Jump to content
Islamic Forum
IAmZamzam

Why I Am Not An Atheist

Recommended Posts

Amazing. Even after I thought the thread was over, it still remains littered by atheistic counters that have already been addressed in the OP itself. Not one single person, even when new people sign up for the board, can find one single argument to make that hasn't already been refuted and ignored in the very OP. How many more pages of this are we going to have? Can't we just close the thread already since obviously nothing new can come of it by this point? It would have been the same had it been closed after the first post.

 

 

All I was trying to do was to find some kind of common agreement regarding the terms being used. An essential understanding before any 'discussion' can take place I think.

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
And let us hear no more of these childish (nay, infantile) analogies that atheists like to use as comparisons for God, religion, “proving a negative†, etc.. Santa Claus, “the flying spaghetti monsterâ€, leprechauns in the attic, fairy tales, the “celestial teapotâ€, invisible pink unicorns, grow up! Even if one leaves aside the utter puerility of all this hackneyed mockery the insult and snobbery involved is still too egregious to ignore. Whether there are any intellectual grounds for these comparisons or not there certainly are no ethical grounds, although some atheists still defend the appeals to ridicule with the claim that anyone who believes the “absurd†things we do deserves to be mocked ruthlessly; and thus do they demonstrate a sense of justice that is no better or more mature than their sense of humor. Whether you’re right or wrong about the point you make, you’re never going to make any point about anything productively by associating the contrary viewpoint with a flying spaghetti monster. Get over yourselves. Sheesh. If you don’t take our views seriously then why are you even bothering to discuss them at all?

 

Typical theist. No valid answer or rebuttal, so you dodge and dive around the question without addressing it.

 

The fact that what you believe IS no different from ANY of the things listed.Your Allah is no different from the FSM, or invisible pink unicorns. The idea is to show how utterly ridiculous, childish (nay, infantile) and absurd your beliefs are.

 

 

 

Some atheists...try to escape a shared burden of proof by redefining “atheism†as a “lack of belief†in deity. “Lack of beliefâ€. Now there’s an awkward phrase if ever I’ve heard one. Let me explain it to you. These folks, you see, have decided to call people who have never heard of God and supposedly don’t know about Him atheists too. Just for the sake of argument let’s go along with this for a moment, even though the regular, self-aware kind of atheists seem to be the only people in the world who ever use the term that way at all. Let us call the regular atheism (disbelief in God, whom one has heard of) atheism A, and mere ignorance of God atheism B. The argument in question is that since default position atheism B belongs to category AB along with atheism A, that means that AB (atheism itself) is the default position. (You may need to read that sentence a few times before you can penetrate the incoherence I’m describing.)...Well I’m sorry folks, but AB is not the default (if any of it is), only B. To refer to the whole category of AB as the default is like calling children “men†since as yet they’re neither men nor women and then using this new application of the label in an argument about men vs. women. After all, a child is a non-woman, right? In any event none of the atheism B folks have any bearing on this issue anyway. Forget about them. They’re not the ones in this debate, they have nothing to do with this debate, they’re just being introduced out of nowhere as a non-sequitur or desperate diversion.

 

Or not. Because Atheism IS the lack of belief in a god, it doesn't matter why you don't believe in a god. Perhaps you'd stop hearing the same arguments over and over from us if you actually took the time to read the rebuttals? You think anything you're saying is new? News flash - everything you're saying is the same old theistic copy-pasta.

 

Atheism A and atheism B are both still atheism. There's also atheism c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, etc.

 

The ONLY thing all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in a god, it's what defines them as atheists.

 

A gnostic atheist would indeed have a burden of proof, but an agnostic one does not. Their position is REJECTION of your statement that a god exists. If your god is unprovable? Well..."The fact that what you believe IS no different from ANY of the things listed.Your Allah is no different from the FSM, or invisible pink unicorns. The idea is to show how utterly ridiculous, childish (nay, infantile) and absurd your beliefs are.".

 

If you cannot prove the existence of something, then it's simply irrational to believe, unwaveringly, 100% that it exists. It's a primitive and illogical mindset, that should've been left behind with the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical theist. No valid answer or rebuttal, so you dodge and dive around the question without addressing it.

 

The fact that what you believe IS no different from ANY of the things listed.Your Allah is no different from the FSM, or invisible pink unicorns. The idea is to show how utterly ridiculous, childish (nay, infantile) and absurd your beliefs are.

Or not. Because Atheism IS the lack of belief in a god, it doesn't matter why you don't believe in a god. Perhaps you'd stop hearing the same arguments over and over from us if you actually took the time to read the rebuttals? You think anything you're saying is new? News flash - everything you're saying is the same old theistic copy-pasta.

 

Atheism A and atheism B are both still atheism. There's also atheism c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, etc.

 

The ONLY thing all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in a god, it's what defines them as atheists.

 

A gnostic atheist would indeed have a burden of proof, but an agnostic one does not. Their position is REJECTION of your statement that a god exists. If your god is unprovable? Well..."The fact that what you believe IS no different from ANY of the things listed.Your Allah is no different from the FSM, or invisible pink unicorns. The idea is to show how utterly ridiculous, childish (nay, infantile) and absurd your beliefs are.".

 

If you cannot prove the existence of something, then it's simply irrational to believe, unwaveringly, 100% that it exists. It's a primitive and illogical mindset, that should've been left behind with the dark ages.

 

To me, really all of this is a simple matter of epistemology: the science of understanding how and why one 'knows' what what thinks one knows. Plus points to one side, minus points to the other!

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruorem, rather than repeat myself a 90th time in a row, or point out how even the things you're putting in quote boxes are being ignored by your responses below them, or whether you want people to think that all atheists talk with the same condescending, everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-bruja-stick-waving-native tone, I'll just flat out ask you: why are you on this board? Why do you come here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait a minute, wait a minute! Did you just say "if you took the time to actually read the rebuttals" about a post or two after admitting that you didn't read mine?!

 

Will somebody please close this thread already? It got depressing before its first page was over. Now it's beginning to resemble Sartre's vision of hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you've not actually adressed the first point in either the OP or the subsequent posts, you just dodged the point completely.

 

As for the 2nd quote, your rebuttal to that was simply wrong. I've explained why.

 

You can say "I'm not repeating myself again blah, blah, blah" as much as you like, until you actually address the points being made all you're doing is desperately trying to avoid having to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you've not actually adressed the first point in either the OP or the subsequent posts, you just dodged the point completely.

 

As for the 2nd quote, your rebuttal to that was simply wrong. I've explained why.

 

You can say "I'm not repeating myself again blah, blah, blah" as much as you like, until you actually address the points being made all you're doing is desperately trying to avoid having to.

 

 

Ho Hum ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×