Question:
Is atheism a intellectually sound position?
2017-06-17 13:28:49 UTC
Is atheism a intellectually sound position?
86 answers:
2017-06-23 18:01:35 UTC
Intellectually sound means logical, rational, reasonable, and cognitive.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any deities because there is no evidence any deities exist.

That is about as intellectually sound as you can get.
2017-06-22 06:37:12 UTC
IF you're not an atheist, why would that matter to you? And if you're a person with religious, spiritual beliefs, then all you need to do is LIVE your religion and let others live their lives as they should. YOUR beliefs are not a free licence to meddle into other people's beliefs or lack thereof.
beentheredoneit
2017-06-20 23:19:37 UTC
AN !!!!AN!!!! AN intellectually.... I may be an atheist, but at least I have good diction. Once again people...WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU ALL GOING TO SCHOOL!!!!
antonius
2017-06-20 10:03:53 UTC
Yes, and we continue to think whereas believers are floating on that barge with Noah
2017-06-20 01:59:59 UTC
no
Re Vera
2017-06-18 16:33:04 UTC
It depends on how you arrive at that conclusion. Philosophers have spent thousands of years asking and attempting to answer the question of whether gods exist, either by proof or by purely intellectual arguments. So far every argument that a god exists has fallen far short. They end up relying on circular reasoning or making unduly complicated assumptions, or failing to address issues like the problem of evil. If you've spent the time to learn these arguments and counter arguments or at least to think long enough about this issue to arrive at a similarly reasoned conclusion, then yes, atheism is an intellectually sound position. But if you're an atheist because your parents were atheist and that's just what you grew up with, then no. You don't have a developed rationale behind your position, so it isn't intellectually sound.
Ernest S
2017-06-18 15:52:54 UTC
You have to be joking. Atheim is intellectual bankruptcy and suicide.



Of all in the world, the Atheist is the least able to follow reason, or to reason.

Just look at their posts.
Anime *Smiles
2017-06-18 01:09:48 UTC
It's how ever you see it. Atheism isn't really a lesson or some philosophy, it's as close to those two as from Earth is to the Andromeda galaxy.



And atheists aren't really "smarter" either. They just do NOT support superstitions, mythology, and organized religion altogether... And also obviously reject the notion of a creator until evidence is proven otherwise.



Now SOME do believe in an afterlife or reincarnation (of some sort..(some spiritual, some scientific...)), but that's a convo for another day, I'm afraid.
?
2017-06-17 18:14:57 UTC
How could atheism be a stance that subscribes to intellectualism?! Atheism teaches that the universe literally came from nothing, for no apparent reason. The religion of atheism teaches that morality is whatever one wants it to be as morality is subjective in the religion of atheism.



How could the religion of atheism be a position that promotes or upholds intellectualism when it says that there is no meaning of life, life is supposedly just hopeless & purposeless as there is supposedly no life after death, there is supposedly no God, there is supposedly no objectivity or absolutism in the world or anything?!



Atheism teaches that life came from non life, which is called Abiogenesis, then somehow we supposedly evolved via Macroevolution over millions of supposed years. How could one claim that intelligence can be equated with the religion of atheism?!



Atheism is without a doubt the most unsound religion in the world! Atheism really is something that only fools grasp to. Psalm 14:1
?
2017-06-17 13:47:08 UTC
Yes, it is. It's the only honest position
laidawestbrook2
2017-06-24 12:34:57 UTC
Psalm 10:4 The wicked one according to his superciliousness* makes no search;+

All his ideas are: “There is no God.”*
Investor
2017-06-24 05:36:28 UTC
no
?
2017-06-23 20:53:37 UTC
Yes.
Owais
2017-06-23 14:52:35 UTC
Honest position.
XaurreauX
2017-06-23 12:58:47 UTC
Atheism is a philosophical position regarding belief, in this case, the lack of belief in a god. It is not nor is it intended to be a belief system, a set of ethical values or a truth claim. Atheists can hold any number of philosophical, scientific and political positions. 
mark
2017-06-22 17:42:51 UTC
No.
2017-06-22 16:12:20 UTC
No, not at all.
ellisd1950
2017-06-22 14:13:37 UTC
I think that a lot of people get Atheist and agnostic confused. for years I claimed to be agnostic, but in fact I am a Deist.
Raja
2017-06-20 09:18:15 UTC
No.
Zack
2017-06-20 00:44:44 UTC
Yes
?
2017-06-19 04:40:53 UTC
I don't think the verse you quoted has anything to do with atheists. It's talking about hypocrits that brag about being religious but they don't do what they're supposed to in reality.

I agree that atheism is not intellectually sound, but I disagree with your reasoning.

Atheists deny the existence if divine beings, seemingly not choosing a false god, but no god.

To me, this is not intellectually sound because they would have to be omniscient to know for sure whether God or a god of any sort exists or not. It's just not logical to take an atheist position
SignBaby
2017-06-18 23:51:18 UTC
Atheism may entail a denial either of God’s existence or of his authority or of both. The Bible alludes to this atheistic spirit at Titus 1:16: “They profess to acknowledge God, but deny him by their actions.”—The New English Bible. There are only two things to take position on (1) believe in God = life or (2) believe in satan the devil = death. (Deuteronomy 30:19) So if one professes atheism he definitely hasn't taken an intellectually sound position.



jw.org
Godsproblemchild
2017-06-18 16:58:41 UTC
No its a psychotic denial of the truth.
?
2017-06-18 12:00:00 UTC
It is a bad position in God's eyes .
2017-06-18 01:56:57 UTC
Yup.



I have faith there is no god.



No further proof is required.
?
2017-06-17 18:19:14 UTC
Atheism is an irrational position, which is why it cannot be supported without either absurd claims, or logical fallacies. To further answer the question, look to the Bible and how Paul handled the first group of atheists on record.



The Epicureans were the original atheist/evolutionists of the day! They typically held to a belief derived from Epicurus that there were no gods that intervened in the world. They believed that these gods, like men, were made of matter and that over long ages atoms, the basic component of all matter, gave rise to life and that life gave rise to higher life such as mankind.



Sound familiar? It should, in its basic form it is the mythical evolutionary worldview of today. You must borrow from the biblical concept of evil to argue against the God of the Bible!



So, atheists refute themselves by posing the very thing they believe refutes the existence of God!



The biblical Paul easily refutes Epicureans.

Paul says that God “does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything.”



He refutes the belief that God is limited to materials (idols), and this is proper, since God is spirit (John 4:24).4



Paul explains the true origin of life and refutes that atoms came together to form life of their own accord.



Next, Paul says God “gives to all life, breath, and all things.” Paul explains the true origin of life and refutes that atoms came together to form life of their own accord. But notice how Paul actually goes further in a presuppositional argument here.



If the Epicureans start with matter, where did the matter come from? Paul reveals that God created it (“all things”). Paul, through the beginning of verse 29, continues to explain that all people come from one person (one blood) and that person came about as a result of God.



This explanation refuted their views of evolution and established God as the special Creator of mankind.
Campbell Hayden
2017-06-17 13:41:57 UTC
Of course it is.



Please consider the following:



Stuffing a “savior” into a compilation of stories about

the lawlessness, filth, greed, incest, adultery, strife, envy,

lust, poverty, deceit, and murders of 2,000 years ago does not = Wisdom, or Existence.



And, only Christians would write a “new” testament and bible,

use it to swear allegiances upon, and believe that it is a prescription

that will eliminate their sins by utilizing the death of someone other than themselves to do so.



Atheism definitely has its ‘perks’ !!!
2017-06-17 13:33:29 UTC
Atheism is the religious belief that no gods exist
❀✿☺Flowerchild☺✿❀
2017-06-17 13:31:37 UTC
Not at all dear, it's highly intellectually dishonest, as you can see many atheists asserting lies (out of their hate) as fact.



Often you will find atheists relying on dogmas:

The idea that a normal religious upbringing is a form of child abuse.

The idea that religion is a form of mental illness.

The belief that religion has historically held back science.

The claim that the Library of Alexandria was destroyed by a Christian mob.

The bizarre idea that having a religion somehow inhibits your ability to 'think freely'.

The belief that anybody who says they used to be an atheist is lying.



You will also find them relying heavily on logical fallacies to foist their lies:



One example is when an atheist uses terms like "sky pixie", "sky daddy", "your man in the sky" to refer to God, showing that they employ the appeal to ridicule fallacy.



Another example, which is common in online forums like R&S, is where an atheist says "I spent years studying Christianity and never found anything, no intelligent person would ever consider such foolishness", showing that they employ the personal incredulity fallacy.



Also common is when an atheist says "there is no evidence of God", but there is plenty of testimonial evidence for God, showing that they employ the cherry picking fallacy (some will assert it).



Another example is when an atheist says "God would embarrass the most vicious psychopath", showing they employ the red-herring fallacy.



Another example is when an atheist asserts "Christians are the most evil people in the world", showing they employ the hasty generalization fallacy.
?
2017-06-17 13:31:04 UTC
We do not believe in the fundie proven fantasies, that makes it intellectually sound.
Randy the Atheist
2017-06-24 23:45:07 UTC
TIMELINE OF HUMAN SUPERSTITION:

==============================



2 million BC~250,000 BC: early humans do not bury dead; bodies left to rot inplace or disposed of in rock shafts.



250,000 BC~50,000 BC: humans begin deliberate mass burials in graves without embellishments or markers



50,000 BC~15,000 BC: Numerous fertility, animal and phallilc figurines appear across Europe and Asian continents marking the dawn of animism.



15,000 BC~11,000 BC: Humans with animal masks debut the start of shamanism - a form of animism with the added belief that a special human could control the spirits.



11,000BC: Discovery of agriculture. Neolithic revolution begins transforming nomadic hunter/gatherer lifestyle to permanent settlements. Systematic writing begins allowing recordation of knowledge. Complex temple structures emerge adorned with animals and insects.



8,000 BC~6,000 BC: Solar tracking structures emerge to chart the planting and harvest seasons



5,500 BC: Animal and human sacrifice begins. Existing solar structures modified with sacrificial altars. The era of the sky god begins.



3,100 BC: Immortalization of Egytian pharaohs begin. Royal family and court members that belong to a particular pharaoh are willingly sacrificed and buried around his tomb to continue serving him in the afterlife as a god. The era of the demigod begins.



2,200 BC: Coffin Texts appear. Spells and enchantments are written on coffins by priests as a kind of backdoor hack for commoners to gain entrance to the afterlife. The tradition goes viral and the afterlife is no longer the sole domain for royalty. The Age of Immortality Begins.



1,300 BC: Influence of divine kings give way to divine commoners. Gods begin speaking and acting through peasants, prisoners and societal outcasts by interpreting dreams, numerology, astrological portents, prophecy, or dire warnings through convoluted parables. The Age of the Prophets begin.



1,010 BC: Prophets begin anointing kings with oil as a sign of a "mashiach" or divinely appointed human to change the course of Hebrew destiny. Other groups deploy their own legends of a mashiach. The Age of the Messiah begins.



586 BC: Destruction of the first Jerusalem temple. Themes of deliverance enter the picture as prophets begin foretelling the destruction of the Roman occupation by a messiah from the Davidian lineage and replaced with a brand new Israel annointed by god that would be the envy the world. The Age of Salvation begins.



54 AD: Paul of Tarsus begins building numerous churches throughout Ephesus, Thessaloniki, Philipi and Corinth in the religious vacuum that was caused by the expulsion of the Jews and several other religious cults in the Roman empire. Combining the idea of salvation and sin, Paul transforms the fledgling Christian cult into global proportions. The Age of Monotheism begins.



1492 AD: Discovery of America kicks off a major spiral in Catholic influence as the idea of monotheism is questioned. The church scrambles to piece together a working theme to account for people born much too early in lands much too far away. In dismay, some bishops begin to offer salvation in exchange for money. The Age of Discovery begins.



1600 AD: Eccentric intellectuals begin using science to identify proper cause and effect relationships. Knowledge gives way to peculiar insight that challenges long held beliefs and advances skepticism of traditional faiths for the first time in history. The Age of Reason begins.



1965 AD: Acceleration of historic and scientific data is made possible by the invention of the computer. Thirty years later, the internet goes online. Humans are rapidly exposed to an endless wealth of knowledge. Information accumulates at a geometric rate and accelerates our understanding of human history and how reality works. Atheism begins its formidable climb in direct proportion to the information available while a sharp decline in religiousness is simultaneously recorded. By the end of the 20th century, the internet penetrates remote areas of the world. Large, global declines in superstitious beliefs emerge on surveys, polls and scientific papers. Political groups and religious leaders begin declaring war on Atheism by slandering materialist ideas like biology and cosmology. Scientific knowledge is threatened from religious groups filing lawsuits to ban certain types of information in public schools. Atheists, scientists and other secular groups fight back through a visceral display of dialog, debate, and publication of books that challenge the idea of god and other superstitious beliefs for the first time in human history. The Age of Information begins.
?
2017-06-24 08:17:03 UTC
Its the only one.
2017-06-24 07:52:05 UTC
It's a lot more intellectually sounder than believing in a god you can't prove exists.
ron
2017-06-23 18:36:54 UTC
Really what you are asking is do they have a valid reason for not believing in God. I don't believe so. It's so plain to me there is a God that I can't even imagine how some can think there is not. How can you look at the universe and think it's coincidence?
romans116
2017-06-20 15:29:37 UTC
No, I don't see how it can be considered rational or sound to think that we are nothing but the random chance of a cold universe. The chance of life randomly occurring are miniscule at best. It is far more rational to believe it had a beginning and a purpose and was intentionally created to be so.
Logos Lore
2017-06-19 18:37:02 UTC
Yes it is. An Atheist doesn't declare there is no God, but why believe in something that is more likely not to exist?
2017-06-18 14:26:16 UTC
Yes, that's why the likes of David (whose claim we refute ourselves is a non sequitur), FlowerClod (the fallacy fallacy girl), Candice and Night soil have to be less than honest each and every time. After all, we have science, logic, history and probability on our side. Christians have a book that says they can and can't eat pork, and that Jesus was born twice, over 10 years apart, and also not born at all. And many of them are too stupid to realize why Psalms 14:1 is a really stupid argument that proves they are idiots in a religious cult, and that the bible is inept.



An example of an intellectual argument for atheism. Occam's Razor lends support to the idea that the universe began by simple, natural forces, rather than some complex, most intelligent special pleading fallacy god who just happened to exist, and who created the universe. We know simple, natural forces can create complexity, from snow flakes to weather systems.



And before any unthinking religious person asks where those forces came from, you are positing an uncaused first cause just existing. And before you leap to the conclusion it must be a god, if this something existed, it must have properties and behaviours, whether it is your god or not. They don't come from anywhere, they just are, just like the first uncaused cause. It's a property of existence. You don't get to just dismiss something simple you don't like for a highly improbable (according to creationist arguments) god with an attempted gotcha question.
Mo
2017-06-18 11:53:51 UTC
Yes....from my research.
2017-06-18 09:16:02 UTC
It is dishonest Agenda
?
2017-06-18 08:06:36 UTC
Yes, thank God I am an atheist ! LOL.
2017-06-18 07:51:06 UTC
Nope. Atheism and Theism are both intellectually unsound. Both require faith in a delusion absent of evidence. If one simply says, "I don't know" then one will be less retarded. Now let's all put crack in our pee pee holes. Amen!
2017-06-18 04:31:03 UTC
Anne is perfect description of fools mentioned in the book of proverbs in bible:the fool has said in their evil heart,there is no god.hell fire waits them
?
2017-06-17 21:33:38 UTC
No its not imo. I'm sure they see things differently.
?
2017-06-17 15:23:12 UTC
No.



In fact, to be an athee-evo first requires one to have an extreme comfortableness with intellectual dishonesty, maybe even a joyful embrace of it. Below is a typical example.



Both athee-evos and Christians believe the universe came from nothing and that life came from non-life. Where the disagreement comes in is athee-evo intellectual dishonesty. All the scientific evidence we have available points to the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis being violated at some point early on. Those are natural laws that have been proven over and over. To violate those laws of nature, by definition, requires the supernatural, which means God, as God is supernatural. Christians and most others have no problem admitting that.



However, without providing any evidence whatsoever, athee-evos want us all to somehow believe those natural laws were violated naturally. Huh? Then they demand it's up to us Christians to provide evidence for God? Again, huh? The evidence for God is clear. The supernatural must exist because we know that those natural laws were violated. If athee-evos believe otherwise, it is up to them to provide the evidence to show how that happened. And that's where the intellectual dishonesty comes in.



If I claim the First Law of Thermodynamics is not really a law, and in fact matter and energy can come from nothing (like with a perpetual motion machine), they would demand me prove my claim (and rightfully so), and consider me a nutcase if I said, "No, I’m right; it's up to you to prove me wrong", yet that is exactly what they do when it comes to their claim that the First Law was violated by natural means, but it’s up to Christians to prove them wrong. The same is true with the Law of Biogenesis. They claim the law was violated naturally, but then insist that it’s up to Christians to prove them wrong on that too. How many other natural laws do they believe were violated naturally, and it’s up to Christians to somehow prove them wrong, otherwise they are right? Why do they even call such things “laws” to begin with, if they can be naturally violated? The whole thing is nothing but intellectual dishonesty, which is a “natural” prerequisite to becoming an athee-evo.



You want more?



Atheists routinely assert that God does not exist because we cannot directly see him, and then go on to tell believers that they cannot prove that God exists. Many times believers will respond in kind by telling the atheist, “You can’t prove that God does NOT exist”. At that point, the atheist will state that reason and logic does not work that way, rightfully claiming that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. They may even employ the “Santa Claus” argument, stating that just because they cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist does not mean he exists (i.e. you can’t prove a negative). However, when the observed science works against their pseudoscience theories, all of a sudden they’re “Hey, where’s Santa?!” Such is the case with the Oort cloud.



Since the observable science shows that there is no way that comets could still be around if the solar system were billions of years old because they decay relatively rapidly, an astronomer by the name of Jan Oort came up with the nifty little idea that there must be a source of comets way past Pluto, conveniently too far away to be observed, where theoretically one will periodically fall from the cloud toward the sun and be an orbiting comet until it either decays or is destroyed. The problem is that there is absolutely no observed scientific evidence for this Oort cloud. Here’s what Wikipedia says about the Oort cloud.



“The Oort cloud ... is a spherical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals **believed** to surround the Sun at [about] a quarter of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun ... Although **no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud** have been made, it **may** be the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System” (**emphasis added).



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud



Because there is no proof that the Oort cloud exists, YEC simply do not believe it exists. And that’s when the hypocrisy is put on full display as evidenced by the atheists’ apologetic website www.talkorigins.org. Below is their quote regarding YECs not believing the Oort cloud exists.



“Creationism's main argument seems to be that we don't have close-up photos of the Oort Cloud and, therefore, cannot be 100% certain that it really exists! Sorry fellas, but if you want to use this comet argument it is up to you to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Oort Cloud and other sources don't exist!”



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof3



First, ignoring the straw man argument that it’s because of no “close-up” photos that YEC’s don’t believe it exists (we’d settle for any photos), the hypocritical atheists state that it is up to the YECs to prove that the Oort cloud does not exist (a theoretical astronomical phenomena that has never been observed and is only “believed” to exist).



Welcome to the hypocritical and intellectually dishonest world of atheism: Atheists do not have to prove that God does not exist, but insist on YECs proving that the Oort cloud does not exist.
tonysh
2017-06-17 14:54:18 UTC
an intellectually sound position? Of course it is. It is based upon facts and scientific and logical deduction based upon the facts.



Which is more than can be said about anything coming from the purveyors of faith! I am still waiting for the scientific explanation from them how exactly a woman could be turned into a pillar of salt, for example.
Bruce
2017-06-17 13:58:02 UTC
No. It is a dogma bound by self-contradictory presuppositions.



For example, the atheist rules out intelligent design in nature a priori, in a dogmatic way, because intelligent design would destroy his atheism. However, that rules out natural events for which intelligent design is the best explanation. Here are two:



Everything that begins to exist has a cause, including the universe. However, the universe, which began in the Big Bang at the beginning of time, could not have a natural cause, since there was no time or space for a natural cause to operate until the Big Bang. The only other possibility is a personal cause, the agent theists call God.



The transformation of inanimate matter to living plants and animals requires intelligent design. Modern science shows us that the simplest organisms are directed by genetic codes of phenomenal complexity. Whenever we find new information, we have to infer an intelligence rather than a random physical process.
2017-06-17 13:42:17 UTC
It is the single rational position on gods, considering the evidence present at this time.

"Faith" is not a sound reason for anything, facts tell us the truth, faith leads us astray.
?
2017-06-17 13:41:17 UTC
Until someone produces some actual evidence for any one of the gods worshipped by humans over several thousand years, it is.
2017-06-17 13:35:05 UTC
No . Nor is emotionally sound.
2017-06-17 13:31:20 UTC
No, believing a magic snake who could talk tricked some naked white people into eating commensurably magic fruit is the truly intellectual position
Fort Erudite
2017-06-23 23:51:07 UTC
Atheism is a personal choice just as homosexuality and lesbianism is also a person choice. Intellectualism has nothing top do with our personal choices in life.
?
2017-06-22 14:48:15 UTC
I am a Christian, but, If I were a dry, dull, Scientist, Atheism would appeal to me. There is much logic for Atheism..



But, there are deep questions that A. does not answer. Where did Man's spirit come from? His morality? Why is he here? Where is he going? Who is doing all this questioning? None of which can be answered with simple logic and a test tube..



Many PhD's, and other very learned men are Christian. Many aren't.
Steve
2017-06-21 17:45:17 UTC
How can believing we came from nothing be sound? I just can't imagine what it must be like living day-to-day and not knowing why you exist or what will happen to you after you die. It's very sad.



https://youtu.be/oLc_nJGxvWc
?
2017-06-21 13:54:12 UTC
I don't think so. I'm not a big believer in coincidence.
James
2017-06-19 07:41:25 UTC
NO -- and here's why --- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL13eE2x3qhPktufTQOHw0wsMOPdxFky-P
The_Doc_Man
2017-06-19 03:46:38 UTC
If you are a skeptic, all it means is that you doubt something enough to not believe it to be true until you can see some proof.



Atheists are religious skeptics at heart. Provide proof that we are wrong and we probably will join your bandwagon quickly. But the catch is that the proof has to be meaningful and not just a simple matter of interpretation. Proof has to be reasonable to be accepted.



So far, I have not seen any reasonable proof. Only conjectures, interpretations, and opinions, plus testimony based on the contents of a book that makes unproved claims.
Jan C
2017-06-18 22:39:44 UTC
I feel sorry for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the Truth. I believe that atheists will search for Him when they have needs.
Jimbo
2017-06-18 16:41:43 UTC
All beliefs in spiritual matters are intellectually sound to the believer. Atheism is a non belief in religion. Religion is spiritual. Belief in or disbelief is spiritual.
?
2017-06-18 15:12:35 UTC
After messengers and books it is a denying position...
2017-06-18 10:13:57 UTC
Depends on your level of education and the amount of bullshit you have been fed
?
2017-06-18 06:58:47 UTC
Yes. Atheists don't believe deities exist because there's no evidence that any of them are real. It's like asking if not believing Santa Claus is a sound position.
robin_lionheart
2017-06-18 00:02:23 UTC
Withholding belief until there is sufficient evidence is both intellectually honest and intellectually sound. If you're able to honestly say "I don't know", that's all you need to be an atheist.



It's believers who pretend to know things they don't know that are being intellectually dishonest.
?
2017-06-17 19:02:42 UTC
Intellectually neither more nor less sound than any religious viewpoint. If you feel the NEED to "justify" either your atheism or your faith in intellectual terms then you do not truly hold any belief at all. The Founding Fathers saw what a waste it had been trying to impose belief systems on people for centuries in the Middle Ages, torturing and burning people to death for their thoughts, and here we are again.
2017-06-17 18:40:56 UTC
A position cannot be limited to the premise of being intellectually sound as such - it can be evidence based or not evidence based.



People have a variety of viewpoints and a diverse range of 'positions' on topical issues. You're familiar with this I assume having attended schooling.



Therefore atheism is one of many positions a person may take on the issue of the meaning of life or religious discourse.
Gregory
2017-06-17 15:16:31 UTC
no its not sound at all



Psalm 14:1Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

Psalm 14

To the Chief Musician. [A Psalm] of David.

1 The [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God.
?
2017-06-17 14:08:05 UTC
I have yet to see a sound argument from any atheist. For the most part they just rant, rave and insult and then for icing throw in words like "science" and "logic" randomly without making a scientific or logical statement.
2017-06-17 13:56:52 UTC
Yes, it's completely sound. It's like asking if a disbelief in unicorns is an intellectually sound position. By the way, it's "an intellectually," not "a intellectually." Learn basic grammar so you don't look so stupid.
2017-06-17 13:45:16 UTC
Lol No. Until they can provide evidence that their position is a) intellectually honest and b) intellectually coherent we can dismiss them as fools and mad men.



All of their arguments are based on either arguments from ignorance or arguments from emotion. Most of what they do is attack, not provide a reasoned defense for their "just a lack of belief". If something is a thing in itself, it is incoherent to declare it for it is self-evident as it is. Obviously, there's something more going on.
?
2017-06-17 13:41:17 UTC
no, it is to archaic, chaotic, pretense filled and assumatic. it would be for the egotistical non believer/
biggalloot2003
2017-06-17 13:33:55 UTC
As an atheist, I do not believe in god. There is no evidence for god, but there is massive evidence for the science based alternative.



To fail to believe that for which there is no evidence, is intellectually sound. To believe in spite of contrary evidence, is not.
lisa
2017-06-24 16:01:26 UTC
yes
?
2017-06-24 14:31:25 UTC
No, and it never works. Most people end up sad, depressed, and either become suicidal or criminal or mentally unstable or emotionally unstable. You're best off being a Protestant Christian. In my experience, the Jewish and Christian faiths are the most stable and rewarding and fulfilling.
Field Cook
2017-06-24 01:41:29 UTC
No, because without God, then how everything and everyone came to be?
2017-06-20 11:48:20 UTC
: “One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”



Physicist P.A.M. Dirac, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge.
?
2017-06-19 14:07:20 UTC
I could ask the same of theism but it would be disrespectful and divisive.
?
2017-06-19 06:51:53 UTC
Atheism is the only intellectually sound position. Look at my posts, I have proved the god of Abraham false and no theist has ever been able to even debate me on the issue let alone offer a sustainable rebuttal.



Ignoring that, nothing without proof is intellectually sound. "Intellectually sound" requires proof (not imagination).





EDIT: IF I AM WRONG WHY HAVE I BEEN BLOCKED FROM RESPONDING TO ANY COMMENTS.
?
2017-06-18 18:41:57 UTC
if christian people believe that everything good which happens to them is caused by god; and conversely believe that everything bad which happens is caused by the devil; does that not mean the christian as a actual person does not exist?

if god and satan exist, then the human being does not.

it is easier to blame it on the devil, then accept responsibility for your own life.
Your worst nightmare
2017-06-18 12:43:56 UTC
No, not at all, atheism is futile as a clock in an empty house.
2017-06-18 01:55:36 UTC
Yes perfectly. It's far more intellectually sound and consistent than believing in God. You think it's intellectually sound to talk about something existing for which you necessarily can never provide not a scintilla of evidence? No, atheism is far more sound.
Corey
2017-06-18 01:21:58 UTC
As long as there continues to be no evidence any gods exist.
Hiroshi
2017-06-18 00:53:48 UTC
Yes, of course it is. It is the most intelligent, logical and objective position about gods, for they have no actual supporting evidence. Logically, the burden of proof is with anyone who claims gods exist. Until they offer some convincing evidence for the existence of gods, it is most logical to say gods do not exist. Critically reading sacred texts shows that gods did not write them. The fact that believers have no valid arguments in favor of their beliefs is another point in favor of atheism.
Shawn Robin
2017-06-17 21:25:24 UTC
Scientifically speaking? No.



Atheism's nothing but a circular logic fallacy: "There is no god because there is no god."

They'll claim there's no evidence yet where and how long did they personally spend looking?

What degrees in science did they earn to train and qualify them for that?

Because those who DO get off their lazy @sses and get to work looking always end up like these scientists:



“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Born.



“I think only an idiot can be an atheist.”

—Nobel Prize winning chemist Christian Anfinsen.



Because Science proved them right:



'It's Easy to Be an Atheist if You Ignore Science'

'Scientists investigate if atheists' brains are missing a 'God Spot'

'Atheists embarrassed: study proves atheism uses less brain function'

'Evolutionary Studies Suggest that Atheists, Whatever They Say to the Contrary, Really Do Believe in God'



Something else that destroys atheist's credibility is how they sit around denying their religion is one:



'Court rules atheism a religion'

'Atheists Score Major Win In Federal Court'

'U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION'



When courts of law grant atheism the same legal status & protections of all other religions, it clearly is one.

No matter how hard any idiot @ssclown atheists p*ss themselves in a panic denying that incontrovertible fact.



Additional to this is how atheists in general also tend to be scientifically illiterate.

Like all the retards claiming science has somehow proved or proven there's no basis for religious belief.

Because actual, fact-based reality is that the opposite is true:



'It's a big, fat myth that all scientists are religion-hating atheists'

'Latest Study Finds Most Scientists in the World are Religious'

'Contrary to Popular Belief, Many Scientists Are Religious'

'Are Top Scientists Really So Atheistic? Look at the Data'

'The myth of scientists as atheists'

'Faith and science closely linked'



“Those who have magnified more recent controversies about the relations of science and religion, and who have projected them back into historical time, simply perpetuate a historical myth. The myth of a perennial conflict between science and religion is one to which no historian of science would subscribe.”

—Former Oxford University Professor of Science and Religion Peter Harrison.



"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

—Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle.



No less of an authority than the American Mathematical Society itself did just that:



"Here is the mother of all spoilers: The probability that the monotheistic, prayer-answering God exists is... 67%"

Link - http://www.ams.org/notices/200802/tx0802...



They're hardly the only scientists who've done some number-crunching on the subject:



'Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God'

Link - http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/756870/proof-of-god-kurt-godel



Like these guys said:



“A scientific discovery is also a religious discovery. There is no conflict between science and religion. Our knowledge of God is made larger with every discovery we make about the world.”

—Nobel Prize winning physicist Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.



“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

—Nobel Prize winning physicist Werner Heisenberg



“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

—Albert Einstein



Atheists can whine about that till the cows come home.

But whining can't change the fact-based reality of it any.
2017-06-17 21:14:10 UTC
No. How someone can believe that everything just happened by random chance is not a sound position. I don't even see how it can be considered a rational position. Look around you at the world today and tell me how many things around you were created by random chance.
2017-06-17 19:39:33 UTC
NO WAY HOSEA IT IS TOTALLY WORTHLESS...THEY WILL FIND OUT WHEN JUDGMENT COMES..
2017-06-17 18:08:20 UTC
A person can know with certainty there is a God by practicing true devotion to the Blessed Virgin.
geessewereabove
2017-06-17 13:41:17 UTC
Just the opposite! It was the Atheists that challenged Believers of GOD to court back in the 1930s, were accepted and at the Supreme Court where the Atheists LOST! Because they had Not even one item of proof then! They had believe to speak louder would have been enough to win. GOD WON! Lots of Profs confirming the Bible even back then

After the Atheists LOST they paid to get anything they could to look like their dreamed up theories! Not thinking that science would Advance! Science has greatly Advanced and the Order went out for ALL that the Atheists had used as "proofs" to be tested! These tests were finished in 2007 with Science discovering that Everything the Atheists had used/claimed - to be FAKES! What fossils they had, not one tested to be more then 6,000 years old! Just as the Bible states! Most of what the Atheists had used were mostly NEW BONEs from lots of already known of animals to make-up each of gather fake ones!~

Can atheists state how any of their zero Proof theories could have developed into the next part? Nope!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...