Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[ignoramus]

Khem, you make me laugh.
You're on autopilot shooting fish in a barrel!

Love reading your posts but where on earth do you get the energy and motivation to persist?
I'm just glad you're on our side! lol!@

You know they're wrong because they are indoctrinated. The indoctrination does not allow for a fail state. He will also go on forever! hehe
By page 9, I reckon he'll be spent and unregister to go to another forum. But I still don't know why they come here?
The only thing I can think of is that subconsciously, he knows his other religious forum mates talk the same old shit and has no time for them.
Here he can challenge the validity and robustness of his delusion to see if it can hold water in the real world. Sadly it doesn't, for reasons he can never understand unless he can stand outside of his indoctrinated mind.

[Parsim0ny]

Stereotype...I'm just summarizing your own magic book's contents?  If you think that magic book makes mo, or you, or islam as a whole...look shitty....then wouldn't that be magic books problem?  

Trust me, the only thing that look shitty right now is your inability to construct a reasonable ground for any kind of morality outside religion. Besides, the thread has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. 

What's an unproven allegation?  That mo took a child bride?  That mo was a warlord?  That he took slaves, some for labor..some for sex?  That he murdered entire tribes?  That he killed a man for treasure and then screwed his wife?  Get to work redacting magic book...then?  

Well, as long as the nine year old girl gave her consent.....I guess, no one, anywhere, would call it rape.  Nothing could possibly have been wrong with that. I bet she loved it as much as mo's enemies wives and daughters had it coming, too.  

Similarly, I consider homosexual acts to be far more gross and disgusting than child marriage, does that prove that homsexuality is inherently wrong regardless of any belief system ? If your answer is yes, then you better come up with a better pretext to condemn anybody's actions. If not, why bother with asserting it if you can't show us why think it is wrong ?

Buddy, we already -have- an objective morality thread.  Go, check it out.

I already did. Nothing new under the sun.

[FatAndFaithless]

Similarly, I consider homosexual acts to be far more gross and disgusting than child marriage, does that prove that homsexuality is inherently wrong regardless of any belief system ? If your answer is yes, then you better come up with a better pretext to condemn anybody's actions. If not, why bother with asserting it if you can't show us why think it is wrong ?

Bolded mine.

And yet you charge atheists with having no moral foundation.  This is the kind of shit that should embarrass theists, not embolden them.

[Parsim0ny]

Even assuming that the human brain evolved doesn't help much, you still can't justify belief that your mind can actually demonstrate anything objectively true, that reason is indeed a reliable tool. Nothing can justify this without some kind of an appeal to a being with superior abilities.

I have no particular use for objective truth, as I manage just fine with conditional truths.  Even if there is such a thing as objective truth, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to worship your imaginary friend in order to access it.  I know enough about evolution to accept it and to reject creationism in all its forms as pure fantasy, not even up to the status of a hypothesis.

Conditional truths aren't even truths, they are simple conclusions derived from certain accepted axioms. Also note that the assertion "There's no such truth as objective truth" is self-contradictory, since the assertion itself is either objectively true or not, if it is true, the it contradicts itself, if it's not, then there is actually an objective truth.
I am merely saying that without an exterior force you cannot trust your own thoughts about anything, that's about it.

How, um, convenient to exclude your god from the possibility of ever being demonstrated via non-religious methods.  Suffice to say that empirical evidence is literally the only thing that I would find even remotely convincing, so if you don't have that evidence I have no interest in your religion, as I have no interest whatsoever in attempting to  develop religious faith.  Your statement "God by definition created matter" indicates only that you have a very weak definition, as it's just a bald assertion.

So you're claiming that God cannot be proved with reason alone ? Empirical science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a being independent of matter itself, if you're exclusively relying on empiral science to acquire facts about the world, then I'm afraid you need to enhance your proofs toolkit.

Various Biblical characters and narratives, including Adam and Eve (mythical), Noah and the flood (mythical event and probably mythical character), and many more.  Here's a list.  Copying nonsense from another religion results in your religion being just as nonsensical.

As for Galen:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’)  [Source]  

I see that you came up with a possible explanation for the sunset, which is moderately plausible but still a bit questionable (how would the reflection of a setting sun appear in a mud puddle?  Too low to the horizon, IMO).  Not a word about the talking ants, though.

I actually thought you mean by plagiarism that the Qur'an literally quoted sentences from the Bible. Since this is not the case, no Muslim scholar or believer will disagree with you that there are many similarities between the two books, that's because we believe that christians were initially following the word of God before their book was corrupted by Greek mythology. Also, the fact that the Qur'an shares many stories with the Bible is not proof that the Qur'an is false.

Regarding the sunset, the Qur'an didn't actually state that Zul-Qurain saw the reflection, he saw the Sun as if it were going down that mud puddle. The story of the Prophet Solomon coming upon a valley of ants and being able to understand their language is a mere divine miracle narrated by the Qur'an, and there isn't something contradictory about it even if its sounds weird and likely to be a manufacture, we cannot prove that it is false.

[Parsim0ny]

---

Even assuming that the human brain evolved doesn't help much, you still can't justify belief that your mind can actually demonstrate anything objectively true, that reason is indeed a reliable tool. Nothing can justify this without some kind of an appeal to a being with superior abilities.

I have no particular use for objective truth, as I manage just fine with conditional truths.  Even if there is such a thing as objective truth, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to worship your imaginary friend in order to access it.  I know enough about evolution to accept it and to reject creationism in all its forms as pure fantasy, not even up to the status of a hypothesis.

Conditional truths aren't even truths, they are simple conclusions derived from certain accepted axioms. Also note that the assertion "There's no such truth as objective truth" is self-contradictory, since the assertion itself is either objectively true or not, if it is true, the it contradicts itself, if it's not, then there is actually an objective truth.
I am merely saying that without an exterior force you cannot trust your own thoughts about anything, that's about it.

How, um, convenient to exclude your god from the possibility of ever being demonstrated via non-religious methods.  Suffice to say that empirical evidence is literally the only thing that I would find even remotely convincing, so if you don't have that evidence I have no interest in your religion, as I have no interest whatsoever in attempting to  develop religious faith.  Your statement "God by definition created matter" indicates only that you have a very weak definition, as it's just a bald assertion.

So you're claiming that God cannot be proved with reason alone ? Empirical science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a being independent of matter itself, if you're exclusively relying on empiral science to acquire facts about the world, then I'm afraid you need to enhance your proofs toolkit.

Various Biblical characters and narratives, including Adam and Eve (mythical), Noah and the flood (mythical event and probably mythical character), and many more.  Here's a list.  Copying nonsense from another religion results in your religion being just as nonsensical.

As for Galen:

But let us take the account back again to the first conformation of the animal, and in order to make our account orderly and clear, let us divide the creation of the foetus overall into four periods of time. The first is that in which. as is seen both in abortions and in dissection, the form of the semen prevails (Arabic nutfah). At this time, Hippocrates too, the all-marvelous, does not yet call the conformation of the animal a foetus; as we heard just now in the case of semen voided in the sixth day, he still calls it semen. But when it has been filled with blood (Arabic alaqa), and heart, brain and liver are still unarticulated and unshaped yet have by now a certain solidarity and considerable size, this is the second period; the substance of the foetus has the form of flesh and no longer the form of semen. Accordingly you would find that Hippocrates too no longer calls such a form semen but, as was said, foetus. The third period follows on this, when, as was said, it is possible to see the three ruling parts clearly and a kind of outline, a silhouette, as it were, of all the other parts (Arabic mudghah). You will see the conformation of the three ruling parts more clearly, that of the parts of the stomach more dimly, and much more still, that of the limbs. Later on they form "twigs", as Hippocrates expressed it, indicating by the term their similarity to branches. The fourth and final period is at the stage when all the parts in the limbs have been differentiated; and at this part Hippocrates the marvelous no longer calls the foetus an embryo only, but already a child, too when he says that it jerks and moves as an animal now fully formed (Arabic ‘a new creation’)  [Source]  

I see that you came up with a possible explanation for the sunset, which is moderately plausible but still a bit questionable (how would the reflection of a setting sun appear in a mud puddle?  Too low to the horizon, IMO).  Not a word about the talking ants, though.

I actually thought you mean by plagiarism that the Qur'an literally quoted sentences from the Bible. Since this is not the case, no Muslim scholar or believer will disagree with you that there are many similarities between the two books, that's because we believe that christians were initially following the word of God before their book was corrupted by Greek mythology. Also, the fact that the Qur'an shares many stories with the Bible is not proof that the Qur'an is false.

Regarding the sunset, the Qur'an didn't actually state that Zul-Qurain saw the reflection, he saw the Sun as if it were going down that mud puddle. The story of the Prophet Solomon coming upon a valley of ants and being able to understand their language is a mere divine miracle narrated by the Qur'an, and there isn't something contradictory about it even if its sounds weird and likely to be a manufacture, we cannot prove that it is false.

---

Similarly, I consider homosexual acts to be far more gross and disgusting than child marriage, does that prove that homsexuality is inherently wrong regardless of any belief system ? If your answer is yes, then you better come up with a better pretext to condemn anybody's actions. If not, why bother with asserting it if you can't show us why think it is wrong ?

Bolded mine.

And yet you charge atheists with having no moral foundation.  This is the kind of shit that should embarrass theists, not embolden them.

 How embarassing for me to despise inserting one's sexual organ in where shit literally comes from   

[The Grand Nudger]

Trust me, the only thing that look shitty right now is your inability to construct a reasonable ground for any kind of morality outside religion. Besides, the thread has nothing to do with Islam whatsoever. 

If you say so.  Let me ask you this, had islam not eaten your brain do you think you'd find yourself here saying any of this nonsense? 

Similarly, I consider homosexual acts to be far more gross and disgusting than child marriage, does that prove that homsexuality is inherently wrong regardless of any belief system ?

No, it just proves that you're the kind of person that shouldn't be left alone with kids.

If your answer is yes, then you better come up with a better pretext to condemn anybody's actions. If not, why bother with asserting it if you can't show us why think it is wrong ?

I already did. Nothing new under the sun.

You dropped in and didn't contribute or argue?  You didn't have anything to say, well, okay..then why do you keep babbling about it in -this- thread?

[Parsim0ny]

If you say so.  Let me ask you this, had islam not eaten your brain do you think you'd find yourself here saying any of this nonsense? 

Ad hom.

No, it just proves that you're the kind of person that shouldn't be left alone with kids.

Ad hom.

You dropped in and didn't contribute or argue?  You didn't have anything to say, well, okay..then why do you keep babbling about it in -this- thread?

I'm not obliged to post in any other thread to prove my point.

[Mister Agenda]

Hello everyone ,

This is my first thread on the forum, and I hope to get convincing responses to a question I stumbled upon concerning atheism.

I see you're no exception to the rule that theists who come here wanting to know about atheism tell us what atheism is and what we must think. In fact, you're the second person with the 'question I stumbled upon concerning atheism' person we've had in the last week. Not very refreshing, but I did not have much of an expectation. At any rate, welcome to the forum, I hope you like it here.

Assuming no God can be proven by logic, how can one trust his judgment about religions/existence of god if his mind itself cannot be trusted ? How can I trust any atheist/agnostic's claim that all kinds of proofs that have been given by scholars or philosophers of religion throughout history are false ?

It does not follow from the fact that a god cannot be proven with logic, that the mind itself can't be trusted. You seem to have skipped some steps in making that claim. But the claims are not necessarily false in their conclusions, they are unsound. That is, if there is a God, none of the arguments presented thus far successfully establish that. There's no 'proof' given by a scholar or philosopher that both contains no logical fallacies and rests on sound premises that any reasonable person would assent to.

Therefore, rejecting belief is in itself belief that your mind possesses some kind of an absolute power that makes you distinguish between good arguments and fallacies. I don't want to talk about evolution in this thread, but since the brain is the product of random alterations of our genome, how can it be trustworthy ?

You say therefore, but no argument preceded that conclusion. You're claiming not believing something is believing something, that's a strange claim to make. If you asked us what we think instead of telling us, you'd find that most of us just aren't sold on the deity you're trying to sell. There might be ghosts, but I don't believe in them. I'm not going to believe in literal ghosts (or Bigfoot, or alien abductions, or Amway) until I'm presented with sufficient evidence to convince me. Do you believe in things without sufficient evidence to convince you?

The initial variations in our genome are random within a certain range of possibilities, but which variations are conserved isn't random, evolution is (vastly oversimplifying here) a process of culling disadvantageous variations while conserving advantageous ones. I can reasonably infer that my brain has evolved to deal with the environment that actually exists, and while it may be imperfect, it does the job. And we've come up with science to help us with our blind spots (and there are many of them).

You'll say to me that this power is simply logial reasoning, but, you see, logic is based on axioms, i.e. basic FACTS taken for granted. What are you taking for granted to refute any logical argument whatsoever ? And why do you TRUST your thinking in the first place ?

If logic doesn't work, logic in support of God doesn't work in the first place, by definition. Stop refuting yourself.

---

What proofs are you referring to? Would you like to discuss one or two specifically?

I'm referring to all of them. All variants of the cosmological argument, arguments from morality, fine-tuning of the universe, etc. Do you seriously think that all people who simply reject belief studied all of this and came to the conclusion that all of them are absurd ? 

You only need one that contains no fallacies and rests on sound premises to change the world. The reason there are 500 arguments for God is because there's not one good one.

My position is that you can't philosophize, argue, or debate a god(s) into existence. That only supports a belief. 

Well, this means that you simply reject the assumptions upon which any argument of god's existence is made. Take the cosmological argument for example, since it is unsound according to you, you boldly reject the causality principle. When I think about every assumption that needs to be taken down/reconsidered to rationalize atheism, there's just too many of them. 

Maybe if you can give an example of something else that can be established to exist solely by argument, that same argument might work for God.

Atheism starts and stops with : You say there's some sort of actual deity. I say I don't believe you. And I usually also say 'how do you know that?'.

Whose thinking should I trust if not my own? 

You didn't answer my question, why should you trust your OWN thinking if your brain is simply the product of random changes of your genome during the process of evolution ?

You didn't answer his question. To an extent, we don't have any choice but to trust our thinking. How would someone who didn't trust their thinking behave? Insanely, perhaps. But one alternative we have to trusting our own thinking that seems to have the virtue of being demonstrably useful is science. It allows us to test our thinking based on reality in a way that screens out our inherent biases.

[mlmooney89]

I came in here to see if I wanted to jump into the argument and happened to glance at this... I will go white girl here and say NOPE I can't even right now! *turns and walks out*

Similarly, I consider homosexual acts to be far more gross and disgusting than child marriage

[vorlon13]

I wonder if that includes David and Jonathan's relationship ?