Athiesm is a paradox

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by anonymous51, Sep 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    After talking to many atheist and heard their belief who shun the existance of god and favour of scientific theories, I thought, isnt that a complete paradox of terms?

    1 definition of science from the online dictionary is : "the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

    Now that means that knowledge can only be gained by observation and proof of existence by experimentation, meaning that if something cannot be proven, it also means that it cannot not be proven. This must meen that if someone says that god does not exist because of science disproves this it means that they are instantly contradicting themselves no?

    After alot of thinking Ive come to the conclusion that atheism should be officially be recognised as one of the biggest organised religions of all time, seeing as the belief that there is no god requires as much faith as the belief that there is.
     
  2. AlexDanish

    AlexDanish Account Closed

    I consider myself to be an Atheist. But, I don't shun God, he simply doesn't exist. And I didn't come to this conclusion for any scientific reasoning, but my own. And sure. Everyone has faith. Do I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow? Sure. Also, no offence intended, but alot of your points have been pointed out, and alot of them are very flawed. Compare atheism to most other religions out there. One of the biggest organised religions of all time? Uhh... No. It seems more likely that you're trying to take a potshot at atheism here.
     
  3. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    But atheism is the term for a collective of like-minded individuals who share the same faith of the creation of the universe based on a series of scriptures right? that Sounds exactly the same as Christianity except instead of "god" there has been a "no" written in front of it :unsure:

    And under what basis can you say that god does not exist? Can you point this out?
     
  4. AlexDanish

    AlexDanish Account Closed

    Actually, it really, really isn't. Atheists are definately not a collective of like-minded individuals. You have your facts terribly off. Atheism = Without God IE; the absence of belief in a deity. You have the people like me, who really don't care. Some atheists branch of into things like Humanism, etc. Atheists do not have a set of ideologies that we all follow. And, poll a bunch of atheists and ask how they think the universe was created. You're going to get a variety of answers. Ask a Christian, and they'll say "God created the earth" (They may disagree on how long, when, etc. But they will agree God created it)

    Also, stupid of me to say I know God doesn't exist. I don't. I don't want this to turn into a "Prove God/Disprove" God debate.
     
  5. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    Um, you could swap both of these sentences around and theyd still relate to each subject. Creationists believe that there is a god and atheists believe that there isnt, now each side has their interpretations but they both have that fundemental idea in the center of their organisation.

    You talk about how atheism branches off into different things like humanism etc. Ever heard about protestantism, or mormanism? Im still not satisfied :laugh:

    EDIT heres just some food for thought...

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2008
  6. AlexDanish

    AlexDanish Account Closed

    Yeah, okay, maybe they believe in one main idea. But there are, what, millions of people that listen to say... Queen. They all think that Queen is the best band ever. They all believe in that. It's not a religion. It's not an organized religion. (Terrible, terrible metaphor)

    Yeah, but see Atheism doesn't have it's respective "LDS" branch. Humanism, if I'm not mistaken, isn't necessarily a branch of Atheism, but rather just a secular group. And Atheists aren't organized. We don't have church. We don't go door to door. (What would we say? *Knock Knock*. "Hi I'm an Atheist. Nothing. See ya") we don't have a doctrine, we don't pray, we don't have rituals, we don't have traditions, we don't have more than one or two on the typical "religion" checklist. We don't have anything in that regard. I'm simply not seeing much in your argument of Atheism being an organized religion. You seem to be just seeing a few simple similarities and drawing lines.
     
  7. AlexDanish

    AlexDanish Account Closed

    I hardly seem to see how my posts from the past will bring any bearing into this argument. You can easily disprove both of those of what I said. Philosophy courses, age, schooling, etc. Of course my views are always liable to change. You can consider those posts null and void. Whether or not I said that, it doesn't make it necessarily true (You could say the same about what I'm writing now, and sure, it may not all be true but it's grounded in more fact that what I wrote previously). You might also notice that I said "We". This likely will expose the fact that I was more religious back then, and thus, more biased towards that answer. (You can say pretty much what I wrote in the previous parenthesis about this statement too)

    I'm touched you found them, though.
     
  8. HappyAZaClaM

    HappyAZaClaM Guest

    >>>But atheism is the term for a collective of like-minded individuals who share the same faith of the creation of the universe based on a series of scriptures right?<<<


    >>>Actually, it really, really isn't<<<


    >>>yes it is! you will be assimilated!<<<

    I love that word 'collective' ...it's so....Star Trek :)

    BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

    *ya buy em books and buy em books and all they do is eat the covers.
    what's a mother to do?*
     
  9. HappyAZaClaM

    HappyAZaClaM Guest

    Oh, Good Grief! Martha! Where's My Nerve Medicine?
     
  10. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    During the first few hundreds of years Christians were much like modern day atheists. A new style of thinkers who were at first shunned whos ideologies were shunned by society, at the time there were no traditions or secular groups. All they believed was that jesus christ was the son of god and that they should follow his teachings. After centuries of study and debate christianity gradually began to be the central power of European government with its own strict rules and traditions (most of these did not come about until the latter half of the millenia, many years past the death of christ.)

    Now whose to say that in say, 500 years time atheism wont be the main principle of western society complete with strict moral code and doctrine? I know this is a bad analogy but there was a recent episode of South park, (I know :laugh: stay with me) Where cartman travels to the future where religion had been abolished. Now in these times instead of the crusades and jihads between Christians and Muslims, there were wars against two different branches of Atheism who believe that atheism should be taught in seperate ways. Now I know south park isnt supposed to be taken seriously but they kind of had a point, maybe in the future there will be just as much fighting as there is today but instead of arguing about if jesus was really the son of god, they will be fighting over what really killed the dinosaurs.

    Since I gathered that you were an atheist, I thought I would take direct quotes from you and show the similarities to someone who has the polar opposite belief of you. I am in no way saying that either side is the wrong choice, im simply stating that both sides follow a same sort of mindset and that neither side is any more logical than the other.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2008
  11. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    wise words, thanks very much for your input... :unsure:
     
  12. HappyAZaClaM

    HappyAZaClaM Guest

    >>>Now I know south park isnt supposed to be taken seriously<<<

    no fooling? I'll be dogged...actually I like the show too :)

    >>>but they kind of had a point<<<

    oh yes..go on.

    >>>maybe in the future there will be just as much fighting as there is today but instead of arguing about if jesus was really the son of god, they will be fighting over what really killed the dinosaurs<<<

    what about people who truly don't give a fuck? will they be allowed to
    stay home and watch south park instead of going to war with a bunch
    of fuckin athiests?
     
  13. HappyAZaClaM

    HappyAZaClaM Guest

    >>>Yeah, okay, maybe they believe in one main idea. But there are, what, millions of people that listen to say... Queen. They all think that Queen is the best band ever. They all believe in that. It's not a religion. It's not an organized religion. (Terrible, terrible metaphor)<<<

    not really all that bad of a metaphor. and Queen kicked serious ass.
    personally, I always preferred Led Zepplin. I mean C'mon. have you ever
    seen Led Zepplin live? I saw em in 1969, front row, center stage, I shit
    you NOT. un FUCKING believable! never saw Queen, but they kicked ass.
    saw the Who in 72. Keith Moon was still alive, within reason anyway.
    KILLER fucking show. Jethro Tull, Rod Stewart, the OLD Rod Stewart, not
    the new and improved tripe Rod Stewart. Led Zepplin though. unbelievable.

    I think I got sidetracked here...what were we talkin about again??
     
  14. HappyAZaClaM

    HappyAZaClaM Guest


    >>>Athiesm is a paradox<<<

    no it isn't. don't be silly. if you're going to be silly, then I want no
    further part of this discussion. no further part, I say. do I make myself
    clear? good. besides, you're spelling the word incorrectly. this compounds
    the silliness factor by...some silly amount arrived at by a silly formula.
    don't make me come over there! AthEism, there....right? A T H E I S M .
    now, write that a hundred times. if it's not done by sunrise? I'll cut
    your balls off. Hail Ceaser!
     
  15. anonymous51

    anonymous51 Staff Alumni

    Can you please leave this thread for the discussion of the subject that I raised? And please instead of making multiple posts, could you just use the edit function, it clogs up threads if you dont
     
  16. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    Your quiet probably right.
    But the only difference between you and an Atheist is you have settled on a God. You don't need to disprove God by lack of proof and attempting to do so just brings around the same circular arguments.
    But rather I'm an atheist for the same reason you do not believe in the hindu gods or Xenu :)
     
  17. HappyAZaClaM

    HappyAZaClaM Guest

    <Mod Edit: Abacus21- Insulting>
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008

  18. :hysterica
    *
    *
     
  19. JohnADreams

    JohnADreams Well-Known Member

    So we're back to negative proof again.
    You realise that you just said that if something cant be proven, then it must exist? Or to put it another way, if you cant prove a postive (cant prove X exists) or a negative (cant prove X doesnt exist), then in your eyes, it validates the postive (therefore X exists).

    Why must every single thought that lacks evidence be considered credible?
     
  20. HappyAZaClaM

    HappyAZaClaM Guest

    edited to delete. this is far too intense of a lofty debate
    for the likes of me. atheism a paradox. MY GOD! can it be
    true?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.