Why the Atheist doesn't exist

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2005-06-27 10:59am

A gem from fresh hope

Why the Atheist doesn't exist

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

Excerpted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists by Ray Comfort

Ugh, did you get that.. One has to wonder if Ray realizes this argument applies to almost all gods and religeons. Or that Mussolini was killed by a mob not god?

Maraxus · Post by **Maraxus** » 2005-06-27 11:05am

The main problem here is that atheists don't claim to "not know if God exists," but rather "Don't believe that God exists". There is a very large difference between those two statements.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-06-27 11:06am

what. the. fuck. ?

he missed the fucking point entirely. Atheists don't claim to know that there is no god, we simply reject the concept of a god. Moron.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-06-27 11:07am

and eveidently this twat has forgotten a little something called the goddamn burden of proof.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-06-27 11:07am

He starts off with something that can be quantified(In theory you could count every hair on that Yak, and every yak), and then says this confirms that because one doesn't know this, add a dash of famous scientist, and concludes this proves that we really don't know there is God, because we do not know ABSOLUTELY.

Failing in that honestly it's less us, and more then not one single event of supposedly God's doing cannot be explained otherwise.

Ah, well they are funny things to read and wonder why do so many try and force "You just don't know!!!", when it can be turned right back upon them.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-06-27 11:31am

Setesh wrote:A gem from fresh hope

Why the Atheist doesn't exist

There can be no such things as an atheist. This is why: Let's imagine that you are a professing atheist. Here are two questions for you to answer: First, do you know the combined weight of all the sand on all the beaches of Hawaii? We can safely assume that you don't.

We can assume the author of the article knows nothing about statistical sampling or geology. Any tool, if they knew the weight of a 1'x1'x'1 box of sand, and the approximate dimensions of each of Hawaii's beaches could come up with a reasonable approximation of the value. This, in theory, requires no more than high school maths. Not certain what this has to do with atheism though.

This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak?

Give me a square inch of yak hide and his dimensions. I can count the hairs on that single square inch of hide and scale appropriately. Again, this is simple high school math. But, I'm beginning to sense the point behind this.

Probably not. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. It is important to ask these questions because there are some people who think they know everything.

Aha, I thought so. Glad the idiot who wrote this article was willing to prove me right as if I were some sort of idiot . . . though this article is aimed more at idiots than atheists, so hmm.

Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

This is entirely irrelevant to the matter of theism. And it's an enormous logical fallacy of some sort. You don't need intimate knowledge of the universe to see how it works. An atom of silicon on Earth is going to be the same as an atom of silicon on Xanadu XVII, barring some bizarre twist in the laws of physics. It will react with oxygen to produce silicon dioxide, which is what you find in glass and grains of sand. Thus, we can assume a sandy beach on Earth will have identical properties to a similarly sandy beach on Xanadu XVII.

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?

No, there wouldn't. The author of the article made a nice fallacious appeal to authority, by the way. The author makes the mistake of assuming that somewhere out in the universe, the laws of physics cease to apply, in spite of ample evidence gathered by scientists that the universe is pretty uniform in makeup, and that hydrogen fusion that powers our sun also powers suns in galaxies 12 billion light-years away. Nor do we observe anything 12 billion light years away that would suggest that someone is blatantly violating the laws of physics, as a supernatural god must do.

If you are reasonable,

Read: If you are ignorant and easily swayed by sophistry.

you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

No, I don't have to admit it's possible. There is no room for a god in our understanding of physics, and we can reasonably assume that physics and chemistry will apply to every part of the universe. Any irregularities would show up in our measurements. Of course, if we assume that a god exists, then our measurements of the cosmos must immediately become suspect. Yet, the principle of parsimony suggests that the correct interpretation of what we see would be to say that the universe is dictated by natural principles, rather than the whole thing being an illusion created by some god.

<snip cleverly reworded repetition of author's earlier point, since they've run out of points to make.>

<snip another cleverly reworded repetition of author's earlier point, since they've run out of points to make.>

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

Argument to ignorance. This is not a proof of the existence of god by any means. It is the same old tired argument of "You can't absolutely prove that God doesn't exist right? That must mean that . . . HE EXISTS! LOL OMGWTFBBQ I WIN, U EVIL ATHEIST!!!111"

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists.

Wrong. Atheists and agnostics are two different people. An agnostic doesn't know if God exists. The atheist doesn't believe that a god exists. Clearly, the author of this piece has yet to make the acquaintence of this fascinating invention called a dictionary.

It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

Clever shift in tactics here. If it weren't done to death by every other rabid theist in the history of mankind. Now we're doing away with the pretense of assuming that we're trying to demonstrate that god exists, and assuming that the god does exist, and that one is evil and ignorant for not believing in the invisible sky-man. An agnostic might buy this argument, but a rational, thinking person would immediately dismiss it for the sophist bullshit that it is.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

Excerpted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists by Ray Comfort

And the author decides to futher stress the point that if you don't believe in God, then OMG J00R T3H 3V|111!!!!!!!!!! & GODS GONNA STRIKE U DED!!!1111

Mr. T · Post by **Mr. T** » 2005-06-27 11:37am

I read the first 3 sentences of that and knew I didn't have to go any further. My bullshit metre was already at 100%

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-06-27 11:45am

Wait. Let me get this straight. A fundie is trying to argue that atheism is the one with less facts supporting it? *breaks down laughing*

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-27 11:49am

Appeal to ignorance. Move along.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-06-27 12:29pm

and eveidently this twat has forgotten a little something called the goddamn burden of proof.

To use one of my favorite lines on the subject : "God is innocent of existence until proven guilty."

Ugh, did you get that.. One has to wonder if Ray realizes this argument applies to almost all gods and religeons.

It's worse that that - it applies to any belief that lacks evidence against it.

Were we made by aliens 10 minutes ago complete with false memory and records ?
Is a giant ball of yogurt entering the solar sytem, on course to strike earth ?
Is solispsim true, and all of you are just my personal delusions ?

All of these "beliefs" can be justified, so long as I use the same standard of logic as this fool.

What's really sad is, I'm sure a lot of people look as this garbage and say "Ooo, how profound ! You really show those atheists, you did !"

[/quote]

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-06-27 12:58pm

Since the Bible states that God is omnipresent, His influence should be observable everywhere, so this guy's jackassery fails on even theological grounds.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-06-27 02:09pm

Seriously folks, is there something worth talking about here? This is just the same appeal to ignorance fallacy that theists use over and over again, only this one consumes more bits.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-06-27 02:14pm

I don't understand how he can compare an atheist to a thief. Atheists don't find god for the same reasons thieves don't find policemen? So thieves don't find policement because they haven't enough evidence for their existence?

How does that follow?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-06-27 02:19pm

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

Yes indeed, I like this "logic" a lot. I intend to apply it in a different manner. You skeptics may say "Salma Hayek is *not* waiting for Chmee to make sweet love to her in a canopy bed somewhere in Los Angeles ..." but until you've actually visited every bedroom in Los Angeles, you cannot truthfully make this assertion.

Salma honey, I'm coming, you just keep the champagne on ice.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-06-27 02:21pm

The really sad thing is that when you simply replace "God" with "Santa Claus" or some other silly idea in that argument, they retort with "but that's completely different". What's sad is that they're never able to explain why the logic doesn't fit, yet they're still convinced that they're right.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2005-06-27 03:39pm

The sheer arrogance of the title is probable the most obnoxious thing about this garbage - "Why the Atheist doesn't exist".

Yoo Hoo ! I'm over here !!

This fool may not like me, but he can't casually define me out of existence. In fact, if my existence offends his sense of how the world is supposed to work, I find that quite satisfiing.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-06-27 04:05pm

Q: Does God exist?
A: We don't know, so he does!

Man, I wish everyday life was so easy.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2005-06-27 04:26pm

Mr. T wrote:I read the first 3 sentences of that and knew I didn't have to go any further. My bullshit metre was already at 100%

Ugh. Good thing you didn't. It brained my damage.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-06-27 08:36pm

They're confusing knowledge with belief, mainly because they're morons.

Omniscience is not required to make conclusions, or form beliefs based on what little is known, the truth of the matter is, there is simply no reason to not assume naturalism. Nature, the innate, unthought procession of that which exists is all that's known to exist thus far, and it appears to work. People have added imaginary beings onto it, through the ages, but none of them are realistic.

As soon as they get a good reason to include such beings in "the natural order," there will be less atheists. Too bad there are no such reasons, just inane prattle from archaic goatfuckers and their modern ideological pimps.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-06-27 10:36pm

Variations of this bullshit gets sprouted on SB.com to justify that atheism takes as much "faith" as theism.

Their line of thinking can be summed up as

1) one does not have "all knowledge"
2) thus one cannot prove / disprove God
3) To believe or disbelieve God therefore requires faith.

The flaw seems to be in their premise, that one needs "absolute knowledge" to draw conclusions. They then follow up this rhetorical trick with

4) If one has absolute knowledge (ie the ability to know everything at every point in time) then this would disprove atheism, as that being with absolute knowledge is God.

Of course they seem to assume that this hypothetical being with absolute knowledge also just happens to have omnipotence and other characteristics associated with God, which is a non-sequitar.

Using their "logic" against themselves

1) Puff the magic dragon killed God and gained his omnscience
2) Since we don't have "absolute knowledge", to believe God is alive / dead requires faith
3) the only way to know for sure is if were that being with absolute knowledge, in which case you would be Puff the magic dragon, thus proving the God is dead.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2005-06-28 06:47am

What benifit does the denying the existince of atheist's get them ?

If someone decides that I'm an agnostic instead of an atheist, I would argue with them for a bit, then if I don't get anywhere I will concede that point as it doesn't change who I am. I still am an atheist, and I don't care what they call me.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2005-06-28 11:04am

My favorite retort is:
"Great. I don't give a shit."
That usually gets them to shut up.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-28 11:10am

The one I usually use is the simple fact that all religions are equally unreliable and unprovable, and that agnosticism is the only one free of religion at all. However, logically, if a man said he didn't know if there was or was not a god, and there's absolutely no evidence that actually shows there to be, then a reasonable man would make the assumption that said god doesn't exist, the same way any reasonable person doesn't believe in invisible ghosts running around causing people to do evil things. In fact, believing in god is less logical then believing in bigfoot, in this respect, as there are blurry pictures of bigfoot, and no blurry pictures of god.

Alliance SpecForceTrooper · Post by **Alliance SpecForceTrooper** » 2005-06-28 05:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:The really sad thing is that when you simply replace "God" with "Santa Claus" or some other silly idea in that argument, they retort with "but that's completely different".

Not always. I had a rather devout Catholic friend who confided that its pretty much a grand old crap shoot. Its just as likely there is no afterlife or that you reach the Halls of Valhalla and find yourself right fucked at the end.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-06-28 05:29pm

Alliance SpecForceTrooper wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The really sad thing is that when you simply replace "God" with "Santa Claus" or some other silly idea in that argument, they retort with "but that's completely different".
Not always. I had a rather devout Catholic friend who confided that its pretty much a grand old crap shoot. Its just as likely there is no afterlife or that you reach the Halls of Valhalla and find yourself right fucked at the end.

Don't devout Catholics typically buy into the line about heaven and being born again through Jesus hook line and sinker? Most devout religious followers tend to not question their faith in such a fashion. afaik.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why the Atheist doesn't exist

Why the Atheist doesn't exist

Re: Why the Atheist doesn't exist