New Argument (no name yet)


UNDER HEAVY CONSTRUCTION.

Working on another argument...I haven't came up with a name for it.


P1: Atheists don't believe in God is because of insufficient evidence.

P2: If you don't believe in things because there isn't enough evidence, then logically speaking you cannot believe in something that has Zero Evidence.

P3: There is absolutely Zero Evidence for atheism.

C: Atheists cannot believe their own position.

P1 (2): A position is worthless if its proponents cannot believe it.

C (2):   Atheism is worthless.



Defending the premises: This a deductive argument, so if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be accepted.

Premise 1 - This premise cannot be defeated because it's an absolute fact that one of the reasons atheists don't believe in God is that they claim there isn't sufficient evidence.  Even if they say there no evidence for God,  No evidence is still insufficient evidence.

Premise 2 - This is also a fact. Logically speaking it wouldn't make sense to deny something because of lack of evidence, but accept other things with Zero Evidence.

Premise 3 -  If something has no evidence, and your opponent says that thing (atheism) doesn't require evidence, they still haven't shown that that thing (atheism) has any evidence. Thus P3 still stands. All P3 does is state that there is Zero Evidence for atheism. That premise stands unless some evidence can be presented. Example: I say my brother doesn't have arms, then someone come along and says he doesn't require arms to play the piano. Then I say yea so what, my statement that he doesn't have any arms is still valid, unless you show me some arms he has!!

Also many people lie to try and make the claim that atheism is a neutral position and makes no claims, thus it wouldn't require any evidence. This is 100% false. Atheism is the view that there is no God. Period!!


The REAL definition of Atheism:
Atheism: The view that GOD does not exist.

Atheist: A person that holds to the view that GOD does not exist. A person who maintains that there is no God.

To get into this further watch these videos!!!
http://youtu.be/GC89MrduK1c
http://youtu.be/3QeGVwUPHBg
http://youtu.be/d5Z1fpF7fhs

The FAULTY definition of Atheism that many atheists use:

Atheism: The lack of belief in God. The denial or disbelief that any god exists.

Atheist: A person who chooses to deny or disbelieve a god exists.

C - Logically the conclusion follows and must be accepted if the premises are true.

Premise 1 (2) - If a position is not believed by either its detractors or proponents, then essentially it's worthless. No one takes it serious, and it should be thrown out.

C (2) - Logically the conclusion follows and must be accepted if the premises are true. 

Comments

  1. P3 is flawed. Atheism is the rejection of a claim, therefore it is not subject to empirical evidence. It's like saying there is no evidence for people that don't believe in unicorns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahhhh, but that doesn't make "P3" flawed now does it A Spears...It is still true that there is no evidence for atheism...Therefore P3 still stands! You lose

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Elliott Argument (Official)

Chad Elliott The Atheist Killa

Progressive Community Church Stockton, Ca. is DANGEROUS (Open Letter)