my argument against atheism

Post Reply New Topic

atheists say 'god does not exist'.
i say 'define 'god''.

i can say 'unicorns don't exist' because a unicorn is a lot like a horse, but with one horn sticking straight out of the middle of its head. naturally, and not through some sort of grafting or something, and from a genetic basis such that it could produce offspring which were also unicorns, or existing completely through magical processes that preclude reproduction. in any event it might have magical powers of some sort. i've never seen a unicorn, seen documentation of a unicorn, or heard a serious assertion of the existence of unicorns. it will always be possible that i am wrong about anything, but i strongly believe that unicorns don't exist.

i believe that most people would agree with my definition of 'unicorn'. can anyone give a definition of 'god' that most people would agree with? or better, an authoritative description of a set of qualities that would distinguish a god from anything else whose existence could be postulated?

challenge: tell me if garfungiloops exist.

how can you disbelieve in anything if you don't know what it is?

if i told you authoritatively that 'god' = the unchanging totality of everything in every existing dimension, time space and other, and that god is conscious of itself, could you even start to try to disprove me? without the 'god is conscious of itself' bit, could you say that you don't believe in god?

what's the god you don't believe in?

what's the god you do believe in?

what's a god?

Athiests believe that there is no God because He cannot be scientifically tested. As a christian, I'm not arguing against the latter point. God exists outside the known universe, outside of where the known physical laws apply, and thus, lies completely outside the bounds of the Scientific Method. Therefore He cannot be proved or disproved. Athiests make the assumption that nothing can exist outside the known universe, since there is no definitive proof of existence itself outside the universe (all we have are a few unproven theories). So in the end, it really comes down to a faith issue...

'scientific method' is an invention of recently evolved monkey-people. the universe is drastically older and perhaps wiser than your scientific method. if you place such faith in your species, perhaps your species is god?

if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him - voltaire.

i believe that nothing exists outside of the universe, by the definition of universe - All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

on what do you base your argument that 'god' = something that exists outside of all matter and energy regarded as a whole?

Campquest promises a $50 bill, printed before the words "in god we trust" were added to anyone who can prove that two invisible unicorns do not fly around the camp

prove the invisible unicorns are pink and i'll quintuple it.

I'm really feeling your new avatar, ToadOfSteel. Very nice. Kind of makes me want to change mine to red too.

in fact that's false, quantum physics demonstrates how multi-Universes can occur, or a shadow universe..

You need Quantum Physics education

I say no to atheism because it is bad for your health.

Well then, if God is the totality of everything that exists than since YOU are making the CLAIM that *God* is sentient and self-ware than the burden of proof rests on YOU to prove it!

Oh, this will be fun.

You can define God based on whichever ancient or recent text you read about it and gain an idea. There is no clear definition of 'God', but it's clear that Christians believe God is an intelligent creator along with Muslims and Jews. So judging by their definition you can say that's what God is. Considering Christians and Muslims combined would make up most of the world population you may as well use their definition when referring to 'God' unless you have a religious faith or belief that says otherwise. And also, the reason why many Atheists might mention unicorns is primarily for laughs as there's a passage in the bible that mentions unicorns. And also you can apply some of what you've said to 'God'. You've never seen God, you've never seen any documentation on God except for fairy tales just as you have with Unicorns, and why is the assertion important? Regardless of how many people tell you there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster, is that a good reason to believe it?




Well normally I would have asked you what garfungiloops are, there's not one definition for it yet several for God and as I stated above the omnipotent creator is the most common technically.


Well if I told you the same thing but replaced the word 'God' with 'Magical Cosmistic Toilet" could you start to disprove me? Regardless you sound like a pantheist except you're saying God is supposedly conscious of itself. Considering you have no evidence or base for that claim really I can't believe it, So no by that definition of course I couldn't believe in God.


I've already basically summed up the first and last question and the second question is just idiotic.


Recently evolved monkey people? Ok first off how can the universe be 'wise'? The universe has no intelligence of it's own and you haven't been able to show at all how it could so I can't listen to that claim. And I don't have faith in my species, humans aren't intelligent, we're clever that's how we've survived this far, if we were smart the world would be a different place. However it is possible to be an intelligent human, and in general the scientific method works. As far as I'm concerned however looking at what we consider to be intelligence is stored usually in the brain of an organism, in it's memory. Going from there to say the Universe has it's own intelligence considering you haven't shown me anyway it could have this intelligence, no giant sophisticated brain at the center of it (But even then we'd assume that brain went under some process to get there) or anything else like that showing me it could have intelligence, as far as I'm concerned the universe just is as with most things, no intelligence was behind it everything just got here through different processes.



Well he's been invented, look why we have so many people that think he's there. Also I was fairy sure you were some variant of a pantheist but considering you quoted someone that most likely isn't a pantheist considering they described God with a gender I'm not sure what you are.


Um, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. If you're saying you believe the Universe is everything, so in that sense God can't be outside of the universe that's a pretty stupid question considering the person answering never claimed such a thing. Atheists just don't believe in the term God, if we're going to refer to the Universe we'll call it the Universe.


I would say something like "How?" but I know I'm going to get a stupid answer considering this is a stupid claim. I could respond with "And religion isn't?" or "And these mentally unhealthy religious people are healthier than Atheists?" but the primary thing is Atheists appear not to have many issues regarding sanity or health (if they really care about health, it depends on the person). Atheists have the lowest divorce rates and are also less likely to go to prison compared with religious people, does this not show a different trend of thought to a small degree? For the record though, you can't say "No" to Atheism in my position because as far as I'm concerned it's the reality and I can't refuse reality.

Last edited by z0rp on 05 Sep 2008, 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, because suicide bombings and abortion clinic bombings are good for you.

Okay, that was a cheap shot, but the truth is that psychological imbalances know no philosophical bounds.

god = intelligent creator is kind of a weak definition. i created this post utilizing intelligence, therefore i am god!. eh....

i don't know what a god is. maybe i see a god or two every day. couldn't tell ya. i don't see unicorns, tho.

google it. excellent song, even better video.

'god = the omnipotent creator' doesn't work for me as a definition. am i alone in that? perhaps the universe just is. are you suggesting that god is an entity separate from the universe that we assume exists? is god a jewish guy with a long beard who creates things with unlimited powers? a forty foot tall guy always sitting on a throne with a lightbulb for a head as depicted in the jack chick tracts, creating things omnipotently? is god the rules governing interactions between energy/matter through space/time, thus creating without limitation all that exists? people who believe in one of those wouldn't believe in another, and none of them accounts for thoth, my favorite god.



q1(magic toilet) - not at all, you call your god whatever you want, i'm just an observer.
q2(god conscious of god) - it was just hypothetical, as in 'if i told you...'. so, if god did = 'the unchanging totality of everything in every existing dimension, time space and other', you would really say you couldn't believe in god? not saying god does = that, just if.



recently evolved as considered against the time scale of the temporal existence of the universe? very much so.

i said that the universe is perhaps wiser than the scientific method. perhaps. it seems to get more accomplished, and has managed to do things like create humanity and direct the motions of an unfathomable number of discrete particles on each of an unfathomable number of celestial bodies across an unfathomable span of time.

humans have survived as homo sapiens for something like 100000 years., which is nothing against the Totality of Creation. the rock the humans live on is infinitesimally small compared to everything else - if humans hadn't've been around for the last 100000 years, the Totality of Creation would be pretty much exactly the same.

i can pretend to understand a fruit fly's brain, but not really. i could never understand my own brain, it's far too complex to fully understand itself, in the same way that an atari 2600 emulator running on an atari 2600 can't compete with a atari 2600. i don't even know what god is, but if there's a god then i'm not even going to start to speculate on the nature of its brain. i do have some understanding that what happens in my brain is a complicated series of electrochemical reations. and i have some concept that a possibly even more complex series of electrochemical reactions happens outside of my brain. but don't ask me about the sum of all electrochemical reactions occuring outside by brain, 'cause i don't know.

I think of gods as being made in man's image except for being immortal and containing a few super-powers. They're not especially mature, though, so they raise all kinds of mischief, sometimes gettings us humans involved or siding with one nation or another (for example, Yahweh sides with Israel and America). Maybe if we leveled Mount Olympus, the gods we just leave us all alone and go pester mortals on some other planet.

Does that mean you decide what to believe not based on what you think is likely to be true but based on what you think is good for you? Is truth (or your best guess of what is true) secondary to utility?


I think Christianity and Islam are the world's biggest religions. They (and Judaism) agree on God being conscious, omniscient, omnipotent, immortal, eternal, and the creator of the universe. If you know enough about Hindu theology to come up with a more restricted description that also fits Hindu gods, you have a good chance of getting what you ask for.


Human languages have lots of terms that have no definition of the kind you ask for. Wittgenstein argued there is no proper definition of "game", so if no one here can come up with a definition of god that satisfies you, that is a general feature of language and of many human concepts, not of the concept of god. If you disagree, try to define "game". (Some concepts do have clear definitions.)


All the arguments I have seen against the existence of a god take specific attributes that have been put forward by major religions. If you then redefine god so that your new definition sidesteps the argument, you haven't refuted the argument. You could also redefine unicorn to get around arguments against the existence of unicorns. But what would be the point?


You assume that all of this depends on intention. Why do you assume that?


If you have no idea at all what god is, then how would you know god even if you met god? If a concept has no meaning, then belief or disbelief doesn't apply, and the topic of your thread is a total waste of time. You might as well argue against agarfungiloopism. So I guess you do have some notion of what god is. For a start, you seem to think god = universe = an intentional being able to "direct the motions of an unfathomable number of discrete particles on each of an unfathomable number of celestial bodies across an unfathomable span of time". Or was that merely another example of a possible concept, and you have no opinion on whether that describes god?

For once I agree with you, I am agnostic only because I cannot prove that god does not exist, I have too admit that christians do, on the surface seem happy. Mind you I took drugs you guys take delusion either way its a false happiness, that seems nasty but I don't mean it to be, its just that I do not believe in god therefore your happiness cannot be due to gods influence. But either way us agnostic --> atheist types do tend to be a bit bitter.