously realize it.
 
I don't see what is so wrong in holding active belief (not to be confused with faith) in a negative statement. For example, if someone makes the claim that the sky is orange and fails to demonstrate that the sky is orange, I am justified in actively believing that the sky is not orange. How else is the human mind supposed to function? By completely dismissing the issue altogether?

Moreover, don't jump to conclusions now and assume that I am claiming to know (i.e. with 100% certainty) that the sky is not orange. This is an unjustified assumption.
 
Last edited:
Mitt Romneys sideburns said:
Take "Obama" in that paragraph, and replace it with your belief in "God"

When I was arguing with Theocrat last year, he admitted that belief in God was illogical. He therefore concluded that there must be something wrong with Logic. Many of the rest of you guys wont go as far as admitting your belief is illogical. You may not even consciously realize it.
Click to expand...

Haha. Who said I believed in God? /facepalm

Don't worry about supporting your incoherent and contradictory assertions. It's probably a better use of your time to focus on basic reading comprehension at this point.
 
YumYum said:
What about the Christian that knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God? Those Christians do not have to "believe" because they "know". Are they irrational?
Click to expand...

Faith is not about belief. Doubt is the opposite of belief. But in the Christian sense I would say that Faith is the opposite of sin, not doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
Pope Frankie the Red: ‘All Religions Are a Path to Reach God’
Replies
6
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
G
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
1
Views
114
TheTexan
TheTexan
osan
What Is Mental Illness?
Replies
7
Views
2K
black panther
B
ClaytonB
You don't know the Bible
Replies
0
Views
656
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
American Theocracy: Politics Has Become Our National Religion
Replies
1
Views
733
PAF
PAF
Back
Top