Atheists don't have to prove a god doesn't exist, just like christians don't have to prove odin doesn't exits. The burden of proof rests on the proponents.
There exists no proof that God exists. If you have some, please provide it and change the world.
Nice strawman argument.
My comment never had a requirement that anyone - on either side - “has to prove” anything.
Don’t bring that Reddit-tier bullshit here.
If you want to tangle with me, then you’re going to have to attack my actual argument, not the one that you are projecting on to me.
The proof that there is an intelligent design is everywhere. But I’ll start with the most obvious one: the language of DNA.
Mathematically, it is the most complex language ever discovered by humans.
The next complex language(s) below the DNA code are the computer programming languages.
So, to claim that there is no intelligent designer (AKA God) to life as we know it is synonymous with claiming that the most complex language that we are aware of (DNA) somehow “wrote itself” while simultaneously understanding that every other lesser complex language (IE computer programming languages) have intelligent designers. In other words, the most fundamental claim an atheists makes (whether or not they’re aware of it) is that there has never been any language known to man that didn’t have a designer, except the most complex one.
The argument is crushed under the weight of its own illogical conclusion.
(PRO TIP: look up “information theory” after you look up “Pascal’s wager”.)
But that said, the actual debate here is whether atheism is a religion.
I already told you why it is. Instead of challenging that specific argument, you attempted to move the goal post and even change the game we’re playing here.
But at the end of the day, an atheist can’t prove that God doesn’t exist any better than I can prove he does. Because the atheist believes something to be true that they can’t prove necessarily means that it is a faith based belief, and that necessarily, therefore, makes it a religious belief. Period.
No amount of linguistic jiu jitsu changes it.
But by all means, if you think you can debate me on this topic - while staying on the actual topic - then I’m game. But to be taken seriously, you have to debate against the specific argument I actually made - not the one you wish I made.
Otherwise, you’re wasting your time and I’m not going to bother with you.
Ball is in your court.
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.
Just as predicted, you didn’t dare to address the actual argument at hand, except to say plainly that ”Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith.”
“Our belief is not a belief” doesn’t even make sense.
What you’ve done here is simply write a long diatribe of word salad without actually saying anything. Reminds me of any given politician. Sounds nice, but means nothing.
I’ve made my case, explaining quite thoroughly exactly why atheism is, in fact, a religion.
You’ve done nothing to counter the argument. You have said nothing to challenge either of the specific points I use to make my argument.
Incidentally, your inability or unwillingness to even attempt to do so only further solidifies my contention that your belief system is 100% faith-based. Because if it weren’t, you’d actually think about the points I’ve made in a logical fashion, disassociating and disconnecting your preconceived notion for just long enough to consider and then either accept or reject them based on some sort of logical thought process.
Instead, you chose to completely ignore them (because thinking too hard gives you a headache I guess) and tell yourself “no matter what anyone says or how much sense it makes, I still believe there is no God.” That’s the very definition of “faith-based” belief, my friend.
In short, you can’t prove - yet you still believe - that there is no intelligent creator of life. That alone necessarily puts you squarely in the camp of a faith-based belief. It’s the very definition of it since “faith” is literally believing something that you can’t prove. And because the term “religion” is just another word for “faith-based belief system,” that’s game-set-match. There are no two ways about it, and no amount of flowery word salad essays changes that truth.
(post is archived)