now naturally, not all atheists fit this statement. but anyone who says that a god doesn't exist because they have not seen it are the same as flat earthers. Here is the logical breakdown. [b]Planar Theory is the pinnacle of Empiricism.[/b] [quote]Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.[/quote] https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism In short, the empirical method says that the only rationally acceptable beliefs are things that have been personally experienced through our own senses. This is a fundamental building block of flat earth theory. [quote]The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. [/quote] http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,1324.msg1312141.html#msg1312141 From this excerpt alone, we can already see the hallmark building blocks of the empirical method being used. It speaks to the sensory experience and how what we perceive points the earth being flat. This is also an argument used by many atheists. Many times, I've been asked on these very forums about how god can exist if we have not seen him, or if we have not seen direct evidence of him existing. I often other peoples accounts of the divine, but those are rejected as delusional or fabrications in an attempt to control people. [quote]The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration. This likely began during the Cold War's 'Space Race', in which the U.S.S.R and USA were obsessed with beating each other into space to the point that each faked their accomplishments in an attempt to keep pace with the others supposed achievements. However, since the end of the Cold War, the conspiracy is most likely motivated by greed rather than political gains. Thus opening up a tremendous amounts of funds to embezzle as it only takes a fraction of the total budget to fake space travel.[/quote] As we can see here, the same exact argument is made here. People in power made up the narrative to serve their own political goals and to enrich themselves. Next I often point to is that the Bible is evidence, but they make the same points here. [quote]In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered. Many of the videos posted here to "prove a round earth" by showing curvature will show no curvature or even convex curvature at parts. The sources are so inaccurate it's difficult to build an argument on them in either case. Furthermore, barrel distortion and other quirks of modern cameras will cause a picture to distort with little or no apparent altercation; especially without references within the picture. Photographs are also prone to distortion when taken through the bent glass of a pressurized cabin as well as atmospheric conditions on the outside. With this litany of problems, it's easy to see why photographic evidence is not to be trusted.[/quote] How different does this sound than "the Bible cannot be trusted because it has been edited and changed by government officials to benefit themselves." You cannot use an argument for one purpose, then turn around and say that the same argument is stupid. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite. So please, atheists, I implore you to move beyond the bland arguments that god doesn't exist because you can't see it, or the claim that you need empirical proof that god exists in order for him to exist. It's stupid and is a logical fallacy. I am by no means saying the earth is flat, I am open minded enough to believe others at their word. but anyone who says that god cannot be real because I have not seen him better be an astronaut, or also believe the earth is flat. TL;DR [b]I have not seen god therefore he doesn't exist is and empirical statement.[/b] [b]The earth is flat because I have not seen the earth to be round is also an empirical statement.[/b] [b]Both of these statements are equally valid.[/b] [b]therefor, if you believe the first statement, you must also believe the second statement. Atheists are the same as flat earthers.[/b]
I disagree with this assessment. It is predicated on the assumption that a lack of personal experience equals an empirical solution in the minds of both atheists and flat earthers. Now, I understand that OP said that this does not apply to all athiests, but I don’t believe that this applies to anyone except a very select few. By the OPs description of the thought process, “If I haven’t seen it with my own eyes, then it empirically 100% does not exist.” would be the thought process that both atheists and flat earthers utilize for all beliefs. The claim that if you believe one, you must believe the other. If this were true, then flat earthers and athiests would also not believe that mountains exist if they have never been to one themselves, that Japan, Amsterdam, Australia, Iceland, London, don’t exist if they have never been there, etc. Basically, if they haven’t seen it with their own eyes, not only would they not believe in it, but they would also believe that empirically, 100%, that it does not exist. So someone who has never seen a whale with their own eyes would assert that whales absolutely do not exist as an empirical fact, if they were to subscribe to this sort of logic. This is not how athiests or flat earthers think. The thought process is one of requiring sufficient evidence to prove the claim. So well there may be some validity in comparing the two groups, in the sense that each group feels that there is a claim that is being made with no evidence to support it, or that the truth is different than what people say it is, belief in one does not require belief in the other. There are both atheists and flat earthers who have never seen the bottom of the deepest ocean with their own eyes. But I would be willing to bet that the majority of then believe it is there from the evidence available. This proves the idea that athiests and flat earthers must both believe in both concepts is an assumption based in flawed logic.