> The assertion with Atheism is that all of our tools for measuring reality are all of the tools necessary to measure reality. even though the entire mission statement is if something cannot be backed up with evidence and proof then it's considered invalid. Things that can't be measured, act as if they don't exist. Things that don't interact with reality in a detectable way, act, as if they don't exist. What acts, as if doesn't exist, can safely be treated, as if it doesn't exist. If you don't follow that assertion, you're open for any number of ridiculous claims and fairytales. Asserting that all claims are false per default, unless there's evidence backing them up, is what's reasonable. There's an infinite number of possible claims, and nearly all of those claims are complete bullshit. So the probability of any random claim without evidence being bullshit converges towards 1, to say it in mathematical terms, i.e. is as good as certain. I'm wondering, if you really want to argue against this, because if you do, you have removed reason from the discussion, and have laid the groundwork for me to argue, that every single god in the pantheon exists besides jehova, e.g. monotheism would be discredited and you'd have to worship granny as well. > Could you imagine the ancient atomists being told "well, atoms cannot be measured and therefore they do not exist" You mean the atoms made up of the elements, e.g. fire, water, air, and earth? Damn well, those don't exist, and the ancient atomists should STFU making claims about things they can't know anything about, especially when those claims are used as premises for further claims that actually influence people's lifes. > Atheism is entirely built on one massive self-contradicting, self-defeating fallacy that's pretending not to be a fallacy at all. Then there's a big blog of text, depicting atheism as an unified block of fanatical followers of the ultimate nothingness. However, you're confusing atheism with nihilism. Both aren't the same, and I'd argue, that the nihilism you complain about is what grows on christianity's corpse, and is the successor of christianity. Let me explain... First, yet another case against christianity... Imagine some pagan dude from ~1000 years ago, which, during wintertimes, smears some butter on the big stone in the forest every evening, so that the trolls keep him in their good books, and don't drink the blood of his children. You tell him, that there's no such thing as trolls, and it's animals that eat the butter. He'll say, that you can't know, because you can't see what happens at night in the forest, when the trolls are around. So you get a wildlife-camera out of your backpack, hide it on a tree, and show him pictures of animals, not trolls, that eat the butter he put on the stone. But then the pagan dude tells you, that your single wildlifecamera doesn't suffice, the troll could hide behind the animals. So you put on a few other wildlife cameras on the trees, and still don't see any trolls on the pictures, not even from all the other other angles. Then the pagan dude tells you, that the troll may live under the earth in tunnels, and comes up under the animals, and he therefore is hidden from the cameras. So you take a shovel, and dig, but can't find any tunnels through which the troll could come to the stone. But the pagan dude still refuses, and tells you, that the trolls might be invisible. So you put a fence around the stone, and nothing happens to the butter. And then the pagan says: "Yes, I told you, that trolls exist! They are invisible, don't leave any traces, are immaterial, and they hide beside animals! Your fence proves it, and you were trying to let the trolls kill my children! Now be slaughtered as a sacrifice to Odin! [CHOP]". Odin spoken with a th in place of the D. And your last words are: "WTF?!" Just the letters, because the [CHOP] came too quickly to react. What the good nordic fellow was making (I mean besides heroically protecting his culture from your foreign kikery) is the "Troll-in-the-gap" argument, e.g. he asserts the truthfulness of a specific claim by further and further redacting it into the realm of unprovability, until you run into something, that's so inaccessible, that it can't be disproven, and then he takes this as the proof for all his claims. Of course in reality, he only has his unwavering stubbornness to back up his beliefs in increasingly unlikely eventualities, but despite his lack of good reason, he still smears butter on the rock in the forest to feed the troll, and kills you as a sacrifice to odin (with th) for trying to trick him into having the troll drink the blood of his children. What else should he do? It is not his fault, that the gods have cast Hel into her dark heim, where she now resides, inside which she's now bearing children that express her discontent with the world. The nordic fellow didn't do anything to Hel, and if things were up to him, he surely would have put her somewhere nice and warm. But he can't change how things are, and you tried to trick him to having the troll kill his children, and this he can't tolerate. And you know what? You're doing the same with jehova. The problem is, that the claim of his existence is based upon a tradition. As I said, parents brainwashed their children for many generations to believe into something they themselves wouldn't consider to be truthful, when others did it. And there's extensive documentation about how the brainwashing went on, which claims were made, and so on. That's what really killed god: the tradition has a history, e.g. people in the past made claims that weren't verifiable back then, but they demanded belief. Those claims were written down, and with scientific progress they turned out to be false. Claims about how old the earth is, how man and animals did not evolve but were created, about the nature of the universe. The whole creation-myth, and lots of other stuff as well. Or, if you go with the quran, how the sun sets and rises, if you want to look up the most ludicrous claim of the sandniggers. Those claims turned out to be factually wrong. Christianity is a set of claims, most of which are unverifiable. One of those claims is, that christianity is the perfect and absolute truth. With some of those formerly unverifiable claims having been debunked by scientific progress, and with that it's not the perfect and absolute truth anymore. Every christian claim now has to be treated like any normal claim, e.g. false until proven otherwise, and even then only true until it's been disproven again. And with that, the nature of christianity changes fundamentally. The reason for becoming a christian in the past has been, that christianity has the absolute truth, and you'll be genocided if you don't join, and then you'll end up in hell, where you'll be tortured for eternity. That's not the case anymore, and anyone who joined because of those claims now has a good reason to feel defrauded, because they presumably wouldn't have accepted the same deal under the new condition. This is what killed god. Not kikes, not some concerted effort by Immanuel Cunt and the Enlightening-Rod, and not even the powerlust of the state. It's been the incorrectness of foundational claims. Christianity has been exposed as a fraud, and everyone knows it. BTW, Nietzsche considered exactly this to be a very bad thing. He called it the age of nihilism, which (from his time-perspective) is going to happen because man killed god, and with that he also destroyed god's values, but did not create new values to replace them with. You know, values for and by this earth, whose teaching doesn't require another world with heaven and hell. And, just as a sidenote, there you have a lot of the damage to philosophy christianity did. Yes, damage. By claiming to be the absolute truth, it prevented any effort to find any good thisworldly values to replace it with. By this lie it first made itself indispensible and then failed and died. I mean, after genociding people, which didn't claim to have the absolute truth. That's damage to philosophy. And now god is dead, and you have a large herd of people, whose ancestors were conditioned into believing in thinks like heaven and hell and stuff like that, who still follow christian morality, but with a big state in the center, which realizes their christian values for them. You know, feed the poor, all men are equal, there is only one supreme being and nothing beside it, and so on. Cunt, Hobbes, Locke weren't dissolving christian morals, but solidifying them in an attempt to make them work even without god. And that is what we have now. Enlightenment and humanism are not anti-christian, but the next iteration of christianity. "But that's shit", you'll say. Yes, it is indeed... Who knows, how the grannie-worshippers would have turned out.