Why I'm not an Atheist

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...wat?

the only two positions of a proposition are "true" and "false". how can you have more than that?

...Let's try this again...

If you say "An object (that we know nothing about) is completely red", there's, according to you, a 50/50 chance of that being true, as the answer is either true or false. Am I right in saying this?

a christopher hitchens quote! i see you have been well educated in the atheist tradition.

Carl Sagan, actually, and I'd appreciate if you'd stop speculating about my life. I'm not assuming that your writing skills are as bad as your forum posts would make them out to be.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

the rest of the post could only have been written by someone who ignored half my posts in this thread.

The feeling is entirely mutual.

you took the exact premises that i've been disproving this whole time, and just stated them without reasoning, as if they were factual.

Wait is this post by you or someone arguing against you? Because if it's by you, then you might wanna look something called "Dunning-Krüger" up.

 

[JTsm]

I think john is just a troll. Why are you guys taking him seriously?

 

[john!]

...Let's try this again...

If you say "An object (that we know nothing about) is completely red", there's, according to you, a 50/50 chance of that being true, as the answer is either true or false. Am I right in saying this?

roughly what percentage of objects in the world are red? a pretty small percentage. so the odds of your object being red are correspondingly small.

Wait is this post by you or someone arguing against you? Because if it's by you, then you might wanna look something called "Dunning-Krüger" up.

i'm pretty sure "kruger" doesn't have an umlaut, even though i'm also a huge fan of the "smiley u"

i've heard the DKE brought up a lot more in the past year or so, often by wannabe armchair psychologists like yourself who (ironically) are the embodiment of the DKE because they don't actually know anything about psychology. why is this? what made it famous all of a sudden?

I think john is just a troll. Why are you guys taking him seriously?

if i'm a troll, then i'm a genius troll because nobody has been able to disprove what i've been saying.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The last sentence of his post just proved his troll status for me. I shall once again suggest stopping.

 

[john!]

heh, of all the ways you could stop the argument, it has to be accusing your opponent of being a troll? especially when there are others in this thread that agree that atheism is a positive claim? that's pathetic tbh.

 

[GwJ]

Mura, the only definition I'll accept of a miracle is one that necessarily insures that only Yahweh could have performed the action. If any of your "miracles" have a possibility of happening naturally, I will not accept it as a miracle.

Mura, all I read were some nice stories. Do you have any way of proving those actually happened the way they happened and that Yahweh was the cause of them?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Wait, I'm against the idea of atheism making a positive claim?

Oh wait, I'm not.

Pathetic troll is pathetic.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Why are you people still trying with this dumb*** conversation, seriously, you can't just tell me I'm trolling right now, this conversation is clearly going ****ing nowhere. EVEN I WOULD HAVE GIVEN UP BY NOW, AND I'M A HUGE PRICK.

 

[Chuee]

especially when there are others in this thread that agree that atheism is a positive claim? that's pathetic tbh.

You and like.........Mura?
I mean even the other theist, Dre doesn't think so.

 

[Alphicans]

...Let's try this again...

If you say "An object (that we know nothing about) is completely red", there's, according to you, a 50/50 chance of that being true, as the answer is either true or false. Am I right in saying this?

You've called John an idiot, or something similar to that multiple times, yet you post this. What the ****...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You've called John an idiot, or something similar to that multiple times, yet you post this. What the ****...

Because mental masturbation is fun.

 

[Alphicans]

Yes it is.

This debate started out fine, but it collapsed into arguing who has the BoP. Can you guys just forget about that for a second? Could someone just move this argument forward by actually taking the initiative to state some evidence for the existence or non-existence of God. That's where the meat of the debate is, determining who has the BoP is preliminary stuff and shouldn't be this big of a ****ing deal. I honestly don't think John is an idiot; some of his points have been pretty spot on imo, but I think he'd avoid all of this criticism if he just presented a position that actually gave some evidence for God.

 

[Luigitoilet]

If you people think somebody is a troll, you don't win anything by pointing that out. If you think someone is trolling you, STOP REPLYING TO THEM to let you know how "in" you are on the "joke".

In fact everyone should just stop posting in this topic altogether, it stinks like poop. The BOP is on you to determine if the smell is coming from an actual piece of poop or just bad posting

 

[GwJ]

The argument of the BoP is always when the argument has been lost. The topic is no longer about god and more about who has to prove what to whom.

 

[Dre89]

Luigitoilet- Your post is kinda ironic. You mention that pointing out that someone is a troll is pointless, then mention that no one should post in this thread anymore as if that'll stop anyone if the thread remains unlocked.

I don't understand why people feel the need to say God discussions are pointless. I don't see what it contributes.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

The people who do that are attempting to contribute that people need to stop contributing.

I only slightly agree in the context of situations like these, as in any profitless discussion. Otherwise, there is plenty of purpose and meaning in debating the topic.

 

[Oasis_S]

Unless a deistic god is the topic. Then it's all pointless since Deism is pointless.

"I believe in a thing that, if removed from my worldview, would change NOTHING AT ALL."

 

[Mota]

"I believe in a thing that, if removed from my worldview, would change NOTHING AT ALL."

Reminds me of:

"...If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created the same way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not the exact same nonsense. If all of science was wiped, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."

 

[Luigitoilet]

Luigitoilet- Your post is kinda ironic. You mention that pointing out that someone is a troll is pointless, then mention that no one should post in this thread anymore as if that'll stop anyone if the thread remains unlocked.

I don't understand why people feel the need to say God discussions are pointless. I don't see what it contributes.

Apparently you didn't read my last post in this topic in which I praised religious discussion. It's not the mere idea of discussing faith that is pointless, it's that this particular thread which has devolved into nitpicky definitions, caught feelings and debating mechanisms.

also, I was just making a suggestion about not posting, not ordering people to do so. I don't see this conversation improving anytime due to the people involved in it, and all that seems to be happening is people getting aggravated at each other. If you really want to continue discussing what a 50/50 chance actually means, or calling other people dumb (not you specifically Dre, more like John and BPC) and who has the BoP, go right ahead. I myself think it's pretty fruitless, and I don't really see much in the way of actual deistic discussion. I don't think religious discussions should be a platform for converting others or "laying out the evidence", but as a means to have a greater understanding someone else's worldview. It builds character more than "you're an idiot, you're a troll, here are my sources"

 

[Falconv1.0]

John isn't going to change his mind and I don't think he's willing to shut up yet.

I want you to keep remember this every time any of you make another post in this ****ing thread that is about ****ing nothing worth discussing at this point.

 

[MuraRengan]

You and like.........Mura?
I mean even the other theist, Dre doesn't think so.

I don't recall ever making a statement on the issue, because whether or not I agree with John's argument (or at least what I think his argument is) depends on what pretenses we're defining the term "atheism" under.

If we're going under the definition of "someone who believes that god doesn't exist," then yes I agree that that is a positive claim.

But if we're defining atheism as "someone who denies theistic claims of god's existence" then no, I don't think that that is a positive claim.

The problem is, I think the people arguing are arguing from two different understandings of atheism.

 

[Alphicans]

The argument of the BoP is always when the argument has been lost. The topic is no longer about god and more about who has to prove what to whom.

This just shows a clear lack of understanding in regards to this issue. People have argued for the necessity of God, and have been rather successful imo. I've been convinced myself through Berkeley's idealism, although I hope one day I can find a sound argument against him (I haven't tried looking too hard, I probably will one of these days).

 

[GwJ]

Lack of understanding? I wasn't talking about god's necessity. I was simply stating that when an argument gets to the point where both sides just argue about BoP, that shows the argument is generally lost. By lost, I don't mean one side has lost the argument. I mean the argument itself is no longer there; it's lost.

 

[john!]

You and like.........Mura?
I mean even the other theist, Dre doesn't think so.

apparently HOTH is "not against the idea", even though that's what he's been arguing against this whole time...

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Quote a line of me arguing as you say I am, and I'll apologize for my comment.

 

[Alphicans]

Lack of understanding? I wasn't talking about god's necessity. I was simply stating that when an argument gets to the point where both sides just argue about BoP, that shows the argument is generally lost. By lost, I don't mean one side has lost the argument. I mean the argument itself is no longer there; it's lost.

Ah I see, it was a comment on this exact debate. I apologize.

 

[Dre89]

Apparently you didn't read my last post in this topic in which I praised religious discussion. It's not the mere idea of discussing faith that is pointless, it's that this particular thread which has devolved into nitpicky definitions, caught feelings and debating mechanisms.

also, I was just making a suggestion about not posting, not ordering people to do so. I don't see this conversation improving anytime due to the people involved in it, and all that seems to be happening is people getting aggravated at each other. If you really want to continue discussing what a 50/50 chance actually means, or calling other people dumb (not you specifically Dre, more like John and BPC) and who has the BoP, go right ahead. I myself think it's pretty fruitless, and I don't really see much in the way of actual deistic discussion. I don't think religious discussions should be a platform for converting others or "laying out the evidence", but as a means to have a greater understanding someone else's worldview. It builds character more than "you're an idiot, you're a troll, here are my sources"

Ok fair enough, but when you discuss topics as complex as God and religion, you often need to do the 'house-keeping' first, otherwise people are talking about different things coming from completely different places.

This happens a lot in homosexuality discussions. One side feels they have won if they prove it is unnatural, they other wise thinks they've won if they prove that it doesn't harm anyone. What they don't realise is that they're coming from two different normative ethical systems, and the discussion won't go anywhere until they can show their ethical system is superior.

It's annoying and tedious, but logic isn't there to make people happy.

 

[Deleted member]

So last evening (or the day before) I caught the last half of "curiosity" on Discovery channel (stick with me here), about the beginning of the universe and why it would not need a god. They had stephen hawking so I'm sure it's all based on some serious research but I haven't looked into it yet.
basically the argument they follow is that the total energy in the universe is zero, and instead of looking for a first cause (god or not), they argue that time began at the big bang.

anyone that knows more about this argument? because it does look like a reasonable argument to make but Discovery channel obviously tossed out all the details to make accessible television.

 

[Dre89]

Any scientific argument for atheism will need to justify the rejection of the principle of sufficient reason and justify belief in the existence of brute contingencies. They will also need to justify why it's possible that contingent properties could be the first existence.

These are things scientists never do because it's not their field of expertise. The fact they think cosmological models actually remove the need for God shows they don't really get the big picture about the question of God's existence

The cosmological model isn't the real issue. If you reject the PSR and believe in brute contingencies (which atheists basically have to do) then pretty much any cosmological model can exist without God. Even a unicorn could be the first cause under that model of metaphysics, it's just there'd be no reason to believe it actually was the first cause.

 

[Deleted member]

you could've just said no...

 

[Dre89]

Saying 'no' doesn't even make sense in the context of your post.

If I simply said it was a bad argument, people would have either asked me why, or just assumed I had no reasoning behind my answer and criticised me on those grounds.

 

[Deleted member]

I would like to actually hear the argument (no as in you dont seem to know it), before I would form an opinion on it.

 

[Dre89]

I don't need to know specific science of the argument to know that it falls into the same metaphysical category as every other atheistic model.

You have to reject the PSR and assume brute contingency if you believe the first existence was physical and God is not needed. If you don't believe those things you're probably not an atheist.

From a science perspective this stuff is pretty cool, but from a God discussion perspective it doesn't do anything towards showing God is not necessary.

 

[Deleted member]

you assume stuff for no reason in paragraph 1 and I don't even knwo what the terms in paragraph 2 mean (you probably have already explained them, haven't followed this blog in a while)

 

[Dre89]

I'm not simply assuming things in paragraph one, any theory which says that physical/natural properties are the first existence (basically atheism) automatically has metaphysics which says that contingent properties can exist without being caused, because physical/natural properties are contingent by definition.

Now if you have this metsphysical model then you automatically reject the principle of sufficient reason and assume brute contingency, no matter what the specifics of the cosmological model are.

Any theory that suggests a specific cosmological model as removing the need for God, and needing no cause, automatically has this metaphysics.

 

[GwJ]

Well, other than a god, wouldn't the only other option HAVE to be a physical answer?

 

[Dre89]

That's the point, all atheitic models fall under the same general metaphysical framework.

That's why the specific cosmological models are irrelevant, because they still have to answer the same metaphysical questions, and in the metaphysical framework atheists hold any cosmological model could exist without God.

 

[Chuee]

I'm not simply assuming things in paragraph one, any theory which says that physical/natural properties are the first existence (basically atheism) automatically has metaphysics which says that contingent properties can exist without being caused, because physical/natural properties are contingent by definition.

So, from the definition I found, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that everything has to have a reason or cause? So it's pretty much the Cosmological/First Cause argument?
If so, what reason is it so that the first cause has to fit under the definition of a God? God is defined with characteristics as a being and having intelligence/knowledge. For what reason would God have human qualities?
I'm not really well versed in philosophy, so I just searched it. From what I found, PSR and Brute Contingency seem to be controversial.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah they are controversial, I'm not saying there's a default position on these issues. I'm saying either side has to justify their stance.

The PSR is that everything has an explanation or reason for existing, which is different to the first cause argument. For example, the PSR can be problematic for theists, because they have to address the issue of an explanation for God. Some say he's explained by himself, some say he's explained by his essence, and some say there is no explanation (brute fact).

Brute contingency is basically saying that contingent beings/properties can exist as brute facts (without any explanation).

Believing in brute facts usually goes hand in hand with rejecting the PSR. If I held these positions I would be an atheist.

As for why people believe the first cause must be God, or have deity-like properties, there's a whole range of arguments and it takes too long to explain. But good theists aren't simply saying 'a God is necessary, you need to prove otherwise' they usually at least justify believing in philosophical or deistic properties of God, but rarely justify belief in theological properties (such as the Trinity or that he loves us all).

The three standard arguments for God in contemporary philosophy of religion are the cosmological argument (probably the biggest one) the ontological argument (not many people use this) and the argument from design.

However, in my personal opinion (I stress that this isn't common knowledge or anything of the sort) I find these arguments insufficient on their own because like most atheistic models, they have to assume a lot of metaphysical propositions.