Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[Thumpalumpacus]

How can atheism be false? Even a theist cannot say atheism is false as it makes no claims.

Well, my brand of atheism asserts that while John Ritter may not be God, if you run into enough walls eventually you'll become famous.

Or something like that, don't press me for details. I know I'm right because I'm right.

[Chad32]

How can atheism be false? Even a theist cannot say atheism is false as it makes no claims.

The bible claims everyone has inherent belief in Yahweh, therefore there are no atheists. Though that does bring up the question of why anyone would be required to spread the word about him.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Though that does bring up the question of why anyone would be required to spread the word about him.

Obviously he hasn't attained perfect market penetration.

[Losty]

---

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

---

Good-o, would you like a cookie?

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[Thumpalumpacus]

Damn, I was hoping he'd shitpost some more, I've got hundreds of great .gifs to drop in here.

[Violet]

How can atheism be false? Even a theist cannot say atheism is false as it makes no claims.

Most atheism is agnostic, true...

But gnostic atheism is a thing. A silly thing, but it's real.

[Jenny A]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Atheism is not a belief in anything. It is a lack of belief in god, no more nor less. It is not even an affirmative belief that there is no god.

So what you really are arguing a that you have proof of god.

But it isn't a good proof. My daughter demolished it when she was four and in the why stage. "If god created everything, then who created god." From the mouths of babes, from the mouths of babes.

But even her question is giving you too much. You see there are two possibilities: 1) Everything has always existed; or 2) Everything suddenly came into existence. Both are equally mindboggling. Neither is proof of god because god would have necessarily either had to always have existed or suddenly sprang into existence.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

Not only is the first mover "proof" easily demolished by a five year old, but if it worked it would only prove that there was a first mover, not that that first mover is still in existence, cares about humans, did more than start the ball rolling, or even that it was sentient.

[SteelCurtain]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

Okay.

To start out, I need to define something for you: bare assertion. You have a tendency to make them quite often. A bare assertion is when you make a claim, and then proceed as if just making a claim is enough for that claim to be true. Doesn't work that way. When you make a claim, you have to provide some support that said claim is true. For example, simply stating that the universe can't come from nothing overlooks two very important details: 1) that there ever was a "time" when the universe wasn't, and 2) that matter behaves the same at the level we are talking about when we talk about singularities. You have not proven anything here, you have simply made an assertion. One that is deeply flawed.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Please don't make up words to make yourself feel smarter. It really has the opposite of the intended effect. As has been stated before, I'll repeat: you may not believe that atheism is a valid position, but you believe in atheism. Let's not be dense.

Please demonstrate why your deity is immune to this infinite causation regression. This is a very important point. And please remember that I can define things as I want, too.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

Again, with the made up words! Evidential?!? Come on.

Your path here makes no logical sense. You believe you have made a proof here, but at the very least you have haphazardly chained together something resembling Anselm of Canterbury's ontological proof. This "proof" has been refuted by no less than St. Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. Note the profession of the first. It's been trodden over time and time again on this site and many others. Please take the time to actually research what you post. I know your presuppositions are strong, but actual rationality and reasoning dictates that you put that aside and take a critical look at your argument.

[Elskidor]

I'm still curious how this god came from nothing and why he/she/them have never revealed themselves. Default position is atheism and it's up to the people that cry that their imaginary deities are real to provide proof. Common sense is a nifty tool.

[Jenny A]

I'm still curious how this god came from nothing and why he/she/them have never revealed themselves. Default position is atheism and it's up to the people that cry that their imaginary deities are real to provide proof. Common sense is a nifty tool.

Under utilized, but nifty.