Atheists, do you believe in air?

Post Reply New Topic

The fact that you invoked the "I" in your statement indicates that you express yourself as though you exist.

ruveyn

Yes, that would be the case if I am me, but that is unknown.

If you're not you then who are you?
Are you someone else?

"I know one thing, that I know nothing" attributed to Socrates

Ok, anyone who used "I know air exists because I'm not dead" or something along those lines is an idiot. That means you are basing the existence of air upon the faith that it's required to breathe even though you don't have proof of that, and thus you are being a hypocrite. The proper response is "because I can feel it" or something like that. You need to prove that air exists before you can prove that's it's needed for life, or you need to prove that life cannot exist without air, which one I don't think is necessarily true if we look beyond life as we know it, and it would be a lot harder to prove than just proving air exists.

While the OP chose a very bad example, he does have a point. Even atheists are dependent on faith. Why do we believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed and it is what it is? How many of us have actually bothered to collect the needed data and made the proper calculations to arrive at such a conclusion? Most atheists just have faith that those scientists are telling the truth. The same goes for theists.

Now let's go to the infamous "Brain Joke". An atheist teaches that God doesn't exist by saying that he cannot be seen, heard, touched, tasted, smelled, or felt. A student then stands up and confronts the teacher, asking him if he can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell his brain. The teacher responds in the negative to each one, and thus the student announces to the rest of his class that his teacher lacks a brain. Now, assuming the brain does in fact exist, it is true that he can be touched, heard, seen, tasted, and smelled at a later point in time, but at the present time it is true it cannot be tasted, felt, seen, head, or tasted. However, while the brain cannot be directly observed there is still evidence of it's existence as it's effects can be observed. For theists it's the same with God, in their minds they see evidence for the existence of God. Some even claim that they can directly observe God. Thus the whole "God doesn't exist because he cannot be observed" argument falls appart and it's revealed that the real difference between theists and atheists is what they believe to be evidence for the existence of God and whether or not they can observe that.

While they state otherwise, Militant Atheists are really no different than the religions they try to destroy. They only difference is they claim to be based around logic instead of faith, but if you actually look at it logically you would see this isn't really true. Einstein said that the belief is the God of Abraham is childish, but he also despised atheists because they are are arrogant, and it's not hard to see what he's getting at here.

While the OP chose a very bad example, he does have a point. Even atheists are dependent on faith. Why do we believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed and it is what it is? How many of us have actually bothered to collect the needed data and made the proper calculations to arrive at such a conclusion? Most atheists just have faith that those scientists are telling the truth. The same goes for theists.

You have faith that the scientists made the super collider to have accurate information.

But how do you know that you only lack knowledge and there isn't a lack of empirical evidence? You have faith that the empirical evidence exists, faith that if you had the knowledge you could understand.

That sounds almost like a conspiracy theory