Mistakes Atheists Make

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Defining atheism
In the golden age of atheism (late 1800's) atheism was generally held to be "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". Today some atheists prefer to define atheism as merely "lack of belief in God". While I appreciate the intellectual retreat the new definition represents, this new definition is illogical. According to the 2nd definition those who know or think there is a God are atheists, which is absurd.


Incorrect, this fails as a straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith do now – as they always have – acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.


Burden of proof
Atheists often say theists must shoulder the burden of proof since theists claim there is a God. However, atheists are also making a claim: theism is an ill-considered position. So atheists should also bear the burden of proof.


Incorrect, this fails as a straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith would not 'compel' theists to 'prove' something that cannot be proven.


Radical skepticism
Some atheists are radical skeptics, but radical skepticism is self-defeating. As Wittgenstein said: “If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.”


Incorrect, this fails as a hasty generalization fallacy, as this is not representative of those free from faith.


Those free from faith do not experience 'doubt' or 'skepticism,' they simply acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.


Hard materialism
Can atheists prove only the material world exists?


This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.


Lack of evidence that something doesn't exist isn't 'evidence' that it does exist.


Atheism and tolerance
According to one estimate over 25 million Christians died from secular antireligious violence in the 20th century.


This fails as a false comparison fallacy, as well as a hasty generalization fallacy.


Those who ruled during the Soviet Era were in no way related to those free from faith, nor were they representative of those free from faith. This is a fallacy just as it is a fallacy to 'argue' that theists are intolerant as a consequence of the millions who have died simply because they practiced the 'wrong' faith.


Atheism and happiness
BBC NEWS Health Religion linked to happy life


This fails as a confusion of correlation and causation fallacy, as 'happiness' may manifest for entirely different reasons other than theism.


Atheists' recurring intellectual cowardice and laziness
Atheists seem eager to ridicule the least educated while avoiding the most educated Christians.


And you end your failed thread with yet another straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith seek to 'ridicule' no one, to expose the fallacies, poor reasoning, and errors common to most theists is not to 'ridicule' them.


Consequently the premise of your thread fails, with each of your points demonstrated to be a fallacy.

 

[PratchettFan]

Defining atheism
In the golden age of atheism (late 1800's) atheism was generally held to be "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". Today some atheists prefer to define atheism as merely "lack of belief in God". While I appreciate the intellectual retreat the new definition represents, this new definition is illogical. According to the 2nd definition those who know or think there is a God are atheists, which is absurd.


Incorrect, this fails as a straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith do now – as they always have – acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

The fact that there is no god.... That is a statement of pure belief and constitutes faith. You have not freed yourself from faith, you have just adopted a new faith.

 

[sealybobo]

Defining atheism
In the golden age of atheism (late 1800's) atheism was generally held to be "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". Today some atheists prefer to define atheism as merely "lack of belief in God". While I appreciate the intellectual retreat the new definition represents, this new definition is illogical. According to the 2nd definition those who know or think there is a God are atheists, which is absurd.


Incorrect, this fails as a straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith do now – as they always have – acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

The fact that there is no god.... That is a statement of pure belief and constitutes faith. You have not freed yourself from faith, you have just adopted a new faith.

Most of us atheists admit we can't say for certain there is no creator or that he didn't create our universe. We just see no proof of that. We've heard all the stories and we are unconvinced.

I am a god. If you do not believe me, is that a new faith of yours?

Invisible Pink Unicorns are all around me. Do you believe that? So you have faith they don't exist? Ok, then I guess I have faith that your god(s) are not real.

We can't say for sure what's on the other side of black holes.

But we hear the Jesus stories and how if we don't believe in god we will burn in hell. Blabladiblabla.... So to not believe is a faith?

Do you believe the Mormon story? Do you even know what their story is? How can you have such strong faith if you have not intelligently looked into all the different faiths? Are you sure the one you were born into is right just because your parents and priest say so? The stories seem silly to me and probably to you too. So is not believing the Mormon faith YOUR faith?

Because you aren't a Muslim, is that your new faith?

How many faiths do you have?

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F Roberts

 

[Thunderbird]

#2. What caused God? If we had to have a cause, so does he, right?

God would be the uncaused cause.

Even if design could be established we cannot conclude anything about the nature of the designer

Of course you could.

The appearance of complexity and order in the universe is the result of spontaneous self-organisation and pattern formation, caused by chaotic feedback between simple physical laws and rules.

So you are saying complexity arises from physical laws. Who made the physical laws?

 

[Thunderbird]

Most of us atheists admit we can't say for certain there is no creator or that he didn't create our universe.

So you are really an agnostic.

We've heard all the stories and we are unconvinced.

Or maybe you find religious obligations (forgiving your enemies, helping your neighbor) irksome. Or maybe internet atheists are just a small set of petulant adolescent boys who meekly submit to the fashion for atheism created by the media bosses.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Silly. Many theists do not dismiss all the other gods. It is quite possible various religious believers understand some aspect of the Divine.

 

[Thunderbird]

“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.” - Douglas Adams

We've already looked at this objection.

quote: Because humans exist, the laws of nature clearly must be the ones compatible with life. Otherwise, we simply wouldn’t be here to notice the fact. To argue against this line of reasoning, John Leslie makes the analogy of surviving an execution at a firing squad completely unharmed.Here, Leslie argues that the naturalist’s argument above is analogous to saying, "Of course all of the shots missed, otherwise I wouldn’t be here to notice that I’m still alive!” A much more logical approach would be to seek out an explanation for why such an unlikely event occurred.

 

[Thunderbird]

The universe is extremely hostile to life. Extinction level events have nearly eliminated complex life on Earth on five separate occasions. Of all the species that have ever lived 99.9% are now extinct. Furthermore, normal matter like stars and planets occupy less than 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the observable universe. Life constitutes an even smaller fraction of that matter again. If the universe is fine-tuned for anything it is for the creation of black holes [2] and empty space.

The universe doesn't have to be fine-tuned to be crammed with life. lol It could certainly be God's plan to produce life in 1 planet out of a thousand, or one advanced civilization per galaxy (for example). Perhaps God wants to give these civilizations a challenge - a galaxy to explore.

There is nothing to suggest that human life, our planet or our universe are uniquely privileged nor intended.

Never said it was! There could very well be other living things in outer space that were part of God's plan.

The conditions that we observe, namely, those around our Sun and on Earth, simply seem fine-tuned to us because we evolved to suit them.

What you are missing is that evolution itself would be impossible without fine-tuning!

quote: "[The entire biological] evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself."

It is possible an infinity of universes exist, all with different conditions and forms of life.

The multiverse hypothesis won't help you out either.

quote: Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the process which produces all of these universes would randomly set all the physical parameters in such a way that every possibility is realized. It could be that there are constraints on the characteristics of these many universes and that the production process itself would have to be fine-tuned in some way to guarantee that we get enough variety of universes to account for our remarkable cosmic home.

Also if you believe in the multiverse hypothesis you can't be an atheist.

Princeton philosopher David K. Lewis has pointed out that a multiverse means "all logically possible universes are as real as the one we call the "actual" one." And "there is even a universe containing the Greek gods".

LINK

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Defining atheism
In the golden age of atheism (late 1800's) atheism was generally held to be "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". Today some atheists prefer to define atheism as merely "lack of belief in God". While I appreciate the intellectual retreat the new definition represents, this new definition is illogical. According to the 2nd definition those who know or think there is a God are atheists, which is absurd.


Incorrect, this fails as a straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith do now – as they always have – acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

The fact that there is no god.... That is a statement of pure belief and constitutes faith. You have not freed yourself from faith, you have just adopted a new faith.

Incorrect.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists – 'god' does exist as a human construct, as a contrivance, a philosophy like all other philosophies man has developed and follows.

But there no 'god' as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity who hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts that must be obeyed lest those who disobey are subject to some 'punishment' after death – this is the 'god' that in fact does not exist.

And acknowledging a fact requires no 'belief,' one either accepts the fact or he doesn't.

 

[Thunderbird]

Those free from faith do now – as they always have – acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

So you are saying there is no God? Since you are making a claim you ought to provide evidence. Can you prove there is no God?

Those free from faith do not experience 'doubt' or 'skepticism,'

What?? lol You don't doubt the existence of God? You aren't skeptical?

This fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Do you believe the material world is all that exists? Where is the evidence for your claim?

Lack of evidence that something doesn't exist isn't 'evidence' that it does exist.

I see your point, but you are making claims without evidence.

Those who ruled during the Soviet Era were in no way related to those free from faith, nor were they representative of those free from faith.

Absurd! The Soviet leadership were fanatic atheists. Communism represents a very large sect within the atheist faith.

This fails as a confusion of correlation and causation fallacy, as 'happiness' may manifest for entirely different reasons other than theism.

Face the facts.
Is God an Anti-Depressant - ABC News

Those free from faith seek to 'ridicule' no one,

Laughable! How can you possibly suggest your fellow atheists never stoop to ridicule?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The thread title should be changed to: “Mistakes Theists Make."

 

[PratchettFan]

Defining atheism
In the golden age of atheism (late 1800's) atheism was generally held to be "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". Today some atheists prefer to define atheism as merely "lack of belief in God". While I appreciate the intellectual retreat the new definition represents, this new definition is illogical. According to the 2nd definition those who know or think there is a God are atheists, which is absurd.


Incorrect, this fails as a straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith do now – as they always have – acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

The fact that there is no god.... That is a statement of pure belief and constitutes faith. You have not freed yourself from faith, you have just adopted a new faith.

Incorrect.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists – 'god' does exist as a human construct, as a contrivance, a philosophy like all other philosophies man has developed and follows.

But there no 'god' as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity who hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts that must be obeyed lest those who disobey are subject to some 'punishment' after death – this is the 'god' that in fact does not exist.

And acknowledging a fact requires no 'belief,' one either accepts the fact or he doesn't.

Perhaps you think that distinction matters. If you say something is a fact without having a shred of evidence to support it, then what it is is a firmly held belief and nothing more. It's faith. You can call it something else if that makes you feel better, but that does not change what it is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because the object is physically there and perception of it can be confirmed directly.

But can your awareness be confirmed directly? Don't you get it yet?! Is your awareness of a table the table itself?

In his book, "The Genesis Enigma," Andrew Parker makes comments along those lines....


1. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see. Ultraviolet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers. What Wavelength Goes With a Color

3. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html
That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!

4. Further, our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

5. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of us atheists admit we can't say for certain there is no creator or that he didn't create our universe.

So you are really an agnostic.

.

Are you certain the Greek gods don't exist? Are you certain that the Earth isn't balanced on the back of a giant turtle?

 

[Hollie]

Because the object is physically there and perception of it can be confirmed directly.

But can your awareness be confirmed directly? Don't you get it yet?! Is your awareness of a table the table itself?

In his book, "The Genesis Enigma," Andrew Parker makes comments along those lines....


1. The interpretations and explanations provided by science come, mainly by way of our observations, and a few instruments. Human observations. But birds and bees communicate within the ultraviolet portion of sunlight… a part of the spectrum that humans don’t see. Ultraviolet - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. And eyesight is our most important sense. It provides the majority of our sensory information about the world. Consider how much less we’d know if we had no eyes. Even so…we’d probably feel that we knew everything about our surroundings. But we don’t know about the world in ultraviolet. Or in infrared. We live between 400 and 700 nanometers. What Wavelength Goes With a Color

3. And the inner ear contains hair cells that are moved by sound waves between 20 and 20,000 Hertz.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html
That’s the extent of our contact with the real world. Beyond said ranges…we don’t know about it!

4. Further, our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

5. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.

The NSCE was as generous as they could be to Parker but ultimately, a literal rendering of the genesis fable is reserved for fundies.

Review The Genesis Enigma NCSE

 

[PratchettFan]

Most of us atheists admit we can't say for certain there is no creator or that he didn't create our universe.

So you are really an agnostic.

.

Are you certain the Greek gods don't exist? Are you certain that the Earth isn't balanced on the back of a giant turtle?

Yes, I am.

 

[sealybobo]

Most of us atheists admit we can't say for certain there is no creator or that he didn't create our universe.

So you are really an agnostic.

We've heard all the stories and we are unconvinced.

Or maybe you find religious obligations (forgiving your enemies, helping your neighbor) irksome. Or maybe internet atheists are just a small set of petulant adolescent boys who meekly submit to the fashion for atheism created by the media bosses.

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

Silly. Many theists do not dismiss all the other gods. It is quite possible various religious believers understand some aspect of the Divine.

Yes I'm an agnostic atheist. I see no signs of a god but I can't completely rule it out that "something" intelligent made all this. But that it loves you and you go to heaven but a fish doesn't is just man made garbage.

It isn't us who say we know. We're still looking for the answers. Faith in a lie or unbelievable unfalsifiable myth is ignorant.

Man I wish I could remember exactly the bullshit I saw this weekend on religious tv. I love watching it in small doses. One guy he's always asking for $77 x 10 easy payments and he'll pray for you and a blessing will come your way within the first month so for only $77 you'll have a miracle come your way.

Then I flip to PBS and they have on this scientist woman who is also religious and she very clearly explains why, for example, conservative christians deny global warming. They have been taught less government. But to solve global warming it's going to take all of us, collectively, with GOVERNMENT.

Anyways, I find religious conservative people to be ignorant, easily manipulated by "the man", brainwashed, stubborn, intolerant to change and other people.

I watched a show too last night on the Roosevelts. They, as far as I'm concerned are two of the greatest men in US history. The rich and I'm sure conservatives think they were traitors. The rich called them "traitors to their class", because they were very rich. But they considered themselves champion of the little guy.

To keep corporations in check, we need a powerful government. One that works for we the people. We need campaign finance reform and to undo Citizens United.

But try to get this past the brain dead zombie conservative middle class Americans who don't realize they're voting against themselves.

Look at how they backed the Tea Party funded by the Billionaire Koch brothers who already own our politicians

Look how conservatives treated the 99% protesters who protested Wallstreet? They called them commy, socialist, hippy, big government, takers, mooches,

I hate religion for these reason among many other reasons. It is for the weak minded and it is used to manipulate the weak minded.

 

[sealybobo]

Defining atheism
In the golden age of atheism (late 1800's) atheism was generally held to be "the doctrine or belief that there is no God". Today some atheists prefer to define atheism as merely "lack of belief in God". While I appreciate the intellectual retreat the new definition represents, this new definition is illogical. According to the 2nd definition those who know or think there is a God are atheists, which is absurd.


Incorrect, this fails as a straw man fallacy, as you contrive to misrepresent your opponents' position.


Those free from faith do now – as they always have – acknowledge the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.

The fact that there is no god.... That is a statement of pure belief and constitutes faith. You have not freed yourself from faith, you have just adopted a new faith.

Incorrect.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists – 'god' does exist as a human construct, as a contrivance, a philosophy like all other philosophies man has developed and follows.

But there no 'god' as an omnipotent extra-terrestrial entity who hears prayers, intercedes on the behalf of mortals, and issues edicts that must be obeyed lest those who disobey are subject to some 'punishment' after death – this is the 'god' that in fact does not exist.

And acknowledging a fact requires no 'belief,' one either accepts the fact or he doesn't.

Our big bang could be when a god sat on a black hole and shit. This is what our universe is made of. A god's shit. Where would you shit if you were a god? A black hole is the perfect toilet.

Or a Glory Hole. That is more likely that we came from god's spunk not his shit. But then again a maggot can grow from a shit so...

 

[Thunderbird]

To keep corporations in check, we need a powerful government. One that works for we the people.

So naïve! lol

Barack Obama: King Of Corporate Welfare
Democrats love them some crony capitalism

I hate religion for these reason among many other reasons.

Yea you seem to be full of hate.

This is what our universe is made of. A god's shit.

Well the part near you anyway.

 

[sealybobo]

To keep corporations in check, we need a powerful government. One that works for we the people.

So naïve! lol

Barack Obama: King Of Corporate Welfare
Democrats love them some crony capitalism

I hate religion for these reason among many other reasons.

Yea you seem to be full of hate.

This is what our universe is made of. A god's shit.

Well the part near you anyway.

So the Republicans solution to corporate welfare is what? Then shut the fuck up. I hate it when Republicans point and say look when a democrat acts like a republican. Don't forget you fucking idiot you guys do that shit too.

 

[Thunderbird]

So the Republicans solution to corporate welfare is what? Then shut the fuck up. I hate it when Republicans point and say look when a democrat acts like a republican. Don't forget you fucking idiot you guys do that shit too.

1) I'm not a Republican.

2) Why not say "acts like a Democrat" because they actually are Democrats.