"Atheism" is an Irrational Religion

[sevin]

The claim that there is no God is an extraordinary claim, especially given the fact that there is so much evidence of God around us. The burden of proof is on the "atheists," too, to show that their view is true and correct. Otherwise, they are just being arbitrary, and by extension, irrational.

Why do you keep going around and bashing atheists? Why don't you be a little more loving and accepting? I think if Jesus exists he must be a lot easier to talk to than you.

I myself, do not believe in a god. I do not assume there is no god, I just don't see any reason to believe it. You, however, assume that there is a god. When you make a claim (remember, I don't claim anything, I just don't believe it, like I don't believe in unicorns), it is up to you to prove the claim is true. It is called the onus of proof.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Onus+of+proof

Burden of Proof:

In court proceedings, the duty of a party to produce sufficient evidence to prove that his case is true.

You say there is a god, now prove it.

To claim there is a god, and then turn around and say the burden is on me to prove there isn't is so ridiculous, it's laughable. I've said this before and I'll say it again, but it's like if you said leprechauns exist and told me it was up to me to prove you wrong. Give me a break, man. You need a new tactic, and you know it.

 

[Annihilia]

why do you keep going around and bashing atheists? why don't you be a little more loving and accepting? i think if jesus exists he must be a lot easier to talk to than you.

This.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The burden of proof is on the "atheists," too, to show that their view is true and correct. Otherwise, they are just being arbitrary, and by extension, irrational.

All beliefs (religion, or lack of) have a burden of proof. Where is the empirical evidence to prove Christianity?

Your position seems hypocritical.

 

[LDA]

All beliefs (religion, or lack of) have a burden of proof.

No, the lack of a religion does not have a burden of proof. Just as, like he mentioned, the lack of belief in unicorns does not require a burden of proof. It isn't up to anyone to prove that something doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of things that you can't prove don't exist. We don't, as a result, believe in everything that can't be proven to not exist. Otherwise, we would believe in all that crap, and how useful would that be?

 

[YumYum]

No, the lack of a religion does not have a burden of proof. Just as, like he mentioned, the lack of belief in unicorns does not require a burden of proof. It isn't up to anyone to prove that something doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of things that you can't prove don't exist. We don't, as a result, believe in everything that can't be proven to not exist. Otherwise, we would believe in all that crap, and how useful would that be?

Not very, that's a lot of shit to believe in. And I wonder why so many crazy people join religion.

 

[krazy kaju]

Most atheists do not believe that there is no God. They look at the evidence and know that the existence of God is highly unlikely.

 

[YumYum]

Most atheists do not believe that there is no God. They look at the evidence and know that the existence of God is highly unlikely.

Isn't that an agnostic with atheistic leanings? Most confirmed atheist I know, like my cousin, are adamant that there is no God. He preaches to anybody that will listen as to why there is no god. (kinda like a Christian)

 

[Bman]

The claim that there is no God is an extraordinary claim, especially given the fact that there is so much evidence of God around us. The burden of proof is on the "atheists," too, to show that their view is true and correct. Otherwise, they are just being arbitrary, and by extension, irrational.

First Law of Thermal Dynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.


It always is, always was, always will be. The fact that it is, and shall always be does not automatically mean that it has a controller.

How do you plan on proving that it does? That's the question Theo.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No, the lack of a religion does not have a burden of proof. Just as, like he mentioned, the lack of belief in unicorns does not require a burden of proof. It isn't up to anyone to prove that something doesn't exist. There are an infinite amount of things that you can't prove don't exist. We don't, as a result, believe in everything that can't be proven to not exist. Otherwise, we would believe in all that crap, and how useful would that be?

Most atheists do not believe that there is no God. They look at the evidence and know that the existence of God is highly unlikely.

^
This

 

[ClayTrainor]

First Law of Thermal Dynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.


It always is, always was, always will be. The fact that it is, and shall always be does not automatically mean that it has a controller.

How do you plan on proving that it does? That's the question Theo.

That's pretty much my question too.

I believe in this singularity, but not the controller. I believe we are the controllers, we are the creators, and we always have been. We are existence creating, exploring, expanding and improving itself.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I believe in this singularity, but not the controller. I believe we are the controllers, we are the creators, and we always have been. We are existence creating, exploring, expanding and improving itself.

Why do you believe this?

 

[Theocrat]

The Claim Which "Atheists" Affirm

Atheists cannot know for sure that there is no God, you're correct. Most atheists don't even claim to know with absolute certainty. Similarly, they cannot know that there are no invisible unicorns in their closet. It's impossible to know, for sure, the non-existence of something.



Unfortunately, you're wrong that atheists have to believe in something that has no evidence. You don't need evidence to not believe in something. There's no claim being made. As an atheist, I haven't made any unsupported claims. I've simply said that I'll only claim to believe something that manifests, i.e. can be sensed in some way. God does not manifest.



Atheism is not considered a religion. It has no doctrine. It's simply the lack of a belief. Again, there is no unsupported assertion being made with atheism. I don't have to believe anything on faith. There's nothing irrational about not believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

[Emphasis mine]

Once again, "atheists" are making a claim, and that claim is there is no God. Of course, I agree with you that theists have the burden of proof that there is a God, and theists have presented and explained many evidences to prove God's existence. The problem is "atheists" reject those evidences based on their own presuppositions and standards for what the evidence should be to convince them. God has manifested Himself pervasively to all men, so that no man is without excuse before Him of His existence. The creation, human reasoning and dignity, the regularity of nature, and moral judgments are just some of the evidences that God truly exists. "Atheism," as a belief system, cannot adequately and absolutely explain and make sense of those things which are very important to our human existence.

So, what evidence warrants the conclusion that there is no God?

"Atheism" does have a doctrine. That doctrine is that there is no spiritual, all-powerful, all-knowing Being Who created and controls all events in the universe. The doctrine continues to teach that man is the only surveyor of what's right, true, beautiful, logical, etc. It views reality only through the scope of naturalistic measures, such as the scientific method. Don't sit there and tell me "atheism" has no doctrine because it strongly has doctrinal content to its own system of belief.

 

[Theocrat]

Catholic With a Little "C"

Theocrat, I have a question for you. Do you believe that Catholic Church is the true Church of God?

I believe that the Christian Church is catholic, in the universal sense. I disagree vehemently with most of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, being a protestant myself. Click on the video in my signature for more information about that.

 

[Theocrat]

The Basis of Science is Found in the Christian Religion

I have seen this all before.

The theists among us know that atheism has the backing of logic, reason, and science.

So what they try to do is place atheism and theism on the same setting, usually by proxy. They try to claim atheism is a religion, that science is a religion, that evolution is a religion. All just attempts to drag these things down to the level of religious irrational belief.

Then they try to place religion at the level of science. Creationism, intelligent design, scientific theory of creation, creation museum, the Discovery Institute. All kinds of bullshit. All just attempts to legitimize their beliefs by calling it science.

You have a great divide in your thinking, which illustrates, for one, that you have not thought correctly about your own beliefs as an "atheist." "Atheism" and theism are both religious worldviews, chock full of values, morals, ideas about the history of mankind, the purpose of life (or lack thereof), etc. It's just that "atheism" has no basis for it to be the correct worldview, being contradicted by science, law, and every other discipline in the universe.

As a theist, I love natural science. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I have to throw away scientific inquiry and experimentation. You need to realize that natural science is itself only made possible by a particular worldview, and that worldview is Christian theism. It is only by the Christian worldview that the regularity and limitations of the natural world can be assumed and explained. It s only by the Christian worldview that natural science has even progressed as much as it has. When "atheists" do science, they have to borrow assumptions about nature from an otherwise Christian worldview. In that sense, "atheist" scientists aren't very good atheists.

 

[Theocrat]

Logical Fallacy in the Midst of Mockery

You know Theo, I think you are onto something, let us do a little experiment, by inserting a minor substitution.

Here we go:

'Atheists" cannot know for sure there is no "red lollipop inside a green banana spinning around Venus while playing Britney Spears Videos on the iPod", so all they can do is believe there is no ""red lollipop inside a green banana spinning around Venus while playing Britney Spears Videos on the iPod". 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. '

You are onto something Theo.

By the way, I congratulate you on the strength of your bond with your imaginary friend.

In your attempt to mock my argument, you have missed one important factor of my argument. God is in no way the same nor similar to a "red lollipop inside a green banana spinning around Venus while playing Britney Spears Videos on the iPod." Thus, you're comparing apples and oranges there. God is the One Who has created and ordered the universe for His own purposes, so He is not a created thing, such as red lollipops, green bananas, Venus, Britney Spears, videos, nor iPods. So then it becomes obvious that your argument is a logical fallacy, in other words, a false analogy.

 

[Theocrat]

A Worldview Under Siege

What does this have to do with Liberty?

Why do you keep going around and bashing atheists? Why don't you be a little more loving and accepting? I think if Jesus exists he must be a lot easier to talk to than you.

I myself, do not believe in a god. I do not assume there is no god, I just don't see any reason to believe it. You, however, assume that there is a god. When you make a claim (remember, I don't claim anything, I just don't believe it, like I don't believe in unicorns), it is up to you to prove the claim is true. It is called the onus of proof.

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Onus+of+proof

You say there is a god, now prove it.

To claim there is a god, and then turn around and say the burden is on me to prove there isn't is so ridiculous, it's laughable. I've said this before and I'll say it again, but it's like if you said leprechauns exist and told me it was up to me to prove you wrong. Give me a break, man. You need a new tactic, and you know it.

[Emphasis mine]

The subject of whether "atheism" is true or not is very important because, logically speaking, it cannot both be the case that "atheists" are correct about the world and that Christians are correct about the world. One of them is wrong, and it deserves to be shown which one that is, especially if we seek to uphold the principles which make liberty possible in this movement.

I am not attacking "atheists," but I am attacking their worldview, admittedly. It is my conviction (as it was of our Founders) that "atheism" is a road to tyranny because it strips away any foundation for morals, liberty, and purpose in human lives. Our American culture today is rampant with "atheistic" philosophy, as can be seen in our current government, school system, scientific establishments, media and entertainment, etc. Because of that, our nation is where it is today. We have forsaken God, and in His place have placed Man as the arbiter of all things, whether it's on an individual level or collectivist level.

The time has come for "atheists" to put up or shut up about there not being a God. Their worldview will continue to be under scrutiny and exposed for the fraud that it is until the truth is proclaimed from every realm of human existence. They may continue to attack Christianity, but their own belief system will be engaged in academic warfare, as well. I will not shut up about it, and I will continue to show that "atheism" is a lie, the biggest lie which has ever entered into human history. At the core, if "atheism" is true, then this movement, this forum, and all the principles we espouse have no reason to be believed and made true in the human hearts and minds of all mankind.

 

[sevin]

I am not attacking "atheists," but I am attacking their worldview, admittedly. It is my conviction (as it was of our Founders) that "atheism" is a road to tyranny because it strips away any foundation for morals, liberty, and purpose in human lives. Our American culture today is rampant with "atheistic" philosophy, as can be seen in our current government, school system, scientific establishments, media and entertainment, etc. Because of that, our nation is where it is today. We have forsaken God, and in His place have placed Man as the arbiter of all things, whether it's on an individual level or collectivist level.

The time has come for "atheists" to put up or shut up about there not being a God. Their worldview will continue to be under scrutiny and exposed for the fraud that it is until the truth is proclaimed from every realm of human existence. They may continue to attack Christianity, but their own belief system will be engaged in academic warfare, as well. I will not shut up about it, and I will continue to show that "atheism" is a lie, the biggest lie which has ever entered into human history. At the core, if "atheism" is true, then this movement, this forum, and all the principles we espouse have no reason to be believed and made true in the human hearts and minds of all mankind.

The problem is your misconception that there can be no morality without god. You don't have to believe in god to believe in freedom. By their very nature, humans operate as individuals, and only a system that respects individual freedom (not infringing on the lives or property of others) will work.

BTW, atheism is not a lie. You can only lie if you say something, and like I said before, I never said there wasn't a god. I didn't say anything. You're the one making claims, and I just don't see any reason to believe them.

 

[YumYum]

I believe that the Christian Church is catholic, in the universal sense. I disagree vehemently with most of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, being a protestant myself. Click on the video in my signature for more information about that.

I assume you believe that the entire sixty-six books of the Bible were written by your God. Do you know who your God used to give mankind the first copy of the Bible with its sixty-six books?

 

[erowe1]

Do you know who your God used to give mankind the first copy of the Bible with its sixty-six books?

Of course he doesn't. Nobody in the world knows. Anybody who thinks they do know is somebody who has only studied the textual transmission of the biblical books at a very superficial level (or else is a person arrogant enough to think they know the unknowable, as scholars sometimes are). And it's completely irrelevant anyway.

 

[YumYum]

Of course he doesn't. Nobody in the world knows. Anybody who thinks they do know is somebody who has only studied the textual transmission of the biblical books at a very superficial level (or else is a person arrogant enough to think they know the unknowable, as scholars sometimes are). And it's completely irrelevant anyway.

The first complete Bible was Jerome's Vulgate, also known as the Latin Vulgate. The Pope commisioned Jerome, his secretary, around 395 C.E. to put together a book that would combine all the other books that were either inspired or historically accurate. It was completed around 400 C.E. The Catholic Church gave us our first Bible. Doesn't it stand to reason then, that God used the Catholic Church?