Argument against atheism

[amkerman]

darwinning: Absolutely, and it is... that's my point. some atheists believe in things for which there is absolutely no empirical evidence and has ave never been proven. They do not call those beliefs beliefs in God, but they are really the same thing.

"If you define God as something that can't be defined"... if atheism is a lack of belief but not a belief itself, then God can lack definition but not be defined. Anyways, logically it does...

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, some atheists believe in many fantastic things. These things are not gods, though they do have a sort of similarity in that they do not exist, or are beliefs based in something other than evidence. The reason that this is so is that atheism merely denotes a lack of belief in gods. It says nothing about leprechauns, for example. Whether or not an atheist believes in leprechauns has nothing to do with atheism, and nothing to do with whether or not there is a god. Is this the point where the train went off the track for you? Is a belief in leprechauns most correctly termed a belief in a monotheistic deity for you as well? I hope not, because that's an idiotic thing to say........[looks back at the last few pages and sighs]

Here, I think I may be able to reorder your argument for you.

Atheists claim to derive their beliefs (or lack thereof) from logic.
Atheists believe in illogical things.
Ergo atheism is contradictory.

Does that work for you? Let's see how we can make this a more accurate representation of reality.

Some atheists claim to derive their lack of belief from logic.
Some atheists believe in illogical things.
Ergo some atheists hold contradictory positions.

No argument against atheism there, simply an argument against some positions that some atheists hold. (that has very little to do with atheism).

The rest of your "most correctly termed as" is just fluff and garbage. It's obviously some sort of chant that sounds good to you. A platitude that is irrelevant to the discussion in the first place.

[amkerman]

Epimethean, If you believe with 100% certainty that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems you can not be properly called an atheist. Im pretty sure my only argument is that if you believe that Objective reality actually exists it is necessary that you believe consciousness is a primary function of the universe, which you obviously don't believe. Your statement is illogical.

[Darwinning]

"If you define God as something that can't be defined"

I hope you do not think you are quoting me there, because you're not.

For your argument to work, you declare everything that cannot be defined as God. Not the same thing as saying God cannot be defined.

Amkerman is a mammal.
Monkeys are mammals.
Therefore, Amkerman is a monkey.

See why logic doesn't work that way, monkey-boy?

[Epimethean]

Epimethean, If you believe with 100% certainty that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems you can not be properly called an atheist. Im pretty sure my only argument is that if you believe that Objective reality actually exists it is necessary that you believe consciousness is a primary function of the universe, which you obviously don't believe. Your statement is illogical.

Amkerman, if you believe with 100% certainty that what you have been palavering on about these past few days is rational, you cannot be properly called sane. I am pretty sure your only argument is a quarrel and has no basis in logic whatsoever.

[amkerman]

Rhizomorph: It is impossible to prove God.

If donuts are tasty, that means that taste must actually objectively exists, not a tasteless taster as you put it. Taste is based solely on perceptions of a conscious entity (humans). If taste is real, it necessitates a belief that consciousness is a primary function of the universe, which would most correctly be termed a monotheistic deity. It is illogical for someone to actually believe they in taste yet claim they don't believe in "God".

It is entirely rational that taste is simply a subjective perception of conscious beings and in reality any taste is merely a certain brain-state. But that doesn't fit most peoples experiences. Most people sense that taste is real, they can predict what taste they will sense when they eat a particular food, most people actually believe that things have taste inherent to them regardless or whether or not they are consciously perceiving that taste.

[Ace Otana]

It is impossible to prove God.

That's all I needed to hear.

*Grabs jacket and walks out*

[amkerman]

this is the only concession I can make to all of you at this point based on the arguments I have. My definition of atheism may be incorrect. maybe it is simply a lack of belief in God. if that is the case ok. Any belief that there is no "God", however, is still an illogical belief to hold if one believes in objective truth or reality.

[thesummerqueen]

We have a winner!

[Welsh cake]

Rhizomorph: It is impossible to prove God.

I think we're done here, first NDEs and now the fallacy of untestability.

You can't detect the Invisible Pink Unicorn either because as soon as you devise a method to validate her holinesses' existence she'll instantly destroy reality and within that single moment replace it with a more complex one where the confirmation you seek eludes you within her malleable grand design.