Argument against atheism

[Erinome]

Alright KichigalNeko I will try this again. Just explain to me how what I said is mental masturbation and verbaldiahorrea... I mean everyone on here is claiming that my argument is crap, but no one is offering any explanation for how or why that is the case.

Actually, several of us did. It just wasn't what you wanted to hear.

IS atheism a lack of belief actually? or is atheism just another word invented by humans to describe a certain neurochemical brain-state?

Neurochemical brain state? What the fuck are you talking about? Make a coherent statement, for the love of fuck. Atheism is nothing more or less than a disbelief in gods. The reasons vary, but the disbelief is the connective thread.

to believe that in reality atheism actually IS real at all apart from subjective experiences necessitates a belief in what would most correctly be termed "God".

Doesn't even make sense to a rational person. Think objectively. You're just not so far.

I don't know how many times i need to say it before one of you just shuts me up by explaining how I am wrong about that.

You mean to say:

"before one of you just shuts me up by believing and agreeing with my nonsensical beliefs of which I have articulated poorly."

It seems you are against God simply because humanity has decided to name it God. You don't need to call it God.

Not against, just disbelieve. Any evidence for your perception of god? Haven't seen any yet. Just baseless assertions about morality.

You can call it whatever you like. that's not the point. the point is a belief that anything is objectively true, a belief for which there is and will never be any empirical evidence, must stem from a belief in something that would correctly be called God.

What belief are you talking about? Atheists don't believe in gods.

Again, if one doesn't believe that things are objectively true or real, that is fine, i just don't think that science would agree, and it seems to me illogical.

You don't think, and it just seems. Problem pinpointed.

You're welcome.

[The Grand Nudger]

How many times are you going to say that Amker? Are you hoping that a "monotheistic deity" pops in and magically makes it true next time? If anything turned that jumble of assumptions into an actual argument you'd have a persuasive case for the existence of god.

[amkerman]

rhythm: you are confusing belief and truth. If I send you $20 i'm sure you will believe that you will be 20 dollars richer. that has nothing to do with whether you will objectively or truthfully be 20 dollars richer. It's wholly possible that objectivity and truth are but human constructs. if that is the case then in reality you will not be richer at all outside of your own belief. "Richness" can't exist without a belief that consciousness is a primary property of the universe.

---

Thinking that a monotheistic deity would "pop in" is counter-intuitive. if consciousness is a primary property of the universe, it pervades everything at all times. it isn't found somewhere in the universe as you joke, it is the very nature of the universe. like physics.

---

aleialora: yes all of human experience is sensed through consciousness. We are not equipped to do anything besides think. We don't have the ability to "know" things with 100% certainty. You keep stating I don't have any proof for my argument besides my own thoughts yet you fail to realize that there is no proof for ANYTHING besides the thoughts of human beings. You can't prove with 100% certainty that you even existed 10 minutes ago. all we have is consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

You may be on to something, care to send me that twenty and lay our disagreement to rest? Still looking for that argument against atheism, but I'd probably just take the $20 in it's place.

By the way. "Jelly bellies" can't exist without a belief that wool socks are a primary property of the universe. Refute that.....

[amkerman]

Darwinning:
logical argument:

all men are mortal
socrates is a man

therefore
socrates is mortal

or
If it is a bird
Then it has wings
It is a bird

Therefor it has wings

My argument is based on premises and conclusions, like all arguments. those premises you can accept or reject, but whether or not you accept or reject my premises has no bearing on the logical validity of the argument.

You are being intellectually dishonest saying that I have not made an argument...

---

rhythm I misspoke when I said that richness couldn't exist without a belief in consciousness... i meant to omit the word belief from that sentence.

your analogous argument shows the lack of understanding you have of your own condition, it's trolling.

Wool socks are not something that occur naturally in the universe so there is no reason to believe that they are a primary function of the universe.

Even if wool socks were a naturally occurrence in the universe, and even if they were a primary property of the universe, they exist independent of Jelly Bellies.

I can go to the store, or different stores to get wool socks, or jelly bellies. When I get one I do not necessarily get the other. Therefore, the existence of jelly bellies does not necessitate wool socks as a primary property of the universe.

---

again aleialora I fear once anyone calls something God, you automatically get defensive. If I called it, "however you logically justify a believe that things can be objectively true or real without any empirical evidence to support such a notion" would that make the argument easier to accept? I mean I'm already long-winded as it is...

[amkerman]

In response to your question darwinnig, that you see no reason to believe in absolute moral values, which breaks my argument somehow:

You claim that I have mastered the art of selective reading, which is ironic since if you actually read my post you would know that I never claimed that absolute moral values exist. However, your belief that they don't surely does not effect the validity of the argument. I tried to post my argument in a relatively simple If-then fashion so it could be easily followed. If one believes that absolute morality and value exist independently of human perception, then a belief in something that would correctly be termed "God" is necessary.

I did not then continue the argument and claim that "absolute morality exists". I can not make that claim, as I have no empirical evidence to either support or deny that belief. Whether or not objective morality exists does not effect the validity of the argument. I merely offered an anecdotal aside and said that it seems to me that science and humanity and experience tend to agree that things are real outside of human perception, and people then attack me for offering an opinion. My opinion and belief are wholly irrelevant to the argument.

This thread is not a proving God exists thread, why are so many here continuously asking me to show them proof, or back up my claims?

I have presented a logical argument why holding a belief in objective reality and morality necessitates a belief in something that would correctly be termed God.
I have made no assertion that one ought believe in objective morality.
I have made no claim that God exists.

Logically, a belief that objective reality exists then is contrary to atheism.

Therefore, it is illogical for atheists to believe in objective morality.

... still waiting for an intellectual discussion on the merits of the argument. im not even necessarily looking for an atheist to discuss with me, just someone who is intellectually honest. If you're an atheist though that is a plus since I can be confident you are not going to agree with me because you believe I'm right.

[Erinome]

I think you should also look up the definition of the words "logic", "intellectual", "argument", and "correctly".

Get back to us when you make even a little sense.

[Zen Badger]

a belief that rules of logic actaully exists neecessitates a belief in something that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity.

Why?

[KichigaiNeko]

So essentially what we have here in ackerman is an ill informed fool who has not the depth of intellect to comprehend a life sand deities or reward or punishment. Further we have an entity that is incapable of reading and understanding not only dictionary but would be hard pressed to read through a scientific paper on any topic??

Finally this entity (aka Amkerman) is unable (or unwilling) to conceed defeat and will continue to waste ours and others time with his childish efforts to support an ideology that is only fit for two year old children, along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy??

[Darwinning]

Darwinning:
logical argument:

all men are mortal
socrates is a man

therefore
socrates is mortal

Oh! My First Inference ™. Sure let's play this game.

"all men are mortal" - Probably true. Cannot be confirmed completely.
"socrates is a man" - If true, at least "was" not "is". Probably right also.
"therefore socrates is mortal" - Probably true, because the assumptions seem sound.

Note how the last statement refers to the previous claims.

Awesome! Next one.

If it is a bird
Then it has wings
It is a bird

Therefor it has wings

"if it is a bird then it has wings" - Probably, but not by definition. A Kiwi has almost no wings, but is a bird. I consider it entirely possible there can be birds without wings. Also, I think Big Bird has hands, not wings.
"it is a bird" - If you say so. I do not understand how you can be so certain, but alright.
"therefore it has wings" - Probable, but not by definition.

Note that, because I cannot fully confirm the first premise, I cannot fully accept your conclusion. The logic might work, but that does not make the conclusion true.

My argument is based on premises and conclusions, like all arguments. those premises you can accept or reject, but whether or not you accept or reject my premises has no bearing on the logical validity of the argument.

It has bearing on the validity of the conclusion.

You are being intellectually dishonest saying that I have not made an argument...

Well, let's examine your latest post, shall we?

Logically, a belief that objective reality exists then is contrary to atheism.
Therefore, it is illogical for atheists to believe in objective morality

Logically, squares are round
Therefore, kiwi.

Hmm. See the idea with inference is that the statements relate to each other. I fail to see the relation between objective reality and objective morality. Also, I think the premise is false.

Let's try your initial argument.

A belief that value judgements are true necessitates consciousness as a primary function of the universe, rather than a purely mechanical universe.

A belief that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, that consciousness pervades everything and is true apart from time or space, that things are in fact "real", that some things are inherently bad or good, right or wrong, true or not true, would be correctly termed a belief in "God".

I could probably go along with the first statement, but you are equating moral reality (good or bad) with objective reality (true or not true) in the second. I would like to see some motivation for why you think that is so.

If consciouness is a primary function of the universe; if there is a particle that peervades everything, if any of our observations are actually correct, that particle or consciousness would be best described as a singular and constant thing rather than multiple different things. If consciousness exists outside the sphere of humanity, and is inherent rather than an emergent function of complex systems, that necessitates a belief in what would be correctly termed a monotheistic deity.

I see no reason to assume or believe the initial premise, so I disregard anything that follows. It's science, bitches!

A belief that this "God" does not exist is illogical. it is committing a fallicy of ignorance and contrary to all scientific observation and acheivment.

Does not follow from the previous claims (even if they were true). This is a baseless assumption you make that is part of the reason so many of us are offended. You are assuming we are illogical without providing any motivation or evidence for that claim. We don't like that.

A belief that objective truth does not exist is a belief that nothing actually exists outside of our own consciousness. That the only reason things are real is due to our perceptions and out brain, chemical reactions, neuroscience. A truely atheistic world view necessitates that gravity does not "exist", laws of physics are mere conscious observations that have no inherent truth besides that which humans ascribe them. Atheism can not coexist in a sceintifically objective worldview.

There you go confusing truth and morality again. Please make sure the assumptions in your argument are consistent.

Also, please consider that there may be a difference between the existence of objective truth and a person being able to know said truth.

Atheism is a belief that things are not real. Most atheists, with their limited intellects (which usually surpass the intellects of their theist counterparts) believe that they attack or disbelieve iin "God" when in reality they are simply attacking religion.

You have no idea how offensive that paragraph is.

Reality is not subject to the limits of human knowledge

That actually made me laugh out loud. Think it over a few times and then provide me with some evidence that proves beyond a doubt that you know that there are things beyond what you know. Silly person.


You "argument" is not an argument through inference, because the statements do not logically follow from each other and thus are merely baseless claims. Please fix that and then we'll talk.

Constructing this response took more time than I was initially willing to invest. I presume that is why many of the other posters on this forum have resorted to shorthand responses like "word-salad". I think what they mean is something along the lines of the above.

---

a belief that rules of logic actaully exists neecessitates a belief in something that would correctly be termed a monotheistic deity.

Why?

I think because he assumes objective truth and objective morality are the same thing. But it's hard to tell with all the word-salad.