Did you realize that someone who claims to be an atheist - one who does not believe in the existence of any gods - is outing himself as a hardcore believer by blind religious faith?
If you’re not sure, just ask him how he knows that God does not exist. To save time, here are the mutiple-choice answers he will probably pick from:
A) I don’t really know for sure.
B) I just know it.
C) I believe it and that’s what counts.
D) @#$% you, you brainwashed, opiate-of-the-masses addicted, fundamentalist bigot!!!
The point being, no atheist philosopher has ever actually disproven the existence of God. Logically and rationally, it is a patently impossible supposition.
Indeed, this is why most serious and scholarly hard skeptics of religion do not call themselves ‘atheist’ but rather agnostic – they know that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist, so they instead hold to the much less shaky claim that one cannot know for sure about God.
After all, how does one go about disproving the existence of God? You’d think that one of those oh-so-countless, oh-so-intelligent atheistic scientists would have attempted to do that by now.
This is because disproving the existence of God is totally different from disproving the existence of, say, unicorns. Or to be more exact, Planet Earth unicorns – as a creature fitting the description might by chance exist on some faraway planet in Alpha Centauri.
All one has to do is search the entire world’s habitats which are suitable for a land-bound, four-legged, grass-eating, not-heavily-furred mammal. And maybe all of those genetic tampering labs too.
Once that is accomplished, one can say that they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Planet Earth unicorns do not exist.
But the Christian definition of God is not that of some Earth-bound, fleshling creature. God is omnipresent and spirit – that is, God is everywhere and He is not a physical being.
So in order to prove that God does not exist, one would have to search out every habitat that God could ‘live’ in - namely, the whole entire universe.
So Mr. Atheist Scientist, you’ve searched all of Beta Quadrant? Well, God could still be hiding in Gamma Sector. Or maybe the Outer Rim galaxies. Or Dimension-X.
Are you done with that final star system yet? You’d better hurry up with checking the insides of those not-even-light-can-escape black holes, everyone knows God hates to lose a game of hide-go-seek.
Oh wait, did I forget to mention that God is spirit? You’d better invent something that can detect forms of energy never even theoreticized about before.
Um, maybe I shouldn’t bother you when you’re in such a bad mood… But did anyone tell you that God transcends the space, time and multiple dimensions He created in Genesis/The Big Bang?
So does this mean it is humanly impossible to prove that God does not exist somewhere out there in the vast, unexplored, ever-expanding universe? You betcha.
Therefore, since the atheist cannot PROVE that God does not exist, he merely BELIEVES BY FAITH that God does not actually exist.
Unless, of course, the atheist can simultaneously search all of time, space, reality, and existence outside of these things and thereby PROVE that God is nowhere to be found. But in order to do that, the atheist would have to be omnipotent and omnipresent – so the atheist would be god!
Congratulations atheists, welcome to the Club of Religion! Don’t worry about catching up to the older members on intolerance, persecution and religious war – your avowed atheists Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot already beat them all by a hundred million victims!
And on a final note, if you protest that my logic is totally flawed – that the burden is not on you as an atheist to prove that God doesn’t exist, but rather is on me as a theist to prove God exists – then I have something to declare.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am an a-atheist.
This is not to say that I do not believe in the existence of people called atheists. Rather, I do not believe that there is such as thing as ‘God not existing’.
And now, I as a a-atheist place the burden of proof on the atheists… To prove to me that God does not exist.
Knock yourselves out.
UPDATE: I have been corrected… Atheists can prove that God does not exist, because atheists are god!
Tags: a-atheism, a-atheist, atheism, atheism is faith, atheism is religion, atheist, cannot prove atheism, Christianity, existence of God, theism
March 26, 08 at 10:15 am
My head hurts a little. Wow. Thanks for the roller coaster ride there Scott. I’ve written a couple of posts recently on atheism at http://www.clarkbunch.wordpress.com I’d love for you to check out. I recommend the two channel station blog as well. He’s pretty smart. Your 2X double-talk style might confuse some people, but I’m hip with it
March 26, 08 at 10:50 am
Thanks Clark! Who’d you stumble upon my post anyway? I only just put it up not 5 minutes before you commented.
March 26, 08 at 2:23 pm
[...] Broken Crook and Flaccid Flail From: I am an A-atheist (Because Atheism is an Unproveable Faith) Ladies and gentlemen, I am an [...]
March 26, 08 at 2:41 pm
The following is in reply to the post in response to my post at The Warlock’s Lair (the comment above).
Prose indeed maketh gay the soul, yea?
——————————
Bold and enthralling is the bard’s tale! How noble are his deeds! How inspiring is his valiant victory over the savage barbarism of his charlatan foe!
But wait… For verily, no such battle was fought – no such struggle was ever attempted. There was no stalwart overturning of ignorance. No attempt to refute the herdman’s sharp riddle. No blunting of his sharp edged flail, or toppling of his gospel-ready feet.
There was only the tale of it, the song sung of an epic never played out… The glad report of a battle never even begun.
But still, oh! What a glorious tale it is! Glorious, glorious, glorious I say!
And thus as the audience leaves the little inn with a spirit of indignance, the bard is left to sit alone… Alone, but for his dreams.
March 26, 08 at 3:40 pm
Neither bard nor herdsman; for the bard’s song is little more than the herdsman’s crook. Here the singing was the doing of neither sheep nor shepherd but liberation from both; Other. Your flail is as flaccid as it ever was.
Crawl.
March 26, 08 at 3:47 pm
Yet even the flail most lacking in Pfizeroth’s Enchantment of Viagrising is more than enough defense against a point never made and a debate never begun.
Sleep. ZZZzzzzzzzzz…….
March 26, 08 at 3:53 pm
For what point or debate could have ever been made over an argument of no substance?
March 26, 08 at 4:04 pm
Perchance, one so noble might deem to point out the myriad reasons why said argument hast not substance instead of merely alluding to such?
March 26, 08 at 4:24 pm
Noble is as noble does; should I jump at the herdsman’s new crook as if at my master’s beck and call? Having eluded him once, succumb again?
Nay. For what has been asked has already been done; Of Broken Crook and Flaccid Flail. Repetition is the goal of herd and herdsman when the Child seeks that which is new.
March 26, 08 at 4:57 pm
And thus Don Quixote claims victory over the firmly trounced Windmill as he rides off into the glorious sunset.
March 26, 08 at 5:00 pm
Your claim that there is a difference between disproving God and disproving unicorns is just plain wrong.
How can you ever be absolutely sure that you have been to every spot on earth. And even if you could how can you be sure that the unicorn haven’t moved into an area you’ve “cleared” earlier?
But lets say that you get enough people to look, and that they cover every nook and cranny. They all say that they don’t see any unicorns. Would that be absolute proof? Well, not really, cause you can’t be sure they are not lying.
In any case, I don’t have an interest in disproving or proving gods existence. There is not a single accepted scientific theory the relies on Gods existence to work, so what use is he/she/it to me.
Sure you will probably say Morals etc. But how do you know that the stuff your preacher tells you is really the word of god? Would you do anything he tells you? I hope not cause that’s a bit to suicide bomber mentality to be honest.
No the simple fact is that you’ve grown up and taken a moral point of view based on you upbringing laws etc and now you apply it to what the preacher says and as long as it doesn’t class to much, you accept it as the lords word.
Well, I might not disagree with the morals ( most of them ) but I’ll never see any reason to believe that it’s all handed down by a God.
Reason prevail.
Roger
March 26, 08 at 5:01 pm
And thus does the shepherd perform for his sheep lest they be lured from the herd.
March 26, 08 at 5:16 pm
And by merely nodding off at his favorite sun-bathed rock, the shepherd provides amusement far more intellectually stimulating than the fabulist tales of Don Quixote.
But really, that’s all you can do, isn’t it? Tell tales and launch ad hominems.
March 26, 08 at 5:21 pm
Good point Roger, we can never be 100% sure of anything – even in science, even in the court of law where ‘proven beyond reasonable doubt’ is enough to convict (not proven beyond all doubt).
On the subject of blind obedience to preachers, mature Christians are seldom like that. That is why throughout history, you have the Anabaptists and the Protestants and the Evangelicals and the countless denominations today – because mature Christians decide for themselves about the turth of God’s word.
On the subject of morals, if there is no God as the source of absolute moral values, then all our morals and ethics are relativistic, artificial, meaningless, transient inventions.
A Simple Example of Relative Morality
March 26, 08 at 6:10 pm
In the Critique of Practical Reason,[*] Kant says that the assumption of the existence of God is a moral necessity (p. 241), though it cannot be demonstrated on the basis of pure speculative reason. In order to will the highest good, which is morality and happiness (nature being in conformity with one’s end) in proportion to morality, one must believe that it is possible for this highest good to be realized. But a finite rational being is not the cause of the natural world or even of his own nature, and therefore does not have the ability to make his nature conform perfectly to the moral law. Kant thus postulates the existence of a being transcending nature that has the ability to make nature conform to morality, that is God (p. 240-1). It is not possible to prove the existence of this being theoretically, but from a practical, moral perspective, such a being must exist if morality is to have any real meaning and force.
It is this understanding of God that Johannes de Silentio criticizes. He does not criticize the ethics themselves of Kant (and Hegel), in fact, he praises the nobility of ethics:
The knight of faith knows that it is inspiring to give up himself for the universal, that it takes courage to do it, but that there is also a security in it precisely because it is a giving up for the universal… This he knows, and he feels as if bound; he could wish that this was the task that had been assigned to him (p. 76).
What concerns Johannes de Silentio is the place of God in these systems.
http://libspirit.blogspot.com/2006/10/thoughts-from-lifetime-ago.html
March 26, 08 at 6:16 pm
Millions of people must have uttered a sigh of relief in front their TVs. Sanal was very much alive. Tantra power had miserably failed. Tantriks are creating such a scaring atmosphere that even people, who know that black magic has no base, can just break down out of fear, commented a scientist during the program. It needs enormous courage and confidence to challenge them by actually putting one’s life at risk, he said. By doing so, Sanal Edamaruku has broken the spell, and has taken away much of the fear of those who witnessed his triumph.
In this night, one of the most dangerous and wide spread superstitions in India suffered a severe blow.
http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/2008/20080310/en_1.html
March 27, 08 at 12:14 am
While it is true that you cannot prove a negative, since you are so aware of the rules of logic, you must also know that the burden of proof lays with the person making the claim, not with the people who don’t believe him.
If you claim god exists, it is up to you to prove it. Non-beliers have nothing to prove, logically speaking.
You can’t cherry pick the rules of logic to make your case.
“Atheism” does not mean “one knows there is no god,” or “anti-god,” it means “without belief in god.” Anyone who is without a belief in god is an atheist (even agnostics). There is no qualification process or logical gauntlet you have to pass. If you don’t believe, you are an atheist, just like if you don’t smoke, you are a non-smoker. You don’t have to explain why you are a non-smoker, you don’t have to even be anti-smoking. One can either have quit smoking or have never smoked in their life. You just have to not smoke. And nobody expects non-smokers to justify why they don’t smoke. We are all born non-smokers just as we all born atheists.
And it’s true, there is no way to be 100% certain there isn’t a God, but you don’t need to be 100% certain to not believe in God, just as I’m not 100% certain that a communication satellite isn’t going to fall out of the sky and hit me as I drive to work tomorrow, but you know, I’m not going to waste my day planning for it.
March 27, 08 at 1:25 am
Just directing you to my rebuttal of this post.
http://chillinatthecabstand.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/re-a-atheism/
March 27, 08 at 3:01 am
Which God? If you can’t disprove one of them, than you can’t disprove any of them… Jovenah becomes as likely as Bhaal, Zeus, Khrone, Ra or Odin.
Basically you are confusing falsibility with certainty. My beliefs are both falsible and certain. After all, if I am wrong than ideas that they were based on were false… staples like logic and causality. And if those are wrong… say goodbye to sanity.
March 27, 08 at 3:40 am
My congratulations to you Scott, you have proved that there is a chance a God exists and that the likelihood of it is equal to that of an omnipresent Unicorn.
March 27, 08 at 8:39 am
Which God? If you can’t disprove one of them, than you can’t disprove any of them… Jovenah becomes as likely as Bhaal, Zeus, Khrone, Ra or Odin.
Welcome back, Samuel. As you should know by now, my standard response when comparing between different religious beliefs is to point out the proven historical veracity of the Bible, which lends credence to the unproveable spiritual veracity.
Easy 3 Steps to Why We Can Believe The Bible About Spirituality and Metaphysics
So while I cannot disprove the existence of say, Odin or Baal, I can show using the veracity of the Bible that if they exist, they are not the true and living God who created all of existence.
——————————–
And Lucy, I doubt that flesh-and-blood unicorns are omnipresent – that would be a whole lot of blood and guts throbbing across the universe. And the logistics of its nutrition and excretion…
It would help if said unicorn were also omnipotent – but if it were, it could simply choose any physical or nonphysical form it liked, and the form of a unicorn would thus be just one of its embodiments.
Anyway, all of the arguments and nonsense I make pale into irrelevance because of the next reply.
———————————
“Atheism” does not mean “one knows there is no god,” or “anti-god,” it means “without belief in god.”
Thank you, Brian. All that I wanted was for atheists to admit that atheism is a belief by faith.
I can’t prove my God exists or that other deities do not exist. Therefore, I believe those things by faith.
Atheists cannot prove that my God does not exist. Therefore, they believe such by faith.
Show’s over folks!
March 27, 08 at 10:51 am
So basically you believe a scientific fact about reality based on authority because the authors GOT THE SETTING RIGHT?!? Seriously Scott… that is pretty odd. Don’t you know the reason scientists don’t take knowledge about the universe on authority? It doesn’t work.
Also, I believe muslims use a similar rational. Can someone link us to a Muslim blogger (perferably also named Scott) who uses the same arguments. When two people use the method and get two completely differant answers, the method IS FLAWED.
March 27, 08 at 11:03 am
lol same old arguments as before, Samuel?
Don’t you know the reason scientists don’t take knowledge about the universe on authority? It doesn’t work.
Tell that to the global warming crowd. IPCC says so, bla bla bla.
And bring on that Muslim apologist, I’m looking forward to it. Archaeologically verified Biblical history and ‘pi = 3.14′ versus ‘Alexander the Great came to a pool of murky water where the Sun goes into when it sets’ and ‘Whoever has sexual climax first, the baby will look like him or her’?
Seriously, just because atheists don’t think highly of religion, doesn’t mean all religions are at the same level of (non)sensibility. For all its perceived illogicity, Christianity is waaaaaaaaaay less out of it than some other religions.
Or do you want me to start equating modern atheists with the dogmatic spontaneous generation believers of old?
I will show clearly that it is not the method itself that is flawed, but rather the interpretor’s misuse of the method.
March 28, 08 at 3:12 am
Scott, leftists and atheists aren’t one and the same.http://canyouspellnucular.vox.com/library/post/atheism.html?_c=feed-atom
That guy is a right winged atheist. He became an atheist because of the whole prayer thing. I mean asking for handouts instead of working for them…
As for global warming, people believe the theory is true because the evidence supports it- and the weather is feeling screwy (the second one is less than rational, but it is what keeps people worried). I don’t know anyone in the scientific community who takes global warming on faith.
And the Bible has a talking mule, Jesus dying at two different times, Jews wandering for 40 years in a desert the size of New Jersey and a bunch of other nutty stuff (although there is a good reason for the last one). Fact is, all religions have nutty stuff- I mean you guys claim you eat Jesus and that god had to kill himself to stop himself from hurting people. I mean God is like an evil version of Santa Claus…
Least crazy religion is (drum roll please)…. deism! Seriously, when you have no creed or holy book, it cuts down on the nuttiness alot.
Lets see… many of the people who believed in spontaneous generation changed their mind when there was overwhelming evidence they were wrong (with just a few experiments). Theists when shown they were wrong, declared the knowledge heretical or moved the goal posts. I’m good with being compared with those guys- the method wasn’t flawed or misused- it was just a blindspot (it looked like things worked that way) and the lack of good enough equipment to get correct results. But, that is the beauty of science- it is self correcting.
March 28, 08 at 7:54 am
Unconfirmed Obama Miracles:
http://exurbanleague.com/search.aspx?q=unconfirmed
March 28, 08 at 7:59 am
As for global warming, people believe the theory is true because the evidence supports it – samuel skinner
Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud
[ ]
“Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that,” he said.
The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.
“That’s about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it’s gone up, but it’s still a tiny compound,” Coleman said. “So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?
“My position is it can’t,” he continued. “It doesn’t, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
March 28, 08 at 8:28 am
And the Bible has a talking mule, Jesus dying at two different times, Jews wandering for 40 years in a desert the size of New Jersey and a bunch of other nutty stuff (although there is a good reason for the last one). Fact is, all religions have nutty stuff- I mean you guys claim you eat Jesus and that god had to kill himself to stop himself from hurting people. I mean God is like an evil version of Santa Claus…
And those, ladies and gentlemen, are excellent examples of straw man arguments – misrepresentations and simplifications of actual facts, twisted in such as way as to make them easier to refute/mock and claim victory.
Each of the actual, original doctrines and beliefs are much harder to attack and demolish – which is why dishonest debators resort to attacking dumbed-down versions of those beliefs.
I challenge Samuel to quote the actual doctrines and beliefs for every ‘nutty stuff’ example he gave, then refute them
But knowing him (we have a long history together, yes?) he’ll just skip on to the next polemic. Which is why I don’t bother answering his accusations one by one.
—————————————
As for global warming, people believe the theory is true because the evidence supports it- and the weather is feeling screwy (the second one is less than rational, but it is what keeps people worried). I don’t know anyone in the scientific community who takes global warming on faith.
I’m interested to know if Samuel actually knows any of the so-claimed ‘proof’ of global warming. Or did he just hear from CNN that somewhere out there, such proof exists?
October 28, 08 at 6:58 pm
It’s so easy to come out with logic fallacies.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (Or you just could search for any definition yourself.)
So, to start with, try to prove your arguments are right.
Good luck.
October 28, 08 at 9:50 pm
I do not believe in logical fallacies. Therefore, they do not exist. Show me proof of them and I will believe, however, any proof you quote will inevitably be tainted by biased data and skewed, bigoted viewpoints. Therefore it is inadmissible, and logical fallacies remain unproven.
October 29, 08 at 12:14 am
“I do not believe in logical fallacies. Therefore, they do not exist.”
Get the void shields up NOW Navigator!
…
Damn. That was too close.
Anyway, the universe is external to the human mind. As such it is not affected by your belief in it. Continued existence of such a belief will be used as evidence of warp taint and acted on accordingly.
“Show me proof of them and I will believe, however, any proof you quote will inevitably be tainted by biased data and skewed, bigoted viewpoints.”
Except we are talking about logic. Logical fallacies are things that do not follow a logical thought train. They need neither evidence or perspective.
For example,
Dogs exists.
Cats exists.
Therefore hamsters exist
Is a logical fallacy because there is nothing connecting A,B and C.
“Therefore it is inadmissible, and logical fallacies remain unproven.”
You are trending dangerously close to sophism.
October 29, 08 at 9:06 am
Atheists exist.
Agnostics exist.
Therefore Samuel Skinner exists.
But that is a logical fallacy, as you have shown.
I cannot therefore be having this conversation with you, because you actually do not exist.
Oh wait! Logical fallacies don’t exist, as I unquestionably proved in my last comment! Therefore I suppose you do exist, and I really am talking to you.
October 29, 08 at 12:23 pm
Wow! This conversation started 7 months ago back in March. I forgot this comment thread existed. Sometime this summer I created a new blog for my theology stuff called The Master’s Table, and “moved out” of Clark Bunch’s Weblog. http://themasterstable.wordpress.com is the new address for all my religious/theology blogging, and I’m glad to find Scott still alive and kicking. Thanks for existing
January 14, 09 at 4:25 am
Scott,
thanks for this link, Well said! I was trying to make the exact same point on the other post…(Christianity vs. Atheism).
Atheists believe Christianity is false because they believe God’s existence cannot be proved…
However, Atheists believe in no God -(so therefore humans, the earth, etc. were created by themselves spontaneously), but these” theories” also cannot be proved and many these theories contradict natural laws….. but of course, Atheists don’t have to prove their belief/faith — it wouldn’t be logical now would it?
February 9, 09 at 7:52 pm
Hi Scott,
Im a catholic. I was wondering if an athetist knew that somewhere out there there is a god ( be it God, Allah, Buddha etc) but he chooses not to adopt a faith for watever reason, does that make him a sinner?
February 10, 09 at 10:47 am
Note that as a Christian, the following is written with the assumption that Christianity is correct and the Christian God is the only true one.
Well, Christianity says that EVERYONE is a sinner, whether Christian or atheist or atheist-who-knows-God-exists-but-rejects-Him. No one has NEVER done a bad thing in his/her whole life. We all fall short of God’s perfect goodness and can only be cleansed by faith in Jesus Christ.
More specifically, the definition of sin is doing things that are against God’s will. After all, God is the embodiment of goodness, fairness, justice etc. Whatever He does, says and advises is good. Thus anything opposite of that is bad. Therefore, I think that knowing that God exists but choosing to reject Him is a sin.
If you want narrower grouping of ‘types of sin’, you could say it is falsehood (rejecting the truth of God for a lie), selfishness (rejecting faith because of the moral restrictions which may make life less ‘fun’), stubbornness and pride (don’t want to admit he was wrong about God’s existence).
On that note, as Paul says in James 2:19 – “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.”
Obviously, demons are evil and sinful. Yet they know God exists. It is their rejection of God and His ways that makes them sinful.
Hey, the devil (Satan, who was once the angel Lucifer) even used to serve God directly! But he chose to reject God’s will, and anyone can tell you that the devil is nearly synonymous with sinfulness.
So knowing God exists and purposely rejecting Him is a sin (and by extension, rejecting His recommended way of living, i.e. ‘adopting a faith’).
And on a final note – simply knowing ‘a god’ exists and then choosing a faith would also be a sin. The only way to go (according to me, a Christian) is to believe that the Christian God exists (whether you are sure or not) and following His ways (not necessarily by adopting an organized faith).
June 11, 09 at 11:18 pm
Pfffffttttt! Like an absolutly benevolent omnipotent being is possible. Give me a break. The definition of what a god is determines the validity of the statement. Some peoples ideas of god are totally possible, but that doesnt mean we should refer to them as gods as we would then have to refer to our selves and every other thing as gods.
Let us leave the definition of god those of omnipotence so that we may discard the ligetimate usage of the term leaving it to a manner of speech.
Pasta be unto you, and may His Divine Noodley Appendage touch your heart.
Ramen
November 21, 09 at 3:45 am
I skimmed through the responses but as there were so many and I’m short on time, I apologize if I repeat what has already been stated and/or rebutted. I also acknowledge that as the author appears not to have responded to the last comment left, I may be beating a dead horse.
Scott, the flaw with your argument is the non-existence of a definition for the arbitrary term “faith”. If faith is, by definition, a “confidence or trust in a person or thing”, then atheists fundamentally–seeing as atheists do not believe in deities–lack faith. If faith is a “belief that is not based on proof”, then I still fail to see how a lack of belief makes an atheist inherently faithful.
November 21, 09 at 9:53 am
Well, my post is basically a non completely serious snark. But I’ll give responding a shot…
If faith is defined as a “confidence or trust in a person or thing”, then one could say that atheist have a confidence or trust in the idea that no god exists.
If faith is a “belief that is not based on proof”, note that the belief that no god of any sort or form exists in the entire universe is exceedingly impossible to conclusively prove. The most we’ve gotten thus far is briefly scanning galaxies a few hundred million light years away – a far cry from fully exploring every nook and cranny for a (likely non-physical) being.
Or to be even more unserious… If an atheist can definitely know that a spirit-only god of some sort does not exist anywhere in this entire universe or other dimensions at any time past present or future, then that atheist must have omnipotent and omniscient powers.
In other words, that atheist is god!