On why Atheism is a Shite BELIEF System

[Seth]

I also think there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or Achilles.

What constitutes 'good evidence', squire?

Get fucked. Tell us what "metaphysical evidence" is first. You've still yet to explain that.

Jesus couldn't be arsed to explain what truth is, so...

Er, it's more likely that you simply are incapable of understanding the truths that Jesus explained.

[JimC]

His "truths" were simply a mixture of warm and fuzzy pop psychology, plus an astounding degree of ego-driven delusion about being related to the putative creator of the universe...

One more crazy cult leader in a land full of 'em...

[pErvinalia]

I've never read anything that Jesus wrote. I believe there's some stuff written by some social engineers 300 years or so later.

[piscator]

Pilate: What is truth?

Jesus: Me!

[Svartalf]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

the criterion is that the god as predicated and reality don't agree together. Since I can hardly disbelieve in reality, that shows that the divine is wrong, and likely inexistent.

Reality? Have you given any thought to what that is, for you? Descartes knew, and so have many others. The truth is that your entire reality is reducible to a series of personal experiences. At least, that's the foundation of what you can know about reality. This world that you believe in exists entirely within your mind. You cannot prove that it has an existence of its own, beyond that. To believe in a world existing independently of the mind/experience, is to give life to something for which there cannot ever be any proof. Therefore, you'd be wise not to describe the world as your 'reality', because the only reality you can be sure of is that of oneself... whatever that may be. From that point, your atheism has nowhere to go. It is kaput.

thanks for the world salad. Reality is objective and shared, and I rest my case.

[Hermit]

...science (with its experiential/observational evidence) can, by logical default, provide NO evidence of a world/reality beyond experience/observation. As such, it provides zero evidence against the notion of the existence of a God.

Correct. Sort of anyway. Now please explain how metaphysical speculation can be dressed up as evidence.

[pErvinalia]

I assume he can't explain it, else he would have explained it the last 5 times he was asked this question..

[Animavore]

One cannot say that "There is no evidence for God" without implicating oneself in having a biased criterion for what counts as metaphysical evidence (scientific/empirical evidence = metaphysical evidence).

Huh? I don't count anything as "metaphysical evidence". I'm not even sure what that actually means!

If you can show me some I'll concede your point.

This FACT -

There was a fact given here?

given that the aforementioned criterion is utterly unjustifiable via reason (in fact, it's utterly irrational to think that an observed/experienced world and a world itself are not distinct) - means that 'atheism' is no more a rational [metaphysical] perspective to hold than [say] being a Christian [or suchlike]. Which, in turn, means that being an atheist turns out to be yet another shite belief system.

"Rational" and "metaphysical" are interchangable?

That's the shortest and sharpest undermining of atheism you'll ever witness. You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Nope. The shortest, sharpest way to undermine atheism is to provide evidence for a god. It is, after all, and unlike actual beliefs, falsifiable.

Also, I was already an agnostic... and an atheist.

[Brian Peacock]

I choose to call Atheists out on their hypocrisy, unreason, irrationality and intellectual pygmyism.

Teacher teach thyself.

God, you see, (if he/she/it exists) is not a "natural phenomenon" like the expansion of water when it freezes or nuclear fission.

Assertion.

One cannot put God in a test tube and subject God to chemical analysis.

Assertion.

One cannot create an identical set of circumstances of being in bed and expect the apparition to appear as a feature of physics.

Assertion.

God, if God exists, is an intelligent being who can choose to appear or not appear, or do this or that more than once, whenever he/she/it darned well pleases.

Assertion.

It may please God not to allow Atheists to gather physical evidence of his existence such as protoplasm or DNA samples or video recordings or anything else that might constitute objective scientific proof of God's existence.

Assertion.

Why God might do so is not really relevant. What's relevant is that as a necessarily sentient being of whatever nature...

Assertion.

...God can do as God pleases with respect to providing YOU with objective scientific evidence of his/her/its existence without it being even rationally arguable that he/she/it does not exist!

Assertion.

The argument from definition: If God existed he/she/it would be an unknowable, unmeasurable, all powerful, sentient being beyond the bounds of physics and natural laws that could reveal itself to whoever it chose. The fact that atheists don't see evidence for God is therefore because God hasn't chosen to reveal itself to them--a fact which atheists must be brought to accept (presuming one's conclusion in the process)--and when atheists don't acknowledge as evidence assertions about and for God they need Seth to call them out on their hypocrisy, unreason, irrationality and intellectual pygmyism. Here endeth the lesson.

[Brian Peacock]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

the criterion is that the god as predicated and reality don't agree together. Since I can hardly disbelieve in reality, that shows that the divine is wrong, and likely inexistent.

Reality? Have you given any thought to what that is, for you? Descartes knew, and so have many others. The truth is that your entire reality is reducible to a series of personal experiences. At least, that's the foundation of what you can know about reality. This world that you believe in exists entirely within your mind. You cannot prove that it has an existence of its own, beyond that. To believe in a world existing independently of the mind/experience, is to give life to something for which there cannot ever be any proof. Therefore, you'd be wise not to describe the world as your 'reality', because the only reality you can be sure of is that of oneself... whatever that may be. From that point, your atheism has nowhere to go. It is kaput.

thanks for the world salad. Reality is objective and shared, and I rest my case.

Aye. This "I am the only thing that exists" shtick sounds an awful lot like narcissism don't it? Perhaps someone needs to step back into the Matrix and stop worrying about it?

[piscator]

I choose to call Atheists out on their hypocrisy, unreason, irrationality and intellectual pygmyism.

Teacher teach thyself.

God, you see, (if he/she/it exists) is not a "natural phenomenon" like the expansion of water when it freezes or nuclear fission.

Assertion.

One cannot put God in a test tube and subject God to chemical analysis.

Assertion.

One cannot create an identical set of circumstances of being in bed and expect the apparition to appear as a feature of physics.

Assertion.

God, if God exists, is an intelligent being who can choose to appear or not appear, or do this or that more than once, whenever he/she/it darned well pleases.

Assertion.

It may please God not to allow Atheists to gather physical evidence of his existence such as protoplasm or DNA samples or video recordings or anything else that might constitute objective scientific proof of God's existence.

Assertion.

Why God might do so is not really relevant. What's relevant is that as a necessarily sentient being of whatever nature...

Assertion.

...God can do as God pleases with respect to providing YOU with objective scientific evidence of his/her/its existence without it being even rationally arguable that he/she/it does not exist!

Assertion.

The argument from definition: If God existed he/she/it would be an unknowable, unmeasurable, all powerful, sentient being beyond the bounds of physics and natural laws that could reveal itself to whoever it chose. The fact that atheists don't see evidence for God is therefore because God hasn't chosen to reveal itself to them--a fact which atheists must be brought to accept (presuming one's conclusion in the process)--and when atheists don't acknowledge as evidence assertions about and for God they need Seth to call them out on their hypocrisy, unreason, irrationality and intellectual pygmyism. Here endeth the lesson.

[Seth]

His "truths" were simply a mixture of warm and fuzzy pop psychology, plus an astounding degree of ego-driven delusion about being related to the putative creator of the universe...

One more crazy cult leader in a land full of 'em...

You were there, were you?

[Seth]

I've never read anything that Jesus wrote. I believe there's some stuff written by some social engineers 300 years or so later.

Jesus didn't write stuff, he said stuff.

[Animavore]

His "truths" were simply a mixture of warm and fuzzy pop psychology, plus an astounding degree of ego-driven delusion about being related to the putative creator of the universe...

One more crazy cult leader in a land full of 'em...

You were there, were you?

Are you really stooping yourself to the Ken Ham level of argumentation?

I never expected that.

[Animavore]

I've never read anything that Jesus wrote. I believe there's some stuff written by some social engineers 300 years or so later.

Jesus didn't write stuff, he said stuff.

You were there, were you?