Atheism - a Mental Disease?

Mr. mikecampochiaro replied to my video on the subject of R. N. Coles' Book, and in his video he asks what is atheism, and suggests it is a disease. Actually atheism IS mental health.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Atheism
• brandon
• cropper
• mikecampochiaro
• mental
• ill
• hospital
• retard
• chess
• god
• christianity
• religion

[mattdd05]

Everything that exists was created by something.

God exists.

Therefore, God was created by something.

God was created by man.

[juancpgo]

1) Religion is an invention, God has nothing to do with it.

2) I HAVE found God. If you REALLY want to find him, you WILL. But you must seek him. Close your eyes and say, with your whole heart: "God, I'm nothing, and I know nothing. I need you. Please give me faith, and reveal yourself to me." Then, in the proper moment, you WILL find God, and live in great peace. Just try it. Somehing WILL happen.

[CALICOTV301]

@skelepieow At the end, we are on the same page, different lines perhaps. No postulate can be disproved when it lacks the evidence to prove it. So, yes, if you want to go with that one, then fair enough. But, that would kindle another argument which is how do we determine when something exists? When we know of it? I mean, realize that we don't know that it exists or that it may, until even when someone else tells us. Therefore, we were ignorant before we knew, so did it exist before we knew?

[skelepieow]

@CALICOTV301 I'm pretty sure you just agreed with my original point, intentionally or not. If you "CANNOT DISPROVE something that has not yet been proven" how could you possibly claim to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that an arbitrary claim (a claim without any evidence, meaning that it has not yet been proven) is false? You can't, because as you just said, you can't disprove it. As I've said before, until someone provides evidence for an arbitrary claim you have no reason to take it seriously

[CALICOTV301]

@skelepieow But clearly, you are missing the gist. You CANNOT DISPROVE something that has not yet been proven. When you are trialed for murder, someone is trying to prove someone's innocence only been someone is trying to prove someone's guilt. But, I don't go to court saying, let's prove that this guy didn't murder someone, why? Because nobody said that he did. However, if someone say that he didn't, but said they only BELIEVED he did, then again, they still have no case.

[skelepieow]

@CALICOTV301 The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, yes, but that doesn't dispel anything that I've said. While the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, if they do not have proof you can not simply say that it is a false claim because they don't have the evidence. All that you can really say is that you have no reason to take their claim seriously until they have evidence. You can not say that their claim is false without evidence of your own.

[skelepieow]

@CALICOTV301 You're correct that it would be unfair for you to say yes when you have no proof, but it would be just as unfair to say no without any proof (not in a court of law mind you, because then you have to add in the "innocent until proven guilty" if you're in America, although some other countries go the "guilty until proven innocent" route). You would be left with one statement to make, which is "I don't know", because you do not know. What are we disagreeing on here?

[CALICOTV301]

@skelepieow Again, there's is no evidence to support that fire breathing dragons are real, but there are none to prove they are false. There's nothing to say that there is an invisible clone of you standing beside you every day. However, you'd spend a lifetime trying to prove something false that you don't have evidence of it's existence. Wouldn't the burden be on the person who claimed it true, and why? I can't come to you and say, "I believe Mars is made of candy." You'd say why right?

[CALICOTV301]

@skelepieow Therefore it is not TRUE to you until you have evidence of it being true. If you are ignorant of it, how do you know it's true? If someone says "did the guy steal the ladies purse," althought it may be yes, it's unfair for you to say yes because you had no proof. You don't have to prove something FALSE if it hasn't been proven to exist. That's backwards. You need at least a starting point which is not in someone's mind. Until evidence is given it's in the mind.

[skelepieow]

@CALICOTV301 There's a difference in these examples and the god claim. These examples are not arbitrary claims, there is evidence to support the first claim and evidence to prove the second claim false. There is neither one of these things with the god claim, which is the reason it is an arbitrary claim. With an arbitrary claim you can not say that you know it is false or that you know it is true, because there is no evidence (in other words, because it is arbitrary).

[skelepieow]

@CALICOTV301 Well, I do know that I exist, just not necessarily in the form that I see in the mirror or with my eyes. We can talk about Renee Descartes and the "I think, therefor I am" bit, but that's really beyond the point. Regardless of if we possess the evidence to a truth or not, the truth is still a truth. We are just ignorant of the truth, which in all honesty is the way it should be. However, you can't just say that you KNOW for certain it is not true if there is no evidence.

[skelepieow]

@kyekire Then we agree. All I was doing was pointing out the flaw in cropperb's argument saying that he knew the arbitrary claim was false, which he couldn't possibly know.