Can atheists prove that atheism is based on facts and not fantasy?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
D

danschance

Guest
#1
Can atheists prove that atheism is based on facts and not phantasy? I am not discussing evolution or Christianity. I am asking Atheists if their beliefs/religion is logical and based on facts. Honestly, I think atheism is a pipe dream based on superstition. Isn't atheism nothing more than a man made religion?

AtheismBigBang.jpg
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#2
The first time I can verify any athiest on earth is ancient Rome. For 4000 years of written history before that, everyone believed in God, or at least a god or two. I think one could make a case that Greek logic had to come first, before it could be envisioned that words can be put together to generate ideas no one had ever thought of.
 
T

Tethered

Guest
#3
The first time I can verify any athiest on earth is ancient Rome. For 4000 years of written history before that, everyone believed in God, or at least a god or two. I think one could make a case that Greek logic had to come first, before it could be envisioned that words can be put together to generate ideas no one had ever thought of.
Makes me feel like everyone is 'assumed' to be a theist if verification of an atheist is not recorded (lack of belief doesn't seem like a compelling thing to record); but yes, I suspect belief (deism at a minimum) was more compelling.

As for Danschance's question:
Only if you give reasons for claims of God and it's intentions, can a resource exist to demonstrate the (un)likeliness of the claim or that the universe works fine without.

If your going by the 'there is no god (higher order being that created the universe)' definition, I would not endorse that belief with certainty. However a tentative belief in that is more valid when all claims of a god are shot down.

As for atheism vs deism, I don't think there is such a fact that rules out the other, there is only 'if we suspected deism to be true - then why has the power of choice seemed to have been taken away from the universes existance', or for those that subscribe to a paradigm belief where something simpler is often the reason for a more complex effect.
 
D

danschance

Guest
#4
tumblr_m4ehn4vuS01rvopvfo1_500.png

It's hard to prove something as stupid as atheism. How rediculous to think nothing created everything and then believe in it.
 
K

kenisyes

Guest
#5
Makes me feel like everyone is 'assumed' to be a theist if verification of an atheist is not recorded (lack of belief doesn't seem like a compelling thing to record); but yes, I suspect belief (deism at a minimum) was more compelling.
The words as I learned them, is that "athiest" refers to a person who believes there is no God. An "agnostic" is a person who is not sure. That leaves quite a bit of space for those who are not recorded.

I have read a lot of ancient literature, and have never seen the statement before ancient Rome "what people call God does not exist", or "there is no God". In fact, I have never seen this statement before Rome either: "Some people think there is a god but I am not sure". If the ancient literature of China, India, Sumeria, Egypt, and the stories of primitive tribes that circulate orally, is to be believed, everyone seems to believe in God or the gods in some fashion. There are plenty of documents that do not record the belief either way, but none where one would expect God to be mentioned is left without the mention being there. In every case I can recall, either about moral lifestyle, creation theory, propsects of an afterlife, or explanation of patterns in life that benefit mankind, such as healing, agriculture, parenting, etc., God, a god, or a community of gods, is mentioned.

There may have been athiests, but they did not write books that have survived. There may have been agnostics, but they did not speculate on matters of religion, morals, or proper life.
 
T

Tethered

Guest
#6
The words as I learned them, is that "athiest" refers to a person who believes there is no God. An "agnostic" is a person who is not sure. That leaves quite a bit of space for those who are not recorded.
Agnosticism in my understanding can cover 99.99'% to 0.00..1% certainty, so I like to use the word 'belief' to sway where in that range I mean.
 
Jun 14, 2013
53
0
0
#7
You know I could find some mean and funny Christian memes and post them but I won't stoop to danschance's level.

Instead, I will use rational argument.

Burden of proof

Arguments related to the burden of proof deal with whether atheists must disprove theism or theists must prove theism. Conventionally, the burden of proof lies with someone proposing a positive idea - or as Karl Popper fans would put it, those who are proposing something falsifiable. By this standard, atheists have no need to prove anything, and just need to render arguments for the existence of God as non-compelling. However, the ubiquity of religion in society and history have often shifted the burden of proof to atheists, who must subsequently prove a negative. Assuming that God exists is known as presuppositionalism and has always been a key tenet of Christian apologetics but is usually rejected by more sensible scholars. The absurdity of being asked to prove a negative is demonstrated in Bertrand Russell's teapot thought experiment - where no matter how hard you look, you can't thoroughly disprove the belief that a teapot is out there in space, orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. This sort of presuppositional thinking is illogical, so asking an atheist to disprove God is an unreasonable request.
Occam's razor can also be invoked as a guide to making the fewest assumptions, and assuming God exists a priori is a major assumption that should be avoided. Combining these thoughts to lay the burden of proof on theists indicates that without supporting evidence, the default position on God must be either weak-ish atheism or agnosticism rather than theism. Proponents of atheism argue that the burden of proof has not been met by those proposing that a god exists, let alone the specific gods described by major religions.

Logical

Logical arguments try to show that God cannot possibly exist (at least as described). Barring any escape hatch arguments like Goddidit, some properties of God are not compatible with each other or known facts about the world, and thus a creator-god cannot be a logically consistent and existent entity. These arguments are heavily dependent on the use of common descriptions of the Abrahamic God as a target; things such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. As a result, they are not as useful in trying to refute the claims of, say, Neopaganism, and are also vulnerable to the tactic of moving the goalposts by changing the descriptions of God.
The omnipotence paradox postulates that true omnipotence is not logically possible or not compatible with omniscience. This is primarily a logical argument based on the general question of whether an omnipotent being could limit its own power - if yes, it would cease to be omnipotent, if no, it wouldn't be omnipotent. Hence the paradox that shows, through contradiction, that God cannot exist as usually described.
Other logical arguments try to prove that god is not compatible with our scientific knowledge of reality. The Problem of evil states that a good god wouldn't permit gratuitous evil, yet such evil occurs, so a good god does not exist.[SUP][21][/SUP] The argument from design is often given as proof of a creator, but it raise the following logical question: if the world is so complex that it must have had a creator, then the creator must be at least as complex and must therefore have a creator, and this would have to have had a more complex creator ad infinitum.
While believers hasten to point out that their gods don't need to follow logic, let alone the known laws of physics, this is really a case of special pleading and doesn't so much prove anything itself. Atheists therefore tend to reject these counters to the logical arguments as they mostly beg the question of a creator's existence and, very arbitrarily, plead that a creator can be exempt from the same logic that was used to "prove" its existence.

[h=3]Evidential[/h]At the root of the worldview of most atheists is evidence, and atheists point out that sufficient evidence for the existence of gods is currently very lacking, and thus there is no reason to believe in them. Evidential arguments are less ambitious than logical arguments because, rather than proving that there is reason not to believe in a god, they prove that there is no reason to believe in a god (See Burden of proof above). It is important to remember that what constitutes sufficient evidence can be quite subjective, although rationalism and science do offer some standardization. Various "holy books" exist that testify to the existence of gods, and claim that alleged miracles and personal experiences all constitute evidence in favor of the existence of a god character of some sort. However, atheists reject these as insufficient because the naturalistic explanations behind them (tracing authors of the holy texts, psychological experiments, and scientific experiments to explain experiences, and so on) are more plausible - indeed, the very existence of plausible naturalistic explanations renders the supernatural explanations obsolete.
Atheists often cite evidence that processes attributed to a god might also occur naturally as evidential arguments. If evolution and the big bang are true, then why would a creator god have needed them?[SUP][22][/SUP]Occam's razor makes theistic explanations less compelling.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#8
It's hard to prove something as stupid as atheism. How rediculous to think nothing created everything and then believe in it.
Honestly, I don't believe the athesits actually believe that. They just cling to it because they have no other sound doctrine to cling to. Heck, when I was an atheist, I was taught the big bang, and after asking logical questions about it (which unintentionally punched a bunch of holes in the doctrine), I was told by my science teacher to stop asking questions.

Then again, I wasn't the standard atheist either. I was consistent in my atheist beliefs. For instance, I believed death was the end, that there was no afterlife, but most militant atheists fear hell. That lead to some darker beliefs on how I treated other people, it was... disturbing to say the least. Speaking of other things I didn't fear as an atheist, I was never intimidated by prayer.

Anyways, when I was an atheist, I just simply didn't believe in God. The beginning of the universe was a stumping point for me, and after being taught the big bang nonsesne, I viewed that it was far more logical to believe the universe had a creator than to believe it didn't have a creator. Whether or not that creator was aliens, some sort of god, or something else, I never took the time to explore, but I still didn't believe in God for a few years yet to come.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

danschance

Guest
#9
You know I could find some mean and funny Christian memes and post them but I won't stoop to danschance's level.

Instead, I will use rational argument.

Burden of proof

Arguments related to the burden of proof deal with whether atheists must disprove theism or theists must prove theism. Conventionally, the burden of proof lies with someone proposing a positive idea - or as Karl Popper fans would put it, those who are proposing something falsifiable. By this standard, atheists have no need to prove anything, and just need to render arguments for the existence of God as non-compelling. However, the ubiquity of religion in society and history have often shifted the burden of proof to atheists, who must subsequently prove a negative. Assuming that God exists is known as presuppositionalism and has always been a key tenet of Christian apologetics but is usually rejected by more sensible scholars. The absurdity of being asked to prove a negative is demonstrated in Bertrand Russell's teapot thought experiment - where no matter how hard you look, you can't thoroughly disprove the belief that a teapot is out there in space, orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. This sort of presuppositional thinking is illogical, so asking an atheist to disprove God is an unreasonable request.
Occam's razor can also be invoked as a guide to making the fewest assumptions, and assuming God exists a priori is a major assumption that should be avoided. Combining these thoughts to lay the burden of proof on theists indicates that without supporting evidence, the default position on God must be either weak-ish atheism or agnosticism rather than theism. Proponents of atheism argue that the burden of proof has not been met by those proposing that a god exists, let alone the specific gods described by major religions.

Logical

Logical arguments try to show that God cannot possibly exist (at least as described). Barring any escape hatch arguments like Goddidit, some properties of God are not compatible with each other or known facts about the world, and thus a creator-god cannot be a logically consistent and existent entity. These arguments are heavily dependent on the use of common descriptions of the Abrahamic God as a target; things such as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence. As a result, they are not as useful in trying to refute the claims of, say, Neopaganism, and are also vulnerable to the tactic of moving the goalposts by changing the descriptions of God.
The omnipotence paradox postulates that true omnipotence is not logically possible or not compatible with omniscience. This is primarily a logical argument based on the general question of whether an omnipotent being could limit its own power - if yes, it would cease to be omnipotent, if no, it wouldn't be omnipotent. Hence the paradox that shows, through contradiction, that God cannot exist as usually described.
Other logical arguments try to prove that god is not compatible with our scientific knowledge of reality. The Problem of evil states that a good god wouldn't permit gratuitous evil, yet such evil occurs, so a good god does not exist.[SUP][21][/SUP] The argument from design is often given as proof of a creator, but it raise the following logical question: if the world is so complex that it must have had a creator, then the creator must be at least as complex and must therefore have a creator, and this would have to have had a more complex creator ad infinitum.
While believers hasten to point out that their gods don't need to follow logic, let alone the known laws of physics, this is really a case of special pleading and doesn't so much prove anything itself. Atheists therefore tend to reject these counters to the logical arguments as they mostly beg the question of a creator's existence and, very arbitrarily, plead that a creator can be exempt from the same logic that was used to "prove" its existence.

Evidential

At the root of the worldview of most atheists is evidence, and atheists point out that sufficient evidence for the existence of gods is currently very lacking, and thus there is no reason to believe in them. Evidential arguments are less ambitious than logical arguments because, rather than proving that there is reason not to believe in a god, they prove that there is no reason to believe in a god (See Burden of proof above). It is important to remember that what constitutes sufficient evidence can be quite subjective, although rationalism and science do offer some standardization. Various "holy books" exist that testify to the existence of gods, and claim that alleged miracles and personal experiences all constitute evidence in favor of the existence of a god character of some sort. However, atheists reject these as insufficient because the naturalistic explanations behind them (tracing authors of the holy texts, psychological experiments, and scientific experiments to explain experiences, and so on) are more plausible - indeed, the very existence of plausible naturalistic explanations renders the supernatural explanations obsolete.
Atheists often cite evidence that processes attributed to a god might also occur naturally as evidential arguments. If evolution and the big bang are true, then why would a creator god have needed them?[SUP][22][/SUP]Occam's razor makes theistic explanations less compelling.

You know I could find some mean and funny Christian memes and post them but I won't stoop to danschance's level.
What a pity. I enjoy humor, even sarcastic humor...maybe next time

Arguments related to the burden of proof deal with whether atheists must disprove theism or theists must prove theism. Conventionally, the burden of proof lies with someone proposing a positive idea - or as Karl Popper fans would put it, those who are proposing something falsifiable. By this standard, atheists have no need to prove anything,
Oh dear, again, what a pity. Atheists come in here in droves and basically post the same sort of dribble. You falsely claim that Atheists have nothing to prove even though Atheists clearly have a belief that there is no deity and everything around us, including all forms of life, happened with out a creator and purely by random chance and accident. Are you really so afaraid to give me reasons for your beliefs? It is the agnostics who have nothing to prove as they simply shrug thier shoulders and say "I don't know".

Please rethink your line of reasoning and try again.

The absurdity of being asked to prove a negative is demonstrated in Bertrand Russell's teapot thought experiment - where no matter how hard you look, you can't thoroughly disprove the belief that a teapot is out there in space, orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. This sort of presuppositional thinking is illogical, so asking an atheist to disprove God is an unreasonable request.
OH now this is getting interesting indeed! You retreat into saying we can't prove a negative exists (and this is true) and yet you demand answers from Christians who believe God, the Bible, Jesus, etc. on blind faith and not fact. In other words your own argument as to why Atheists need not give an answer for their religion is the same for Christians. The bible is clear that we can only come to God in faith and not by fact. Yet you demand we show you the facts of our faith.

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? You do not need to respond to this question as I can see thru your thin veneer of intellectualism when your words mock you.

While believers hasten to point out that their gods don't need to follow logic, let alone the known laws of physics, this is really a case of special pleading and doesn't so much prove anything itself. Atheists therefore tend to reject these counters to the logical arguments as they mostly beg the question of a creator's existence and, very arbitrarily, plead that a creator can be exempt from the same logic that was used to "prove" its existence.
Strawman argument, what a pity and what a waste of my time. You have completely fabricated what Christians say based on pure fantasy. Not to mention that pointing out what you assume I believe has absolutely no bearing on what you believe. I am only asking for what you believe and why. You could simply ignore this request and be better off than contriving an army of straw men.

At the root of the worldview of most atheists is evidence, and atheists point out that sufficient evidence for the existence of gods is currently very lacking, and thus there is no reason to believe in them. Evidential arguments are less ambitious than logical arguments because, rather than proving that there is reason not to believe in a god, they prove that there is no reason to believe in a god
Oh this might be good.....holding my breath, crossing my fingers....."evidence", NICE!......Oh crap...back to square one.
I am so dissapointed. You fell right back on you can't prove a negative routine. *sigh*, I was so hopeful you had something meaty to say.

Atheists often cite evidence that processes attributed to a god might also occur naturally as evidential arguments. If evolution and the big bang are true, then why would a creator god have needed them?[SUP][22][/SUP]Occam's razor makes theistic explanations less compelling.
Oh here we go...atheists often cite evidence... good, good...(this might be interesting!)........ WHAT!?!?! "IF" evolution is true?...Finally, I knew they existed..an atheist with doubts........Oh crapola, again, back to square one... your old trusty musty and rusty standby of talking about deities and what others believe instead of what you actually believe.

I mean seriously, maybe I should just abandon this thread. Maybe I am asking too much of atheists to give me reasons why they believe, but instead, I get arguments about what Christians believe. Well, maybe the next post will have something interesting to say and not mention what others believe.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#10
Oh and btw, it is entirely possible to prove a negative. For instance, I can prove I don't have 3 eyes by looking in the mirror. You can also prove things like 3 does not equal 5. So yeah, the whole "you can't prove a negative" is a load of crap. Seriously, I think the best thing atheists can do is just say "I don't believe in God" and leave it at that, because whenever they go further than that they just open their mouths and look like an unresearched fool.
 
D

danschance

Guest
#11
Honestly, I don't believe the athesits actually believe that. They just cling to it because they have no other sound doctrine to cling to. Heck, when I was an atheist, I was taught the big bang, and after asking logical questions about it (which unintentionally punched a bunch of holes in the doctrine), I was told by my science teacher to stop asking questions.

Then again, I wasn't the standard atheist either. I was consistent in my atheist beliefs. For instance, I believed death was the end, that there was no afterlife, but most militant atheists fear hell. That lead to some darker beliefs on how I treated other people, it was... disturbing to say the least. Speaking of other things I didn't fear as an atheist, I was never intimidated by prayer.

Anyways, when I was an atheist, I just simply didn't believe in God. The beginning of the universe was a stumping point for me, and after being taught the big bang nonsesne, I viewed that it was far more logical to believe the universe had a creator than to believe it didn't have a creator. Whether or not that creator was aliens, some sort of god, or something else, I never took the time to explore, but I still didn't believe in God for a few years yet to come.
Honestly, I don't believe the athesits actually believe that. They just cling to it because they have no other sound doctrine to cling to. Heck, when I was an atheist, I was taught the big bang, and after asking logical questions about it (which unintentionally punched a bunch of holes in the doctrine), I was told by my science teacher to stop asking questions.
Interesting. A teacher told you to stop asking questions? He should find a new job, like maybe he should of been a mortician as corpses don't ask any questions.

Then again, I wasn't the standard atheist either. I was consistent in my atheist beliefs. For instance, I believed death was the end, that there was no afterlife, but most militant atheists fear hell. That lead to some darker beliefs on how I treated other people, it was... disturbing to say the least. Speaking of other things I didn't fear as an atheist, I was never intimidated by prayer.
Interesting, so some atheists fear hell? So do I, LOL.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#12
Interesting, so some atheists fear hell? So do I, LOL.
Most of them do actually. That's why they're always talking about hell, and bashing God for it, but yet they never say one thing positive about how God offers us all heaven, when none of us deserve it. Also, Christians have no reason to fear hell. 1 John 4 tells us that.
 
Jun 14, 2013
53
0
0
#13
Can you guys please define what you think atheism is and
define God too? We can go from there, thanks.
 
D

danschance

Guest
#14
Can you guys please define what you think atheism is and
define God too? We can go from there, thanks.
NO.

I am not interested in what I know, think or believe. This thread is about what Atheists believe and why. You don't have to say anything.
 

JimJimmers

Senior Member
Apr 26, 2012
2,592
76
48
#15
First of all, let me say welcome to CC. Also, copying a cartload of stuff from a website makes you seem not so free-thinking, and more a follower. I don't say that as an attack on you, I just thought you should know. The argument put forth is a good one, but it is seriously flawed.


To the point:

"If evolution and the big bang are true, then why would a creator god have needed them?"

This uses the logical fallacy that God required something, merely for having used it. In a nutshell, for those who believe Genesis, God having formed a man out of clay doesn't mean clay was required, only used. Why would God need hydrogen, helium boron, et cetera? The logical answer is that He doesn't, and the error is on the part of the questioner. I'm really not much of a debater, but I wanted to point that out. Can I say God bless? :D God bless! -JIM
 
Jun 14, 2013
53
0
0
#16
NO.

I am not interested in what I know, think or believe. This thread is about what Atheists believe and why. You don't have to say anything.
It is very evident you are not interested in what you know, think or believe. You react like a whining
schoolyard bully when someone stands up to you. How do you expect to learn or understand with that
kind of attitude?

First of all you have a misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. Secondly, you cannot even
define your own God because there's no one definition of God that everyone can agree on.

You seem very hostile. I hope you're not like that in real life.

Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#17
First of all you have a misunderstanding of what atheism actually is.
Atheism defined:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Atheists - definition of Atheists by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Seems to me that an atheist would then be someone who does not believe in any god or gods. But if this doesn't describe you, then please tell us which god or gods you believe in.
 
Jun 14, 2013
53
0
0
#18
I assume you're all atheists in regards to Zeus, Thor, Baal, and the thousands
of other gods throughout history. Some people just go one more god further.
 
M

megaman125

Guest
#19
I assume you're all atheists in regards to Zeus, Thor, Baal, and the thousands
of other gods throughout history. Some people just go one more god further.
It seems like you're the one that doesn't know what an atheist is.

an atheist would then be someone who does not believe in any god or gods.
An atheist believs in NO GOD OR GODS whatsoever, so no, we're not atheists in regard to false gods. Believing in one God, by definition, makes us not atheists.

I assume you're all atheists in regards to Zeus, Thor, Baal, and the thousands
of other gods throughout history. Some people just go one more god further.
And what's the purpose of this illogical statement anyways? Is it supposed to somehow make atheism more appealing to non-atheists, becasue it just doesn't. It just looks foolish. What this statement is is an example of what I was saying here:

Seriously, I think the best thing atheists can do is just say "I don't believe in God" and leave it at that, because whenever they go further than that they just open their mouths and look like an unresearched fool.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

danschance

Guest
#20
It is very evident you are not interested in what you know, think or believe. You react like a whining
schoolyard bully when someone stands up to you. How do you expect to learn or understand with that
kind of attitude?

First of all you have a misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. Secondly, you cannot even
define your own God because there's no one definition of God that everyone can agree on.

You seem very hostile. I hope you're not like that in real life.

Ephesians 4:29
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

1) Your sarcasm is improving, thankx.

2) Again you seem focused on what I believe but ...well....ummm.... I was kinda looking for what Atheists believe and why.

3) Not sure why you perceive me as being hostile.

4) Thankx for the scripture. I am glad you read the bible. Jinx has a thread on the topic of filthy communication, if you are interested. http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/66661-what-your-idea-filthy-communication.html

5) Now that you have discussed other topics, can we focus on the topic of what Atheists believe, pretty please?