Why atheism is stupid
Browsing the web today power Googling “Atheist stupidity” and came across this website.
Here is a short essay by the webmaster.
Enjoy!
Why atheism is stupid
Monday, January 01st, 2007
Just a quick post to explain why atheism is actually stupid, and requires as much faith, if not much more, to be an atheist.
All atheists posit what’s called a universal negative. A universal negative requires absolute knowledge (omniscience) whereas a universal positive may not require that.
For instance, let’s say I am in a building with 4 rooms, and I have only been in 1 room. In order to say that every room is empty, I would have to have knowledge of all 4 rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know.
However, to state the opposite, that the building is not empty, I would at the very least only need to know about one room.
So, in essence, any time an atheist claims that there is absolutely no God, they are claiming absolute and full knowledge of the universe (omniscience). If they are not claiming absolute knowledge, than they are going off of faith, but in fact, since they could never EVER know for sure that universal negative, then they are requiring much more faith than a person who claims there is a God (because finding out if there is a God may not require absolute knowledge).
But hey, I don’t need to say it, it was written quite a long time ago "the fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’" (Psalm 14:1)
August 27, 2009 at 5:26 am
Congratulations. You just proved the existence of everything EVER.
Understand that just because something cannot be disproved, doesn’t mean its there. Also, when you observe something, you cannot be 100% sure that it’s real, there is always alternative explanations and the possibility of delusion. I agree, assuming that the other 3 rooms are empty is flawed inductive reasoning, asserting that they are full is equally flawed though. Since so far, i have only observed empty rooms, I will assume the others are empty until I observe otherwise.
Your argument is the classic example of Russell’s teapot, the argument that, by your logic, there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars that cannot be observed, and cannot be disproved therefore it exists. The burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic.