This discussion may surprise some of you, people usually put logic and atheism in the same sentence, some people even claim that to be completely rational one has to be an atheist. Today I hope to show you the absurdity of Atheism, not weak atheism, but strong, militant atheism. After reading the ‘God Delusion’ I thought Dawkins had thrown religion and my beliefs into a garbage bin; I had lost my faith and became what they call a ‘skeptic’.  However, instead of committing intellectual suicide and becoming an atheist, I was an Agnostic Deist for quite some time; I couldn’t rule out God as I had no reason too or empirical evidence to do so.

I somehow or other got my faith back (or more so destroyed my skeptical self and instead of saying, ‘I doubt it.’ Saying, ‘perhaps.’) and then it struck me, atheism is some what irrational. There are always reasons why one does or does not believe in something. For example I don’t believe in Santa because there is no man on the North pole and it is a fact that Santa was created by Coca Cola. I have reasons not to believe in pokemon, flying tea pots or even a flying spaghetti monster. When I ask an atheist why they do not believe in God, they have no rational reasons to deny His existence none, zero, nada.  This is rather odd, many atheists are famous scientists who are used to using empirical evidence and observation their whole lives and yet make the illogical conclusion that God does not exist. Dawkins thought that evolution proved that God was not in existence but was by humans (which is a big assumption). Dawkins has not ‘disproven’ God, he has dismissed a God some fundamentalists believe in.

A reason for a belief or lack of belief is a necessity for something to hold any weight.

  1. I do not believe in God
  2. Therefore, God is not real

Premise 2 needs to be backed up by something. Think about it for a second, any non belief you have is backed up by reason; you do not believe not believe n Zeus because you do not believe in him, you have some concrete reasons not to believe he exists. Perhaps even the Judeo-Christian God, you have reasons to dismiss. But you can not logically dismiss God. A being who created the universe may exist.

Some people will then try to bring in the flying tea pot argument, 'We can never dismiss that a flying tea pot does not exist, should we believe in it?' When rational people are talking about God they do not give Him any form (They may imagine He has a brown beard and appears somewhat Jewish) but we have no idea the form of God. God and the flying tea pot are not on the same page, one would have to use scientific evidence and observation to see if a flying tea pot exists. One can not see God, therefore we enter the realm of meta-physics.   So what are your guys views? I will take back what I said about atheism being irrational if I am proven wrong (note: I am talking about strong atheism, not weak).

Views: 220

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You mentioned that one has concrete reasons not to be believe Zeus, what are they? As far as I know, no one ever disproved Zeus, they simply stopped believing in him and moved onto some other being. I have asked many theists why they do not believe in Zeus and all come up empty handed.


Also, you seem to be forgetting the fact that, as someone who is making a claim (God is real), the onus is on YOU to prove it to US, not the other way around. And seeing as how I have yet to hear any proof or valid argument, I don't see any more reason to believe in your god than I do in Zeus. As Hitchens says, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Atheism is just humanism without a "religious condition" so we have to begin with human nature and from that the rest follows,biggest problem is our condition that we take up from our parents and back as far as possible when this whole religion,spirituality thing began..everyone ask "why" and we want to fill the gap for "meaning" which is just some drift build into us to be able to understand how things work for's extremely mysterious no matter what none-religious perspective you come from hear people talk about "god" in various forms it's difficult to cope with what really people believe in but i think we individually fill the gap our self with what makes most sense from our comfort zone to be honest

It's very simple:

The presumption of God is such an incredibly huge leap of imagination based on nothing at all. It is only the fact that our history is replete with people who believe, for a variety of reasons, that such a thing exists that we give it any credence or assume a mantle of normalcy to any argument beginning with the very idea.

But it isn't a normal idea. It's a completely ignorant and fantastical idea which bears as much merit as the assumption of any other set of incredibly crazy ideas out there in the deepest recesses of a lunatic asylum. It is the most irrational presumption that exists. Therefore, the rejection of it is entirely logical.

Your argument, for example, begins with the fallacy that perhaps it is true that God exists - maybe, we don't know, etc.... the argument of an Agnostic. This is fine, but flawed. The very fact that anyone actually can start with an argument that such a being exists is flawed. It is entirely illogical. It's like beginning an argument with the assumption that maybe rainbow unicorns exist - perhaps, we don't know, etc... Would you ever begin an argument with such an idea?

I am not against giving proof of the existence of a God. What I am against is assuming he exists in any way whatsoever at the beginning, middle, or end of an argument without there being incredible proof involved.

My rejection of such an illogical fantasy is therefore not an illogical fallacy in itself. It is merely the application of logical rules towards the huge errors that almost everyone starts with when they begin to argue about this idea.
Thank you. I agree with you and you said it better than I could. 

Excellent reply!  It's important to remember that notions of mental illness have really only been around for a little more than a century.  For most of human history, the mentally ill have not only been unhindered and untreated, they were (and still are) actually in charge.  Worse, they had a habit of executing the sane during large parts of our history.

great post doone!

Doone - I owe you another beer :)

Once again, doone is my hero. :)

Nice summation, doone . . . you always find the coolest stuff.

So great, so great. Definitely bookmarking this for reference purposes sometime. F**king intense.

OK, I don't have a lot of time right now, but I do want to know why the Christian god and not any other god?

And, do you know about all the gods humans ever believed in? If not, then how do you know that the evidence for their existence isn't better than the evidence for your god's existence (I hope you'll provide it due to the first question)?

Hi Adam,

Welcome to Think Atheist.

Some atheists deny God's existence outright.  To my experience, most do NOT.  The most common position I've seen atheists take is that there is no evidence for God or the supernatural and never has been, so there is no reason to imagine he's there.  Is it possible, even remotely, that God sparked the Big Bang, set the laws of nature in motion, then moved on to other universes?  I suppose.  But such a "Creator God" who does not meddle in personal, human, affairs or suspend the laws of nature to answer prayers and perform miracles is an absentee God.  He is irrelevant unless he makes some sort of demands on us.

I don't know about you . . . but there has never been ANY God who has made a demand of me.  There might be ancient books that claim he once made demands but that's not proof -- it's not even evidence.


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service