Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Betrayer0fHope, Feb 17, 2009.
Theists. Discuss this notion.
Edit: title typo: suggests not suggest
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Any God or gods.
The god as described in the KJV cannot exist due to selfcontradiction. A square triangle.
The discussion is bound to involve pink unicorns, interplanetary teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters.
But I'm just going to point out this poll for some background info: [thread=71199]How certain is your opinion on God's existence?[/thread]
Out of 47 responses, there were 7 theist, 25 atheist, and 15 other.
6 of the 7 theist responses were 100% certain.
7 of the 25 atheist responses were 100% certain.
Being 100% certain either way is ignorant. Nearly every atheist I know allows for the possibility of the existence of one or more gods. Most agree that a god is almost certainly non-existent, more still that this god is the Christian idea of what a god would be.
I've had a different experience. Many atheists will not claim certainty when asked, but they display certainty... specifically with regards to specific human claims of God. I would propose that we have enough knowledge about reality, history, and human psychology to know that any existing human claim of God is false.
Now of course, we don't have visibility into all of reality so we cannot claim with 100% certainty that omnipotent life somewhere out there doesn't exist... but (as you pointed out) we can give it a low probability Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nearly every atheist I know allows for the possibility of the existence of one or more gods.
then they are agnostics
A person can be both an atheist and an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe that it's possible to know with certainty. So a person might say that they don't think any gods exist, but admit that they can't be certain that no gods exist.
If anyone believes a being of infinite age creating the universe is even remotely possible, this suggests ignorance comparable to... oh... wait.
I am 100% certain that the Christian God does not exist. Mainly because there is not even a valid concept of what this God is by Christians themselves. In fact, I would go one further and sate that the belief in the CONCEPT of a "Christian" God is ridiculous. Gather together 1,000 Christians and see if this concept even exists. You will find that it does not.
It is an issue of credibility. An imaginative very speculative fantasy about super beings and a supernatural realm where there is no scrap of support, is well, not credible.
theists have a claim ("god exists") and a process or state of being required to determine that claim (a key indicator being normative descriptions in scripture)
atheists on the other hand have a claim ("god does not exist") but no means to verify that
for example, just briefly
IOW as long as one is subjugated to issues of "attachment, fear and anger" there is no question of knowing god (one can however accept the idea on faith) ...... much like as long as one is not familiar with the concepts behind medical science there is no question of knowing much about medical applications (one can accept the idea on faith by following the instructions of a doctor however).
Atheists however, have no methodology to back up their claims - IOW they have no way one can apply themselves to verify their claim . They do however usually take one or more of the following four tacts
Deny/be in ignorance of the normative descriptions that surround theistic claims (IOW think that just as atheism has no methodology, theism also has none)
Lodge the claim that empiricism somehow has scope for a complete world view - something of course we don't see, since there is no field of research that is complete - Its like borrowing from the credibility of empiricism to make metaphysical claims (as if you would expect an investigation with the senses to reveal something beyond the senses)
Find fallacious examples of religious practitioners (ie practitioners who do not meet the normative descriptions as indicated in scripture) and use these as bench marks to qualify the intrinsic nature of religion (eg scientology, the spanish inquisition, militant islamic extremists etc etc). A derivative of this point is to go on about the FSM or IPU (ie manufacture a fallacious religion and try to offer this as a comprehensive equivalent of theistic claims ..... as if this actually bears any influence on the issue at hand. Its not like a valid explanation of gravity is discredited by a fallacious explanation of gravity, so its not clear why they take this tact)
Just make an exchange of confidence statements or tentative arguments that can just as easily be returned to the speaker by altering a word or two eg - "you are deluded" "No you are deluded" etc etc
That's because it is nye impossible to state that something doesn't exist. We lack the ability to look everywhere at the same time, so we can't state, with absolute certainty, that there is no god.
So, yes, atheists would have a hard time delivering absolute proof god doesn't exist. Theists, now they have it easy. All they have to do is to deliver rock solid proof of this all-powerful deity. Yet, I can't recall any evidence that would stand critical examination.
If your deity is conveniently placed beyond all our tools to measure its presence, then we just can't make any reliable statements about it. If it doesn't make a measurable impact on our reality, what use could there possibly be in holding on to the notion that it exists?
that's the philosophical quandary of using empiricism as a tool for making absolute/metaphysical claims
not as easy as you think
For example I will pretend to be a high school drop out totally inimical to physics and you pretend to be a physics professor. Deliver rock solid evidence (to me) that electrons exist.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
IOW it is one thing to establish the existence of something to persons who meet certain standards of qualification, and its another to establish it to persons outside of it (what to speak of establishing it to persons who are inimical towards it)
So you think that empiricism has the monopoly on all claims of knowledge?
If the cause lies beyond empirical investigation, it doesn't mean that the effect is also beyond empirical investigation. You don't even have to introduce transcendental elements to understand this point.
(BTW if you want to say that all causes are ultimately empirical you have just made a metaphysical claim and run the dire risk of becoming a #2'er)
1000 randomly chosen Christians?
Um, that's kind of a big lie. The methodology is simply to ask reality if a theistic claim is true. One that resounding "no" bubbles up, then the next question is why does the claim exist? Once knowledge about anthropomophism and human psychology bubble up then we can clearly define all claims of God as human psyhchological phenomena. It is what it is and no amount of misinformation is going to change that.
Believers like LG cannot reconcile the lack of belief by those who happen to be atheist. Rather than admit that their atheism is a result of rational thought and that belief in theistic claims is the result of human fallibility and a predisposition to superstition, LG and others like him fallaciously assert that those who hold an atheist position somehow have a claim to prove.
This is a strawman erected by LG et al since an unfalsifiable claim is an easy target and easily criticized. LG is probably being dishonest and his fallacy is likely intentional (he's shown such inclinations in the past) since he realizes this invokes a bit of ire among atheists who are atheist because of a lack of a claim, which he well knows.
Along with the strawman, another fallacy of LG's assertion is that it invokes the Tu Quoque, or "you, too" argument. Since the theistic claim is unfalsifiable and, let's face it, ignorant, he wants the convenience of pointing the finger at the rational and lucid in the way it gets pointed at irrational and deluded.
Intellectual dishonesty is not something LG is unfamiliar with in this forum.
If you are Atheist, does that not mean that you do not believe in supernatural beings?
Suppose a Theist approached you, and asked why you decline the belief of the supernatural; would you make it a short-term priority of yours to justify your views? Or ignore the question altogether.
If you answer the question in the slightest way, you are providing what You feel to be adequate evidence to support your claim of Atheism.
Please state what you believe the "claim of Atheism" is?
Separate names with a comma.