I am an A-atheist (Because Atheism is an Unproveable Faith)


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 omnipresentso 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: , , , , , , , , ,

59 Responses to “I am an A-atheist (Because Atheism is an Unproveable Faith)”

  1. Clark Bunch Says:

    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🙂

  2. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks Clark! Who’d you stumble upon my post anyway? I only just put it up not 5 minutes before you commented.

  3. Of Broken Crook and Flaccid Flail « The Warlock’s Lair Says:

    […] Broken Crook and Flaccid Flail From: I am an A-atheist (Because Atheism is an Unproveable Faith) Ladies and gentlemen, I am an […]

  4. Scott Thong Says:

    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.

  5. Warlock Says:

    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.

  6. Scott Thong Says:

    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…….

  7. Warlock Says:

    For what point or debate could have ever been made over an argument of no substance?

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    Perchance, one so noble might deem to point out the myriad reasons why said argument hast not substance instead of merely alluding to such?

  9. Warlock Says:

    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.

  10. Scott Thong Says:

    And thus Don Quixote claims victory over the firmly trounced Windmill as he rides off into the glorious sunset.

  11. Roger Says:

    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

  12. Warlock Says:

    And thus does the shepherd perform for his sheep lest they be lured from the herd.

  13. Scott Thong Says:

    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.

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    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

  15. hutchrun Says:

    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

  16. hutchrun Says:

    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

  17. Brian Parra Says:

    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.

  18. chillinatthecabstand Says:

    Just directing you to my rebuttal of this post.

    http://chillinatthecabstand.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/re-a-atheism/

  19. Samuel Skinner Says:

    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.

  20. Lucy Lowe Says:

    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.

  21. Scott Thong Says:

    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!

  22. Samuel Skinner Says:

    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.

  23. Scott Thong Says:

    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.

  24. Samuel Skinner Says:

    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.

  25. hutchrun Says:

    Unconfirmed Obama Miracles:
    http://exurbanleague.com/search.aspx?q=unconfirmed

  26. hutchrun Says:

    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

  27. Scott Thong Says:

    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?

  28. Andrés Says:

    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.😉

  29. Scott Thong Says:

    It’s so easy to come out with logic fallacies. – Andrés

    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.

  30. Samuel Skinner Says:

    “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.

  31. Scott Thong Says:

    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.

  32. Clark Bunch Says:

    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🙂

  33. aredvoice Says:

    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?

  34. Dan Says:

    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?

  35. Scott Thong Says:

    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).

  36. Bongstar420 Says:

    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

  37. Miranda Says:

    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.

  38. Scott Thong Says:

    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!

  39. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Atheists say theists people couldn’t prove the existence of God, but in fact..the very fact is that atheists couldn’t prove the non-existence of God either ! Therefore “atheism” is definitely a disproven believe. Great guesswork, superstition..hearsay..

  40. Adifferentview Says:

    Neither side, theists or atheists, can prove their case. Not logically, as in 1 + 1 = 2. However, there are signs which point to the existence of God. Faith has to play a part.

  41. David Says:

    Ah, burden of proof: atheists love to claim that their position is the null case, and that therefore the burden of proof rests on theists. But every atheist “foundational” theory that I have heard regarding existence ends up talking about chance. Hmmm, please prove that chance is real.
    Of course, there is also the slight problem that we can’t prove ANYTHING. Especially in science. That is not an attack on science, I hasten to add. As a scientist I value science highly. I see it as a valuable way of thinking critically, asking questions, and organising knowledge.
    But science, as much as any other body of human knowledge, rests on assumptions: that the universe is orderly, that we can (to some degree) trust our senses, that we can through collaborative critical thinking get our knowledge to closer approximate the objective reality of the universe.
    A couple of questions to atheists:
    (1) If you believe that there is no God, why do you claim not to have any belief?
    (2) If your core premise as an atheist is that God does not exist, why are so many of your arguments based on religion? Religion is not God.

    Yes, I’m a Christian. Yes, I’m a scientist. A zoologist.

    Scott, your original post: brilliant.

    Regards,
    David

  42. Josh Says:

    Wow…

    This stuff is incredibly…brilliant!

    I’ve had the same train of thought for sometime, but your words flesh them out!

    From a secular view : It is ‘factually’ impossible to even provide evidence, let alone PROVE, the creator God doesn’t exist. Agnosticism is the only logical standpoint from this logical claim.

    However Scott, as great a debater and presenter of these truly wise posts you are. You must take into account, not to be too aggressive towards the militant atheists. They may have emotional reasons why to hate organised religion which are perfectly justifiable in their own circumstances.

    Fire won’t quench fire.

    Again, brilliant ideas and a fantastic blog.

    Looking forward to your updates!

    Josh

  43. Simon Thong Says:

    “You must take into account, not to be too aggressive towards the militant atheists. They may have emotional reasons why to hate organised religion which are perfectly justifiable in their own circumstances.” Josh.

    You’re right, Josh. Militant atheists often rejected their church, or their parents’ religion, or had had some bad experience and so they threw out the baby with the bath water. The emotional rejection is extremely strong but covered by layer upon layer of “reason”.

  44. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks Josh, and yeah… Actually the proper Christian thing to do is not to provoke, mock or pick fights. I am guilty of these as I find them very fun to do.

    Then again, I’ve tended to attract the type who go around looking for fights in the first place.

  45. Josh Says:

    Thanks for the honesty Scott.

    I can empathise with you though, I’m also Malaysian, but I live in the Uk. The phrase ‘aggressive atheism’ has become a literal reality, i’ve dealt with it personally more times than I care to remember…

    Atheism in the UK is in some groups practically a formal religion
    They preach with such ferocity, that you’d wonder why all the effort?
    To me, it screams ‘INSECURITY’

    The internet is pretty bad as well, you should see some of the lowly illogical comments on youtube, its infuriating sometimes.

    Despite all this, I try to keep myself making a mental division between Christians and atheists. That would only lead to isolation. All humans have souls and a spirit that potentially can return to God. I always remind myself of that and not dehumanise atheists into immoral ‘heathens’.

    @Simon : I think having parents who act hypocritically to their faith is the largest cause for bitter atheism. I have been told by psychologists that children are very good at picking out contradictions in what their parents teach and how they behave.

    I don’t know why atheists say upbringing is the way faith survives. Because to me, my biggest burden in faith was my parents – who are human and WILL make mistakes. But to me, I only see the contradiction of the faith they have fed me in their actions.
    Reading the bible and absorbing the wisdom reconciled me with God. But I can very easily see how children can be scarred and have ‘Christianity’ synonymous with bad thoughts due to the label of ‘Christian’ parents have adopted but not acted accordingly.

    This is the largest canister fuelling atheism.
    ‘Christians’ who aren’t Christian-like

  46. Mathew Says:

    Theism – faith-based system of belief in a specific god or gods

    Atheism – rejection of a faith-based belief system in a specific god or gods

    Saying atheism is a belief that a god does not exist is to misunderstand the term fundamentally. Agnosticism is merely the knowledge aspect of the god debate, it has nothing to do with faith. Anyone who mistakes faith for knowledge needs to either educate him/herself or check into a mental institution.

  47. Scott Thong Says:

    Well, can you prove that no God exists?

    If you can’t, do you personally believe that God does not exist?

    Well then, doesn’t this constitute faith?

    I know, I know, this is a pretentious and unsound argument… But amusing nonetheless.

    PS. Biblical faith is not blind belief, but rather belief in something unproven based on evidence of something related. For example, archaeology has proven that the Biblical account of King Cyrus is true – so I believe that the Biblical account of Jesus’ resurrection is true even though I have no direct forensic evidence (yet).

    Further explained in Easy 3 Steps to Why We Can Believe The Bible About Spirituality and Metaphysics

  48. Alex Says:

    This post is illogical on so many levels it makes my head hurt.

    We can make up ANYTHING, literally anything, place it far away from us, and say hey you can’t prove its wrong.

    Eg: there are tiny evil alien elves living under Pluto surface.

    At the end of it, the logical position is very simple, your god, is as likely as any other imaginary being, and the historical veracity of the bible?
    You mean the vast list of self contradiction?

    Man was created after the other animals
    Gen 1:25,26,27
    Man was created before the other animals
    Gen 2:18,19
    There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David
    Matt 1:17
    There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David
    Matt 1:2-6
    . There were fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity
    to Christ.
    Matt 1:17
    There were but thirteen generations from the Babylonian
    captivity to Christ
    Matt 1:12-16

    Its really simple, if you AFFIRM that something exists, you need to provide evidence to do so,

    if I say I have a million dollars, you ask me to prove it, and I so to you can you prove i DON’T have a million dollars? you’d need to having access to confidential banking information in every bank I could have stored my money in, not to mention various other ways.
    hell I could even have dug a pit and hidden it, good luck excavating every square inch of the word.

    Do you see how illogical you’re being now?

    oh and btw
    he merely BELIEVES BY FAITH that God does not actually exist.

    Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]

    maybe visiting wikipedia a little will help. if atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color, and off is a TV channel.

  49. Sebastian Says:

    For example, archaeology has proven that the Biblical account of King Cyrus is true – so I believe that the Biblical account of Jesus’ resurrection is true even though I have no direct forensic evidence (yet).

    And multiple branches of science have proven that a vast majority of things in the bible are garbage
    1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

    2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night….’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

    3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

    4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).

    5) “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created – great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.

    6) “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.

    Additionally the resurrection story is hopelessly self contradictory

    The resurrection of someone dead is an important event, but the gospels don’t seem to know where and when Jesus first appeared.

    Mark 16:14-15 – Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena but it’s not clear where (in older endings of Mark, he didn’t appear at all)
    Matthew 28:8-9 – Jesus first appears near his tomb
    Luke 24:13-15 – Jesus first appears near Emmaus, several miles from Jerusalem
    John 20:13-14 – Jesus first appears at his tomb
    Who Sees Jesus First?:

    br]
    Mark – Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena then later to “the eleven”
    Matthew – Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then to the other Mary, and finally to ”the eleven”
    Luke – Jesus appears first to “two,” then to Simon, then to “the eleven”
    John – Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalena, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas
    Women’s Reactions to the Empty Tomb:

    The gospels agree that the empty tomb was found by women (though not on which women), but what did the women do?

    Mark 16:8 – The women were amazed and afraid, so they kept quiet
    Matthew 28:6-8 – The women ran away “with great joy”
    Luke 24:9-12 – The women left the tomb and told the disciples
    John 20:1-2 – Mary told the disciples that the body had been stolen

  50. Scott Thong Says:

    This post is illogical on so many levels it makes my head hurt.

    We can make up ANYTHING, literally anything, place it far away from us, and say hey you can’t prove its wrong. – Alex

    Correct, which is why I don’t dismiss the possibility that, hey, Elvis IS alive on an alien spacecraft! I am merely skeptical/agnostic on that point. I am not an a-Elvisalienist whoch would imply 100% certainty.

    Eg: there are tiny evil alien elves living under Pluto surface.

    That’s a poor example, similar to my unicorn one above, in that it is actually disprovable – just launch some sattelites to Pluto, nuke the surface to bits, and check for dead alien elf bodies.

    You mean the vast list of self contradiction?

    Man was created after the other animals
    Gen 1:25,26,27
    Man was created before the other animals
    Gen 2:18,19

    You chose a poor example to start with. The account of Genesis 1 and 2 are complementary, not contradictory, as anyone who actually read the passages would know… As opposed to, y’know, just parroting some polemic message board.

    Behold:

    God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image – Genesis 1:25-26

    Then specifies that God made animals first, followed by man.

    Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. – Genesis 2:19

    Had formed specifies that God made man when animals had already been previously created.

    There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David
    Matt 1:17
    There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David
    Matt 1:2-6

    This is what I mean by ‘not reading the Bible, just parroting polemics’.

    Count ’em manually:

    1)Abraham
    2)Isaac
    3)Jacob
    4)Judah
    5)Perez
    6)Hezron
    7)Ram
    8)Amminadab
    9)Nahshon
    10)Salmon
    11)Boaz
    12)Obed
    13)Jesse
    14)King David

    Same goes for the next lists.

    Heck, it’s as simple a matter as counting the number of lines in a standard Bible! Is that really so much homework to do?

    Its really simple, if you AFFIRM that something exists, you need to provide evidence to do so,

    Which you didn’t do before you affirmed that the Bible is full of self-contradictions.

    So let me get this straight… You can’t even take the effort to check whether your attacks on the Bible are accurate, yet you are ABSOLUTELY SURE that God does not exist somewhere in the vast universe.

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

    hell I could even have dug a pit and hidden it, good luck excavating every square inch of the word.

    Do you see how illogical you’re being now?

    Unreasonable is not the same as illogical.

    Can we prove or disprove that Singapore has WMD hidden somewhere in the tiny island? Yes, it is as simple as digging up every building, tunnel and sewer on the island. That is a logical conclusion.

    It is simply not reasonable, as no one has good reason to think that Singapore has motive to hide WMDs there, and to dig up the whole island on a hunch will disrupt their entire nation.

    So while it is unreasonable to ask atheists to prove that an omnipotent, timeless, non-physical God exists somewhere in the infinite reaches of space-time, it is not illogical.

    Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[5][6] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[6][7]

    maybe visiting wikipedia a little will help. if atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color, and off is a TV channel.

    Positive atheism – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
    Explicit atheism – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

    Which if you’ll pay attention, are what I am mocking here.

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    First up… Why the username change? It is obvious you are both the same guy.

    And multiple branches of science have proven that a vast majority of things in the bible are garbage
    1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite. – Sebastian

    There are many different interpretations of the creation account.

    For example, one branch takes Genesis 1:1 to be the when God creates the whole universe, and the remainder to be how God prepared just the Promised Land for habitation.

    And note that just because Englishmen call our planet ‘Earth’, does not mean that the Hebrew word also means the whole planet. It could simply be referring to the fact that God created matter (the earth) as well as space (the heavens).

    These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon?

    What nonsense ‘facts’ are these? My handphone emits a light, and morning/evening in the Antarctic research stations during winter are determined by clocks.

    And just as an interesting point, the fact that ‘morning and evening’ is mentioned before the sun was created is used as an argument for Day-Age, where each day is not a literal 24-hours but rather a methaphor for an unspecified time period.

    Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.

    Here you misinterpret, confuse, and put up a straw man argument.

    First, no Christian apologist or even layman I know argues that the light in Genesis 1:16 is the light from God. It is clearly understood to be the sun. What some Christians do state is that God is the source of light in Genesis 1:3, while others consider that Genesis 1:3 refers to the massive energy output of the Big Bang.

    The only major blunder and feeble attempt is on your part.

    3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

    From the language, I started strongly suspecting that you copy-pasted directly this from a website.

    And sure enough, the very first Google hit is:

    EvilBible.com – Absurd Torah “Science”

    3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

    As it turns out, the whole comment is ripped straight from that page!

    NO WONDER you totally skipped trying to debunk my ‘archaeological finds prove some claims of the Bible’… It is too much work and thinking to do for you!

    So I was right when I accused you in my previous comment of just reading polemic sites, not even opening the Bible to check for yourself… Right? Do you deny it?

    Lazy! Do your own research, or at least type out your own comments! That is the least you could do, as I am making the effort to reply to your comment personally.

    Until then, I will just do the same as you – copy and paste from a website.

    “Hey there Sebastian/Alex, just go to http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy and read and you will find that your silly accusations have already been answered! Bet you can’t debunk the answers in full, time-consuming paragraphs and post them here!”

    See how much work you are trying to give me in manually answering your five-second copy-paste job?

    You can consider whatever I already typed in response a freebie, but I won’t bother wasting time responding point-by-point until you invest some of your own time in asking genuine, original questions. No mass copy pasting like a standard Internet troll.

  52. Ron Says:

    “For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?”

    ~ Origen, De Principiis, Book IV

    Early Christian writers like Origen took issue with those who held to a literal interpretation of the biblical narratives. To them these stories were intended to convey spiritual truths, not factual historical events. In the same book, he states that certain stories (like Lot impregnating his two daughters, Abraham taking two wives, Jacob marrying two sisters and having children with their handmaidens, the tabernacle dimensions, and the temptation of Christ) are “forms and figures of hidden and sacred things” and later on points out that even Paul understood these things to be allegorical (For instance, see Galatians 4:21-31 for Paul’s figurative explanation of the Sarah and Hagar narrative).

    The conflicting nature of the two creation accounts is obvious to even a casual English reader and rabbinic scholars will tell you that the conflict becomes even more pronounced when they are read in Hebrew. For example: the first narrative is poetic while the second is prosaic. The entire thing is fleshed out in more detail here.

    Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. – Genesis 2:19

    Had formed specifies that God made man when animals had already been previously created.

    In Genesis 2:18 we read:

    The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

    This implies the animals had not been created yet. The original Hebrew text in Genesis 2:19 uses a transitive verb “formed” and the word “now” doesn’t appear at all. Luther’s German translation reads: “Denn als Gott der HERR gemacht hatte…brachte er sie zum Menschen” (Then, after God had formed [all the birds and animals]…he presented them to man). Nor can this be explained away as just some idiosyncrasy of the English language — of the dozen or so English translations I looked at, only three (NIV, ESV and Darby) insert the word “had” into the text. So it appears that the newer translations are attempting to harmonize the two accounts to gloss over this discrepancy in the order of events.

  53. Ron Says:

    On a side note, I find it kind of humorous that an all-knowing God would be confused about what kind of helpmate would be suitable to satisfy Adam “needs” or what he would name them.

    However, the real joke appears to on Christian apologists who argue against homosexual unions; for in the end we discover that God made a female clone of Adam — his way of telling man to “go know himself.”

  54. golb.parc Says:

    In atheists we distrust

    One of the most persistent but hidden prejudices tied to religion is intolerance of atheists. Surveys consistently find that in societies with religious majorities, atheists have one of the lowest approval ratings of any social group, including other religions (American Sociological Review, vol 71, p 211).

    This intolerance has a long history. Back in 1689, Enlightenment philosopher John Locke wrote in A Letter Concerning Toleration: “Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the Being of a God. Promises, Covenants, and Oaths, which are the Bonds of Humane Society, can have no hold upon an Atheist.”

    Why do believers reject atheists, who are not a visible, powerful or even a coherent social group? The answer appears to be the same force that helped religions expand while maintaining social cohesion: supernatural surveillance.

    My colleagues Will Gervais, Azim Shariff and I have found that Locke’s intuition – that atheists cannot be trusted to cooperate – is the root of the intolerance (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 101, p 1189). Outward displays of belief in a watchful God are viewed as a proxy for trustworthiness. Intolerance of atheists is driven by the intuition that people behave better if they feel that a God is watching them.

    While atheists think of their disbelief as a private matter of conscience, believers treat their absence of belief in supernatural surveillance as a threat to cooperation and honesty.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328562.100-the-god-issue-religion-is-the-key-to-civilisation.html?page=2

  55. Scott Thong Says:

    Perhaps there is a different reason… Atheism after all projects itself as the opposite, the counter, the adversary of theism.

    Hence instead of being a positive belief that goes around spreading a message of rationalist hope and doing good in the name of secular humanism, you get atheists offering free porn in exchange for Bibles, using ‘unholy water’ to negate blessings, and purposely taking up spaces for no reason other than to exclude Nativity displays.

    You tell me, how do the above reflect positively on atheism?

    It’s no wonder that no only religious folk, but people in general have a low opinion of atheists – Negative 32 rating, only Scientologists get lower (they are arguably even more prone to harass those of different views).

    So IMHO, if your group goes around purposely picking fights with, denigrating, mocking and causing trouble for theists… Of course religious folk aren’t going to like you!

  56. Ron Says:

    “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:44-48)

    Christian persecution (c. 65) = serving as a human torch to light Nero’s garden parties.

    Christian persecution (c. 2012) = seeing an atheist bus ad or billboard.

  57. De Ha Says:

    You are projecting your own narrow-mindedness on to us. Also, You REALLY lean heavily on God of the Gaps with a dash of Shifting The goal Post, to the point that I’m honestly baffled YOU believe in God.

  58. Scott Thong Says:

    Oh come on, it’s all for a laugh.

  59. Dante Says:

    This argument is invalid for it is an example of the Red Herin Fallacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: