Need atheist response

[MiccyNarc]

Nobody can be an atheist.

Allow me to sidetrack this thread a bit as I explain why one can't be atheist.

To be an atheist, you'd have to say: "There is no god." However, reasonably, one can't say that.

To know whether there's a god or not, one would have to know 100% of all Knowledge, before they can say empirically that "there is no god". However, obviously nobody knows 100% of Knowledge.

Suppose one held 1% of Knowledge. How can he/she be absolutely sure that in the 99% of Knowledge that he/she doesn't know about, doesn't contain the proof of a god? At best one can only say: I don't know, but never: there isn't. In other words, your friends are agnostic, not atheist.

From someone on another forum.

Anyway, I'd shred this myself but I thought it'd carry more weight if I had "genuine" atheistic responses.

And this is a great statement....FOR HL2.net TO POOP ON!

(Yes I'm watching Triumph right now -_-)

 

[AntiAnto]

To be an atheist, you just have to believe in no Gods, and it has nothing to do with knowledge.

 

[OvA]

An athiest saying there is no god isn't any different that a Christian saying there is...You can't absolutely prove either way...It's just what you believe.

 

[Da-Muffin-Man]

When one states that "there is no god" it is there opinion, not fact, so it is totally within reason to say it.

 

[Yuri]

From someone on another forum.

Anyway, I'd shred this myself but I thought it'd carry more weight if I had "genuine" atheistic responses.

And this is a great statement....FOR HL2.net TO POOP ON!

(Yes I'm watching Triumph right now -_-)

eh?

You could say that about any religion, as well. Nobody can prove 100% that any god exists, or any gods, or any aliens, or whatever the hell they believe in.

...which is why I'm agnostic.

 

[Danimal]

Beliefs are just beliefs, they don't neccassarily need to be made from knowledge, nor do they need to be fact.

I am an atheist and I can comfortably say "There is no god."

 

[MiccyNarc]

Thanks folks. I'll make sure I'll forward Stern's and Absinthe's responses when they show up but I'll send these for now, as well as my own contributions.
*hugs Hl2.net'ers*

 

[Nat Turner]

There are "weak atheists" and "strong atheists". Weak atheists are at a position of skepticism. They do not believe in a god because they see no evidence to do so, and simply have a lack of belief. Strong atheists, on the other hand, deny the existence of a god or believe one cannot exist.

 

[Danimal]

I guess i'm classed as a weak athiest, since there is no real proof of a god's exsistance. But you have to think about how all this can be coincidence?

 

[Nat Turner]

Personally, I think there is something going on that is either scientifically extremely radical or is supernatural.

 

[Ikerous]

However, reasonably, one can't say that.

I can reasonably say that there is no god with the same resonable certainty that i can say witches and goblins don't exist.

I don't think theres a god. I'm an athiest.

 

[Muffin Man]

I'm agnostic and whoever that quote is from, he/she is a complete retard

"heh, heh, u r teh not knowing butter is teh bad 4 u if u no not what all process wich it go through your body 'n how dat stuff react wit do organs 'n such, kekeke"

no dumbass, i don't need to know everything about butter to say its bad for me..

thats my 2 cents

 

[Glirk Dient]

It is the same thing to say that to believe in god you must know 100% of knowledge to know that there is a god. It is flawed logic.

 

[The Mullinator]

I don't believe a god exists. However we don't know enough for anyone to to prove that such an existance is/isn't possible. I suspect there isn't any form of higher being. I believe however with a great deal of conviction that even if there is a higher power that it is nothing like the Christian god, there is no being or power out there that has watched over us, that governs us, that has shaped our history.

I say this because the question from this topic has already been answered.

 

[CptStern]

From someone on another forum.

Allow me to sidetrack this thread a bit as I explain why one can't be atheist.

To be an atheist, you'd have to say: "There is no god." However, reasonably, one can't say that.

To know whether there's a god or not, one would have to know 100% of all Knowledge, before they can say empirically that "there is no god". However, obviously nobody knows 100% of Knowledge.

Suppose one held 1% of Knowledge. How can he/she be absolutely sure that in the 99% of Knowledge that he/she doesn't know about, doesn't contain the proof of a god? At best one can only say: I don't know, but never: there isn't. In other words, your friends are agnostic, not atheist.

flawed logic at best ..you dont have to have 100% of knowledge to know there is no god ..I cant see, him, feel him, touch, sense him ..so in that real sense he does not exist to me. Anything else is speculation ...like "how do you know there's not ..." ..answer "how do you know there is?" ..you cant prove something that isnt measureable or disprove for that matter. Therefore his conclusion is reasonable just not his initial question ..which kinda points at his own naivete: he doesnt have 100% of knowledge therefore he cannot say with any certainty that god exists so his point is moot

 

[dantewilliams]

Beliefs are just beliefs, they don't neccassarily need to be made from knowledge, nor do they need to be fact.

I am an atheist and I can comfortably say "There is no god."

by saying "there is no god" you are treating it as a fact, in acctuality you should be saying i believe there is no god. thus it would ammount to your opinion rather than treating it like it was a renowned fact.

 

[dantewilliams]

flawed logic at best ..you dont have to have 100% of knowledge to know there is no god ..I cant see, him, feel him, touch, sense him ..so in that real sense he does not exist to me. Anything else is speculation ...like "how do you know there's not ..." ..answer "how do you know there is?" ..you cant prove something that isnt measureable or disprove for that matter. Therefore his conclusion is reasonable just not his initial question ..which kinda points at his own naivete: he doesnt have 100% of knowledge therefore he cannot say with any certainty that god exists so his point is moot

Stern 500 years ago you couldnt see, feel, touch, or sense bacteria or virus's, does that mean they didnt exist?.I dont think your argument holds up a valid ploy. Im not here to say god exists or doesnt, i simply belive there is a living god, how ever i cannot prove it, thats why it is the bible asks to believe with faith rather than have everything fed visually to us, its a matter of trust.

 

[ailevation]

There isn't any proof that god or god's exist. So, I don't believe there is a god nor gods.

weak atheist.

 

[dantewilliams]

I don't believe a god exists. However we don't know enough for anyone to to prove that such an existance is/isn't possible. I suspect there isn't any form of higher being. I believe however with a great deal of conviction that there is nothing like the Christian god, there is no being or power out there that has watched over us, that governs us, that has shaped our history.

I say this because the question from this topic has already been answered.

The christian god does not govern, he gives rules, it is mans free will to decide whether he follows them. It is man that imposes a governing rule in gods image. IE the crusades, or catholic church.

 

[The Mullinator]

The christian god does not govern, he gives rules, it is mans free will to decide whether he follows them. It is man that imposes a governing rule in gods image. IE the crusades, or catholic church.

I call it governing though when he gives out rules, and failing to follow those rules results in a punishment (in this case eternal damnation). You can't have rules without a consequence for not following them, and for that reason I can't see how someone giving rules can't be considered a governing force.

 

[dantewilliams]

I call it governing though when he gives out rules, and failing to follow those rules results in a punishment (in this case eternal damnation). You can't have rules without a consequence for not following them, and for that reason I can't see how someone giving rules can't be considered a governing force.

Ah, you see but that is flawed logic. It is a governing force if you choose to follow it, and it isnt a governing force if you decide to not follow it. How ever if you believe in god, you will want to follow the rules the best of your abilities (no one is perfect).

In your statement it seems that you also subcontiously reject society, you dont like to follow rules? Gods rules are not here to destroy or enslave you. They are here to keep us all alive, contrary to popular belief true christians do not go around killing and maiming people just because they dont believe in god. God teaches to love people to him, not literally put the fear of god in them. Gods rules if followed correctly (not perfectly) would have our world with out killers, rapists, war, slaver. It is hard to believe but basking in the 7 deadly sins is really what gets out world to where it is today, just look around.

1 Pride
2 Greed
3 Envy
4 Anger
5 Lust
6 Gluttony
7 Sloth

All of these basic sins lead to murder, war, lies, slavery, etc.

 

[Milkman]

You want an atheist response?

"Whatever dude."

There you have it.

 

[Ikerous]

"Whatever dude."

I honestly believe thats the most enlightened response.

 

[Jintor]

flawed logic at best ..you dont have to have 100% of knowledge to know there is no god ..I cant see, him, feel him, touch, sense him ..so in that real sense he does not exist to me. Anything else is speculation ...like "how do you know there's not ..." ..answer "how do you know there is?" ..you cant prove something that isnt measureable or disprove for that matter. Therefore his conclusion is reasonable just not his initial question ..which kinda points at his own naivete: he doesnt have 100% of knowledge therefore he cannot say with any certainty that god exists so his point is moot

I can't see, touch, sense, smell or hear America. Does that mean it doesn't exist?

Weak Aethiests are agnostics. I think.

 

[Ikerous]

Weak Aethiests are agnostics. I think.

Weak athiests don't believe in any god. Agnostics are unsure or think its impossible to determine if a god exists.
I personally think the whole weak/strong athiest distinction is pretty lame though :|

I define anyone who doesnt believe in gods to be athiest, any anyone that neither believes one exists nor doesnt believe one exists to be agnostic.

 

[The Mullinator]

Ah, you see but that is flawed logic. It is a governing force if you choose to follow it, and it isnt a governing force if you decide to not follow it. How ever if you believe in god, you will want to follow the rules the best of your abilities (no one is perfect).

In your statement it seems that you also subcontiously reject society, you dont like to follow rules? Gods rules are not here to destroy or enslave you. They are here to keep us all alive, contrary to popular belief true christians do not go around killing and maiming people just because they dont believe in god. God teaches to love people to him, not literally put the fear of god in them. Gods rules if followed correctly (not perfectly) would have our world with out killers, rapists, war, slaver. It is hard to believe but basking in the 7 deadly sins is really what gets out world to where it is today, just look around.

1 Pride
2 Greed
3 Envy
4 Anger
5 Lust
6 Gluttony
7 Sloth

All of these basic sins lead to murder, war, lies, slavery, etc.

But when I don't believe in god and therefore not follow these rules I will still be punished (according to the scriptures). The majority of rules Christianity sets out however are rules that I created in my own mind long ago, I don't need a governing force or a belief in a higher and truthful being for me to follow them. I consider it a great strength of my character (even though this may be the most natural thing to do for humans) that I create most of my own principles and stick to them despite a complete lack of negative consequences for not following them. I believe many Christian rules to be correct, I just don't believe it is possible for a higher power to have created a set of rules that all are expected to follow and not call it some for of government.

I hate being a follower but at the same time I don't want to be a leader. I don't believe in Christianity not because I ever resisted it's teachings but because I have determined that I simply have no reason to believe. I am a good person so I don't feel the desire to have these rules governing me. Also I am somewhat of a scientist at heart and I know the history of many religions and of the rise of Christianity in particular, that coupled with a lack of evidence are my reasons for not believing.

I realize however that these rules whether created by a higher being or by humanity itself are needed. I guess this is one of the reasons I hate being a follower but I also don't want to be a leader. I hate how it is a necessity of humanity that to keep order we must have rules, we must have the threat of punishment and often we must limit ourselves or at least move painfully slow because of these rules. Once again however I know they are needed.

Just because I am bored, tired, and stressed from exams I guess I will end my posting tonight with this: You are correct, I do reject society. Not in the way however you see 'goths' or 'emos' do. I want to be my own leader, I want nothing to govern me but I also don't want to govern anyone else. In society such a situation is impossible and is one of the big reasons I have often dreamed about abandoning civilization altogether. I often feel like I don't want to support civilization in any way shape or form but at the same time I don't want to take anything from it. The only way that is possible is to cut myself off from the rest of the world and live somewhere in the wilderness. A lot of people actually find that as a somewhat exciting thought.

Anyway sorry to everyone for going so far off-topic.

 

[dantewilliams]

But when I don't believe in god and therefore not follow these rules I will still be punished (according to the scriptures). The majority of rules Christianity sets out however are rules that I created in my own mind long ago, I don't need a governing force or a belief in a higher and truthful being for me to follow them. I consider it a great strength of my character (even though this may be the most natural thing to do for humans) that I create most of my own principles and stick to them despite a complete lack of negative consequences for not following them. I believe many Christian rules to be correct, I just don't believe it is possible for a higher power to have created a set of rules that all are expected to follow and not call it some for of government.

I hate being a follower but at the same time I don't want to be a leader. I don't believe in Christianity not because I ever resisted it's teachings but because I have determined that I simply have no reason to believe. I am a good person so I don't feel the desire to have these rules governing me. Also I am somewhat of a scientist at heart and I know the history of many religions and of the rise of Christianity in particular, that coupled with a lack of evidence are my reasons for not believing.

I realize however that these rules whether created by a higher being or by humanity itself are needed. I guess this is one of the reasons I hate being a follower but I also don't want to be a leader. I hate how it is a necessity of humanity that to keep order we must have rules, we must have the threat of punishment and often we must limit ourselves or at least move painfully slow because of these rules. Once again however I know they are needed.

Just because I am bored, tired, and stressed from exams I guess I will end my posting tonight with this: You are correct, I do reject society. Not in the way however you see 'goths' or 'emos' do. I want to be my own leader, I want nothing to govern me but I also don't want to govern anyone else. In society such a situation is impossible and is one of the big reasons I have often dreamed about abandoning civilization altogether. I often feel like I don't want to support civilization in any way shape or form but at the same time I don't want to take anything from it. The only way that is possible is to cut myself off from the rest of the world and live somewhere in the wilderness. A lot of people actually find that as a somewhat exciting thought.

Anyway sorry to everyone for going so far off-topic.

self indulgence, self pride, self god. selfishness you dont want to believe there is a force greater than you. however, either way im not here to force my beliefs upon you, i am rather just sharing my point of view like you are with me. I find it interesting though, atleast from my understanding and belief, the hell you could be facing, isnt one of fire and brimstone, but lonelyness, like what you descibed above.

Lastly to bring to light, in the bible yes there are concequences for not following the rules, how ever you can repent. And there is a reward to following the rules, eternal salvation, so Mullinator, there are concequence to every action whether they are good or bad. ill leave it at that, again this is my opinion from my set of beliefs, im just throwing it out there for you guys to ponder about, im not here to get into a flame contest saying this or that.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Stern 500 years ago you couldnt see, feel, touch, or sense bacteria or virus's, does that mean they didnt exist?.I dont think your argument holds up a valid ploy. Im not here to say god exists or doesnt, i simply belive there is a living god, how ever i cannot prove it, thats why it is the bible asks to believe with faith rather than have everything fed visually to us, its a matter of trust.

No...we couldn't but there is evidence of them being there. Tangible evidence.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Atheism relies on scientific proof. Without proof, you do not go about declaring that things exist.

You can declare that many things don't exist though.
There are no space goats eating the flag on the moon, etc.

You don't even need 100% proof, since nothing can be 100% proven. You just need enough proof to make a reasonable conclusion.

Religious folks can provide those real proofs, or they can shut up.
Sadly, no-one does either of those things, so we end up with threads like this one here.

 

[CyberPitz]

/me urinates on god

 

[Glirk Dient]

Atheism relies on scientific proof. Without proof, you do not go about declaring that things exist.

You can declare that many things don't exist though.
There are no space goats eating the flag on the moon, etc.

You don't even need 100% proof, since nothing can be 100% proven. You just need enough proof to make a reasonable conclusion.

Religious folks can provide those real proofs, or they can shut up.
Sadly, no-one does either of those things, so we end up with threads like this one here.

QFT

 

[OCybrManO]

Don't give me that (and I'm paraphrasing) "God just sits back and watches" crap. Either God interferes with events of the real world or you're not talking about the Christian God. You not being able to recall any such occasions of God's governing only goes to show how little you know about your own religion. There is so much violence in the Christian scripture, the Bible (Old & New Testaments) sounds like a screenplay for an action movie. God is supposedly this perfect Lovey McLovingston character... except you have to ignore like half of the stories for it to work out that way. There's a reason for the phrase "to put the fear of God into [a person or group]"... as in "Help Put The Fear Of God Into The ACLU" which is the title of this article by some "God-fearing" religious conservative blogger.

 

[Mr Stabby]

there is no more evidence god exist, then any other supernatural s***e. Just becuase the Roman empire imposed Christainity on Europe, then Europe imposed it on the world, does not make it real.

 

[Solaris]

To know whether there's a god or not, one would have to know 100% of all Knowledge, before they can say empirically that "there is no god". However, obviously nobody knows 100% of Knowledge.

That is complete rubbish, its just a crap argument.

Just replace atheism with belief and 'There is no god' to 'There is god' and its just been proven that you can't belive in god. (Which it hasn't becuase the reasoning is crap)

 

[CptStern]

Stern 500 years ago you couldnt see, feel, touch, or sense bacteria or virus's, does that mean they didnt exist?.I dont think your argument holds up a valid ploy. Im not here to say god exists or doesnt, i simply belive there is a living god, how ever i cannot prove it, thats why it is the bible asks to believe with faith rather than have everything fed visually to us, its a matter of trust.

you missed my point entirely, you're not following my train of logic ..it doesnt matter if something does exists ..if I dont know about it it doesnt exist to me

if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? ..the logical answer (not the correct one) is "no because I am not there to hear the sound" ...therefore the answer is no, despite being yes because experience has taught us that a tree does indeed make a sound when it falls ..therefore that analogy, that logic train can be applied to the existence of god ...since I cannot see/smell/touch/sense god he does not exist BASED on logic and experience ..once again extrapolate what I said about the tree in the forest and apply that to what I said about god

 

[el Chi]

Nobody can be an atheist.
Allow me to sidetrack this thread a bit as I explain why one can't be atheist.
To be an atheist, you'd have to say: "There is no god." However, reasonably, one can't say that.
To know whether there's a god or not, one would have to know 100% of all Knowledge, before they can say empirically that "there is no god". However, obviously nobody knows 100% of Knowledge.
Suppose one held 1% of Knowledge. How can he/she be absolutely sure that in the 99% of Knowledge that he/she doesn't know about, doesn't contain the proof of a god? At best one can only say: I don't know, but never: there isn't. In other words, your friends are agnostic, not atheist.

I'm terribly sorry, but this fellow is an utter fool. His/her argument is unfounded in the extreme.
Of course no-one can hold 100% of knowledge, but atheism is not a claim to that. Atheism is a stance essentially saying:
"From what I observe, I am unconvinced of a higher power or transcendental being; nor of a divine creator. I do not believe in any god, not through knowledge, but through observation and rational contemplation."

I've noticed quite a few times that theists will try and debunk atheists by arguing along the lines of "If your atheistic conclusions come about through "knowledge" and "fact", then how can you claim to "know" there is no God, when there is so much left unknown."
Whereas theistic conclusions on a higher power come about through faith rather than fact. Whether this is a more sound basis for belief is completely subjective - each side will claim the other is wrong, after all.

The fact is that, if someone claims to believe in God, they are a theist.
If someone claims they are not sure or do not believe in a god as prescribed in any organised religions, they are agnostic.
If someone claims they do not believe in god, they are an atheist.
...and that's really all there is to it.

This person's argument is to unseat the atheist's position but does nothing of the sort. It poses neither a direct nor well-considered opposition, and is based on flawed reasoning: You claim A, but you are lacking B, thus the conclusion must be that A is wrong, so C.
B being some very minor detail that is not massively significant, but is overplayed and skewed by the opposition.
C being a completely abitrary conclusion proposed by the opposition that does not necessarily follow at all.

Offering some genuine problems and/or flaws in an atheistic position is far better, but this person has not put forward anything compelling.

Weak Aethiests are agnostics. I think.

Not a bit of it.
One can be convinced, or at least open to the idea of a higher force or power than what we are able to perceive, yet not subscribe to any of the major religions. If their visions of God do not match your own conception, why bother changing your views to suit theirs? In fact, why even call this concept/belief you have as "God" at all?

Rant ends.

 

[CptStern]

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!


/me gets aneurism

you missed my point a second time! I just explained it!!

 

[el Chi]

Dude, he just said (as in "said right now") never mind

 

[Glo-Boy]

I'll bet anyone a million dollars there is no god.

 

[CptStern]

my brain hurts