Atheism is the absence of reason..

[Vault Boy]

Hello fellows... 

Bit catchy the title i know but i have a question.

I know that there are many much smarter and better ecudated people out there so i ask you (and I'm also in kind of a hurry   )
I am discussion with a believer and he just posted me this:

Atheism is the absence of reason..

HERE. you seem to be under the misconception that Atheism has anything thing to do with reality.

Atheism is a Lie. By definition and by logic.
Here. Let me break it down.

DEFINTIONs

FAITH = BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE
KNOWING = BELIEF THROUGH EVIDENCE

BELIEF = ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM with or without EVIDENCE (Correctness)
DISBELIEF = REJECTION OF CLAIM with or without EVIDENCE (incorrectness)

DO YOU AGREE TO THESE DEFINTIONS? THEY ARE VERY NEUTRAL.

CONSTRUCT 1
Premise 1: No one can define God. (True)
Premise 2: No one KNOWS if God exists or not..(True)
Conclusion: Any CLAIM to KNOW is a lie. (Valid and Sound)

CONSTRUCT 2
Premise 1: Believers HAVE FAITH God Exists. (True)
Premise 2: To HAVE FAITH is claim existence but without evidence (ie. not knowing.) (True)
Conclusion: Believers do not claim to KNOW God exists.(See conlcusion 1.). (VALID AND SOUND)

CONSTRUCT 3
Premise 1: Atheists disbelieve God Exists. (TRUE)
Premise 2: To disbelieve is to falsify a belief based on evidence. (ie. Knowing) (true)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to KNOW the Truth about God's existence. (see conclusion1. )
(Valid & Sound)

Premise 1: If any claim to know is a lie
Premise 2: And Atheists claim to know
Conclsuoin : Atheists lie.

Thats all. it APPLIES exactly the same to christians. That is the beauty of Logic. Impartiality.

Atheism is a lie. By utter logic. 
Now prove your atheism exists. 

Well i know his construct 3 is false. Wrong definition of disbelief, and definitely wrong conclusion since atheists dont claim to KNOW but...
Is this some kind of circular reasoning?

Any suggestions as how to reply are warmly welcome :
Cheers

[Mister Agenda]

Premise 2 is false, only some atheists claim to know and they are a minority (and 'atheists' is unnecessarily capitalized).

[robvalue]

Welcome to the forum

It's a big steaming pile of shit, a desperate attempt to refute an unassailable position through semantics.

Very few atheists claim to know God does not exist (gnostic atheists). Some don't even believe there is no God, they are undecided (weak atheists). Weak atheism, the default position, literally cannot be "wrong" because it makes no claims.

If he wants to redefine words to suit his purpose, then he's not addressing most people's actual position at all. Also, people can believe whatever they want, even contrary to evidence. Often, they do. He can't just tell people what they believe.

Many believers do indeed claim to know God exists, too. And if he's admitting no one can even define what God is, the question is just stupid anyway. He doesn't even know what he believes in.

You may find my website helpful:

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!agnosti...stic/c1xja

[loganonekenobi]

We as atheist live on the principles of science. You can find what is truly involved in going from theory to fact on the internet.

As ussual your opponent is only using word play at trying to discredit the atheist stance instead of producing good evidence.

The main thing about science is that the burden of proof is upon the one who asserted the theory not the ones who refute it.

In fact a true sceintist tries to disprove his own theory to show that he/she has no bias on the point and so can state without doubt that the theory is a fact. If not then not.

Religion goes on faith. True enough. That doesn't mean that you have to, not in this country. I love to remind the theist that.

[Alex K]

So allegedly believers don't claim to know, but atheists do? That's kind of a reversal of the way it plays out in the real world, isn't it. Actually, we repeatedly say here (just ask rob) that for notions of God which are ill-defined, we do not make knowledge claims about its existence or nonexistence, because that makes no sense. We then simply do not believe in its existence, which is a consistent attitude towards an inconsistent or meaningless definition, I think.

[KevinM1]

EDIT: I misread what he was trying to say there.

No, his 3rd construct is unmitigated bullshit. Disbelief is not a claim.

[robvalue]

I think his whole post is good evidence for the desperation of apologetics.

If you have any evidence, or even a good argument, you don't need to employ this kind of reverse reach around ball tickling.

[Aoi Magi]

Starting at Construct2-premise2, everything is wrong.
Believers "believe" god exist, that's why they are called "believers". That is, they accept the claim that god exists with(?) or without proof. If they did accept it "with" proof, and was able to provide said proof, then we wouldn't have so much problem to begin with. But the thing is, they accept it without proof, and then try to push this belief on others, also without any proof, and this is the root of the argument.

[Tiberius]

It's been a long time since I've picked apart logical arguments, but it's a fun thing to do.

FAITH = BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE
KNOWING = BELIEF THROUGH EVIDENCE

BELIEF = ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM with or without EVIDENCE (Correctness)
DISBELIEF = REJECTION OF CLAIM with or without EVIDENCE (incorrectness)

DO YOU AGREE TO THESE DEFINTIONS? THEY ARE VERY NEUTRAL.

I wouldn't say I "agree" to those definitions; the fact that they are "very neutral" is irrelevant, but let's go with them for now.

CONSTRUCT 1
Premise 1: No one can define God. (True)
Premise 2: No one KNOWS if God exists or not..(True)
Conclusion: Any CLAIM to KNOW is a lie. (Valid and Sound)

Premise 1 is incorrect. There are many definitions of God. Luckily though, Premise 1 appears to be completely irrelevant to the conclusion of Construct 1. However, the conclusion as it is is still invalid, because it says "Any CLAIM to KNOW". If the argument was to be logical, it should read:

Premise 1: A claim to know something which nobody knows is a lie.
Premise 2: Nobody knows if God exists or not.
Conclusion: A claim to know whether God exists or not is a lie.

CONSTRUCT 2
Premise 1: Believers HAVE FAITH God Exists. (True)
Premise 2: To HAVE FAITH is claim existence but without evidence (ie. not knowing.) (True)
Conclusion: Believers do not claim to KNOW God exists.(See conlcusion 1.). (VALID AND SOUND)

This one is actually pretty logical and sound. No issues here.

CONSTRUCT 3
Premise 1: Atheists disbelieve God Exists. (TRUE)
Premise 2: To disbelieve is to falsify a belief based on evidence. (ie. Knowing) (true)
Conclusion: Atheists claim to KNOW the Truth about God's existence. (see conclusion1. )
(Valid & Sound)

Uh oh. The guy doesn't understand his own definitions! According to his earlier definition:

DISBELIEF = REJECTION OF CLAIM with or without EVIDENCE.

Now, in Premise 2, he's changed it entirely. Not only is it not about rejecting a claim, it's now about "falsifying a belief", and is "based on evidence".

So whilst the conclusion is logical, it is not sound.

Premise 1: If any claim to know is a lie
Premise 2: And Atheists claim to know
Conclsuoin : Atheists lie.

So, this isn't even a logical argument. Premise 1 isn't a premise, it's a conditional. It's also based on that flawed Conclusion or Construct 1 which I had to fix, so let's do some fixing here:

Premise 1: A claim to know whether God exists or not is a lie.
Premise 2: Atheists claim to know whether God exists or not.
Conclusion: Atheists lie.

Now, the argument is logically valid, however because Premise 2 is based off Construct 3, and Construct 3 is not sound, the entire argument here is not sound.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The usual apologetic binary thinking. They can't handle anything that is not true or false. They always make the same mistakes.

His argument is faulty because it relies on absolute values for his definitions which are not possible in the real world.

Mention overwhelming evidence whereby the chance of being wrong is negligible and that this is for all intents and purposes the equivalent of 'KNOWING = BELIEF THROUGH EVIDENCE' and you can point out that his entire argument relies on equivocation with his definitions.

His binary thinking also partitions the whole into believers and disbelievers and ignores that not having a belief in the existence of something is not the same as believing that something does not exist.