Re: A-Atheism
March 26, 2008 by chillinatthecabstand
This is a rebuttal to the post “I Am An A-Atheist Because Atheism is An Unprovable Fath”
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/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?”
>>Really? I didn’t know that. Please explain.
“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!!!”
>>How do you know that God exists? Here’s a multiple choice list you’ll probably respond with – “I don’t really know for sure,” “I just know it,” “I ‘feel’ it,” “I believe it and that’s what counts,” and “Fuck you, you brainwashed, science-crazed fundamentalist atheist satan-worshipper!!!”
No atheist claims to KNOW that god does not exist. It is just incredibly unlikely. Why buy into something that is incredibly unlikely, unprovable, and riddled with contraditions?
And, for the record, no atheist will ever give you any of those answers. Except for the “Fuck you” one, which I may give you.
“The point being, no atheist philosopher has ever actually disproven the existence of God. Logically and rationally, it is a patently impossible supposition.”
>>No theist philosopher has ever actually proven the existence of God. It is logically impossible.
Also, no theist philosopher or scientist has proven that theism or God himself make logical sense. For further information on this, see my post “Why God is Logically Impossible.”
“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.”
>>Do you know for sure that God exists? Do you have proof?
If you are mentally stable, the answer is no. No, you don’t.
So why do are you a theist and I an atheist when we are both really agnostic?
These are just labels to show which option we feel is more pheasible, logical, proven, and healthy.
I think theism is bullshit, therefore I am an atheist. You buy into theism, therefore you are a theist.
It does not mean “I know for sure that God exists/doesn’t exists.” It means “I am pretty damn sure that God exists/doesn’t exist.”
“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.”
>>As you yourself have stated, it is an impossibility to prove or disprove God. Everything you are saying about atheists fits the profile of theists, too.
“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.”
>>Who says unicorns are grass-eating? And, besides, they’re magical, so maybe you just can’t see them.
Lol Basically, they are comparable concepts.
“Once that is accomplished, one can say that they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that Planet Earth unicorns do not exist.”
>>Unless I decide to bring theist arguments into the equation, which I did in my post “Christian Challenge – I Am God,” which disproves your little metaphor here.
“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.”
>>Therefore, anyone can make up some bullshit to “prove” that God exists, making him untouchable.
“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.”
>>Really, what the hell? This makes no sense. You cannot conlude that something doesn’t exist just because you can’t find it in a certain habitat.
“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?”
>>Again, not being able to find something doesn’t prove its existence or nonexistence.
“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.”
>>Conversely, it is impossible to prove that God does exist somewhere out there in the vast, unexplored, ever-expending universe.
“Therefore, since the atheist cannot PROVE that God does not exist, he merely BELIEVES BY FAITH that God does not actually exist.”
>>Since the theist cannot prove that God exists, he merely believes by faith that god does not acatually exist.
Atheists, on the other hand, believe god doesn’t exist because of the mountains of evidence that contradict traditional notions of god, as well as internal contradictions within traditional notions of 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!”
>>I have addressed this idiocy in previous posts – Atheism is not a religion since there is only one opinion in it and atheist atrocities were not commited BECAUSE of atheism, and are therefore not spiritually motivated crimes. They were politically motivated.
“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.”
>>I dispelled this argument in my post “Christian Challenge – I Am God,” in which I placed the burden of proof on my readers to disprove that I am God. Needless to say, no one could disprove that I am God, despite their attempts. You can feel free to try if you want. Now, of course I am not God, but that is not something you can prove when you ask skeptics to disprove it instead of those making the claim to prove it. The burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders
“Ladies and gentlemen, I am an a-atheist.”
>>This is more than a little weird, considering that a - when used inside a word – means “not,” so this translates to “I am an not not theist.” This is like saying “I am not not stupid.” Not not a theist? The two “nots” negate each other and the sentence comes out as “I am a theist.” Why not just say that? You didn’t really think this through, did you?
“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’.”
>>Yeah, that make sense. Rolls eyes
“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.”
>>Again, my post “Christian Challenge – I Am God” showed definitely that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on the one that doesn’t buy into it. It’s on your head.
An A-athiest, what gramatically incorect, self richeous asshole.
BTW Lord Chillin, i think you are having a bit of an effect on my beliefs, i am thinking in a more athiestically, way, you bastard lol =]
Ah, but see, us theists have always admitted that we believe in God by faith.
Atheists believe that there is no God also by faith, but are loathe to admit it.
After all, we are all agnostics with no final knowledge correct?
And that is the entire purpose of my post. Thank you!
PS. I suggest italicizing, bullet pointing or blockquoting the sentences you quote, while leaving your own words as normal font, in order to make it easier to see which parts are your reply.
Scott: No, we reached the concusion by logical deducation and analysis of the evidence.
But of course no one can ever prove definitely that god does or does not exist.
No, it seems that the point of your post was to put the burden of proof on us, where it doesn’t belong.
That’s the point of my post.
Actually, as a strong atheist, I don’t get to us the burden of proof defense… well, except for proving my position- I get to work from the default (lack of belief) and show how the alternative is false.
Also Scott, theists have not always insisted that they believe based on faith. Remember that atheist dude who converted to deism- claimed to do so by reason.
Samuel Skinner:
Theists claim it’s faith until they find some bizarre pseudoscience and then they try to jump on the “reality” bandwagon.
So, yes, Scott, theists believe off of faith and delusion, but they want to hang on reality’s turf. It doesn’t work like that.