Agnostic Vs Atheism Part 2

Don't think I made it very clear in Part One, but I am not a theist. I may have sound like one, but I am Agnostic. Not "agnostic atheist" or "agnostic theist", just plain out agnostic. I believe the truth is forever outside our grasp, and we should just get on with our lives and believe what we want, be it God or no god. If you think I'm wrong, I'm okay with that.

In this part, I will do some "debunking" of my own. I'll look at some of the questions and taunts I've come across in my atheist research.

"Atheism is just a denial of theism, we don't have to prove anything."
My problem with this is that if you were to go Huffpost Religion and look through the comments, you will find a s*** ton of "God's not real, get over it!" posts. Now, The burden of proof is defined as the obligation to prove one's assertion. When one says "There is no God", they are asserting that what they say is the truth. They must back up said statement with evidence, which is more than likely to be the stand by "My proof is that you have no proof". Just cause some english comic says you don't need to prove anything, you can't just ignore the laws of reason. If you make a claim, be it rational or irrational, you must give evidence to back it up.

"Everyone is an atheist; I just happen to believe in one less god than you do."
The response to this argument comes from Encyclopedia Dramatica, the satirical Wiki. Just because it comes from a comedy site, doesn't make it any less true.
-"A common atheist argument that asserts that since Christians believe in only one god, but none of the other countless gods worshiped over time such as Zeus or Thor, everyone is an atheist. This argument is easily dismantled by pointing out that atheism, by definition, is the universal rejection of ALL gods, not just some. Since Christians believe in a god, they cannot be atheists, making this argument invalid."

"Religion doesn't approve of s**."
Mormonism, Islam, and some Buddhist sects allow you to have multiple wives. Don't mean to be silly about this, but you get to bang a different chick every night. And if you do some terrorist s*** for ISIS, you get 72 virgins when you die!

"Atheism is the default religious stance; theists are the only ones who must prove their bullshit."
One again, ED gives us the answer
-"Atheism and agnosticism are the same concepts" (which is only proven by other atheists). This statement alone fails because rejection isn't the same process as ambiguity. For example, if you see a fine piece of ass on a woman but her face reminds you of Arguecat, it might take you a moment or two to decide if it's really worth ramming your c*** into. On the other hand, if Arguecat's ass was in front of you, a "H*** no" is appropriate (unless you're a sick f***). The former is different than the later because the thought of tapping that ass is considered and has a very real possibility of being acted upon, rather than simply walking away and deciding to not act upon the a***. In neutral agnosticism, both sides have equal consideration, and thus the claims of either aren't explicitly rejected or accepted. How such simple logic seems to elude the most masterfully tactical of atheists seems to point to the presence of one condition. Not only is the atheist here unscientific for confusing a denial of a claim with testing of a claim, but his method of thinking is fundamentally dangerous.

"If you believe in God, you must believe in Unicorns and Mermaids, too."
Unicorns are rhinos and Mermaids are manatees. Apologetics 101, but still true.

"What about angels and demons, smart guy?"
I can't give you a good fight there. They may not be real. I don't see how them being fake proves without a shadow of a doubt that there is no creator.

Report this

1 Comment

  • newest
  • oldest
  • most replies
  • most popular
  • I don't know of any atheist that claims that there is no god with 100% certainty. What we are claiming is that there is no evidence to support any religious belief and therefore it is illogical to believe any of it to be true. And since the idea of god is so arbitrary (think about it, why god? why not two gods or a million? why not a giant pink chimpanzee?) there is no reason to give that theory any more credibility than any other story you can come up with. You say that we do have to prove our stance. Well, what's there to prove? That there is no evidence? It's the theists that are making a claim so it's on them to provide the proof.

Account Login
Is this post inapropriate?
Is this comment inapropriate?
Delete this post?