The definition of an Atheist is one who claims "there is no God" But to make an absolute statement you must have absolute knowledge.
Does the atheist know how many grains of sand make up the sea shores of the world? No. How about the amount of hairs on their forearm, NO
Thomas Edison said that we don't know 1% of ANYTHING in the universe. But lets say I give any atheist the benefit of having a whopping 25% knowledge of EVERYTHING in the universe, to have 100% knowledge you would know what was inand under every rock inthe universe. I then ask, is it possible that ample evidence for the existence of God exists in the other 75% knowledge you just do not know about yet??
If you are HONEST you are FORCED to say...yes. (because you do not have all knowledge) Therefore the atheist cannot, by the very definition, exist. You're agnostic.
So you must state, "With the limited knowledge I currently have, I believe there is no God." This makes you an agnostic. Atheist, you do not exist.
2007-06-13 06:52:41 · 14 answers · asked by musingaloud 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
Your missing the point!!
To say something does NOT exist, you need all knowledge to know it does not exist ANYWHERE
To say something exists you only need a shred of evidence.
2007-06-13 08:49:40 · update #1
Is this also true for the belief in invisible unicorns?
2007-06-13 07:05:42 · answer #1 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Since this is in science and math (?), I'll argue for science.
Your reasoning is faulty. If an atheist is one who claims there is no God:
1) That's not a scientific statement--it is opinion. You can't make claims that you are definitively sure there is or isn't a God without empirical evidence.
2) Just because someone makes a claim does not mean it is less or more valid than any other claim on the issue, if it includes little or no empirical evidence.
3) Assuming God knows everything, if you had 100% knowledge of everything in the universe, you would be God, making this claim false.
4) Not having knowledge of something does not inherently make it nonexistant. I have no idea what my brother ate for lunch today, so should I assume he didn't eat?
5) In your argument, you say an atheist cannot exist, which is completely not true, because we have emperical evidence of them.
6) Your argument is based on a definition of atheism that I wouldn't necessarily agree with. I would posit that an atheist is one who does not believe there is a God. A Christian is one who believes that Christ is the Savior. Etc., etc. The point here is belief. And anyone can believe anything they want--no one has to have proof for it or against it.
Not an attack, just a devil's advocate...
2007-06-13 14:16:56 · answer #2 · answered by the_way_of_the_turtle 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Katherine, to prove their is a god you would need all of the knowledge that can exist. That is why Christians and other religious folk do not use science, so don't use it against atheists! If you don't beleive in the science of evolution, don't use science to prove a point!
2007-06-15 23:43:27 · answer #3 · answered by bobhaslife 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You missed the point! I, as a pan-theists, think the statistical likelihood of a god is so vanishing small that it is almost impossible. There is not one scintilla of evidence for your god and to say that there is makes you a lier. The word is a-theism, meaning without deities. I, for one, do nor care if there is a god, or not; I reject all such posturing nonsense utterly!
2007-06-13 16:30:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By this reasoning, we are all agnostic, since we must admit that we can't know for sure one way or the other. You are using some sort of Humpty-Dumptyish logical fallacy here, by imposing your own requirements (the need for absolute knowledge) on the definition of "atheist".
2007-06-13 14:02:43 · answer #5 · answered by injanier 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I don't know where you found that dictionary but... theist is one that that espouses the existence of a God... but no God can be proven to exist... so I suggest you acquire a bit more knowledge before you go outside & play with the big boys.
2007-06-13 14:00:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Did you know that you are painfully transparent at crticising those who disagree with your religion?
An atheist is one who BELIEVES there is no God. Not one who states categorically that there isn't one. You can't state categorically that there is one either. If you had the evidence you'd show it and conclusively prove His existence.
2007-06-13 20:05:51 · answer #7 · answered by Jason T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
By your definition, there can be no religious people either.
So you're essentially saying nobody exists.
It is scientifically irresponsible to assert the existence of something that is not testable.
Learn some damn logic.
2007-06-13 13:57:46 · answer #8 · answered by Katharine D 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
By your questionable logic, the equal and opposite would apply for Christians.
<= first aethiest to pour in
2007-06-13 13:56:40 · answer #9 · answered by schlouey 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This can only be construed as well thought out to those whose synaptic pathways have ceased to create themselves but instead are satisfied to adopt the pathways of others and accept them as true because it easier to do so.
2007-06-13 14:06:16 · answer #10 · answered by Juan D 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋