Atheism is nonsense and atheists are irrational in their claims

I'm just going to quote some words of mine from some recent correspondence I had with one of the forum members here. When writing, I realized what I wrote didn't just apply to his positions as an atheist but to the positions many other atheists adopt as well. I've reworded it to refer to the general position of the atheist now.

From what I've seen many atheists and their positions are brought on clearly from their emotional hatred towards organized religions and belief that evolution somehow debunks God (it doesn't). Others reason that atheism is the "default position" and therefore requires no argument or evidence and that theism solely has the burden of proof. Then you have "emotional atheists" who reject all notions of reason and logic and simply argue that a god could not exist because bad things happen. Finally there are those who say "I examined the natural world and concluded God could not exist" not realizing their own conclusions are based on faith. There is nothing in the natural world to positively affirm that a god doesn't exist.

• For the first argument, religion means nothing really here when we're arguing about theism. The refutation of all the world's religions would still mean nothing since theism itself as a concept exists independently of religion. Evolution simply explains the origin of species and their variation, nothing more and so has no bearing on the existence of a god.
• For the second argument, saying atheism is the "default position" is a cop-out. Voltaire reasoned against this long ago, the true default position is nothing. A baby has no knowledge of theism, atheism or god to either believe or disbelieve. To disbelieve in God, you first must become aware of the concept and make an decision on the matter (either consciously or unconsciously) therefore atheism is not the default position. To make this claim simply shows the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of the atheists who claim it. All positions require the burden of proof whether negative or positive. Saying "God doesn't exist" requires evidence or an argument just like saying "God does exist."
• The third argument is an argument I often see from atheists against God's existence, they say that bad things happening disprove God which is the classic emotional argument that just doesn't work. From deism's viewpoint especially, this emotional argument is just chucked out of the window. God's non-interaction proves nothing here if you can't formulate a model / prove how the laws manifested themselves from nothing or how matter originated from nothingness. Debunking God would require some proof to declare that we didn't need a god for the origin of all matter.
• For the forth argument, you still have your burden of proof to bare especially when you go around making claims like "the universe arose from nothing" and "the laws assembled themselves, this is likely because of the hypothetical infinite monkey theorem which of course has no evidence but I believe it anyway..." either back these claims up with empirical evidence or at least some observational evidences. To date no atheist can because this atheist position is based on nothing more than faith. If you make the claim that nothing in nature affirms God's existence and this proves he doesn't exist, then the theist can make the same argument as I have above about there being nothing to affirm the positive atheist's position of a uncaused universe from nothingness which could form the laws by itself as well as manifest matter from nothingness.

Most of atheism's arguments seem to be truly based on emotion or fallacious reasoning. Worst are the ones that employ cowardice and ask the theist to affirm their position as if they have the sole burden of proof. Atheists try to escape from this burden by religiously declaring "you can't prove a negative" but many proofs exist for where you can, asides from things like models and formulas proving this (such as Arrow's Impossibility theorem), there is also a practical example of a cat in a room. The positive claim would be "the cat is the room" the negative claim would be "the cat is not in the room" opening the door and going into the room to find that the cat is not in the room would prove the negative claim.

Much of atheism's position is based on "absence of evidence" but as the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and in a universe where we haven't even left our own solar system yet, a universe that is constantly expanding, a universe that might as well be infinitely big to us, a universe that might just be a tiny bubble in an even bigger bubble with all different dimensions, it's ridiculous for the atheist to try to use observational evidence to debunk God here. To say "God does not exist" based on him not physically appearing in our limited view of the universe is as ridiculous as saying "life on other planets does not exist" and to truly be sure of this position on God, we would need to explore every inch of the universe and beyond. If the multiverse is real then that will be impossible since you're looking at exploring an infinite set of universes and dimensions.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. To quote Marcellow Truzzi, "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof." Likewise the negative hypothesis that "there is no god" requires proof something atheists cannot provide because there is no good proof or arguments against a god.

Of course at this point the atheist uses the classic and childish "flying spaghetti monster! invisible pink unicorn!" argument to try and reason that if you believe in God then you cannot deny anything not realizing that the these two concepts simply do not compare to God. These arguments argue about the possibility of these law-defying and biologically impossible creatures existing in our universe (which as the phrases I used to refer to them suggest, they are law defying so could not exist on their own in our universe) whereas God is a concept, used to explain the origin of matter. Also, I might add, that with science far into the future, who knows, we might be able to create a living creature with food and inanimate material, we could also find a one horned animal (perhaps a deer that suffered a mutation), paint it pink and use technology to turn it invisible (and invisibility remains something that is nearly very possible in current science). Really, the first explanation I gave was enough to explain why involving these two creatures is stupid in itself but the second argument I came up with just says if these things are possible within science and remain plausible as far as science is concerned then the atheist cannot deny God using these fallacious concepts.

With this all said then, the atheist should really be taking an agnostic position instead of the position many atheists on this site (and web wide over who are part of the "new atheism" movement) take. The agnostic position obviously being "I don't know" instead of the atheist position "there is no god" because as my arguments have proved, this claim in itself requires omniscient knowledge of the universe and beyond or empirical evidence which no one has ever provided. Atheism too has the burden of proof to provide which it cannot and at the very least, it should be able to prove its counter-claims to prove how a universe could truly come from nothingness (it hasn't).

And please don't use that silly "atheism is just a lack of belief in a god" nonsense. By now we all know atheism is on a spectrum and that here I'm explicitly arguing against the atheism that declares "there's probably" or "there's no" god.

So I don't care about how much you hate religion or The God of The Bible and I don't care if you have dreams of The God of The Bible running over your cat in a Ferrari that was paid for with the blood of a million goats. With religion out of the way, I want you atheists to tell me, a non-religious theist, others of my type, deists and agnostics why we should deny that a god could exist and accept atheism? Because by all the means I have argued here, you shouldn't be that type of atheist unless you have evidence no one could possibly possesses. If you can't prove your claims, then it's about time you admit your atheism is an irrational position and that you're irrational for claiming the position as truth.

My post may not be the most elegant but then I'm not a pseudo-intellectual like many atheists, so I'll just break everything down here.

If you want prove that your atheistic position is right then do the following things:

• Give empirical evidence that proves how the universe, matter and space could truly originate from nothingness as Lawrence Krauss speculates in his faith-based model. It wouldn't debunk God but it could certainly set atheism up with scientific foundations since it shows the universe could arise without a god and arguably establish it truly as the default position. It was also change the landscape of physics as we know it. To date there is no empirical evidence that has been provided to support this position that atheists persist with and what's more, from our current standpoint, observational evidence is against matter arising from nothingness. Many physics illiterate atheists argue that the example of particles arising from the vacuum of space is proof but fail to realize the vacuum is not truly empty, it is devoid of matter but contains energy so it is not empty.
• Show how the laws of the universe could truly formulate themselves without a mind. The properties we observe within this fine tuned universe are consistent with one another to a remarkable degree that is impossible for nature to replicate.
• Give a real model of the infinite monkey theorem that can prove that "given enough time the universe will create itself with perfect conditions" not just your faith that this is possible.

These things most be proven for the materialistic atheist ideology of many atheists to be true. Using atheist logic, I can now say theism is right on account of the absence of evidence for these beliefs above, much more so when the beliefs above also fail scientific method.

In the end what real argument or evidences does the atheist have against the First Cause God (that is mentioned solely in philosophy) other than emotional gibberish? With this god we have something that agrees with many observational evidences of the world such as causality making theism then the more plausible scenario. It's the classic argument but still yet to be refuted by atheists who use red herrings to avoid it. You know the argument: the universe has a beginning, all beginnings have a cause therefore the universe came from something, that something probably being a god (a life force, something intelligent) on account of the fine tuning of the universe and that something being eternal because you cannot have an infinite chain of self-creating gods/universes because without a beginning there is no start and therefore there would be nothing.

I've lurked on this forum for years and for years all I've seen is atheists attacking religions and the religious and demanding the religious to answer their questions, all while spewing venomous nonsense and insults revealing their irrational anger towards religion and the religious (which only reinforces my belief that most atheists are atheists for emotional reasons and aren't rational at all).

It's about time you answered questions and proved your philosophy and ideology instead of resorting to intellectual cowardice and claiming that the theist needs to prove their position alone. Since I've done away with the "absence of evidence" and "burden of proof" you atheists are so fond of yelling to avoid defending your own position, you now have to give a real reason about how your position is likely and why all the world should turn atheist.

Somehow I doubt I'll get anything productive but if I see something worth responding to, I will.

every man is free to think about this topic . but there is 0 or 1. true or false ,and each opinion eliminate the other. like the darkness and the ligth we have to choose , wich one is the rigth way for human beings

I actually agree with most of what you've written. I think it's important to point out, however, that you've merely pointed out the flaws in reasoning many might have for being atheist. It sounds like you believe that you have refuted it altogether, which is an entirely different matter. What's strange to me is why you think that everyone needs to believe the same thing. Why does the entire world need to be atheist?

In regards to the burden of proof, it's important to acknowledge that the argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. It supports what you've said about anyone's arguments that God absolutely and undoubtedly does not and cannot exist because believers cannot present evidence of his existence to support their claims. However, the argument from ignorance is a double-edged sword. Your argument that their lack of proof of God not existing does not prove that God exists either. And to boot, neither does the fact that they may have used a logical fallacy to support their beliefs. The fact of the matter is, without proof to prove whether God exists one way or the other, or otherwise stated, the complete and utter inability to make a factual statement in either direction, it is much more safe to assume that God does not exist. Why? Because there is no reason to suggest that God exists at all. In this way, believing in God, from an atheists perspective, is like believing that you are the only true human being on earth, and everybody else is a robot... or that there is a subterranean race of humanoid creatures living beneath our feet right at this second. Or, that Big Foot exists, or any other urban legend.

You've touched on the fact that we are only able to make assumptions about things. There is nothing that we can absolutely know, only that we are pretty sure we know. Every "fact" we've come to understand about our reality is in fact an assumption. However, to use that as evidence that anything can be real, or that nothing is real, is foolish. The idea that anything can be real, that God or Big Foot can and do exist because we aren't even sure of what it is that we think we're sure of, makes no sense. The idea that nothing is real makes sense, but it isn't practical and does not work as an argument--for any reason. Sure, given the nature of reality, there's a possibility that nothing is real, because we only observe things from a subjective perspective. We can never be sure of reality. However, using logic and reasoning (you know, higher brain function), we can make very sound and reasonable assumptions that, given past experiences and even new experiences we can test, prove to be reliable. So, using the argument that we aren't sure of anything is a cop-out, it's merely a measure of last resort--it's the death throes of somebody's failing arguments.

So again, now that we've established that we can and do make reasonable assumptions about the world, and covered the bit about the argument from ignorance fallacy, we can pretty much tie it all together. There is no way of testing for God's existence. The fact that we have to "go on faith" in order to believe reasonable assumptions all the time is a fallacious argument, as I've already pointed out. After going on faith once initially, we are rewarded with an experience reaffirming our faith, tested rigorously and under controlled conditions in order to weed out any factors that may be influencing what it is we think we are experiencing. The fact is, we can scientifically test everything we come to say that we "know" and do. We simply cannot test for God. Therefore, to say God exists makes no sense.

Now, here is where I deviate from atheists personally, as a someone who tries to see the world through reason and logic. The statements, "We simply cannot test for God. Therefore, to say God exists makes no sense." are true, however they are incomplete. The final missing conclusion is that we also cannot say that God does not exist. We can't say one way or the other. So, when we are strictly speaking of belief of whether or not God exists (or even can exist), the agnostic view point is the most reasonable. Agnostic is what I would label myself. However, it still stands to reason that, without any evidence or reason to believe in God, it is fair to say that God most likely does not exist. When it comes to practical purposes, such as making a humanitarian decision, politics, or some other matter that effects human lives, it is far safer to assume that God does not exist and much more fair. With no empirical data proving God's existence, it really is illogical to let his supposed existence influence our actions and decisions when it comes to interacting with one another. From here, I will make a second post to break up my points of discussion. The first post here was made to point out the fallacies and inconsistencies in some of your own arguments. Next I want to comment on why it doesn't make sense to allow God to influence human interaction. I'm going to challenge you, farwhen, to read what I say with an open mind. I want you to counter what I say (if you disagree), and try and explain why you believe differently. However, if your beliefs infringe on the rights of others, I'm going to let you know now that I automatically disagree with your point of view. While I believe it is fine to believe whatever you want, anything relating to your beliefs that controls what others say, think, or do is the same to me as tyranny.

Now, for what I think about God influencing human interaction. God is a concept that, without being passed on from generation to generation, would not exist. With nothing but a book (with hand selected entries and many revisions) and your community to go on, how can you determine God, in fact, exists? Now, your belief isn't any of my business, not until it comes to how you treat other human beings. But, without any kind of concrete evidence at all (let's face it, the community is made of people, and people are wrong all the time--the holy book is merely text, and books of fiction do exist, and even history has been fudged... all in all a single book is poor evidence of anything), there is no reason your belief in His existence should impact how others are treated in society, or how you are treated by society. Your faith is something deeply personal, and something like that isn't bad at all. You can't be blamed for something as harmless as a belief. Of course, so long as that belief does not impact anybody but you. So, why is it that law should be influenced by faith? Why should a personal belief impact millions and even billions of others that have different personal beliefs of their own? Why should abortion be illegal when complications with the pregnancy can permanently affect the mother, even kill her? Now, I'm not trying to get an abortion debate going, you don't have to be religious to be against it. I'm just saying that if faith alone is what is determining your opinion, it's a mistake. Something many shades of grey can be turned black and white because something as simple as the word of God gets thrown into the mix. Let's look at Sharia Law. Why should women be genitally mutilated, or forced to cover up entirely or else be blamed for any sexual assault or misconduct at the hands of a man? Let's look at most mainstream religions. Why should being gay be a sin? Most of the time, it's arguable, one's own insecurity or feelings of disgust are the true meaning for discrimination against homosexuals and God is simply used as an excuse (which in my eyes is pretty sinful). Killing, throughout history, has not only been in the name of God, but commanded by God.

Now, I'm not going to blame modern Christians for the crusades or moderate Muslims for Jihad or anything like that. To do so makes no sense and destroys any point I'm trying to make. At that point, I would simply be attacking strawmen in an effort to build "evidence" for an ad hominem argument. It would be like blaming all modern white people (that may have even recently moved to America from Europe or something) for the slavery of blacks. The point I am trying to make with those examples is to provide examples throughout history that a simple concept with no basis in reality (that still may wind up being true for all we know) has led to major tragedies and transgressions of human rights.

The way I see it, and I think many people would agree, is that the reason for doing something is equally as important as the result of doing it. However, an unverifiable concept being not only a minor influence, but often an overriding factor in many decisions that have led to terrible outcomes is no good reason for the outcomes they led to. God told me to kill those people, God told me to enslave this inferior race, God told me I had to save the world... these are no better than saying that The Catcher in the Rye told you to kill John Lennon, or that your belief that Jews are evil and control the world's economy is what led you to systematically exterminate them. Personal beliefs that have no way of being verified simply don't cut it when it comes to giving a reason why you did something evil.

I'm the type that prefers to treat everything the same unless there is some good reason stating why things shouldn't be that way. I like to have an open mind, and I prefer that the least amount of freedom be afforded in favor of "security" or "safety" be taken. I'm also very pragmatic, if something isn't practical, and doesn't have a good reason for being impractical, it doesn't make sense. I have no problem with people believing in God, my family believes in God, I believe in God in a very unassuming and simple way (much different than any institutionalized religion), and I know and am friends with many people that both believe and do not believe in God. I think that religion (or rather certain religions) at its core actually has positive values to offer society, but unfortunately for those values, they are greatly overshadowed by the negative values it imposes on society. Most of the negative values can be accounted for by sheer ignorance alone, but human nature ruins any good that institutionalized religion has to offer. If religion were a purely personal matter, without a set of politics to go with it, it would be another story. Too many believers focus on what others are doing, and how wrong it is. If they could simply mind their own business (which honestly they need to take a look at themselves first, I'm sure they'll find somebody just as flawed as the person that they were criticizing, ostracizing, or damning), no one would have a problem. When it comes to Christianity, at least in America, too many people don't even know what their own Bible says. Neither do the atheists quoting it and demonizing it, but to be fair, the Christians without a clue bring it on themselves for not knowing. The Old Testament is the Old Testament for a reason. The New Testament at its most basic is about atonement. The whole point is to quit stoning sinners, to quit hating each other and wronging each other, treat each other how we'd treat ourselves, and to forgive each other for the wrongs we have committed in the past. I don't know enough about other religions to really comment on them beyond my major points of not letting the unverifiable concept of God influence how society treats people.

With so many different perspectives on who and what God is, and what he says, there is no place for God except in the hearts and minds of those who believe in Him. So, do you see my point farwhen? Do you agree with me? If not, why is what you believe any different than a tyrannical government imposing its will on its people? What possible reason other than "it's God we're talking about" that makes dictating what others can and cannot do more than, well, a dictatorship?

Snoop touched on a number of things that I agree with (as well as a number of which I don't :P) so I will await your response on him. These are the things I would like to add in the meanwhile:

First of all I have to say I am a little bit offended by the OP. You grossly misrepresent atheism by cherry picking a few idea's from some atheists and thereby claiming atheism as a whole is nonsense. And no, a small quote in the middle of your post does not exclude you from this at all.

Quote:

---

And please don't use that silly "atheism is just a lack of belief in a god" nonsense. By now we all know atheism is on a spectrum and that here I'm explicitly arguing against the atheism that declares "there's probably" or "there's no" god.

---

If this is in fact what you try to adress then actually adress it in your title as upposed to the frankly ridiculous claim it is now. Or at the very least mention it somewhere in your intro (which would still be misleading tbh, but at least a little better). As it stands right now you are contradicting yourself by saying you only adress that small part, as in fact you don't. You're adressing a lot more than that.

Ok let me continue with less emotion now.

As snoop also touched on:
God cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. Yes, I'll give you that. This however by no means disproves atheism or proves theism.

Also note that new atheism doesn't disprove god but rather tries to prove that there is no need for a god. They do this by disproving as many claims from religious instances such as the virgin birth of christ and stuff like that. New atheism is a war on religion rather than god being only a kickstarter of the universe.

To be honest I find it very odd and questionable that you actually found a large portion of atheists that think god has officially been disproven. I know a lot of atheist, none of which have that belief.

With that said I think it is rather important that we are talking about the same things here. First of all, what do you mean when you say god? Do you solely believe in the god as a kickstarted of the universe or is god something more? What about religion? I see a lot of arguments of snoop pointed towards religion, yet I think you are talking about theism as a whole am I right?

Then there is the matter of atheism. What is atheism? I feel like we have a rather different view of atheism here. And seeing as there is no one definition of atheism all atheists abide by I think it would be best if all parties just showed their hands on their perspective on atheism. Let me start by my view, which actually also includes agnosticism:
The Atheistic spectrum is a rather large one. I would argue there is only 2 ways to go here. Either theism or atheism. Theism goes from believing in god as a start of the universe all the way to believing in millions of gods with who knows what kind of powers. Atheism going from believing there is absolutely no god, all the way to thinking that there more likely is no god. Snoop for example would classify as an agnostic atheist in my eyes.

I hope you will answer questions to me as well as snoop. I did see you have some good references, so I have good hope we can make a nice logical consversation here.

PS: I do have to say that in the end you still said (as pointed to in the quote above) that you are arguing against the atheism that declares there's probably no god (putting aside the "there is absolutely no god" part which I adressed already). Which in the end you simply did not. You only made argues against the "absolutely no god" kind of atheism. What are your arguments for that part of your claim?

pps: If you truely only see god as a kickstarter of the universe then I don't think your idea is far off from your average atheist. We just call it the big bang rather than god.

I might dive into this thread later (key word: might), but I used to argue for the position that atheism is the default position, for the reasons you've stated.

I, and others, would say that with the most basic definition, atheism is just a "lack of belief." It only requires implicit nonbelief, not a positive or explicit nonbelief. It's a bit of a weasel argument, because it's true, but only trivially so. Yes, technically babies or small children are atheists because they have neither the experience nor knowledge to understand what a deity is (something that adults lack too, arguably), much less believe in its existence. Of course, this is true of non-human animals too. And inanimate objects. Are they at all relevant to matters of human beliefs? No, but that doesn't make the argument persuasive. It's a "no shit" argument. Trivially true. Unpersuasive. A cop out indeed, and one that I used to argue for all the time (check my post history).

But then I gradually came to the understanding that expanding the definition to be so broad makes it rather meaningless in the context of discussion.

My two cents for now.