Why atheists must believe in God

[Dyakovo]

We have been commanded to go out and live the life of a disciple and preach, not annoy people with silly arguments on an Internet forum.

It's the 21st century. I'm not going to stand on a hill and preach to a crowd of sheperds. The internet is the new frontier to spread God's word.

God's word is "I'm ignorant"?

[Sebtopiaris]

^ And you know what else people do on the internet?.......... Think about it for a moment........

Banking.

Something like that, anyway.

Oh yes. Just banking...
*looks around guiltily*

[Grave_n_idle]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

I'm sure your definitions have already been roundly thrashed (science certainly doesn't rely on 'absolute truth' - it just relies of consistent results) - but I have to point out - I didn't become an atheist because religion didn't offer absolute truth (indeed, it claimed it, continuously) - I became an atheist because I stopped believing there are any gods). Logic certainly does play into that - if the text you're reading is internally contradictory, it can't ALL be true.

[Unitaristic Regions]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

How about burden of proof? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

Ever heard of empiricism?

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

Errr.... No. Science works with empirical theories, not absolute truths .

This last part is so horrible that I don't even know what to say about it. Based on reason? No, the lack of reason by God. The burden of proof that lies with the claimant. The fact that if science was somehow to be irrelevant, I'd still have a pick of thousands of gods and subreligions. Basically, the reasoning here is so crude that it's hard to come up with a valid response...

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

It's not very good, sorry.

[Menassa]

My friend, do you know what happens when you shoot an arrow into a tree and paint a target around it?

You hit a bullseye every time.

I don't think that's the best description of what he did.
[...]

Probably because it was a description of what you did...

[Greater Istanistan]

The thing about science is that by nature, it disavows absolute truths. It deals with results and evidence. Its most basic tenet is that if results show that something is wrong, it's wrong.

There is no absolute truth, only what evidence shows.

[Seshephe]

The thing about science is that by nature, it disavows absolute truths. It deals with results and evidence. Its most basic tenet is that if results show that something is wrong, it's wrong.

There is no absolute truth, only what evidence shows.

The scientific method makes the assumption that there is objective truth and that we can never know what is objectively true with 100% certainty. (Only very nearly so)

[Ashmoria]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

that doesn't make any sense. science it true because it works. when it doesn't work it is abandoned.

and science has nothing to do with my atheism. I am an atheist because god doesn't exist.

[A War Lord]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

How about burden of proof? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
---You also are assuming that because it can't be proven beyond doubt that a god does not exist.

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

Ever heard of empiricism?
---Empiricism. What are you observing if it is all relative and always different? If it is perceived to always be constant (say a LAW OF PHYSICS for example) then it "is." Is comes from "to be" which is the state of reality. Truth conforms to reality.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

Errr.... No. Science works with empirical theories, not absolute truths .
---Errr.... No. Empirical theories are formulated by inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is the same line of reasoning religious individuals use. In other words, science is created in man's image. However, if we are just chance arrangements of atoms, with no rationality, then the sciences are simply what we irrational beings perceive. If we are, however, rational, then we can logically infer that because no other organism ever to exist had such rationality that we are not derived from the same source as they. Eg, the metaphysical world.

This last part is so horrible that I don't even know what to say about it. Based on reason? No, the lack of reason by God. The burden of proof that lies with the claimant. The fact that if science was somehow to be irrelevant, I'd still have a pick of thousands of gods and subreligions. Basically, the reasoning here is so crude that it's hard to come up with a valid response...
---No. Common fallacy. I do agree that the burden of proof lies with the claimant but that goes both ways. you must also prove that there is no metaphysical world. METAphysics cannot be disproven by PHYSICS any more than French can be disproven with mathematics. They are different subjects entirely and not in conflict. It is you who are creating conflict between the two. What you observe is the physical world--the natural world. We are discussing the unobservable metaphysical world--the super natural.

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

[Risottia]

Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Wrong.
Truth is a property of statements.

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists.

A real object exists if and only if it has some quantities that can be measured. If I can measure the temperature of object X it means object X exists.

Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

Someone mistaking (purposefully) truth for reality.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!
What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

It relies on weaseling. Hence it's utter bullshit.

[Ardavia]

Enough of these threads.

Your flag is perhaps the most interesting thing in this thread.

Also, there are no absolute truths because science works on theories and hypotheses, and that's how it works. No absolute truths, just an assumption that a theory with enough backing from testing and experimentation that make it a valid assumption that it's true, and it can be disproven later.

If science worked with absolute truths, wouldn't it have stagnated?

(sorry if it doesn't make sense, my primary language is not English, [insert other reasons here])

[Silthios]

Within the debate for whether or not God exists the same thing always occurs. I am an atheist because I've seen no scientific evidence whatsoever to the existence of a God, although the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I do dislike the argument put fort by the pious.

Many people refute my atheism by stating that because I can't explain everything with science it must be the will of God. Bertrand Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Religious argument to me is essentially just that, anything scientists write to disprove anything within the bible, a document allegedly written as the word of God, is immediately refuted as God's will. A good example of this is a debate between Richard Dawkins on evolution and Wendy Wright on creationism, everything he said, supplemented with as much evidence as has been recorded on evolution was refuted almost entirely with "that's not evidence" or "evolution is just a theory".

In the end, I would rather have a mind open to possibility and wonder then one closed by a pre-determined world as dictated by a deity. That is why I don't believe.

[Arglorand]

Personally, I just deeply don't care whether God exists.

[Granadeseret]

*snip*

And you know the exact meaning of the langue thousands of years ago... how exactly?

And my entire post was set up to target those claims laid down by Vashta Nerada. He seems to be asserting it is true, and that is what I was countering.

I apologize if I'm not going to learn Hebrew, every Native American tongue, Ancient Greek, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Scandinavian Ruins, the various Celtic tongues, Sanskrit, ect. so I can have a perfectly accurate view of the various religious tales of the ancient word, but that is simply impractical to do so, and if I would wager an educated guess, you seem to dismisses these texts and in all likelihood don't know all those languages.

[A War Lord]

Within the debate for whether or not God exists the same thing always occurs. I am an atheist because I've seen no scientific evidence whatsoever to the existence of a God, although the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I do dislike the argument put fort by the pious.

Many people refute my atheism by stating that because I can't explain everything with science it must be the will of God. Bertrand Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Religious argument to me is essentially just that, anything scientists write to disprove anything within the bible, a document allegedly written as the word of God, is immediately refuted as God's will. A good example of this is a debate between Richard Dawkins on evolution and Wendy Wright on creationism, everything he said, supplemented with as much evidence as has been recorded on evolution was refuted almost entirely with "that's not evidence" or "evolution is just a theory".

In the end, I would rather have a mind open to possibility and wonder then one closed by a pre-determined world as dictated by a deity. That is why I don't believe.

This seems rational. However, Wendy Wright is a loon and shouldn't be taken as a representative for theism any more than Stubbins Ffirth should be taken as a representative of science. I don't think science and religion are in conflict at all. Science studies, through observation, the natural universe. Theism studies through logic and reasoning, the unobservable super-natural verse. As for the finagling that goes on the re-interpret the Bible, that is a result of morons who didn't understand it in the first place. Science can never disprove (nor prove) the existence or lack thereof a deity because it is not a scientific question just as "how long is 7 miles" is not a sociological question. They are different subjects that people often confuse and mistake lack of evidence within for disproof of the other.
When viewed this way, the way it was originally intended, theism is very logical; not empirically observable (but again, that is not the correct mode of studying it. you wouldn't study verb conjugation with algebra or art history with biology) but it is logical. Which seems to be ironic, as human beings we are the only thing within the universe that attempts to study the universe and we are also the only things in the universe that imagine an existence outside of it--the only tool we have for a realistic vision of this externality is logic. We can thus infer that logic is a gift from that which is outside the universe so that we may know It. We call that It a god.

[Aeternabilis]

Personally, I just deeply don't care whether God exists.

Ah, an apatheist.

[Norstal]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

No. I am Chinese and I will never acquiesce to be a pretend Jew and worship a non-Chinese god (who, as you might realize, no one worships because no such thing exists). Before you go off basing science on your so called god, let me remind you that it us Chinese who gave you the compass, paper, gunpowder, printing, hydraulics, etc. If anything, you people should worship our civilization.

[Arglorand]

Personally, I just deeply don't care whether God exists.

Ah, an apatheist.

Something like that.

I mean, my reasoning goes along those lines: I have no logical reason to believe in God. I feel confident enough to determine which actions of mine cause hurt and pain and which ones cause happiness, and I think that as long as my actions bring as much happiness to as many people as possible, then any actually -decent- God won't punish me for the mere crime of not believing in him.

And if he would punish me for something as petty as failing to believe in him, then hell, he really is as much an asshole as the Old Testament makes him out to be and he's pretty much unworthy of my worship.

[Arglorand]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

No. I am Chinese and I will never acquiesce to be a pretend Jew and worship a non-Chinese god. Before you go off basing science on your so called god, let me remind you that it us Chinese who gave you the compass, paper, gunpowder, printing, hydraulics, etc. If anything, you people should worship our civilization.

Pretty sure I'm on my way to doing so every time I read a history book about China.

You guys are pretty dope, man.

[Sun Wukong]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

No. I am Chinese and I will never acquiesce to be a pretend Jew and worship a non-Chinese god. Before you go off basing science on your so called god, let me remind you that it us Chinese who gave you the compass, paper, gunpowder, printing, hydraulics, etc. If anything, you people should worship our civilization.

The rock I was born from was Chinese. Does that count?

[Len Hyet]

If you ask an atheist why they disavow belief in God, they will undoubtably cite either their reason or science. Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists. Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

The entire study of any science depends on truth being absolute, but their is no atheistic justification for believing in it. It is ironic that those who say their alleged disbelief in God is based on reason have absolutely no reason to believe in the very things on which they base their reason!

What do you think about this line of reasoning? I think it makes a lot of sense.

I think, therefore I am

Ergo: Even if all of you are figments of my imagination (which must be an absolutely fantastic imagination if I've imagined all this crap) it doesn't matter. I do not need to be sure the object exists, because everything I know tells me it exists.

[Shilya]

Here are some thing that need to be around in order for science to make sense. Possibly the most basic of these Absolute truth (Truth being that which conforms to reality)

Science can tell us almost any trait we want to know about anything, it can tell us the size, shape, weight, color, temperature, density and even the molecular structure of an object, but none of these things even matter if we can not be sure that the object even exists.

Skepticism is a philosophical dead end. "Reality exists" is an axiom we just have to accept, or we will indeed get nowhere.

Science is irrelevant if absolute truth does not exist.

Wrong. Science is still very much relevant. It's called an axiom. We operate with basic assumptions that simply make sense. Without them, your religion doesn't make sense either.

[Shilya]

I think, therefore I am

Ergo: Even if all of you are figments of my imagination (which must be an absolutely fantastic imagination if I've imagined all this crap) it doesn't matter. I do not need to be sure the object exists, because everything I know tells me it exists.

I think, therefore something thinking is. This "something" might be me.

If, for example, someone dreams of a person who thinks that they are, then the only one existing is still the dreaming person.

[Norstal]

No. I am Chinese and I will never acquiesce to be a pretend Jew and worship a non-Chinese god. Before you go off basing science on your so called god, let me remind you that it us Chinese who gave you the compass, paper, gunpowder, printing, hydraulics, etc. If anything, you people should worship our civilization.

The rock I was born from was Chinese. Does that count?

Close enough. *nods*

[Yorkopolis]

I lost track at the part where you said atheists must believe in god.