Atheism is irrational
phukyanks
Published
03/18/2014
Moderator do please do NOT delete this blog, i have just copy/paste from debate.org, but i am the owner of those arguments as you can see in my profile: About me : "Otherwise known as phukyanks from ebw"
https://www.debate.org/andymcstab/
agnostic
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
theism
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
atheism
The assumption or conclusion "there is no God"
Positive Atheism:-
To consciously affirm "there is no God" is clearly irrational and cannot be supported by the evidence required to substantiate such certainty. The positive atheist will try to provide localized evidence to support their belief, or "non belief".
This is usually along the lines of:
"There have been 10'000 different religions in history, all of them telling us to worship different, mutually exclusive Gods, if they all contradict each other then the vast majority are necessarily wrong. At-least 9'999 are the construct of mans mind so I think it is reasonable to assume considering we have no positive evidence for any God, that there is no God"
Or the less refined:
"XYZ were just a bunch of sheep herders, they invented God for societal control. No miracle has ever been scientifically substantiated, least not the Jesus zombie"
The problem with these kind of arguments is that atheism doesn't pertain to religion, only to God. And it is not a claim about man-made Gods, which would obviously be self defeating, it is a universal statement about God.
A universal claim can never substantiate itself by refuting a localized/specialized claim such as Christianity.
It is the same as if I were to espouse my universal disbelief of Ghosts, and rationalize this by arguing that your Mama who claims there is a Ghost in her kitchen is provably insane. Maybe your Mama is insane but to substantiate my universal disbelief I need to show that the fundamental concept of Ghosts is incoherent, not your Mama. No Atheist is capable of this, so they often then retreat and try to argue for....
Implicit atheism (or atheism by default):-
This argument usually sounds something like:
"Atheism, being passive 'non-belief' is the original position of all humans before they are indoctrinated into religion"
The problem with this is that passive "non-belief", is covered entirely by agnosticism. A person can only hold passive "non belief", by possessing no knowledge to affirm or disconfirm. This is the definition of agnosticism.
"Non belief", is also not the true meaning of the word atheism. Atheism is the position of assuming or concluding disbelief in God, to any degree of certainty. This is the historical definition of atheism from the greek "atheos", "no Gods", used to describe people who positively rejected the Greek Gods of the day. (Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God.)
One can passivly hold "non belief". A new born baby has "non belief", in Jesus Christ, for example, because he has never been exposed to the notion. A new born baby cannot have disbelief though, as disbelief is a rejection of a proposition on the basis of truth. The baby cannot reject something he never heard of.
"Atheist" today is a word much contended and I am sure ebw atheists can provide definitions such as:
"noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
1.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
However i can provide many definitions such as
"ATHEIST
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
One who believes that there is no deity"
The variety of definitions is a symptom of the fact that there has been a concerted effort to change the definition of atheism.
I can find plenty of historical definitions of Atheism which match mine. Such as the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary: "A'THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being."
But I defy anyone to find a definition mirroring "lacks belief" which is older than 20 years.
Due to 9/11 and certain outspoken scientists, atheism has become fashionable. But it has also been found to be logically lacking, so the efforts to defend atheism have led to a movement to redefine the word. These efforts both encroach on the meaning of agnosticism (we will talk more about this later) and open a spot in the English language for a new word to describe the position always ascribed to "atheist" - positive disbelief in God.
The next step of retreat for the atheist is usually towards the sanctuary of....
Agnostic Atheism:-
This is a person who is a real Atheist at heart, who holds that there is no God, but he simply cannot rationalize that far so thinks a softening prefix will somehow make his position respectable.
It doesn't. An agnostic maintains that there is nothing that is known about the existence of God, which necessarily makes agnosticism incompatible with atheism.
If one believes that nothing is or can be known about the existence of God, one can have no rationale to support his atheistic assumption. If one believes that nothing is or can be known about the existence of God, he expressly admits his atheism is irrational.
https://www.debate.org/andymcstab/
agnostic
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
theism
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
atheism
The assumption or conclusion "there is no God"
Positive Atheism:-
To consciously affirm "there is no God" is clearly irrational and cannot be supported by the evidence required to substantiate such certainty. The positive atheist will try to provide localized evidence to support their belief, or "non belief".
This is usually along the lines of:
"There have been 10'000 different religions in history, all of them telling us to worship different, mutually exclusive Gods, if they all contradict each other then the vast majority are necessarily wrong. At-least 9'999 are the construct of mans mind so I think it is reasonable to assume considering we have no positive evidence for any God, that there is no God"
Or the less refined:
"XYZ were just a bunch of sheep herders, they invented God for societal control. No miracle has ever been scientifically substantiated, least not the Jesus zombie"
The problem with these kind of arguments is that atheism doesn't pertain to religion, only to God. And it is not a claim about man-made Gods, which would obviously be self defeating, it is a universal statement about God.
A universal claim can never substantiate itself by refuting a localized/specialized claim such as Christianity.
It is the same as if I were to espouse my universal disbelief of Ghosts, and rationalize this by arguing that your Mama who claims there is a Ghost in her kitchen is provably insane. Maybe your Mama is insane but to substantiate my universal disbelief I need to show that the fundamental concept of Ghosts is incoherent, not your Mama. No Atheist is capable of this, so they often then retreat and try to argue for....
Implicit atheism (or atheism by default):-
This argument usually sounds something like:
"Atheism, being passive 'non-belief' is the original position of all humans before they are indoctrinated into religion"
The problem with this is that passive "non-belief", is covered entirely by agnosticism. A person can only hold passive "non belief", by possessing no knowledge to affirm or disconfirm. This is the definition of agnosticism.
"Non belief", is also not the true meaning of the word atheism. Atheism is the position of assuming or concluding disbelief in God, to any degree of certainty. This is the historical definition of atheism from the greek "atheos", "no Gods", used to describe people who positively rejected the Greek Gods of the day. (Armstrong, Karen (1999). A History of God.)
One can passivly hold "non belief". A new born baby has "non belief", in Jesus Christ, for example, because he has never been exposed to the notion. A new born baby cannot have disbelief though, as disbelief is a rejection of a proposition on the basis of truth. The baby cannot reject something he never heard of.
"Atheist" today is a word much contended and I am sure ebw atheists can provide definitions such as:
"noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
1.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
However i can provide many definitions such as
"ATHEIST
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
One who believes that there is no deity"
The variety of definitions is a symptom of the fact that there has been a concerted effort to change the definition of atheism.
I can find plenty of historical definitions of Atheism which match mine. Such as the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary: "A'THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being."
But I defy anyone to find a definition mirroring "lacks belief" which is older than 20 years.
Due to 9/11 and certain outspoken scientists, atheism has become fashionable. But it has also been found to be logically lacking, so the efforts to defend atheism have led to a movement to redefine the word. These efforts both encroach on the meaning of agnosticism (we will talk more about this later) and open a spot in the English language for a new word to describe the position always ascribed to "atheist" - positive disbelief in God.
The next step of retreat for the atheist is usually towards the sanctuary of....
Agnostic Atheism:-
This is a person who is a real Atheist at heart, who holds that there is no God, but he simply cannot rationalize that far so thinks a softening prefix will somehow make his position respectable.
It doesn't. An agnostic maintains that there is nothing that is known about the existence of God, which necessarily makes agnosticism incompatible with atheism.
If one believes that nothing is or can be known about the existence of God, one can have no rationale to support his atheistic assumption. If one believes that nothing is or can be known about the existence of God, he expressly admits his atheism is irrational.
8 Comments