Is Atheism untenable?

Question

To say there is no God, wouldn't you have to search the universe and know everything... wouldn't you have to be omniscient (which means you are God)? Would this disprove the very position you're trying to prove?

Answer 1

The true definition of atheism . . . the abject denial of the supernatural ... is of course untenable. It would require the assumption or claim that authoritatively there is no supernatural phenomena. In so doing, one is claiming absolute knowledge and therefore contradicting the claim. Theism and agnosticism are the only tenable positions.

Ath

Answer 2

You're defining Atheism incorrectly.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god(s). It does not require a declaration along the lines of, "There is no god."

Now, consider what the alternative is, to believe in the existence of a single god. By your reasoning, wouldn't you have to search the universe and known everything to be sure that there isn't any other gods out there? And even if you searched every nook and cranny, what if the other god(s) moved into an area you already searched? You'd never know.

I think that this "search to know for sure" method may be valid in some circumstances, but when you can't reach the whole universe, you have to base your answers on what information you *do* have. Right now, the evidence for such a being is completely absent. There is equal reason to believe in god as there is to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Answer 3

Your argument is untenable. Please define precisely what you mean by "God" in that argument. If you all you mean is "a supernatural creator of this universe" and nothing more, then sure, I can't prove there is no such god, and there is no empirical evidence for or against the existence of the god. I guess that means I'm not an atheist.

But you probably had a more specific God in mind, didn't you? Now what are the properties you are claiming about that God? Is it by chance the God of the Bible? If so, then we don't have to search the universe for contrary evidence, there is plenty at hand right here on earth.

Answer 4

In a word, no.

Atheism and agnosticism are not untenable because they are not making claims about the validity of religious faith.

Whenever someone makes a claim (such as "there is a god and his name is ..."), it is THEIR responsibility to prove the claim.

So if we were in the same room together and I told you there was a 50 ton boulder in the bathroom, your response would understandably be "Really? I've got to see that!"

But if I then told you "No, no, no, no - just believe me. There's a 50 ton boulder in the bathroom," you would quite understandably say "well, I find that hard to believe - I'd really like to see it for myself."

If I continued to insist there was a 50 ton boulder in the bathroom (and refused or was unable to let you see it), you would understandably regard my claim with at least a modicum of disbelief.

I think where atheists get a bad rap is their insistence that the religiously devout prove their claims - in reality atheists and agnostics aren't saying that a god CAN'T exist, they are merely saying that if someone says a god DOES exist, but can't provide evidence to substantiate their claim, then such a claim must be regarded with suspecion.

Answer 5

To say there is no Zeus, wouldn't you have to search the universe and know everything... wouldn't you have to be omniscient (which means you are Zeus)? Would this disprove the very position you're trying to prove?

Answer 6

Atheism doesn't mean that there is no God, it just means that atheist believe that "God" is not a being, like those propagated by religion. Atheist believe in science and proven hypothesis. It is true, there is things that Atheist don't know and cannot explain. But just because you cannot explain it doesn't mean that there is a being called "God" who is responsible for it. Rather atheist believe that there is a logical explanation for it but with current scientific methods, there is no way to arrive at any conclusion.

So to answer your question, atheist wouldn't say that there is no God, but to attribute the unexplained of this universe to a being called "God" is preposterous.

Answer 7

I have more proof that you exist than a god

I can talk to you, and you respond

with a god...good luck!

Y! Answers IS God, Incarnate of today

when we ask humanity, we get answers from the gods or humans among us

the Tower of Babel will be restored...

we will one day get along and not due to a religion, but due to love and compassion without a deity saying so

Answer 8

We've never seen anyone turn a tennis ball inside out without cutting it, but then we haven't been every place in the universe at every moment in the history of the universe, so how do we know that it's never happened?

Logic, that's how. We don't *have* to look everywhere, because we *know* that it's impossible.

Similarly for a god - We don't *have* to look for gods everywhere in the universe in order to prove they don't exist. We just need logic.

All reasoned arguments rely on axioms, i.e. things which we take to be true, but which are not amenable to proof. The most obvious axiom is the validity of reason itself - It is trivially obvious that we can't use a reasoned argument to prove that reason is valid, because we have to presume that reason is valid in order to make any kind of reasoned argument.

I have another axiom, which I'm sure no sane person would dispute: That the order and complexity that we see around us in the natural universe, and particularly in the intricate structure and functions of living organisms, could not possibly just exist fully formed, with no cause, no origin, no precursor of any sort. I can't *prove* that this is the case, but it seems inconceivable to me that anyone would dispute it.

So, the logical consequence of accepting this axiom is that, for the very same reason, it's not possible that the order and complexity of the universe is sourced in an intelligent deity who designed and made the universe and *himself* exists fully formed with no cause, no origin, no precursor of any sort. I don't think any reasonable person would dispute the axiom presented here, and acceptance of the axiom leads to an indisputable proof of the non-existence of an intelligent creator.

Anyone who (against all reason) asserted that the order and complexity we see in the universe *could* indeed exist fully formed with no cause and no origin, in order thereby to save the concept of an uncaused intelligent designer, would find that they had invalidated said designer by making him redundant - i.e. if the order and complexity of the universe could just exist fully formed and uncaused then it would not need (in fact, could not possibly have) a designer.

Either way, the concept of a creator is invalidated.

Answer 9

"Athesist" is just another label to try group people. I am not sure about the existence of God. Yet people label me an athesist? I never said there wasn't, but because i dont have "faith" i am labelled.
I believe in evolution. But i also belive that GOD could exist.
Unfortuanately people take the "god created the world in 7 days" so literally.
Because if you put in perspective, evolution and Creation could be one in the same. Except each "day" are "stages" millions (billions)of years. And if this is true then we are in the 7th stage (day).

Answer 10

Atheism is defined as a lack of god belief. Belief requires sufficient evidence. Without such evidence atheism is the only logical position.

Answer 11

No, of course not. If there's no evidence, there's no reason to think there's a god. Do you plan to spend the rest of your life making sure there's no Zeus, just in case? Or do you just plan on assuming there's no Zeus because you've never seen any evidence?