atheists arent we being hypocrites and illogical?

Question

its easy for us to say that SOME not all but SOME christians are illogical for claiming to KNOW god exists when they have no proof. we ask "how do you know he exists?"

but arent we also illogical for claiming he doesnt exist when we have no proof ourselves? I mean some of us although not all, claim to KNOW god doesnt exist.

and doesnt it take faith from both sides to believe he does or doesnt exist? so shouldnt we stop claiming that he doesnt exist when we dont KNOW he doesnt and only BELIEVE he doesnt exist?

I just thought we should things straight so that we dont become hypocrites in accusing others of what we may be doing ourselves.

Sorry, meant to say "straighten things out so..."

Yeah I can see we are guilty of the same thing. Just cause I believe god doesnt exist, that doesnt mean I know he doesnt.

Answer 1

Isn't EVERYONE a little bit hypocritical and illogical? Christian, Atheist, Muslim . . . whatever?!?

Answer 2

You are 100% correct.

Therefore, in addition to teaching kids that god's existence is possible, we should teach them that all of the following are
possible:

1. Some people have been abducted by aliens.
2. Feng Shui works.
3. There are some real psychics.
4. Man didn't walk on the moon.
5. 9/11 was an inside job.
6. Elvis is not dead.

(There are "justifications" for all of the above claims.)

Conclusion: The burden of proof rests with the person making the idiotic claim.

Answer 3

No, logic dictates that until a claim is proven it false, otherwise we would all accept unicorns, Santa, and the tooth fairy as existing. The rule is that you prove the claim not prove that the claim is non existent - this is not specific to religion.

Furthermore, examination of evidence indicates that evolution happened without intervention. There also is no evidence to support any "miraculous event" recorded by any holy book. This is a good indication that there is no deity.

Edit:
What "cadisneygirl76" says is true to an extent, you do not disprove a claim as this is impossible for any and all claims (i.e. Santa, gods, fairies etc). It is also true that proof does not work for definitions. However, god(s) are not a definition and there is no evidence that any of them exist.

Edit 2:
Nicholesta is wrong for the same reason I stated before, it i simply impossible to prove that any given thing doesn't exist. Asserting that anything doesn't exist is logically equivalent to stating that that thing has not been proven to exist and proof of existence still rests on the claiment.

Answer 4

Not at all.

Being an atheist means you lack belief in any and all gawds. But we're not the ones making the positive claim that such a thing exists.

It's like if I were to say there was a teapot, undetectable by us in any way, shape or form orbiting the sun at a distance of 50 million kilometers would I then say that you had to prove that it wasn't there? And because you couldn't prove it that that automagically made it real? No, of course not.

If a person is making the positive claim that such and such exists then the onus is on them to prove such a thing exists. It's not up to the person that doesn't believe to prove it's non-existence.

And you sound like an agnostic to me as you're taking the "we don't know either way" route.

Answer 5

It is possible that the god of the bible exists. It is also possible that the Hindu gods exist. It is also possible that the other 2-3 thousand gods that have been invented by humans exist.

And then don't forget Big Foot and Unicorns.

A true skeptic acknowledges that all these things are possible but, without hard evidence, they are not worth to much concern.

Answer 6

The loss in logic belongs to those who refuse to examine the evidence. That evidence is not always revealed as empirical in nature, especially when the topic of discussion is of the spirit.
Work has progressed on the development of the theory of evolution at many stages of its development through the faith of those involved that the next stage would appear. Yet, it is acceptable to deny to others the application of that same faith to any other topic. While not spiritual in nature to those doing the work, it is often perceived as spiritual by those observing. Is the faith of the atheist then to be accepted as superior to that of the believer?
Ok. So discussions of God do not belong in a setting ruled by scientific method. Why is the evidence that is only empirical in nature the only evidence that is acceptable to prove?
Can you count the number of times people have claimed to experience that proof for themselves?

Answer 7

Neither Christians nor Atheists ever had proof, its philosophy, logic, they reason and create theories we can never know for sure, Christians believe that we had to come from somewhere, God didn`t directly create the computer nor the steel inside it, he didn`t litteraly create us whole as we are (no, the creation is symbolic, God didn`t create anything in a week) he created bacteria which by millions of years evolved, he didn`t create the universe he created something science calls singularity, a single point in nothingness that combusted and the universe was created and is still growing today, billions of Earth years later.

We guess God exists since we think its illogical to think things like these came from nothing.

Its also logical to think God doesn`t exist since most of the world is dieing of hunger and the rest is comfortable.

Its logic and faith.

Answer 8

Thank you so much for this question!! This is something that I have been thinking is true all along! I mean, neither side can give absolute proof of existence or non existence so to ask one side to prove without proving yourself, does seem illogical!! Isn't it nice when we can actually discuss things without all the bashing...Well, haven't read the responses yet so I better hold that till I do-lol

Answer 9

Zero Cool
Your point makes no sense because by definition a square has four sides. That can absolutely be proven to be false. You cant disprove God anymore than I can prove God.

Some people claim that if they cant prove it then there is no point in believing it and I say that is crazy. I cant prove a lot of things that I assume are true. Even things we take for granted as true are a lot of times based on putting our faith on experts we trust. Has anyone seen an atom actually split on here that claims it has happened?

We all have faith in one form or another.


zero cool
you are the one that cant handle anyone that dares to contradict you
How many people do you have on your ignore list by now?
You are tryiing to claim it was illogical to claim a square was 3 sided as the exact same argument to say it is illogical to claim God exists because you cant prove God. That doesnt work. Its isnt logically a correct comparison. Your comparison and your argument is based on the assumption that God does not exist to begin with. How does that prove God does not exist or prove your argument valid? It is YOUR assumption. There is no assuming about the existance or the definition of squares.

So maybe when you learn to form a cohesive, logical, coherent argument, I will take you more seriously.

Answer 10

probable slightly, yet not rather undesirable IMO. even nonetheless i've got not got any ideals in those issues (different than in attainable of a few ET life yet as specific under). Ghosts? a minimum of we've some form of inductive illustrations. Ghost p.c.. and recordings abound, not all actual debunked. not adequate information for me, yet some information in a non-scientific meaning a minimum of. Karma? there i'd believe you - no indication in any respect it extremely is probable. ET - 2 section answer. Little to no probability we've been contacted so a ways, yet given billions of planets and billions of years, that is hardly impossible that life arose a minimum of two times. So i'm skeptical yet open minded on all those rather, with various thresholds. yet think of what those believers in those distinctive concepts are claiming, and what they recommend we do approximately it, and you will see a quantitative and qualitative distinction: a million) some component to a organic and organic life-form can go away some detectable hint after loss of life. we've photographs, recordings and so forth and our brains emit all way of waves that would desire to conceivably be in touch in some as yet unguessable way. enable's think of greater approximately this 2) someplace else in the universe sensible life has arisen in some unspecified time sooner or later different than earth, purely attainable droop. enable's look into greater. 3) An eternal ideal all efficient being micromanages each little thing in the universe yet leaves no hint of itself and as a replace gadgets up information indicating purely naturalistic methods. enable's set up our finished society and our own lives around the guesses of bronze age peasants approximately what this being needs. lower back - i in my opinion have an lively perception in none of those issues, and would cope with skeptically claims from atheists who look for to convince me, yet they're very distinctive from theistic claims.

Answer 11

do you think it's hypocritical and illogical to say that Zeus doesn't exist? Or Thor? Or fairies? Or Santa Claus.

I don't see why I have to be open minded to the idea of the xian god when it's improbable that he exists and there's zero evidence of his existance yet I can dismiss the others for those reasons.