RitalinOhD
Heathen Humanist
No worries :beach:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The logical fallacy of atheism
- Thread starter vskipper
- Start date
No worries :beach:
serp777
Well-Known Member
I don't think you're getting what i'm saying. The point is to show that his ridiculous argument can be applied to any unprovable thing.
It's not ridiculous. You are both right. It's the fallacy of the argument from ignorance to assert the existence of the teapot.
serp777
Well-Known Member
But the atheist genuinely believes it.
serp777
Well-Known Member
Which atheists? People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens claim they are 99.999% atheists.
If you lack belief in God it doesn't mean you think you can certainly prove God does not exist. It just means you believe that it's likely he doesn't exist.
And furthermore the negation of theist is a dumb label anyways. A-leprecahunist, a-santaclausist; you could give an infinite number of labels describing what a person isn't.
If you genuinely believe something, it's true to you. The atheist isn't the person who goes around claiming that there is no god--atheism is just a belief that he holds. There is nothing for him to have to prove. We don't prove what is already true for us.
outhouse
Atheistically
I have a great case against the mythology being real.
Men have a long history of creating deities at will
I don't hold atheist to be the negation of theist, but rather the avatar of atheism. As such, it is atheism that stands as a negation of theism, which is to say that one either believes in god or one doesn't.
serp777
Well-Known Member
True to you is a totally useless concept though. 3 +2 =4 could be true to you, but that wouldn't have any reflection on the real world. I don't know of any atheists who claim they can disprove God, but I am waiting to be proved wrong here.
Nothing is absolutely true though, besides the truth the nothing has absolute truth. We cannot say 100% positively that something is true--E.G. extremely low, but non zero odds that we are in the matrix and all living a lie.
serp777
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you are setting up a false dilemma though. There may be multiple Gods, or a partial deity that doesn't have a free will super consciousness, but instead acts more like an infinite evolutionary force that creates stable universes and explores all combinations of those universes. It would depend on your definition of God of course.
serp777
Well-Known Member
I have a great case against the mythology being real.
Men have a long history of creating deities at will
You can prove that mythology is 99.999999999999999% likely to be false, but you cannot disprove it entirely. I would be amazed to see such a proof.
That is what it means to believe, though--so it's not useless, at all.
Is that true?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I'm just talking about the term "god," not particulars.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
The term 'god' is completely meaningless without particulars.
And yet you just used it meaningfully in a sentence. Needless to say, I'm not inclined to believe you.
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Honestly, I'm good with that.
Only quacks and zealots demand any greater sense of absolute certainty. And often enough, a great deal less
serp777
Well-Known Member
So now like generic viagra, there is a generic God. Generic God is still a particular God nonetheless--it is particular in the sense that it's the God that's not particular.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
That doesn't make sense Willamena, my point still stands. Unless the term "god" is clearly defined it is meaningless.
Check out this sentence:
I just made up the word "Blopentatious", it is a meaningless word.
See how I used the word "Blopentatious" meaningfully in a sentence, and yet it remains meaningless?
Last edited: