Stacey #fundie

Stacey #fundie friendlyatheist.com

There is NO SUCH THING as an atheist. If you make an absolute statement that there is NO God, then you make the affirmation that you know all things and that you can actually prove this. This is like somebody making a statement that there is no gold in China. You would have to be everywhere at one time and know what is under every rock and in every area of the land, in every man’s home, inside of each person mouth etc. It would not be proveable! [sic] Don’t try to argue that you say there is no God because you cannot prove there is! You cannot make an absolute statement and try to rationalize it by using the negative argument. It does not hold up. At least admit that YOU DON’T KNOW and take your first step toward agnosticism. Only then will you become more rational and realize that having faith is something we all exhibit whether it be in God or anything else.

68 comments

old comment by Dark_Lord_Prime

And yet, oddly enough, I have -never- "had faith," or believed in "god" or had any need or desire to, as far back as I can remember.

There has never been any sort of "void" in me, yearning to be filled.

Unfortunately for Stacey, "rationality," by definition, is the exact opposite of blindly accepting the existence of an omnipotent god--who has nothing better to do in the vastness of the universe than worry over whether some insignificant creatures on one tiny planet out of BILLIONS are showing it enough worship and love--without the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence. That nonsense is what she calls "faith."

There is, in fact, such a thing as an athiest, and I am living proof.

old comment by Grand Archblasphemer of York

Although you are right in what you are stating, the atheist whose beliefs (non-beliefs?) you are attacking so vehemently probably does not exist. Most atheists hold a far more nuanced position than the one you are opposing here, and it tends to resemble agnosticism, and is not the argument that there is no God, but rather that a God is unlikely, that no religion is more accurate than any other, and thus it is a copout to believe in any one over any other, or that a God who would punish for not believing in him is not worthy of worship anyway.

We do admit that we do not know...but we can still have an opinion, just like the God-folk tend to.

old comment by Fanatic-Templar

While theoretically correct, to become an agnostic would require that I give credence to the possibility that there is a god. I do not. Nor do I give thought to the possibility that there is an Ancient Wyrm Red Dragon sleeping under my house, or that the sun will not rise tomorrow, or that I will inexplicably die in my sleep.

I do not know that any of these things are impossible, but they are so improbable that it is not worth wasting time thinking on it. So I am an atheist - because acknowledging the possibility of a deity would only lead to a path of absolute skepticism - acknowledging the possibility of even the most ludicrous claims: the table in front of me might actually be an illusion created by my senses, but there might be an invisible pink unicorn standing behind me.

I afford the same credibility to gods as I do to Nigerian scammers. I don't have evidence that they're lying, but I have no reason to believe they are true.

old comment by The Watcher

Can I prove that God doesn't exist? No. Or rather, can I prove that some type of being, with immense power, that may or may not have some kind of wants or needs, that may or may not have created all of us, and may or may not know/understand/care about our existence in any way exists? No. I mean, still, I have no reason to think such a being may exist, so I don't.

YOUR God, however? That's a different story. YOUR fundie Christian God is extremely falsifiable, thanks to fundies themselves. Because you people keep insisting on ascribing endless characteristics to your God. What He can do, what He can't do, what He wants us to do, what He did do, etc. You describe what He looks like, His methods of operation, nearly everything about Him, as if this "God" character was like your next door neighbor.

THIS God, the God of the Bible, is incredibly specific, and in a way that the specifics make no sense. They have no precedent; your stories are just stories, describing things no one has ever seen happen.

So no, I can't prove the existence of some indescribable Supreme Being, but the God of the Bible? That's an absurd joke.

old comment by onoma

There is NO SUCH THING as god. If you make an absolute statement that there is a God, then you make the affirmation that you know all things and that you can actually prove this. This is like somebody making a statement that there is no gold in China. You would have to be everywhere at one time and know what is under every rock and in every area of the land, in every man’s home, inside of each person mouth etc. It would not be proveable! [sic+1] Don’t try to argue that you say there is a God because you cannot prove there is! You cannot make an absolute statement and try to rationalize it by using the negative argument. It does not hold up. At least admit that YOU DON’T KNOW and take your first step toward agnosticism. Only then will you become more rational and realize love, kindness, and fellowship are human traits, and require no god to force submission.

old comment by Glacian

Actually, you CAN prove certain things don't exist, and make absolute statements about them.

I know, for instance, that there are no unicorns that are both entirely white, and entirely pink. There are no birds that both possess wings and do not possess wings. Likewise, if your God can do logically impossible things, or has logically impossible properties, your God is logically impossible, and thus doesn't exist. Absolute claims CAN be made, even if they were relevant (which, funny enough, they arne't). So shut the HELL up. I am so tired of these stupid people acting like they possess a monopoly on reason. Yes you can "prove absolutes" under certain circumstances. Then again, most of you actually never give any definition of God in the first place, or at least a satisfactory one, so the whole idea that we're arguing about anything intelligible is dubious to begin with. I don't have to disprove your concept of "God" any more than you have to disprove the existence of gunglubusses.

You're wrong.

old comment by Comicartist

There is NO SUCH THING as an aunicornist. If you make an absolute statement that there is NO unicorn, then you make the affirmation that you know all things and that you can actually prove this. This is like somebody making a statement that there is no gold in China. You would have to be everywhere at one time and know what is under every rock and in every area of the land, in every man’s home, inside of each person mouth etc. It would not be proveable! [sic] Don’t try to argue that you say there is no unicorn because you cannot prove there is! You cannot make an absolute statement and try to rationalize it by using the negative argument. It does not hold up. At least admit that YOU DON’T KNOW and take your first step toward agnosticism. Only then will you become more rational and realize that having faith is something we all exhibit whether it be in a unicorn or anything else.

See the effect is a bit different now isn't it? And by the way I already know that most people even atheists probably have some kind of belief or faith in something unsubstantiable, however small it may be. I do however not see that as a reason for me to suddenly start believing in some creator god who frankly lacks any semblance of evidence to prove his existance. I am not willing to accept a claim of that magnitude on faith alone. And as Dark_Lord_Prime said: "rationality, by definition, is the exact opposite of blindly accepting the existence of an omnipotent god."

old comment by Pedantic Twit

@James: According to the wiki entries, weak agnosticism is identical to atheism. It seems that people are very quick to hide behind the term agnostic rather than face the social repercussions of actually calling a stone a stone.

From Wiki:
Atheism entails the absence of belief in the existence of God or other deities. Absence of belief: "Atheists are people who do not believe in a god or gods (or other immaterial beings), or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful. ..."

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience perceived by that individual.

old comment by Canadiest

I have faith derived from research that your Bible is a collection of fables and pulled from myths of surrounding cultures of several countries. This is provable and the stance of most Biblical Scholars (real ones, not fundie interpreters, actual accredited, knowledgeable Scholars).

This is why, in North America, churchs protest the teaching of comparitive religions, the history of the Bible and the church. Suppressed knowledge that if taught would lead to the rational conclusion that it's a con and always has been.

No, we can't prove there is no God but there's lots of evidence your God is invented from older fables, your Jesus even moreso.

You have nothing but that Bible. You have nothing of substance.

There's no need to "know all things" to infer that something likely doesn't exist because there is no evidence of it. But you need to pretend to "know all things" to assert that things exist despite the lack of evidence. Therefore, psychological projection. Likewise, there is no need to "affirm" the non existence, there simply is no need to constantly reaffirm the purported existence of something that may not exist. And there is no need to submit one's life to the specific rules of someone who decides what they should be based on flawed premises. Even if evolution is accepted by many religious as well: atheists are not knocking at your door in the morning to "teach you the good word of Darwin", do they? And they don't need constant self-conditioning to maintain an apparently irrational belief that requires such. Only evidence and some understanding of reality.

Are those with stunted mental abilities attracted to fundamental religious groups, or do fundamental religious group stunt mental abilities?

Good point, Nibien. Both, of course, a vicious circle. Also, humans are always vulnerable and opportunists may attempt to trick them when in an even more vulnerable situation, like during a health crisis at the hospital. Others work increasing conflict and wait for society crises to try to take over with their theocracy. This means that human evil is also involved...

Stacey #fundie friendlyatheist.com

68 comments

Confused?