How Can Anyone NOT Believe in God?

[blazedaces]

the reason i accuse delorted1 of lying is because he has been corrected about his assertion multiple times and he still continues to make it. once you are corrected and you continue to make untruthful claims, you ARE intending to deceive.

Fair enough, but his intentions are irrelevant. We can all agree by now that what he's suggesting is not true and hopefully can move on.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

the reason i accuse delorted1 of lying is because he has been corrected about his assertion multiple times and he still continues to make it. once you are corrected and you continue to make untruthful claims, you ARE intending to deceive.

We disagree semantically. I have not been proven incorrect whatsoever. Whenever I bring up a post, you hide in your shell and say that I'm lying. It's really sad, and if this was a formal debate, you would have lost long ago for simply having nothing else to say other than "liar". You've done nothing to prove otherwise of your ignorance and stubbornness.

Fair enough, but his intentions are irrelevant. We can all agree by now that what he's suggesting is not true and hopefully can move on.

-blazed

You know what's worse than the people who try to contribute to threads without reading them beforehand?

The people who post and assume a victory after not contributing at all. You've done what to prove that what I've suggested is not true?

In fact, the only thing we CAN agree on are the things we have decided collectively.

1 - "Strong" Atheists are lousy hypocrites

2 - "Weak" Atheists are simply slightly biased agnostics

My intentions matter greatly. My intention is to prove to the strong atheists that they are no better than the theists they laugh at. Mr. Havlicek refuses to accept this, so he then spins his stubbornness and contempt for me into what he calls lies.

Remind me again - what stage of grief is denial at?

Oh yeah, number one.

We're going to be here a while, boys.

 

[yossarian22]

now it seems that delorted1 is lying about what "atheism" and "agnosticism" are. how many times do we have to explain it to him before he decides to stop lying?

Stop abusing the English language

atheism is the lack of theism. nothing more.

agnosticism is the ASSERTION that knowledge about the supernatural is impossible.

agnostics make a claim, atheists do not.

A claim, I might add, which is ludicrously easy to support.
You can't have natural evidence of the supernatural.

To brush off DeLortEd1's argument purely on an issue of semantics is baseless dancing around the main thrust of his post.

 

[blazedaces]

You know what's worse than the people who try to contribute to threads without reading them beforehand?

The people who post and assume a victory after not contributing at all. You've done what to prove that what I've suggested is not true?

A number of times people have affirmed that atheists do not claim that there is no possibility a god exists. I really don't think it's necessary for me to go back and quote it a number of times though snex makes it very clear on the first page...

In fact, the only thing we CAN agree on are the things we have decided collectively.

1 - "Strong" Atheists are lousy hypocrites

2 - "Weak" Atheists are simply slightly biased agnostics

Ad hominem attacks aren't going to help you win any argument here. Honestly, besides trying to bash the "reputation" of atheists, what are you trying to prove? You're still arguing semantics. It doesn't matter how you label them, their belief still stands as valid as before.

My intentions matter greatly. My intention is to prove to the strong atheists that they are no better than the theists they laugh at. Mr. Havlicek refuses to accept this, so he then spins his stubbornness and contempt for me into what he calls lies.

Remind me again - what stage of grief is denial at?

Oh yeah, number one.

We're going to be here a while, boys.

So you're admitting the entire point of this thread is to ... get the last laugh? So you just want to bring yourself to as low a level as some atheists?

Look, the world has many immature people in it. So, obviously, there are people on both sides of any debate who will resort to juvenile tactics. You need not join in their ways my friend.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Okay, finally something we can work with. Apologies for the goading.

A number of times people have affirmed that atheists do not claim that there is no possibility a god exists. I really don't think it's necessary for me to go back and quote it a number of times though snex makes it very clear on the first page...

Indeed. Those people are inherently agnostic, hence the "weak" and "strong" separation.

Ad hominem attacks aren't going to help you win any argument here. Honestly, besides trying to bash the "reputation" of atheists, what are you trying to prove? You're still arguing semantics. It doesn't matter how you label them, their belief still stands as valid as before.

Calling atheists lousy hypocrites isn't an attack, it's the truth. When I say lousy, I refer to their argument being fallacious when they think it's airtight. Also, commenting on ad hominem attacks while you continue to do so at the bottom of your post is a little strange.

Besides, both this thread and its antithesis have tons of ad hominem attacks - specifically, people inappropriately calling people liars

So you're admitting the entire point of this thread is to ... get the last laugh? So you just want to bring yourself to as low a level as some atheists?

Well, no. I like to think of myself as Socrates's emissary. Ridding the world of strong atheism is a goal of mine, as I tend to believe it is detrimental in many ways. But really, to your main question:
The entire point of this thread is to show the similarities between atheists and theists. If you look at the other thread, it's basically one giant bash on religion. It's not to get the last laugh, it's to help better this debate hall. It's a crusade into a pit of darkness.

I'm like a superhero, standing up for the bible-quoters who don't know how to debate. That's what this thread is about.

 

[blazedaces]

Okay, finally something we can work with. Apologies for the goading.



Indeed. Those people are inherently agnostic, hence the "weak" and "strong" separation.



Calling atheists lousy hypocrites isn't an attack, it's the truth. When I say lousy, I refer to their argument being fallacious when they think it's airtight. Also, commenting on ad hominem attacks while you continue to do so at the bottom of your post is a little strange.

Alright, fine, can we just agree to avoid it in the future?

Besides, both this thread and its antithesis have tons of ad hominem attacks - specifically, people inappropriately calling people liars

Two wrongs don't make a right my friend. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past instead of creating a viscous cycle of endless cruelty.

Well, no. I like to think of myself as Socrates's emissary. Ridding the world of strong atheism is a goal of mine, as I tend to believe it is detrimental in many ways.

I will admit that strong atheism (according to your definition of the term) is detrimental in many ways if you will admit to me that an equally strong belief in god is just as equally detrimental. It is the lack of reasoning attributed to both beliefs that we must combat, do you not agree?

But really, to your main question:
The entire point of this thread is to show the similarities between atheists and theists. If you look at the other thread, it's basically one giant bash on religion. It's not to get the last laugh, it's to help better this debate hall. It's a crusade into a pit of darkness.

Well, I would just point out again, that on both sides of any debate there will be those who will employ the crudest forms of argument. I would have to say the entire point of your thread is true without any need to point it out. What more do you need to be satisfied?

I'm like a superhero, standing up for the bible-quoters who don't know how to debate. That's what this thread is about.

Well, standing up for those who can't defend themselves is a heroic and noble virtue, but I would have to say you're stretching that metaphor a bit in this particular situation.

-blazed

 

[snex]

Stop abusing the English language
A claim, I might add, which is ludicrously easy to support.
You can't have natural evidence of the supernatural.

it is not easy to support because there is no coherent definition of "supernatural." all youre really saying is "we cant have evidence of those things that we cant have evidence for" which is a useless tautology.

if 100% of all people who prayed a certain way or performed a certain animal sacrifice in prescribed manner never got sick and lived to 900 years of age while those of us that didnt do these things suffered, that would be excellent evidence for the existence of at least one god.

To brush off DeLortEd1's argument purely on an issue of semantics is baseless dancing around the main thrust of his post.

delorted1 has no argument. all hes doing is asserting his own definition of atheism that NO atheist adheres to just so he can call us stupid.

 

[yossarian22]

it is not easy to support because there is no coherent definition of "supernatural." all youre really saying is "we cant have evidence of those things that we cant have evidence for" which is a useless tautology.

Hardly. Tautologies are the best way to show that a concept is not epistemologically valid. The concept of the supernatural is incoherent.

if 100% of all people who prayed a certain way or performed a certain animal sacrifice in prescribed manner never got sick and lived to 900 years of age while those of us that didnt do these things suffered, that would be excellent evidence for the existence of at least one god.

No it wouldn't. It would be evidence that praying in a certain way or performing a certain animal sacrifice in a prescribed manner causes us to never get sick and live to 900 years of age. That's it. The supernatural can never be a coherent notion, but that in and of itself does not make the supernatural untrue.

delorted1 has no argument. all hes doing is asserting his own definition of atheism that NO atheist adheres to just so he can call us stupid.

Of course he has an argument; it is just phrased in a manner meant primarily to offend. We can't have evidence for the supernatural no matter what we do. This is not simple absence. It is the inability to obtain the evidence even theoretically. So both theists and strong atheists occupy a fundamentally indefensible position compared to agnostics.

I am disagreeing with his classification of weak atheists as biased agnostics. I do not feel that a God concept can be made into a justified belief, leading me to dismiss God as an unjustifiable belief. Spinoza comes pretty **** close to converting me, but his god is superfluous.

 

[snex]

Hardly. Tautologies are the best way to show that a concept is not epistemologically valid. The concept of the supernatural is incoherent.

No it wouldn't. It would be evidence that praying in a certain way or performing a certain animal sacrifice in a prescribed manner causes us to never get sick and live to 900 years of age. That's it. The supernatural can never be a coherent notion, but that in and of itself does not make the supernatural untrue.

who said anything about supernatural? you are the one assuming a god has to be supernatural - i never made any such claim. if a god exists and answers prayers, then it is perfectly natural and can be tested.

 

[yossarian22]

who said anything about supernatural? you are the one assuming a god has to be supernatural - i never made any such claim. if a god exists and answers prayers, then it is perfectly natural and can be tested.

A non-supernatural God is superfluous (the reason I dismissed pantheism and Spinoza off hand).

And no, you can never test a God concept, no matter how you design the experiment. All you will ever have proof of is "Action <X> leads to Outcome <Y>".

 

[snex]

A non-supernatural God is superfluous (the reason I dismissed pantheism and Spinoza off hand).

"supernatural" has no coherent meaning, so a "supernatural" god doesnt exist by definition. anything that has effects on other things is natural, and anything that has no effects on other things doesnt exist.

And no, you can never test a God concept, no matter how you design the experiment. All you will ever have proof of is "Action <X> leads to Outcome <Y>".

nonsense. god is an hypothesis just like any other. the existence of certain gods implies certain observable results when certain experiments are performed. if those results dont happen, then youre just being a crybaby when you dont admit that the hypothesis is falsified.

if you want to claim that god has no observable results no matter what experiment is performed, then there is exactly no difference between god and nothing at all, and if there is no difference between some hypothetical object and nothing, then that object IS nothing.

 

[yossarian22]

"supernatural" has no coherent meaning, so a "supernatural" god doesnt exist by definition. anything that has effects on other things is natural, and anything that has no effects on other things doesnt exist.

Anything that has effects on natural things must be natural?!
Where did you pull this notion from? The supernatural can only leave natural evidences behind.

nonsense. god is an hypothesis just like any other. the existence of certain gods implies certain observable results when certain experiments are performed. if those results dont happen, then youre just being a crybaby when you dont admit that the hypothesis is falsified.

You are confusing religious dogma with God.

Let's say we want to test if prayer cures cancer. We run a massive double blind study between two groups. One that received prayer to God(s) <X(,Y,Z...)>, and one that received absolutely no prayer. The study finds that every single person in the group that received prayer was cured of cancer and gained laser vision.
How do you differentiate these two explanations?
1: God cured them.
2: The prayer itself cured them

if you want to claim that god has no observable results no matter what experiment is performed, then there is exactly no difference between god and nothing at all, and if there is no difference between some hypothetical object and nothing, then that object IS nothing.

I am not saying that god has no observable results. I am saying that we have no way to differentiate the works of God from the natural.

 

[snex]

Anything that has effects on natural things must be natural?!
Where did you pull this notion from? The supernatural can only leave natural evidences behind.
You are confusing religious dogma with God.

everything that exists at all is natural. it is a part of nature.

Let's say we want to test if prayer cures cancer. We run a massive double blind study between two groups. One that received prayer to God(s) <X(,Y,Z...)>, and one that received absolutely no prayer. The study finds that every single person in the group that received prayer was cured of cancer and gained laser vision.
How do you differentiate these two explanations?
1: God cured them.
2: The prayer itself cured them

the same way to differentiate between several competing scientific hypotheses that all currently explain the data we have - by performing more and more precise experiments. you are somehow under the impression that this same problem doesnt apply to other scientific theories - but it does.

how do we differentiate between different string theories, or different dark energy theories? by doing more experiments!

I am not saying that god has no observable results. I am saying that we have no way to differentiate the works of God from the natural.

thats why if any gods exist, they are perfectly natural.

 

[yossarian22]

everything that exists at all is natural. it is a part of nature.

Unless you claim something is transcendental and supernatural, in which case it is not.

the same way to differentiate between several competing scientific hypotheses that all currently explain the data we have - by performing more and more precise experiments. you are somehow under the impression that this same problem doesnt apply to other scientific theories - but it does.

Great way to dance around the point.
Scientific theories are all purely natural explanations. This is not the case in my example

how do we differentiate between different string theories, or different dark energy theories? by doing more experiments!

How can we differentiate the natural evidences of the supernatural from natural processes themselves?

thats why if any gods exist, they are perfectly natural.

And thereby irrelevant.
I have never seen a retort to the claim that pantheism is superfluous. I am sure somebody must have addressed it somehow. Deism also has that problem.

 

[snex]

Unless you claim something is transcendental and supernatural, in which case it is not.

meaningless word salad. if it effects other things, then it is a part of nature. nothing "transcends" nature because nature is ALL that there is.

Great way to dance around the point.
Scientific theories are all purely natural explanations. This is not the case in my example

and if any gods exist, they are perfectly natural beings that can be examined by naturalistic observation methods. your example does not get around this at all. if praying to a specific god has an effect, then we observe this effect through natural means.

How can we differentiate the natural evidences of the supernatural from natural processes themselves?

there is no such thing as a "supernatural" thing. if any gods exist, they are natural.

And thereby irrelevant.
I have never seen a retort to the claim that pantheism is superfluous. I am sure somebody must have addressed it somehow. Deism also has that problem.

i dont think you know what you are talking about. you keep responding to my point that if any gods exist, they are natural by saying "BUT WUT ABOUT SOOOOPERNACHURAL GODS LAWL" seriously, address what im actually saying, not your stupid mischaracterizations of it.

 

[CKaiser]

I believe that most humans believe in god for three reasons:
1. If you take along look at mental processes of human beings, when they cannot explain something right away, they tend to attribute it to supernatural sources, especially if there is a large group of them.
2. Humans need to have some sort of purpose in life, something to strive for, something that makes it worth it. Just because we think there should be a reason doesn'tmean there is, and that's difficult to accept for most.
3. Because their parents told them that there is a god.

To me, these just don't seem very good reasons to surrender your self reliance and reasoning to the idea of a higher being. That's why I am an atheist

 

[The Executive]

Can we merge this thread with the other one? It's basically two identical threads with similar arguments and titles.

 

[AltF4]

We have entirely too many religion threads to begin with if you ask me... We should just close it all down to one, and maybe get some real debate. Something down to earth and not so esoteric and philosophical. I'm kind of disappointed nobody disagreed with the Intellectual Property thread a while back. Maybe we should try to revive it.

 

[The Executive]

We have entirely too many religion threads to begin with if you ask me... We should just close it all down to one, and maybe get some real debate. Something down to earth and not so esoteric and philosophical. I'm kind of disappointed nobody disagreed with the Intellectual Property thread a while back. Maybe we should try to revive it.

I'm sorry that I agree with you on the secular issue threads and disagree on religious issue threads no new people really contribute something of value to. In the future, I will be more mindlessly argumentative.

/sarcasm

Isn't it good that IP laws are being challenged???

Edit: by all means, bump the thread. I just haven't done it because it's hard to post after myself without looking desperate for attention or ignorant to forum ettiquette.

 

[yossarian22]

meaningless word salad. if it effects other things, then it is a part of nature. nothing "transcends" nature because nature is ALL that there is.

I am growing tired of listening to increasingly inane responses. If something was supernatural how do you plan on observing it in the natural world? The natural is all that can be observed, but that does not mean that it is all there is. You have no proof of this, and you can't have evidence. Either position is unfalsifiable. The only question is which position is more justifiable.

and if any gods exist, they are perfectly natural beings that can be examined by naturalistic observation methods. your example does not get around this at all. if praying to a specific god has an effect, then we observe this effect through natural means.

Differentiate these two claims
1: Saying a prayer cures cancer
2: Saying a prayer causes an agent disjoint from nature to cure cancer.

The science confirms 1. We can't make any statements for or against 2. Perhaps these words simply cause the body to purge itself of cancer for some reason. Or perhaps God poofed them away because we said those words..

there is no such thing as a "supernatural" thing. if any gods exist, they are natural.

Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

i dont think you know what you are talking about.

And I don't particularly care what you think. All I care about is what you can show. Which, to date, has been absolutely nothing but the same childish drivel I hear from self proclaimed logicians.

you keep responding to my point that if any gods exist, they are natural

For the last time, I will explain.

We cannot coherently assert a claim about the supernatural, but that does not somehow deny the supernatural from existing. We cannot know the supernatural. It transcends us by definition. So if I say God <X> is supernatural, then we cannot have any evidence for the existence of God <X> as it transcends us (I am repeating this to drive the point in. It transcends us completely and utterly). There is no way to differentiate between the actions (lots of emphasis on this) of that god and natural processes as the only evidence we can observe is the natural, hence we cannot have evidence of a supernatural god.

A naturalistic god is superfluous and indistinguishable from natural laws, and thus irrelevant. I have addressed your natural God, so all that remains is the supernatural.

by saying "BUT WUT ABOUT SOOOOPERNACHURAL GODS LAWL" seriously, address what im actually saying, not your stupid mischaracterizations of it.

Stop abusing English. I did not "mischaracterize" your argument in the slightest.

I have addressed your points multiple times.

 

[The Executive]

I am growing tired of listening to increasingly inane responses. If something was supernatural how do you plan on observing it in the natural world? The natural is all that can be observed, but that does not mean that it is all there is. You have no proof of this, and you can't have evidence. Either position is unfalsifiable. The only question is which position is more justifiable.

Differentiate these two claims
1: Saying a prayer cures cancer
2: Saying a prayer causes an agent disjoint from nature to cure cancer.

The science confirms 1. We can't make any statements for or against 2. Perhaps these words simply cause the body to purge itself of cancer for some reason. Or perhaps God poofed them away because we said those words..

Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

And I don't particularly care what you think. All I care about is what you can show. Which, to date, has been absolutely nothing but the same childish drivel I hear from self proclaimed logicians.

For the last time, I will explain.

We cannot coherently assert a claim about the supernatural, but that does not somehow deny the supernatural from existing. We cannot know the supernatural. It transcends us by definition. So if I say God <X> is supernatural, then we cannot have any evidence for the existence of God <X> as it transcends us (I am repeating this to drive the point in. It transcends us completely and utterly). There is no way to differentiate between the actions (lots of emphasis on this) of that god and natural processes as the only evidence we can observe is the natural, hence we cannot have evidence of a supernatural god.

A naturalistic god is superfluous and indistinguishable from natural laws, and thus irrelevant. I have addressed your natural God, so all that remains is the supernatural.

Stop abusing English. I did not "mischaracterize" your argument in the slightest.

I have addressed your points multiple times.

You labor in vain, Yossarian. Trust me, it's hard to hold a conversation when one side is repeating.

 

[KMB23]

I don't believe in God for the same reasons I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. The idea just seems so childish to me. With evolution proven, and some other Bible stories debunked, I no longer have a reason to believe. I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic grade school, so I know both sides.

Also, I find the Catholic Church to be very manipulating..

The day I finally convinced my self that I truly did not believe there is a God was the day I finally felt free. It's weird, but I feel as if I've become a better person since I became atheist.

 

[snex]

I am growing tired of listening to increasingly inane responses. If something was supernatural how do you plan on observing it in the natural world? The natural is all that can be observed, but that does not mean that it is all there is. You have no proof of this, and you can't have evidence. Either position is unfalsifiable. The only question is which position is more justifiable.

who said its supernatural? where did *i* agree to that premise? i did not. YOU are the one ASSUMING BLINDLY that there is some class of objects that exist that can rightly be called "supernatural" even though you havent the faintest clue what in the hell the word even means.

Differentiate these two claims
1: Saying a prayer cures cancer
2: Saying a prayer causes an agent disjoint from nature to cure cancer.

see? mischaracterization, again. there is NO SUCH THING as "disjoint from nature." the concept is MEANINGLESS. if a prayer said in the NATURAL world caused an agent to cure cancer, THEN THAT AGENT IS ALSO NATURAL.

The science confirms 1. We can't make any statements for or against 2. Perhaps these words simply cause the body to purge itself of cancer for some reason. Or perhaps God poofed them away because we said those words..

and we can continually make new tests to determine which. science marches on, while youre still stuck crying about SOOOOPERNACHURAL!

Saying it repeatedly does not make it true.

if you would stop coming back with meaningless drivel, you would realize that it is true and i wouldnt have to keep repeating myself. anything that exists is a part of nature, because nature is the set of all things that exist.

And I don't particularly care what you think. All I care about is what you can show. Which, to date, has been absolutely nothing but the same childish drivel I hear from self proclaimed logicians.

right. bertrand russell is only a "self proclaimed" logician who spouted drivel. and your mastery of logic and reason is far superior to his. dont make me laugh.

For the last time, I will explain.

We cannot coherently assert a claim about the supernatural, but that does not somehow deny the supernatural from existing. We cannot know the supernatural. It transcends us by definition. So if I say God <X> is supernatural, then we cannot have any evidence for the existence of God <X> as it transcends us (I am repeating this to drive the point in. It transcends us completely and utterly). There is no way to differentiate between the actions (lots of emphasis on this) of that god and natural processes as the only evidence we can observe is the natural, hence we cannot have evidence of a supernatural god.

you are an idiot for blindly accepting the premise that god <x> is supernatural when you have no idea what the word even means or how one would go about showing that god <x> is supernatural. if god <x> is defined to be outside of nature (the set of all things that exist), then god <x> does not exist. the second you start assigning ACTUAL qualities (like answerer of prayers) to god <x>, it becomes testable through natural means.

A naturalistic god is superfluous and indistinguishable from natural laws, and thus irrelevant. I have addressed your natural God, so all that remains is the supernatural.

um, no. thats like saying that by proving that no natural number has some property, you have thereby proven that SOOOOOPERNACHURAL numbers have that property. the argument is pure word salad nonsense. "supernatural" HAS NO COHERENT MEANING.

Stop abusing English. I did not "mischaracterize" your argument in the slightest.

I have addressed your points multiple times.

yawn. you mischaracterized yet again in this very post.

 

[yossarian22]

who said its supernatural? where did *i* agree to that premise? i did not. YOU are the one ASSUMING BLINDLY that there is some class of objects that exist that can rightly be called "supernatural" even though you havent the faintest clue what in the hell the word even means.

It is fairly ironic that you of all people are correcting me on a definition when you don't know how to use "lie" (or apparently "mischaracterize") in a sentence

Anyhow, here is a definition of supernatural
Supernatural (adj): Not existing in nature or subject to explanation through natural laws.

Hell, go back to the friggin Latin roots if you must.
Super (above) +Nature.

see? mischaracterization, again. there is NO SUCH THING as "disjoint from nature." the concept is MEANINGLESS. if a prayer said in the NATURAL world caused an agent to cure cancer, THEN THAT AGENT IS ALSO NATURAL.

Do you even know what "mischaracterize" means? You seem to have this tendency to latch onto a word then start accusing people of it in some attempt to add some meat to a series of empty, idiotic arguments.

Anyhow, you apparently do not know what nature is either

Nature (n): The physical (material) universe.

You might be a reductionist materialist, but I see no reason to accept your viewpoint as valid, especially if I am arguing that your viewpoint is not correct. Begging the question convinces nobody but yourself. Incidentally, the claim that the supernatural does not exist is unfalsifiable, just like the claim that it does exist.

I will take your lack of response as an admission that you cannot differentiate the two.

and we can continually make new tests to determine which. science marches on, while youre still stuck crying about SOOOOPERNACHURAL!
if you would stop coming back with meaningless drivel, you would realize that it is true and i wouldnt have to keep repeating myself. anything that exists is a part of nature, because nature is the set of all things that exist.

Under a materialist point of view, yes.
A shame I am not arguing from the materialist point of view. Stop begging the question and start presenting an argument more coherent than
"The Natural is all that exists!"

right. bertrand russell is only a "self proclaimed" logician who spouted drivel. and your mastery of logic and reason is far superior to his. dont make me laugh.

I hope you did not just compare yourself to Bertrand Russel....
An insult to his memory if there ever was one.

you are an idiot for blindly accepting the premise that god <x> is supernatural when you have no idea what the word even means

You are hardly in a position to correct my use of the word nature. Look up the latin root.

or how one would go about showing that god <x> is supernatural.

You can't.
Just like how you can't show that induction is valid.
God is made into a priori by most theism. We cannot determine e the presence of the supernatural (and therefore God) through a posteriori means.

if god <x> is defined to be outside of nature (the set of all things that exist),

Stop abusing English

then god <x> does not exist. the second you start assigning ACTUAL qualities (like answerer of prayers) to god <x>, it becomes testable through natural means.

We can only test the qualities, as you just admitted just now.

um, no. thats like saying that by proving that no natural number has some property, you have thereby proven that SOOOOOPERNACHURAL numbers have that property. the argument is pure word salad nonsense. "supernatural" HAS NO COHERENT MEANING.

Of course it does. I just provided one.
A supernatural entity has no coherent qualities, but so what? I don't give a **** about supernatural qualities. All I need to do is show that your position is not any more or less valid than theism is. And (predictably), the argument decays into the supernatural, which we can never know. It is literally above us.

yawn. you mischaracterized yet again in this very post.

Demonstrate it.
Hollow accusations only convince me that you lack any meaningful response. (Which was the exact same in content unsurprisingly)

 

[cF=)]

yossarian, why the heck do you keep on doing this?

If supernatural --> can't have an influence on nature because it would violate multiple physics principles (locality and causality for example).
If natural --> god is testable, and therefore easily proved inexistent through simple experiments.

That's why a supernatural god makes no sense, he's outside the set of nature and would break physics laws if he had any powers. I'll quote AltF4 on this: "if god created the universe, he made it in such a way that even HE can't interfere it".

 

[IceEmblem]

The reason that i am an athiest is because i just think that the concept of god is highly illogical, if you told a man who has never heard of god and said, that he was a man who lives in heaven which is impossible to get to unless you die and worshipped god, and that he created everyone and he is all powerful, what do you think they would say. Right now i'm leaning towards that they would think you are crazy.
It defies the laws of science, and as we know science can be proven religon is a theory.

 

[adumbrodeus]

yossarian, why the heck do you keep on doing this?

If supernatural --> can't have an influence on nature because it would violate multiple physics principles (locality and causality for example).
If natural --> god is testable, and therefore easily proved inexistent through simple experiments.

That's why a supernatural god makes no sense, he's outside the set of nature and would break physics laws if he had any powers. I'll quote AltF4 on this: "if god created the universe, he made it in such a way that even HE can't interfere it".

It's obviously a difference in terminology.

yossarian is thinking like a philosopher, and to a philosopher, not natural means something different then to a scientist.

Assuming God exists, he/she/it/potato would technically be part of "nature" from a scientific prospective, however with properties that allowed he/she/it/potato to fundamentally alter the laws of nature. The best analogy would be programming, since the activity is accounted for in the system but can fundamentally alter the system.

From a philosophical prospective however, a diety is not natural.

As for locality... non-linearity.

 

[snex]

It is fairly ironic that you of all people are correcting me on a definition when you don't know how to use "lie" (or apparently "mischaracterize") in a sentence

Anyhow, here is a definition of supernatural
Supernatural (adj): Not existing in nature or subject to explanation through natural laws.

Hell, go back to the friggin Latin roots if you must.
Super (above) +Nature.

"not existing in nature" makes no sense. if something doesnt exist in nature, then it doesnt exist anywhere. nature is the set of all things that exist, period.

Do you even know what "mischaracterize" means? You seem to have this tendency to latch onto a word then start accusing people of it in some attempt to add some meat to a series of empty, idiotic arguments.

Anyhow, you apparently do not know what nature is either

Nature (n): The physical (material) universe.

and what is a physical (material) universe? it is the set of all things that interact with each other in physical (material) ways. if any gods exist, they interact with the rest of the universe through physical (material) means. creating the universe is interacting with physical (material) stuff. answering prayers is interacting with physical (material) stuff.

if your alleged gods do NOT interact with physical (material) stuff, then they are exactly the same as nothing at all.

You might be a reductionist materialist, but I see no reason to accept your viewpoint as valid, especially if I am arguing that your viewpoint is not correct. Begging the question convinces nobody but yourself. Incidentally, the claim that the supernatural does not exist is unfalsifiable, just like the claim that it does exist.

i am not begging the question. YOU are the one a priori defining gods out of existence. my viewpoint can easily accept gods existing if they do in fact exist. so far, nobody has shown them to do so.

Under a materialist point of view, yes.
A shame I am not arguing from the materialist point of view. Stop begging the question and start presenting an argument more coherent than
"The Natural is all that exists!"

no, not under a materialist point of view. my viewpoint can accept the existence of gods, while yours cannot. if gods exist in my viewpoint, then we can detect them and determine that they exist. in your viewpoint, gods are exactly no different from nothing at all.

I hope you did not just compare yourself to Bertrand Russel....
An insult to his memory if there ever was one.

you are the clown trying to argue against his views with word salad. you want gods to have the benefit of acting on the natural world, yet you also want to protect them from examination by claiming they are outside of it. you cant have it both ways.

You can't.
Just like how you can't show that induction is valid.
God is made into a priori by most theism. We cannot determine e the presence of the supernatural (and therefore God) through a posteriori means.

if you cant show that god <x> is in fact supernatural, then like i said, you are an idiot for accepting the premise. demonstrate that god <x> is in fact supernatural.

We can only test the qualities, as you just admitted just now.

and the same is true for atoms. we can only test their qualities. we can only know the mass of an atom by watching how it interacts with other things.

Of course it does. I just provided one.
A supernatural entity has no coherent qualities, but so what? I don't give a **** about supernatural qualities. All I need to do is show that your position is not any more or less valid than theism is. And (predictably), the argument decays into the supernatural, which we can never know. It is literally above us.

if it has no coherent qualities, then it is just a smoke screen designed to evade the fact that there is no actual referrant to speak about. to assert that something exists and yet has no other qualities is meaningless word salad.

Demonstrate it.
Hollow accusations only convince me that you lack any meaningful response. (Which was the exact same in content unsurprisingly)

i have been demonstrating it the entire time. you keep insisting that it is meaningful to say that something exists "outside of" nature when i have explained to you several times that nature is the set of all things that exist, period. nothing outside of that set can exist, by definition. anything that exists, including gods if they do, must be in that set.

 

[The Executive]

you are the clown trying to argue against his views with word salad

to assert that something exists and yet has no other qualities is meaningless word salad

the argument is pure word salad nonsense

meaningless word salad.

Please stop with the "word salad". It makes me hungry.

 

[cF=)]

Please stop with the "word salad". It makes me hungry.

Way to dodge the point. Go back to your pool room if you got nothing to say.

 

[Deleted member]

I am disagreeing with [Del]'s classification of weak atheists as biased agnostics.

I've been saving the following link for a while now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any type of non-theism which falls short of this standard. Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others. Historically, the terms negative and positive atheism have been used to denote this distinction. Within negative or weak atheism, philosopher Anthony Kenny distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim "God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider all God-talk to be meaningless.[1]

The article continues with this:

Many self-described agnostics distinguish their stance from that of "strong atheists", and often attempt to avoid the label of "atheist" altogether, yet they would also fit the definition of "weak atheist" (also known as agnostic atheist).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism - From this link you will understand this term

"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."[1]

I believe that most humans believe in god for three reasons:
1. If you take along look at mental processes of human beings, when they cannot explain something right away, they tend to attribute it to supernatural sources, especially if there is a large group of them.
2. Humans need to have some sort of purpose in life, something to strive for, something that makes it worth it. Just because we think there should be a reason doesn'tmean there is, and that's difficult to accept for most.
3. Because their parents told them that there is a god.

To me, these just don't seem very good reasons to surrender your self reliance and reasoning to the idea of a higher being. That's why I am an atheist

You don't have to surrender anything. Really, we're not talking about a religious God, just a God in general. It's not hard to support the idea and it's equally as easy to understand the possibility of a God. Do you reject God all together? Or are you open about it?

The reason that i am an athiest is because i just think that the concept of god is highly illogical, if you told a man who has never heard of god and said, that he was a man who lives in heaven which is impossible to get to unless you die and worshipped god, and that he created everyone and he is all powerful, what do you think they would say. Right now i'm leaning towards that they would think you are crazy.
It defies the laws of science, and as we know science can be proven religon is a theory.

If you really want to get down to it, science isn't exactly provable. You're still assuming that basic axioms hold true. However, that's not my main point. My main point is that you think religion is stupid - so what?

God should not be synonymous with religion. It's understandable to hold a tentative view on religion. It's not, however, understandable to hold the same view on a God. Seeing Christianity as flawed and denying the Christian God is not the same as reflecting on the topic spiritually and making a decision.

I don't believe in God for the same reasons I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. The idea just seems so childish to me. With evolution proven, and some other Bible stories debunked, I no longer have a reason to believe. I was raised Catholic and attended a Catholic grade school, so I know both sides.

Also, I find the Catholic Church to be very manipulating..

The day I finally convinced my self that I truly did not believe there is a God was the day I finally felt free. It's weird, but I feel as if I've become a better person since I became atheist.

Snex, this is the definition of a strong atheist. In the other thread you said there were none.

I would argue that because you refuse to accept that you're agnostic, you actually have strong atheistic tendencies. You even stated that Socrates was your favourite philosopher. Socrates is the biggest agnostic there is. Like Yossarian said, it seems you more actively reject the position. The way you debate is more:

"I know there is no God" instead of

"I don't know there is a God"

 

[AltF4]

I've always felt that the difference is better made this way:

"I believe there to be no god"
and
"I don't believe there to be a god"

One holds a beliefs about the absence of gods, one does not hold a belief at all.

You, however Del, throw the word 'know' in there just to make the viewpoint sounds ridiculous. Nobody pretends to 'know' for certain anything. You're still trying to strawman your way through this whole thread, even from the first post. No reasonable and learned individual asserts to 'know' things about god, we just hold beliefs.

 

[blazedaces]

Delorted, your entire argument stems on semantics, it's actually very frustrating. You're not actually making any legitimate arguments for a stance. You're just arguing that how snex or certain people label themselves is synonymous with another label. I don't understand what's the point.

Clearly, since I sourced a different part of wikipedia that stated different viewpoints than your sources' these terms are not exactly concrete. But who cares? Why do these labels matter?! What if someone's beliefs don't lie exactly on these extremes?! They don't have to fit into your categories!

It's like you're calling people names, pointing a finger at certain members and saying "strong atheist!" as if they should take offence to this. First they look at you with confusion since their definition of these words doesn't exactly match with yours.

They eventually realize what you're implying. When they explain to you that this is not exactly true, that they do not fit into this category, that they do not completely reject the possibility of a deity, you argue that is indeed their belief as if telling them will change their actual beliefs...

This is honestly what it looks like you're doing over and over. If this is not what you mean to do, then I suggest you re-think your argument strategies. Good luck.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

Blazed, I'm not sure if you understand my prerogative. When I point fingers and call "strong atheist!" I do so in a manner not unlike the Socratic Method. You're right, I don't have a stance. My intentions are obvious - I'm only trying to show the hypocrisy in atheistic arguments.

All in all, your post is more telling me what I'm doing wrong. Rather, I'd like to be shown how I'm wrong.



Alt, I'm really not shoehorning the term "know" anywhere. In fact, I got it from Richard Dawkins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

In The God Delusion Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for "I know there is no god".

When you claim to know something of God, that's a belief. For example, are you telling me that there aren't people who "know" Jesus is the son of God?

If you don't think there are people who claim to "know there is no God", you need to look around. I've met countless strong atheists.

At the end of the day, if you have a lack of belief in a God, but don't reject the possibility of it (which fits a LOT of you)..in my eyes, that's agnostic. It's really not semantics.

 

[snex]

Snex, this is the definition of a strong atheist. In the other thread you said there were none.

that is not strong atheism at all. he did not make any claims about knowledge, nor did he claim to hold any beliefs. he said what he DOESNT believe, not what he DOES. you still cant seem to grasp the difference.

I would argue that because you refuse to accept that you're agnostic, you actually have strong atheistic tendencies. You even stated that Socrates was your favourite philosopher. Socrates is the biggest agnostic there is. Like Yossarian said, it seems you more actively reject the position. The way you debate is more:

"I know there is no God" instead of

"I don't know there is a God"

if i dont know that there is a god, then i cant very well believe in one, now can i? and if other people do claim to know there is a god, i can examine their arguments and show why they are unsound.

by your idiotic standard, you would have to claim to be agnostic about santa claus and the tooth fairy, since you dont KNOW that they dont exist.

 

[AltF4]

If you know someone who claims to "know that there is no god", then I agree in you labeling them as hypocritical, and just plain unscientific. But we (or I, rather. I don't like speaking for others) are not those people.

I hold the belief that there is no god. I have this belief for a multitude of reasons, none of which add up to a conclusive "proof of the non-existence of god" but are sufficient as I see it for me to hold that belief. I began to enumerate my reasons in my first post in this thread, but it went largely unnoticed.

The following are all problems with theism of various kinds that I have seen no sufficient answer for:

Generally:
1) Bad things happen to good / innocent people constantly.
2) Good things happen to bad people constantly.
3) Problems with Free Will (see related thread)
4) Extreme lack of consistency in miracles (see: "why does god hate amputees")
5) Religions are largely separated geopolitically
6) Biblical inconsistencies (or absurdities)
7) Religious atrocities (like the crusades, but this falls partly in the other categories too)


Personally:
1) Personal experience with the corrupt and undeniably evil nature of the catholic church.
2) Everything I have accomplished or possess, I have done so entirely on my own through my own hard work.
3) Though my hard work, I have accomplished much more than the religious people I know. (I tease them that god must like me better.)
4) I have yet to be struck by lightning while yelling blasphemy in the rain.
5) I have yet to find a question that was answered to my satisfaction by religion.


I could enumerate more reasons if need be, too. Those are just some off the top of my head. These are some of the things that make me believe there is not a god.

 

[The Executive]

4) I have yet to be struck by lightning while yelling blasphemy in the rain.

There are others who have done worse than that and yet lived. God doesn't want to strike you dead, He wants you to repent. If He truly wanted to kill all blasphemers then the human population would be exponentially smaller.

Also, kinda agree about the Catholic church...it's not like the Inquisition was just a glitch in the system and not fully orchestrated and sanctioned by the forefathers of today's H.R.E.

 

[CKaiser]

@ delorted:
I'm not really sure if I believe or not. I'd like to believe I don't but I think I'd be lieing to myself. Belief in god is almost a human instinct. However, I've talked to several people and I've never gotten a reason differing from those listed above for why they believe in a god and until I find someone with a reason that doesn't seem feeble (no offense) to me, I'm going to stick to atheism. Believing in god just because there's no reason not to and you stand to gain more from believing than from not believing just seems against the point and weak to me. If there really is a god, why should he give you the benefit if you believe in him simply for safety's sake, that's not really the faith a deity would be looking for. Because I don't have a good reason to believe, I do not.

 

[adumbrodeus]

1) Personal experience with the corrupt and undeniably evil nature of the catholic church.

Also, kinda agree about the Catholic church...it's not like the Inquisition was just a glitch in the system and not fully orchestrated and sanctioned by the forefathers of today's H.R.E.

*sigh*

If you guys wish to bash the Catholic church as it currently stands, then create a thread for it.

Otherwise, it's just off-topic.

Any individual religion is not relevant to the discussions except for the philosophical proofs they use or lack thereof.

To say that God doesn't exist because a particular religion is bad is also a case of the guilt by association fallacy. It both generalizes religions as guilty by association, and generalizes God as guilty by association with the religion in question.

by your idiotic standard, you would have to claim to be agnostic about santa claus and the tooth fairy, since you dont KNOW that they dont exist.

You SHOULD be.

There is no positive proof that either does not exist, but there is no evidence to the contrary.

However, there are obvious distinctions between degrees. One who holds that the tooth fairly is highly unlikely is closer to the atheist end then one who claims that he/she holds no opinion about whether or not the tooth fairy actually exists.

If you positively claim "the tooth fairy does not exist", you've fallen into strong atheism, and signifigantly weakened your argument.



It's signifigantly easier from a philosophical prospective to just attack arguments attempting to prove something anyway. Whenever you assert something it becomes far more difficult.

 

[AltF4]

It absolutely is relevant to this thread, Adumbrodeus! That's exactly what this thread is about: Why I don't believe in god.

And that is one many reasons. Just because Catholicism is an easy target doesn't make it invalid. And furthermore, I am NOT trying to put together a definitive proof of the non-existence of god. Such a thing is impossible by design of theists. (After all, it would be a tragedy to be proven wrong, right?)

Would you feel better if I listed every major religion and showed fundamental inconsistencies with their belief systems? I very well may in a bit. Or how about EVERY religion? Even all the completely absurd native american belief systems.

Put them all together and what do you have? A complete proof of god's non-existence? No. But a compelling argument for it. One that I refuse to ignore.