Strong Atheism

darknicholi

STRONG ATHEISM:  WHY I’M AN ATHEIST

​The strongest arguments for the existence of god are so circular in begging the question that they are readily dismantled. 

So-called “strong atheism” seems a little arrogant, when it comes to strongly asserting the non-existence of something, but when it is something so absurd as “God”, the strong position is not so far-fetched. 

If someone were to assert the non-existence of the Easter Bunny, in the sense of an actual anthropomorphic rabbit, most people would agree without hesitation. The case for the existence “God” is only stronger than the case for the Easter Bunny because no one has bothered to argue for the Easter Bunny. The case for the existence of god makes about as much sense.  It is arguing for a meaningless and patently absurd concept. 

Strongly asserting “God does not exist” is no less arrogant than asserting “A twelve-galaxy-tall chocolate bunny does not exist.”
Someone can always ask “How do you know for sure?” And yes, while you have not empirically proven the non-existence of the twelve-galaxy-tall chocolate bunny, the weight of probability is so grossly in favor of its non-existence that there are more productive and less nonsensical cosmic problems to devote your time to.

1. Again, the definition of God is so general as to be completely devoid of meaning.

2. This of course raises the obvious question, what caused God? Even if you concede a “Big Bang” theory of the universe, the leap from that to a conscious sentient creator is a ridiculously huge leap. The argument that God is the ex nihilo creator, that he created everything out of nothing is an absurdity. Nothing can come from nothing. No power can create something from nothing. Power cannot create contradictions, because contradictions cannot exist as anything but verbal statements. For example; no amount of power can create a square circle. To create refers to shaping, making, constructing something from something. To say create implies or means that something is brought into existence from non-existence, not out of any prior raw material, is a meaningless and contradictory assertion. If the universe is “everything” how is “god” outside of it? This is all ridiculous bullshit and word-games.

The “Gods” or “God” do not exist “out there” – they are the product of human imagination (either projected or encountered in introverted mental states) in turn based in the carnal evolution of the human brain and nervous system.

To say “god” might exist is actually more nonsensical than saying a 12 galaxy tall chocolate rabbit might exist because a “12 galaxy tall chocolate rabbit” is actually a more coherent description with specific meaning than “god” which has been used and stretched to the point that it has NO meaning whatsoever.

Once you say any term such as “god” can mean ANYTHING you want it to, it is rendered MEANINGLESS and devoid of any referential content outside of the personal whim of whoever is using it. 

Even the best most abstract attempts to frame a coherent definition of god or argument for its existence are circular, begging the question, and pre-assume what they profess to “prove.”
It is safe to say “god” doesn’t exist because it is a meaningless or self-refuting concept AT BEST.

Again – that some here can’t follow this is not the shortcoming of the case, rather of their comprehension – they keep sliding back to “you never know” or “you can’t PROVE its not…” etc.

YOU DON’T HAVE TO “PROVE” IT – IT IS SELF-REFUTING NONSENSE INCAPABLE OF PROOF BECAUSE IT IS DEVOID OF MEANING TO BEGIN WITH.

Water seeks its own level. 

If religious people were capable of REASONING they would not BELIEVE their nonsense to begin with. They are not capable. 
If so-called “agnostics” who want to say “you never know” were capable of comprehending that the premise is LOGICALLY flawed and self-refuting in the first place, that there is NOTHING to prove or disprove, they wouldn’t waffle around wondering if the absurd might still be hiding out there in the universe somewhere.

The shortcoming is not in the reasons for dismissing the idea – the shortcoming is in the inability of the individual to understand why.

LOGIC or REASON is not a “faith” or some arcane system of brainwashing. Its use is in disciplining thought. Part of it is weeding out patently absurd and self-refuting concepts to begin with.

Most people are addicted to their own sloppy inner dialogue, usually based on sloppy use of language and lack of real reasoning skills. This is why there will always be Religions in the world until someone fulfills James Watson’s hope of a genetic cure for stupidity.

Published by darknicholi

"I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good."

21 Comments

  1. In natural law theory, the definition of God is particular.

    God is the First Cause, that is, the cause of everything.

    Consequently, “What caused God,” is total nonsense since by definition of the word, “first,” there is no preceding cause.

    God, the Creator, logically is uncaused.

    The atheist question, “What caused God?” is nonsense.

    Logically, nonsense cannot be used as a counter argument for what is true.

    Like

    Reply

    1. First off if you want to make the claim that “God caused everything” you would have to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that such a first cause even exists. Merely stating “he is the first cause” is an assertion and not an argument. Moreover if you want to argue that God did cause everything then you have to provide some credible evidence that everything came from one source. We have no evidence that would even suggest this.

      As far as your objection to the special pleading fallacy you clearly have not thought this through. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. In order for God to be exempt from such a fallacy you would have to prove that such a God is the first cause. Even if you proved there was an ex-nihilo creator of the universe you would have to prove that that God was not created by some other God. You would have to enter an infinite regression of explanations and proofs by that argument too. Even if you wanted to skip those objections and conceded that there could be a ex-nihilo creator you would have to answer the most logical question: what was such a God doing for billions and billions of years before he created everything? There’s no cosmic proof even in the distant stars that such a creator was doing anything active. Now if you want to get into a discussion specifically on NLT we can because that too is just as nonsensical as your objection to the special pleading fallacy.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Aristotle, who originated this argument for the existence of God, teaches that all things have a cause.

        This is common sense (simple reasoning) otherwise everything just happens all by itself.

        If all causes are followed back and back, that leads to the First Cause.

        The First Cause is God.

        It’s a very simple and easily understood proof of the existence of God.

        In modern times the existence of God has been proven through the discoveries of modern science using the standards of modern science.

        Atheists are in fact, far worse than any flat earther or religious fanatic since atheism has been proven false.

        Like

      2. Aristotle had some interesting ideas. He was wrong about a lot of them though. For example he believed the soul and source of life was in the heart and that the brain only cooled blood.

        See my objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument in my new blog.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Dark,

        Whether Aristotle was right about this or that is irrelevant.

        The fact is, that his proof of the existence of God, simple reasoning:

        He states two facts and then a conclusion based on those facts.

        Like

      5. I was simply pointing out that at the time Aristotle had a very limited understanding on complex things. The understanding of our cosmological make-up of the universe today is much different than what Aristotle knew then.

        Like

      7. Mrs. A,

        The scientific method is based on reason.

        And the scientific method is all about proof.

        Also, mathematics is all about proof and is an example of pure reason.

        So to say, “Reason doesn’t prove anything,” is proof that atheism is a retrograde creed that hearkens back to man’s brutal life in the trees.

        Like

  2. Logic and reason also dictate that atheism is a superstition, like religion. Atheism assumes the nonexistence of deities without proof, while religion assumes their existence without proof. Don’t get me wrong, I think religion is comical at best. And there’s plenty of evidence suggesting religion is motivated entirely by the desire to self-deceive.

    Still. No proof either way.

    Like

    Reply

    1. On burden shifting. Is this not an argument appealing to ignorance?

      Explanation:

      Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious; if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. In other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious.

      Example:

      (1) No one has been able to disprove the existence of God.

      Therefore:

      (2) God exists.

      This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Do you have irrefutable proof that any of the deities don’t exist?

        There’s nothing wrong with doubting their existence – we have no proof that they do. But, to be an Atheist, is to say they do not exist – without irrefutable proof. What is religion but treating their groundless assumptions as facts? Atheism, by that standard, is a religion. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is fine.

        Like

      3. The definitional problem is more serious, I think. So often the arguments follow the format “If A then B. God is the sort of thing that can participate in any kind of conditional relation, therefore god.”
        That doesn’t say what god is, it just says god can be characterized by anything. Kind of a show-stopper.
        How else does one respond, except to say, ” I don’t know what you are talking about, and admittedly, neither do you.”

        Liked by 1 person

  3. good post. SOM is the usual theist who wants to claim that his god is the only god that can be supported with evidence, and then forgets that he has nothing to show that his god is any more real than Tezcatlipoca, Zeus or Odin.

    First cause arguments from theists, especially Christians, always fail since they cannot define their god nor can they show that their particular omnipotent deity exists and it requires believing in a man/god that has to die from murder to be “saved”.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Club,

      If you can’t wrap your mind around a proof of God based on simple reasoning, how about a simple disproof of atheism itself?

      It stands to reason that if atheism is disproven, than the existence of God automatically follows.

      Here is the proof and it is based on the theory of evolution and the study of ecology that naturally follows from it:

      1. Every living creature in nature has a purpose (ecology).

      2. The atheist states that each human being must create his own purpose (existentialism).

      3. If human beings must create their own purpose, then their purpose was not given to them by nature since every living creature in nature has a purpose.

      Consequently, if atheism is true, the theory of evolution must be false.

      But since the theory of evolution is true, atheism must be false.

      Since atheism is false, God must exist.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Good reads all the way down. If I’ve decided to not believe in a god because it no longer makes sense to me, that is good enough for me. I don’t need to get a PhD in philosophy or logic, nor do I need to debate any dead Greeks. I did not need all that to believe. But, blogs like this help. Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment