Atheism and Atheists
Disproving the Fallacy
Firstly, what is atheism? An atheist, by literal dictionary definition, is a person who "denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." It is not someone who isn't positive of God or gods. It is not someone who believes there is no way of being sure of God or gods. Those descriptions are of agnostics or skeptics, not atheists. Atheism though, by definition, is someone who claims that there is no God.
That in itself is a very shaky stance. Consider this passage from Dr. Ron Rhodes, taken from his book Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics. He writes, "A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his or her own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such statement based on the facts." Therefore, by saying that there is no God or gods, atheists have presumed themselves to have a wealth of perfect, incorruptible, godlike knowledge.
A common response to the above argument is for an atheist to reply that a belief in God can not be rational because it requires faith as opposed to reason. Unfortunately, this is an ignorant counter-argument, because it ignores the fact that atheism requires even more faith than a religion that believes in the existence of God or gods. An atheist must have faith that, although he or she is neither omniscient nor omnipresent; and although he or she is not capable of being in all places at the same time, there is still no possibility that God or gods exist. The atheist is having faith that - within his or her own wealth of knowledge - it is still certain that no supreme being exists. Because of these factors, this "counter argument" is null and can only be used as another example of the atheist's arrogance.
Other atheists, in response to arguments such as these, declare that the burden of proof should not be their responsibility. Instead, they argue that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God and that it can not be proved; they dispute that if God truly existed, it would be blatantly clear. I believe the existence of God can be proven, but for the sake of space and time constraints will only say this. Some things are not "obvious" and are difficult for science to comprehend. It reminds me of a conversation in the film A Beautiful Mind, where the scientifically driven John Nash is trying to understand love and wants Alicia to prove in some scientific way that she loves him.
Alicia: How big is the universe?
John: Infinite.
Alicia: How do you know?
John: I know because all the data indicates it's infinite.
Alicia: But it hasn't been proven yet.
John: No.
Alicia: You haven't seen it.
John: No.
Alicia: How do you know for sure?
John: I don't know, I just believe it.
Alicia: It's the same with love, I guess.
I believe this short dialogue demonstrates that some things aren't obvious and overtly clear. I believe it also demonstrates that science can't necessarily "prove" everything. I believe it also capsizes atheists' argument that for something to be believed, it must be purely scientific.
If you're an atheist, I encourage you to look into this matter very thoroughly before you completely make up your mind. There are a lot of factors to consider and to say - without a shadow of a doubt - that there is no God is a questionable move.
Published by TheReader
I am a reader. View profile
- Atheism and Society: Is it Truly Beneficial to Mankind?Atheism is looked at from a morale perspective and whether or not it is most beneficial to mankind and our society.
- Why Some Think Atheism is WrongSome people, for various reasons, believe atheism is wrong. In this article I will examine those reasons and state why they are false.
Scientific Proof for the Existence of God!In the spring of 2001 in Athens, a Greek painter had a vision and recorded it.This vision was later proven as the Contemporary Revelation.
The Arguments of Existence of GodThe following are the arguments of the existence of God- 3 Ways in Which Nature Itself is Evidence of the Existence of GodI occasionally hear people say that nature itself is evidence of the existence of God, and a number of references in Christian scripture make this assertion, as well. But why is that true?
- Atheism and Religious Discrimination: Atheists Excluded from Civil Rights Protections
- Strictures on Atheism and Christianity
- Atheism and Christianity -- Why Atheists and Christians Cannot Talk to Each Other...
- Why Atheism and Morality Are Not Incompatible
- Is Atheism the Next Rebellious Trend?
- No Atheists? No Way
- Atheism Facts and Myths
- You would have to have infinite knowledge of the universe to say there is no God.
- Atheism actually requires more faith than a religion that believe in a supreme being.
- Some things are difficult to scientifically prove, but that doesn't make them less real.
18 Comments
Post a CommentYour logic is flawed. As an atheist, I don't claim that there is no God, I claim that there is no evidence for a God.
Why did I waste my time reading this bad joke? I love it when people with PH.D. say stupid things, it makes me feel smart.
And what is the reason for the mistrust? Far as I've seen, no one has claimed school shootings, suicide bombings, assassinations, violent protests, or any detrimental acts on the basis of their non-belief. Although given humanity's past dealing with groups that differ in belief (Stalin, Communism, Nazism, KKK, gangs, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevich) I don't really think that we have a lot of reason to hope that people would have changed a lot by them. People are scared of those they choose not to try and understand. Ignorance is always an easier option.
It is unfortunate to see how many people repeatedly make the false assumption that non-belief in something is a belief it isn't own right. That is not true. You need no proof to believe there is a god, why would I need proof to say I don't believe it? You cannot prove the non-existence of something, but you can choose not to believe it. A god's existence or non-existence is completely independent of your belief or my non-belief. You mistake non-belief for the ability to prove non-existence.
By the reasoning the absence of belief in something requires faith unless you're a god. You would also need to take into account the faith you pinned upon atheism onto religion too. A religious person would also need to have faith that all the other religions and gods are false along with their existing faith that their religion is right and their god is the only one true god. Therefore a religious person is an atheist in respect to all the other religions out there apart from his or her own. This throws your statement "atheism requires even more faith than a religion that believes in the existence of God or gods" out of the window.
I take objection to the idea that "atheism requires even more faith than a religion that believes in the existence of God or gods." As expressed by Occam's Razor, adherence to a complex system of beliefs known as religion to explain the origins and purpose of mankind requires far more explanation, evidence, and, where there is none, faith, than believing that there is no supreme being at all.
I'm surrounded by believers in different religions, and my atheism is simply another belief. I'm an atheist because I lack a belief in God or gods. More significantly, I choose to live my life as if this is so, regardless of whether it's true or not. Where Christians might think "what would Jesus do", I tend to think "what is the right thing to do for people, animals, and our earth"?
.........atheism is merely the absence of a belief in god or gods. I also have an absence of belief in father christmas. Do i need to have omispresecent powers to say i have an absence of belief in a man dressed in a red suit that come down the chimmney at christmas!!! BY the way you also have an absence of belief in Zeus and Apollo and the other million or so gods that man has invented over the last 40,000 years or so.....by the way why don;t you believe in Zeus???
Why should we believe in a God if there is not a single shred of evidence to support this claim? Sure you will tell me I can't prove there ISN'T a God but what if I told you that the earth was created by a teapot orbiting earth that was too small for our telescopes to see? You can't disprove that Teapot isn't there but you think it is a rediculous notion nonetheless. However rediculous you find that notion to be, keep in mind it has the same amount of evidence supporting it and the same logical thinking behind it that your God has. You think it is arrogant to not believe in a supernatural being because you can't see any evidence to support it? I call that logical and the scientific method. Remember the burdon of proof is on you to prove that God exists, not Atheists.
Just like many who try to evangelize online you have apparently never spoken to and certainly have never listened to an atheist. How do you reconcile your rudeness and bigotry with your religion?