Answers to positions held by atheists
Offline 1. There is no Xena
A. This is not a logical position to hold, since to know there is no Xena means the person would have to know all things to know there is no Xena. Since he cannot know all things (if he did, I contend that he would be Xena), then he cannot logically say there is no Xena.
2. I believe there is no Xena
A. To say "I believe there is no Xena" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
i. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves Xena's existence?
a. There can be no such evidence, since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove Xena's existence who is, by my definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
(I am defending Xena as revealed in the hit television show, Xena: Warrior Princess).
b. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that Xena does not exist.
ii. If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates Xena's existence?
a. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no Xena. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
b. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented, and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of Xena's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove Xena's existence.
c. If there were a logical argument that proved that Xena did not exist, it either does not exist or has not yet been made known. If it were known, then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of Xena's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for Xena's non-existence.
iii. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position
iv. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism..
B. For someone to believe there is no Xena is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that Xena does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
3. There is no evidence for Xena
A. This is not a logical position to hold, since to know there is no evidence for Xena's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for Xena's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did, he would, in my view, be Xena), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for Xena.
4. I have not seen sufficient evidence for Xena's existence.
A. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for Xena's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that Xena is not known or knowable while admitting the possibility of Xena's existence.
B. If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for Xena, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence. This would mean that Xena may indeed exist - the person really is an agnostic concerning Xena and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
5. I lack belief in Xena.
A. To lack belief in Xena appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above). If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in Xena, then it appears its goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in Xena is an intellectual position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice. Any position held must have reasons or it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
B. My cat lacks belief in Xena, as does my computer. Are they also atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
C. If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human being, then see point A.
6. I don't believe in Xena.
A. Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in Xena?
B. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in Xena? Can you please tell me what it is?
7. Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for Xena.
A. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean Xena does not exist, since Xena is, by definition, outside of natural laws since She is the creator of them.
B. Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for Xena.
i. But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, Xena is not negated via naturalism.
ii. But, the existence of the universe cannot be explained by naturalism, nor can the existence of logic.
(The original can be found here.)
- Login to post comments
1) Do you need to know everything in order to say there is no Santa Claus?
2i) If one can expect certain things to be a certain way if there is a Xena but these things are not this certain way, it is evidence against Xena.
2ii) I can't say there is no Xena unless you tell me what a Xena is. What's a Xena?
3) Worst one yet. Evidence always refers to current evidence or lack thereof. If there is currently no evidence, there is currently no evidence.
4) Agnosticism and atheism are compatible. One can lack belief precisely because one knows nothing about the object to be believed (or not).
5) True. It is unattackable. It's called a default position. Until you show me there is a Xena, it's right for me to doubt it.
6) Same as 2) DOn't make your list look longer than it is with repetition.
7) If we define nature as everything (look up the word "universe"
there is nothing outside it. This makes any assertion that Xena is outside of nature a mere linguistic error. Also, to claim a thing exists is to claim that it is inside of nature in that it is an object with attributes. To define Xena as outside nature is to say that Xena does not exist precisely because one has denied to allow Xena attributes. Xena is outside of nature = Xena does not exist (not that I expect you to understand this)
7 i&ii) Wrong and wrong.
I've got one for you: All Christians are atheists. The bible says with faith in god one can move mountains. No one has ever moved a mountain using faith. So either there is no god or there is no faith. If there is no faith, there may or may not be a god but no one has faith in it.
Nothing new here.
Boring. The burden of proof is on you. Prove that Xena exists. You can't, this argument sucks.
The creator of reality is Lucy Lawless? Super.
Nobody can rightly testify that she does either. What's your point?
I am a broken record. I am a broken record. I am a broken record. I am a broken record.
Insufficient isn't even close. If I am hungry, and eat one kernel of corn, that amount of food is insufficient if I wish my hunger to be satisfied. The proofs thus presented for the proof of Xena is zero. Null, nada, nothing, nil.
Yawwwwwwnnnnnnnn.
This may or may not be true. Nobody has any clue what attributes this Xena has. If your warrior princess claims to be omnipotent AND omniscient, then yes, there is a logical argument that refutes her sword-wielding veracity.
I think I just had a case of deja-vu. No wait, you're actually just saying the same thing over and over again.
Mind-numbing. Really. It is supremely logical to not believe in something unless there is evidence to support it's existence.
It's about time for the Billy Madison quote, but I'm too lazy to go look it up and paste it here.
This argument is your worst yet. You could apply this to any supernatural claim you want to conjure up.
You can logically say that nobody currently has any evidence that Xena exists. That make you happy, Captain Semantics?
No, it's not. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. Period. And again, you are using the word sufficient inappropriately. There is NO evidence for Xena's existence, not an insufficient amount.
No, it doesn't. Since there is NO evidence of Xena's existence, there is no reason to logically deduce that Xena exists. Again, you can apply this garbage argument to back any magical claim you wish to create. It's not even worth arguing, but yet here I am. I will now hit myself in the face with a baseball bat.
Atheism, by definition, is not an assertion. Know your terminology.
I need a drink.
Your cat, and your computer, are not capable of believing, or not believing, anything. I see Xena's followers are no less clueless than the followers of any other silly deity.
No, it can't. You just proposed that lacking belief is a position based on reason. An inanimate object has no capacity for reason. Since I've wasted so much time responding to this ridiculous post, I am now irritated and will stoop to the level of calling you a moron.
There has been no evidence ever presented to cause me to believe in your Amazonian friend.
I just did.
If she exists, then she is natural and therefore explainable by natural laws.
Thank xena that's the end of this crapfest.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
I don't know what I just read and I am very confused.
I believe in Xena, she had a TV show.
I think Lucy Lawless was hotter in Battlestar Galactica than in Xena.
Both true and untrue at the same time. To assert(not suggest, but assert) that Xena(hereafter referred to as god, since that's what we're actually discussing here) doesn't exist would be illogical without evidence to back up ones position. However, god must be defined by the one suggesting god, and in every case where a god is presented with any capability to percieve our species and interact with it in any way, the properties of this god have been shown as inherrantly contradictory and/or physically impossible. Which means those gods are false and unneccessary.
Even further, one does not need to know the population of China in order to know whether or not there is gold in the possession of the nation. Therefore your assertion that to know something requires omniscience is refuted.
Every part of this presupposes the very question of whether or not god exists in the first place, and is refuted before stated, by itself, logically.
As shown in response to 1, this is false.
You forget it is also admitting the possibility of gods nonexistance.
There also might not be sufficient evidence, and that would mean that god might not exist. When considering all proposals for god are incoherant and impossible, it is logical to assume this is the case unless or until evidence surfaces that contradicts current evidence.
Therefore your assertion is wrong.
Refuted above.
The position is unassailable. You simply wish to believe otherwise, and have constructed this logically fallacious proof as a result.
You must now prove that a lack of belief is a choice in order to back your assertion. Otherwise it fails.
This is also dependant on your proving your previous assertion, otherwise it fails.
Prove your cat and computer lack belief in god first. I'm going to start counting the unproven assertions you make if this keeps up much longer.
Oh boy, it's getting worse. Now you have to prove humans aren't animals, that animals which are not human cannot have beliefs, and that a computer is an inanimate object. Good luck.
Your 5th argument has fallen apart completely, to the point resuscitation is impossible. Sorry for your loss.
By definition, the scientific process, and all recordings of observable naturalism at work, god is not a necessary being, and therefore belief in it is illogical and irrational.
Actually it would be worse(and is), since there is no need for god in the first place, let alone evidence it exists.
You think our level of technology is capable of explaining the entirety of the universe? Or even better, that our level of technology will fail to advance? Fail to continue to explain things that have not been explained yet? I seriously am not sure just how many logical fallacies you've comitted in this section, but there's at least two or three.
Yes they can. Should you be interested in knowing how, I would suggest you read some of the essays from Todangst and Deludedgod on this site.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Blasphemy.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
So basically what your saying is that we should believe what we cannot disprove? thats silly
You're going to hell for that. And by 'hell' I mean spending eternity with Kevin Sorbo and a never ending supply of baby oil.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I REPENT! HOLY FUCK, I REPENT!!!
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Change the names, still get crappy arguments for theism.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'm waiting for you, Yellow Number Five
And I have all the time in the world....
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
WOW. Some people actually took the time to debunk this (rather vehemently, I might add...o_O). Good thing I didn't go into my theories on how Xena became godhead by taming the IPU and flying Her Invisible Pinkness (She-Ra style) into a deadly showdown with the FSM.