Atheism = self defeating. (page 6)

towerwatchman

To Anders Andersen

You got your definition of atheism wrong and are thus creating a straw man argument. Only by coming up with your own (false) definition of atheism, you can make your argument. However, almost all of the people who call themselves atheist do not claim to know there are no gods, they simply do not believe in any gods. Your argument applies to almost nobody. Redefining the label I apply to myself doesn't suddenly change my (lack of) beliefs into a claim of knowledge.

Stepping from strong atheism to soft atheism; soft espouses “lack of belief” or “absence of belief” which is an illogical position to take if one is making a conscious decision not to belief. Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God also.

Nice rookie try.

cofty

which is an illogical position to take if one is making a conscious decision not to belief

How can it be illogical to fail to believe irrational claims about invisible supernatural beings?

Nobody makes a "conscious decision not to believe". I just find christian theism to be on a par with all other superstitions and I don't believe it. If evidence is ever presented to support it I am listening.

cofty

Under such a worldview, a newborn, dog or cat qualifies as a soft atheist, for they lack belief in God also.

Yes.

towerwatchman

to ctrwtf

What difference does this make in the life of an atheist?

Only an atheist can answer that.

slimboyfat

I have come increasingly to the conclusion that ALL significant ideological perspectives on reality are self-refuting when you think about them long and hard. Some contradictions are easier to spot than others, but contradiction appears to be at the heart of pretty much any position you wish to adopt.

scepticism - we can't know anything (including the assertion that "we can't know anything"?)

physicalism - only physical things exist (then what is the statement/thought "only physical things exist"?)

relativism - all viewpoints are equally valid (including the view that there are correct and incorrect viewpoints?)

theism - there is a being who has unlimited power and is perfect in love (how can God be both loving and all-powerful in a world full of suffering?)

naturalism - every event can be explained with reference to the rules of nature (how do you explain the existence of natural laws in the first place without contradicting this premise?)

atheism - I can use logic and reason to show God does not exist (why should human rationality be relied upon if it is purely the result of selection for survival?)

Self-refutation doesn't appear to be an isolated quirk. It seems to be a feature of any ideological position one may wish to adopt.

towerwatchman

Finkelstein

If you cant define what a god is then there is no god.

God is omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, omnipotent and holy.

John_Mann

The Four Horsemen say that there's probably no God.

This is atheism defined as probabilistic denial.

I think the best definition of atheism is "denial" not "lack".

I'm not using denial as a pejorative term.

I deny the JW concept of God. And I deny the calvinist concept of God.

I deny these concepts because I know and understand them. I can't say I lack something a priori regarding these concepts.

But after knowing and understanding them I deny them.

cofty

atheism - I can use logic and reason to show God does not exist (why should human rationality be relied upon if it is purely the result of selection for survival?)

That is not self-refuting statement.

It is just a way of saying you can't work out how rationality contributes to human survival or perhaps was a side-effect of other evolutionary changes.

John_Mann

slimboyfat5 minutes agoI have come increasingly to the conclusion that ALL significant ideological perspectives on reality are self-refuting when you think about them long and hard. Some contradictions are easier to spot than others, but contradiction appears to be at the heart of pretty much any position you wish to adopt.
scepticism - we can't know anything (including the assertion that "we can't know anything"?)
physicalism - only physical things exist (then what is the statement/thought "only physical things exist"?)
relativism - all viewpoints are equally valid (including the view that there are correct and incorrect viewpoints?)
theism - there is a being who has unlimited power and is perfect in love (how can God be both loving and all-powerful in a world full of suffering?)
naturalism - every event can be explained with reference to the rules of nature (how do you explain the existence of natural laws in the first place without contradicting this premise?)
atheism - I can use logic and reason to show God does not exist (why should human rationality be relied upon if it is purely the result of selection for survival?)
Self-refutation doesn't appear to be an isolated quirk. It seems to be a feature of any ideological position one may wish to adopt.

Gödel's incompleteness.

slimboyfat

Yes it is.

Atheists hold two contradictory beliefs at once.

1. That human rationality is a result of natural selection shaped for survival not a God given faculty for seeing the world as it really is.

2. Human rationality can be relied upon to deliver a reliable answer to questions such as "does God exist?"

One or the other assumption has to give.

Atheism = self defeating.

Share this