Atheism--split from "Randi's money"

[quixotecoyote]

I suppose it's bad form to make one's forum debut on a semi-off topic nitpick. But as an atheist I take exception to.

the difference between atheism (which is irrational *belief* in something unprovable) and agnosticism (which is a lack of belief either way)

Atheism is the position that god does not exist. With the absence of evidence pointing in that direction, it's quite the valid stance to take.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existance of god is unknowable, which I find absurd, as all it would take is a (certain kind of) miracle spree and a basso profundo voice from the sky explaining that it is the work of god.

[saizai]

Atheism is the position that god does not exist. With the absence of evidence pointing in that direction, it's quite the valid stance to take.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existance of god is unknowable, which I find absurd, as all it would take is a (certain kind of) miracle spree and a basso profundo voice from the sky explaining that it is the work of god.

Then I must strongly disagree with you.

Agnostic: There is no evidence that exists (or can exist, for a 'hard' agnostic), that proves either way the existence or nonexistence of God. (Factual statement in the 'soft' form; faith in the 'hard' form since God, if existant, could presumably perform obvious miracles.)

Believer: There is no objective evidence, or only the evidence of my experience / the holy book / etc, for the existence of God, but I choose to believe so. (Total faith.)

Atheist: There is no objective evidence, or only the evidence of my doubt, for the nonexistence of God, but I choose to believe so. (Total faith.)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - and indeed is not evidence of anything at all. Atheism is just as irrational as belief. If you want to claim rational basis for your beliefs, you have to give evidence that deductively proves it, not just point to the lack of evidence that *conclusively disproves* it (as all believers are wont to do). A priori, one cannot 'logically' assume either the existence or nonexistence; you have to treat them as equally probable and assume each in turn and come to either a positive or negative proof.

That's not possible (to date?) with this, so both sides are faith of their own kind.

[quixotecoyote]

If a mod would like to take this side conversation to a new thread, that would be fine. I'd do it, but I apparantly am too new to create new threads.

Atheist: There is no objective evidence, or only the evidence of my doubt, for the nonexistence of God, but I choose to believe so.

This a horribly contorted way of putting the words so they can mean what you want them to mean. Try this:

Atheist: There is no objective evidence of the existence of God, so I choose not to believe it.

A=without, theism=god belief

atheism=without belief in god
eta:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - and indeed is not evidence of anything at all. Atheism is just as irrational as belief. If you want to claim rational basis for your beliefs, you have to give evidence that deductively proves it, not just point to the lack of evidence that *conclusively disproves* it (as all believers are wont to do). A priori, one cannot 'logically' assume either the existence or nonexistence; you have to treat them as equally probable and assume each in turn and come to either a positive or negative proof.

Absurd. Under this logic, you must see those without belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters as irrational because they don't assume an equal likelyhood of existence

[saizai]

Atheist: There is no objective evidence of the existence of God, so I choose not to believe it.

Okay. Then I can reword that by logical necessity (unless you're the sort to suggest that the existence of God is not boolean - are you?) to also require:

Atheist: I believe in the nonexistence of God, because there is no objective evidence for the existence of God.

I think you would not object to that rephrasing.

However, that is of the form:
not(proven(A)) -> ~A

I.e. lack of evidence of A implies lack of A.

... which is a basic fallacy.

"Without belief" is more like agnosticism as used now. Atheists, such as you, specifically state that they believe that God does *not* exist, which is a very different statement from saying that they do not believe God *does* exist.

Absurd. Under this logic, you must see those without belief in Invisible Pink Unicorns and Flying Spaghetti Monsters as irrational because they don't assume an equal likelyhood of existence

Indeed I fail to see how it is possible to be anything but logically agnostic on the subject. The only firm thing one can say is that their existence has yet to be proven, and that you haven't experienced them. It is only faith that lets you leap to saying that they in fact do NOT exist.

[quixotecoyote]

Try this then.

I am logically agnostic (under your definition) to the idea of a god.

I am an atheist as regards every god seriously proposed (that I've heard of). In those cases we would expect to see evidence that we do not see, and in those cases it does count as evidence of absence.

Now when we talk atheist versus theist we aren't talking about belief in the conceptual possibilty, we're talking about belief in proposed deities.

In such cases those deities are described as possesing attributes that should yield evidence. That evidence does not exist, and so becomes evidence of absence.

Additionally, there is evidence of absence apart from absence of evidence . Tracing the folklore and mythology of the different religions, one can see the evolution of the ideas behind them. You can see the often blatant political reasons for the creation of gods <cough> islam <cough>.

Combining reasons to believe religion is a scam or delusion with the lack of evidence one would expect to find, makes room for a logical basis not to believe in Gods.

Now I admit the possibility of an invisible, undetectable, non-interactive god who has no bearing or effect on the world. Regarding that manner of being, I would be agnostic in the true sense of the word. But that isn't what anyone refers to when they say I do/don't believe in God.

[Foster Zygote]

I suppose it's bad form to make one's forum debut on a semi-off topic nitpick. But as an atheist I take exception to.



Atheism is the position that god does not exist. With the absence of evidence pointing in that direction, it's quite the valid stance to take.

Agnosticism is the belief that the existance of god is unknowable, which I find absurd, as all it would take is a (certain kind of) miracle spree and a basso profundo voice from the sky explaining that it is the work of god.

Welcome!

I have the same problem with this statement as you. Atheism is not "an irrational *belief* in something unprovable". I don't even know where to begin with the errors of logic contained in this statement. Atheism is a rational dis-belief in something unprovable. That doesn't mean that all rational people have to be atheists but the vast majority of atheists that I know of came to this conclusion for purely rational reasons. It wasn't a matter of wanting to believe (or not believe) anything. The suggestion that atheism is actually an act of faith is just sleight of mind. It's just an "up is down, big is small" pseudo argument. There is no evidence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn's existence but plenty of evidence that the IPU is a creation of human imagination and wishful thinking. I therefor conclude that the IPU does not exist. By Saizai's reasoning this is an act of faith because no one can prove the non-existence of an unprovable concept. By his logic we would have to believe literally every crazy idea anyone has, or ever could, possibly conceive of that isn't in some way observable. So when the guy on Michigan Ave. in Chicago wearing the Spider Man pajamas says that "Grover Cleavland is the Destroyer and will come next Tuesday at 2:14 PM to cleans the world of the infidels with outie belly buttons unless we pray to Cliff Richards to stop him" we would have to believe him or at least consider the possibility lest we be committing an act of faith.

Steven

[I less than three logic]

This has been debated ad nauseam on this forum. Saizai, I must disagree with your definitions.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. It is not withholding judgment because of a lack of evidence; it is the firm belief that there can never be evidence for or against the existence of God, and it is therefore irrelevant. I am agnostic about what exists beyond the theoretically observable universe. I believe it is impossible to ever have evidence of what lays beyond the event horizon. Nothing beyond that point can ever interact with anything here, in any way, and is therefore irrelevant.

Atheism is the lack of belief in God. I am not agonistic about the existence of God. I think that if God exists, as many describe such an entity. Such as an omnipotent being with the ability to interact with the universe, to change the course of events, well, I believe there should be some detectable evidence available as a result of those interactions. No such evidence seems to exist, so I don’t believe God exists. Should such evidence become available I will form a new opinion.

[Bri]

Much of the problem is with the muddied definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."

To clarify things, some have added terms "hard/strong" and "soft/weak" to each. A "strong atheist" would be one with a belief that no gods exist. A "weak atheist" and a "weak agnostic" would be essentially the same thing -- one who holds no belief in the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods (usually on the grounds that the existence or nonexistence of a god is unknown). A "strong agnostic" would be one who holds that the existence/nonexistence of a god is unknowable.

The problem is that some people use the term "atheist" to mean a strong atheist while others use it to mean a weak atheist and still others use it to mean either a weak or strong atheist (one who doesn't hold a belief in a god). And some people use the term "agnostic" to mean a strong agnostic while some use it to mean a weak agnostic and still others use it to mean either a strong or weak agnostic (one who doesn't hold that the existence of a god is known).

It sounds as though quixotecoyote and saizai both agree that a strong agnostic is probably not a tenable position since (1) it indicates some knowledge about gods (that they are unknowable) while at the same time claiming that knowledge about gods is impossible and (2) it is difficult to support the position that an omnipotent being couldn't make its existence known to us if it so chose.

Some definitions would imply that a/theism and a/gnosticism aren't mutually exclusive on the grounds that a/gnosticism has to do with knowledge of the existence of gods whereas a/theism has to do with belief in the existence of gods. One useful set of definitions might be (purposely excluding the "strong agnostic" for the reasons outlined above):


Theist: Belief that it is known that at least one god exists.
Agnostic theist: Belief that it is unknown (for certain) if a god exists, but that at least one god exists.
Agnostic (a.k.a. weak atheist): Belief that it is unknown (for certain) if a god exists, and therefore having no belief in the existance of or nonexistance of gods.
Agnostic atheist (a.k.a. agnostic strong atheist): Belief that it is unknown (for certain) if a god exists, but that no gods exist.
Atheist (a.k.a. strong atheist): Belief that it is known that no gods exist.


saizai's point might be (not to put words into his or her mouth) that most would find the middle three in the list to be the most tenable, and that it can be argued that the first and last on the list might both be considered to be based on faith (since there is no evidence that anyone knows for certain whether or not a god exists). If one deems all beliefs based on faith to be irrational, one might then be compelled to deem both the first and last beliefs irrational. One might also argue that relatively few theists actually belong to the first category, just as relatively few atheists belong to the last category.

I hope that helps a little (though I don't expect it will).

-Bri

[Piggy]

Hey, saizai. I'm a "strong atheist". And I'm willing to pony up.

I won't repeat my arguments here b/c there's an active thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63207) on this very subject where you can read all about it.

But in a nutshell, we know enough now to positively reject the notion of God. As rational understanding has advanced, God has retreated, until all current definitions of God are either (1) in direct contradiction of known fact, (2) internally inconsistent, (3) verbal gibberish, or (4) empty.

All that's left is the pitiful whine "But you can't disprove it", and even that defense is invalid.

I am not subscribing to or revisiting this thread. But if you want to join the circus, stop on by.

[Bri]

But in a nutshell, we know enough now to positively reject the notion of God. As rational understanding has advanced, God has retreated, until all current definitions of God are either (1) in direct contradiction of known fact, (2) internally inconsistent, (3) verbal gibberish, or (4) empty.

I hope you'll revisit this thread, because I'm a little bit confused and I don't think my confusion is relevant to the discussion in the other thread. Didn't you say on the other thread that "it is a trivial matter to compose a definition of 'God' which is internally consistent and corresponds to what is commonly considered God." By "internally inconsistent" I assume you to mean logically self-contradictory. By "in direct contradiction with known fact" I assume you to mean logically contradictory.

So, are you saying that there are definitions for "God" that are not logically self-contradictory, but are logically contradictory? If so, can you provide an example of such a definition?

-Bri

[RandFan]

I believe that there are no teapots orbiting our sun (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/teapot_atheists.html). Some might think this irrational. I don't.

We are all tea pot atheists.

[JamesDillon]

Please, not another atheism vs. agnosticism thread! This has all been hashed over ad nauseam, no one ever has anything new to say, and it's ultimately a matter of semantics.

Moving on...

[shelley]

What about their is no God, no Mohhammand (or whatever it's name is supposed to be), no Buddha (God have Mercy), what is an athiest going to believe in?????

[TobiasTheViking]

nothing.. that is the idea

[andyandy]

nothing.. that is the idea

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

:)

[Foster Zygote]

What about their is no God, no Mohhammand (or whatever it's name is supposed to be), no Buddha (God have Mercy), what is an athiest going to believe in?????

Well actually, Mohamed and the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) were men, and they did exist. They're just dead now.

Steven

[T'ai Chi]

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.


You're welcome to believe that... about your own life anyway. ;)

[Mercutio]

You're welcome to believe that... about your own life anyway. ;)

He's welcome to believe that about anyone's life, actually.

[andyandy]

He's welcome to believe that about anyone's life, actually.

is there any good source(s) to read up on philosophy in Shakespeare's works?

[CapelDodger]

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

:)

Life's a bitch. Then you die. :)

Re the Middle Eastern mono-god, it doesn't exist. It's obviously a product of human imagination and human concerns. That the meta-entity which dreamed up quantum physics and General Relativity (cute trick, that) to govern this tremendous universe has all those human attributes is ridiculous. If agnostics feel obliged to entertain the possibility, that's a hard road they've chosen.

I don't entertain the existence of things supernatural because they never stand up. I don't think that can be equated with a belief in something supernatural.

[andyandy]

If agnostics feel obliged to entertain the possibility, that's a hard road they've chosen.

I don't entertain the existence of things supernatural because they never stand up. I don't think that can be equated with a belief in something supernatural.

for fear of re-entering the atheist/agnostic debate, an agnostic position is not one which simply sits on the fence......
Those that make a general argument for hard atheism choose a harder road :)

[Dave1001]

Now I admit the possibility of an invisible, undetectable, non-interactive god who has no bearing or effect on the world. Regarding that manner of being, I would be agnostic in the true sense of the word. But that isn't what anyone refers to when they say I do/don't believe in God.

Do you also admit the possibility of a visible, detectable, and interactive god who has bearing and effect on this world? Because I think the reasonable, empirical, and rational position is to be agnostic regarding that manner of being, too (but also to be agnostic, as Richard Dawkins would say, about fairies and what-not).

[Dave1001]

That the meta-entity which dreamed up quantum physics and General Relativity (cute trick, that) to govern this tremendous universe has all those human attributes is ridiculous.

It's not ipso facto impossible. For starters aren't quantum physics and general relativity only perceivable to us as artificats of our very human brains in interaction with our environment? I think it's reasonably think it likely that these elements of our models of reality, which exist in a few thousand interacting human brains and their computing resources, are warped by our cognitive limitations to an extent that they reveal more about how our brains function than how all of reality functions. Of course, this very assessment is an artificat of our brains. :p

[Dave1001]

I believe that there are no teapots orbiting our sun (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/teapot_atheists.html). Some might think this irrational. I don't.

We are all tea pot atheists.

Not I. I am agnostic about the teapots, about them orbiting, about "our" and about the sun. :D


:boxedin:

[CapelDodger]

for fear of re-entering the atheist/agnostic debate, an agnostic position is not one which simply sits on the fence......
Those that make a general argument for hard atheism chose a harder road :)
I will resist the impulse to get White Knight on yo' ass.

Agnostics walk along the fence, with a meadow on one side and madness on the other. But they stick to the fence, bless 'em, because they'd hate to be judgmental. I, in contrast, have no problem with it, and the meadow choice is a no-brainer.

I don't see a definite boundary between agnosticism and solipsism. I can see a clear one between atheism and solipsism.

[Dave1001]

I will resist the impulse to get White Knight on yo' ass.

Agnostics walk along the fence, with a meadow on one side and madness on the other. But they stick to the fence, bless 'em, because they'd hate to be judgmental. I, in contrast, have no problem with it, and the meadow choice is a no-brainer.

I don't see a definite boundary between agnosticism and solipsism. I can see a clear one between atheism and solipsism.

There isn't necessarily a boundry between agnosticism and solispsism. Nor is there a reason to use that fact pejoratively against agnosticism in my opinion.
Also, I disagree with your assessment that agnostics hate to be judgmental. I think agnostics are simply more honest about the apparent limits of human ability at the present time to model reality enough to draw firm conclusions about it (in whatever area the agnostic happens to be agnostic). I think that's an extremely reasonable position given the apparent size and complexity of reality in comparison to our current apparent modeling and analytical capalities.

[quixotecoyote]

Do you also admit the possibility of a visible, detectable, and interactive god who has bearing and effect on this world? Because I think the reasonable, empirical, and rational position is to be agnostic regarding that manner of being, too (but also to be agnostic, as Richard Dawkins would say, about fairies and what-not).

I disagree. A visible, detectable, and interactive god should be able to be seen, detected, and interacted with. Since that is not the case, it is the reasonable, empirical, and rational position to say that such a being does not exist.

[andyandy]

I will resist the impulse to get White Knight on yo' ass.

Agnostics walk along the fence, with a meadow on one side and madness on the other. But they stick to the fence, bless 'em, because they'd hate to be judgmental. I, in contrast, have no problem with it, and the meadow choice is a no-brainer.

I don't see a definite boundary between agnosticism and solipsism. I can see a clear one between atheism and solipsism.

like quicksand I can feel myself being drawn in.........

As an atheist what god is it that doesn't exist?

[Dr Adequate]

However, that is of the form:
not(proven(A)) -> ~A

I.e. lack of evidence of A implies lack of A.

... which is a basic fallacy. Unless, of course, there would be evidence for A if A existed, in which case it is correct.

If there was a tiger under my desk, there would be evidence for this.

No evidence = no tiger.

If God existed, there would be evidence for this.

No evidence = no God.

It is only a fallacy in cases where, even if A was true, we would have no evidence for this, e.g. the existence of life in other solar systems.

[Dave1001]

I disagree. A visible, detectable, and interactive god should be able to be seen, detected, and interacted with. Since that is not the case, it is the reasonable, empirical, and rational position to say that such a being does not exist.

But I think few would argue that we're currently capable of seeing, detecting, and interacting with everything that we can see, detect, and interact with. For example, I think we're still discovering new species on a fairly regular basis, all of which could have been seen, detected, and interacted with at any point in human history had we simply been in the right place at the right time. This I think it is the more reasonable, empirical, and rational position to be agnostic on whether such a god exists.

[Dr Adequate]

But while a species may be hidden in any nook or cranny (literally --- some inhabit only a single cave) God is by definition omnipresent.

To say "God exists" is not like saying "unicorns exist". It is like saying "unicorns are everywhere, and, as such, can be falsified by a single observation.

[Dave1001]

But while a species may be hidden in any nook or cranny (literally --- some inhabit only a single cave) God is by definition omnipresent.

To say "God exists" is not like saying "unicorns exist". It is like saying "unicorns are everywhere, and, as such, can be falsified by a single observation.

you're engaging in sort of a reverse god-of-the-gaps. Gods that are claimed to be detectable, interacting gods aren't by definition also claimed to be omnipresent.

But, in any regard, I think it's reasonable to be open to the possibility that there are omnipresent, detectable phenomenon that we haven't yet detected.

[TobiasTheViking]

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

:)

sorry? i have no idea what that means. Nor am i able to figure out if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me with that message.

[Kimpatsu]

Atheist: There is no objective evidence, or only the evidence of my doubt, for the nonexistence of God, but I choose to believe so. (Total faith.)
That is completely incorrect. After all, you are an atheist about faries at the bottom ofthe garden, unicorns, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, all of which are more likely than the omnipotent sky fairy. Are you really an agnostic about a singing teapot on Mars? Or are you an atheist? "Total faith" implies belief in something for which there is no evidence. Firstly, atherism is not the belief there is no god; it is the ABSENCE of belief. Secondly, one can assign probability values to the existence of unicorns (slim), faries (vanishingly small), Santa Claus (zero likelihood) and gods (ditto).

[Kimpatsu]

sorry? i have no idea what that means.
It's Macbeth's soliloquy. Now exit, pursued by a bear.

[Dave1001]

That is completely incorrect. After all, you are an atheist about faries at the bottom ofthe garden, unicorns, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny, all of which are more likely than the omnipotent sky fairy. Are you really an agnostic about a singing teapot on Mars? Or are you an atheist? "Total faith" implies belief in something for which there is no evidence. Firstly, atherism is not the belief there is no god; it is the ABSENCE of belief. Secondly, one can assign probability values to the existence of unicorns (slim), faries (vanishingly small), Santa Claus (zero likelihood) and gods (ditto).

If you define atheism as the absence of belief in god(s), what term would you use to describe an affirmative belief that there is no god(s)?

Also, what probability value should JREF forum members assign to your existence?

[quixotecoyote]

But I think few would argue that we're currently capable of seeing, detecting, and interacting with everything that we can see, detect, and interact with. For example, I think we're still discovering new species on a fairly regular basis, all of which could have been seen, detected, and interacted with at any point in human history had we simply been in the right place at the right time. This I think it is the more reasonable, empirical, and rational position to be agnostic on whether such a god exists.

So your saying that as of now God is not visible, detectable, or interactive. Make up your mind. Are we talking about a god like the major religions have, who have those three qualites that we should be able to observe at the moment, or are we doing a thought experiment with a stealth god, whether of the kind that is invisible, undetectable, and non-interactive temporarily or permanently?

As I've said before, I've admitted that it's reasonable to take an agnostic attitude toward stealth god contructions while taking an atheist attitude to the types of gods put forward for serious belief.

[TobiasTheViking]

It's Macbeth's soliloquy. Now exit, pursued by a bear.

and it means?

[T'ai Chi]

He's welcome to believe that about anyone's life, actually.

Someone should write a faq for you about how to interpret posts with smileys in them.

[Dave1001]

But I think few would argue that we're currently capable of seeing, detecting, and interacting with everything that we can see, detect, and interact with. For example, I think we're still discovering new species on a fairly regular basis, all of which could have been seen, detected, and interacted with at any point in human history had we simply been in the right place at the right time. This I think it is the more reasonable, empirical, and rational position to be agnostic on whether such a god exists.
So your saying that as of now God is not visible, detectable, or interactive. Make up your mind. Are we talking about a god like the major religions have, who have those three qualites that we should be able to observe at the moment, or are we doing a thought experiment with a stealth god, whether of the kind that is invisible, undetectable, and non-interactive temporarily or permanently?

As I've said before, I've admitted that it's reasonable to take an agnostic attitude toward stealth god contructions while taking an atheist attitude to the types of gods put forward for serious belief.

"Make up your mind". Huh??

Why arbitrarily limit the discussion to the gods of the major religions. Also I think you're confusing the the concepts of undetected and undetectable. For example, much of what scientists study in 2006 was undetected in the time of Aristotle, but not undetectable. Other stuff was both undetectable and undetected in that era. Just because gods aren't detected in 2006 doesn't mean that they aren't detectable with 2006 technology.

[Roboramma]

Dave, get back to work!

[saizai]

In short response:
1. I am saying that an affirmative belief that there is no God is illogical and an axiomatic article of faith because there is and can be no proof of it.

2. I am not excluding from this any concept of God. E.g., there are certainly concepts of a non-intercessory, non-interactive God who set the universe in motion and still listens... but doesn't otherwise do anything. Or who created it 6000 years ago perversely enough to make it appear to be far older. These are internally consistent and one cannot obtain evidence for their *nonexistence* (just as much as one cannot obtain evidence for their *existence*).

3. Teapots revolving around the sun is something I think anybody MUST take a logically agnostic position on, unless they have done a complete less-than-one-foot-resolution scan of the entire solar system. I am saying quite simply: you must have evidence for what you believe if you want to claim that belief to be rational.

(Except of course that teapots are excluded from the areas that *have* been searched recently...)

3. The philosophical point I am making is that a subset of self-described "skeptics" are in fact making an exactly analagous, but inverse, claim to self-described "believers": they believe as a matter of faith (though they do not acknowledge it as such) that a particular state of the world is true.

However, these "skeptics" get snooty about it and delude themselves into believing that their faith is rational - when they have no evidence - though they will vehemently denounce believers for taking the same stance.

My claim is that only agnosticism is rational - absent, of course, evidence that is not available to the general public (which may yet be produced). (If you haven't figured it out yet, I am indeed agnostic.)

[Dave1001]

Dave, get back to work!

Thank you, friend.:)

[andyandy]

and it means?

well, it's just a little nihilistic with regards to the human condition...

inspired by your post that an atheist should believe in nothing......which sounded somewhat nihilistic itself......

was only a joke though....... :)

[Mercutio]

Someone should write a faq for you about how to interpret posts with smileys in them.

Would your faq include the use of smileys in posts by Iacchus and AmyWilson?

[TobiasTheViking]

well, it's just a little nihilistic with regards to the human condition...

inspired by your post that an atheist should believe in nothing......which sounded somewhat nihilistic itself......

was only a joke though....... :)

ok, i apparantly didn't get it.. sorry :( didn't spoil the fun on purpose.

[CapelDodger]

and it means?
It means, essentially, "Get over yourself". Advice the religious should take note of, but rarely do.

[Polaris]

Atheist: There is no objective evidence, or only the evidence of my doubt, for the nonexistence of God, but I choose to believe so. (Total faith.)


It's been said before and it's a sound byte, but atheism being a religion is like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[CapelDodger]

There isn't necessarily a boundry between agnosticism and solispsism. Nor is there a reason to use that fact pejoratively against agnosticism in my opinion.
In my opinion any position that can seamlessly reduce to solipsism is barren and pointless. The agnostic position presumably has to take into account that we can never prove our ability to know anything about an objective reality, or even that one exists.

Also, I disagree with your assessment that agnostics hate to be judgmental. I think agnostics are simply more honest about the apparent limits of human ability at the present time to model reality enough to draw firm conclusions about it (in whatever area the agnostic happens to be agnostic). I think that's an extremely reasonable position given the apparent size and complexity of reality in comparison to our current apparent modeling and analytical capalities.
The area I'm concerned with, as an atheist, is the supernatural and the non-existence of same. The absence of the supernatural is not a complex matter, just look around, it's not there. Reality in the large is not complex, four forces, for instance, reducible to two and neither of them supernatural.

Disbelief in the supernatural is not chosen, it's the default we're born with. In that sense it is not equivalent to a belief, which first requires a description of the thing to be believed in. None of which are in any way credible. (That's me being judgmental, aka stating the bleedin' obvious.)

[blutoski]

It's been said before and it's a sound byte, but atheism being a religion is like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

And it's a weak one.

I think 'not collecting stamps' is the equivalent of 'not going to church'. Non-stamp-collectors are not claiming stamps don't exist. They're just not into it.

[CapelDodger]

It's been said before and it's a sound byte, but atheism being a religion is like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I really like "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair-colour". Provenance unknown (I wish I'd thought of it).

[CapelDodger]

As an atheist what god is it that doesn't exist?
What you got? :cool:

[saizai]

And it's a weak one.

I think 'not collecting stamps' is the equivalent of 'not going to church'. Non-stamp-collectors are not claiming stamps don't exist. They're just not into it.

That is analagous to agnosticism, which I'm not arguing against. But you're misapplying it as analagous to *affirmative* atheism.

Hard atheists must necessarily claim that there *is in fact no god whatsoever*. That's not a claim that anyone can prove, ergo it is axiomatic - a matter of faith.

Also, I didn't say hard atheism is a "religion", I said it's a matter of faith. There's a significant difference.

CapelDodger - A believer would make EXACTLY that same argument, except claiming the opposite axiomset (which is the sum of my point). Surely you can see that it is in fact axiomatic rather than rational to claim that [disbelief / belief] is the 'natural' default? Or even more simply: given that the form of the argument is identical, you must demonstrate that your axioms are truer than the oppoosition's (i.e. believers' not mine, since I don't have affirmative axioms on this point). I don't think you can do that.

Plus, you can't prove nonexistence of something - only that it hasn't been apparent to you. Which is entirely compatible with most of the worlds' religions, y'know - they would claim you simply lack enough faith to have seen [insert god of choice here]'s works.

[saizai]

Also note - I'm not saying that you can't affirmatively disbelieve in PARTICULAR gods (so long as they are refutable - eg we can be pretty certain there are no corporeal humanoid gods at the top of Mt Olympus).

But you can't affirmatively disbelieve in ALL gods logically, because a subset of those gods are irrefutable... QED.

[Bri]

If God existed, there would be evidence for this.

No evidence = no God.


Why would one presume that there would be evidence of God if God exists? Suppose God doesn't want there to be evidence. Surely an omnipotent being could arrange it so that no irrefutable evidence of its interaction with the world would be detected.

-Bri

[Dr Adequate]

2. I am not excluding from this any concept of God. That's your way out, is it? God could exist because "God" could mean anything, and you won't say what?

In that case, there might be a tiger under my desk, after all --- if we do not exclude from this any concept of tiger.

However, using the English language as customarily spoken by men, there is no tiger under my desk and there is no God.

When I say "There is no God", I am using the word "God" as the rest of the human race uses it. If you can reduce the word "God" to a meaningless noise, then I will cease to say "There is no God", because I do not utter sentences containing meaningless noises.

But if you can do that, you will have done more for atheism than two millennia of unbelievers put together.

[Dr Adequate]

Why would one presume that there would be evidence of God if God exists? Suppose God doesn't want there to be evidence. Surely an omnipotent being could arrange it so that no irrefutable evidence of its interaction with the world would be detected. Again, I understand the concept of "God" to exclude falsehood: a being that behaved in such a way would not be God, but the Devil.

If "God" can mean anything, then a proof of his existence is easy. First define "God" to mean my left leg, and then point to it.

[Dr Adequate]

you're engaging in sort of a reverse god-of-the-gaps. Gods that are claimed to be detectable, interacting gods aren't by definition also claimed to be omnipresent.

But, in any regard, I think it's reasonable to be open to the possibility that there are omnipresent, detectable phenomenon that we haven't yet detected. So do I, but I would not consider it reasonable to call such a phenomenon "God" unless it has the attributes ascribed to him. If scientists discover a "fifth force", I shall not fall down and worship it.

[saizai]

That's your way out, is it? God could exist because "God" could mean anything, and you won't say what?

In that case, there might be a tiger under my desk, after all --- if we do not exclude from this any concept of tiger.

However, using the English language as customarily spoken by men, there is no tiger under my desk and there is no God.

When I say "There is no God", I am using the word "God" as the rest of the human race uses it. If you can reduce the word "God" to a meaningless noise, then I will cease to say "There is no God", because I do not utter sentences containing meaningless noises.

Multiple fallacies of argument there.

Please disprove the existence of the generic Christian god: omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibeneveloent, universe-creating, but non-intercessory, non-communicative, and far above caring about the doings of mortals (these days at least).

I think that's WELL within the normal human use of the word God, and the majority of modern theological thought.

Again, I understand the concept of "God" to exclude falsehood: a being that behaved in such a way would not be God, but the Devil.

That's not falsehood; it's perversity or perhaps sadism at the worst. Or "a test of faith" in the usual theistic parlance.

Neverthless, you're welcome to fall back to defining the God of the moment as the Devil - please disprove the Devil then (same non-interactive caveat as above). :)

[Bob Klase]

In short response:
1. I am saying that an affirmative belief that there is no God is illogical and an axiomatic article of faith because there is and can be no proof of it.

Is there anything where you have any affirmative belief that it doesn't exist? Fairies, Santa Claus, trolls? Please provide proof if you do.

If you get cancer, do you have an affirmative belief that M&Ms will definitely not cure your cancer? Unless you get cancer there is and can be no proof that M&Ms won't cure yours.

(Except of course that teapots are excluded from the areas that *have* been searched recently...)

Except of course that that wouldn't include the teapots that turn invisible when you look at them. And why limit it to areas that have been searched "recently". If the search wasn't recent, did the teapots hide and now they're back?

[Bob Klase]

Please disprove the existence of the generic Christian god: omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibeneveloent, universe-creating, but non-intercessory, non-communicative, and far above caring about the doings of mortals (these days at least).

Is that what Christians are claiming nowdays? That their god is non-inntercessory (they still pray, I wonder why?), non-communicative (has he stopped talking to Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts), and he no longer cares- even about sparrows?

[Bri]

Again, I understand the concept of "God" to exclude falsehood: a being that behaved in such a way would not be God, but the Devil.

How so? Do people who believe in God also believe that God promised to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence?

-Bri

[rwp]

I think that if God exists, as many describe such an entity. Such as an omnipotent being with the ability to interact with the universe, to change the course of events, well, I believe there should be some detectable evidence available as a result of those interactions. No such evidence seems to exist, so I don’t believe God exists. Should such evidence become available I will form a new opinion.

The course of events of this world have changed directly because of people who believe that they acting on the commands of God (think of suicide bombings, the Crusades, and other similar events or actions).

Numerous people act according to what they believe about God and what they believe this God is telling them to do.

[I less than three logic]

The course of events of this world have changed directly because of people who believe that they acting on the commands of God (think of suicide bombings, the Crusades, and other similar events or actions).

Numerous people act according to what they believe about God and what they believe this God is telling them to do.
Ok, I don’t dispute this. However, how exactly does this provide evidence of God’s existence and/or interactions with the universe?

[saizai]

Is there anything where you have any affirmative belief that it doesn't exist? Fairies, Santa Claus, trolls? Please provide proof if you do.

Nope, I don't. :) It would be illogical to do so.

If you get cancer, do you have an affirmative belief that M&Ms will definitely not cure your cancer? Unless you get cancer there is and can be no proof that M&Ms won't cure yours.

Also true.

However, actions are chosen with a stricter standard - I require an affirmative belief that something will probably help before doing it or taking it as treatment. That's my personal preference of course.

Except of course that that wouldn't include the teapots that turn invisible when you look at them. And why limit it to areas that have been searched "recently". If the search wasn't recent, did the teapots hide and now they're back?

All possible. "Recently" was intended to account for normal orbit velocities rather than any intentional movement.

Is that what Christians are claiming nowdays? That their god is non-inntercessory (they still pray, I wonder why?), non-communicative (has he stopped talking to Pat Robertson and Oral Roberts), and he no longer cares- even about sparrows?

Non-communicative unless you're special; i.e. you can't demand or expect it, and 'successful' communications are usually billed as somewhat vague things (eg 'a feeling of certainty').

Prayer has other purposes than certain intercession; in fact some would consider it heresy (or hubris at least) to only pray for that reason.

And maybe he cares, but doesn't want to interfere. For, y'know, various inscrutable godly reasons. :)

In any case, you can't affirmatively disprove such a god. Ergo if you affirmatively believe that such a god does not in fact exist, you are doing so purely as a matter of faith.

I have no belief one way or the other myself and am thus immune to this problem. :)

[rwp]

Ok, I don’t dispute this. However, how exactly does this provide evidence of God’s existence and/or interactions with the universe?

It is evidence of the possibility of God's interaction with the universe (as people are a part of the universe). It would be strong evidence if one valued the testimony of other people (including the testimony of presidents and scientists).

Since this is for you to judge, it only matters that the evidence is acceptible to you.

What evidence would cause someone who says "There is no God" and someone who says "There is a God" to change their opinion?

[I less than three logic]

It is evidence of the possibility of God's interaction with the universe (as people are a part of the universe).
Again, your point? I've never said it wasn't possible, I just don't happen to think that is the case.

It would be strong evidence if one valued the testimony of other people (including the testimony of presidents and scientists).
Anecdotes, no matter who makes them, never provide "strong evidence" of anything, and are hardly adequate in this case.

Since this is for you to judge, it only matters that the evidence is acceptible to you.
Yes, well I believe I answered this above.

What evidence would cause someone who says "There is no God" and someone who says "There is a God" to change their opinion?
Well, I can't speak for everyone, but as one of those "There is no God", as you put it, some solid empirical evidence will do just fine. As for those "There is a God", I can't imagine anything being able to change their minds. We already have absolutely nothing supporting the existence of God, and if God indeed does not exist, we can never have anything else.

[rwp]

Again, your point? I've never said it wasn't possible, I just don't happen to think that is the case.

Atheism denies even the possibility of God. It is a strong statement.


Anecdotes, no matter who makes them, never provide "strong evidence" of anything, and are hardly adequate in this case.


Yes, well I believe I answered this above.


Well, I can't speak for everyone, but as one of those "There is no God", as you put it, some solid empirical evidence will do just fine. As for those "There is a God", I can't imagine anything being able to change their minds. We already have absolutely nothing supporting the existence of God, and if God indeed does not exist, we can never have anything else.

It's a personal observation. "I have not observed God" ("I have not seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled God") - perhaps also adding, "I do not believe that others have observed God".

Empirical evidence is personal and there is usually some level of trust in another's empirical evidence for most beliefs. How could we realistically convince a blind man about the existence of a distant galaxy (or some other object observable only by sight)? The hypothetical blind man will lack emprical evidence.

Is there anything you believe that you have not observed? Unless we conduct our own experiments we must choose who and what we believe or choose not to know.

This question of God may just be unknowable rather than a definate "no" or "yes".

[jimlintott]

I think it would be silly if a biologist was to sit around imagining strange new lifeforms, define them, and then go looking for them. Makes more sense to go find the new life forms then define what you have evidence of.

God(s) and unicorns are both examples of definitions without evidence (although unicorns are more clearly defined). There is more evidence for Santa Claus than any god (turns out the evidence was planted :)).

Just because you can fantasize and imagine things deosn't make them true. Believing other people's fantasies requires faith. Rejecting people's fantasies requires a clear rational mind.

[CapelDodger]

CapelDodger - A believer would make EXACTLY that same argument, except claiming the opposite axiomset (which is the sum of my point). Surely you can see that it is in fact axiomatic rather than rational to claim that [disbelief / belief] is the 'natural' default?
Atheism as the default can be derived from the situation. No-one is born with a concept of religion, let alone belief in some specific. That's atheism, the state of innocence.

Or even more simply: given that the form of the argument is identical, you must demonstrate that your axioms are truer than the oppoosition's (i.e. believers' not mine, since I don't have affirmative axioms on this point). I don't think you can do that.
I can quibble about "axiomatic". See above. :)

Plus, you can't prove nonexistence of something - only that it hasn't been apparent to you. Which is entirely compatible with most of the worlds' religions, y'know - they would claim you simply lack enough faith to have seen [insert god of choice here]'s works.
Why do I need to prove something as obvious as religion being anthropogenic, entirely subjective? Works of imagination. Projections of the Homo psyche, modulated by environment and the exigencies of history. Atheism doesn't require faith because it defines nothing to have faith in. It's the empty set of faith-targets. Faith is a religion thing, it comes in when the questions get too tricky. "Mysterious ways", "ineffable plan", yada-yada. Atheism is too simple for tricky questioning.

[Earthborn]

I believe that there are no teapots orbiting our sun (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/08/teapot_atheists.html). Some might think this irrational. I don't.

We are all tea pot atheists.No, we're not. I believe there are many teapots orbiting the sun.

[Mercutio]

No, we're not. I believe there are many teapots orbiting the sun.

Mine is!

[I less than three logic]

Atheism denies even the possibility of God. It is a strong statement.
Atheism is the lack of belief, nothing more. I don’t deny the possibility of God the same way I don’t deny the possibility that not every ball that has been dropped through history has fallen to the ground. However, I’m willing to bet they have.

There is not a single shred of evidence supporting the existence of God, yet there is plenty to suggest he/she/it is simply another character spawned of mythology crafted by human imagination. What exactly separates the concept of God from titans, cyclopes, kobolds, the kraken, pixies, leprechauns, goblins, vampires, yeti, or little green marians that abduct people at night? Can I prove they don’t exist? No. Do I believe it is impossible for them to exist? No. Do I believe they do exist? No, with the evidence available I think the chance they do exist is so small as to be disregarded until more evidence is proved. That is Atheism. Atheism is not the denial of anything; it is, quite simply, the lack of belief.

Note this differs from Agnosticism. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for there to be any evidence one way or the other so the topic is irrelevant.
I am agnostic about what exists beyond the theoretically observable universe. I believe it is impossible to ever have evidence of what lays beyond the event horizon. Nothing beyond that point can ever interact with anything here, in any way, and is therefore irrelevant.

It's a personal observation. "I have not observed God" ("I have not seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled God") - perhaps also adding, "I do not believe that others have observed God".

Empirical evidence is personal and there is usually some level of trust in another's empirical evidence for most beliefs.
Yes, well this is all nonsense. I know we only have our own experiences, and I have no desire to get into any metaphysics. Empirical evidence there was meant in the scientific sense. You know, observable, measurable, replaceable evidence. That whole scientific method BS everyone seems to dislike so much.

How could we realistically convince a blind man about the existence of a distant galaxy (or some other object observable only by sight)? The hypothetical blind man will lack emprical evidence.
Well, that not an exact analogy for the existence of God. The whole world would need to be blind to make your analogy more correct. Then we could try to convince him of something nobody has evidence for.

However, I’ll work with this analogy as is. You can present a logical argument based on the evidence the blind man does have available, the Sun. He may never have seen the Sun, but I’m sure he knows it exists, especially if he’s ever been sun burnt. Thoroughly explain electromagnetic radiation and how light relates to heat, and those UV rays that damaged his skin. Explain nuclear reactions, and how they produce the radiation. Move on to gravity, which he also has evidence for despite being blind, and the role it plays to create the nuclear furnace we call the Sun. Finally explain that the Sun is not a sole phenomenon, that there appears to be countless billions balls of hydrogen gas burning billions of miles away. He need not believe this last bit, but he’ll certainly have more to go on than we currently have for God.

Is there anything you believe that you have not observed?
Not observed or have no evidence whatsoever for? I believe the house a few blocks down probably has some milk in the refrigerator. I’ve not observed the contents of it, but it seems reasonable to assume so. This is because I have evidence that most houses, in this area at least, contain milk in the refrigerator.

Unless we conduct our own experiments we must choose who and what we believe or choose not to know.
Yes, I believe in those conducted properly under the scientific method. None of which so far has produced any evidence supporting the existence of God.

This question of God may just be unknowable rather than a definate "no" or "yes".
I don’t claim to know, I simply do not believe, and I do so for quite logical reasons.

[ReFLeX]

Atheism is a negation, as atypical means "not typical". There's nothing affirmative about it.

[saizai]

It seems the people calling themselves atheists here are in fact weak atheists - or "pessmisitic agnostic".

My argument is against people who *affirmatively* declare that there is in fact no god.

Also, CapelDodger - I think the 'native' state of 'innocence' would necessarily be (medium) agnosticism: not having an opinion either way, nor even having an opinion that it is impossible to prove either way (ie strong agnosticism, which is also silly).

You seem to have a strong opinion *against* God, which you couldn't do unless you had a concept *of* god to start with (hardly 'blank slate innocence' now). And which you cannot defend logically (and haven't) - it's faith (or groundless doubt, which is a sort of faith).

[Dr Adequate]

Multiple fallacies of argument there. Really? Then why can't you point any of them out?

Please disprove the existence of the generic Christian god: omnipresent, omnipotent, omnibeneveloent, universe-creating, but non-intercessory, non-communicative, and far above caring about the doings of mortals (these days at least).

I think that's WELL within the normal human use of the word God, and the majority of modern theological thought. Easy: that's a contradiction in terms. You cannot have a being which is simultaneously "omnibenevolent" and "far above caring about the doings of mortals".

That's not falsehood; it's perversity or perhaps sadism at the worst. Or "a test of faith" in the usual theistic parlance.

Neverthless, you're welcome to fall back to defining the God of the moment as the Devil - please disprove the Devil then (same non-interactive caveat as above). :) But I cannot. The proposition that the ruler of the Universe is a complete bastard with an sick sense of humor is entirely consistent with the evidence. But we would not call such a being "God", so this is irrelevant to the question of whether God exists.

[Dr Adequate]

You seem to have a strong opinion *against* God, which you couldn't do unless you had a concept *of* god to start with (hardly 'blank slate innocence' now). And which you cannot defend logically (and haven't) - it's faith (or groundless doubt, which is a sort of faith). Or to put it another way:

"You seem to have a strong opinion *against* unicorns, which you couldn't do unless you had a concept *of* unicorns to start with (hardly 'blank slate innocence' now). And which you cannot defend logically (and haven't) - it's faith (or groundless doubt, which is a sort of faith)."

You notice how this is complete rubbish?

It is not through "faith" that I know what the word "unicorn" means. It's 'cos I speak English.

[saizai]

You're again (deliberately?) distorting what I said.

I didn't say faith gives the definition; I said faith gives a belief that X does not exist. You can't say for certain that unicorns don't exist any more than God. (You can of course not *believe*; that's perfectly consistent.)

Also, omnibenevolence and nonintercession are mutually compatible according to most of theology. :) Inscrutable plans, y'know. ;)

[Dr Adequate]

You're again (deliberately?) distorting what I said. Sorry, I didn't mean to. Your post is a little obscure. I took your remarks about "faith" to refer to the previous remarks about "having a concept of God". My post does answer that point, at least: I have a concept of God for the same reason that I have a concept of unicorns --- because I speak English.

"Again"? Where have I done so previously?

I didn't say faith gives the definition; I said faith gives a belief that X does not exist. You can't say for certain that unicorns don't exist any more than God. (You can of course not *believe*; that's perfectly consistent.) (1) But if I say: "There are no unicorns", I don't get people shouting "Faith! Faith!" at me. This is because it is not faith. When I say that there are no unicorns, this is because there is no evidence for them and much evidence against them. When I say there is no tiger under my desk, ditto. It would be weak and pusillanimous of me not to say, on the same basis, that there is no God, especially since (see point 2) the claim that there is no God rests on a stronger basis than the proposition that there are no unicorns.

(2) As I have pointed out, God is omnipresent. "God exists" is not parallel to the claim "unicorns exist" but to the claim "unicorns are everywhere".

Also, omnibenevolence and nonintercession are mutually compatible according to most of theology. :) Inscrutable plans, y'know. ;) The ability of theologians to engage in doublethink is not evidence for the existence of God but for the dishonesty of theologians. We may note that theologians do not defend the existence of unicorns on the same basis, because, unlike me, they do not strive for epistemological consistency, but rather run away from it as fast as their little legs will carry them.

There is no way that, as you have posited, a being can be "omnibenevolent" and completely uncaring, because these are completely contradictory propositions. God cannot simultaneously care about everything and not care about anything.

[Dr Adequate]

Atheism is just as irrational as belief ... so both sides are faith of their own kind. It seems to me that, not content with messing with the word "God", you are also messing with the words "faith" and "irrational".

Consider the following: you might be a giant purple lobster. How so? Well, you might be a giant purple lobster with your head inserted into a Matrix-type device which makes you think you're human. Or under a magic spell. Or you might be deceived by some malicious omnipotent being. Any empirical proposition may be defended by adding extra hypotheses.

Yet if you went around saying: "It requires faith to say that I am not a giant purple lobster. In fact, it is just as irrational to believe that I'm not, as to believe that I am", then people would think you'd gone off your chump, and they'd be right.

This is simply not what "faith" and "irrational" mean in the English language as spoken by actual people.

In order to say that it requires "faith", and is "irrational" to disbelieve in "God", you have to invent a language of your own in which this statement is true. But in English, it is false.

[Darat]

It seems the people calling themselves atheists here are in fact weak atheists - or "pessmisitic agnostic".

My argument is against people who *affirmatively* declare that there is in fact no god.

...snip...

From your post I take it you believe in all of the following Gods:

Amateras, Hoderi, Hotei, Hoori, Izanami, Kagutsuchi, Ohyamatsumi, Susanoh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Uzume, Anu, Apsu, Damkina, Enlil, Ishtar (Inanna), Ea, Kingu (Qingu), Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nintu (Ki), Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Nanna, Ninlil, Altjira, Anjea, Bagadjimbiri, Baiame, Bamapana, Banaitja, Bobbi-Bobbi, Julana, Julunggul, Karora, Kidili, Kunapipi, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Numakulla, Pundjel, Ulanji, Walo, Wawalag, Wuriupranili, Yurlungur, Ahura Mazda

?

[I less than three logic]

You know, observable, measurable, replaceable evidence.
See what happens when you let spellcheck fix things for you? :o

Won't let me edit the post now, but that should read replicable, not replacable... quite a bit of difference there, and all because of one letter. :D

[andyandy]

From your post I take it you believe in all of the following Gods:

Amateras, Hoderi, Hotei, Hoori, Izanami, Kagutsuchi, Ohyamatsumi, Susanoh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Uzume, Anu, Apsu, Damkina, Enlil, Ishtar (Inanna), Ea, Kingu (Qingu), Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nintu (Ki), Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Nanna, Ninlil, Altjira, Anjea, Bagadjimbiri, Baiame, Bamapana, Banaitja, Bobbi-Bobbi, Julana, Julunggul, Karora, Kidili, Kunapipi, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Numakulla, Pundjel, Ulanji, Walo, Wawalag, Wuriupranili, Yurlungur, Ahura Mazda

?

could you provide every individual's interpretation of every one of those gods?

[Darat]

could you provide every individual's interpretation of every one of those gods?

In principle yes.

After all there are only a finite number of people that state they believe in some of those gods (note - there are many gods on that list that can only now only be defined by the descriptions and stories the people that did believe in them left behind ).

However the "individual interpretation" is unnecessary in the context of my question to saizai since each of those gods I listed are already defined. (If saizai is unsure about any particular god I asked about I can point him/her to the definition I was referring to.)

If you wish me to ask him does believe in a particular definition you have or use for god you'll have to provide me with your definition before I can ask saizai if she/he believes in your god.

[Bri]

From your post I take it you believe in all of the following Gods

saizai's posts don't appear to indicate that s/he believes in all of the gods you listed. saizai does, however, imply that to *affirmatively* declare that none of them exists would be irrational.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

saizai's posts don't appear to indicate that s/he believes in all of the gods you listed. saizai does, however, imply that to *affirmatively* declare that none of them exists would be irrational.

-Bri
Discuss philosophy long enough and you'll find you can not affirmatively declare anything without being irrational. ;)

[Bri]

Discuss philosophy long enough and you'll find you can not affirmatively declare anything without being irrational. ;)

If you could, it probably wouldn't be worth discussing.

-Bri

[rwp]

I < 3, I apologize as I didn't mean to challenge your beliefs although that is how it appears. My definition of atheisim was different then what I understand it to be now.

God means so many different things that it's probably better to be specific about what one means. So to say there is or is not a God, could mean anything.

God could be defined as "everything - inside and outside our observable universe". That God is observable.

[CapelDodger]

It seems the people calling themselves atheists here are in fact weak atheists - or "pessmisitic agnostic".
There are no gods. All religions are products of the human imagination. There is no supernatural. That, surely, is strong enough.

My argument is against people who *affirmatively* declare that there is in fact no god.
We're just stating the obvious.

Also, CapelDodger - I think the 'native' state of 'innocence' would necessarily be (medium) agnosticism: not having an opinion either way, nor even having an opinion that it is impossible to prove either way (ie strong agnosticism, which is also silly).
I seem to have stumbled into some more-sceptical-than-thou scene where I don't know the lingo. Weak, strong, hard, medium, hot ... Innocents, bless 'em, can hardly be agnostic about concepts they have yet to hear of. Nobody's born with a religion, or an opinion on religion. The empty set of supernatural concepts is surely the hardest-core atheism, and that's what we start out with.

You seem to have a strong opinion *against* God, which you couldn't do unless you had a concept *of* god to start with (hardly 'blank slate innocence' now). And which you cannot defend logically (and haven't) - it's faith (or groundless doubt, which is a sort of faith).
I've mostly been addressing religion and the supernatural in general. Religions with gods, religions without, religions where we are all somehow god-ish - all of them products of the human imagination. And no sign that any of them are tapping into some underlying supernatural order.

Gods, angels, souls, spiritual beings of all sorts ain't so. We all know it.

[CapelDodger]

If you could, it probably wouldn't be worth discussing.
Quite. Why are we still discussing this? Why, in particular, am I? :confused:

[saizai]

Sorry, I didn't mean to. Your post is a little obscure. I took your remarks about "faith" to refer to the previous remarks about "having a concept of God". My post does answer that point, at least: I have a concept of God for the same reason that I have a concept of unicorns --- because I speak English.

Fine; agreed.

(1) But if I say: "There are no unicorns", I don't get people shouting "Faith! Faith!" at me. This is because it is not faith. When I say that there are no unicorns, this is because there is no evidence for them and much evidence against them. When I say there is no tiger under my desk, ditto. It would be weak and pusillanimous of me not to say, on the same basis, that there is no God, especially since (see point 2) the claim that there is no God rests on a stronger basis than the proposition that there are no unicorns.

Ah, but it *is* faith that makes you say assertively that there *are no* unicorns. You can certainly say that you don't *believe* there to be - and I'd agree - and that you've seen no evidence for it. You can say there is no tiger under your desk, unless said tiger is invisible and untouchable and kinda small, because you can traverse the entire search space of "under your desk". You can't do so for "the world" or "the universe".

(2) As I have pointed out, God is omnipresent. "God exists" is not parallel to the claim "unicorns exist" but to the claim "unicorns are everywhere".

Depends on the god, but okay. "Unicorns are everywhere" would be severely distorting the usual definition of a unicorn (a corporeal, finite being).

The ability of theologians to engage in doublethink is not evidence for the existence of God but for the dishonesty of theologians. We may note that theologians do not defend the existence of unicorns on the same basis, because, unlike me, they do not strive for epistemological consistency, but rather run away from it as fast as their little legs will carry them.

I did not claim anywhere that it is evidence *for* the existence of God. I said it's a counterargument to disproof; that is, it is an internally consistent and unassailable concept. You can only believe or disbelieve as a matter of faith.

There is no way that, as you have posited, a being can be "omnibenevolent" and completely uncaring, because these are completely contradictory propositions. God cannot simultaneously care about everything and not care about anything.

"Uncaring" as in "not interfering".

You could consider the theological argument to be something along the lines of a parent who lets their children get into trouble without getting involved so they can learn from their own mistakes.

[saizai]

From your post I take it you believe in all of the following Gods:

Amateras, Hoderi, Hotei, Hoori, Izanami, Kagutsuchi, Ohyamatsumi, Susanoh, Toyo-Uke-Bime, Uzume, Anu, Apsu, Damkina, Enlil, Ishtar (Inanna), Ea, Kingu (Qingu), Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nintu (Ki), Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Nanna, Ninlil, Altjira, Anjea, Bagadjimbiri, Baiame, Bamapana, Banaitja, Bobbi-Bobbi, Julana, Julunggul, Karora, Kidili, Kunapipi, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Numakulla, Pundjel, Ulanji, Walo, Wawalag, Wuriupranili, Yurlungur, Ahura Mazda

?

Not at all. But I do not affirmatively claim that they do NOT exist.

Surely you can see the simple difference there?

It's analagous to "positive" vs "nonnegative".

saizai's posts don't appear to indicate that s/he believes in all of the gods you listed. saizai does, however, imply that to *affirmatively* declare that none of them exists would be irrational.

-Bri

Exactly so.

P.S. I'm male.

[saizai]

There are no gods. All religions are products of the human imagination. There is no supernatural. That, surely, is strong enough.

Indeed, it's quite strong. Prove it. Where's your evidence? *waits, expects crickets*


I seem to have stumbled into some more-sceptical-than-thou scene where I don't know the lingo. Weak, strong, hard, medium, hot ... Innocents, bless 'em, can hardly be agnostic about concepts they have yet to hear of. Nobody's born with a religion, or an opinion on religion. The empty set of supernatural concepts is surely the hardest-core atheism, and that's what we start out with.

That's where you're conflating.

I fully agree that innocents can hardly be *strong* agnostic about concepts they doin't know - i.e. claim that they are in fact unknow*able* (I don't make this claim, btw). But they can also hardly have an opinion that they don't exist - which is what you do.

Likewise, the empty set of supernatural concepts is identical to weak agnosticism: admitting that you don't know anything one way or the other. Claiming definitively that there IS NO GOD is hardly an empty set - it's a very strong declaration.

I've mostly been addressing religion and the supernatural in general. Religions with gods, religions without, religions where we are all somehow god-ish - all of them products of the human imagination. And no sign that any of them are tapping into some underlying supernatural order.

Gods, angels, souls, spiritual beings of all sorts ain't so. We all know it.

Fallacy: argument from authority / popularity. Please show me proof that God does not exist. (Hint: you can't.)

Please note, I am not claiming that God *does* exist. I'm saying you can't prove the opposite, and that thus your belief in it is a kind of faith.

[Darat]

Not at all. But I do not affirmatively claim that they do NOT exist.

...snip...


Then you have abandoned logic and reason.

[saizai]

Darat - That is an empty statement.

You imply that you can, through "logic and reason", prove that those gods affirmatively do not exist.

Please do so.

[Darat]

Darat - That is an empty statement.

You imply that you can, through "logic and reason", prove that those gods affirmatively do not exist.

Please do so.

Let me use my good old standby God - Zeus.

One of the properties of Zeus the God is that he lives in a Palace on Mount Olympus; we have explored all of Mount Olympus and there is no Palace on Mount Olympus therefore Zeus as he is defined does not exist. It is exactly the same as your comment to Dr Adequate regarding the tiger under his desk. i.e. You can say there is no tiger under your desk, unless said tiger is invisible and untouchable and kinda small, because you can traverse the entire search space of "under your desk". You can't do so for "the world" or "the universe".

Another example of using just reason and logic - the Christian God has been (by various people self labeled as Christians) defined as the being that created men, the Sumerian's claimed their Gods created man. The two are contradictory so even without any empirical evidence we know one of them has to be wrong.

And again as with the tiger example we can use empirical evidence and state quite conclusively that the Christian God and the Sumerian Gods do not exist.

[Apathia]

Discuss philosophy long enough and you'll find you can not affirmatively declare anything without being irrational. ;)

And Alfred North Whitehead said, "The negative judgement is the peak of mentality."

So, you're bound to go mental either way. lol

[ceo_esq]

Let me use my good old standby God - Zeus.

One of the properties of Zeus the God is that he lives in a Palace on Mount Olympus; we have explored all of Mount Olympus and there is no Palace on Mount Olympus therefore Zeus as he is defined does not exist. It is exactly the same as your comment to Dr Adequate regarding the tiger under his desk. i.e. You can say there is no tiger under your desk, unless said tiger is invisible and untouchable and kinda small, because you can traverse the entire search space of "under your desk". You can't do so for "the world" or "the universe".

Another example of using just reason and logic - the Christian God has been (by various people self labeled as Christians) defined as the being that created men, the Sumerian's claimed their Gods created man. The two are contradictory so even without any empirical evidence we know one of them has to be wrong.

And again as with the tiger example we can use empirical evidence and state quite conclusively that the Christian God and the Sumerian Gods do not exist.

Not to nitpick, but I think it might be fairer to say that it is a property of Zeus that he lived on Mt. Olympus in the days of classical Greece, which is slightly harder to ascertain. Also, I might assert in identifying my cousin that it is a property of his that he resides at a certain address in New Jersey. If it were later determined conclusively that it he did not (perhaps he retired to Phoenix), it would not disprove his existence, since my cousin's address is not an intrinsic property of his. If one counters by suggesting that Zeus' Mt. Olympus address is an intrinsic property of Zeus, that seems counter-intuitive, for it would effectively place a severe limitation on Zeus (i.e. he cannot change his residence) that an ostensibly far lesser being such as my cousin is not constrained by.

At any rate, I agree that the Christian God and the Sumerian gods (insofar as I understand the concepts) cannot coexist, but I'm not sure what you're relying on to establish that none of them exist.

[saizai]

Let me use my good old standby God - Zeus.

One of the properties of Zeus the God is that he lives in a Palace on Mount Olympus; we have explored all of Mount Olympus and there is no Palace on Mount Olympus therefore Zeus as he is defined does not exist. It is exactly the same as your comment to Dr Adequate regarding the tiger under his desk. i.e. You can say there is no tiger under your desk, unless said tiger is invisible and untouchable and kinda small, because you can traverse the entire search space of "under your desk". You can't do so for "the world" or "the universe".

Another example of using just reason and logic - the Christian God has been (by various people self labeled as Christians) defined as the being that created men, the Sumerian's claimed their Gods created man. The two are contradictory so even without any empirical evidence we know one of them has to be wrong.

And again as with the tiger example we can use empirical evidence and state quite conclusively that the Christian God and the Sumerian Gods do not exist.

Excellent; you have disproved the existence of Zeus. (Well not really, per above, but let's let that slide for now.)

You have also shown that not all of them can be true simultaneously; also excellent. (Unless of course you use the "multiple guises" theology, but let's skip that for now.)

However, you are claiming that doing so proves that *neither* exists, which is completely fallacious logic. You have only proven that there are mutually exclusive sets of compatible deities; I fully agree.

So you have yet to prove: ~(christian god) ^ ~(sumerian god).

[CapelDodger]

Indeed, it's quite strong. Prove it. Where's your evidence? *waits, expects crickets*
Quite strong? I'm still adrift in the terminology you're using. "There is no supernatural." How much stronger is there?

That's where you're conflating.

I fully agree that innocents can hardly be *strong* agnostic about concepts they doin't know - i.e. claim that they are in fact unknow*able* (I don't make this claim, btw). But they can also hardly have an opinion that they don't exist - which is what you do.
In the state of innocence they haven't heard about them, so can have no opinion. I, on the other hand, have heard about all sorts of religions and such-like woo-woo and so have an opinon. Which is, obviously, that's it's all anthropogenic and anthropocentric bollocks. By inspection.

Likewise, the empty set of supernatural concepts is identical to weak agnosticism: admitting that you don't know anything one way or the other. Claiming definitively that there IS NO GOD is hardly an empty set - it's a very strong declaration.
Empty sets are tricky territory. They're easily missed. I went for years not knowing that I was assuming the empty set of credible gods just because no candidates had filled it out. None have since. It's my mature opinion that the supernatural is imaginary, and I have a large set of rejected examples.


Fallacy: argument from authority / popularity. Please show me proof that God does not exist. (Hint: you can't.)
I argue from the obvious. Whatever definition of god/sprite/ancestral spirit you summon up, the disembodied sentient is a projection of our embodied sentience. The objective universe carries on regardless.

Please note, I am not claiming that God *does* exist. I'm saying you can't prove the opposite, and that thus your belief in it is a kind of faith.
"A kind of ..." is progress. :)

[saizai]

Quite strong? I'm still adrift in the terminology you're using. "There is no supernatural." How much stronger is there?

Nothing I can think of offhand. But you didn't prove your claim. I'm still waiting....

In the state of innocence they haven't heard about them, so can have no opinion. I, on the other hand, have heard about all sorts of religions and such-like woo-woo and so have an opinon. Which is, obviously, that's it's all anthropogenic and anthropocentric bollocks. By inspection.

Agreed. You HAVE an opinion, and that is DIFFERENT from a baby's naive default. Which contradicts what you said earlier.

Empty sets are tricky territory. They're easily missed. I went for years not knowing that I was assuming the empty set of credible gods just because no candidates had filled it out. None have since. It's my mature opinion that the supernatural is imaginary, and I have a large set of rejected examples.

Great. But prove that none exist, since that is your claim.

You're not just claiming that Zeus doesn't exist, or that some particular easily refutable god(s) don't exist - you're claiming NONE exist.

I argue from the obvious. Whatever definition of god/sprite/ancestral spirit you summon up, the disembodied sentient is a projection of our embodied sentience. The objective universe carries on regardless.

How is this proof? I gave a pretty simple, commonly accepted version of the Christian god. Please disprove its/His existence.

[Darat]

Not to nitpick, but I think it might be fairer to say that it is a property of Zeus that he lived on Mt. Olympus in the days of classical Greece, which is slightly harder to ascertain. Also, I might assert in identifying my cousin that it is a property of his that he resides at a certain address in New Jersey. If it were later determined conclusively that it he did not (perhaps he retired to Phoenix), it would not disprove his existence, since my cousin's address is not an intrinsic property of his. If one counters by suggesting that Zeus' Mt. Olympus address is an intrinsic property of Zeus, that seems counter-intuitive, for it would effectively place a severe limitation on Zeus (i.e. he cannot change his residence) that an ostensibly far lesser being such as my cousin is not constrained by.


Isn't your nit-pick actually adding to or changing the definition we already have for Zeus? Of course the original definition may not have been correct or accurate however to be able to have a discussion about Zeusexisting or not I would say we have to use the definition we already have.


At any rate, I agree that the Christian God and the Sumerian gods (insofar as I understand the concepts) cannot coexist, but I'm not sure what you're relying on to establish that none of them exist.

I perhaps wasn't clear about the definition of the Christian God I was using - I was using the minority definition from a "Biblical literalism" standpoint - i.e. God created light and formed the Earth in 6 days and so on. The empirical evidence demonstrates that this is not true therefore that Christian God we can say with certainty* does not exist.


*Of course we can argue about what we mean by certainty and if we can ever be certain of anything however I think that type of philosophical musing just leads to us needing to append everything we say with a "as far as we can be certain of anything" - just assume all my comments always carry such a disclaimer!

[Darat]

...snip...

So you have yet to prove: ~(christian god) ^ ~(sumerian god).

See above post.

[andyandy]

I perhaps wasn't clear about the definition of the Christian God I was using - I was using the minority definition from a "Biblical literalism" standpoint - i.e. God created light and formed the Earth in 6 days and so on. The empirical evidence demonstrates that this is not true therefore that Christian God we can say with certainty* does not exist.


*Of course we can argue about what we mean by certainty and if we can ever be certain of anything however I think that type of philosophical musing just leads to us needing to append everything we say with a "as far as we can be certain of anything" - just assume all my comments always carry such a disclaimer!

but why would you assume that as your definition of Christian God? Each interpretation of god by any individual is a construct of their own subjective experience - and so exists outside any attempts at generalisation on a objective third-person perspective.

as you point out, science can not offer absolutes on such metaphysical musings :)

damn....i've been trying to avoid this thread.....and i'd been doing so well :)

[Bri]

I perhaps wasn't clear about the definition of the Christian God I was using - I was using the minority definition from a "Biblical literalism" standpoint - i.e. God created light and formed the Earth in 6 days and so on. The empirical evidence demonstrates that this is not true therefore that Christian God we can say with certainty* does not exist.

But again, you have yet to show that NO gods exist, since such a statement must also include the majority definition from a "Biblical nonliteralism" standpoint.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

But again, you have yet to show that NO gods exist, since such a statement must also include the majority definition from a "Biblical nonliteralism" standpoint.

-Bri
It is impossible to prove anything once you allow supernatural explanations, which the existence of God is one subject that is simply not detachable from supernatural explanations. Once the supernatural is accepted there are no longer any rules whatsoever from which to prove anything. It allows any “just so” statement to be made without any explanations needed to support the statement.

I can prove there is no tiger in this room. Unless of course I allow the supernatural, I can’t prove there isn't an invisible tiger in the room.

[Bri]

It is impossible to prove anything once you allow supernatural explanations, which the existence of God is one subject that is simply not detachable from supernatural explanations. Once the supernatural is accepted there are no longer any rules whatsoever from which to prove anything. It allows any “just so” statement to be made without any explanations needed to support the statement.


Which is precisely why I imagine that saizai holds that belief that there are no gods is as irrational as belief that a god exists (also a belief that cannot be proven for the same reason).

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Which is precisely why I imagine that saizai holds that belief that there are no gods is as irrational as belief that a god exists (also a belief that cannot be proven for the same reason).

-Bri
Yes, but what logically validates the use of unexplained, unsupported “just so” statements. What makes these supernatural explanations rational?

[Bri]

Yes, but what logically validates the use of unexplained, unsupported “just so” statements. What makes these supernatural explanations rational?

Who said they are rational? saizai's point (unless I'm mistaken) was that both the belief that a god exists and the belief that no gods exist are irrational.

-Bri

[Dr Adequate]

Ah, but it *is* faith that makes you say assertively that there *are no* unicorns. Well, no it isn't. That's not what "faith" means. See my previous post.

Depends on the god, but okay. "Unicorns are everywhere" would be severely distorting the usual definition of a unicorn (a corporeal, finite being). That's why I said "unicorns". You could have unicorns everywhere, or at least one every few feet.

I did not claim anywhere that it is evidence *for* the existence of God. I said it's a counterargument to disproof; that is, it is an internally consistent and unassailable concept. But I find it to be neither.

You could consider the theological argument to be something along the lines of a parent who lets their children get into trouble without getting involved so they can learn from their own mistakes. Whereas an accurate analogy would be a father who wittingly looks on while his children make fatal mistakes, and declines to interfere, though he could do so at no risk to himself.

Remember also that according to Christian doctrine, the biggest mistake we can make is being damned, and we do not get a chance to learn from that and do better next time. "Internally consistent", you say? Bunch of shoddy, fallacious, self-contradictory ad hoc arguments, says I.

[I less than three logic]

Who said they are rational? saizai's point (unless I'm mistaken) was that both the belief that a god exists and the belief that no gods exist are irrational.

-Bri
If they can not be logically supported, isn’t the only rational option to simply not use supernatural explanations? Without invoking supernatural explanations, how does one support the possible existence of God?

[Bri]

If they can not be logically supported, isn’t the only rational option to simply not use supernatural explanations? Without invoking supernatural explanations, how does one support the possible existence of God?

Neither the belief that the supernatural exists nor the belief that the supernatural doesn't exist can be supported. So, yes, according to saizai's argument, the only rational option is to not believe in the existence of the supernatural and to also not believe in the nonexistence of the supernatural. In other words, according to saizai's argument, the only rational "belief" is to have no belief at all concerning the existence of the supernatural, but to admit that we don't know whether the supernatural exists or not (i.e. to be agnostic).

Personally, I make a distinction between claiming to know something for certain and having an opinion about it. While I agree that it is irrational to claim to know for certain that the supernatural exists or doesn't exist, I suspect that one can rationally be an agnostic atheist or even an agnostic theist (admitting that we don't know whether the supernatural exists or not, but having an opinion that the supernatural exists or doesn't exist). In my opinion, neither is necessarily irrational (as far as being logically inconsistent) and either could be true.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Neither the opinion that the supernatural exists nor the opinion that the supernatural doesn't exist can be supported.
I did read your whole post, but I have to stop here because it now seems like you’re trying to wiggle out of this. You’ve just taken a step backwards.

Yes, but what logically validates the use of unexplained, unsupported “just so” statements. What makes these supernatural explanations rational?
How does one rationally support the possible existence of the supernatural?

[Bri]

I did read your whole post, but I have to stop here because it now seems like you’re trying to wiggle out of this. You’ve just taken a step backwards.

I don't think so (if so it wasn't intentional).

How does one rationally support the possible existence of the supernatural.

Perhaps I missed the word "possible" in your question. Anything that isn't impossible is possible by definition. The fact that the existence of the supernatural isn't impossible supports its possible existence.

Unless you can show that the supernatural is impossible.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

I don't think so (if so it wasn't intentional).



Perhaps I missed the word "possible" in your question. Anything that isn't impossible is possible by definition. The fact that the existence of the supernatural isn't impossible supports its possible existence.

Unless you can show that the supernatural is impossible.

-Bri
That isn’t a logically valid argument, you’re deploying a circular argument here. “Anything that isn't impossible is possible by definition.” Lets look at this a bit further, “isn’t” is a contraction of “is not”, and “impossible” means “not possible.”

So your sentence becomes: “Anything that is not not possible is possible by definition.”

Drop the double negative and we have: “Anything that is possible is possible by definition.” Yes, well I suppose that makes sense doesn’t it now.

I don’t need to prove it impossible, I’m just looking for rational, logically valid support that it may be possible.

[saizai]

I perhaps wasn't clear about the definition of the Christian God I was using - I was using the minority definition from a "Biblical literalism" standpoint - i.e. God created light and formed the Earth in 6 days and so on. The empirical evidence demonstrates that this is not true therefore that Christian God we can say with certainty* does not exist.

a) That doesn't refute the possibility that God deliberately created the world to *appear* old, for whatever inscrutable reasons. (Test of faith, y'know. :p) An omnipotent god could certainly do so, and make all evidence gathered consistent with the earth being very very old when it actually isn't.

It's completely internally consistent. Please disprove this god.

b) That doesn't refute the existence of a God that set the universe in motion etc etc per what I described above.

Please disprove this god.

Remember, your claim puts the burden on you to disprove the existence of EVERY god, not just SOME particular gods. :)

[saizai]

Who said they are rational? saizai's point (unless I'm mistaken) was that both the belief that a god exists and the belief that no gods exist are irrational.

-Bri

Exactly so. :)

[saizai]

Well, no it isn't. That's not what "faith" means. See my previous post.

"Faith (n): Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."

That's why I said "unicorns". You could have unicorns everywhere, or at least one every few feet.

That's quite different from the claim that god is omnipresent. OMNI, not "every few feet"-ly.

We can all agree that there are no (visible, corporeal) unicorns within sight of us, ergo they are not omnipresent. But you need to prove that there is not ONE unicorn ANYWHERE in the world.

But I find it to be neither.

Great; disprove it. :)

Whereas an accurate analogy would be a father who wittingly looks on while his children make fatal mistakes, and declines to interfere, though he could do so at no risk to himself.

Remember also that according to Christian doctrine, the biggest mistake we can make is being damned, and we do not get a chance to learn from that and do better next time. "Internally consistent", you say? Bunch of shoddy, fallacious, self-contradictory ad hoc arguments, says I.

*shrug* "One does not question His motives". I think the believer would say that, essentially, He allows free choice and does not interfere but hopes that you choose correctly.

In any case, I'm not christian and am not defending it as rational. I said simply that hard atheism is as *irrational* as hard theism.

[saizai]

Neither the belief that the supernatural exists nor the belief that the supernatural doesn't exist can be supported. So, yes, according to saizai's argument, the only rational option is to not believe in the existence of the supernatural and to also not believe in the nonexistence of the supernatural. In other words, according to saizai's argument, the only rational "belief" is to have no belief at all concerning the existence of the supernatural, but to admit that we don't know whether the supernatural exists or not (i.e. to be agnostic).

Personally, I make a distinction between claiming to know something for certain and having an opinion about it. While I agree that it is irrational to claim to know for certain that the supernatural exists or doesn't exist, I suspect that one can rationally be an agnostic atheist or even an agnostic theist (admitting that we don't know whether the supernatural exists or not, but having an opinion that the supernatural exists or doesn't exist). In my opinion, neither is necessarily irrational (as far as being logically inconsistent) and either could be true.

-Bri

Again exactly right.

However, I also would want to say that, while you are certainly entitled to irrational, faith-based opinions... many people here would claim that their opinions are always based on rational reasons. And thus I would say that any opinion aside from weak agnosticism is irrational, i.e. a matter of faith.

I don't MIND that you have faith either way. I just mind when people claim that their faith, isn't.

Logical inconsistency is not an exclusive requirement for irrationality. Both athiesm and theism are completely logically consistent (at least the developed forms). Neither is rational, i.e. based on evidence.

[saizai]

I don’t need to prove it impossible, I’m just looking for rational, logically valid support that it may be possible.

Ah, but there you're wrong.

YOU are claiming that it is impossible, therefore YOU need to prove so.

I am claiming only that I don't know either way. :) I am not claiming to be able to prove that the supernatural affirmatively exists.

As for possibility: there are plenty of internally logically consistent yet paranormal frameworks. Even FSMism for example is completely logically consistent. It has no *evidence* to support it, and is therefore irrational, BUT it is not impossible. ;) Like bri said - everything that's not impossible is possible. FSMism isn't impossible.

Prove FSM doesn't exist. :)

[I less than three logic]

Ah, but there you're wrong.

YOU are claiming that it is impossible, therefore YOU need to prove so.
No, you are wrong. I haven't claimed a thing. You, and Bri, are claiming it is possible, I'm just asking for rational support.

I am claiming only that I don't know either way. :) I am not claiming to be able to prove that the supernatural affirmatively exists.
I am not claiming to know either way either. I'm only looking for rational support for the possible existence of the supernatural.

As for possibility: there are plenty of internally logically consistent yet paranormal frameworks. Even FSMism for example is completely logically consistent. It has no *evidence* to support it, and is therefore irrational, BUT it is not impossible. ;) Like bri said - everything that's not impossible is possible. FSMism isn't impossible.
This is the same circular argument Bri used. You are saying it is possible because it is not impossible. In other words, it is possible because it is possible. That isn’t logically valid. What prevents it from being impossible, what argument do you use to support that position?

Prove FSM doesn't exist. :)
I have no intention to prove anything. What rational argument do you have that it does exist?

[saizai]

No, you are wrong. I haven't claimed a thing. You, and Bri, are claiming it is possible, I'm just asking for rational support.

I am not claiming to know either way either. I'm only looking for rational support for the possible existence of the supernatural.

I'm not claiming it's *true*, just that it's *possible*.

It is *possible* that there is an invisible incoproreal tiger sitting next to me. I would have no way of knowing either way.

It is *possible* that we all have auras that I haven't been able to see or detect.

It is *possible* that there is a God who does not talk to or involve him/itself directly in the affairs of mortals (these days).

It is *possible* that invisible flying pink unicorns make the sun rise every day.

I don't claim to have proof for any of that. But I also don't have proof against it. Therefore I am completely weak-agnostic on all those points. (Not strong-agnostic, as I don't claim that they are *unprovable* - suppose for example the invisible incorporeal tiger could choose to become visible and did so; that would be adequate proof.)

Some posters are claiming definitely that none of these things are true. I say that that is an irrational claim. I don't say I can prove that they *are* true.

This is the same circular argument Bri used. You are saying it is possible because it is not impossible. In other words, it is possible because it is possible. That isn’t logically valid. What prevents it from being impossible, what argument do you use to support that position?

That's not a circular argument. Circular argument is when you assume what you are going to prove as one of the axioms of the proof.

I simply prove the contrapositive (ie it's not impossible). That is logically identical to the requested proof (that it's possible).

Cm'on now, you can do better than that. :)

I have no intention to prove anything. What rational argument do you have that it does exist?

None whatsoever. :)

It seems that you are an agnostic like me then, since you are not claiming that the supernatural DOES NOT exist. Other posters are.

[I less than three logic]

That's not a circular argument. Circular argument is when you assume what you are going to prove as one of the axioms of the proof.

I simply prove the contrapositive (ie it's not impossible). That is logically identical to the requested proof (that it's possible).

Cm'on now, you can do better than that. :)

No, you didn’t prove anything, you simply asserted it. What makes it possible (not impossible)? I think the supernatural may or may not be possible. We have irrefutable proof that the natural is possible, although we may not know everything about the natural as of yet. On the other hand, we have nothing showing the supernatural is possible but word play. Not even logically valid arguments that the possibility exits, unless you can show why unexplained, unsupported, “just so” statements are logically valid.

[andyandy]

No, you didn’t prove anything, you simply asserted it. What makes it possible (not impossible)? I think the supernatural may or may not be possible. We have irrefutable proof that the natural is possible, although we may not know everything about the natural as of yet. On the other hand, we have nothing showing the supernatural is possible but word play. Not even logically valid arguments that the possibility exits, unless you can show why unexplained, unsupported, “just so” statements are logically valid.

no logically valid arguments? The supernatural may be unknowable - and thus the fact that we have no proof of its existence an irrelevance.

what is illogical about that argument?

You can't discuss metaphysical ideas in a wholly scientific framework....so to dismiss any deviation from this framework as "word play" is to assume an untenable position.

[I less than three logic]

no logically valid arguments? The supernatural may be unknowable - and thus the fact that we have no proof of its existence an irrelevance.

what is illogical about that argument?

You can't discuss metaphysical ideas in a wholly scientific framework....so to dismiss any deviation from this framework as "word play" is to assume an untenable position.
Shush you! I’m having fun over here. :)

[saizai]

Also note: To prove something (A) is impossible is to take a logical framework of the following form:
* assume A
* assume various other known & agreed facts about the world
* arrive at a contradiction
* ergo ~A
* if above proof is not completed, then A is possible until proven otherwise

To prove something is possible is impossible because it requires an exhaustive search of the entire problem space - including possible disproofs not yet conceived of. This is to prove a negative, which is not possible.

Ergo the burden is on the one claiming something is impossible.

[saizai]

P.S. I<3Logic: Just admit you're an agnostic and join my side of the argument ;)

[CapelDodger]

Nothing I can think of offhand. But you didn't prove your claim. I'm still waiting....
That response doesn't inform me as to the terminology.

Agreed. You HAVE an opinion, and that is DIFFERENT from a baby's naive default. Which contradicts what you said earlier.
Have I laid claim to a state of innocence? If so, please excuse, I was probably drunk at the time.



Great. But prove that none exist, since that is your claim.

You're not just claiming that Zeus doesn't exist, or that some particular easily refutable god(s) don't exist - you're claiming NONE exist.
Does your agnosticism allow that any god can be refuted? Or angel, or sub-species of angel, or ancestor-spirit, or anything else the human imagination can conjure? The Invisible Pink Unicorn - we know she's invisible because we can't see her, we believe that she's pink. Prove that away.



How is this proof? I gave a pretty simple, commonly accepted version of the Christian god. Please disprove its/His existence.
Consider the evidence. Firstly, it's not a universally accepted version of the Christian god, and that's just one of the three major religions disagreeing over the intentions of said god. There's very little (if anything) about the nature of the god, it's supernatural. But it's a small god because it was imagined in a small world. No more credible than Zeus.

[saizai]

That response doesn't inform me as to the terminology.

I don't remember your asking a clear question as to terminology. If you have one, please do so.

Does your agnosticism allow that any god can be refuted? Or angel, or sub-species of angel, or ancestor-spirit, or anything else the human imagination can conjure? The Invisible Pink Unicorn - we know she's invisible because we can't see her, we believe that she's pink. Prove that away.

Prove what?

I have said several times, that sure some things can be refuted. E.g., there is currently, as far as we know, no pantheon of corporeal gods speaking ancient Greek on top of Mt. Olympus.

You still need to prove that NO gods exist whatsoever, since that was your claim. As predicted, I'm still hearing crickets.

(Or, of course, you could change your claim and admit that agnosticism is the only rational belief. ;))

Consider the evidence. Firstly, it's not a universally accepted version of the Christian god, and that's just one of the three major religions disagreeing over the intentions of said god. There's very little (if anything) about the nature of the god, it's supernatural. But it's a small god because it was imagined in a small world. No more credible than Zeus.

Huh? I'm afraid I can't see the purported logic in what you said.

Again: how is this a proof of the nonexistence of all deities?

[saizai]

Oh and PS: not only do you have to prove that no gods exist whatsoever, but also that:
* there is no such thing as qi
* there are no sentient spacefaring aliens
* if there are, then they have never visited earth
* no miracles have ever happened
* no ghost has ever existed
* nobody has ever died and come back to life
* etc

You will say, and I will agree, that we have no affirmative evidence for these claims; well and good, the believers in these things have not yet rationally made their case. But you claim that there is *no* supernatural.

I think you can't prove that claim.

[quixotecoyote]

saizai

I believe you have just defined your beliefs into irrelevance. Given that by the standards of agnosticism you propose, you are unable to state that anything is existant or non-existant, it is of no consequence when you apply that to gods.

Under this, one could say, "By the standards of saizai there may or may not be a man-eating octopus-god in the toilet, and I'm forced to take an agnostic position as to its existance, but surely all rational people would agree that it isn't really there."

Those opposing your arguments must concede that on the ground of absolute logical proof, you are correct that an agnostic position must be taken. However as that's true about the chairs we're sitting in, the computer's we're typing on, and the entire observable world as a whole, your argument does nothing to counter the proposition that "God does not exist in the same way anything else we accept as real exists."

You've won the semantical debate, but you've lost the signifigance of your position. Rather than weighing in on the existance of deity, you've removed yourself from the discussion.

[saizai]

quixote - Not at all.

I haven't said that "you are unable to state that anything is existant or non-existant". Just that that is true of anything *supernatural* (given evidence available to date).

I am not a solipsist. :)

By my standards, and those of rational logic, you have no proof that there is no man-eating octopus-god in the toilet unless you're there and said hypothetical god would be visible and/or corporeal were it there. You have no proof whatsoever if said god is neither, nor can you ever. The chair I am sitting in clearly exists by the direct evidence of my senses. Granted, I could (from a solipsist perspective) be dreaming, deluded, under a demon's spell, in the Matrix (tm), a brain-in-a-vat, or the like - but in all of those cases the chair would still exist in some sort of sense, we'd just be arguing about "possible worlds" and the like, which is not at all where my point lies.

My position has been, and still is, that neither you nor I can say anything about the existence or nonexistence of deity. You claimed intially that you do not believe in one; that's fine, I don't affirmatively believe in one either. You also claimed though that you believe one does NOT exist; that's not logical.

You're still welcome to the belief, but it's still JUST A BELIEF that is NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE and is therefore IRRRATIONAL. Just like any other FAITH. :D <--- this was my original statement that you disagreed with & which started this thread btw - and which I still hold to

Please suggest to me what grounds there are for rationality other than "absolute logical proof", hm? I was inclined to believe that the whole point of skepticism was to only claim as certainly true that which is logically and empirically supported by the evidence. *

And furthermore, that most people on this forum - I assume this includes you - claim to be skeptics. Of course, I beg your pardon if my assumption on this latter point was wrong.

* Or which is "proven true within tolerance limits", e.g. when evidence has proven that it is true for p<.05, or eg the newtonian theory of gravity being held to be true until shown to be not quite entirely so under certain rather unusual conditions. These are all still evidence-based; they're just not 100% certain - that degree of confidence is hard to come by.

[andyandy]

Those opposing your arguments must concede that on the ground of absolute logical proof, you are correct that an agnostic position must be taken. However as that's true about the chairs we're sitting in, the computer's we're typing on, and the entire observable world as a whole, your argument does nothing to counter the proposition that "God does not exist in the same way anything else we accept as real exists."

You've won the semantical debate, but you've lost the signifigance of your position. Rather than weighing in on the existance of deity, you've removed yourself from the discussion.

The agnostic position would be that god is unknown, unknowable or incoherent - and you seem to agree, so are you too an agnostic?

nb. Perhaps you could define existance? :)

[The Atheist]

Hope saizai's happy; I see he got his wish at last and the thread got split!

[Darat]

but why would you assume that as your definition of Christian God? Each interpretation of god by any individual is a construct of their own subjective experience - and so exists outside any attempts at generalisation on a objective third-person perspective.


You are really arguing for a "light" form of solipsism - if you do not accept that we can communicate clearly and accurately with one another then of course you will hold the opinion that we can never be certain of what anyone actually means, even when they say something like "I've got two red apples".

If you take such a stance any discussion about anything is essentially meaningless.

I do not adopt such a stance since I believe (because of the evidence I have) that other people can understand what I mean and I believe (again from evidence) I can provide definitions (e.g. what I mean by the label Zeus) that enable others to understand me.


as you point out, science can not offer absolutes on such metaphysical musings :)


If they are metaphysical musing (as I understand those terms) I would say you are correct however when they stop being metaphysical musing i.e. "God is the being that formed the Earth 6000 years ago" then by using the tools humans have developed over thousands of years we can say with certainty "That being does not exist".


damn....i've been trying to avoid this thread.....and i'd been doing so well :)

I can resist everything but temptation...

[Darat]

But again, you have yet to show that NO gods exist, since such a statement must also include the majority definition from a "Biblical nonliteralism" standpoint.

-Bri

I've never said I had?

All I have done is shown that I can prove or perhaps a better way of putting it on an Internet forum I can point you to the evidence that shows) some people's god/gods do not exist.

[Darat]

Neither the belief that the supernatural exists nor the belief that the supernatural doesn't exist can be supported.

...snip...


If the supernatural is a claim such as "dancing in this way will produce rain" it is elementary to show that supernatural does or does not exist.

It's just come to me that we may be talking past one another. What definition are you using for supernatural?

[Kimpatsu]

If you define atheism as the absence of belief in god(s), what term would you use to describe an affirmative belief that there is no god(s)?
Is there such a position? I've never heard of anyone who takes it, so I guess it's a new concept, for a non-existent class of people, but it means that you get to name it.
Also, what probability value should JREF forum members assign to your existence?
Very good, actually, unless they are solipsists.

[Kimpatsu]

and it means?
That life's a bitch, and then you die.

[Kimpatsu]

In short response:
1. I am saying that an affirmative belief that there is no God is illogical and an axiomatic article of faith because there is and can be no proof of it.
Then you must also hold that it is illogical to hold an affirmative belief in the non-existence of singing teapots on Mars, faeries at the bottom of the garden, and Santa Claus and his flying reindeer, but if you really claim to be agnostic on those issues, as a fully-grown adult you need to see a psychiatrist quickly.

[Kimpatsu]

And it's a weak one.

I think 'not collecting stamps' is the equivalent of 'not going to church'. Non-stamp-collectors are not claiming stamps don't exist. They're just not into it.
Then "bald" is a hair colour.

[Kimpatsu]

That is analagous to agnosticism, which I'm not arguing against. But you're misapplying it as analagous to *affirmative* atheism.

Hard atheists must necessarily claim that there *is in fact no god whatsoever*. That's not a claim that anyone can prove, ergo it is axiomatic - a matter of faith.
I maintain that there's no god because there's no evidence for one, period. Thus god is in the same category as James T. Kirk and James Bond--fictional characters. Do you think that Batman is real? Because if so, you need medical help, fast. But if you don't, because there's no evidence for Batman existing, then you feel the same way about Bruce Wayne as I do about gods.

[Darat]

a) That doesn't refute the possibility that God deliberately created the world to *appear* old, for whatever inscrutable reasons. (Test of faith, y'know. :p) An omnipotent god could certainly do so, and make all evidence gathered consistent with the earth being very very old when it actually isn't.

It's completely internally consistent. Please disprove this god.


What has this got to do with the definition of the God I was using in my example? It fits neither the definition of Zeus or the Christian God definition I stated.


b) That doesn't refute the existence of a God that set the universe in motion etc etc per what I described above.

Please disprove this god.


See above.


Remember, your claim puts the burden on you to disprove the existence of EVERY god, not just SOME particular gods. :)

I have never made any such claim.

You stated that "My argument is against people who *affirmatively* declare that there is in fact no god." I have shown that there are many gods that we can declare with as much certainty as we can about anything "your god does not exist". I am happy to put my neck out and say I know of no major religion's god/gods that we cannot say "your god does not exist".

[Darat]

...snip...

My position has been, and still is, that neither you nor I can say anything about the existence or nonexistence of deity. You claimed intially that you do not believe in one; that's fine, I don't affirmatively believe in one either. You also claimed though that you believe one does NOT exist; that's not logical.

You're still welcome to the belief, but it's still JUST A BELIEF that is NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE and is therefore IRRRATIONAL. Just like any other FAITH. :D <--- this was my original statement that you disagreed with & which started this thread btw - and which I still hold to

...snip...

You've got this the wrong way around it is commonly held that it is irrational to believe in something that you have no evidence or reason to believe exists.

Also if you consider at the moment you have given no definition for the word "god" as you are using it.

So to make sure we are not talking past one another can you provide your definition for "god".

[Dark Jaguar]

Being agnostic is a fine position to take if one so wishes, but to be honest I'm fine saying "I see no reason to even humor the possibility unless evidence is provided".

Think of it this way. What would your position on the possibility of a diety be if you had never once heard of one? What would your position on the possibility of other magical entities be if you had never heard of it? I ask this because for every entity you've heard of, there's the entire human potential of imagination's worth of entities no one's ever thought of.

The answer I have when I think of the possibility of such supernatural but undeclared entities is "I can't possibly have a state of humoring or believing in an entity if I'm not even aware of the idea, but I sure can fail to acknowledge or believe it exists just fine, in other words I don't believe in things I've never heard of before". Is that irrational? Seems impossible to do otherwise. Why not just extend that to the unproven entities you've actually heard about? What is it about actually having imagined it that suddenly requires you to humor it's existance?

[Kimpatsu]

Amateras
That's Amaterasu (with a near-silent "u"), please.
And why did you leave Susano-o-no-Mikoto off the list...? :D

[andyandy]

So to make sure we are not talking past one another can you provide your definition for "god".

surely it is the atheist who needs to define god :D

[Kimpatsu]

surely it is the atheist who needs to define god :D
OK: "A nonexistent fictional entity, the idea of which is clung to by some people because they don't understand enough about the real universe, and by others who are too afraid to face reailty and use their belief as a comfort blanket; prozac for the brain."
Is that accurate enough?

[andyandy]

OK: "A nonexistent fictional entity, the idea of which is clung to by some people because they don't understand enough about the real universe, and by others who are too afraid to face reailty and use their belief as a comfort blanket; prozac for the brain."
Is that accurate enough?

well if you define something as nonexistant, then it doesn't by definition exist. So you choose to not believe in a god which you define as non-existant, which is fine and logical -but that's hardly any more valid than someone saying "i belive in god" and providing a definition as "god is an entity which exists" - which would mean by definition that it does exist.....



can you prove that god is nonexistant? Beyond simply defining the term as such?
You seem to imply that you do understand enough about the real universe to be so sure. But there are things within it which are inherently unknowable. Can we say that something unknowable does not exist? What is existance?

[Darat]

surely it is the atheist who needs to define god :D

Why do you say that? The person stating a belief is making a claim that I assume they wish to communicate to someone else therefore they need to be able to provide a definition of what they mean.

[Kimpatsu]

can you prove that god is nonexistant?
*Groan*
The burden of proof is on those who claim that god DOES exist. As there is absolutely no evidence for said exitence, it is reasonable to conclude that she does not exist. Like Batman. Or Santa Claus. Or James Bond. Or Lassie. All of which are fictional characters whose probability of existence is actually greater than that of the Sky Fairy.

[Kimpatsu]

But there are things within it which are inherently unknowable.
What within the universe is inherently unknowable?

[Darat]

well if you define something as nonexistant, then it doesn't by definition exist. So you choose to not believe in a god which you define as non-existant, which is fine and logical -but that's hardly any more valid than someone saying "i belive in god" and providing a definition as "god is an entity which exists" - which would mean by definition that it does exist.....

...snip...


Not quite - he defined "god" as a fictional creation, the use of "non-existence" is being used in the same way we would say that "Harry Potter" does not exist beyond being a fictional character.

Of course using such a definition for god would mean that (I bet) most people who would use the label "atheist" to describe themselves would be happy saying "God exists" - because what they are saying is "God exists as a fictional character".

This is a very good example of why if people want a good honest discussion we have to check that we are using the same definitions for the critical elements of the discussion.

[andyandy]

Why do you say that? The person stating a belief is making a claim that I assume they wish to communicate to someone else therefore they need to be able to provide a definition of what they mean.

an agnostic position would be that there are no over-arching definitions of god which can be applied on a general level and as such this is one of the fundamental reasons why one can be atheist with regards to a specific well-defined god, but must remain agnostic in the general sense.....

[andyandy]

*Groan*
The burden of proof is on those who claim that god DOES exist. As there is absolutely no evidence for said exitence, it is reasonable to conclude that she does not exist. Like Batman. Or Santa Claus. Or James Bond. Or Lassie. All of which are fictional characters whose probability of existence is actually greater than that of the Sky Fairy.

agnostics don't claim that god exists.

atheists however claim that god does not.

[andyandy]

Not quite - he defined "god" as a fictional creation, the use of "non-existence" is being used in the same way we would say that "Harry Potter" does not exist beyond being a fictional character.

Of course using such a definition for god would mean that (I bet) most people who would use the label "atheist" to describe themselves would be happy saying "God exists" - because what they are saying is "God exists as a fictional character".

This is a very good example of why if people want a good honest discussion we have to check that we are using the same definitions for the critical elements of the discussion.

ok, well it scans both ways, either as saying god is both fictional and nonexistant, or as a nonexistant fictional entity.....as you point out the two could be seen as having different meanings.....

but ultimately there can be no "honest discussion" with an agnostic about god - if one's position is that a general concept of god is meaningless....

[andyandy]

What within the universe is inherently unknowable?

the exact values of certain conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle...eg position and momentum.

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html

[DangerousBeliefs]

You folks have certainly posted a long, long time about the philisophy behind belief.

I was just wondering.... how long does one ponder the non-existence of something before we conclude it does not exist (logically, of course).

[andyandy]

You folks have certainly posted a long, long time about the philisophy behind belief.

I was just wondering.... how long does one ponder the non-existence of something before we conclude it does not exist (logically, of course).

if one is pondering the non-existance of something which could be unknowable, then one can never logically conclude it does not exist.....

[Darat]

...snip...

but ultimately there can be no "honest discussion" with an agnostic about god - if one's position is that a general concept of god is meaningless....

Couple of problems, an agnostic position is not that a "a general concept of god is meaningless" it is that we cannot never know whether god exists or not (it is a position about the limit of our knowledge). And this then feeds into the other problem with your statement - to be able to say that "a general concept of god is meaningless" you in fact still need to be able to say what it is that you are saying is "meaningless" - otherwise your statement is in fact rendered meaningless and you are saying nothing. (Which may be profound but to me seems nothing more then saying nothing.)

[Darat]

if one is pondering the non-existance of something which could be unknowable, then one can never logically conclude it does not exist.....

Only because that is how you have defined it i.e. you've defined it to be unknowable. However you have not provided any reason as to why whatever it is you are talking about is unknowable - in other-words the position of "unknowable" i.e. agnosticism is a faith position.

[andyandy]

Couple of problems, an agnostic position is not that a "a general concept of god is meaningless" it is that we cannot never know whether god exists or not (it is a position about the limit of our knowledge). And this then feeds into the other problem with your statement - to be able to say that "a general concept of god is meaningless" you in fact still need to be able to say what it is that you are saying is "meaningless" - otherwise your statement is in fact rendered meaningless and you are saying nothing. (Which may be profound but to me seems nothing more then saying nothing.)

i'm sure we've had this discussion before :)

if you say "a general concept of god is meaningless" then you are merely stating that no general definition of "god" is possible which satisfies all understandings of the term on an individual level. So what is meaningless? The attempt to define something which is inherently undefineable in general terms.....

i knew i shouldn't have entered this thread :)

[andyandy]

Only because that is how you have defined it i.e. you've defined it to be unknowable. However you have not provided any reason as to why whatever it is you are talking about is unknowable - in other-words the position of "unknowable" i.e. agnosticism is a faith position.

it's an acceptance of the possible limits of human understanding not a position of faith....

nb
the whole atheist vs agnostic debate is a little like Newcomb's paradox - where you have two very different conclusion which people can arrive at through a rational argument which seems perfectly reasonable to them...and baffling as to how someone else can arrive at the other conclusion.....

A person is playing a game operated by the Predictor, an entity somehow presented as being exceptionally skilled at predicting people's actions. The exact nature of the Predictor varies between retellings of the paradox. Some assume that the character always has a reputation for being completely infallible and incapable of error. The Predictor can be presented as a psychic, as a superintelligent alien, as God, etc. However, the original discussion by Nozick says only that the Predictor's predictions are "almost certainly" correct, and also specifies that "what you actually decide to do is not part of the explanation of why he made the prediction he made". With this original version of the problem, some of the discussion below is inapplicable.

The player of the game is presented with two opaque boxes, labeled A and B. The player is permitted to take the contents of both boxes, or just of box B. (The option of taking only box A is ignored, for reasons soon to be obvious.) Box A contains $1,000. The contents of box B, however, are determined as follows: At some point before the start of the game, the Predictor makes a prediction as to whether the player of the game will take just box B, or both boxes. If the Predictor predicts that both boxes will be taken, then box B will contain nothing. If the Predictor predicts that only box B will be taken, then box B will contain $1,000,000.

By the time the game begins, and the player is called upon to choose which boxes to take, the prediction has already been made, and the contents of box B have already been determined. That is, box B contains either $0 or $1,000,000 before the game begins, and once the game begins even the Predictor is powerless to change the contents of the boxes. Before the game begins, the player is aware of all the rules of the game, including the two possible contents of box B, the fact that its contents are based on the Predictor's prediction, and knowledge of the Predictor's infallibility. The only information withheld from the player is what prediction the Predictor made, and thus what the contents of box B are.


Predicted choice--------Actual choice--------Payout
A and B-----------------A and B--------------$1,000
A and B------------------B only -----------------$0
B only---------------------A and B-------------$1,001,000
B only-----------------------B only--------------$1,000,000


The problem is called a paradox because two strategies that both sound intuitively logical give conflicting answers to the question of what choice maximizes the player's payout. The first strategy argues that, regardless of what prediction the Predictor has made, taking both boxes yields more money. That is, if the prediction is for both A and B to be taken, then the player's decision becomes a matter of choosing between $1,000 (by taking A and B) and $0 (by taking just B), in which case taking both boxes is obviously preferable. But, even if the prediction is for the player to take only B, then taking both boxes yields $1,001,000, and taking only B yields only $1,000,000—the difference is slight in the latter case, but taking both boxes is still better, regardless of what prediction has been made.

The second strategy suggests taking only B. By this strategy, we can ignore the possibilities that return $0 and $1,001,000, as they both require that the Predictor has made an incorrect prediction, and the problem states that the Predictor cannot be wrong. Thus, the choice becomes whether to receive $1,000 (both boxes) or to receive $1,000,000 (only box B)—so taking only box B is better.

In his 1969 article, Nozick noted that "To almost everyone, it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost evenly on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox

So in one sense, both positions of atheism and agnosticism are correct,*

*although in a more real sense of course agnosticism is correct :D

[Bri]

I don't MIND that you have faith either way. I just mind when people claim that their faith, isn't.

I don't disagree that such an opinion is based on faith as you've defined it. I simply disagree that it is necessarily irrational.

Logical inconsistency is not an exclusive requirement for irrationality. Both athiesm and theism are completely logically consistent (at least the developed forms). Neither is rational, i.e. based on evidence.

You're simply using a different definition of "irrational" then. If irrational means "not consistent with logic" then either of the opinions I listed are irrational. Where the evidence doesn't clearly point one way or the other, I wouldn't necessarily consider it irrational to have an opinion one way or the other (provided that you don't also claim the opinion to be fact).

-Bri

[Kimpatsu]

agnostics don't claim that god exists.

atheists however claim that god does not.
Because there's no evidence for god's existence. If you are agnostic about god, then to be consistent you must also be agnostic about the existence of Batman, James Bond, Long John Silver, and Harry Potter. Are you?

[Kimpatsu]

ok, well it scans both ways, either as saying god is both fictional and nonexistant, or as a nonexistant fictional entity.....as you point out the two could be seen as having different meanings.....

but ultimately there can be no "honest discussion" with an agnostic about god - if one's position is that a general concept of god is meaningless....
I'll rephrase. God is a work of fiction, no different from Batman or James T. Kirk.

[Kimpatsu]

the exact values of certain conjugate quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle...eg position and momentum.
You're being disingenuous. The principles of the momentum/position problem are fully explicable physically, a fact that you have glossed over as if it were unimportant, when in reality it is the sine qua non of QM knowledge. Now try telling me something in the universe that is truly inherently unknowable.

[Bri]

If the supernatural is a claim such as "dancing in this way will produce rain" it is elementary to show that supernatural does or does not exist.

Again, disproving one possible example doesn't disprove all examples, so unless you're claiming that rain-dancing is the only example of the supernatural, proving that dancing in this way does NOT ever produce rain (which would be quite difficult to prove, BTW) would not prove that the supernatural doesn't exist. Likewise, disproving the existence of one god doesn't prove that no gods exist.

It's just come to me that we may be talking past one another. What definition are you using for supernatural?

Something like this one: attributed to a power that goes beyond natural forces.

-Bri

[Darat]

it's an acceptance of the possible limits of human understanding not a position of faith....

...snip...

It isn't an acceptance of a possible limitation of human understanding it is stating that some knowledge is in principle "not knowable" by humans. What agnosticism does is say "there is a set of knowledge that is unknowable by humans", that is why it is a faith based position since like theism it starts from an axiom.

Atheism should be different to both of those faith views as all it is doing is not accepting either of the axioms theism or agnosticism start with. There is no axiom at the heart of atheism, if the axiom put forward by theists (or indeed agnostics) was not put forward there would be no-one who could be described as an atheist, it is after all only describing a lack of a belief or faith.

A question - all ideas of god are removed from a group of people - are they atheists?

[I less than three logic]

agnostics don't claim that god exists.

atheists however claim that god does not.
I don’t agree with these.

Agnosticism is not fence sitting; it is the claim that the existence of God is unknowable. “A” meaning “without” and “gnosis” meaning “knowledge”. Agnosticism: without knowledge.

Atheism is not a claim that God doesn’t exist; it is simply the lack of belief in God. “A” meaning “without” and “theism” meaning “the belief in a god or gods”. Atheism: without the belief in a god or gods.

[andyandy]

I don’t agree with these.

Agnosticism is not fence sitting; it is the claim that the existence of God is unknowable. “A” meaning “without” and “gnosis” meaning “knowledge”. Agnosticism: without knowledge.

Atheism is not a claim that God doesn’t exist; it is simply the lack of belief in God. “A” meaning “without” and “theism” meaning “the belief in a god or gods”. Atheism: without the belief in a god or gods.

well we're getting into hard atheism or soft atheism, - i was speaking of hard atheism. the confusion lies over the understood connertations of "believe"

[andyandy]

You're being disingenuous. The principles of the momentum/position problem are fully explicable physically, a fact that you have glossed over as if it were unimportant, when in reality it is the sine qua non of QM knowledge. Now try telling me something in the universe that is truly inherently unknowable.

it's not at all disingenous. You asked for an example of something within the real universe which is unknowable, i provided you with an example - to know both the position and momentum of an electron is inherently unknowable.....
is that not unknowable enough? :)

[andyandy]

It isn't an acceptance of a possible limitation of human understanding it is stating that some knowledge is in principle "not knowable" by humans. What agnosticism does is say "there is a set of knowledge that is unknowable by humans", that is why it is a faith based position since like theism it starts from an axiom.

Atheism should be different to both of those faith views as all it is doing is not accepting either of the axioms theism or agnosticism start with. There is no axiom at the heart of atheism, if the axiom put forward by theists (or indeed agnostics) was not put forward there would be no-one who could be described as an atheist, it is after all only describing a lack of a belief or faith.

A question - all ideas of god are removed from a group of people - are they atheists?

agnostocism says there may be a set of knowledge unobtainable by humans,

atheism (by which i mean hard-atheism to clarify) says there is not such a set.

it is this atheist position therefore which is reliant upon an axiom.

if you remove all ideas of god from people then they are agnostic because the term "god" no longer has any relevance and is meaningless. To be atheist you must be aware of what you are not believing in.

[Kimpatsu]

it's not at all disingenous. You asked for an example of something within the real universe which is unknowable, i provided you with an example - to know both the position and momentum of an electron is inherently unknowable.....
is that not unknowable enough? :)
Actually, that might not be the case anyway; wait until the GUT says that it is. So, no, it's not unknowable enough. It may be that there is indeed a way to know both; we just haven't found it yet.
And, yes, you were being disingenuous, because the fact that as of our current understanding of QM, you can know either the momentum or the position of an elementary particle but not both is itself known.

[Kimpatsu]

agnostocism says there may be a set of knowledge unobtainable by humans,

atheism (by which i mean hard-atheism to clarify) says there is not such a set.
If you beleive there is a body of knowledge that is unknowable by its very nature, then you must give an example, at least of your reasoning. So far, no such canon of knowledge has been found.

[I less than three logic]

It isn't an acceptance of a possible limitation of human understanding it is stating that some knowledge is in principle "not knowable" by humans. What agnosticism does is say "there is a set of knowledge that is unknowable by humans", that is why it is a faith based position since like theism it starts from an axiom.
I provided an example of this on the first page of the thread.
I am agnostic about what exists beyond the theoretically observable universe. I believe it is impossible to ever have evidence of what lays beyond the event horizon. Nothing beyond that point can ever interact with anything here, in any way, and is therefore irrelevant.
This is an agnostic position based on evidence and understanding of the nature of the universe. I don’t see how such an agnostic position can be made for the existence of God since there is no evidence to support that God is unknowable. The position is supported on unexplained, “just so” statements like, “If God is omnipotent, then surely he can simply hide all evidence from you.”

[Darat]

agnostocism says there may be a set of knowledge unobtainable by humans,
...snip...



We're going to get into an argument about definitions - let me just state that when I use the term "agnosticism" I am referring to a belief that some knowledge is in principle beyond human understanding. You have a different definition and I'm happy to go along with that as long as we both are careful to make sure we keep to one definition or the other.

I would still say using your definition of agnosticism that to make any meaningful statement your have to be able to define the "set" that you are talking about and if you can't provide a definition that we can both use (to discuss your set) then your statements are without meaning.


atheism (by which i mean hard-atheism to clarify) says there is not such a set.


I have to disgaree - atheism is not making a claim about knowledge it is just not accetping someone's axioms.

it is this atheist position therefore which is reliant upon an axiom.


We are going to have to disagree as I do not believe that is the atheist position. Let me try to explain why I think this to be the case.

The axiom we are talking about is "god" (we don't need a definition of god for this exercise), what you are proposing is that the atheist has an axiom of "no god", however that axiom can only exist by having knowledge of the "god" axiom as you agree later in your post. Therefore all an atheist is saying is "I do not accept your axiom", now I hold it is merely an artifact of our everyday language that means an atheist says "there is no god" and that is only because the word "god" is so embedded in our culture and our language that we tend to forget that "god" is nothing more then an axiom. As other people have mentioned atheism is to theism as not-stamp collecting as a hobby is to stamp collecting as a hobby, it is not of itself a positive claim.





if you remove all ideas of god from people then they are agnostic because the term "god" no longer has any relevance and is meaningless. To be atheist you must be aware of what you are not believing in.

Here you seem to agree with me - that all an atheist is a "not a stamp collector".

[quixotecoyote]

Saizai

Please suggest to me what grounds there are for rationality other than "absolute logical proof", hm? I was inclined to believe that the whole point of skepticism was to only claim as certainly true that which is logically and empirically supported by the evidence. *

I think you answered yourself nicely.

Or which is "proven true within tolerance limits", e.g. when evidence has proven that it is true for p<.05, or eg the newtonian theory of gravity being held to be true until shown to be not quite entirely so under certain rather unusual conditions. These are all still evidence-based; they're just not 100% certain - that degree of confidence is hard to come by.

I want to quote Dark Jaguar as he had a rather nice reply

Think of it this way. What would your position on the possibility of a diety be if you had never once heard of one? What would your position on the possibility of other magical entities be if you had never heard of it? I ask this because for every entity you've heard of, there's the entire human potential of imagination's worth of entities no one's ever thought of.

The answer I have when I think of the possibility of such supernatural but undeclared entities is "I can't possibly have a state of humoring or believing in an entity if I'm not even aware of the idea, but I sure can fail to acknowledge or believe it exists just fine, in other words I don't believe in things I've never heard of before". Is that irrational? Seems impossible to do otherwise. Why not just extend that to the unproven entities you've actually heard about? What is it about actually having imagined it that suddenly requires you to humor it's existence?

But I want to add to it. The q-ray bracelet could have magic healing powers, but we know it really doesn't. The wtc towers could have been brought down by the neocon/Zionist conspiracy, but we know they really weren't. Sylvia Brown could really be a psychic, but we know she isn't.

God fits in the same category as the rest of this bs. Why is it so hard to apply the same standards of belief there as to the rest of the ridiculous beliefs for which there is no evidence?


And furthermore, that most people on this forum - I assume this includes you - claim to be skeptics. Of course, I beg your pardon if my assumption on this latter point was wrong.

You are correct here, but I don't see the relevance. I didn't argue otherwise.

[Dr Adequate]

"Faith (n): Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason." Yes, that's more or less what "faith" actually means.

Hence atheism is does not rest on faith: especially w.r.t. the Christian God.

That's quite different from the claim that god is omnipresent. OMNI, not "every few feet"-ly. The claims are analogous enough. If you prefer, consider the proposition "everything is pink".

We can all agree that there are no (visible, corporeal) unicorns within sight of us, ergo they are not omnipresent. But you need to prove that there is not ONE unicorn ANYWHERE in the world. This reverses the burden of proof.

Great; disprove it. :) Done: see my previous posts.

*shrug* "One does not question His motives". I think the believer would say that, essentially, He allows free choice and does not interfere but hopes that you choose correctly. This is inconsistent with omnibenevolence.

In any case, I'm not christian and am not defending it as rational. I said simply that hard atheism is as *irrational* as hard theism. And clearly you are wrong. To disbelieve in an entity for which there is no evidence, against which there is much evidence, which is given mutually inconsistent characteristics, and the existence of which would violate the laws of nature, is obviously in no way as irrational as to believe in it.

Again, you are misusing the word "irrational".

Suppose you were required to bet your (hypothetical) immortal soul on either the proposition that unicorns exist or that they don't. Which choice would be rational? Do you maintain that they would both be equally irrational?

[saizai]

Hope saizai's happy; I see he got his wish at last and the thread got split!

Huh? This thread's splitting predates my request...

[andyandy]

So, no, it's not unknowable enough. It may be that there is indeed a way to know both; we just haven't found it yet.

But by this argument you are know arguing against the absolution you were arguing for before! You are now accepting that things we now know as fact may be proved to be wrong in the future. Thus nothing is certain.


That said i'm not sure a "prove there is an unknowable" is a reasonable way to attack a possible agnostic position anyway - in it's absolute sense it can be dismissed as a meaningless and illogical challenge, or in a less absolute sense can be refuted.....

One such reasoning would be that data (a "body of knowledge")
encrypted through Quantum crytography using entangled protons could be rendered inherently unknowable to any third party - because any attempts to measure or "know" the stream key contained would corrupt the part of the stream which could then be discarded.....

(more details here) http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.480.html

so now we are into the realm of "known unknowables" (like that outlined earlier in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and "unknowable unknowables" (which by definition can not be known). Neither of these two positions help an atheist prove that god can not be unknowable.

*lol*

i knew i shouldn't have entered this thread....

it really all comes down to an interminable debate where both sides retreat behind semantic butresses - where both sides are ultimately debating different interpretations of the same question.

Must. resist. like. Israeli -Palestine threads. on. Politics......:D

[saizai]

All I have done is shown that I can prove or perhaps a better way of putting it on an Internet forum I can point you to the evidence that shows) some people's god/gods do not exist.

Great, but that doesn't make your "hard agnostic" position supported. You've only completed part (an infinitesimal part) of your burden of proof. You need to show that ALL gods do not exist.

Unless of course you're claiming hard atheism only wrt the gods you can disprove, and agnosticism wrt the others...?

Then you must also hold that it is illogical to hold an affirmative belief in the non-existence of singing teapots on Mars, faeries at the bottom of the garden, and Santa Claus and his flying reindeer, but if you really claim to be agnostic on those issues, as a fully-grown adult you need to see a psychiatrist quickly.

Indeed I do. And Randi does the same, I might add.

If you've seen his "chimera" talk, you may note that all he claims after his hypothetical test is to be able to show that THOSE reindeer do not fly... or choose not to.

Please avoid ad hominems and stick to logic. I'd be happy to have you show why it is logical to hold an affirmative belief in the non-existence of flying reinder. :)

What has this got to do with the definition of the God I was using in my example? It fits neither the definition of Zeus or the Christian God definition I stated.

I have never made any such claim.

You stated that "My argument is against people who *affirmatively* declare that there is in fact no god." I have shown that there are many gods that we can declare with as much certainty as we can about anything "your god does not exist". I am happy to put my neck out and say I know of no major religion's god/gods that we cannot say "your god does not exist".

Simple. You gave a couple very limited examples of gods that you disproved. Fine; I don't contest that. I gave an ALTERNATE example of a couple gods, which btw are mainstream positions in modern theology, that you did NOT disprove, and asked you to disprove them.

You claim that they do not exist; please support your claim.

OK: "A nonexistent fictional entity, the idea of which is clung to by some people because they don't understand enough about the real universe, and by others who are too afraid to face reailty and use their belief as a comfort blanket; prozac for the brain."
Is that accurate enough?

No. Fallacy: begging the question aka circular reasoning ("a nonexistent...").

Please choose a definition that is within the mainstream of current theological thought, so that this doesn't get too absurd.

*Groan*
The burden of proof is on those who claim that god DOES exist. As there is absolutely no evidence for said exitence, it is reasonable to conclude that she does not exist. Like Batman. Or Santa Claus. Or James Bond. Or Lassie. All of which are fictional characters whose probability of existence is actually greater than that of the Sky Fairy.

Not quite. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim.

If someone claimed that god exists, then the burden is on them. I do not make this claim.

If someone claims that god does NOT exist, then the burden is likewise on them. You make that claim, therefore the burden is on you.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. :D

I don't disagree that such an opinion is based on faith as you've defined it. I simply disagree that it is necessarily irrational.

That seems oxymoronic to me.

Faith I already defined above: "Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."

Irrational I define as "not being based logically on actual evidence" - not merely "not being internally consistent", which is a much weaker requirement (most well-developed beliefs are internally consistent).

What definitions are you using, that one can have a faith-based but rational opinion?

Because there's no evidence for god's existence. If you are agnostic about god, then to be consistent you must also be agnostic about the existence of Batman, James Bond, Long John Silver, and Harry Potter. Are you?

Yes, except Batman - because Batman includes a publically-known aspect (a particular personage known as Bruce Wayne, the bat-shaped searchlight, etc). The others have secrecy as part of their definition, and ergo I must be agnostic about their existence, as if they did exist I probably wouldn't know about it (thus not knowing is not evidence of their nonexistence).

SaizaiBut I want to add to it. The q-ray bracelet could have magic healing powers, but we know it really doesn't. The wtc towers could have been brought down by the neocon/Zionist conspiracy, but we know they really weren't. Sylvia Brown could really be a psychic, but we know she isn't.

God fits in the same category as the rest of this bs. Why is it so hard to apply the same standards of belief there as to the rest of the ridiculous beliefs for which there is no evidence?

EXCELLENT! You have made several strong claims there: "we know".

Please prove that knowledge. I bet you can't.

Indeed, I apply exactly the same standards of belief as to disbelief. I require evidence. Please supply it.

And clearly you are wrong. To disbelieve in an entity for which there is no evidence, against which there is much evidence, which is given mutually inconsistent characteristics, and the existence of which would violate the laws of nature, is obviously in no way as irrational as to believe in it.

What evidence is there against God, as defined below? I have repeatedly asked for it and only heard crickets.

I agree that if the definition is internally inconsistent, then one can rationally reject it. Most developed beliefs are not.

"Laws of nature" are of necessity limited to the ones we have yet proven. Or are you claiming that we have proven the entire set of existant laws? That too is a very strong claim for which I would like to see proof.

Suppose you were required to bet your (hypothetical) immortal soul on either the proposition that unicorns exist or that they don't. Which choice would be rational? Do you maintain that they would both be equally irrational?

That is an irrational question because it sets as axioms several things that are not proven.

Also, I believe there to be a distinction between rational justification for actions, and rational justification for beliefs. I have no rational justification for a disbelief in God. I have rational justification for not acting consistent with a belief in God, because a belief in God has not been proven.


Let me offer this definition of god for the sake of this argument. I believe it to be WELL within the mainstream of current Christian theology:

God is a sentient entity which created the entire universe as we know it, is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, listens to prayers, but does not respond overtly to them or otherwise intercede in the affairs of presently existing mortals except through extremely subtle effects (ie ones that might plausibly occur anyway through random chance), extremely rare miracles, or a general feeling of knowing something is 'right' on the part of the pray-er. Additionally, while God's intentions are omnibenevolent, God also grants free will and God's way of implementing these intentions are inscrutable and unknowable.

Hard atheists, who necessarily claim that this god (like all others) does NOT exist, must bear the burden of proving so.

Hard agnostics claim that this god CANNOT be proven to exist OR not exist, and bear the burden of proving so (though necessarily through logic rather than evidence).

Weak agnostics such as I make no claim either way about this god's existence, and thus have no burden of proof. :)

Furthermore, people analagous to atheists who claim that the supernatural does not exist must also disprove the following:

There exists at least one person - let's call him Bob - who is in contact with at least one ghost - Gob - retaining in some way the sentience of a currently dead person. Alas, Gob lost all zir memories when zie died and knows nothing about who zie was previously, but otherwise has a personality, can speak English, etc - and is only visible to, and communicates with, Bob. Futhermore, Bob is somewhat embarassed about this phenomenon and thus does not like to discuss it with anyone except Gob.

Hard atheists: Prove that Gob does not exist.
Hard agnostics: Prove that Gob cannot be proven to exist or not exist.
Weak agnostics: Wait for the cricket chrips while neither of the above happen.


May I also recommend that we all use the following terms carefully so as not to confound the discussion with semantic issues:
* Hard atheist: Claims that no god exists.
* Hard agnostic: Claims that no god can be proven to exist or to not exist.
* Hard theist: Claims that at least one god exists.
* Soft agnostic: Makes no claim about god(s).
(Note: when I say just "agnostic", unqualified, I mean "soft agnostic".)

[Darat]

Great, but that doesn't make your "hard agnostic" position supported. You've only completed part (an infinitesimal part) of your burden of proof. You need to show that ALL gods do not exist.

Unless of course you're claiming hard atheism only wrt the gods you can disprove, and agnosticism wrt the others...?

...snip...

You seem to forget it is you that was making the claim by implication that we cannot declare "there is no god" i.e. you said "My argument is against people who *affirmatively* declare that there is in fact no god."

I have shown that your statement is incorrect since I have demonstrated how we can (with as much certainty as we can declare anything) say "there is in fact no god".

Your argument only works if you do not define what you mean by "god", and without a definition of the key word in your argument then you are not actually arguing for or against anything. In other words your argument is meaningless.

[saizai]

You seem to forget it is you that was making the claim by implication that we cannot declare "there is no god" i.e. you said "My argument is against people who *affirmatively* declare that there is in fact no god."

I have shown that your statement is incorrect since I have demonstrated how we can (with as much certainty as we can declare anything) say "there is in fact no god".

Your argument only works if you do not define what you mean by "god", and without a definition of the key word in your argument then you are not actually arguing for or against anything. In other words your argument is meaningless.

I defined one above. You calim to be able to disprove it; please do so. I haven't seen such a disproof.

[Darat]

...snip...

Simple. You gave a couple very limited examples of gods that you disproved. Fine; I don't contest that. I gave an ALTERNATE example of a couple gods, which btw are mainstream positions in modern theology, that you did NOT disprove, and asked you to disprove them.



I am going to have to ask you to support that the other definition for "god" that you provided are in fact "mainstream positions in modern theology" for instance they were not as far as I know any of the definition of "god" or "gods" that are held by any of the major religions. (Major religion meaning one that a significant percentage, e.g. a percent or two of the world's population subscribe to).



You claim that they do not exist; please support your claim.

...snip..


You are incorrect I have not made any such claim.

[Darat]

I defined one above. You calim to be able to disprove it; please do so. I haven't seen such a disproof.

You are again stating an incorrect recollection of our exchanges - I have made no such claim.

[saizai]

Darat - Are you a "weak agnostic" then, per my definition above? If so, then I apologize for my mistaken understanding of your position and welcome you to my side of the argument. :)

If not, please explain how you can be an atheist (per definition above) yet not claim that the god I described does not exist.

[saizai]

I am going to have to ask you to support that the other definition for "god" that you provided are in fact "mainstream positions in modern theology" for instance they were not as far as I know any of the definition of "god" or "gods" that are held by any of the major religions. (Major religion meaning one that a significant percentage, e.g. a percent or two of the world's population subscribe to).

It's mainstream Christian thought.

I decline to support that statement as I feel it to be generally known, irrelevant to the topic at hand (thus a pointless distraction), and that an insistence that I answer it is a logical fallacy (related to ad hominem).

[andyandy]

I have shown that your statement is incorrect since I have demonstrated how we can (with as much certainty as we can declare anything) say "there is in fact no god".

Your argument only works if you do not define what you mean by "god", and without a definition of the key word in your argument then you are not actually arguing for or against anything. In other words your argument is meaningless.

and your argument only works if you define what god does mean. And is no more valid for a general proof of a term which exists as an infinite set of possibilities, as if trying to solve an equation with infinite solutions through substituting a single value of x and y to conclude that no solutions exist.

a hard atheist's approach....

x+y=7

I define x as 3 and y as 5

3+5 =! 7

therefore there are no solutions.

"god" exists as an infinite set as the term exists as a intensional term, a subjective experience which is not bounded through any rigorous definition. So to "disprove" such a term with individual example or an individual interpretation of the term is not valid.

[andyandy]

Darat - Are you a "weak agnostic" then, per my definition above? If so, then I apologize for my mistaken understanding of your position and welcome you to my side of the argument. :)
.

i think darat's been here so long, he just chooses a side at random to argue for, just to keep things interesting :D

[saizai]

andyandy - I admire your ability to use terms like "intensionality" without so much as a laugh. (I had John Searle as a prof and as a result cannot take the stuff seriously. ;))

However, I suggest sticking (for the sake of argument) to the definition of God I gave above as a relatively simple, accepted, internally consistent, and nondisprovable example. Of course, it's not the only one that a hard atheist would need to counter, but it's a reasonably difficult one.

[saizai]

i think darat's been here so long, he just chooses a side at random to argue for, just to keep things interesting :D

That's fine by me - I do devil's advocate myself - but it'd be nice if he at least admitted what side he's advocating for. :p

[I less than three logic]

I assume you mean this definition from before.
a) That doesn't refute the possibility that God deliberately created the world to *appear* old, for whatever inscrutable reasons. (Test of faith, y'know. :p) An omnipotent god could certainly do so, and make all evidence gathered consistent with the earth being very very old when it actually isn't.

It's completely internally consistent. Please disprove this god.
This argument is just unsupported assertions. You haven't shown God exists, that omnipotent is even a trait anything can possess at all, or that God does, in fact, have the trait of being omnipotent. I see no reason to believe this claim.

[saizai]

I assume you mean this definition from before.

This argument is just unsupported assertions. You haven't shown God exists, that omnipotent is even a trait anything can possess at all, or that God does, in fact, have the trait of being omnipotent. I see no reason to believe this claim.

Who said I was claiming it?

I was giving an example. Your duty, if you are a hard atheist, is to both claim that it is false and prove that claim.

Fallacy: shifting the burden. :)

[Bri]

That seems oxymoronic to me.

Faith I already defined above: "Aceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason."

Irrational I define as "not being based logically on actual evidence" - not merely "not being internally consistent", which is a much weaker requirement (most well-developed beliefs are internally consistent).

What definitions are you using, that one can have a faith-based but rational opinion?


I mentioned in the post to which you were responding that I believe we are probably using a different definition of "irrational" and I listed the definition I was using ("not consistent with logic").

However, there was a key typo in my post, so I'm not surprised that you didn't understand it. I meant to say that if irrational means "not consistent with logic" then neither of the opinions I listed (which I called "agnostic atheist" and "agnostic theist") are irrational. Big difference! Sorry.

-Bri

[andyandy]

andyandy - I admire your ability to use terms like "intensionality" without so much as a laugh. (I had John Searle as a prof and as a result cannot take the stuff seriously. ;))

However, I suggest sticking (for the sake of argument) to the definition of God I gave above as a relatively simple, accepted, internally consistent, and nondisprovable example. Of course, it's not the only one that a hard atheist would need to counter, but it's a reasonably difficult one.

doesn't john searle not talk about intentionality - not intensionality?

I've just wiki-ied him however, so i could be wrong....

[I less than three logic]

Who said I was claiming it?

I was giving an example. Your duty, if you are a hard atheist, is to both claim that it is false and prove that claim.

Fallacy: shifting the burden. :)
This hard/soft, weak/strong stuff is redundant and unneeded. :rolleyes: All one needs to be an atheist is not believe the claim, that is it.

Atheism is not a claim that God doesn’t exist; it is simply the lack of belief in God. “A” meaning “without” and “theism” meaning “the belief in a god or gods”. Atheism: without the belief in a god or gods.

Even for agnosicts the only rational option is atheism. As Carl Sagan (whom I see you're fond of quoting) said in The Demon-Haunted World,
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

[A few paragraphs down]

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

I tentatively reject the God hypothesis with the evidence available. Doing so makes me an atheist.

[Bri]

I tentatively reject the God hypothesis with the evidence available. Doing so makes me an atheist.

But a weak one, not a strong one.

"Tentatively" means "provisionally" (it also means "not fully worked out"). The provision seems to be "unless God is shown to exist," an acknowledgment that it might be possible to show that God exists. A strong atheist generally claims that no gods exist, implying that it would not be possible to show that any god exists.

-Bri

[saizai]

doesn't john searle not talk about intentionality - not intensionality?

I've just wiki-ied him however, so i could be wrong....

Both actually. He loves to make things sound complicated and obtuse in order to make himself appear more intelligent; he's admitted as much. :p

[saizai]

This hard/soft, weak/strong stuff is redundant and unneeded. :rolleyes: All one needs to be an atheist is not believe the claim, that is it.

It's needed to prevent unnecessary semantic talking-past-one-another.

To not believe the claim without proof = weak agnosticism. This goes for both the claim "god exists" and the claim "god does not exist".

If additionally you believe that god does not exist, without having proof for it, you are being irrational. That's fine (again), but if so please admit that your opinion is irrational. :p

[andyandy]

Both actually. He loves to make things sound complicated and obtuse in order to make himself appear more intelligent; he's admitted as much. :p

lol :D

so what does he say about intensionality? The term is a semantic god-shaped torpedo :)

[saizai]

lol :D

so what does he say about intensionality? The term is a semantic god-shaped torpedo :)

I refer you to his book, "Intensionality", where he ably demonstrates the ability to say zilch in a most marvelously complex and stick-up-the-ass manner. :D I'll even sell it to you for half the retail price plus shipping, 'cause I want to get rid of my copy. :)

IMHO he's senile. I have not seen him make any point that he did not make identically thirty years ago (nor any joke... literally, we saw a video interview of him from a long time ago and he used EVERY SINGLE ONE in it, sigh). Nor can he respond to any reasonable counterargument except through fallacious logic and offhand dismissal.

[I less than three logic]

But a weak one, not a strong one.

"Tentatively" means "provisionally" (it also means "not fully worked out"). The provision seems to be "unless God is shown to exist," an acknowledgment that it might be possible to show that God exists. A strong atheist generally claims that no gods exist, implying that it would not be possible to show that any god exists.

-Bri
Yes, I'm well aware of what the word means. I don't have to believe God will ever been shown to exist, just acknowledge the possibility might exists. If God does, in fact, not exist neither does this possibility of course.

That does not make one agnostic however, as some people attempt to label on the "weak atheist". (I see saizai already did.) I also tentatively reject the hypothesis that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, until there is evidence to suggest that is the case.

[saizai]

That does not make one agnostic however, as some people attempt to label on the "weak atheist". (I see saizai already did.) I also tentatively reject the hypothesis that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, until there is evidence to suggest that is the case.

Weak agnostics, like ourselves, do just that. :)

I think an omnipotent God would be in an eminently capable position to prove his/its existence, ergo it is potentially knowable. QED.

[jimlintott]

Bigfoot - A large hairy hominid appearing creature. Walks upright and lives in the Pacific Northwest of North America.

Tyrannosaurus Rex - A theropod that lived during the late cretacious period. Up to 14m tall weighing about 6 tonnes. Lived in various parts of the world.

Here we have two definitions. There is a big difference between the two. One was defined based on evidence. I cannot disprove either definition although new evidence regarding T-Rex might change the definition. Bigfoot is not disprovable.

The definition for god provided earlier is neither provable or disprovable. When I see a definition that is clearly established without any evidence for it I will categorically dismiss it outright. Making up definitions without evidence may be fun but it is irrational. Believing in them is worse.

When it comes to god(s), atheist is the rational position.

[I less than three logic]

Weak agnostics, like ourselves, do just that. :)

I think an omnipotent God would be in an eminently capable position to prove his/its existence, ergo it is potentially knowable. QED.
Yes, I suppose. I'm still using the term atheist for myself however. I feel agnosticism attaches traits to the concept of God that can not be rationally supported. ;)

[Bri]

That does not make one agnostic however, as some people attempt to label on the "weak atheist". (I see saizai already did.) I also tentatively reject the hypothesis that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, until there is evidence to suggest that is the case.

A weak atheist is usually also a weak agnostic (the belief that the existence of God is unknown, and therefore the lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of God). A strong agnostic (as saizai has defined it) is one who believes that the existence of God is unknowable. saizai is saying that a strong atheist belief is irrational (and also that a strong agnostic belief is irrational), and you seem to be in agreement with him.

-Bri

[saizai]

A weak atheist is usually also a weak agnostic (the belief that the existence of God is unknown, and therefore the lack of belief or disbelief in the existence of God).

I think there's a critical difference.

A lack of belief is perfectly rational.

Actual disbelief is still irrational. :)

[saizai]

The definition for god provided earlier is neither provable or disprovable. When I see a definition that is clearly established without any evidence for it I will categorically dismiss it outright. Making up definitions without evidence may be fun but it is irrational. Believing in them is worse.

Who said anything about proving the definition? I am only talking about proving the existence of the thing so defined. To prove the definition is accurate, you need to start with the assumption that the thing defined exists, and that is not an axiom that we agree on. :)

If you claim that the god that I defined above does not exist, please prove it.

[Mercutio]

But a weak one, not a strong one.

"Tentatively" means "provisionally" (it also means "not fully worked out"). The provision seems to be "unless God is shown to exist," an acknowledgment that it might be possible to show that God exists. A strong atheist generally claims that no gods exist, implying that it would not be possible to show that any god exists.

-Bri
Tentative and provisional are as good as one gets in science. We hold the very laws of physics as provisionally true. We develop medicine, build skyscrapers, and put people on the moon using information that is provisionally true.

We must be prepared to believe something so strongly that we are willing to risk lives, and yet know that if a better explanation comes along, our provisional truth will be replaced by another.

The "hard atheist/soft atheist" semantics may be appropriate for others, but scientists (of which there are a few here) see things differently. Consider the sort of behavior we would expect to see from the different types of "faith" alleged to underlie both theism and atheism: In Leon Festinger's "When Prophecy Fails", a group of believers (a religion, sort of, but this particular one also had belief that aliens would come by and rescue us) were faced with undeniable proof that their belief was wrong. What happened? A few mental gymnastics later, and the believers actually strengthened their beliefs. Talk to any devout religious believer about what evidence could shake their faith; good luck finding any. When the overwhelming evidence for evolution can be interpreted as a "test of faith"... How many atheists, if confronted by an entity that could bend physical laws at will (under appropriate control conditions, of course!) would deny the evidence? Have the stars spell out "you guessed wrong" before their very eyes, and suddenly there is a reason to believe where there was none before.

Yes, some would insist that they are hallucinating. Those ones, should they persist after more and more replications, are the "hard atheists" who hold their position by faith.

Not the rest of us.

I believe there is no god, because I see no evidence of one. I believe it as strongly as any other belief I can think of right now...and, like any of those beliefs, it is provisional. That's as strongly as I can allow myself to believe anything.

[jimlintott]

The god you defined does not exist because the definition is unprovable and made without evidence.

Want to try another definition?

[saizai]

The god you defined does not exist because the definition is unprovable and made without evidence.

Want to try another definition?

Certainly it's unprovable and I offered no evidence; no argument there.

But you offered no proof or evidence that it does NOT exist.

Therefore it is not proven one way or the other. :D

[Bri]

I think there's a critical difference.

A lack of belief is perfectly rational.

Actual disbelief is still irrational. :)

I should have said that most weak atheists are weak agnostics (but some strong atheists are also weak agnostics). Which is why I usually use the following set of terms which I mentioned earlier in the thread:


Theist: Belief that it is known that at least one god exists.
Agnostic theist: Belief that it is unknown (for certain) if a god exists, but that at least one god exists.
Agnostic (a.k.a. weak atheist): Belief that it is unknown (for certain) if a god exists, and therefore having no belief in the existance of or nonexistance of gods.
Agnostic atheist (a.k.a. agnostic strong atheist): Belief that it is unknown (for certain) if a god exists, but that no gods exist.
Atheist (a.k.a. strong atheist): Belief that it is known that no gods exist.


-Bri

[jimlintott]

Certainly it's unprovable and I offered no evidence; no argument there.

But you offered no proof or evidence that it does NOT exist.

Therefore it is not proven one way or the other. :D

An unprovable definition is by definition not true. No evidence beyond the definition itself is needed.

Of course proving the definition would prove me wrong.

[saizai]

An unprovable definition is by definition not true. No evidence beyond the definition itself is needed.

Not so!

Suppose I say, "I am in pain at the moment". I cannot prove it, yet it is true.

Moreover, I can say, "I am sentient". I cannot prove that either, yet it is true.

Burden is still on you to disprove. Still waiting. Still hearing crickets.

[jimlintott]

I am in pain at the moment is a claim but not a definition. It is also provable.

Saying "I am sentient" would be enough proof in itself of the claim.

There is never a burden to disprove. Particularly to disprove something that cannot be proven. Don't you see how completely ludicrous that is.

Make a definition that cannot be proven and expect people to disprove it. Completely irrational.

[saizai]

I am in pain at the moment is a claim but not a definition. It is also provable.

1. How does one "prove" a definition? What makes a definition "provable"?

IMHO, definitions are conventions that we humans agree upon so that we know what each other is talking about. They have no content that can be "proven". One can of course prove if definition A suitably describes another item B, but that's quite different.

<-- is a bona fide linguist btw :D

2. How does one "prove" that one is in pain? It is a qualia claim, and as such I am the only person who has (or can have) any direct evidence of it. You can claim I am lying, and I will not be able to disprove that.

That the two statements, "You are in pain but don't know it" and "You are not in pain even though you think you are" are nonsensical demonstrates my point.

<-- graduated in cognitive science too :D

Saying "I am sentient" would be enough proof in itself of the claim.

In that case I can make my laptop "prove" itself to be sentient. :D

There is never a burden to disprove. Particularly to disprove something that cannot be proven. Don't you see how completely ludicrous that is.

Make a definition that cannot be proven and expect people to disprove it. Completely irrational.

There is a burden to prove one's claim. If you claim that no God exists, then you need to prove that. If you claim that some particular God exists, then you need to prove that.

I expect that you CANNOT disprove it, and must thus admit that you do not KNOW there is no god, and furthermore that I'm right and weak agnosticism is the only rational stance. ;)

[Kimpatsu]

I think there's a critical difference.

A lack of belief is perfectly rational.

Actual disbelief is still irrational. :)
So it's irrational to disbelieve in the existence of faeries at the bottom of the garden, invisible pink unicorns, flying reindeer, Batman, and the Loch Ness Monster?

[I less than three logic]

So it's irrational to disbelieve in the existence of faeries at the bottom of the garden, invisible pink unicorns, flying reindeer, Batman, and the Loch Ness Monster?
Yeah, I don’t know what he’s saying either. Lack of belief and disbelief mean the same thing.

Well, unless you take disbelief as awe or astonishment. “We stared at it in disbelief.” In which case, I'd probably do something like that if I saw flying reindeer, that would be pretty astonishing. :)

[Kimpatsu]

Yeah, I don’t know what he’s saying either. Lack of belief and disbelief mean the same thing.

Well, unless you take disbelief as awe or astonishment. “We stared at it in disbelief.” In which case, I'd probably do something like that if I saw flying reindeer, that would be pretty astonishing. :)
Hell, a photo of that would look great on the front cover of Time.

[saizai]

So it's irrational to disbelieve in the existence of faeries at the bottom of the garden, invisible pink unicorns, flying reindeer, Batman, and the Loch Ness Monster?

Were you not reading my previous replies to this same question?

Belief :: positive
Lack of belief :: nonpositive
Agnostic :: 0
Lack of disbelief :: nonnegative
Disbelief :: negative

[Kimpatsu]

Were you not reading my previous replies to this same question?

Belief :: positive
Lack of belief :: nonpositive
Agnostic :: 0
Lack of disbelief :: nonnegative
Disbelief :: negative
This argument has already been rubutted many times over. You have yet to supply an addequate comeback. You are sunk; why not leave it and move on?

[I less than three logic]

Were you not reading my previous replies to this same question?

Belief :: positive
Lack of belief :: nonpositive
Agnostic :: 0
Lack of disbelief :: nonnegative
Disbelief :: negative
You know, sometimes I think you’re just making up your own definitions. Many words already have meanings.

Such as disbelief, meaning refusal or reluctance to believe. It is synonymous with unbelief, meaning lack of belief or faith, especially in religious matters, or a rejection of belief. Its antonym is belief meaning something believed; an opinion or conviction, or confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

[The Atheist]

Religion/mysticism = doubleplusungood

Atheism/rationality = doubleplusgood

Orwell was right!

[Dr Adequate]

What evidence is there against God, as defined below? I have repeatedly asked for it and only heard crickets. No, you have heard, repeatedly, the simple (and true) statement that omnibenevolence is inconsistent with moral apathy.

You may argue with this if you wish, but to pretend that no argument has been given is dishonest.

"Laws of nature" are of necessity limited to the ones we have yet proven. Or are you claiming that we have proven the entire set of existant laws? That too is a very strong claim for which I would like to see proof. Of course I made no such claim: indeed, I reject it.

But in the first place, it is rational, given that all the evidence is against a law of nature (as known to us) being broken (by definition of "laws of nature as known to us") to disbelieve in such a breach.

In the second place, God is claimed to supervene all the laws of nature, whatever they happen to be.

That is an irrational question because it sets as axioms several things that are not proven. But again, you are unable to point out the actual flaws in my question. I should like you to answer my question. If you had to bet something important (all your worldly goods, or your life, or your immortal soul, or suchlike) on either the proposition that unicorns exist, or the proposition that they don't --- which choice would you consider more rational?

Debate me if you will, but declaring me irrational by fiat alone is no solution too your problems.

Also, I believe there to be a distinction between rational justification for actions, and rational justification for beliefs. I have no rational justification for a disbelief in God. I have rational justification for not acting consistent with a belief in God, because a belief in God has not been proven. Whereas I regard this as a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I will go further. To behave exactly as though you believe some proposition is true, while denying that that same proposition is true, is hypocricy. If someone maintains that it is equally irrational to believe in gravity, as to disbelieve in gravity, while refusing to step off the top of a twelve-storey building and being willing to leave that same building by the front door --- then that man is a hypocrite; and a fool.

Let me offer this definition of god for the sake of this argument. I believe it to be WELL within the mainstream of current Christian theology:

God is a sentient entity which created the entire universe as we know it, is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, listens to prayers, but does not respond overtly to them or otherwise intercede in the affairs of presently existing mortals except through extremely subtle effects (ie ones that might plausibly occur anyway through random chance), extremely rare miracles, or a general feeling of knowing something is 'right' on the part of the pray-er. Additionally, while God's intentions are omnibenevolent... And at this point you contradict yourself.

Furthermore, people analagous to atheists who claim that the supernatural does not exist must also disprove the following ... No, of course not. You cannot declare false analogies true by fiat either.

[Bri]

Yeah, I don’t know what he’s saying either. Lack of belief and disbelief mean the same thing.

The distinction saizai is making (one which many atheists make) is the difference between not having a belief as to whether or not any god exists (weak atheism), and having a belief that no gods exist (strong atheism). Since "atheism" means "no belief in the existence of gods" then both would be considered atheism, but weak atheism is a lack of belief, whereas strong atheism is a belief.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

whereas strong atheism is a belief.

-Bri
Ok then, so it isn’t disbelief. I still don’t see the distinction in his previous statement.

[saizai]

No, you have heard, repeatedly, the simple (and true) statement that omnibenevolence is inconsistent with moral apathy.

1. I contend that most Christian theologians would say these are not mutually exclusive, and that you mischaracterize it as "moral apathy".

2. I am happy to waive the omnibenevolence aspect of my definition. Disprove that god.

3. You have offered no rational argument that I have not completely countered, other than questioning God's motives. That's not much of an argument against God's very existence; I'm happy to cede his perversity if you wish to claim that. (And in fact I think that a God cannot be omniscient, omnipotent, and enforce punishments for sin, without also being a bit of a sadist... but that's beside the point.)

Of course I made no such claim: indeed, I reject it.

But in the first place, it is rational, given that all the evidence is against a law of nature (as known to us) being broken (by definition of "laws of nature as known to us") to disbelieve in such a breach.

In the second place, God is claimed to supervene all the laws of nature, whatever they happen to be.

Sure. However, an existent God would be entirely consistent with all gathered evidence to date and therefore all theories logically derived from that evidence.

So it doesn't "break" any "natural law". :)

But again, you are unable to point out the actual flaws in my question. I should like you to answer my question. If you had to bet something important (all your worldly goods, or your life, or your immortal soul, or suchlike) on either the proposition that unicorns exist, or the proposition that they don't --- which choice would you consider more rational?

Neither is rational because there is no evidence for either.

Debate me if you will, but declaring me irrational by fiat alone is no solution too your problems.

I don't declare by fiat. I point to the fact that you have not proven your claim (that no god, and nothing supernatural, exists). That makes your claim irrational.

Whereas I regard this as a distinction without a difference.

Indeed, I will go further. To behave exactly as though you believe some proposition is true, while denying that that same proposition is true, is hypocricy. If someone maintains that it is equally irrational to believe in gravity, as to disbelieve in gravity, while refusing to step off the top of a twelve-storey building and being willing to leave that same building by the front door --- then that man is a hypocrite; and a fool.

There's a diference there.

You behave as though what you know to be true is true. You do not behave in any particular way as a result of what you do not know to be true.

Since behavior has a default (ie nonaction) and no middle ground (ie agnosticism equivalent), it is rather different from belief (which has a default of weak agnosticism as I pointed out earlier).

And at this point you contradict yourself.

There you presume to know God's motive and long-term plans, which I explicitly said was beyond your ken as part of the definition. :)

No, of course not. You cannot declare false analogies true by fiat either.

If you claim that nothing supernatural exists, then that is a subset of your burden of proof.

If you do not claim that, then of course you do not have that burden of proof.

[Kimpatsu]

Strong atheism is not a belief; it's still the absence of belief. Rationally, belief in anything and everything must be commensurate to the evidence. If you tell me you had French toast for breakfast, I'll believe you, because even though it might not be true it's trivial enough to be likely. A claim that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, however, is a huge supposition, and one for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I am therefore rationally justified in claiming that such a being does not exist (what you term "strong atheism"), but that is merely a rephrasing of the proposition "I do not believe that this super-powered Sky Fairy exists".

[Darat]

It's mainstream Christian thought.

I decline to support that statement as I feel it to be generally known, irrelevant to the topic at hand (thus a pointless distraction), and that an insistence that I answer it is a logical fallacy (related to ad hominem).

If you will not support your claims then there is not much we can discuss is there?

[Kimpatsu]

If you will not support your claims then there is not much we can discuss is there?
We could discuss him and REALLY pander to his persecution complex... :D

[andyandy]

Strong atheism is not a belief; it's still the absence of belief. Rationally, belief in anything and everything must be commensurate to the evidence. If you tell me you had French toast for breakfast, I'll believe you, because even though it might not be true it's trivial enough to be likely. A claim that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, however, is a huge supposition, and one for which there is no evidence whatsoever. I am therefore rationally justified in claiming that such a being does not exist (what you term "strong atheism"), but that is merely a rephrasing of the proposition "I do not believe that this super-powered Sky Fairy exists".

living in tokyo you should know better than most the fallacy of assuming general characteristics of terms which exist as a subjective interpretation.
Your "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent" description does not fit the japanese understanding of term "kami" on even a general national level, let alone on a specific individual basis. So whilst you are entitled to chose to define god as such, it is no more a valid general proof that god does not exist, as choosing to define x=7 and y=5 to refute that the equation x+y=7 has any solutions.....

[Kimpatsu]

living in tokyo you should know better than most the fallacy of assuming general characteristics of terms which exist as a subjective interpretation.
Your "omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent" description does not fit the japanese understanding of term "kami" on even a general national level, let alone on a specific individual basis. So whilst you are entitled to chose to define god as such, it is no more a valid general proof that god does not exist, as choosing to define x=7 and y=5 to refute that the equation x+y=7 has any solutions.....
The Japanese don't beleive the kami exist any more than they believe that faeries exist. As ancestry and ritual are important, the kami fullfil those roles. You should know this, or not speak of it.
Anyway, as I clearly wrote above, when we say "god" on this forum, we mean the Abrahamic version, a fact you have chosen willfully to ignore.

[andyandy]

The Japanese don't beleive the kami exist any more than they believe that faeries exist. As ancestry and ritual are important, the kami fullfil those roles. You should know this, or not speak of it.
Anyway, as I clearly wrote above, when we say "god" on this forum, we mean the Abrahamic version, a fact you have chosen willfully to ignore.

"The Japanese don't believe the kami exist any more than they believe that faeries exist." is a rather sweeping generalization and certainly not entirely true. You seem to be dismissing Shintoist beliefs in their entirety simply because the interpretation of god is different to your own. Why should "god" be restricted to the Abrahamic version? If you choose such a narrow definition then you should recognize that the god you don't believe in is just your own personal subjective interpretation of the term ,and you are therefore unable to make any objective and general hard-atheist claim that god does not exist.

on a lighter note, what are you up to in Japan? i spent a few years in Kumamoto down on Kyushu teaching English....:)

[saizai]

If you will not support your claims then there is not much we can discuss is there?

Hardly. The claim that the god I descsribed is within mainstream Christian theology is a trivial matter and not relevant to the argument at hand. If you attack that claim, you are commiting a fallacy... rather than supporting your argument, which I note that you STILL have not done. :D

[saizai]

The Japanese don't beleive the kami exist any more than they believe that faeries exist.

Fallacy: irrelevant.

You haven't proven that kami do not exist.

[saizai]

Strong atheism is not a belief; it's still the absence of belief.

Yes/no questions (no evasions please):
Do you believe that the judeo-christian god does not exist?
Do you believe that no gods exist?
Do you believe that nothing "supernatural" exists (eg fairies, ghosts, chi, auras, psychic powers, etc - none of them)?

If you replied yes to any of the above, then you have just contradicted yourself and claimed a belief.

If you did not, then you are not a strong atheist.

Rationally, belief in anything and everything must be commensurate to the evidence. If you tell me you had French toast for breakfast, I'll believe you, because even though it might not be true it's trivial enough to be likely.

Agreed.

A claim that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, however, is a huge supposition, and one for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Agreed that there is no evidence for it.

I am therefore rationally justified in claiming that such a being does not exist (what you term "strong atheism"), but that is merely a rephrasing of the proposition "I do not believe that this super-powered Sky Fairy exists".

Not agreed. You are not rationally justified in claiming that Y does not exist only because you have not seen evidence for Y's existence.

Fallacy of the form:
If x then y <-- erstwhile evidence of Y
~x <-- said evidence does not exist
ergo ~y <-- your fallacy

[saizai]

We could discuss him and REALLY pander to his persecution complex... :D

What persecution complex?

And, you would only be demonstrating that you are unable to support your argument and must therefore resort to ad hominems... tsk tsk.

[saizai]

BTW note that your previous argument was also a fallacy, of the form:

y = set of all gods {y1..yinf}
If y1 then x <-- assume certain traits of y
~x <-- traits contradict reality
~y1 <-- correct logic
ergo ~y <-- fallacy: disproving item does not disprove set

[I less than three logic]

Yes/no questions (no evasions please):
Do you believe that the judeo-christian god does not exist?
Do you believe that no gods exist?
Do you believe that nothing "supernatural" exists (eg fairies, ghosts, chi, auras, psychic powers, etc - none of them)?

If you replied yes to any of the above, then you have just contradicted yourself and claimed a belief.

If you did not, then you are not a strong atheist.
Theism/Atheism deals only with god or gods, not the supernatural. The supernatural could exist without a god or gods existing, god or gods could not exist without the supernatural. At least by any definition I’m aware of. That question is irrelevant to your claim... shall I call fallacy?

[I less than three logic]

1. How does one "prove" a definition? What makes a definition "provable"?

IMHO, definitions are conventions that we humans agree upon so that we know what each other is talking about. They have no content that can be "proven". One can of course prove if definition A suitably describes another item B, but that's quite different.


<-- is a bona fide linguist btw :D
This statement doesn't appear to support your claim very well. If you were a “bona fide linguist”, I would think you have rather poor comprehension compared to what I’d expect a linguist to demonstrate.

He said,
I am in pain at the moment is a claim but not a definition. It is also provable.
“Is a claim, but not a definition.” Right, so what does “'prove' a definition" or the rest of this statement have to do with anything?

Unprovable claims can simply be ignored. One has no obligation to believe or even humor them.

[saizai]

Theism/Atheism deals only with god or gods, not the supernatural. The supernatural could exist without a god or gods existing, god or gods could not exist without the supernatural. At least by any definition I’m aware of. That question is irrelevant to your claim... shall I call fallacy?

That's a separate point really. You are right that it is not relevant to atheism/agnosticism-about-gods. It is relevant to the identical-in-form question about the supernatural in general, which I think most people (here at least) have the same opinion on as they do about gods.

This isn't just my hypothesis; several people have explicitly said on this thread that they believe both that there are no gods and there is nothing supernatural whatsoever. My argument is against both of these statements as being without evidence and irrational.

I might add that you didn't answer my questions.

[saizai]

This statement doesn't appear to support your claim very well. If you were a “bona fide linguist”, I would think you have rather poor comprehension compared to what I’d expect a linguist to demonstrate.

What claim does it not support?

(I'll ignore the ad hominem.)

“Is a claim, but not a definition.” Right, so what does “'prove' a definition" or the rest of this statement have to do with anything?

Did you read the post to which I was replying, in which "prove a definition" was the relevant wording, and which I was refuting as nonsensical on linguistic grounds?

Unprovable claims can simply be ignored. One has no obligation to believe or even humor them.

Certainly! But they cannot be *denied* without contrary proof.

[I less than three logic]

Unprovable claims can simply be ignored. One has no obligation to believe or even humor them.
Sorrry, that should read unfalsifiable.

[Kimpatsu]

"The Japanese don't believe the kami exist any more than they believe that faeries exist." is a rather sweeping generalization and certainly not entirely true. You seem to be dismissing Shintoist beliefs in their entirety simply because the interpretation of god is different to your own. Why should "god" be restricted to the Abrahamic version? If you choose such a narrow definition then you should recognize that the god you don't believe in is just your own personal subjective interpretation of the term ,and you are therefore unable to make any objective and general hard-atheist claim that god does not exist.

on a lighter note, what are you up to in Japan? i spent a few years in Kumamoto down on Kyushu teaching English....:)
Find me a single person who actually BELIEVES in the the tenets of Shinto (i.e., that Mt. Fuji, and various trees, rocks, and rivers, have ghosts living in them.) This is why Japan is markedly different from the West, where people actually beleive that the god of the Bible is literally true. There are more practicing Xians than there are animists in Japan. People love Shinto for the ceremonies; a Shinto priest performs a purification ceremony whenever new ground is broken on a building project, and I myself have participated in matsuri, having purifying salt tossed over me, and then carrying an o-mikoshi through the streets. When the emperor ascends the throne, he literally becomes a god... Except that not a single person beleives any of this stuff. It's an excuse to get sloshed, is all.
I live in Kawasaki, on the narrow strip of land between Tokyo and Yokohama, and I'm a translator.

[saizai]

Find me a single person who actually BELIEVES in the the tenets of Shinto

Fallacy, irrelevant. Please prove kami do not exist. (Not to mention, you claim that nobody believes in them - can you prove this?)

*still hearing crickets*

[I less than three logic]

Did you read the post to which I was replying, in which "prove a definition" was the relevant wording, and which I was refuting as nonsensical on linguistic grounds?
I believe he meant, and he may correct me if I'm wrong, that the definition you provided made the claim that that "god" exists unfalsifiable. Which in turn makes the claim completely worthless. The only rational thing to do is drop the claim altogether. It makes no difference if it turns out to be true or not, rational/irrational have nothing to do with true/false.

[Kimpatsu]

Fallacy, irrelevant. Please prove kami do not exist. (Not to mention, you claim that nobody believes in them - can you prove this?)

*still hearing crickets*
For the last bloody time: It is NOT in incumbent on me to disprove the existence of kami (gods). The onus is on the person who makes the positive claim that kami DO exist.
And I invite you to find a single person who really believes in Kami.
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, if this is all your argument amounts to.

[saizai]

I believe he meant, and he may correct me if I'm wrong, that the definition you provided made the claim that that "god" exists unfalsifiable.

That was kinda the point. The JC god, by most modern interpretations, IS unfalsifiable.

Yet strong atheists claim that He does not exist.

That is an impossible claim to prove or provide evidence for. Ergo it is necessarily irrational, based purely on argument from incredulity (a fallacy :D).

Which in turn makes the claim completely worthless. The only rational thing to do is drop the claim altogether. It makes no difference if it turns out to be true or not, rational/irrational have nothing to do with true/false.

This seems to skirt the point. I do not claim that the JC god exists. See above, and see my questions just posted.


Also I would like to add a clarification / better wording for what I previously said about actions vs beliefs:

Beliefs are rational when they are supported by logic based on evidence.

Actions are rational when (lapsing into AI jargon now) they maximize the expected utility for the actor in question. The utility function I have to punt on since it varies individually based on axiomatic moral systems etc; a simple one is "whatever benefits me most". This is a rather different standard, albeit related because 'expected utility' takes inputs based on evidence.

The belief that god does not exist is not rational because there is no evidence for it.

However, since this does not result in a "real" input to the utility function, it doesn't necessarily affect rational actions one way or the other.

Nevertheless, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as we are discussing whether it is rational to believe in strong atheism, not what the rational course of action is. (In fact, we can't discuss the latter without agreeing on the former.)

[saizai]

For the last bloody time: It is NOT in incumbent on me to disprove the existence of kami (gods). The onus is on the person who makes the positive claim that kami DO exist.

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim, no matter what that claim is.

And I invite you to find a single person who really believes in Kami.

Irrelevant.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, if this is all your argument amounts to.[/quote]

It's not.

Please answer me the very simple yes/no questions I posed earlier.

If you answer yes to any, then it is incumbent on you to disprove any god I propose, including kami and the JC god.

If you answer no to all, then we are not in disagreement and you are a weak agnostic even if you think otherwise.