Comments for Against Atheism http://atheistfools.com The top arguments against atheism Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:26:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by The Anti-Zealot http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-16 The Anti-Zealot Sat, 20 Sep 2008 05:16:52 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-16 The "essense of life"? What does that even mean? Is it a claim of some metaphysical energy that animates organic tissue? This is a classic example of theists coming up with some vague phrase and atatching implied profoundness to it. I can give you a definition of life: a collection of organic materials that can reproduce and grow through internal metabolic processes. If it can't do these things, then it is dead or non-living. Quite simple. The “essense of life”? What does that even mean? Is it a claim of some metaphysical energy that animates organic tissue? This is a classic example of theists coming up with some vague phrase and atatching implied profoundness to it. I can give you a definition of life: a collection of organic materials that can reproduce and grow through internal metabolic processes. If it can’t do these things, then it is dead or non-living. Quite simple.

]]> Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by Jason http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-15 Jason Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:02:05 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-15 For starters, it should be common knowledge that it is impossible to choose to believe or disbelieve in something. You can choose to act as though you do, but the reality is you either believe or you don't, and you must be convinced otherwise if you are to change your mind. Atheists just haven't been convinced by anything religion has put on the table for the last several thousand years. "...the believers have fresh quotes and experiences..." Well of course they do. The facts don't change. Atheists simply have to reword those same old facts in ways that get through to believers, and in turn they reconfigure how they define their god, how they interpret their holy books, etc. so their beliefs better conform to reality as they now understand it (thanks to atheists & other rationalists). The "new experiences" bit isn't a surprise either - the point is that the atheist believes that such experiences are all in the believer's mind. It's no different than how a Christian might view a Scientologist's religious experience. Science & skepticism may not have all the answers, but most religions are full to the brim with lousy, unverifiable answers or outright lies. You know, it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, but there is always a way of proving it when something really does - you should just prove God's existence in your next article. I would happily retract everything I've said once that's been done. For starters, it should be common knowledge that it is impossible to choose to believe or disbelieve in something. You can choose to act as though you do, but the reality is you either believe or you don’t, and you must be convinced otherwise if you are to change your mind. Atheists just haven’t been convinced by anything religion has put on the table for the last several thousand years.

“…the believers have fresh quotes and experiences…”

Well of course they do. The facts don’t change. Atheists simply have to reword those same old facts in ways that get through to believers, and in turn they reconfigure how they define their god, how they interpret their holy books, etc. so their beliefs better conform to reality as they now understand it (thanks to atheists & other rationalists).

The “new experiences” bit isn’t a surprise either - the point is that the atheist believes that such experiences are all in the believer’s mind. It’s no different than how a Christian might view a Scientologist’s religious experience.

Science & skepticism may not have all the answers, but most religions are full to the brim with lousy, unverifiable answers or outright lies.

You know, it’s impossible to prove that something doesn’t exist, but there is always a way of proving it when something really does - you should just prove God’s existence in your next article. I would happily retract everything I’ve said once that’s been done.

]]> Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by Yorokabashi http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-14 Yorokabashi Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:53:48 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-14 How nice, encouraging ignorance. "Don't try to understand," You say, "Stay put, learning new things is bad and causes gods to become obsolete! Look at Zeus, Isis, Thor, Loki, Gaia and other gods! All obsolete due to new knowledge!" What do you call it when a person hears voices in his head, feels like someone is always watching them, and claim to have out of body experience. Sounds like crazy to me! How nice, encouraging ignorance. “Don’t try to understand,” You say, “Stay put, learning new things is bad and causes gods to become obsolete! Look at Zeus, Isis, Thor, Loki, Gaia and other gods! All obsolete due to new knowledge!”

What do you call it when a person hears voices in his head, feels like someone is always watching them, and claim to have out of body experience. Sounds like crazy to me!

]]> Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by George Fitting http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-9 George Fitting Tue, 27 May 2008 19:36:54 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-9 I agree with Ravi, but take it a step further. The position here seems to be that "since we can't currently explain every aspect of the beginning of life scientifically, it must have been God who started it all." That argument contains so many problems it is laughable at best. Conceding the existence of any supernatural being, for the sake of argument, begs this question at least: which God or gods started kufe? Oranos and Gaia? The Christian God? A random island tribe's deities? It is very interesting to note that as more and more scientific discoveries are being made, less and less phenomena are left to be explained by religion. And, in response to Ravi, I contend that agnosticism is merely a weak and wishy-washy stance toward the matter. Do people maintain the possibility of the existence of werewolves, simply because they can't prove they don't exist? The burden of proof is on the believer, not the disbeliever. An atheist is one who doesn't BELIEVE that there are no "gods," but who is CONVINCED that there are none from simple lack of proof and the existence of more plausible explanations. Although everything is technically possible, agnosticism stands on the same ground as believing that you are merely dreaming this life, and will eventually wake up in a completely different existence in a hospital bed. While this may be the case, and you can't prove that it isn't, it is irrelevant to the present state of affairs because of its unprovability either way, and you may safely and logically proceed with your life without making any judgments or decisions based on this possibility. I agree with Ravi, but take it a step further. The position here seems to be that “since we can’t currently explain every aspect of the beginning of life scientifically, it must have been God who started it all.” That argument contains so many problems it is laughable at best. Conceding the existence of any supernatural being, for the sake of argument, begs this question at least: which God or gods started kufe? Oranos and Gaia? The Christian God? A random island tribe’s deities? It is very interesting to note that as more and more scientific discoveries are being made, less and less phenomena are left to be explained by religion. And, in response to Ravi, I contend that agnosticism is merely a weak and wishy-washy stance toward the matter. Do people maintain the possibility of the existence of werewolves, simply because they can’t prove they don’t exist? The burden of proof is on the believer, not the disbeliever. An atheist is one who doesn’t BELIEVE that there are no “gods,” but who is CONVINCED that there are none from simple lack of proof and the existence of more plausible explanations. Although everything is technically possible, agnosticism stands on the same ground as believing that you are merely dreaming this life, and will eventually wake up in a completely different existence in a hospital bed. While this may be the case, and you can’t prove that it isn’t, it is irrelevant to the present state of affairs because of its unprovability either way, and you may safely and logically proceed with your life without making any judgments or decisions based on this possibility.

]]> Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by Rajesh http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-6 Rajesh Sun, 18 May 2008 12:27:17 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-6 I always wonder how so many people are so desperate to prove that "GOD EXISTS", when they don't know it for sure. Please don't spiol the world with your false logic and wrong reasoning. I always wonder how so many people are so desperate to prove that “GOD EXISTS”, when they don’t know it for sure. Please don’t spiol the world with your false logic and wrong reasoning.

]]> Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by Nick http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-5 Nick Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:17:54 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-5 You know you are a complete idiot right? You know you are a complete idiot right?

]]> Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by Seth A Quimby http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-3 Seth A Quimby Sat, 29 Mar 2008 05:01:17 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-3 You have made no argument hear against atheism. You've simply stated what atheists hold true. What exactly is your "Top" argument against atheism? You have made no argument hear against atheism. You’ve simply stated what atheists hold true. What exactly is your “Top” argument against atheism?

]]> Comment on Arguments Against Atheism by Ravi Maharaj http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-2 Ravi Maharaj Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:27:05 +0000 http://atheistfools.com/arguments-against-atheism/#comment-2 Just because the "essence of life" hasn't been fully explained in scientific terms yet doesn't me that it never will or that it is impossible. And with that said, just because something isn't scientifically proven doesn't mean that it automatically dwells within the the supernatural realm. After all, if you examine history, all NATURAL phenomenon that has occured in the past such as earthquakes, rain, germs and diseases, shooting stars were all once explained as mystical and spiritual occurances and for the time being, they remained in the supernatural realm of thinking. Until science was persued and all these phenomena were exposed as natural occuring events which happen for very natural explainable reasons that don't require a supernatural inference. So basically, the standpoint of atheists and most agnostics is that while there are endless mysteries regarding our existance, it would be more logical to reserve your judgement about particular unexplained phenomena until testable evidence is found. As far as anythign related to a "spiritual" realm or anything supernatural of that sort, there have been no experiements done that demonstrate the existance of such propositions as the soul, ghosts, or anythign of that sort. Furthermore, any experiments that have been done have not been repeaditely tested for verification and fail to be published in reputable scientific journals. All accounts of miracles and supernatual phenomena always come by way of anecdotal evidence which is never reliable. In Conclusion, the best standpoint to take on such a matter is that of an agnostic simply do the fact that there is no evidence to suggest the existance of non-existance of god. And while we cannot disprove it, that sahouldn't imply that we treat the idea with any degree of plausibility. As Bertrand Russel once said, there could very well be a teapot revolving around Mars, and with our current state of technological advancement, we would be unable to detect an object of that size and at such a distance around the area of orbit around mars. But just because we can't detect it, are we supposed to be agnostic about the teapot too? Well, the reasonable answer would be yes, but who really is going to say that they acknowledge that as a legitimate possiblity. Therefore the argument for the existance of the teapot becomes meaningless. This argument for the teapot is analagous to the argument for God. Anywas, I've said enough and I hope you have understood my point of view and I hope you would respond to me at my e-mail listed above. ravi.maharaj@hotmail.com. Take Care Ravi Just because the “essence of life” hasn’t been fully explained in scientific terms yet doesn’t me that it never will or that it is impossible. And with that said, just because something isn’t scientifically proven doesn’t mean that it automatically dwells within the the supernatural realm. After all, if you examine history, all NATURAL phenomenon that has occured in the past such as earthquakes, rain, germs and diseases, shooting stars were all once explained as mystical and spiritual occurances and for the time being, they remained in the supernatural realm of thinking. Until science was persued and all these phenomena were exposed as natural occuring events which happen for very natural explainable reasons that don’t require a supernatural inference. So basically, the standpoint of atheists and most agnostics is that while there are endless mysteries regarding our existance, it would be more logical to reserve your judgement about particular unexplained phenomena until testable evidence is found. As far as anythign related to a “spiritual” realm or anything supernatural of that sort, there have been no experiements done that demonstrate the existance of such propositions as the soul, ghosts, or anythign of that sort. Furthermore, any experiments that have been done have not been repeaditely tested for verification and fail to be published in reputable scientific journals. All accounts of miracles and supernatual phenomena always come by way of anecdotal evidence which is never reliable. In Conclusion, the best standpoint to take on such a matter is that of an agnostic simply do the fact that there is no evidence to suggest the existance of non-existance of god. And while we cannot disprove it, that sahouldn’t imply that we treat the idea with any degree of plausibility. As Bertrand Russel once said, there could very well be a teapot revolving around Mars, and with our current state of technological advancement, we would be unable to detect an object of that size and at such a distance around the area of orbit around mars. But just because we can’t detect it, are we supposed to be agnostic about the teapot too? Well, the reasonable answer would be yes, but who really is going to say that they acknowledge that as a legitimate possiblity. Therefore the argument for the existance of the teapot becomes meaningless. This argument for the teapot is analagous to the argument for God. Anywas, I’ve said enough and I hope you have understood my point of view and I hope you would respond to me at my e-mail listed above. ravi.maharaj@hotmail.com. Take Care

Ravi

]]>