Atheism and Theism are equally absurd.
 

Discuss.

You're born an atheist. You become a theist by incessant proselytizing. And no, they are not equally absurd. The 'magic man' hypothesis is far more absurd.

Descartes would disagree.

I expect a better argument from you than that, MJ. Please tell me why your theory that there is no God or Supreme Being is less absurd than the theory that there is. I'm interested where this will go.

Descartes did not have the luxury of the vast amount of knowledge that we have gained since his time. Regardless of how much smarter he may have been than myself, he was handicapped.

I'll explain after this episode of SVU.

Could the same not be said about anything? Arguably, you know nothing but natural instincts when you're born. Does that mean that nothing but those natural instincts are true?

Just because we aren't born with the knowledge of something doesn't mean it's necessarily untrue. I did not know 2+2=4 when I was born, but I'm fairly certain it's true now.

You're right. Innate instinct has nothing to do with the verity of those instincts. I concede that to you. However, I did not mean to insinuate that innate instinct implies verity, I was simply venting my loathing of religion.

Would you consider it absurd to deny the existence of Thor? How about Zeus? Poseidon, Hera, Minerva, Rah, or any of the millions of other Gods that I can not possibly cover here? Would you consider animism absurd? Your answer to most of these is probably yes. As it should be. Why? Because any form of theism is making a positive claim. And the onus lies with the claimant when asked to prove his claim. If he cannot, then the claim should be dismissed by a thinking person.

People are often confused by what atheism is. Atheism is not a positive claim, it is the rejection of a positive claim that is postulated by some, and inculcated to most of the rest. And as I said before, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic. I know I've posted this analogy before, but the theism scenario's absurdity is summarized by Bertrand Russel's teapot analogy:

Now, if you still don't see why, I think this argument should be broken down mathematically. Theism essentially is an explanation for the existence of life, the cosmos, and everything inside it. But theism is only one of a billion different explanations that can be conjectured. In fact, it's one in an infinite, however I will stick with a billion for mathematical simplicity. One of these billion explanations must be correct. However, we can only lean towards one over the others when one has evidence, otherwise they should all have an equal weight in our consideration. Well, lets assume that this is the case. Lets assume that they all have equal weight (in reality they don't...science is evermore piling on the evidence, and ontological arguments make the God hypothesis unlikely to start with). Then what the theist is doing is claiming that his 1/1,000,000,000 is absolutely the correct one. The atheist is saying, no, it is one of the other 999,999,999/1,000,000,000.

You're confusing two different things into the same thought. Yes, I would consider it absurd to deny the existance of Thor, Zues, Poseidon, etc. I would consider it equally absurd to claim that they exist. I think it is completely absurd for someone to claim that something exists when they have no proof that it exists. Just the same, I think it's equally absurd to claim that something doesn't exist when you cannot prove that it doesn't exist.

I agree completely with Mr. Russel. I do not think it is absurd to doubt the existence of something which cannot be proven to exist. I do think it is absurd to claim it to be true that something does not exist based solely on the fact that it cannot be proven to exist. For instance, there is no way for us to prove that aliens exist or don't exist. I do not think it's absurd for someone to doubt aliens exist, because that's the logical path to take if there is no evidence for something. However, I do think it would be absurd for someone to claim that aliens do NOT exist, without evidence to back up their claim.


I think you're over complicating the discussion, as I'm simply basing the idea that either a supreme being exists or doesn't exist. Two possibilities, only one can be right, and both have equal amounts of evidence(none.)

Just because there are two possible outcomes does not mean that they both deserve equal consideration. I could claim to be God himself. You have no real way of proving or disproving it. But if you gave it any serious consideration I would suggest that you get yourself admitted. That's how cults start. Just because two possible answers exist does not make both credible. And once again, the positive claim is the one that needs to be proved. If I claimed that I was God, it would be on me to prove it. It would not be on you to prove that I am not God, it is on me to prove it. Similarly, the God hypothesis demands evidence for any serious consideration.

What about the saying...

If there was no god, there would be no Athiests?

If there was no belief in God, there would be no atheists.

Thank you.

If there were no belief in god, everyone would be atheist by definition.

a·the·ist –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I still say that to deny or disbelieve [verbs] implies action by an individual, which means it is not passive and thus not innate (as babies are not athiests). To deny it, the concept of God has to exist, which it wouldn't if there was no belief. Basically, 150,000 years ago there were no atheists.

Well, I agree, however the concept of atheist would not exist either. For instance, we are all a-alchemists. However, I do not believe that there exists a word that means people that do not believe in alchemy. So from that perspective nobody is a (whatever word may mean "one who does not believe in alchemy"). From our definition, yes, everyone would have been an atheist. However, from the perspective of a world with no concept of God, the term atheist would simply not exist.

To deny something you must actively reject the idea. Disbelief, however, is simply a lack of a belief. "A baby disbelieves" requires no more thought from the baby than "A baby exists," both sentences using action verbs.

I think most atheists would say that atheism is better defined as the lack of belief in a God or Gods. I would also like to point out that contrary to popular belief, atheism does not imply certainty of the nonexistence of God, but simply a lack of belief in God. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking atheism requires some faith. If it were the 100% absolute rejection of the idea of God, I would agree (although I would say it only requires as much faith as the assumption that you will never see the statue of liberty as it exists today wave at you...technically possible). But that is not what atheism is.

Finally, Grav I agree that there were no atheists 150,000 years ago, but not for the reasons you do. By our definition (assuming that there were no primitive animist religions at the time), yes, everyone at the time was an atheist. However, since the concept of atheism did not exist 150,000 years ago, nobody would have been called an atheist.

This is just entirely a discussion of semantics, however. It is inherently circuitious and cannot come a pointed conclusion.

Clarifying semantics is important if we ever hope to dissociate ourselves with the stigmas society has given us. In fact, to have a discussion about anything we should be clear about semantics. This is an entirely frivolous discussion if I and KA have different definitions of atheist.

Oh, I agree with that. It just appears that the problem is currently not based around the views of an idea, but the views of what the definition of said idea is. So there is disagreement on two levels.

I hope that this clarifies what I mean by the difference between the two.

I hope that this clarifies my exact feelings.

I'm not following you.

Linky.

I believe God and Lucifer are both real. and that Lucifer is a girl (rebellious 16 year old on her first PMS, for all eternity)

My opinion is as long as someone believes in a God they will assend to MY believed heaven.

Atheism just... bothers me...

Kinky fantasy? Sounds more like heaven than hell to me.

Now tell that to someone else who believes the same thing just a different heaven and God. Besides assuming you are right based off of nothing but prayer (Which is actually just an assertion of your already biased feelings on something. Don't believe me go to Japan and study about it and meditation while there. There is a reason a lot of them don't pray even though a lot are christian. Also see psychology.) is truly the opposite of what people tell you it is. It is foolish, unwise, and unintelligent. The bible itself says you should be studious in finding all answers to things BEFORE asking Him for guidance. I have it open right here on my desk and it is my favorite part.

Why? You have me curious here. Please elaborate. It better not be extremist horse pucky though. Otherwise I'm gonna be pissed that I asked. :haha:

Believing or not believing in God all amounts to a hill of beans once you're dead. You'll find out the truth then presumably. Right now, just pick one and don't bother the rest of the world with what you believe.

[QUOTE]Kinky fantasy? Sounds more like heaven than hell to me. [QUOTE]

Heh... not really... well, the way she looks... whatever.
It says Lucifer uses temptation... this makes it much easier for her.

[QUOTE]
Now tell that to someone else who believes the same thing just a different heaven and God. Besides assuming you are right based off of nothing but prayer (Which is actually just an assertion of your already biased feelings on something. Don't believe me go to Japan and study about it and meditation while there. There is a reason a lot of them don't pray even though a lot are christian. Also see psychology.) is truly the opposite of what people tell you it is. It is foolish, unwise, and unintelligent. The bible itself says you should be studious in finding all answers to things BEFORE asking Him for guidance. I have it open right here on my desk and it is my favorite part.[QUOTE]
Right, Right. Helps those who help themself, right.
It doesn't matter if I told anyone about my belief. They all (basically) say they are the only correct belief, and (usually) only the ones who believe in their God shall go to their Heaven.




I honestly don't have an answere that probably won't appear as extremist. My belief is, anyone who is faithful to their God is saved... Atheism doesn't seem to apply to it... so It bothers me how many people will be sent to hell, simply because they don't believe...
(The reason I started with the God of understanding is because, over half the world would be sent to Hell in any other religion.)


EDIT-----

For some reason the quotes don't work... maybe I messed up, oh well...

[QUOTE=Skurai;643619][QUOTE]Kinky fantasy? Sounds more like heaven than hell to me. [QUOTE]

Heh... not really... well, the way she looks... whatever.
It says Lucifer uses temptation... this makes it much easier for her.

[QUOTE]
Now tell that to someone else who believes the same thing just a different heaven and God. Besides assuming you are right based off of nothing but prayer (Which is actually just an assertion of your already biased feelings on something. Don't believe me go to Japan and study about it and meditation while there. There is a reason a lot of them don't pray even though a lot are christian. Also see psychology.) is truly the opposite of what people tell you it is. It is foolish, unwise, and unintelligent. The bible itself says you should be studious in finding all answers to things BEFORE asking Him for guidance. I have it open right here on my desk and it is my favorite part.
1. Still sounds kickass to me but then again I am such a sinner.

2. My question really is. How do you know he will go to YOUR heaven? It would at least mean there is an equal chance that you would go to HIS heaven. What goes up...

Also how do you know you won't both go to the SAME heaven or even better that you would be in someone elses heaven? Or that heaven would be a place to go to after death? That be my question.

3. By extremist horse puckey I meant an answer like this one (which I have gotten before).

"Because God says I am right and you are wrong and I beat my wife and molest my kids and rape teenage girls with my sawed off shotgun because I'm from Montana the chosen land of God!"

Your answer was much better.

1. ... Meh. :rolleyes:

2. Hnn...? I guess you're right. Just don't send me to Canadian Heaven! :cry:
( Kidding! )

3. Oh. heh, you have no idea how much a large chance that person will burn in hell if that statement is true. :rolleyes:

3. Oh I know but I have honestly gotten that comment before. I was in Montana doing research and that was a literal comment from someone. Made me laugh because I thought he was joking but he was apparently serious. Needless to say my report ended up getting him in jail for about 1 week. They couldn't prove he did it so they let him go. Even thought he kept saying he did it.

The point being Monatans are crazy. One guy even took a bite out of his shot glass in a bar one time and chewed and swallowed it. After that I another guy smashed a bottle on his face. Not his head, his face.

Either way I got a lot of, "God says I'm right." answers from those people. Which makes me wonder why anyone with any intelligence would live there. How can God say two different views are right to two seperate people? This makes me curious and I plan on studying it.

I thought this thread was a pretty interesting read. It's fun to see how my views have shifted over time. At this point, I'm probably agreeing with Demosthenes's original arguments, while D3v is making the same or similar arguments as I was making ~7 years ago.

I honestly can't believe I tried to argue the Christian theology, while simultaneously actually arguing a borderline Agnostic theology. My views have changed in a way that I can only describe as "progress."

I actually sometimes wonder if 2+2 might not be 4. Like, give or take a couple thousand years, what if we figure out it's not. It won't happen, it's fucking retarded... but what if. I've always been one to question authority, especially when the "fact" has been told, and not proven. A written fact, that is driven into ours heads without evidence. You could ask any child who has been to first grade what 2+2 is, and they will answer 4. But 3+1 may become a problem. Why? Because we do not teach HOW 2+2=4, only that does =4. So, as a child, I decided repeated experiments to prove if 2+2 was 4. It involved counting various things, in groups of two, then in two groups of two, adding up to 4. Conclusion was that under all circumstances, 2+2=4. However, after being taught "God is not real" or "God is real", all experiments come back inconclusive, as God is often reported as an emotional comfort, or being met after death.

This brings up a curious point: Who was the first theist. Who invented the "magic man" hypothesis? Did they believe this hypothesis? They could not have been proselyted if they were the first. Why did they believe it, if they had no proof?* How did they come up with it, if there was no previous evidence of the magic man to spark the idea of a magic man?? There must have been some kind of evidence of a magic man, with no viable explanation (at the time).

And no "fire hot" is not evidence. Any fucking moron would realize rubbing two things together makes them hot, because, contrary to popular believe, pretty much anything can be rubbed together. Had they started trying to rub things, they would quickly discover why "fire hot".

This is a good book that answers that question: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/031606...VcL&ref=plSrch

My ideas on this have been the same since 2007 and won't change now because I want social brownie points over discussing nothing.

You were actually right, K_A. They are equally absurd.

That's gay.

I tend to disagree in my points originally and feel theism actually makes more sense when considering the insurmountable scale of existence and time itself. While on the other hand, I appreciate neckbeards and cave dwellings mathematicians who spend a lifetime theorizing and determining scales and measurable outcomes.