Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Just remember that the age of consent was seven (7) in Delaware in 1895 and during slavery times there was no miminum. According to the Jewish Babylonian Talmud when a kid reaches three years and day she can get married. In one passage it's 2 years and a day. Now imagine all of the guys sitting around pimping out their toddlers to each other.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's just speculative investment.  

Maybe the girl would grow up ugly and be worth fewer goats, so it behooves daddy to sell fast.  Maybe, she would turn out to be a ten even though mommy and daddy were dogs...you could get a sweet deal if you bought in early.

[Amarok]

How do you know no god can be proven by logic? Seems to me that it is well within the capability of anything typically described as a god (very powerful and very knowledgeable) to do. Even if it exists outside of the physical universe, clearly it interacts with it (if in nothing other than creating it) so if this god chooses not to present itself or proof of itself that is unmistakable, it would just be a god that no one on this earth should give two shits about since that seems to be about the same level of interest that god has in us and our little ball of mud.

You're asking about hard solipsism-how can we be sure of anything, including our own consciousness being legitimately our own. Let me begin by saying, this helps your case in proving a god not one bit, in fact it hurts it quite badly as no description of a god anyone is actually trying to defend includes a god that is a sadistic trickster that wants to constantly pull the wool over our eyes for their amusement. By that same logic we could not trust any of what we think about our notions of any gods or what's in our holy books or that our loved ones even exist or that they're being honest with us about anything (or that they even know what they're talking about when they say anything at all). Bringing this up shows you have put zero thought into this laughable proposition and I pity you for lacking the critical intellect to grasp this before demonstrating your incapability. Not a great start when you're trying to make an argument.

But let me go a step further; this is commonly a question attributed to what are known as presuppositionalists. The most outspoken advocates of this position have also got zero awareness of both how easily their argument breaks down and how badly it hurts the underlying agenda they are trying to promote. Allow me to demonstrate, in one sentence, how presuppositionalist apologetics fall apart:
Question: Could you be wrong about everything you know?
Answer: If I know that I don't know everything, and I can be wrong about that, it means I do know everything, and am therefore omniscient, and based on that attribute, I am what you seem to define as god.

They sure as shit ain't gonna accept that. But instead of doing the smart thing and dropping it (especially if I start taking on the role of god and rubbing it in their faces for my amusement) they'll just try it on someone else. The underlying unethical motives behind the whole thing should get these charlatans arrested for willful fraud but the world isn't just enough for that.

There are fundamental assumptions we must all make about the world, theists included, in order not to descend into madness and lose what sense of identity we perceive. That our consciousness exists, at a minimum, whether or not others do alongside us. That the numerous senses we experience are genuine (barring some physical or mental disorder), that there is a physical and energetic world around us that we are capable of interacting with, and that our experience in this world is objectively real whether our consciousness exists or not. You asking if we can know that any of this is actually real, without asking yourself the same question and all the ramifications of it, or ignoring the fact that it harms your case for a god, show an amazing lack of awareness.

The language you are using is also troubling. You seem to think a rational skeptic is as arrogant as you are, claiming we have anything remotely resembling a mind that has an 'absolute power'. Thank you for proving very early on that you are prejudiced, ignorant, and seem to have a tendency to project your own personal faults onto others as a defense mechanism against criticism and being told that you're wrong which is always an uncomfortable feeling, but as a theist, I promise you, you will never, ever hear any end to it. Because you are dead wrong.

We don't have to talk about evolution, let's talk about creationism. The typical model of deity outlined in nearly every holy book that people actually debate about is a petty, insecure, ignorant, bigoted, short-tempered, jealous, callous, forgetful, flip-flopping buffoon that would baffle every psychologist and psychiatrist on the planet trying to pin down exactly everything wrong with its mental health. Given that this is all we really have to go on as far as what to think of and judge this deity's character by, it's hardly fair to say that our minds are unreliable and yet a god doesn't have to submit to this scrutiny. If we don't go by what's written in books, we can look at what is apparently here by design; we eat and breathe out of the same tube, we males urinate and ejaculate out of the same tube, we have an appendix that we don't need that can kill us if it ruptures and isn't treated surgically (which we haven't been able to do without the advent of modern science and medicine), and that's just in the human species (and I'm not even close to done, but I'm sure you have your hands full with just those 3). This speaks to an either indifferent creator, and incompetent one, or a malicious one looking for a laugh when our babies succumb to crib death because of how effective this design is.

Unless you've got a god-radio in your head or something akin to that and it's by that mechanism exclusively that you have knowledge of the nature of god and all things (and how you'd determine that's actually genuine or not a lie from whatever source it's coming from...because what's the first thing a liar says? "I'm not a liar." Or to go one further, "It's not even in my nature to lie." We people with actual critical intelligence call that one 'Methinks they doth protest TOO MUCH), you have to make assumptions about reality the same as any rational thinker. Your ability to learn language so your parents could lie to you about the nature of the world, or your ability to see and read which you aren't using very effectively if you've managed not to figure out half the things I'm saying by reading whatever you've been reading.

Because of the limits of our knowledge and the range of our senses, we have nothing but logic and empiricism to rely on to learn anything. Stick your hand in a fire and tell me you're not going to be in pain. Please, try it, because if we don't know for sure it's going to happen, what's the harm, right? Put your money where your mouth is or please close it until you learn something worth saying. Now the consequence of this logic and empiricism is that it renders all god concepts on offer either absurd or irrelevant. In this society and all others, the entire notion is completely unnecessary and is indisputably harmful, far more than any 'good' it can be claimed to do can possibly ever justify.

I think I covered about everything and I think for the most part, I was way, WAY more civil than usual (since I'm responding to your very first post and this is like 18 pages in or so already) but let me close by saying this. Let's assume that you believe you get something positive out of your faith and that you should be allowed to continue to practice it in any way you like. I can never be okay with that for these reasons: I see what effect it has had on your ability to think and reason, I can guarantee you there are alternative and superior means by which to achieve these benefits you claim to get from harboring a delusion, and because you're likely to want to force this same belief system on your children I am forced to consider you a criminal for violating their rights in that way. Sorry if any of this hurt or offend you, but the truth hurts, and I think that's why religion is so appealing. Don't be the least common denominator, or at least don't be so proud of being that.

All of they above the worst part about presup theists is they don't realize all there own criticism apply to themselves and no amount of asserting "god reveals it in a way I can be certain changes that"

---

And only theists assume absolute minds. As if the existences of such a thing helps the theists case . Or his own knowledge of such a thing is possible.

Other answers to the could you be wrong argument are

I know for certain I'm not all powerful

I know I'm not knowingly you

I know were communicating somehow

I know I'm not Yahweh

I know the bible is a book

[Astonished]

How do you know no god can be proven by logic? Seems to me that it is well within the capability of anything typically described as a god (very powerful and very knowledgeable) to do. Even if it exists outside of the physical universe, clearly it interacts with it (if in nothing other than creating it) so if this god chooses not to present itself or proof of itself that is unmistakable, it would just be a god that no one on this earth should give two shits about since that seems to be about the same level of interest that god has in us and our little ball of mud.

You're asking about hard solipsism-how can we be sure of anything, including our own consciousness being legitimately our own. Let me begin by saying, this helps your case in proving a god not one bit, in fact it hurts it quite badly as no description of a god anyone is actually trying to defend includes a god that is a sadistic trickster that wants to constantly pull the wool over our eyes for their amusement. By that same logic we could not trust any of what we think about our notions of any gods or what's in our holy books or that our loved ones even exist or that they're being honest with us about anything (or that they even know what they're talking about when they say anything at all). Bringing this up shows you have put zero thought into this laughable proposition and I pity you for lacking the critical intellect to grasp this before demonstrating your incapability. Not a great start when you're trying to make an argument.

But let me go a step further; this is commonly a question attributed to what are known as presuppositionalists. The most outspoken advocates of this position have also got zero awareness of both how easily their argument breaks down and how badly it hurts the underlying agenda they are trying to promote. Allow me to demonstrate, in one sentence, how presuppositionalist apologetics fall apart:
Question: Could you be wrong about everything you know?
Answer: If I know that I don't know everything, and I can be wrong about that, it means I do know everything, and am therefore omniscient, and based on that attribute, I am what you seem to define as god.

They sure as shit ain't gonna accept that. But instead of doing the smart thing and dropping it (especially if I start taking on the role of god and rubbing it in their faces for my amusement) they'll just try it on someone else. The underlying unethical motives behind the whole thing should get these charlatans arrested for willful fraud but the world isn't just enough for that.

There are fundamental assumptions we must all make about the world, theists included, in order not to descend into madness and lose what sense of identity we perceive. That our consciousness exists, at a minimum, whether or not others do alongside us. That the numerous senses we experience are genuine (barring some physical or mental disorder), that there is a physical and energetic world around us that we are capable of interacting with, and that our experience in this world is objectively real whether our consciousness exists or not. You asking if we can know that any of this is actually real, without asking yourself the same question and all the ramifications of it, or ignoring the fact that it harms your case for a god, show an amazing lack of awareness.

The language you are using is also troubling. You seem to think a rational skeptic is as arrogant as you are, claiming we have anything remotely resembling a mind that has an 'absolute power'. Thank you for proving very early on that you are prejudiced, ignorant, and seem to have a tendency to project your own personal faults onto others as a defense mechanism against criticism and being told that you're wrong which is always an uncomfortable feeling, but as a theist, I promise you, you will never, ever hear any end to it. Because you are dead wrong.

We don't have to talk about evolution, let's talk about creationism. The typical model of deity outlined in nearly every holy book that people actually debate about is a petty, insecure, ignorant, bigoted, short-tempered, jealous, callous, forgetful, flip-flopping buffoon that would baffle every psychologist and psychiatrist on the planet trying to pin down exactly everything wrong with its mental health. Given that this is all we really have to go on as far as what to think of and judge this deity's character by, it's hardly fair to say that our minds are unreliable and yet a god doesn't have to submit to this scrutiny. If we don't go by what's written in books, we can look at what is apparently here by design; we eat and breathe out of the same tube, we males urinate and ejaculate out of the same tube, we have an appendix that we don't need that can kill us if it ruptures and isn't treated surgically (which we haven't been able to do without the advent of modern science and medicine), and that's just in the human species (and I'm not even close to done, but I'm sure you have your hands full with just those 3). This speaks to an either indifferent creator, and incompetent one, or a malicious one looking for a laugh when our babies succumb to crib death because of how effective this design is.

Unless you've got a god-radio in your head or something akin to that and it's by that mechanism exclusively that you have knowledge of the nature of god and all things (and how you'd determine that's actually genuine or not a lie from whatever source it's coming from...because what's the first thing a liar says? "I'm not a liar." Or to go one further, "It's not even in my nature to lie." We people with actual critical intelligence call that one 'Methinks they doth protest TOO MUCH), you have to make assumptions about reality the same as any rational thinker. Your ability to learn language so your parents could lie to you about the nature of the world, or your ability to see and read which you aren't using very effectively if you've managed not to figure out half the things I'm saying by reading whatever you've been reading.

Because of the limits of our knowledge and the range of our senses, we have nothing but logic and empiricism to rely on to learn anything. Stick your hand in a fire and tell me you're not going to be in pain. Please, try it, because if we don't know for sure it's going to happen, what's the harm, right? Put your money where your mouth is or please close it until you learn something worth saying. Now the consequence of this logic and empiricism is that it renders all god concepts on offer either absurd or irrelevant. In this society and all others, the entire notion is completely unnecessary and is indisputably harmful, far more than any 'good' it can be claimed to do can possibly ever justify.

I think I covered about everything and I think for the most part, I was way, WAY more civil than usual (since I'm responding to your very first post and this is like 18 pages in or so already) but let me close by saying this. Let's assume that you believe you get something positive out of your faith and that you should be allowed to continue to practice it in any way you like. I can never be okay with that for these reasons: I see what effect it has had on your ability to think and reason, I can guarantee you there are alternative and superior means by which to achieve these benefits you claim to get from harboring a delusion, and because you're likely to want to force this same belief system on your children I am forced to consider you a criminal for violating their rights in that way. Sorry if any of this hurt or offend you, but the truth hurts, and I think that's why religion is so appealing. Don't be the least common denominator, or at least don't be so proud of being that.

All of they above the worst part about presup theists is they don't realize all there own criticism apply to themselves and no amount of asserting "god reveals it in a way I can be certain changes that"

---

And only theists assume absolute minds. As if the existences of such a thing helps the theists case . Or his own knowledge of such a thing is possible.

I did mention that they don't have the awareness of how their own position is hurt by their assertion, but yes, they cop-out 'god is the only means of being certain'. Just like 'god is the only thing immune to the infinite regress of who designed the designer'. Anyone who tries to get away with using a magic bullet should have to eat a real one. And we won't pay for any dental work needed after trying to chew on it.

And yeah, I did make sure to point out that theists have a tendency to project their own faults onto others, in an effort to try and say, "Well, you're just as bad as we are so who are you to criticize?" This is what is so frustrating about conversing with them, the lack of intellect is appalling. This is why I'm not going to be teaching anything lower than high school.

[ManofYesterday]

Hello everyone ,

This is my first thread on the forum, and I hope to get convincing responses to a question I stumbled upon concerning atheism.

Assuming no God can be proven by logic, how can one trust his judgment about religions/existence of god if his mind itself cannot be trusted ? How can I trust any atheist/agnostic's claim that all kinds of proofs that have been given by scholars or philosophers of religion throughout history are false ?

Therefore, rejecting belief is in itself belief that your mind possesses some kind of an absolute power that makes you distinguish between good arguments and fallacies. I don't want to talk about evolution in this thread, but since the brain is the product of random alterations of our genome, how can it be trustworthy ? 

You'll say to me that this power is simply logial reasoning, but, you see, logic is based on axioms, i.e. basic FACTS taken for granted. What are you taking for granted to refute any logical argument whatsoever ? And why do you TRUST your thinking in the first place ?

I don't know how one who is under the atheist umbrella can believe that their cognitive faculties are geared towards ascertaining truth because they believe their cognitive faculties were ultimately produced by cold and mindless natural processes.

[OverGod]

You might aswell close this website down and start one about the zero carb diet.

No one cares if God exits anymore, we just want to know how to look good.

[Amarok]

That's a state of your ignorance not a fact about atheists or the processes that produced our minds .

[OverGod]

That's a state of your ignorance not a fact about atheists or the processes that produced our minds .

As an atheist, what part of God are you still interested in?

Unless you're on day two of being an atheist, you really shoudn't have time for the concept of a God.

[Whateverist]

Hello everyone ,

This is my first thread on the forum, and I hope to get convincing responses to a question I stumbled upon concerning atheism.

Assuming no God can be proven by logic, how can one trust his judgment about religions/existence of god if his mind itself cannot be trusted ? How can I trust any atheist/agnostic's claim that all kinds of proofs that have been given by scholars or philosophers of religion throughout history are false ?

Therefore, rejecting belief is in itself belief that your mind possesses some kind of an absolute power that makes you distinguish between good arguments and fallacies. I don't want to talk about evolution in this thread, but since the brain is the product of random alterations of our genome, how can it be trustworthy ? 

You'll say to me that this power is simply logial reasoning, but, you see, logic is based on axioms, i.e. basic FACTS taken for granted. What are you taking for granted to refute any logical argument whatsoever ? And why do you TRUST your thinking in the first place ?

I don't know how one who is under the atheist umbrella can believe that their cognitive faculties are geared towards ascertaining truth because they believe their cognitive faculties were ultimately produced by cold and mindless natural processes.

That just never gets old, does it little buddy?  Didja cut and paste it all by yourself like a big boy?  If so I hope mom gives you a gold star in school today.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know how one who is under the atheist umbrella can believe that their cognitive faculties are geared towards ascertaining truth because they believe their cognitive faculties were ultimately produced by cold and mindless natural processes.

What would your mother think if she heard you calling her a cold and mindless natural process?