Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,387
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 121:
Line 121: − + + + +
→There is no evidence that atheism is true
''See also:'' [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]
''See also:'' [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism]]
[[File:Shockofgod helmet.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|Logo for the Shockofgod YouTube channel.
<br />
<br />
The Christian Youtube video creator [[Shockofgod]] repeatedly posed the question "What proof and evidence do have that proves that atheism is accurate and correct?" to atheists which was very upsetting to many YouTube atheists.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjS__cWr0Y0 The question that is causing atheists to abandon atheism]</ref>]]
The atheist Francois Tremblay wrote in his essay ''Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose'':
The atheist Francois Tremblay wrote in his essay ''Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose'':
{{cquote|Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, [[ontological]] belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[Atheism and epistemology|epistemological deductions]]. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.
{{cquote|Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, [[ontological]] belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[Atheism and epistemology|epistemological deductions]]. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.