Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

But you haven't given evidence of existence. What you've shown is things that lack explanation. To you, to some, to many. And because they lack explanation, simple or otherwise, you make the assumption that god fills in that explanation. Or because it can not be explained or proven, it is god.

 

Link me to the actual post and failure to rebut. I am reading back and don't see it.

I am learning about something I don't know and I have questions and arguments on what I believe are contradictions. Arrogance would actually be you claiming I don't have a valid argument or concern because you have been taught in the field and you just know way more than me. I hope you see the contradiction there.

That would be like me telling you that you are wrong because you question some verse in the Bible and you haven't professed your faith in God. That would be arrogance on my part.

And I use only wikipedia, and lets say "youtube" because it seems like it is openly accepted in this forum. Denny uses it all the time; yet you don't call him arrogant. Funny how you ignore that fallacy.

Thanks for stating your opinion.

 

OMG really? I have talked about things becoming organized or fine tuned; which from what I've read; is impossible for the laws of physics. "Fine tuning" is design or can be argued designed; therefor the possibility of a designer can be logically an answer. Tell me that in this context that isn't evidence?

And once again; I have brought up that there is no evidence that supports life (living organisms) can be produced without life (living organisms). And the rebuttal wasn't even close to disproving that. If that's the case; then a designer logically can be. Tell me that in this context that isn't evidence?

 

It's evidence that there isn't an answer to a question, and you filled in your belief in god to answer it for you. That is not evidence of existence. Because there is no evidence currently that life can not be created without life does not prove god. It could very easily be that the answer has not yet been discovered. Before the "discovery" of gravity, was the fact that we did not float away into space proof of god? you might say yes. And someone else couldn't really disprove it. Could they? But you can see how it isn't PROOF.

 

Quoting YouTube and Wikipedia isn't itself arrogant. Neither is raising questions about something that is new to you. However, assuming that your experiences on YouTube and Wikipedia have adequately equipped you to argue the usage of scientific principles that others in the conversation have been studying for a decade -- yeah, I call that arrogant. You keep saying that you are here to learn, and you want to be educated, but your attitude has been one of rhetorical invincibility.

My original response to your arguments was post #99. Your following rebuttal did not even respond to a single one of the flaws I pointed out.

 

You just described what I've been trying to describe for the past 100 or so posts. A blind man cannot provide evidence to prove the color purple doesn't exist. We can only gather as much of "what we know"; question it and find the logical answer. Saying God designed the Universe can actually be "logical" in the context of my questions. You want black and white answers; I am giving you the option of gray areas.

Your comments are no better than some Christian that is telling you are wrong because you have no evidence God doesn't exist. See where I'm going here? That is the same the other way around. Just because it now goes against your beliefs, you are pissed it's being brought up. All of these questions have been the same questions I've received from people that don't believe in God.

You have faith that God doesn't exist. I have faith God does exist. And true atheism must disprove God in order to be logical; and Christians or other theists need faith in order to believe God.

BUT.... A Christian can question science; just as much as an atheist. They have just as much entitlement to give "REAL QUESTIONS" and ask for "REAL ANSWERS". And the same for Atheists questioning "God". Do you understand?

 

No that's what you are seeing. Now lets tone this down a bit. Let's say you are the teacher and I am the student. I want to learn and I've done my own research either it be youtube, internet or reading books from PhDs in the field. I could be far from being right; but if I ask the questions in the manner that can be answered; then how is that arrogance. I've said this so many times. This isn't about what is right or wrong. We are questioning a belief. This would be just the same as one of you questioning me and my belief in God.

It's not my fault that I don't agree with the answers. I am reading them very carefully and trying to understand them. In fact, I've tried to repeat the answers as how I interpret it carefully to make sure I am answering the right question to me. That isn't arrogance; that is giving respect... I would like that same respect...

 

I am not saying your belief is wrong. I am simply saying you are wrong in believing that you have proven his existence. You have not provided proof. Yet you keep stating that you have. You have provided questions without a specific answer you are looking for, as I said, and filled in that gap with your belief in god. That's fine.
As for me needing to prove god does not exist to prove atheism, well, that has been mentioned many times, in this and other threads as being a stupid expectation. As has been said, you can not prove unicorns do not exist. You do not have to have a belief system in them. You can just say you do not believe in them. Do you believe in unicorns? No? Well that's not a sound belief. Prove yourself that it is a sound belief.
True atheism doesn't have to prove anything, the same way true belief in god doesn't have to prove anything. I don't believe in god. Do I have a 100% answer? Nope. I don't believe in him though. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone to not believe in something. You believe in god. Do you have 100% proof. No, you have your belief. And explaining it to me or anyone isn't a requirement for you to hold that belief. I can say here is why I don't believe in god. But, unlike this thread, I wouldn't start a thread saying, essentially, here's why you're an idiot for having as belief that isn't a belief. That's pretty arrogant. Especially when you have ignored people smarter than you telling you why your scientific proof of the existence of god, or the lack of existence of atheism, is false, or faulty science.

 

I responded to post 99. But I saw this after.

You said I was wrong on the first rebuttal; but didn't explain why. So yeah I ignored it. How can I respond when I don't even know what to respond to.

And the second law was explained on another rebuttal that I thought explained yours. I can find it and paste it for you. I am trying to avoid saying the same thing to different people. Have you read the others?

 

How is that giving respect?

If a math teacher is telling me how a calculation works, and I don't get it, or say I just don't agree, and continue to just say, though i don't know, I disagree, even though you know more than me and have studied, I disagree, then it is a complete lack of respect.
In a similar fashion, though i don't believe in god, or believe that th ebible is the word of god, I wouldn't argue with someone that tells me what th ebible has printed in it. I have read it. I have not studied it as well as many. It would be disrespectful and arrognat for me to say I think the bible says god is coming to kill us all, and someone who has studied said no, it doesn't, you are reading the passages incorrectly, here is what that states, and I say no, I disagree. That's respect, because I want to learn? Bullshit.

 

Prove to me George Washington existed. You, I nor anyone in here hasn't seen George Washington; so no one can prove anything. What you can do is give evidence of his existence; via pictures, eye witnesses of the time; documents that are signed by him; and historical evidence of his existence.

One can't prove or disprove God exists. We can only find evidence that supports he does or doesn't exist. I hope you know the difference.

An Atheist believes God doesn't exist. That means the atheist must find evidence to support that claim. A Christian must provide evidence that God exists. A Christian cannot prove that God exists. There is a HUGE difference.

 

Well, I agree with you here.

 

With that type of thinking; you have discredited every pioneer in science, art and philosophy. It is "free thinking" of those that question things and seek the evidence to give them a firm belief. One that says "Oh well Dr. Meatball said it, so I better not question it" would be a fallacy of progress.

 

Just the evidence that supports the straw man of your thinking. Of course you agree with something that doesn't have to be logical, as long as it supports your belief.

 

Ok, I hear you.

What grates isn't that you are asking the questions, or even that you are suggesting answers. It is that you seem to readily admit not knowing much about physics in one breath, and then proudly proclaiming your physics-based arguments untouched in the next.

You DO have some arguments there -- they are well-known philosophical arguments. But, as tempting as it may be, you can't shoehorn the laws of thermodynamics, which were developed based on the behavior of the everyday world around us, into an argument for what was true at the beginning of the universe. We don't know what the rules of the game were at that incredible moment. Hell, we don't even have all of the correct rules of the game for right here and right now, let alone at the dawn of time.

 

the strawman of my thinking? I said I agree christians can not prove he exists. You said it. I agree with you. I have no idea what this side tangent is. Sorry.

 

Okay I do apologize. Sorry for the disrespect on that regard. But I truly haven't found the evidence that explains this.

If you guys wouldn't mind; I will try and organize my second 3 arguments. It's gonna take some time to get it ready. I will post them on the OP and the last post on this thread. So you can see it's up.

 

Cool then you can agree that Atheists cannot prove God exists?

 

1) I said that human ignorance is not proof for God, and never has been. You cannot simply say "we don't understand that, therefore it must be an all-powerful being". As evidence, take any number of natural phenomena that used to be considered magical, divine, and inexplicable -- lightning, chemical reactions, magnets... All of these were, at one point or another, complete mysteries. They are not any more. This is solid evidence that we cannot simply assume that mysterious phenomena will never be explained.

2) You responded to a different criticism of your 2nd law argument -- not mine.

 

burden of proof.
You can't disprove unicorns, but can still believe they do not exist.