Atheism’s Core Problem

The Atheistic belief revolves around certain philosophical arguments to justify its stance. Logically it is based on an impossibility, you cannot prove a negative. Since proving that something does not exist is an impossibility, the default is to use absurdity. Arguments such as, “Could God make a rock so heavy, that he could not lift it?” or “God is as real as a flying spaghetti monster.” All of the logical absurdity arguments are always rooted in some form of physical realm, they have to be, because it is only in the physical realm one can create a logical absurdity. If an extra dimensional entity exists it cannot be proven or disproved using basic physics. Even though as a race our understanding of the extra dimensions is increasing, the atheistic belief cannot form logical absurdities using our newly discovered knowledge because physically rooted absurdities do not hold up under our new knowledge.

One of the first monotheistic religions to exist was Judaism and it put forward the idea that God had no physical attributes what so ever. This in itself was a complex subject matter that humans in the physical realm have a hard time grasping. It is only when God appears (real or not) to manifest physically that the God concept can be attacked. These physical forms are many with not the least of which of course being religion.

However, if one is to believe in an extra dimensional entity that is present in all things then one must also accept that God is also present in Atheism and uses it as a tool for its ultimate purpose. What is presented in Atheism instead is a standing opposing character reference. Despite their unwavering need to define a godless reality, they never the less proceed to apply universal physical traits to God in order to make the concept vulnerable, in their belief, to attack. The most important universal characteristic they apply is that of God being good. This question usually takes the form of, “If God is good why does God allow this certain bad event to occur.” The logical route isn’t that God is bad, instead they force a different choice, “God is either good or does not exist.” This of course is because regardless of actual existence, the definition of God we all know and Atheism reviles and fights against anything that seems to counter our internal definition of God. Atheism leads the fight against those who use God to their own selfish gratification.

Objectively we know that suffering is good. Suffering drives us and without suffering we would not have choice. Objectivity does not seem to work with atheism when it comes to proving God. We want God to be personally self serving, if God cannot satisfy our most selfish of desires, God does not exist. However, this is important because it drives selfishness into a corner. It makes us question our very essence which is that of selfishness and selfishness seems completely incompatible with God.

Which bring us to the crux, if any application of selfishness makes God absurd or incomprehensible to us, why is that? Its because God cannot be understood in any selfish definition because an ultimate extra dimensional entity is the antithesis of selfishness. The paradox serves a specific purpose, to help us define something that is our opposite.

Advertisements

61 thoughts on “Atheism’s Core Problem

    1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

      I was trying to avoid that, my main point is that since the concept of God is inherently a philosophical concept, it can only be disproved with philosophy as opposed to science.

      For instance Atheism can debunk things like creationism using science, but that doesn’t necessarily disprove the higher order philosophical concept of God.

      Reply
  1. TheOutAtheist

    Here is your biggest mistake in this; Atheism isn’t an argument against a god or goddess, its a disbelief or lack of belief in them. Yes, SOME atheists do feel the need to argue there stance(as do some theists), but atheism itself is not an argument against gods. It is a belief.
    I do agree there is no way to prove or disprove either belief(to claim fact is purely arrogant), but that doesn’t make an atheists explanation for why they choose their belief wrong. I’m sure someone raised outside of theism(or in a different religion) has a reason or some other belief leading to their belief in a god or gods; this is the same with atheists.
    Though most of us (atheists) have reasons or “arguments” for why we choose this belief we have no reason to prove ourselves to you or anyone. I have my own reasons I believe as to why and how I think the earth came to be and lives/ things happen the way they do, as I’m sure you do.
    Your personal justifications, and beliefs could be wrong; as could mine. But right now are you a 100% certain there is or isnt a god?

    Not all atheists aim to disprove any gods, atheism( like theism) holds many beliefs along with it. All atheism means is we dont believe in a gods or goddesses.

    Reply
    1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

      Well I should first point out that I am not setting out to convert atheists, instead this was more about what I believe in Atheism’s role in the world; I believe they contribute to the world. I am not looking for proof, my indictments of Atheism are actually veiled, I have no interest in converting Atheists, I know this is an impossibility. Instead I am looking for those who are actively discontent with all belief systems and are looking for opposing views, I am not actually attempting to solicit Atheists to prove themselves.

      My certainty is as certain as my existence. The existence of something ultimate was not something I ever questioned, even in my darkest moments. Could this be the result of an impossible biological wiring that I can not escape? It is possible, but in reality you cannot really be 100% certain of anything, even your own existence, to steal a quote, “I think therefore I am.”

      That was a bit of a tangent, so I will respond to your thoughtful post. The lack of belief is also a belief. If something is a belief it can gain adherents and followers. A belief system is always in some form of opposition otherwise it would not be a belief system. For instance you don’t have people that don’t believe in night time.

      If a belief system exists it exists in opposition to something. So while you can increase the definition of atheism to try and procure more adherents the reality is that the main thing it stands against is God as a consequence since objectively there really isn’t any other belief system of any significant majority to oppose.

      Recently Atheism has taken a new stance to try and procure adherents, and that is by creating a binary decision and targeting people that label themselves agnostics by using an incredibly old dated definition of the term, “If you don’t know, you are an atheist” This is a rather recent evolution of the belief to increase scope, but the basic argument is a bit odd. Not everything is binary.

      Saying, “I don’t know” to the question of Abortion is not the same as saying, “I don’t believe in abortion”. In a similar way saying, “I don’t know if God exists” is not the same as saying, “I don’t believe in God.”

      Again, if you are content with your current belief system, there is absolutely nothing I can say or no argument I could give to change your mind and even this concept is part of my personal belief system which is something that is not found in (most) religions and that is the idea of an uncompromising ultimate.

      Reply
      1. TheOutAtheist

        Once again your doing exactly what I was trying to point out, Atheism cant take a stance. Its not a whole belief system its one belief. Any atheist can have a thousand different beliefs that go along with there atheism so no atheism as a whole doesnt take a stance. I never said it was binary infact i said the opposite. Atheism isnt targeting anyone SOME atheists might, but atheism isnt. I dont believe agnostic people are atheist I believe theyre agnostic. ME, im an agnostic atheist(as in i believe there isnt a god but im not claiming im right and everyone else wrong). I believe there are many places on this line between gods and no gods that one can stand at, which is exactly why your generalization of atheists is wrong. I didnt think you were trying to convert anyone, that had nothing to do with my response. I feel like there is some disconnect in this conversation.

      2. TheOutAtheist

        My point is not all atheists are trying to convince you your god isn’t real. Not all atheists think your belief shouldn’t exist. Were not actively fighting to tear you apart and we don’t all share the same beliefs. (we can be very spread out on the line of beliefs the only thing that is constant with atheists is we don’t believe in a god.). Not all atheists are against religion(infact there are atheistic religions). Not all atheists are actively converting people or see beliefs as a binary thing. You could quote an atheist to me and the words could mean nothing just like if i quoted a theist to you, that theist could very well be of a different religion. Could you imagine someone saying “Christains have taken a stance that all black people should return to their place as slaves” – yes SOME Christians hold religious beliefs against a race of people, but that in no way means all Christians are prejudiced to blacks. right?

      3. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        Well I am glad there are non-partisan atheists reaching out to me, thanks to these comments I have changed my view. I definitely was incorrect in lumping them together, but there is kind of a broader issue that I would like your opinion on. Where do you draw the line?

        For instance lets say you have a racist belief and a large percentage of its adherents agree to some very bad stuff, however, some of them don’t. If some one came to you and said they wanted to join this group because they met a minority member who was not violent, would you still endorse them joining the group?

        For instance, let’s say I polled atheists and it was discovered that 80% of them believed the government should stop supporting any charitable activity that is endorsed by a religion. At this point should I roll over and accept that since a minority are against it? Should I just always look for the best and ignore the majority, where is the line?

      4. TheOutAtheist

        If someone in the kkk didnt believe blacks should be murdered do you join the group? No? If youre christian and a different denomination believes that women have no rights does that mean your denomination believes that? If you believe everyone is equal and the church you go to preaches other wise wouldnt you stop going to that church and find one that fits your beliefs better? Im not telling you to ignore the majority, but atheism isnt “one” group, its a term that describes one belief nothing else. Theism isnt “one” group. That (bs statistic) 80% has nothing to do with each seperate person. If you want to post against them you say “there is a group of atheists who have are antireligious and theyre wrong ” not “atheists are antireligious and wrong. “– one of the statements would be true the other would be a hurtful generalization.

      5. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        I am over simplifying and I am making generalizations that I can’t back up because I am only talking hypothetically.

        Are you aware of any studies on the beliefs of Atheists that show consistency or lack of consistency among the group?

      6. TheOutAtheist

        No, there are no studies, but the groups only consistancy is the lack of belief in a god. Thats literally the definition of the word, there are thousands of other beliefs and disbeliefs that go along with it depending on each individual person.

      7. TheOutAtheist

        Thats like saying theism is. Atheism is one belief that can be followed along with many, showing one group doesnt mean anyone who calls them self an atheist follows that groups beliefs. Humanists, secular groups, satans temply, Atheists republic, Atheist Alliance international, are all different groups with different people and different base beliefs (and there are thousands more, not to mention people who dont classify themselves to a group). You wouldnt say theism is one whole belief system full with the same beliefs and goals would you?

      8. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        Atheism and theism are not the same in the sense that in atheism there isn’t conflicting religious theology with ethical implications.

        The only real issue facing an atheist is how much of an activist to be. If they are not an activist, they are not really relevant to the conversation, and if they are an activist the question becomes where their limitations are.

      9. TheOutAtheist

        I completely disagree. You seem very closeminded on this subject. Atheists have theists telling them they’re incapable of morals and other atheists claiming that if they believe anthing other than whats proven theyre not atheist(which isnt true, atheists can believe in spirits, karma, superstitions and more and still be atheist). Religious Atheists have to deal with both theists and atheists who arent familiar with the fact that all definitions and concepts change with time and religion isnt strictly theist anymore. Both atheism are broad and complicated labels that can be connected with hundreds of other beliefs and disbeliefs.

      10. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        If I was close minded, I don’t believe I would be asking questions. I agree with you, but that is not the point of contention. I am talking about Atheism being used, in any manifestation, to secure political objectives. I don’t actually care what any one individual particular Atheist believes.

        How many Christians disagree with Conservative agendas that they associate with Christian values? A lot. The problem is that the average person isn’t necessarily vocal, and when they are not vocal, the beliefs that are projected on to them come from the vocal.

        Great, Atheists comes in all shapes and sizes with a wide spectrum of beliefs. That’s nice, but irrelevant. Who will ultimately set the perception of Atheists is the vocal minority. It will ultimately those people who also set the political agenda.

        You want to try and shield yourself from perceptions, it won’t work, it has never worked for anyone. You might be able to control my perception, but you can’t control -their- perception.

        This is the problem with ANY label, a label comes with perceptions that you cannot control, this is a reality of labels that you have to come to terms with. You can go around and try to comment on every single insignificant blog (mine included), it won’t matter. Labels come with perceptions, if you want to control how people perceive you, you need to drop all labels on yourself, Atheist included.

        Labels are always used to consolidate power, it doesn’t matter the complexity or the underlying values of the label, all that matters is the label.

      11. TheOutAtheist

        Heres the thing, im apart of that minor vocal portion and im speaking against anti-religion and anti-theists. One person with a changed view is one less with a false one right? I personally think your beliefs on labels is kind of sad. If labels are all that matters(assuming your christian) you must be a close minded, hate filled person right? I mean its not the complexity of Christianity or your personal values that matter.

      12. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        No, my only association with Christianity would be Jesusism, I do not label myself a Christian because Christianity it not about the words of Christ but is actually about values based on the Nicean Creed. This is actually a very strong parallel to what I am saying in regards to the Atheist label. The argument that you are making “one changed person” is also a religious mantra.

        I don’t think it is particularly sad, I think in general labels are sad.

        I respect the valiant effort of trying to be truly middle ground, but again there is a stark difference between reality and idealism. Bigotry on all sides is very strong in any religious/philosophical conversations. A lot of Atheists will consider Christians hate filled, and a lot of Christians will see Atheists as unethical heathens.

        The problem is Christianty and Atheist are both multi-dimensional concepts but most humans simplify down to save time. They stereotype things, if something is glowing red, you will cautiously assume it is hot, it doesn’t mean it is accurate.

        In my opinion the smartest group to be a part of is no group, but it is also the most difficult group. There is something powerful that comes with labels of any type and that is community. In fact I would say that this is a primary supporting force behind anything that has a philosophical under pinning because ultimately your belief in the sky won’t necessarily affect your day to day life except for the community you associate with.

        This is totally selfish, but there is deep economical implications to what you label yourself. Particularly in the USA, for example, some very powerful and rich companies are ran by Christians, and while it isn’t massively public, a lot of these business relationships start inside the church.

        It doesn’t really matter your personal beliefs, what matters is what people quickly distill you down to. Whether it is in the first 10 seconds of looking at your, or the first 30 seconds of talking to you. By not labeling yourself, you take a stand against the auto simplification.

  2. kaptonok

    If there is a realm outside of space and time as is often asserted by those who wish to believe in God, then it is as you point out untouchable.
    It also is unprovable, and what is unprovable must be taken on faith or belief.
    Scientists object to the untouchable they do not believe in anything outside the realm of science.
    I can understand why they object for they believe all things are inside that realm.
    I’m a live and let live agnostic and I see the cosmos as amoral. The late Carl Sagon waxed lyrical on space and time as many do today. The beautiful pictures from Hubble are far from the whole truth.
    Earthquakes and fire kills and winds destroy. At this moment bacteria are fighting our antibiotics.

    Reply
    1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

      Well I think there is a couple misconceptions, the first is that if you are a scientist, you are an atheist. Some of the greatest scientists who have made massive contributions to the planet were theists. Belief in God is independent of success and capability.

      The other concept is that there is no faith in Science, everything has to provable, but not everything has to be understood. Quantum Mechanics is a good example of this. We can prove quantum entanglement, but any understanding of it has to be made in faith.

      As for untouchable, a lot of mystics and higher level spiritual thinkers would probably oppose this view. They would assert it could be touched, but touched in a way beyond our physical senses.

      Reply
      1. kaptonok

        Hugh Ross is a Christian and a scientist of some prowess. I have looked at his site and heard him speak on utube.
        The fringes of science as you rightly point out are not fully understood.
        I’m not convinced we have the brain to understand many things for I believe we were built for survival not to probe the deep secrets of nature. This may upset many scientists and religious types who believe man has no limits.
        I should have said untouchable by normal scientific investigation.
        Professor Penrose believes consciousness is linked to quantum mechanics and that we are not just complex computers.
        I am agnostic not atheist I deny no ones experiences but I will not claim to know that which I don’t.
        Mystics may well not be theists abd they claim to see beyond the senses.
        I think being intelligent we flatter ourselves as to our own importance.
        Perhaps the greatest flattery of all is to consider our selves equal to God.

      2. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        To take this further, there is some theorizing that our universe is actually a giant hologram and because of this we can only get so far with our senses no matter how many tools we build to improve them.

        The spiritual philosophies that I find myself aligning with the most are those of traditional Jewish kabbalah (this is different than the mainstream stuff). Their world view revolves around a pretty simple idea with complex implications. God is ultimately selfless, and the animal (us) is ultimately selfish. Everything considered evil by us is rooted in want. From this basic idea it expands quite quickly. However, for the sake of musing, I will broadly stroke some of the more interesting concepts.

        – The spiritual and physical realm are essentially the same, the physical realm is merely a shadow or hologram of what happens in the spiritual realm. This concept is similar to Plato’s allegory of the cave.

        – Good and Evil don’t exist, what we consider evil or suffering merely helps guide us.

        – The primary objective of humanity being an ultimately selfish entity is to become like God (because there is nothing more selfish than that), but this is a paradox since God is the opposite (selfless) so the animal is faced with an internal conflict and this is the reason for suffering.

        – The limitation of the senses serves a purpose of restricting us in such a way to make us strive for the ultimate.

      3. kaptonok

        We maybe in the world of diminishing returns. To get a little further foward in scientific knowledge is costing more and more.
        An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less and ends up knowing everything about nothing.
        I believe most spiritual philosophies are esoteric and you can make them up as suits. What we can’t make up is the world as it stands to our senses. Often these spiritual veiws are an escape valve from the harshness of reality. The beauty of such views is they cannot be faulted and therefore we can argue that they are true. They are like an awoken sleeper, comfortable and warm in his bed, who does not want to get up and go to work.
        The scientist hides in the world of the Higgs and the religious hide in the world to come.

      4. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        It’s impossible to prove experience. For instance if you are blind from birth no amount of descriptions will ever let you experience red. While your statements are clever they are akin to a blind man describing red. You can come up with any amount of assertions to justify your fence sitting, but until you embark without prejudice to feel what those who claim is an extra-sensory experience you are just hiding. It’s like a child who talks about how much they hate a food before ever tasting it. Your arguments are not based on experience, they are based on reference, and reference is meaningless when it comes to any kind of existential equation.

      5. kaptonok

        You speak as if I’m fence sitting deliberately. Now I would never imply you are holding your beliefs for any other reason than that you believe them. We all have to believe we are of sane mind so the sane mind can believe anything. The only difference between us is you believe one thing and I another.
        I cannot experience what I doubt to be true but you can experience what you believe is true.
        Always remember its personel ; and we each have a right to our own beliefs.

      1. Allallt

        I can’t figure out what that means.
        Does that mean you maybe believe, or you believe I may be.
        If it’s the former, I don’t understand your trepidation: you should know what you believe.
        If it’s the latter, that makes more sense (but it’s a direct answer to my question — which is what threw me).

        Can you clarify?

      2. Allallt

        Cool.
        Run with that, for a moment. Instead of believing that I am a transexual you have converted it to a “maybe” claim.
        You also introduced statistics, which I’ll come back to in a moment.
        But for now, if we transpose your position into the religious discussion, do you agree this would be a fair summation of how that would go?:
        Person A: Do you believe a God exists?
        Person B: I believe a a God may exist.

      3. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        No, my answer to that particular question would not be a maybe, it would be yes. To me asking if God exists is like asking me if I believe in red. God is a complex idea, not unlike sexuality, God consists of a concept (the idea) and then based on religious or spiritual affiliations God has additional characteristics. There is 100% no doubt the idea or concept exists, so you really need to clarify, a lot.

      4. Allallt

        That’s fantastic.
        I explicitly said we’re transposing the reasoning you used about whether I am a transexual. I explicitly used anonymous speakers.
        Is the conversation, as written above, an accurate transposition of your reasoning about my gender into a conversation about God?

      5. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        I think you’re trying to transpose things in completely different realms, but for the sake of argument and so you can make whatever point you’re trying to make, I will play a long and say yes.

      6. Allallt

        That’s not okay. Let’s deal with your hesitation first. What is it converting claims you are uncertain about into “maybe” claims that one cannot do on the question of God?
        You can do it on the question of my gender. Why can’t you do it on the matter of God’s existence? It’s not about the subject matter. It’s about the speaker’s uncertainty.

      7. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        Because God unequivocally exists in the form of an idea, and this idea has deep implications on people, and even influences people. Your question wasn’t if gender exists, it was what your particular gender is.

        You need to tell me what you believe God to be.

      8. Allallt

        No I don’t. The subject matter should be irrelevant to this. We’re talking about how someone reasons, when addressing a claim.
        We started with the question of my gender, and you did the reasonable thing: you immediately introduced uncertainty, and converted the claim into a maybe claim.
        I changed the subject, and suddenly you’re putting up these walls that is denying the idea of uncertainty with regard to God. You’re not denying that you are uncertain, you are denying that uncertainty about God can exist at all.
        Do you really think that is how one reasons?

      9. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        I think you are assuming I have a traditional belief in God, which is creating confusion.

        To me God is first and foremost a concept, this is undeniable. This concept has profound implications on humanity regardless of any actual manifestation. A prior existing manifestation is irrelevant to me.

        What I think you’re meaning to ask me is what you would ask a religious person, does God physically exist? or does God Participate in the universe?

      10. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        Let me put it a different way, if I asked you, “Do you believe the concept/idea/thought of God exists”? Your only answer would be yes, because we wouldn’t be able to have this conversation if the thought of God did not exist in your mind.

      11. Allallt

        The idea of X is not X.
        If it was, unicorns would exist and homeopathy would work.
        Not that any of that matters. The form remains entirely unchanged:
        A: Do you believe X?
        B:I believe X may be the case.

        X could be God, the idea of God, a gender…

      12. Allallt

        I don’t know how to engage with someone who won’t even entertain the idea of other people having uncertainty about their claim.
        The conversation wasn’t even going to about your conception of a God.

      13. Allallt

        I take you back to my initial conversation between person A and person B. (Neither of these people are you or me.)
        A: Do you believe God exists?
        B: I believe a God may exist.

        Is that a fair parallel between the reasoning you employed regarding my gender and the same type of question being asked regarding God’s existence?

        If so, what is person B? Is there a word that sufficiently encapsulates the position person B has espoused?

      14. Allallt

        Great.
        Now let’s get back to my gender.
        What are your levels of confidence that I am transgender?
        I know there will be all sorts of confounding issues, like how you define gender, but in the US the percentage of transgender people is about 0.3% of people…
        You can use that or any other research you want to to inform the answer to the question.

      15. Allallt

        Surprisingly high. But, cool.

        Transposing this back into a conversation about God (and this time there are points to be made about how we transpose it, for many reasons*), but the question is now this:
        Is someone who is only 10% confidence a God may exist (which is the same as being 90% a God doesn’t exist) still best described as agnostic?
        (And what if they’d said 0.3% confident?)

        *Luckily, by not giving the 0.3% number I quoted, you transferred the reasoning supporting your confidence from a probabilistic one to a likelihood one. So, the difficulties in transposing our conversation are not as difficult

      16. Allallt

        Okay.
        0.3% confidence in the existence of a God makes a person an atheist.
        Does atheism, defined this way, really still succumb to the “atheist’s core problem”?

      17. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        I went a long, but I don’t actually believe Atheism is defined by simply a confidence interval in God. Whether you’re an Atheist or not doesn’t necessarily have to do with belief in God, but an adherence to the common theology, and even more importantly the self recognized association with the group. This is really no different than any other religious system, God belief is mostly irrelevant.

      18. Allallt

        Okay. Well, hopefully your readers will enjoy reading our conversation and make up their own mind about whether there is a common theology among atheists, and whether that is the better definition.
        For the record, I think there is no common theology and that makes it an incredibly poor definition.

      19. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        When I say common, I actually mean what is usually associated with it and what is perpetuated by the most vocal. This isn’t to say that is what the majority believe, but beliefs are always codified and made common in the same way. Only time will tell if Atheism will remain as just a philosophical framework or crystallize into a formal tradition based belief system.

      20. Allallt

        First of all, what are you talking about? You are defining “common” as ‘espoused most loudly’ regardless of the number of people that idea represents. I might as well define Christianity as the Westboro Baptist Church, then. That’s a nonsense idea of “common”.
        Secondly, how much time, exactly, is needed to see where “atheism” will become tradition-based belief system? It’s not exactly new. It’s old than Christianity, for sure. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/17/atheism-has-ancient-roots-claims-new-study

      21. Allallt

        The more I think about your use of the word “common”, the weirder it gets.
        “[W]hat is usually associated with” atheism depends on the speaker. There are people who associate atheism with all sorts of ridiculous things.

      22. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        Well when I think Atheism, I think Dawkins and he is very vocal, even calling for militant Atheism. Maybe I am incorrect, maybe most Atheist do not hold Dawkins in a high regard and treat the God Delusion as their bible.

        This might start out odd, but stick with me. I used to debate heavily in online religious debate and I don’t know how it came about but myself, a Muslim, a Jew, and an Atheist (I know it sounds like the start of a bad joke) created this experiment where we decided to all firmly fight everyone and start a “flat earth cult”. When our experiment ended we had realizations. Even though we disagreed with our own belief, the fact that the majority disagreed with us emboldened us and kind of wanted us to take it further and start formalizing issues.

        The reason I bring this up is I have noted similar groups emerging in Atheism. This seems like a precursor to a more religious like system. Maybe it will never transform into a cult, I could be wrong.

      23. Allallt

        That’s not how you’re presenting this, though. You’re presenting as if atheism already has a common theology and is sensibly discussed in terms of a cohesive group.
        It hasn’t happened in the thousands of years atheism has been around, you admit it may never happen, but you’re talking like it already has.
        Can you see why that gets people’s backs up? You’re creating this definition of atheism that relies on this “common theology” and coherently defined group (which is a complete strawman) and then saying it has a core problem. It doesn’t even have a core.

      24. Allallt

        Well, given that we disagree about definition of the words “atheist” and “common”, I’m going to wager we also now disagree on the use of the word “theology”. What does “theology” mean to you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s