tspikes51

Notice I said that atheism was "almost" non-existent. One man out of millions certainly does not constitute a large existence. Now, because I'm sure somebody will bring it up, I am aware that this is due to supression by various religious entities.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

Slavakion

Nobody can argue with that.
Haven't really seen that...
I agree. You shouldn't be offended by somebody praying unless he's forcing you to pray as well.
Erm... based on what probabilities exactly?
Debating what? The existance of a god? A lot of people are assholes then. Or did you mean the probability of a god existing?

1010011010

Look up a couple definitions of fanatic. A recurring theme are the phrases "uncritical devotion" and "irrational enthusiasm".

Also, I don't think I've met an atheist yet that took a hardline against a fuzzy feel-good generic theism. Once you get into specific imprementations of the deity concept, though, all bets are off. There's a bit of a difference between claiming that gods cannot exist and the pointing out that a specific deity doesn't.

Since most theists are pretty fanatical about none of the other deities existing, they often have the mistaken impression that a well reasoned (if passionate) discourse about why their particular deity is impossible can be generalized to apply to gods in general. Contrariwise, a fanatical theist will make the mistaken assumption that a well-reasoned (if philosphical) discourse about the existances of gods not being provable (I.E. a god could exist) somehow serves as an endorsement for the existance of their particular deity.

In short, I think you're confusing a fanatical anti-christian who happens to be an atheist with a fanatical atheist.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

tspikes51

I will answer this one with a quote from our good friend Walter (from "The Big Lebowski"): "We're splitting hairs here."

And from the same movie, a good quote that is applicable here: "You're not wrong Walter. You're just an asshole."

As for the "imaginary pissing contest" that I was referring to, I will do some research and find some quotes, I can remember some instances where some were directed at me, one by our dear administrator/founder Halx.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

tspikes51

Okay, here's a quote, as promised, straight from Halx:

Link to the thread

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

d*d

That quote has nothing to do with fanatisicm it just highlights Halx ignorance on the matter of faith and belief which I've been through with him on another thread

tspikes51

No, it has nothing to do with fanaticism, but it does have everything to do with what I was posting it for. See above: "Imaginary pissing contest" and "My dick is bigger than yours."

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

bingle

I've been seeing a lot of people on this thread, including the original poster, make the assertion that Atheism is just stating "There is no god." and taking it on faith as something that cannot be proven.

This is incorrect.

In fact, there's two tiers of questions to be asked, here, instead of just one. The first is, "Can the existence of God be proven or disproven?" Many philosophers have considered this question, and some have thought one way, and some another. But that is separate from the second question: "Does God exist?"

So basically, there are four groups here: People who believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, but believe in God regardless (like Kirkegaard, and the original poster), people who believe that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, but do not believe (like the characterization of Atheists in this thread - I think this is actually very rare), people who believe that the existence of God can be proven, and thus believe (like St. Augustine, and the intellectual theology tradition), and people who believe that the existence of God can be disproven, and thus disbelieve (like the majority of actual Atheists).

So the original poster asked for some examples of how people prove or disprove these things (at least, that's how I choose to interpret "Shut the fuck up"). Look into philosophy, there's a whole tradition of considering this question, and some very intelligent people have come to both conclusions.

Also, I should note that I'm not talking about scientific proof, either. The proofs mostly used are logical proofs, because of course science can't prove anything, it can only show what is most likely to be true. Logic can prove that things can or cannot possibly exist, though. Sometimes science influences logical proof - for instance, one of the premises for the Argument By Design (the Cosmological Argument) was that there was no way for complex designs to arise without an intelligence behind them. Before Darwin, this argument was basically bulletproof. But Darwin showed, not that there was no God, but that this premise was not actually true. He did nothing to prove or disprove the logical argument, but challenged the validity of one of the premises.

So basically, don't dismiss such things so readily - while you may feel one way, there's a long history of considering the proof of the existence of God, and you should consider the arguments and come to your own conclusion. Some religious philosophers have come to some surprising ones, like the aforementioned Kirkegaard.

Bingle

tspikes51

So, in there being good arguments from both sides, could you not conclude that the existence (or lack thereof) of a god could be proven, but have not yet??? What I think you are saying is basically I don't have an educated opinion about whether a god exists or not, but I choose to believe that there is one anyway. In turn, I think you are in a different kind of reality where you define reality by what you think it is. Look, I'm all for thinking outside of the box, but you're not being very realistic. Logically, you can't prove completely the existence of a god, or the lack of one. You can come to conclusions as to the possibilities, and granted I haven't looked into past philosopher's work on this, but this isn't a case of possibilities. Two distinct possibilities exist, and you can come up with logical explainations for both, but at the end of the day, they're still only thoughts, not substance. Until somebody sees god, there still exists the possibility of not being one. Much like anything. Say, for instance, that I told you I had a cat. You came to my house, saw cat hair on my furniture, a bowl full of cat food, and a litter box. Now, there still exists a reasonable possibility that there is no cat, although logic and reasoning would tell you differenty.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

Janey

hmmm.. intriguing. but not simple enough for me. I think that physical proof is needed before the reality can be established. The physicality doesn't have to be limited to what we today consider it to be. metaphysics can be involved, as I presume metaphysics is just an extension of the natural universe beyond our ability to measure.

it's relative. Until the physical proof is there, it will require faith to believe that god exists. Other wise one can only be agnostic about it.

RCAlyra2004

Well... I think that this argument continues to go in circles so I might as well post and add to the mess.

Atheists are not necessarily fanatics.. (although some may be)

some of them have looked to see if there is a god.... but they can't find god... they see no evidence that there is a god... they WANT to find god... they wish god was there... but alas... there is no god... they continue waiting...

To those of you that continue with empty retorical questions, looped logic, and crossed definitions... Help an atheist find god!...... The atheist isn't a fanatic for wanting god to be there... is she a fanatic for waiting to see any smidgen of evidence at all?

Or have you declared a matter of faith to be absolute truth without any tangible evidence?

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

Slavakion

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there no way to prove or disprove the Judeo-Christian god because of its definition?

I am an atheist, but if someone were to present compelling evidence, I would definitely believe. Until that day, I wait...

bingle

No, you don't understand logical proof :-) Let me break it down for you.

In the example of your cat, you're again thinking of scientific proof, or empirical reasoning. That means you look at observable evidence, and conclude from that what the most likely explanation is. Empirical reasoning can't prove anything, though, at least not in a strong sense. There's always the logical possibility that, even if you've repeated an action a million times, the next time things happen differently.

Logical proof is quite different, though. It deals with deductive reasoning, instead of empirical reasoning. To prove things logically, you don't need any physical evidence,and in fact physical evidence doesn't help your case at all. (Except to disprove something). Deductive reasoning is what mathmaticians use to prove theorems and so forth - things like the sum of angles in a triangle must be 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry, and so forth. They don't go around measuring angles, in fact you can prove that statement without ever having seen a triangle.

And, just like it's a logical impossibility for there to exist a triangle with angles adding up to, say, 360 degrees, there are arguments that say it's logically impossible for God to exist.

However, logical arguments do have to have connections with reality - these are called premises. Usually the arguer lays out his premises, and if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST follow. For example:

Premise 1: Today is a Thursday.
Premise 2: It always rains on Thursdays.
Conclusion: It is raining today.

Given that you accept the two premises as true, you MUST accept the conclusion as true. You can, however, argue with the premises. These premises, for example, are both false.

So, here's the logical argument for the existence of God that I talked about earlier, the Cosmological argument (very simplified):

Premise 1: Complex objects must be created by an intelligence.
Premise 2: Biological life is very complex.
Conclusion: There exists an intelligence that created biological life.

However, as I noted earlier, Darwin demonstrated that Premise 1 was false. Before Darwin, there were no really serious Atheists.

So premises are the weak points of any proof, as they are the points at which the physical world can disrupt things. However, note that physical evidence can only disprove premises - you only need one counter-example.

There are two other classical proofs for the existence of God, if you're interested I can post those as well. It's worth noting that, since those arguing for the existence of God are the ones on whom the burden of proof falls. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Here's the Argument From Evil, which in my opinion is unassailable. This is an argument by contradiction, which basically means if you accept some premises, and thus prove a contradiction, one or more of your premises must be false:

Premise 1: Evil exists in the world.
Premise 2: God is perfectly good (Omnibenevolent).
Premise 3: God is all-powerful (Omnipotent).
Premise 4: A good entity will do all in its power to remove evil.
Conclusion: A contradiction. If God is good, and God is all powerful, evil should not exist in the world, because God has the will and the means to eradicate it.

Note that the only part of this proof that requires proof from the physical world is Premise 1. Also, this proof is not strictly proof against the existence of God, anyone can admit any premise as being false and the proof falls apart. So if you, for instance, think God is capricious rather than all good, this doesn't prove anything. But few are willing to accept that :-)

Bingle

tspikes51

I am familiar with logical proof. I actually got an a on my geometrical proof test. If one of your premises is false however, it invalidates the whole conclusion.

Premise 4 is false in this case, assuming that you were referring to the God of Abraham (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). God is usually passive to a certain extent when dealing with matters of evil, allowing it to go on (see: Job).

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

archpaladin

Just some rebuttals....

Incorrect. Darwin actually showed that Premise 1 was possibly incorrect, not that it was necessarily incorrect.

Not necessarily. Claims for the existence of God were around long before they were argued against. Those who make extraordinary claims to change the claims of the past (ie. athiest beliefs) are really the ones on whom the burden of proof falls.

__________________
This space not for rent.

Strange Famous

I dont think you can really say anyone who holds a belief has a certain characteristic... but I have to admit, I know some people who would call themselves athiests, who basically hold an unflinching view that anyone who believes in God must be an idiot, since the whole idea is so easily demolished.... which I personally find as foolish and as single minded as people who believe tehir own interpration of one view of God is the unquestioned truth and everyone else is going to hell.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

bingle

This doesn't deal with any particular God, just one that has the characteristics given in the proof. But most people would be reluctant to discard Premise 4 - do you agree that someone who is morally Good has an obligation to oppose evil when it comes? Someone who stands by and watches a murder without preventing it is morally (and legally, in the US) in the wrong. Even more so when the person can do so at no risk to themselves.

Here's a thought experiment: A person is put into a room, where they can watch an infant being tortured. At any point in time, they can push a button, which will stop the torture. The person does not push the button. Is this considered a morally good action?

Bingle

bingle

You're absolutely right about Darwin, that his discoveries do not entirely preclude the possibility of intelligent design - after all, we can see machinery and other things all around us that arise from intelligent design. However, I phrased the premise as "MUST be created by an intelligence", and that was no longer true past Darwin. Complex objects CAN be created by intelligence, but we now know there are other possibilities as well. Darwin does nothing to disprove the existence of God, he merely weakens one proof.

As for your other point, I wasn't talking about historical claims, but in a logical sense you must proceed from only the knowns, rather than the already-assumed.

For instance, although the idea of the existence of dragons predates the present, if I were to claim that such beings existed, your rightful course of action would be to demand proof from me, rather than accept the idea until it is disproven. Regardless of how many have believed in dragons before, it is an extraordinary claim.

Bingle

RCAlyra2004

A memetic idea, or "meme" is one that self replicates and adapts itself to suit a new circumstance.

Christianity had done a fair bit of adapting in just the last 400 years. Christains had to concede that the world is not flat, the world revolves around the sun and not the other way round and that we have indeed evolved from the same lineage of ancestors as the mordern orangutan.(The newest molecular evidence clearly points to this truth,as discovered and accepted in only the last 5 years) The world is not 6400 years old as some have interpreted the Bible to say but seems to be 350-450 million years old.

In spite of these findings Christianity, Islam and Judeaism continue along without a burp, bump or wobble.

How much evidence will people have to see before they realise that OLD documents aren't necessarily "technically correct" documents.

The Old and New testaments, Quran, and the Torah are documents filled with great ideas, including the idea that we will have an after life. They say that there is a heaven (including extensive descriptions) without any physical evidence, as they did with the flat earth etc.

Christians have attempted to prove God through logic, mathematics and some continue today with creation science. Inspite of all of the work, God has not yet poked his nose through the clouds to say hello. God's abscence does NOT prove god does not exist, but it surely does not prove his existence either. (I lost my watch, but I know it still exists, somewhere..)

The problem is that there are no reliable witnesses to God existence, at least in modern times. Had he been here and left the matter would be different. (like the watch)

Faith of any kind is just that... faith. It does not take faith to wonder where the evidence is! It does not take faith to ask hard questions of those who puport to know the answer to the mystery of God's existence.

Is there a God? My wife says there is.... and if I expect to get laid tonight I will agree.. because she is standing here watching me type..

Praise the lord...

__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

archpaladin

Many Christians would say that God did come here and left through Jesus. Thus the whole religion-not-dying thing.

Yes and no. Your statement about being related to orangutans may have been conceeded by the Catholic church, but certainly not by Christianity in general. The whole idea of creation science and Christian scientist's use of logic and mathematics to show/argue the existence of God is because they reject the bias of methodological naturalism in science (ie. the idea that only what we can directly observe is the cause of other things we can directly observe) Theories brought by science to explain natural origins of the universe are still riddled with holes, even after all the years of trying to refine them.

Absolutely correct. A direct view of God would destroy the need for faith, and thus we do not have it. However, people who ask for evidence of God (scientists, atheists, etc.) should not complain when people provide evidence in a language that they can understand. (creation science, philosophical and logical arguments, etc.)

__________________
This space not for rent.

roachboy

that it is possible to reduce atheism to a series of statements concerning this signifier "god" is obvious: that individuals can take up these statements from a variety of angles, enunciate them with varying types of fervor, say, would mean only that it is possible to perform that type of operation upon/with those statements. it says nothing--at all--about anything to do with a system of beliefs/non-beliefs behind the statements. to think otherwise is to confuse the flexibility (in terms of usage) of a particular sequence of statements with an analysis of a social configuration/system of beliefs/practices. which is a pretty goofy slide to allow oneself to make. so i think the premise of this thread is at the very best elaborated on superficial understanding,

the thread is then about an assertion on the part of tspike concerning the usage of particular types of statements. insofar as it goes, there is nothing remakrable, interesting or thoguht-provoking about it. that he chose to move from there to an attempt to conflate atheism with a religion is simply a mistake--that the thread then moved into a typical christian evangelical parlor game, in whcih sophomoric logic tricks are deployed in order to "demonstrate" the untenability of the belief system "atheism" shows that the thread was never really about its purported topic.

the "history" of atheism thrown about here is also wrong: it is absurd to equate darwin with atheism in a cause-effect manner--in europe, atheism as a cultural option emerged gradually from within nominalism, across the 17th and 18th century--it is a consequence of the assumption that god is radically transcendant, not accessible to human understanding at any level--one way-station that you can look at is the wager in pascal's pensees: from this position, it is but a small step to non-belief (either agnostic or athiest)....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

bingle

I don't know if you're talking about what I said earlier, but I'm not trying to say Darwin caused atheism... Rather, that before Darwin no one could get past the cosmological argument (although there are definitely those who were not convinced). It seemed unarguable that intelligence had to create complex life.

Bingle

roachboy

bingle: i am not sure if it was your post(s) or not that i ws referring to.
as to your comment, i am not sure about that-----i am not sure where you find implications of intelligent design in folk like linneas or buffon--on in much 18th century philosophies of nature, which seem to be more about the rationality of classification systems than about the conditions of possiblilty for either the classifications or the world being classified---but this might be a function of not having read them for a long time on my part. i guess what i would say is that darwin's work does not come out of the Vapor, that it leans on previous works, previous shifts in assumptions about the nature of science, that it does not stand at the origin of trending away from linking the perception of order in the world with the assumption of some Big Agent who did the ordering.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

m0ng0

Just thought I'd put in my two cents on the logical proof topic.
Is it just me or does it seem a bit wrong to put a supposedly omnipotent being inside the boundaries of logic?

jwoody

I would say that before mankind created gods there were no religious people.

Robaggio

I havn't had time to read the entire thread, so forgive me if this is off topic. I'm just jumping in here to throw out my new quote- it seemed like a good place.

"If aethism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Wheee!

d*d

Not just wrong but plain stupid, you cannot logically prove the existence of a god, those of you sitting back waiting for it to happen are in for a long wait. Faith is at the core of religous belief, faith does not require proof - that is why it is faith.
Science and rational thought have gone a long way to explain the nature of reality but we will always be bound by the laws of our universe, to say that there is no chance that there is something beyond that is a bit ignorant

Janey

exactly. which is why faith transcends the requirements of proof. Empiricism, by it's very nature has to operate within the boundaries of the universe. Or to re-word it, within the boundaries of that which has been created. Agnostics are therefore bound by the same limitations. People who employ faith (those that both believe in God, and believe that there is no God) suspend the requirement of proof. Those who do not employ faith wait. Until such a point as they obtain proof, they remain 'not knowing' (agnostic).

bingle

Hi! This is what I think I've been arguing against for the last few posts ;-) In fact, if you look at history, there is a long tradition of both religious and atheistic proof for or against the existence of God. YOU may believe that God requires no proof, and that in fact none can be given, but many people would disagree with you (including a number of saints).

Especially since we haven't been talking about empirical proof :-)

Bingle

bingle

Yes, that's definitely true. And you're right. In fact, I take back what I said - It was just a lot harder to be an atheist before Darwin, but they existed. The Cosmological argument can also be attacked from a "first cause" point of view, which isn't quite as strong as Darwin, but people did it anyway.

Bingle

bingle

However, that is done every day. In fact, it is what makes religion possible. Here's a quote from a religious site:

The entire foundation of religion is built upon logic, otherwise it would be entirely arbitrary. There would be no more reason to worship God than to worship the devil, and speaking of the will of God would be meaningless.

Regardless, logic is applied to the inifinite all the time. It's really the only thing that can be.

Bingle

Janey

not sure if i follow you, but yes, God has no requirement to be validated through proof. That's neither here nor there for God. It's people who either want proof, and therefore lacking it remain agnostic, or do not want proof, and accept God, or No God on the basis of faith. My point is that to be an Atheist, you must act from the same basis as one who is a Theist.

We are talking about empirical or scientific proof. Those saints etc who follow the long tradition of proof are operating on the basis of faith. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

Master_Shake

Is that an original quote? If so, it's a good one. Of course, it's still a good quote even if you got it from someplace else, but if it's yours; mad props to your wit.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

tspikes51

Not by our standards, but according to what most theists believe, it is for god to decide.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

Master_Shake

I'm an atheist toward god in the same way that I am an atheist toward Santa Claus. I've never seen either, and there's nothing to support the existence of either except for books written by dead people. I am confident that Santa Claus does not exist.

Now, I can't absolutely disprove the existence of Santa Claus, he could very well be hiding out under some glacier where I can't find him. My atheism is not fanatical because if Santa Claus were to show up I would certainly accept that he exists. Until that time, I will not act in a way that accepts Santa Claus exists, and I will treat people who believe that Santa Claus exists as the children they are.

Is there any firmer basis to believe in god than in Santa Claus?

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

bingle

But my point is exactly the opposite: A great number of theists and atheists depend on proof of the existence of God. That is what dragged me into this discussion in the first place, the mischaracterization of this point of view. I'll reiterate: There are four (or five) groups: Those who accept proof and believe, those who accept proof and thus do not believe, those who don't accept proof and believe, and those who don't accept proof and don't believe. You're putting all atheists under the last group, when in fact I've never met anyone who felt that way. So basically you're grossly miscategorizing and dismissing not only every Atheist in the world, but the entire religious intellectual position going back to Saint Augustine, and the basis for the Catholic Church; quite an arrogant act!

In fact, it's quite possible to be a rational Atheist or a rational Theist. That's not the position of fundamentalist churches, but it doesn't change the validity of the position.

Bingle

asaris

I'm pretty much a Kirkegaardian on the subject of proof, which means that while rational consideration can lead us towards believing in God (and some part of this is the arguments for his existence), it cannot actually get us there. We need a leap of faith.

This might be inaccurate, but one might characterize Janey's point as that any argument requires premises, the ones for the existence of God as well as the ones for his non-existence. And if you demand proof of the premises, you're eventually going to get an infinite regress.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

bingle

OK, well, I didn't really get into this thread to attempt to argue the existence of God, really I joined in order to assert the existence of me. Unfortunately, there are still those who refuse to accept that I exist ;-P

Anyway, what you're arguing for is a sort of relativism for God. But consider this: if God can perform (what we see as) evil acts, what basis is there for worshipping God? Why is worshipping God superior to worshipping the Devil? For that matter, how do you know you're not worshipping an evil being, or at least a callous one?

Bingle

bingle

I really respect that way of looking at the world, and the idea that it takes a leap of faith to get there. It seems to make the most sense to me.

Your point (or hers, if that's what she was saying) is definitely true; however it's true of all knowledge (and thus meaningless). You might say it requires as much faith to believe in triangles as it does in God, or that it takes as much faith to believe in your existence as it does in his. It also removes the boundaries of truth: at that level it also takes as much faith to believe in Santa Claus or Leprechauns as it does in oranges and Dolly Parton.

However, we think we can distinguish levels of knowledge such that we're fairly sure oranges exist, but not so sure Santa Claus or Dolly Parton exist. There's some basic reality we accept (on faith, certainly) and then we can assert the further reality of some things.

Bingle

roachboy

for someone like kierkegaard, the extension of the argument for faith through all of knowledge is not possible--there is a difference in kind between god and objects of knowledge..the problem of thinking the infinite is the pivot. so you **could ** say that belief in god is like believing in a triangle--but that would mean that god is a comparable type of being: i traingle can be split into two halves--can god? so while you could say it, you would be wrong to do it. all you would show is that you have a compressed/limited understanding of the multiple possible meanings the notion of faith can have.

no matter how implausible i might find dolly parton to be--and i could go on at length about her hair alone--no matter how much difficulty i have getting my head around the existence of dolly parton, this fellow god is even more implausible. but when it gets down to it, i am more in line with kierkegaard and nietzsche on this: this god fellow you keep talking about seems to me but a name, a word, nothing more, nothing less. if the word refers to anything, how would you know? you could demonstrate the existence of the word. you could demonstrate the existence, for you, of a particular signified. but the referent? not a chance.

so far as debates like this one are concerned, i come across as atheist, simply because there is not a single argument for the existence of god that is to me compelling at all--but behind that is the fact that, for me at least, nominalists like pascal and kierkegaard have long been the most compelling variants on christianity--they care about the problem of god's existence and faith far more than i can imagine doing--and they dont know. but for them, the question of faith is paramount (a premise error from another viewpoint) so knowing does not matter.
but i do not care about the question of faith.
so i am ok with not knowing.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite