Atheism Shouldn't Exist

[Something Amyss]

I don't mind them having their opinions but when they openly criticize those that prefer to have answers, that's when I get angry.

Atheists like answers, too. That's why we have all that weird science stuff. The difference is we are not willing to accept just any answer for the sake of having an answer. Which is basically how you just phrased religion yourself.

Atheists say "Nothing. There is nothing. It's a mistake."

And this, of course, is one of the oldest strawmen in the religious arsenal. I'm surprised it still has any straw left after the beating it's taken over the years.

Religious types say "Something. There is something. There's a purpose."

Because ponies. I mean, that's all it really is. Ignore the fact that not all religion is dedicated to a purpose or higher power per se, because that furthers your disingenuous distinction, you're saying "something, even if it's false or specious, is better than the nothing I falsely ascribe to my opposition, the honourable Atheist T Strawman."

why? Because ponies.

 

[Zaverexus]

Atheism is in fact a faith. Just as God can never be totally proven, so too can his absence never be completely sure. We all must somewhere make the leap of faith to one side or another.

Yeah, but it's kind of cheating. Lets say for example i affirm something creepy like:

"Every time you close your eyes, when no one is around and no one can see, I am there right besides you with my knife close to your throat"

You can't disprove that, and it might even stick enough due human psique for you to even belive it for half a second the next time you blink or all lights are out and you go to sleep.

I can't disprove that, true (or rather, saying I can't for the sake of the argument since having witnesses of you in another place at that instant would disprove) and so I must make the leap of faith that seems most logical to me. Since I do not know of any feasible teleportation devices or way you could know where I am, that leap of faith is to believe that what you say is false. As I have reached and hold on to that idea, it is in fact a belief. If you care to redefine a belief, I will happily reevaluate my point, but I think most would agree that this counts.

 

[Tanakh]

I can't disprove that, true (or rather, saying I can't for the sake of the argument since having witnesses of you in another place at that instant would disprove) and so I must make the leap of faith that seems most logical to me. Since I do not know of any feasible teleportation devices or way you could know where I am, that leap of faith is to believe that what you say is false. As I have reached and hold on to that idea, it is in fact a belief. If you care to redefine a belief, I will happily reevaluate my point, but I think most would agree that this counts.

Well, the example was mate to be funny, not to be good. It's very easy to construct ideas that can't be disproven with our cultural background, because our shared culture is filled with nonsense that as it is can't be disproven; if you replace me with "ghosts" that don't interact with the phisical world but stare deeply at your "soul" from your back ever time you are not looking, then you have a bunch of persons that will actually belive that.

Point being that after positivism in phisics, at the beggining of the past century, dudes (the smart ones like poincare, etc) started to notice that due langage, logic and the real world nature, nothing can be "really proved" here (ie. mathematicaly proved or deductively proved). Do we lay down and die? Or stop physics? Hell no, we only accept we are operating on faith and carry on, taking out what experience has made us think it's impossible and accepting what remains as true.

Edit: I find it curious how atheist seem to think the are, on absolute therms, more logical than religious people, when both are just beliveing stuff that neither can prove right, or prove that the other is wrong. On a strict classic logic sense that puts them both on the same ship of being faithful and basing their belifs in logic leaps and fallacies, though IMO it is beyond reasonable doubt the inexsistence of God.

 

[Soushi]

*Saw thread title, prepared to rage*
*clicked on thread*
*read OP*
*Rage Systems powering down*

Dunno, seems like quibbling over semantics to me.

 

[Zaverexus]

I can't disprove that, true (or rather, saying I can't for the sake of the argument since having witnesses of you in another place at that instant would disprove) and so I must make the leap of faith that seems most logical to me. Since I do not know of any feasible teleportation devices or way you could know where I am, that leap of faith is to believe that what you say is false. As I have reached and hold on to that idea, it is in fact a belief. If you care to redefine a belief, I will happily reevaluate my point, but I think most would agree that this counts.

Spoiler: spoilered to take up less space

Well, the example was mate to be funny, not to be good. It's very easy to construct ideas that can't be disproven with our cultural background, because our shared culture is filled with nonsense that as it is can't be disproven; if you replace me with "ghosts" that don't interact with the phisical world but stare deeply at your "soul" from your back ever time you are not looking, then you have a bunch of persons that will actually belive that.

Point being that after positivism in phisics, at the beggining of the past century, dudes (the smart ones like poincare, etc) started to notice that due langage, logic and the real world nature, nothing can be "really proved" here (ie. mathematicaly proved or deductively proved). Do we lay down and die? Or stop physics? Hell no, we only accept we are operating on faith and carry on, taking out what experience has made us think it's impossible and accepting what remains as true.

Edit: I find it curious how atheist seem to think the are, on absolute therms, more logical than religious people, when both are just beliveing stuff that neither can prove right, or prove that the other is wrong. On a strict classic logic sense that puts them both on the same ship of being faithful and basing their belifs in logic leaps and fallacies, though IMO it is beyond reasonable doubt the inexsistence of God.

Whether one doubts or believes either side, I agree with you on logic: it is a reasonable leap of faith.
Which would indicate that atheism is, just as much as Christianity, a faith in the sense that it believes something that cannot be definitively proven.
Therefor atheism is a faith, not simply the lack thereof, and is justified in its terminology and conception as a concrete idea.