It’s Saturday and that means it’s time for another atheist humor post. I’m not sure if this video can be classed as humor or not, but it’s so epic that I had to post it. The way in which it is sung makes it hilarious but keep in mind…
This is serious!! If it were only meant for humor, it would be a great blasphemy in the eyes of His Noodliness.
Enjoy the video:
Check out last weeks Atheist Humor: Some of God’s Many “Cool Designs”.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Concerning the usual flying teapot, spaghetti monster and invisible unicorns analogies, I think it is important to distinguish between atheism ( I know beyond all reasonable doubt that those entities does not exist) and agnosticism ( I don’t know whether they exist or not).
I am pretty sure none of those entities exist not only because of the absence of evidences (this by itself would only justify agnosticism) but also because there are incredibly strong reasons militating against their existence.
Take for example the celestial teapot: teapots are products of an human mind, contrarily to biological systems, there are no conceivable natural pathways by which they could have evolved, and no human being has ever been at the surface or even in the vicinity of Mars (and even if some secrete mission has done that, it is extremely unlikely they would have brought one teapot with them and let it fall in the space) , therefore one can conclude with almost certainty that there is no teapot orbiting around Mars.
Let us now consider other scenarios for which we have no evidence at all: somewhere in the multiverse, there is an intelligent species looking like bears, there exists a parasitic species capable of possessing their host’s brain like the Goaulds (Stargates) or hives (dark skies).
I am “agnostic” but not atheist about these possibilities, because while there exist clearly no evidence, there is also nothing which speaks against that.
Similarly, I am atheist about any kind of invisible animals or visible or invisible unicorns existing on the earth, but I am agnostic about the possibilities that such creature may live on an unknown planet of an unknown remote paralell universe.
I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.
So, I believe that atheist have to give solid grounds for believing with almost certainty there exist no god(s). These may be the evidence of meaningless evils, the widespread religious confusion, the numerous examples of bad design in nature and so on and so forth.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:20 am
@Gruesome_hound
So the Glenn Beck argument?
“I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.”
Prove it doesn’t exist? For something to be widely believed as truthful or justified one must prove its existence, not disprove its existence.
All I know is that if there is a God and I’m wrong…. I don’t like that SOB anyways. Any Deity capable of fixing the world’s problems (like most religions flaunt), and doesn’t help the poor mistreated starving children that do believe in him, isn’t worthy of my praise. Let alone my undying worship and obedience.
That and religions have been coming and going far before the “major” religions.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Hi realist, thank you very much for your response !
In fact, as I said, I think it is important to make the distinction between the three following positions:
1) Theism: I know (with a great probability) that God exists
2) Atheism: I know (with a great probability) that God does not exist
3) Agnosticism: I don’t know if God exist or not
I fully agree with you that theists have to prove their position, to give reasonable evidences for the existence of God, for they affirmation of knowledge, they have the burden of proof.
The same can be said of the atheist: for his affirmation of knowledge (I know God does not exist) he has also the burden of proof.
Just saying : “there is no evidence, therefore it does not exist” is a fallacious principle.
The same would hold true for all parodies of religion (which I find very amusing ! ).
We have for example absolutely no evidence for :
1) The spaghetti monster
2) a pink unicorn, let alone a pink invisible one !
3) a species of aliens looking like snakes and taking possession of the brain of their host ( Stargate).
4) A yellow unicorn situated in a unknown planet on an other universe and which is has the power to create shock undulation thanks to its horn
However, while I am “atheists” for the two first entities ( I know beyond reasonable doubt that they don’t exist) , I am only “agnostic” about the two last ones.
In effect, I believe that beyond the lack of evidences, there exist overwhelming arguments against the first two entities ( spaghetti are an human creation appeared recently on the scene, they are not able to form cells to live, let alone to develop a brain which would be a requisite for any kind of monster on this planet) , for the unicorns, we have an extremely good knowledge of the history of the earth, but we have never found any fossil.
Nevertheless, although there are no evidence for them, a parasitic alien species and a yellow unicorn may well live on some remote places of the multiverse, we simply don’t know !
So, my point was that atheists should be able to provide evidences in order to sustain their conclusions.
But you also seem to agree with that by evoking the horrendous suffering in the world around us , which is a strong evidence against the existence of God.
Now, there exist also other evidences, like the fact our mental life completely depends on the brain, the poor design in biological systems and so on and so forth.
However, we need to be conscious that many sophisticated Christian thinkers are aware of these arguments and try to give alternative explanations while holding onto their belief in God.
Similarly, Agnostics may also contest the sufficiency of the existing atheistic arguments to prove there is no God.
So, if one has already established there are no evidences for God, the truth of atheism ( I know there is no one) against agnosticism ( I don’t know if there is one or not) will depend on the strength of the anti-theistic arguments I have evoked above.
I hope that helps clarifying my position !
Have a nice Week !