• 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!

Why prove God when you can disprove Atheists?

Pah

Uber all member
From a blog
http://gingery.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/07/why_prove_god_when_you_can_disprove_atheists.html

Why prove God when you can disprove Atheists?

This is brilliant, one of my friends has the following quote as his MSN screenname:
"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists" - G K Chesterton

This is the best arguement against Atheism i have seen. I personally am an Agnostic, never sure about anything, and i would love to see this used in a Debate. It would be brilliant to watch the face of someone arguing against the existence of God change as he realises that his own arguement is being used against him and in moments he will vanish in a puff of common sense. I think i'll stick to not knowing, what you don't know can't hurt you..That doesn't work does it? You can not know about Gravity and still be killed in a fall...hmmmm, oh well
Anyway, the lesson form this is: if you every want to win an arguement about the existence of God don't bother proving Gods existence just disprove you opponents existence. Its far easier
The blooger, ignorant of common sense, fails to understand that "If there were no God," ... there would be no Christians Jews, Muslims, or Agnosticts and few others to agrue with Atheists.
 

Prima

Well-Known Member
That made me giggle. So many atheists (mostly teenagers, I suppose) don't even understand what they claim to believe.
 

Circle_One

Well-Known Member
I think the best quote I've ever seen regarding this was something along the lines of:

"God doesn't believe in Atheists, therefore Atheists don't exist."

That made me giggle when I first read it.
 

john313

warrior-poet
most atheists i have met became that way after trying to understand christianity. they found there were no answers to their questions within christian dogma besides "you just have to believe" or "you have to accept jesus as your personal God and saviour, then you will understand". Then they gave up on believing in God.
So one of my favorite quotes is: "Christianity breeds atheism."
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
I think the main point here is to say thatyou can't prove anything either way. Since everything that may be beyond our physical realm is only able to be perceived through our own thought processes everything is therefore internalized and until we can literally tap into one anothers minds and walk around in them or read them like a book then there is no telling what anyone else believes. We can all SAY what we believe, but to really know another's beliefs are impossible. So to prove anything at all is truly impossible. There are some who believe that the only way god exists is because people exist to believe in god and god is a figment of our imagination, but yet that is enough to make god real to us. Therefore with that thought, if there were no people there would be no god. People can debate until the end of existence and still have no answers or purpose to the debate in the first place. My whole question is why do we feel the need to debate such a thing anyway? Because someone has to feel "right"? That is the reason for prejudice and discrimination in the first dang place. "Can't we all just get along?" and realize that belief is just a personal internal thing that everyone has and makes up an intregal part of who they are?...even atheists have beliefs. To not believe is a belief itself and a part of them that is their choosing.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
pah said:
The blooger, ignorant of common sense, fails to understand that "If there were no God," ... there would be no Christians Jews, Muslims, or Agnosticts and few others to agrue with Atheists.
The blogger, along with our gigglng friend Prima, also fails to understand the distinction between conception and the thing conceived.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Deut. 32.8 said:
The blogger, along with our gigglng friend Prima, also fails to understand the distinction between conception and the thing conceived.
I was waiting for your reply to this thread, Deut, with great anticipation. You have not let us down!
'Like a moth to a flame'
I am probabky being very slow here, but I do not understand the point you are making; 'the distinction between conception and the thing conceived' - please , will you explain what you actually mean?:)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
It is too often argued that one cannot reject that which does not exist and, therefore, to reject God is to implicitly acknowledge God's existence. But the atheist is not rejecting an entity, but a concept, and there is no debate as to the existence of the concept. Nor is there any doubt that we are capable of conceiving/imagining all manner of fantastic, non-existent entities, e.g., Puff, the Magic Dragon.

And, for the umpteenth time, reification is an insidious and pervasive fallacy.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Deut. 32.8 said:
It is too often argued that one cannot reject that which does not exist and, therefore, to reject God is to implicitly acknowledge God's existence. But the atheist is not rejecting an entity, but a concept, and there is no debate as to the existence of the concept. Nor is there any doubt that we are capable of conceiving/imagining all manner of fantastic, non-existent entities, e.g., Puff, the Magic Dragon.

And, for the umpteenth time, reification is an insidious and pervasive fallacy.
Thank you; now I understand. I may not agree with you, but I understand. To me, you are taking a stance of 'unless I can use my five senses to comfirm the existance of something', it does not as yet exist. Am I right ?:)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I am saying only that the existence of a concept is not evidence of the existence of the thing conceptualized. I see absolutely no a priori reason why the empirically inaccessible can not exist.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Deut. 32.8 said:
I am saying only that the existence of a concept is not evidence of the existence of the thing conceptualized. I see absolutely no a priori reason why the empirically inaccessible can not exist.
Doesn't that statement, which I read as "I see no reason why that which cannot be construed by scientific observation can not exist."

Defeat the whole of your argument ?:)
 

Unedited

Active Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
It is too often argued that one cannot reject that which does not exist and, therefore, to reject God is to implicitly acknowledge God's existence. But the atheist is not rejecting an entity, but a concept, and there is no debate as to the existence of the concept. Nor is there any doubt that we are capable of conceiving/imagining all manner of fantastic, non-existent entities, e.g., Puff, the Magic Dragon.

And, for the umpteenth time, reification is an insidious and pervasive fallacy.
So many words I don't know...

Just as belief cannot prove anything, so can't disbelief? That's to say, that believing there's a chair in front of me, doesn't mean I can sit down on it, that's it's really there. But also that, there doesn't have to be a chair there, for me to go about denying it?

Or did I totally miss the point?
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Unedited said:
So many words I don't know...

Just as belief cannot prove anything, so can't disbelief? That's to say, that believing there's a chair in front of me, doesn't mean I can sit down on it, that's it's really there. But also that, there doesn't have to be a chair there, for me to go about denying it?

Or did I totally miss the point?
Don't worry, Unedited; I'm sitting in the same chair as you, so to speak. Deut has a habit of short-circuiting my mind. I think what he is trying to say is...awwwwwww I've lost it; my brain's fused again. Never mind; so long as Deut knows what he means!!!!:D
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
michel said:
Doesn't that statement, which I read as "I see no reason why that which cannot be construed by scientific observation can not exist."

Defeat the whole of your argument ?:)
Michel, I may be right or wrong, clear or confused, but to the best of my knowledge, and giving due consideration to the feedback I've received from both camps, I am rarely inconsistent. Precisely what argument of mine do you think I've defeated?
 

Runt

Well-Known Member
"If there were no God, there would be no Atheists" - G K Chesterton
"If there were no unicorns, there would be no people who reject the existance of unicorns."

POOF! *disappears from existence*

:biglaugh:
 

jackbauer

New Member
The Chesterton quote is more about arguing well than getting anywhere closer to Truth in an arguement. The "turning of the tables" during arguement is about winning the arguement by making your opponent look like an idiot.
 

john5746

New Member
michel said:
I was waiting for your reply to this thread, Deut, with great anticipation. You have not let us down!
'Like a moth to a flame'
I am probabky being very slow here, but I do not understand the point you are making; 'the distinction between conception and the thing conceived' - please , will you explain what you actually mean?:)
Yes, you seem to be slow. Is this on purpose, as comic relief? If so, it isn't working.

1) a Belief is different from an object. So, If I believe that the earth is alive, you can reject my belief without any regards to the real earth, or making it necessary that it is alive.

2) I believe in Santa Clause. Since there are people that don't believe in him, he must exist.
 
Top