Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[IDScience]

No it doesn't. I don't have a belief that "God" doesn't exist, I lack the belief that it does

And that is like saying "I don't have a belief that the spaghetti monster doesn’t exist, I lack belief that it does". Its a linguistically redundant tautology designed to obfuscate what you actually believe

If you don't believe Santa exists, you must believe Santa does not exist

If you don't believe your team will lose the championship, you must believe your team will win the championship

If you don't believe the moon is made of cheese, you must believe the moon is not made of cheese

In a true dichotomy, if you reject one option, you have no choice but to accept the other. And God either, A exists, or B he does not exist, if you don’t believe A you must believe B or you violate the law of non contradiction. Just like you can't reject your window being closed, unless you accept your window is open. In my many years of debating, I have found its only the atheist has that has trouble understanding this elementary concept of semantics that everyone else clearly understands

---

No it doesn't. I don't have a belief that "God" doesn't exist, I lack the belief that it [i]does. This is exactly what I meant by telling us what we believe.

And that is like saying "I don't have a belief that the spaghetti monster doesn’t exist, I lack belief that it does". Its a linguistically redundant tautology designed to obfuscate what you actually believe

If you don't believe Santa exists, you must believe Santa does not exist
If you don't believe your team will lose the championship, you must believe your team will win the championship
If you don't believe the moon is made of cheese, you must believe the moon is not made of cheese

In a true dichotomy, if you reject one option, you have no choice but to accept the other. And God either, A exists, or B he does not exist, if you don’t believe A you must believe B or you violate the law of non contradiction. Just like you can't reject your window being closed, unless you accept your window is open. In my many years of debating, I have found its only the atheist has that has trouble understanding this elementary concept of semantics that everyone else clearly understands

[Bad Wolf]

If there is a jar of sweets and I tell you that the amount of sweets is even, do you believe me? If not, then do you believe that the amount of sweets is odd?

[Jenny A]

No it doesn't. I don't have a belief that "God" doesn't exist, I lack the belief that it [i]does

And that is like saying "I don't have a belief that the spaghetti monster doesn’t exist, I lack belief that it does". Its a linguistically redundant tautology designed to obfuscate what you actually believe

If you don't believe Santa exists, you must believe Santa does not exist

If you don't believe your team will lose the championship, you must believe your team will win the championship

If you don't believe the moon is made of cheese, you must believe the moon is not made of cheese

In a true dichotomy, if you reject one option, you have no choice but to accept the other. And God either, A exists, or B he does not exist, if you don’t believe A you must believe B or you violate the law of non contradiction. Just like you can't reject your window being closed, unless you accept your window is open. In my many years of debating, I have found its only the atheist has that has trouble understanding this elementary concept of semantics that everyone else clearly understands

One more time for the slow of thinking:

A coin has two sides: head and tails. Prove one, and the other is excluded. I'm here in Oregon in my studio. I put the coin on my desk. You are wherever you are. But you can't see the coin.

What side of the coin is up? If you believe either heads or tails, you are an idiot. The only rational answer is I don't know.

So, if there is no evidence of god, and god cannot be disproven, I don't know is the rational answer.

[Mystic]

I don't know is a valid personal answer, but when, it get's made into something everyone should universally say, that's more then I don't know. That's a stance that we all ought not to know God exists. And if God exists, and there could be many reasons to want us to able sense his existence, it seems the general atheist stance would be that God even if he exists ought to not spiritually known/seen/detected by people which is unproven.

This is where I think Atheism takes a negative illogical stance. There is about one Atheist on here that I've seen that didn't take this stance and that was Tiberius. He stated he simply doesn't know and takes no stance on whether Theists do know or do not know God exists.

[IDScience]

edittt

[Cyberman]

First define your god, then present evidence to support its existence. Then we will assess it and decide whether you made your case or not. That's the only position I take in this game; my stance is entirely dependant on the claim on the table and my acceptance or otherwise on the quality of your evidence. Outside of that, gods have exactly zero bearing on my life. Hence the term 'atheist', as in 'not theist".

Oh, and a redundant tautology is itself a tautology.

[IDScience]

Lets just use the increments we see on earth and let our intelligence play the role of the highest possible achievement in that arena. We start with the emergence of life, which we then build on to create ever increasing intelligence until we arrive at us. It's at this point that you would then state humans have created everything. Do you see the giant hole in your argument?"

Why would I state that at that point?. I would state, I observe an ever increasing intellectual capacity/ varying degrees of intelligence here on earth, then extend that to its logical conclusion. And to me that logical conclusion stops only at the point in which everything that can be known is known -if knowledge is limited-. Or intelligence levels continue to grow/evolve for all of eternity. When I extend the theory of "evolution of intelligence" as far as critical thought will take it, God then becomes a logical possibility.

"The reason we can agree on a 1% higher intelligence is that we can look at the current gradient existing today, as well as our own evolutionary journey. But even if we use this reasoning to arrive at the maximal level of intelligence, how does this intelligence then go back and create everything that it built itself on for its own existence?"

This brings up another topic. I believe God "evolved" (via self direction) before the singularity and before the 2nd law of thermodynamics existed. The first law is never violated, therefore we must believe energy in some form existed for all of eternity in the past. And because entropy can not be eternal, usable energy must have existed forever in the past. Therefore this eternal usable energy had literally forever to become aware of its self, i.e. “I think therefore I am” (abiogenesis of God).

And any life form that exists in a place in which entropy does not exist, can never die, and any life form that can never die must eventually become/evolve into an all knowing all powerful being, no matter how painstakingly long it may take.

Therefore if the eternal "something" exists, the chances of it becoming a sentient all knowing being is 1/1 (100%) because it has literally all of eternity for it to happen. Thus if the eternal something exists, God must also exist. And atheistic science knows this very well, this is why they need an illogical "something from nothing" hypothesis to reject God from existing.

[Jenny A]

I don't know is a valid personal answer, but when, it get's made into something everyone should universally say, that's more then I don't know.

I didn't actually intend to go quite that far, but I will now. Anyone who cannot demonstrate god or that he is much more probably than not, and yet believes in him is acting irrationally.

That's a stance that we all ought not to know God exists.

Absent proof that god is at a minimum more probable than not, yes no one can rationally claim to know god exists.

Do I want to prevent them from believing? No. The thought police are always a bad idea.

And if God exists, and there could be many reasons to want us to able sense his existence, it seems the general atheist stance would be that God even if he exists ought to not spiritually known/seen/detected by people which is unproven.

If "spiritual knowledge" had any validity, the sensors would sense the same god, yet they don't.

This is where I think Atheism takes a negative illogical stance. There is about one Atheist on here that I've seen that didn't take this stance and that was Tiberius. He stated he simply doesn't know and takes no stance on whether Theists do know or do not know God exists.

Tiberius if more tolerant of fools, than I am. But I do believe theists at least think they have knowledge.

[IDScience]

Learn the law of exclude [sic] middle

Many of us are quite aware of it.

You, on the other hand, are abusing it.

Theism: I believe a god exists.
Atheism: I do not believe god exists.

The only excluded middle is a product of your own imagination.

I am a theist, and I don't believe God does not exist. Your problem is you don't understand basic semantics. And you don't recognize and establish the framework of logical absolutes before you developed a hypothesis.

Either God exists or does not exist, there is no possible third alternative. Just as either the Giants or the Royals could win the world series (Law of excluded middle). If you don't believe the Royals will win, you must believe the Giants will win, you have no choice in this dichotomy. Even if you never say "I believe the Giants will win", you inadvertently positively assert that position my claiming you don't believe the Royals will win.

You refuse to acknowledge the ultimate outcome of your hypothesis if your position is correct (i.e. God does not exist). However if God can exist, then atheism can be wrong, and this renders your position of atheism to a unscientific subjective philosophy and not a logical one.

[Exian]

@IDKScience, I can't speak for all of atheism, but this is how I look at it:

1. A conversation you might propose:

IDKScience: "Hey, have you heard the good news? God exists!"

Hypothetical atheist: "No he doesn't."

2. A conversation you deny can happen:

IDKScience: "Hey, have you heard the good news? God exists!"

Hypothetical atheist: "Oh, does he? Show me."