Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Pat Mustard]

According to the Principle of Non-Contradiction, a thing cannot be its own opposite and have existence.  Thus, a Being cannot have, as you've put it, 'all the absolute attributes'.  God, therefore, cannot be absolutely good and absolutely evil, absolutely just and absolutely merciful, absolutely ordered and absolutely capricious, and so on.  You've just defined God out of existence.

And this, I think, is the primary reason why some of us find it impossible to belief in God - the definitions are incoherent.

Boru

You're right, It would've been more accurate to say that this supernatural being possesses all positive absolute attributes, thus ruling out the contradiction.

First of all I very much doubt the stories told in the qu'ran and the hadiths are a biography, as they are clearly written long after the alleged Mohammed's death (yes he is alleged because we've no independent evidence of his existence. The only things which say Mohammed was a living person are things asserted by muslims, i.e. the claim). Secondly a man who can seriously believe in fairies and goblins and demons and supernatural spirits guiding his ever move is both crazy and talking nonsense.

Ask yourself this, if it weren't for the extremely repressive and autocratic governments of the Arab world, would you be following the "biography" of a self confessed child rapist?

And what this evidence of the existence of Muhammad should look like ? How do you know that Galileo existed 5 centuries ago ? How can anyone possibly prove the existence of any historical figure whatsoever ? But still, everybody is sure that Galileo existed. And why is that ? Because so many people witnessed his existence and wrote books and biographies about him.

Similarly, an "independent evidence" of Muhammad's existence is simple the incredible amount of literature written about the man throughout centuries. 

You're not the first one to wrongly call the Prophet "a child rapist", child marriage was common in his time, even Muhammad's enemies - who would immediately notice anything that can inflict damage to his credibility as a messenger of God - didn't find anything particularly remarkable or wrong about any of his marriages. Also, Aisha was already engaged to marriage by Jubayr ibn Mut' im, a companion of the Prophet.

Regarding evidence for mohammed contemporary documents of his exitence. You cite Galileo and in his case we've plenty of correspondence, books written by his own hand and court records in relation to his legal roblems with the Vatican. We have nothing for mohammed other than a qu'ran which first appears 200 years after the alleged fact. The "incredible evidence" of mohammed's existence is no better than the "incredible evidence" of Gaspode the Wonder Dog's existence, ie a third hand account which is largely, if not completely fictional.

And as to your assertion that the man you worship wasn't a child rapist, by definition any man who engages in sexual activity with a nine year old girl is a child rapist. So either your "prophet" is fictional, a child rapist or your holy book is telling a lie about its main focus.