atheism is accurate and correct because...

This is in response to Shockofgod's request for atheists to provide proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct

Category:

Education

Tags:

• atheist
• atheism
• shockofgod
• shock
• of
• god
• proof
• evidence
• true
• accurate
• correct
• question
• disproof
• theism
• omnipotent
• beings
• hast
• created
• definition
• thus
• properties
• universe
• omnibenevolent
• omniscient
• arguments
• burden
• doubt
• prove
• physical
• evolution
• creationism
• debate
• thunderf00t
• thunderfoot
• aronra
• cdk007
• experience
• don
• exodus
• donexodus
• church
• define
• jesus
• islam
• christianity
• heaven
• truth
• prayer
• ministry
• pray
• be
• with
• you
• antichrist
• my
• bible

[note4note]

@Pandamonk69 A fair enough point. However, as I had stated in my very first response you can see clear evidence that shows that even the biblical god does not possess all, if even any of the traits that you brought up, so really you haven't even done that much.

At best, you disproved the hyper-idealized notion of the Abrahamic god, as opposed to the actual god itself.

[Pandamonk69]

@note4note Also, to further an earlier point I made, I made this video as a response to Shockofgod's request. He set out the rules for this response, including the wording I had to use in my response. I would not have chosen "atheism is accurate and correct", and would rather have said "The common god of Christianity, Judaism and Islam and all their derivatives cannot exist because..."

[Pandamonk69]

...I have disproved the standard, most common, definition, that of monotheistic religions including the Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam. These are all that I am interested in disproving and although a higher being(s) may be possible or even exist, I doubt many would actually call them a god. They certainly wouldn't adhere to the standard definition. You're right that I didn't disprove every possible, or impossible, higher being, but that's not what I tried to do.

[Pandamonk69]

I didn't make that leap. If you try to see it from my perspective, there is me who doesn't believe in a god and billions who do. The majority of these believe in the god I described and a minority believe in a huge variety of different gods. I do not have the time or motivation to go through every definition of a "god" and disprove each individually, but I have disproved the majority. But because I haven't disproved each and every definition, does not mean that the majority definition is safe...

[note4note]

@Pandamonk69 Again though you make the flawed leap in logic that majority equal correctness. Just because most people believe God to have those traits does not mean that God must fit that definition.

Granted the one definition you brought up is of course nonsense for the reasons you listed, but it is a far insufficient proof to refute polytheism and almost any other possible theory on god, which makes it unable to support the idea that atheist is accurate and correct.

[Pandamonk69]

@note4note You are right, but each interpretation has it's own definition. Those which don't aren't worth considering... how can you worship something if you don't know a thing about it. So the most common definition of a monotheistic god is as I have described. Obviously there are variations, and it is pretty much impossible to include them all, but for the most common (and by that I mean the most commonly believed in) my definition suits and my disproof is valid.

[note4note]

@Pandamonk69 To be honest I really can't, because it in itself is a multifaceted concept that holds so many different interpretations that to pin one down would be impossible unless we were to have some way of knowing what a god would be.

However, much the way we adore, envy and "worship" people we perceive to be better/smarter/richer than us, a god wouldn't have to be perfect to be worth worshipping. If we knew worship would grant blessings, even the Greek gods would be worth worshipping.

[Pandamonk69]

@wannawatchu66 Please show how the premises are flawed. I have defined God by the most common definition, I have then argued that this definition is self-conflicting and therefore impossible.

Perfection is to be entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings. Nothing can be better than perfection, so why would a perfect being desire anything, especially imperfection?

I don't believe in evil as a force.

Who else would explain why God doesn't exist other than someone who doesn't know him?

[Pandamonk69]

@note4note Well how would you define God and why is he worthy of our worship if he does not have at least some of those attributes?

[wannawatchu66]

@t14perrin God can make a puzzle he can't solve? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that if God is knowledgeable enough to bring the puzzle into existence, He'd be more than knowledgeable enough to *solve* it? Making a puzzle you can't solve or a rock you can't lift is absurd. These are just old, tired questions atheists have asked for ages not for answers, but just to try to stump Christians in order to try to justify their rejection of God. For God's opinion on this, read Job 38.