The eventual refutation of atheism

Believer: Atheist, do you believe in wind?
Atheist: Of course.
Believer: But you can’t see wind.
Atheist: Right.
Believer: But you don’t want to believe in God because you can’t see him. So you are illogical!

Hi

Why you basing it all on sense? You for got the other senses. Empiricism isn’t just sight. What about taste, touch, hear, and smell?

Also I can see wind. Why does the flag wave? Why would my hat blow off my head when I’m standing still?

EZ$

Believer: Atheist, do you believe in wind?
Atheist: Of course.
Believer: But you can’t see wind.
Atheist: Right.
Believer: But you don’t want to believe in God because you can’t see him.
Athiest: No, I dont want to believe in God because there is no evidence, he doesn’t rationally follow from anything perceived in reality, in fact reality must be bastardized and moulded to fit a notion of God into it. Also I can’t see santa, does that mean I should also believe in him?

Your argument is perhaps the most ludicruous one i’ve heard in a long time.

You know the empiricist ain’t the only forms of atheist. And the failure of empiricism (read your Khun, read your Quine) does not imply the failure of Atheism. Atheism persist for one reason and one reason alone- and that’s the inherent weakness of theism, and theist arguments.

Frankly speaking, I think atheists don’t believe in the existence of God simply because they don’t want God to exist.

Hi

LOL. You are wrong.

EZ$

Reflect a little on this word; ‘belief’. Your usage is too narrow here, and - ironically (remember irony in this context is usually indicative of confusion) - it strikes me as lacking in any kind of theological or historical subtlety.

I would also drop the logical/illogical bullshit; it invariably functions as cheap rhetoric; whether you actually have any extensive knowledge of logic or not. Unless of course you intended for your “aha I got caught you red-handed” tone to be merely in jest - i.e. a mockery or joke. In which case I salute your sense of humor.

I doubt it (at least partially), though.

In a way this is a very ‘theistic’ sounding argument.

This is a perfect continuation of Sâmkhya’s post. Sadly enough.

Probably true for some. Definitely false for others. But please, do pull some more sweeping generalisations out of your arse.

Regards,

James

Hello

Does it matter? I wasn’t trying to prove Atheism. My only point is that his post is full of many, many holes and it should be revised.

EZ$

Isn’t it the case that we can see, feel, taste things on, smell things on, and even create wind? I know that I can break it!

Wind is a real measurable thing. Vision is not the only sense.

A hypothetical situation:

Imagine a book has just been unearthed in some remote desert. The book is dated as three millenia old, and tells the story of a being known as Hod. According to the book, Hod is an omnipotent being who created the universe in three days. He also created life in the primordial soup. Hod is invisible and undetectable but still lives among us, and whenever someone posts on ILP he uses his omnipotence to bless them with good luck for the next five minutes. As soon as the book’s discovery is announced, a new thread opens up in Mundane Babble as hundreds of converted posters describe their fortuitous experiences moments after posting and cite them as evidence for the book’s teachings. Within weeks, Hod has several million believers across the globe…

My point, as you may have guessed, is that there are uncountably many different explanations for the beginning of the universe, of which Christianity and the Big Bang are just two. None of them imply a logical contradiction, so they are all possible, and the empirical evidence for any one is doubtful at best. The Bible does make Christianity slightly more credible than a religion made up on the spot, but there is a vast and growing amount of evidence for purely scientific explanations. God is still possible, but is less likely than explanations not involving omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings who refuse to prove their own existence.

You accuse atheists of being illogical, but you believe in God against all probability. In fact, the less likely God becomes, the more you fill the gap with faith - and faith can be summarised as “belief in something for which there is little or no evidence”. Does this not seem slightly…illogical?

I hope you understood I was jesting with this thread.

And that right there is the eventual refutation of atheism, isn’t it?

Yeah, I figured Sam. Thought I would play along.

Unfortunately, the thread has turned deadly serious. Someone implied that Santa Claus might not exist.

It could matter. (Depends on how much credibility or weight you believe is vested in such an argument.)

Of course Santa Claus exists. How else do you explain the mysterious appearance of presents beneath my tree, come Dec. 25 each year?

Prove to me that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I can see the presents.

It’s only logical.

Sam.

I guess I am left to salute your sense of humor after all… :slight_smile:

Regards,

James

You guys are funny. :stuck_out_tongue:

’ enjoyed this thread so much.

Yeah. I have to read at least 3 of your threads to get the drift. But one thing I notice, even with the way you posted that argument, it still got attributed to you.

so… how does an atheist confirm his belief again?

Oops. Suckered. :laughing:

Hi

Through his methodology of his choice.

EZ$