Atheism = self defeating.

towerwatchman

First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, alpha the negative and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute. Anyone who took philosophy 101 knows you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is a logical contradiction. Therefore it is self defeating. It also breaks the rule of non contradiction by ascribing to itself a divine attribute while at the same time denying the existence of the Divine. Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating.

Village Idiot

Towerwatchman,
What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge.

Apply the same logic to unicorns.

Saethydd

Theism is guilty of what you are accusing Atheism of doing. Theists tend to argue that God is necessary because intelligent life must have an innate purpose and/or creator. However, God, if he existed, would be an intelligent being which has no innate purpose and/or creator, rather, he is to have decided his own purpose after spending an eternity doing... something. Talking to himself perhaps.

How can you know that humans aren't simply the first intelligent beings in this chain of purpose? At least humans can be proven to exist with a relative degree of certainty.

scratchme1010

Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating.

What a load of crap. Atheism doesn't "denounce" anything. Again, this seems to be based on the premises that (a) Atheists are an organization like the ones theists join, (b) all atheists are somehow united in the same way of thinking as the WT brainwashes people to be, (c) atheists compare notes, get instructions or are aligned with each other and believe the exact same thing (d) atheists are "against" or "anti" something, or (e) we simply refuse to listen to anything other than what reinforces what they believe. All that is just nonsense.

Sweetie, it is very simple. We don't need to prove the non existence of God, we don't need to prove anything to you, and for that we don't need a bible, nor a congregation, and certainly not "unlimited knowledge of the universe", whatever that means, anyway to feel confident in pour non-believes. Get over it.

Rainbow_Troll

Empirically speaking, theism could never be totally refuted since, as you pointed out, no one is omniscient.

However, putting that aside for a moment, there are certain logical reasons that the theist God could not exist. Some of the attributes of this alleged being are impossible. Take omnipotence as an example. Is God able to create something indestructible, that not even he could destroy or uncreate? Whether you answer yes or no, his omnipotence is refuted.

Or what about his omniscience? Can the theist God ask a question that even he can't answer? If he can, he is not omniscient. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent.

Is God omnibenevolent; a being of pure love? But who could he have loved before he created the Son and with him everyone else? More importantly, if this God was all alone in the beginning, how could he have developed a language that would have allowed him to conceptualize, reason and so be capable of creating a universe? Language is a social phenomena. A single, eternal God could not develop a language and without language, conceptual thought, reasoning, mathematics - everything this God would need to create anything - would be impossible for him.

Did God create the Universe - the universe being defined mathematically as the set of all things existing in space-time? But space-time itself defines existence. A being that that created space-time would have to exist outside of it and therefore, would ipso facto not exist.

You see, even though I may never be able to disprove theism using the scientific/empirical method, I can easily refute it using logic alone. The theistic version of God is no more possible than two and three adding up to six. That said, there could be a deist version of God or an entire pantheon of polytheist gods. I guess it all depends on how strongly someone defines their atheism.

Finkelstein

Anything can be imagined but you have to have evidence to make it into reality, there has been no evidence of god(s) but only hearsay drawn out imagination and ignorance of the world in which we live.

There is a reason why there haven't been any new envisioned gods in the last 1000 years or more before BCE there were hundreds. The reason why is because human ignorance is an indefensible fact.

OnTheWayOut

To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster.

Give me a break. I am willing to make that absolute statement even though I don't have "unlimited knowledge of this universe."

First may we define our terms. The term "flying spaghetti monster" comes literally from a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 and started a social movement that promotes a light-hearted view of religion and opposes the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools. It is not any lifeform that seems to sort of look like spaghetti, but rather it is the silly "god" made of spaghetti that created the universe.

I am confident there is no god, but for most atheists, confidence that all the specifically defined gods do not exist is sufficient.

If you think it is self defeating to say there is absolutely no flying spaghetti monster, then you might expect it to show up one day. I am positive that it won't, and equally positive that "God" won't either. I would love to be eating my words and "he" shows me up for taking such a self defeating stand.

I am equally confident that no matter how many monkeys with typewriters you employ for any amount of time, even up to an infinite number of monkeys for an infinite amount of time, you will never have one of them type out Shakespeare's HAMLET.

We know for sure that technically, the probability of that happening is not totally ZERO, but we all know it would never happen.

venus

Towerwatchman,

That was a new thought to me: atheism requires omniscience.

In other words, a person would have to be God to say there is no God—interesting thought!

doubtfull1799

I think you'll find atheists in general (though I can't speak for all, because like all groups there will be differences in individual outlook) don't see themselves as denying the existence of God in an absolute sense as you claim, they merely say they don't have enough evidence at this point in time to accept the existence of one, not that their couldn't possibly be one, or that they wouldn't accept the evidence for one if such evidence came to light.

The term "atheist" is a very loose one and is a generalisation for a broad range of ideas that are subtle different. I don't think people who call themselves athiests would limit themselves or define themselves to fit YOUR particular definition.

Anders Andersen

So much words and I still don't believe in any gods.

You got your definition of atheism wrong and are thus creating a straw man argument. Only by coming up with your own (false) definition of atheism, you can make your argument. However, almost all of the people who call themselves atheist do not claim to know there are no gods, they simply do not believe in any gods. Your argument applies to almost nobody. Redefining the label I apply to myself doesn't suddenly change my (lack of) beliefs into a claim of knowledge.
There is no such thing as a-NewYork-ism or a-moon-ism. Why not? Because there is a lot of evidence to suggest New York and the moon actually exist. If there were evidence for any god's existence, you wouldn't be here making empty arguments.

Some interesting reading for you: https://www.quora.com/topic/Atheism

If you would browse the topic, you'll notice your argument has been proposed and refuted many times. But that's okay, yours is a rookie mistake (I hope....)

Nice try.... ;-)

Atheism = self defeating.

Share this