Atheists, can you refute this quote?

I can't stand people who truly think they can speak for people they haven't even a clue about. Completely moronic quote.

I mean really. It's like saying that fairies have to exist for us all not to believe in it. Total stupidity.

Ok, not too many people stepped up to refute ol' G.K. No wonder, he was pretty brilliant. I'm not sure what he means exactly. It's possible the Atheism of his time was a bit more vital. These guys today are asleep. I especially like the first part--"Atheism is the supreme example of a simple faith." Yep. It takes a lot of faith to believe that there's no God.

A-theism will always be a contrarian thing, like its name suggests. They're a-this, a-that. Like a two year old whose only answer is "no!"

Yours in Christ, Nick

For the guy below--"positives" in the philosophical sense that religion consists in tangible statements or doctrines which the Atheist refutes (negates), but has none of his own to offer. Not necessarily "positive" in the moral sense. I think that is the questioner's point.

That argument operates on the faulty premise that atheism is a movement, a philosophy or a religion. Of course, it's none of those things, so the argument is without merit.

Atheism is "the supreme example of a simple faith"? In what? Is non-belief in Santa Claus a faith, then?

"If there were not God, there would be no atheists." So then, if there were not Santa Claus, there wouldn't be those who don't believe in Santa Claus? Substitute any mythical character you want into those asinine statements, and their total lack of logic is even more glaring.

He's misguided and not quite as bright as he thinks he is.

What he could say is that if there were no people that believed in God or a God there would be no Atheists. There would be no need. You don't have a special word to refer to the group of people that do not believe in the reality of the tooth fairy (except perhaps the word "adults"). You do not have a specific philosophy that denies the existence of a purple dotted zebra that circles the solar system. There would be no atheists except for the great amount of people that insist that God does exist without a reasonable argument for his existence.

Mr. Chesterson simply is not the brightest bulb in the pack.

Sounds like old G.K. didn't have a clue what "atheist" means.

I'm not in denial nor am I in an atmosphere of defiance...I simply see no evidence of any kind for a god, so I accept that it's not reasonable to believe in one.

I don't see that as negative, I see it as logical. As for "the positive that it rejects" -- show me one positive thing about religion, and I might consider that :) Your assumption (and apparently his) that "god" and "religion" are positives is unwarranted, in my opinion. What's so positive about believing in things for which there is no evidence of any kind? I guess you'd say that believing in the FSM must also be positive, then, and those that are a-spaghettimonsterist are negative...where does that leave you? :)

Peace.

Sure. G.K. Chesterton wasn't an atheist, and therefore wasn't qualified to make such an assessment.

There. Appeal to authority shattered.

Let me break it down for you even further.

The first sentence presumes that there is a god. Therefore, anything that follows it is circular logic.

The second sentence is pure gobbledygook. It sounds impressive, but it doesn't actually say anything. Go ahead, try and explain exactly what that sentence is saying, I dare you.

The third sentence is incorrect. It should read: "If there were no THEISTS, there would be no need for anyone to call himself an atheist."

I don't really get it.

True, atheism is the mere lack of theism so if there was no notion of deities there would be no notion of atheism. Imagine a world where theism is not widely used, being a new arrival of sorts. In such a world no one would be an atheists. Atheism would be the norm and thus not labeled. It would be like everyone saying they were non-athletes or non-mailmen.

My forum is araidnesthrd@yahoogroups.com The base for religion is the Philosophers Stone. Genesis is the process for making the stone, but it needs be understood connected to the yearly cycle. The stone takes 16 months to make. The religion of Osiris is 16 months long. The stone and osiris is the same as Christianity. Astrology is originally defined by thios process. if you understand all this, our religions of today are based on the creation process. The actual process is about matter living, dying, regenerated and finally resurrected. Or, our religion and belief in God all comes from recycling matter. This when known will change the world. All is explained and tied together on the forum, and in a book i have written. So, to answer your question, first you should know where and what religion is from, then consider if there is a God as you think you know of him, and go from there. Tghe good part of the information is the stone can be made by you, it is a medicine that cures all ills, all will soon know of and have this medicine. It though is a work of the sun, it is not a collection of a part of God from the sun, as the ancients believed. But, then that part is your opinion.

Al

Well, there is a positive. There is widespread believe of a god. And an atheist disagrees with that. Thats like saying the flying spaghetti monster must exist because there are those who reject him. The quote could only make sense to a person who already believes in a universal god.

That's ridiculous. That person is basing his hypothesis on only one god and there have been thousands through out time. People have been not believing in gods way before the god of the Bible. That would only work if man had never come up the the concept of any gods. So then there would be nothing to believe or disbelieve in.

I am unsure about that

I was atheist for a long time without putting much thought into wether or not a God exists

so it wasnt a disbelief in a God ... there was just no belief that anything was there

I am not atheist now

but still .... I dont agree with the quote