Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[idirtify]

And honestly, the insulting tone is what I take offense with and take their spoon of venom and feed it back to them with a few alterations. I generally stay out of the good natured discussions or simply add an opinion and go on to other threads.

Best Regards
Rev9

Ahh, now it’s the “insulting TONE” of your opponent. So that’s your reason for insulting. I see. So am I using one now? Will you be insulting me for this comment?

 

[DamianTV]

I don’t know anything about his “posture of intolerance”. All I know is the OP you quoted; and it was only a disagreement. And saying “statements like that fuel the fire for any kind of intolerance” is getting it backwards. A disagreement is not intolerance; but the first person to TAKE IT personally is the one fueling the fire. IOW, by confusing the difference between person and message, YOU are making this an issue of personal intolerance (being intolerant). I think you actually understand but are refusing to abide. Besides, you begin by saying you think I’m probably right. So then why did you proceed to further confuse and twist the issue from non-personal to personal (dig your hole deeper)?

So what? Now he is a fucking Good Guy? He can start fires and I shouldnt do a fucking thing about it? And Im the one being intolerant? Liberty Eagle was right. You like to start fights.

St. Damian is one of the most beloved saints of the early Church. He was an Unmercenary (a physician who went around healing the sick at no cost).

I wish more people knew that, instead of immediately making preconceived notions about me because of my name. Hearing shit like "So, whats his name? Damian. Oh, he sounds creepy, like a Child Molestor" and hearing shit like that repeatedly throughout my life really really gets to me after a while.

 

[idirtify]

So what? Now he is a fucking Good Guy? He can start fires and I shouldnt do a fucking thing about it? And Im the one being intolerant? Liberty Eagle was right. You like to start fights.

Please be careful turning your personal remarks on me. You have no idea what I like. I am not “fighting”; I am only DISAGREEING with your personal remarks.

Now lets look at who more likely started the fire. Was it the one who made a disagreement, or the one who took it personal and then insulted the poster?

As far as who is the more “intolerant”, the same applies.

Do you understand that individual behavior is at the core of all individual liberty (the agreement to abstain from the initiation of aggression)? Are you able to control your aggressive behavior?

 

[Dustancostine]

Well I am back, I haven't had much spare time at all lately.

You are just using a straw man argument here, the assumption made in this post is that "there is no logical reason to be an atheist", it does not assume that Theism is true or false.

So your argument is illogical

Um, my argument is very logical. Itsnobody do you know what being an aethiest is?

From wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

So you are asking for a logical reason to not believe something, something you are making no claim is true or false? That is ridiculous and absurd. Atheism only exist as a label insofar as people believe the idea of Theism, regardless of their deity.

I can even break it down:

There is such Theism, that a person who does not hold any theist belief is labeled an atheist.

You are asking for a logical reason to be atheist, i.e. you are asking for a logical reason to not hold a theist belief. And the only logical reason to not hold any belief is a lack of evidence, i.e. in the absence of evidence, the ones who are making the claim can provide no logical reason.

To say atheist, is to say theist. We don't go around asking people to give logical reasons for being a-unicorns, to not believe in unicorns, absent of any claims whether unicorns exist or not, we don't go around asking for people to give logical reasons for being a-flyingspagettimonster, to not believe in flying spagetti monsters, absent of any claims about fsms.

If you are not making any theist claims, then there is no atheist. And your request is moot.

 

[Dustancostine]

Well I've exhausted all the arguments here and shown all of the atheistic arguments to be completely illogical.

It can be 100% certain to the extent that there doesn't even exist the smallest, slightest, most infinitesimal doubt that there is no logical reason to be an atheist, there is nothing logical about atheists, there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument

So anyone else have any other arguments?

Your conclusion is false, go back and check your premises and reasoning.

 

[libertyisntdead]

Well, being that everyone is born an atheist, why don't YOU give us a reason why you chose a different path - a path of following a fairy in the sky? I gave up santa claus a long time ago, why don't you? Give is a logical reason; the burden of proof is on you, not atheists.

Jung believes man is born inherently spiritual and with a soul and I agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes

"The origins of the archetypal hypothesis date back as far as Plato. Jung himself compared archetypes to Platonic εἶδος (eidos). Plato's ideas were pure mental forms, that were imprinted in the soul before it was born into the world. They were collective in the sense that they embodied the fundamental characteristics of a thing rather than its specific peculiarities. In fact many of Jung's Ideas were prevalent in Athenian philosophy. The archetype theory can be seen as a psychological equivalent to the philosophical idea of forms and particulars."

"Virtually alone among the depth psychologists of the twentieth century, Jung rejected the tabula rasa theory of human psychological development, believing instead that evolutionary pressures have individual predestinations manifested in archetypes. For Jung, "the archetype is the introspectively recognizable form of a priori psychic orderedness".[5] These images must be thought of as lacking in solid content, hence as unconscious. They only acquire solidity, influence, and eventual consciousness in the encounter with empirical facts."[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
"Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals. Our main task, he believed, is to discover and fulfill our deep innate potential, much as the acorn contains the potential to become the oak, or the caterpillar to become the butterfly. Based on his study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Taoism, and other traditions, Jung perceived that this journey of transformation, which he called individuation, is at the mystical heart of all religions. It is a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Unlike Sigmund Freud, Jung thought spiritual experience was essential to our well-being.[19]"

 

[idirtify]

It appears that Damian is not able to control his aggressive behavior, which behavior is the antithesis of individual liberty and this forum.

Here’s the note I included to the mods (post obviously flagged):
“I’m not sure insulting and profanity gets much worse than this on RPF. Please moderate this user in some way. If not, it could set a terrible precedent.”

 

[No Free Beer]

I will be straight forward. I am agnostic. That being said, I don't know who said that we are born "atheists", but I agree with that. I don't think it is natural for a newborn to "believe" in anything. The mind, at a young age, absorbs almost everything...just like a sponge. From there it gains knowledge. To me, it doesn't make any sense that a newborn would have the capacity to "believe" in any such thing.

 

[itsnobody]

Hmm...people still replying to this thread?

I thought I had already declared myself the winner a while ago....maybe I should respond back to more illogical atheistic arguments some time

 

[TheViper]

I'm agnostic. But stating that there is no logic to be an atheist is in itself illogical. Declaring yourself a winner? Not very Christian of you.

Our beliefs are based on our cultures. One needs to look at the world from a wide perspective to grasp this. Because of that, it is logical to conclude that our religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are simply relative to our culture. History suggests much the same.

 

[Czolgosz]

Lol wow

 

[itsnobody]

Um, my argument is very logical. Itsnobody do you know what being an aethiest is?

From wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

So you are asking for a logical reason to not believe something, something you are making no claim is true or false? That is ridiculous and absurd. Atheism only exist as a label insofar as people believe the idea of Theism, regardless of their deity.

I can even break it down:

There is such Theism, that a person who does not hold any theist belief is labeled an atheist.

You are asking for a logical reason to be atheist, i.e. you are asking for a logical reason to not hold a theist belief. And the only logical reason to not hold any belief is a lack of evidence, i.e. in the absence of evidence, the ones who are making the claim can provide no logical reason.

To say atheist, is to say theist. We don't go around asking people to give logical reasons for being a-unicorns, to not believe in unicorns, absent of any claims whether unicorns exist or not, we don't go around asking for people to give logical reasons for being a-flyingspagettimonster, to not believe in flying spagetti monsters, absent of any claims about fsms.

If you are not making any theist claims, then there is no atheist. And your request is moot.

Well your argument is pretty vague and weak.

The first definition holds that atheism is the belief that there are no deities, then the second holds that you simply lack the belief in deities, so which one is it?

Then your other argument for evidence being a valid reason was already thoroughly refuted by me in the previous posts. I already explained in detail how absence of evidence for an empirically untestable claim indicates nothing and is not a valid reason for disbelieving.

Then your unicorn analogy is a false analogy since unicorns are empirically testable, then your FSM argument is just a non-sequitur.

 

[itsnobody]

I'm agnostic. But stating that there is no logic to be an atheist is in itself illogical. Declaring yourself a winner? Not very Christian of you.

Our beliefs are based on our cultures. One needs to look at the world from a wide perspective to grasp this. Because of that, it is logical to conclude that our religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are simply relative to our culture. History suggests much the same.

Instead of giving an actual reason as to why it's illogical to believe that "there is no logical reason to be an atheist", all you do is make the statement that it's illogical, what a substance-less argument.

As for your 2nd paragraph, like I said you cannot determine whether or not a statement is true or false by determining the psychology behind the belief.

I cannot determine whether or not General Relativity, the Field Theory, the string theory, multiple universes, etc...exist by determining the psychology of why people believe in those things.

The way you determine if something is true or false in science is by using the scientific method. But the scientific method can only function if a hypothesis is empirically testable.

 

[itsnobody]

There is one. Because it is NONE of your business to tell me what Religion I should follow.

You Intolerant Ass.

---

This in my Opinion is the exact type of mentality we try to fix. Youre not like me so you should be a 2nd Class Citizen. This is probably one of the worst posts that I have seen in my entire time of being here on the forums, and due to the absolute disregard for respect of other people flat out warrants a NEGATIVE REP. Who is next on this guys shitlist? Jews? Blacks? Women? Fatties? Smokers? Single Mothers? Maybe even YOU?

Just a straw man.

I never told anyone to follow any religion or to believe what I believe. Instead I only claimed that "there is no logical reason to be an atheist".

Then the rest of your post is just argument ad hominems. What's intolerant about debating?

 

[itsnobody]

There's no reason to believe that there is a god. Therefore I do not believe in a god.

Your confidence is highly misplaced.

Well your statement here is vague and does not tell me whether you:
- Believe there is no God
- Believe that the existence of God is highly unlikely
- Believe that the existence of God is unknown

If someone does not believe in God it could mean either, I was referring to the traditional definition of believing there is no God.

Meaning there is no logical reason to "believe that there is no God".

 

[itsnobody]

The title is misleading. There is NO challenge to atheists, rather the title should read, Free and Open Challenge to Believers. Since after-all, they are making the fantastic claim that a supernatural god exists and intervenes in the world...it is up to them to prove or show evidence that there GOD does in fact exist...good luck...

The burden of proof is irrelevant as I already explained since God is empirically untestable.

So your argument can really just be reduced to circular reasoning or saying "prove something that cannot be scientifically proven true even if it really is true"

 

[itsnobody]

I too, was once lost. Then I learned of the truth, of the one true God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Come into the light, my son...

I thought I already refuted this argument as well...it's just a non-sequitur, the existence of God has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a FSM.

Using atheists' reasoning I can conclude that multiple universes do not exist if I don't believe in a FSM. There's no proof that multiple universes exist and there's no proof that a FSM exists.

The reason this argument is illogical is because an FSM and God are two different concepts.

 

[PierzStyx]

People are born atheists - no one believes in a God out of the womb. They have to be taught, etc. Agnosticism is the position that "God is unknowable". I don't think babies are agnostics out of the womb. Atheism does not require faith. Atheists examine their world, and see nothing that provides any convincing logical evidence for God's existence. Therefore, they do not believe in a God.

Scientists say things with certainty because that is where their experimentation and the evidence they have produced have lead them. If there was any empirical evidence that a God has done these things, then that would be the conclusion they would be professing with the same certainty. I don't think anyone has any convincing evidence that God is behind our respiratory mechanisms. I make a point out of not ridiculing other's faiths.

Your assert that children are atheists at birth is unknowable and unprovable, as much so as religious arguments. I could easily state that children know God and believe in God but because they are simple in understanding lose that knowledge as they are bombarded with a billion new stimuli a day and are taught otherwise by their parents. And you couldn't prove me wrong. Certainly I can't prove me right either, but then again neither can you. People are born theists is just a svalid a statement as People are born atheists in the end. Don't assert it as if it were a proven fact. It is not.

 

[itsnobody]

Well this is boring me now as I've thoroughly refuted every single atheistic argument proposed to me.

I encourage atheists to propose any argument they want to me, and to question, criticize, and scrutinize me as much as they want so that they can see the truth.

In conclusion I've thoroughly refuted so far:
- The psychology argument (the only reason you believe is because you were raised to, culture, etc...)
- The lack of evidence argument
- The Flying Spaghetti Monster-style argument
- The burden of proof argument
- The "We're all born atheists" argument

Are there any other atheistic arguments left?

So is there a such thing as a logical atheistic argument?

[EDIT 11.3.2011] Added the "We're all born atheists argument" to the list.

 

[hazek]

I challenge any atheist to give me even one logical atheistic argument or logical reason for being an atheist.

I've seen lots of atheistic arguments and have never seen even one logical argument from atheists. I declare that there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

Everything is free and open, as soon as you provide your argument I'll just explain how it's illogical.

There is no logical reason to be an atheist.

nr. 1: Religion is a form of mass control and I don't want to be under anyone's control nor do I want the society I live in to be in control of a small minority when it's not even aware they're being manipulated and controlled for the benefit of that small minority. Same logic why I don't want a central bank really.

nr. 2: The better we understand the facts of reality the better off we are in life. We live longer and life is easier.

I can't wait to hear how my logic is flawed.