Exposing Atheistic Myths

[atrib]

For example, atheists have agreed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove God doesn't exist.

The existence of a Christian god is unfalsifiable. That much is true. Much like the concept of Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad from whose flatulence the universe came into existence, is unfalsifiable. However, specific claims made in the Bible can be falsified. And have been falsified by modern science. Like the age of the earth, the origin of life and humans, the Noachian flood, and so on. Since so much of what the Bible claims is demonstrably wrong, this leaves us no reason to believe the other claims in the Bible that cannot be falsified.

So, since it's impossible to prove God does not exist, atheism is based on faith, not facts, not logic, not reason, just pure and simple faith.

Atheists don't believe in gods because no convincing evidence of the existence of gods has been presented. So the atheists's lack of belief is based on sound and practical epistemological principles. Can you explain why atheists should believe in gods when no evidence can be presented?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For example, atheists have agreed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove God doesn't exist.

It seems odd to justify a position because it isn't falsifiable. That isn't a good thing.

You've also opened the door for a wide spectrum of infalsifiable gods that now need to be worshiped.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For example, atheists have agreed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove God doesn't exist.

It seems odd to justify a position because it isn't falsifiable. That isn't a good thing.

You've also opened the door for a wide spectrum of infalsifiable gods that now need to be worshiped.

Being a true believer is hard enough even without having such low standards and expectations. It must be like being enslaved but because you can't be free you start telling people how much you really like it, and that none of them can prove to you that you don't really like it.

 

[Atheos]

For example, atheists have agreed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove God doesn't exist. So, since it's impossible to prove God does not exist, atheism is based on faith, not facts, not logic, not reason, just pure and simple faith.

Even this is not true. Atheists are not in agreement that it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist. Some atheists, notably  strong atheists, contend that it is, indeed, possible to prove that god doesn't exist. I don't fall into that camp, but I do contend that certain gods can be proven not to exist. As an example it is impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient god who is maximally benevolent to exist in a universe that includes suffering. That god would either have to prefer that suffering exist or be incapable of eliminating it or be unaware of its existence. The venerable "problem of evil."

Since these are "god" attributes most Christians are loathe to concede it is therefore impossible for the god most Christians believe in to exist.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As an example it is impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient god who is maximally benevolent to exist in a universe that includes suffering.

It is if your hypothetical universe includes an uncle who was in Alaska during the second world war, spending winters on bare, exposed, frozen rocks, waiting for the inevitable Japanese invasion. Then every time you try to insist this universe contains suffering, Uncle Merlin points out your really low threshold. 'You call THAT suffering?'

 

[Half-Life]

Theists want morality spoon-fed to them.

But that's not morality.
Morality is doing the right thing for the right reasons.
If the only reason i don't kill my jerkass neighbor is laziness, it is not a moral choice, but it is obeying the law and the commandment.
Unless he doesn't observe the Sabbath, and opens his witchcraft supply store and training coven on Subday. Then i am obeying the law, but breaking a different commandment, and still if i think he should be dead, but too lazy, not a moral choice.

Most of the commandments have no underlying rationale for why something is prohibited which would help a moral code develop. Just 'Don't.'

Note the bold, Keith. We are trying to figure out what morality is, and here you go ahead of everyone and put your definition. What does the "right thing" mean? What does "right reasons" mean? You seem to be implying there is an objective standard: ie. there are "right things." But, we haven't established a definition yet.

Simply saying, "morality is doing the right thing" doesn't cut the mustard when you fail to define "right."

For example, a guy steals from a bank. He's running away and sees a witness outside. he thinks to himself, "I have to kill this guy for the right reason of protecting me. He could send me to jail!" To this robber, he had to commit murder of the witness because it was the right thing to do to avoid jail time.

Do you agree that is the right thing to do?

 

[Half-Life]

For example, atheists have agreed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove God doesn't exist.

The existence of a Christian god is unfalsifiable. That much is true. Much like the concept of Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad from whose flatulence the universe came into existence, is unfalsifiable. However, specific claims made in the Bible can be falsified. And have been falsified by modern science. Like the age of the earth, the origin of life and humans, the Noachian flood, and so on. Since so much of what the Bible claims is demonstrably wrong, this leaves us no reason to believe the other claims in the Bible that cannot be falsified.

So, since it's impossible to prove God does not exist, atheism is based on faith, not facts, not logic, not reason, just pure and simple faith.

Atheists don't believe in gods because no convincing evidence of the existence of gods has been presented. So the atheists's lack of belief is based on sound and practical epistemological principles. Can you explain why atheists should believe in gods when no evidence can be presented?

Sure, science says the universe an earth are old. Does this mean they are right? Of course not. For example, when God made Adam and Eve, they looked about 25 years old but they were 0 seconds old. If a scientist came along to study Adam and Even, he would conclude that they have been around for 25 years, not 0 seconds.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For example, atheists have agreed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove God doesn't exist. So, since it's impossible to prove God does not exist, atheism is based on faith, not facts, not logic, not reason, just pure and simple faith.

Even this is not true. Atheists are not in agreement that it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist. Some atheists, notably  strong atheists, contend that it is, indeed, possible to prove that god doesn't exist. I don't fall into that camp, but I do contend that certain gods can be proven not to exist. As an example it is impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient god who is maximally benevolent to exist in a universe that includes suffering. That god would either have to prefer that suffering exist or be incapable of eliminating it or be unaware of its existence. The venerable "problem of evil."

Since these are "god" attributes most Christians are loathe to concede it is therefore impossible for the god most Christians believe in to exist.

How would any christian prove that other gods are not real? They cannot. By conceding that they cannot prove the impossibility of any and all gods, what does this say about their religion, their god and their faith claims?

 

[skepticalbip]

The existence of a Christian god is unfalsifiable. That much is true. Much like the concept of Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad from whose flatulence the universe came into existence, is unfalsifiable. However, specific claims made in the Bible can be falsified. And have been falsified by modern science. Like the age of the earth, the origin of life and humans, the Noachian flood, and so on. Since so much of what the Bible claims is demonstrably wrong, this leaves us no reason to believe the other claims in the Bible that cannot be falsified.



Atheists don't believe in gods because no convincing evidence of the existence of gods has been presented. So the atheists's lack of belief is based on sound and practical epistemological principles. Can you explain why atheists should believe in gods when no evidence can be presented?

Sure, science says the universe an earth are old. Does this mean they are right? Of course not. For example, when God made Adam and Eve, they looked about 25 years old but they were 0 seconds old. If a scientist came along to study Adam and Even, he would conclude that they have been around for 25 years, not 0 seconds.

Using your argument; sure, the Bible says that god made Adam and Eve something like 6,000 years ago when everything (according to Last Tuesdayists) including your memory was created last Tuesday. They would claim that christian creations still think Adam and Eve were made long ago while reality is that the universe is less than a week old.

I'm still a bit torn as to whether Last Tuesdayism or Last Thursdayism has it right. However, it is quite obvious that Last Wednesdayism is an absurd belief.

 

[Lion IRC]

For example, atheists have agreed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove God doesn't exist. So, since it's impossible to prove God does not exist, atheism is based on faith, not facts, not logic, not reason, just pure and simple faith.

Even this is not true. Atheists are not in agreement that it is impossible to prove god doesn't exist. Some atheists, notably  strong atheists, contend that it is, indeed, possible to prove that god doesn't exist. I don't fall into that camp, but I do contend that certain gods can be proven not to exist. As an example it is impossible for an omnipotent and omniscient god who is maximally benevolent to exist in a universe that includes suffering. That god would either have to prefer that suffering exist or be incapable of eliminating it or be unaware of its existence. The venerable "problem of evil."

Since these are "god" attributes most Christians are loathe to concede it is therefore impossible for the god most Christians believe in to exist.

How would any christian prove that other gods are not real? They cannot. By conceding that they cannot prove the impossibility of any and all gods, what does this say about their religion, their god and their faith claims?

Christians don't have to disprove the existence of other gods.
That's your job.
Better get cracking. There's a LOT. Time is short.

 

[skepticalbip]

How would any christian prove that other gods are not real? They cannot. By conceding that they cannot prove the impossibility of any and all gods, what does this say about their religion, their god and their faith claims?

Christians don't have to disprove the existence of other gods.

Well Christians do if they want to continue claiming that there is only one god and that only Christians know the nature of this god. There is as much reason to believe in the existence of gods of other religions as the Christian god.

For atheist, the statement that there is no reason to believe that any of the claimed gods (which includes the one Christians claim) actually exist is sufficient.

 

[atrib]

The existence of a Christian god is unfalsifiable. That much is true. Much like the concept of Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad from whose flatulence the universe came into existence, is unfalsifiable. However, specific claims made in the Bible can be falsified. And have been falsified by modern science. Like the age of the earth, the origin of life and humans, the Noachian flood, and so on. Since so much of what the Bible claims is demonstrably wrong, this leaves us no reason to believe the other claims in the Bible that cannot be falsified.



Atheists don't believe in gods because no convincing evidence of the existence of gods has been presented. So the atheists's lack of belief is based on sound and practical epistemological principles. Can you explain why atheists should believe in gods when no evidence can be presented?

Sure, science says the universe an earth are old. Does this mean they are right? Of course not. For example, when God made Adam and Eve, they looked about 25 years old but they were 0 seconds old. If a scientist came along to study Adam and Even, he would conclude that they have been around for 25 years, not 0 seconds.

You have no evidence to support the existence of the Christian god, and no way to counter my argument that atheists are right for not believing in its existence, so you knowingly make up some shit to avoid answering my question.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Theists want morality spoon-fed to them.

But that's not morality.
Morality is doing the right thing for the right reasons.
If the only reason i don't kill my jerkass neighbor is laziness, it is not a moral choice, but it is obeying the law and the commandment.
Unless he doesn't observe the Sabbath, and opens his witchcraft supply store and training coven on Subday. Then i am obeying the law, but breaking a different commandment, and still if i think he should be dead, but too lazy, not a moral choice.

Most of the commandments have no underlying rationale for why something is prohibited which would help a moral code develop. Just 'Don't.'

Note the bold, Keith. We are trying to figure out what morality is, and here you go ahead of everyone and put your definition.

YOU have a problem with this? You have a history of simply asserting facts. NOW, uuou take issue?

What does the "right thing" mean? What does "right reasons" mean? You seem to be implying there is an objective standard:

You are inferring an objective standard. I do not kniw where in my ststement you find such. You are prouecting again.

ie. there are "right things." But, we haven't established a definition yet.

oh, now it's a discussion. Go back and reply to some of the discussions you left hanging, firdt.

Simply saying, "morality is doing the right thing" doesn't cut the mustard when you fail to define "right."

saying ' i have refuted everything' doesn't cut the mustard when that's a bald-faced lie, either, but here you are..

For example, a guy steals from a bank. He's running away and sees a witness outside. he thinks to himself, "I have to kill this guy for the right reason of protecting me. He could send me to jail!" To this robber, he had to commit murder of the witness because it was the right thing to do to avoid jail time.

Do you agree that is the right thing to do?

you claim there is an objective standard for morals. That would mean one answer which is THE right answer to the question, no matter whose POV we examine it from.
What is the objective answer, and how do you know?

You also have yet to answer how a god's morality is objective?
Or what you think objective means?

 

[Lion IRC]

How would any christian prove that other gods are not real? They cannot. By conceding that they cannot prove the impossibility of any and all gods, what does this say about their religion, their god and their faith claims?

Christians don't have to disprove the existence of other gods.

Well Christians do if they want to continue claiming that there is only one god and that only Christians know the nature of this god. There is as much reason to believe in the existence of gods of other religions as the Christian god.

For atheist, the statement that there is no reason to believe that any of the claimed gods (which includes the one Christians claim) actually exist is sufficient.

Well in that case, the agnostic can sit back and observe both sides of the debate.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the right corner, THEISM.
- a gazzilion billion trillion claims of sensory experience of some form of Higher Power

and...

In the left corner, introducing ATHEISM
- the belief that there's no such thing as God(s) or evidence for God(s) and anyone who makes any claim about God(s) of Higher Power(s) is deluded, mistaken or lying.

 

[abaddon]

Sure, science says the universe an earth are old. Does this mean they are right? Of course not. For example, when God made Adam and Eve, they looked about 25 years old but they were 0 seconds old. If a scientist came along to study Adam and Even, he would conclude that they have been around for 25 years, not 0 seconds.

The scientist's say-so doesn't mean science is right. It's the evidence they've collected that the universe and earth are old. And you know that.

So now support that God made Adam and Eve (or anything) rather than only assert the scientist wouldn't find the Secret Creator's secret-creating activity that you're asserting with no evidence it ever happened.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sure, science says the universe an earth are old. Does this mean they are right? Of course not.

science does not just 'say' the Earth is old.
Scientists actually post their reasons.
Evidence A gives us an age estimate of X, which matches evidence B which estimates a range of Y, and C which mist likely would mean Z.

For example, when God made Adam and Eve, they looked about 25 years old but they were 0 seconds old.

um, dude, you have no evidence for how old Adam or Woman appeared at first. This is just something you made up, and is not a repeatable observation. You just show yhat religion can only offer made-up shit, fairy tales. I mean, right off the bat, you are making shit up to prove your point.

If a scientist came along to study Adam and Even, he would conclude that they have been around for 25 years, not 0 seconds.

Feel free to cite the scientist who made this estimate.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How would any christian prove that other gods are not real? They cannot. By conceding that they cannot prove the impossibility of any and all gods, what does this say about their religion, their god and their faith claims?

Christians don't have to disprove the existence of other gods.

Well Christians do if they want to continue claiming that there is only one god and that only Christians know the nature of this god. There is as much reason to believe in the existence of gods of other religions as the Christian god.

For atheist, the statement that there is no reason to believe that any of the claimed gods (which includes the one Christians claim) actually exist is sufficient.

To answer my own previous question to Lion it says that when it comes to those other gods of other religions Lion is atheist. Every christian requires atheism simply to be christian because when you say another god isn't real, you are atheist wrt that god. And the history of religion has lots of those other gods that joe christian is required to be atheistic about.

I don't think Lion's emotions would allow him to openly concede this rational observation however. But I could be wrong.

 

[abaddon]

ATHEISM
- the belief that there's no such thing as God(s) or evidence for God(s) and anyone who makes any claim about God(s) of Higher Power(s) is deluded, mistaken or lying.

Lion,

If you could establish once and for all that the only choices are: 1) believe there is a God or gods or 2) believe there's no such thing as a God or gods...

And if you found an atheist who proposes #2 but cannot show there is no such thing as a God or gods...

Then what?

Should people conclude
1) that God(s) exists?
2) that the fellow who proposed #2 was mistaken to phrase the claim the way he did?
3) that atheists are a bunch of meanies for having thought that theists are mistaken, deluded or lying?

Where does this argument of yours go exactly?

 

[Lion IRC]

Well there's actually 3 options.
1. God(s) probably/definitely yes.
2. God(s) probably/definitely no.
3. God(s) can't decide between 1 or 2

I think the neutral, open-minded option #3 is a better position than presuming the atheist view #2 simply because you don't find #1 sufficiently credible.

...And the history of religion has lots of those other gods that joe christian is required to be atheistic about.

That's not true.
I am not required to think that the God worshipped by Jewish people or Muslims does not exist.
Neither am I prevented from thinking that other religions are partly right...
(Where's that elephant blind men picture)

 

[Rhea]

Lion, you fail to coonsider option 2.5: There is not convincing evidence of any gods. Therefore, there’s no reason to suppose one. You don’t HAVE to make something up to fill an unknown. It may be entirely possible that the room is just empty.

There is no convincing evidence for a god. None. Not even a little bit convincing. It just doesn’t exist.
So why would anyone waste time being “unsure” about something that has no reason to suspect it?

Nothing sparks a hint of reason to believe.
It’s not that #1 is “not sufficiently credible,” it’s that it is not even remotely credible. It’s not worth the firing of a single neuron, it’s so not credible.


If someone comes running up to you and claims they have a mansion made of gold and it is in the trunk of their car, do you really spend your time going over there so they can show you? Seriously? It is so far from credible that you don’t waste your time. It’s not that you “can’t decide” if it’s true. It is that it’s so dumb you don’t even need a second glance. “Yeah buddy, sure you do,” as you walk away.