Thread: A critique of Atheism

^

Ah yes but then again it is often the case, in debates here, that Atheists will make generalizations about Christians. For example which verse of the bible which Christians take literally can be different( this could be because of denomination or just in general in the same denomination, however i would sometimes put fourth the opinion they are not Christian as their beliefs range so far from the definition), some Christians are not against stem cell research/treatments, some Christians to not "hate" homosexuals etc. We are equally is bad as each other although in debating it is the done thing, exaggeration or generalizations help enforce an argument against another party.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Ah yes but then again it is often the case, in debates here, that Atheists will make generalizations about Christians. For example which verse of the bible which Christians take literally can be different...

It's not about which of these two positions is worse per se. It's about having a bad position at in the first place.

But if we must make the comparison, we have to at least realize that Christians are all reading from a specific text to get their rules. This obviously has the affect of alignment on many, many issues. At least if someone makes a generalization about Christians, a good number of them are likely to actually fit the description. In the OP's case, I'm guessing less than 1% of Atheists would fit his definition.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Ah yes but then again it is often the case, in debates here, that Atheists will make generalizations about Christians. For example which verse of the bible which Christians take literally can be different( this could be because of denomination or just in general in the same denomination, however i would sometimes put fourth the opinion they are not Christian as their beliefs range so far from the definition), some Christians are not against stem cell research/treatments, some Christians to not "hate" homosexuals etc. We are equally is bad as each other although in debating it is the done thing, exaggeration or generalizations help enforce an argument against another party.

I judge Christianity by what it is based on: the bible and what it says about Jesus. Of course I take the bible literally. And the first thing a Christian would have to tell me is how he squares his tolerance of homosexuality with the message of the bible that clearly states that homosexuals are perverts that need to be killed.

Once you call yourself Christian, you automatically create this dogmatic connection to the bible that make you bound to what it says. This is why I can judge Christians by the book they hold holy and NOT have to care about their "personal" beliefs.

On the atheist side, no such book exists and this is why only in that case I can actually respect the individual views of that person, because they are inevitably based on some form of evidence or reasoning as opposed to the horrendous whirling abyss of bloody burning dog feces that is religious dogma.

Your assertion as to what atheism is defined as is completely wrong. Atheism. Lack of a belief in any supernatural deities. That does not mean we believe that there IS no Deity, it just means that at no time in our lives do we think of a diety as being defined or existing.

Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic and be an atheist, and be an agnostic and not be an atheist.

There are some atheist that go a step further and assert that there is no god, but that is not what atheism inherently does.

I for one think it is more logical to think that the universe exists due to a simple principle, rather than an extremely complicated super-hero.

You used a definition of atheism so narrow that there isn't a single atheist in existence. Hence your arguments are completely redundant.

Nobody's going to assert that God definitely does not exist because there's no evidence that he doesn't. Atheists think that he doesn't though, because you should only believe something is true if there is evidence for it, not because there is no evidence against it.

God does not exist. This is a fact that your argument fails to have any impact upon whatsoever. In fact it doesn't have any kind of application or impact at all.

What was your intention? Are you trying to justify a belief in God?

Ok, wait a second. I understand that the operant definition I used doesn't apply to all 'atheists'...but some of you are clearly taking this fact and distorting it to unreasonable lengths. For example:

You used a definition of atheism so narrow that there isn't a single atheist in existence. Hence your arguments are completely redundant.

So you are saying that there isn't a single atheist who believes God doesn't exist? You've got to be kidding me.

I don't understand why people keep thinking this is a matter of certainty. Its doesn't matter if you are 99.9% sure God doesn't exist or 100% sure. It is not the extent of the belief that makes in unsubstantiated its the belief itself (in any extent). Simply because you may only be 99.9% certain doesn't mean that the belief at heart still isn't unsubstantiated. That missing .1% (or .0001%, etc) doesn't create a loophole that renders an otherwise unsubstantiated belief exempt from the sort of scrutiny I placed it under. It doesn't matter if someone feels completely certain or not, the belief to any degree is unsubstantiated. If you disagree, then you must also make allowances for theists who aren't technically 100% certain God exists, but are theists nevertheless.

We have no proof giant space gnomes don't exist. However, their existence would go against scientifically tested knowledge and defy logic, since there's no proof going for them either, the claim is as good as something completely made up on the spot. (just like personal gods).

It's illogical, therefore I don't believe in giant space gnomes hiding in Saturn, just like I don't believe in the FSM, the christian god, allah, zeus, etc. Until some kind of evidence the claims weren't pulled out of someone's ass, I don't believe or believe they don't exist in case of utter silliness (every god listed above).

Here we go with the sloppy use of the word 'logic' again. An argument is not illogical if its logically valid. For example, this is a perfectly logical argument.

P1: If God is supernatural
P2: (and) If science is inherently limited to studying the natural universe
C: Then science is inherently unable to study God

It's validity is not under question because the conclusion is wholly justified by the premises. What’s under question is the soundness of the argument. Or in other words, its not that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises (that is what illogical means), its whether or not those premise are true to begin with.

This is an illogical argument:

P1: If God is supernatural
P2: (and) If science is inherently limited to studying the natural universe
C: Then the Denver Broncos will no doubt win the super bowl this year

As you can see, even if the premises were true, the conclusion still does not follow from those premises. That's what illogical means. So pease, do not use the word "illogical" to refer to the soundness of an argument...its erroneous and extremely annoying. The FSM argument is logical, though it is admittedly not sound (or true). Please understand the distinction, because it’s not the logicalness of the concept of God that seems to be under question (since as you can see, there are perfectly logical arguments that can make a case for God), its the soundness of the concept...as in, its about whether or not the premises really are true.


Korittke, thats what happens when you literally argue with 10 people at once

Seriously though, you make a lot of good points and I think we are more on the same page than it may appear to be. I just happened to take an opposing view to make a point about the nature of atheism (as in the belief that God does not exist).

Originally Posted by ethen

So you are saying that there isn't a single atheist who believes God doesn't exist? You've got to be kidding me.

I don't understand why people keep thinking this is a matter of certainty. Its doesn't matter if you are 99.9% sure God doesn't exist or 100% sure. It is not the extent of the belief that makes in unsubstantiated its the belief itself (in any extent). Simply because you may only be 99.9% certain doesn't mean that the belief at heart still isn't unsubstantiated. That .1% (or .0001%, etc) doesn't create a loophole that renders an otherwise unsubstantiated belief exempt from the sort of scrutiny I placed it under.

While I'm on the noncognitivist side, my other point was that there is an inherent difference between a positive belief and a negative one.

First, let me rephrase what a belief is, when it's put into words: A linguistic representation of a psychological respresentation/model of the world. A basic component of one's world view. (might not be perfect, but you get the idea)
Because a belief is the most direct representation of how we perceive the world it is very closely linked to behavior.
And this is important because sometimes the absence of belief is equated with the negative equivalent of the absent belief (no belief about god = believing that god does not exist). In many ways, this is entirely correct, except that this negative belief is implicit in the behavior and world view of the person.

Because a world view is always complete (for every part of it there is a belief) and because our behavior relies on this complete world view, it is impossible not to have a belief about a concept that is a part of this world view. If a concept is not part of the world view, (1) it is impossible to have a belief about it, (2) the behavior reflects the negative equivalent of the absent belief about the concept.

So depending on how we use the word "belief", this does in particular mean that it is entirely impossible not to have a belief about the existence of god. Because the proposed phenomenon "god" is a very predominant concept in our culture, this sentence holds true for the vast majority of the population.

If you believe in god, you act accordingly.

If you do not believe in god, you act accordingly. This means that you act as though there were no god. This means that you do in fact believe that there is no god. This belief can be either implicit, if you never heard of the word god, or explicit, if you have been exposed to it.

Now, if a person has no belief regarding god, god is not part of his/her world view. The number of beliefs that one doesn't have, is potentially infinite. ONLY once we ask this person about his/her belief about something (e.g. god) will a temporary belief/evaluation of this concept be created to answer the question.

If a person has the belief that god does not exist, then god is again NOT part of the world view. It is NOT a positive affirmation. It is a negative belief and it is impossible to make a true negative statement ("flying monkeys do not exist"), because we can not search the whole universe. ONLY because religion itself proposes the concept of god, is this person pressed into developing this belief of non-existence.

This belief is parallel to the belief that no flying monkeys exist. Before I mentioned this, flying monkeys were not part of your world view. This means that (a) you never believed in them, (b) if I ask you about them, you MUST tell me that you believe that they don't exist, because you acted as though they don't exist all along.

The point is thus: Absence of belief and negative belief are on a very basic level completely identical. The questions are merely
(1) whether the belief is implicit or explicit
(2) whether or not an outside idea forces the non-belief to turn into a negative belief.

A negative belief (I believe that God does not exist)
- is impossible to provide evidence for
- does not need evidence to be a reasonable belief
- is not in any way linked to a de-facto claim (God does not exist)

A positive belief (I believe that God exists)
- is possible to provide evidence for
- needs evidence to be reasonable
- is directly linked to the analog de-facto claim (God does exist)


This is also why I said that it was entirely reasonable to believe that Newton basically explained all of physics before Einstein came along. Reasonable does not necessarily mean true. But it does mean that it (a) is based on the evidence provided, (b) contains no logical flaws. As long as there is no indication that would suggest a currently held belief to be wrong, it is reasonable to keep it.

P1: If God is supernatural
P2: (and) If science is inherently limited to studying the natural universe
C: Then science is inherently unable to study God

I propose the meaning of P1 is void because the word "supernatural" pertains to something that can not exist.

So you are saying that there isn't a single atheist who believes God doesn't exist? You've got to be kidding me.

After all your rigourous defining, it's a shame you left out what the word 'believes' means.

If 'belief' means 'what you think based upon empirical evidence', then every atheist believes that God does not exist, by definition.

If 'belief' instead means 'a 100% conviction based upon an unscientific leap of faith to a conclusion', then no, I believe that there are either no such atheists or else a ridiculously small number who possess an irrational thought process, because it is absurd to make such a claim.

I still don't really see what the point of this argument is. You've refuted the viewpoint of a potential tiny number of 'atheists' and all of us seem to agree with you. However all of us still think that God does not exist. What has the argument achieved?

To pick from the vast world of imagination one specific, unobserved and supernatural idea, vaguely define it, call it "god" and then defend it's possbility while denying other equally valid ideas...

Originally Posted by ethen

That's what illogical means.

Sorry, ethen. But I base my belife system on empirical evidence or mathematical proof.

Ethen your not even wrong.

...And this is important because sometimes the absence of belief is equated with the negative equivalent of the absent belief (no belief about god = believing that god does not exist). In many ways, this is entirely correct, except that this negative belief is implicit in the behavior and world view of the person.

Because a world view is always complete (for every part of it there is a belief) and because our behavior relies on this complete world view, it is impossible not to have a belief about a concept that is a part of this world view. If a concept is not part of the world view, (1) it is impossible to have a belief about it, (2) the behavior reflects the negative equivalent of the absent belief about the concept.

So depending on how we use the word "belief", this does in particular mean that it is entirely impossible not to have a belief about the existence of god. Because the proposed phenomenon "god" is a very predominant concept in our culture, this sentence holds true for the vast majority of the population.

So, if I act in a similar way as those who believe God does not exist, then this automatically means that I believe God does not exist...even if there isn't any definite criteria in my concept of 'God'? Is that what you were implying or did I misunderstand? I'm pretty sure I could think of a few examples in which this couldn't be the case...but maybe that wasn't what you were saying. I mean, perhaps I act as if there is no Christian God, but its pretty tough to say I act as if there is no God (in general) unless you settle on some sort of necessary criteria for God, right?

A positive belief (I believe that God exists)
- is possible to provide evidence for
- needs evidence to be reasonable
- is directly linked to the analog de-facto claim (God does exist)

If we assume the standard definition of God, then the first two premises you state here are non-applicable. The premise "is possible to provide evidence for" implies physical evidence, and does not/cannot apply to something non-physical in the same way it would to things that are physical. This follows for the second premise because it can be reasonable/logical to believe in a supernatural thing without physical evidence, since there ought not be physical evidence for non-physical things to begin with...and so nothing is unreasonable about the absence of physical evidence. In short, that argument makes sense for thing that are physical in nature, but doesn't apply to those that aren't.

I propose the meaning of P1 is void because the word "supernatural" pertains to something that can not exist.

And why exactly can't there be a plane of existence 'outside' of what we call the physical universe?

After all your rigourous defining, it's a shame you left out what the word 'believes' means.

I didn't think it was necessary but apparently it was. Oh, and that blanatant false dichotomy you put forth is just silly. Belief is trust that something is accurate in regard to reality. It makes no claims of percentages of certainty (nice try attemping to slip that in there, btw) nor does it make claims of empirical evidence. A belief is a belief regardless of the critieria you shamelessly tried to incorporate into the definition of the word. You can believe something without evidence (hence thats ruled out as a critieria) and you can believe something without being certain (hence that criteria is ruled out as well). Clear enough?

To pick from the vast world of imagination one specific, unobserved and supernatural idea, vaguely define it, call it "god" and then defend it's possbility while denying other equally valid ideas...

Well, lets see here...since I used the technique of reductio ad absurdum to argue against atheism (which is the technique of assuming your opponents premises for the sake of argument), technically i wasn't the one who picked "from the vast world of imagination one specific, unobserved and supernatural idea, vaguely define it, call it "god" and then..." made a claim about it...atheists did. In fact, I couldn't have argued against atheism unless they had done this very thing. Good point, that is a bit sketchy.

Sorry, ethen. But I base my belife system on empirical evidence or mathematical proof.

Evidence you haven't actually seen and math you actually don't understand? Yeah I know.

Originally Posted by ethen

And why exactly can't there be a plane of existence 'outside' of what we call the physical universe?

Because if such a "plane of existence" were observed, the concept of the physical universe would simply expand to include it. The idea of something which can't be investigated by science is inherently meaningless, since science is the study of everything.

Consider natural disasters. Already, simply by observing the natural world, one can deduce that god, if he exists, is not benevolent and omnipotent.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Because if such a "plane of existence" were observed, the concept of the physical universe would simply expand to include it. The idea of something which can't be investigated by science is inherently meaningless, since science is the study of everything.

Consider natural disasters. Already, simply by observing the natural world, one can deduce that god, if he exists, is not benevolent and omnipotent.

You seem to imply that the definition of God is material, following on from the belief that jesus was literally the son of 'him', which is not a general argument as many people believe otherwise from the physical.

wat

In regards to your comment: god, if he exists, is not benevolent and omnipotent.

You seem to have implied that God (by your definition) is material (- by judging God materially).

Yet the very act of creation implies that God is not material.

His comment does not imply that any god is material. It's merely illustrating that combining the two supposed qualities of God (all-loving and all-powerful) is inconsistent with widespread devastation and death wrecked upon people who encounter extremes of weather on our planet.

How this applies to the materialism of God, I don't know where you're reaching from to come to that conclusion.

You're judging God's love materialistically. As if God's supposed qualities apply to Itself and don't extend past the physical.

Originally Posted by ethen

Well, lets see here...since I used the technique of reductio ad absurdum to argue against atheism (...)

I think it's awesome using latin expressions, but you didn't use reductio ad absurdum. I used it against agnosticism. (FSM)

(...) technically i wasn't the one who picked "from the vast world of imagination one specific, unobserved and supernatural idea, vaguely define it, call it "god" and then..." made a claim about it...atheists did.

Once again, no. Atheists don't define god, the only thing you can assume about an atheist is that up to the present, no definition of god thrown made a believer out of him.

You didn't define "god" while criticizing atheists, but seeing as later you openly denied the existence of the FSM, it's certain that you had from the beginning at least one definition of "god" in mind.

In fact, I couldn't have argued against atheism unless they had done this very thing. Good point, that is a bit sketchy.

You couldn't? But you did. Thread starter?

think it's awesome using latin expressions, but you didn't use reductio ad absurdum.

Atheism assumes the "standard" definition of God, the one that includes the quality of God being supernatural. As a result, so did I. Atheism then asserts that beliving God doesn't exist is reasonable because there is no physical evidence of God, to which I objected on the grounds that its not unreasonable for a supposed supernatural being to exist without physical evidence of its existence. How is that not reductio ad absurdum? I assumed atheisms premises and showed how the conclusion does not actually follow from them.

I used it against agnosticism. (FSM)

And I used FSM against atheism, remember? Plus, I never said the belief was anything more than faith, so what exactly did you use "against" agnosticism anyhow?

Once again, no. Atheists don't define god, the only thing you can assume about an atheist is that up to the present, no definition of god thrown made a believer out of him.

So they say, and yet, they still find a way of beliving that God doesn't exist evetnhough they discard the criteria of God.

You didn't define "god" while criticizing atheists, but seeing as later you openly denied the existence of the FSM, it's certain that you had from the beginning at least one definition of "god" in mind.

Oh really...how do you figure? The last time I checked, there is only one definition of the FSM, and its admittly make-believe. How is that like the concept of a God?

You couldn't? But you did. Thread starter?

You speak as if I have no experience of atheistic arguments, as if I wasn't already aware of the common assumptions made by atheism before I made the thread starter. I do frequent Dreamviews after all . Granted, no specific individual had come out and made those assumption for me, all in the name of atheism, so that I could go ahead with the thread starter. No, I went off the common assumtions of atheism usually makes. I suppose I should have figured that into the oringial post as well...Meh, I was bound to forget something

Nevertheless, I think I am having a hard time seeing where you are going with this. Lets temporarily assume that I did have a specific concept of God in mind...what relevence does that have to the arguments I put forth against atheism? At best, this would only make me a hypocrite, someone who is at just as much fault as the atheists he criticizes. But this doesn't magically make those criticisms go away or stop making sense...it just means that we both are guilty of them. The problems would still be there, however.

Because if such a "plane of existence" were observed, the concept of the physical universe would simply expand to include it. The idea of something which can't be investigated by science is inherently meaningless, since science is the study of everything.

Your absolutist view of science speaks volumes, believe me. Perhaps not in the way you anticipated, but nevertheless. First, you presuppose that the supernatural could be phsycially observed, which completely disregards what "supernatural" is supposed to imply. Second, you seem to think that our ability to understand something determines what ultimately is and isn't real. Thirdly, not only do you assume that science is inherently able to study (or have access to) everything that may exist on any plane of existence or dimension of reality...but you also assume that homospaiens have the suffient mental capacity to recognize/comprehend all of the phenomena that may be real. Have you honestly never considered the possibility (nay, the likelihood) that, like every other species on this planet, we too have a "glass ceiling" to our ability to understand certain truths about the universe? And do you honestly think that its enough to understand all there is to understand?

This is the best argument against atheism I've found.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...LrpsTOAg&hl=en

Originally Posted by Sandform

This is the best argument against atheism I've found.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...LrpsTOAg&hl=en

Damn, I don't got anything to say to that.

What my attention most about that video is the grammatical error of 'a athiest' instead of 'an atheist'. That and the sweeping generalisations it makes, take your pick.

Originally Posted by ClouD

You're judging God's love materialistically. As if God's supposed qualities apply to Itself and don't extend past the physical.

I have no idea what you mean. What possible situation could there be in which the existence of an omnipotent benevolent being and unnecessary suffering are not mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

I have no idea what you mean. What possible situation could there be in which the existence of an omnipotent benevolent being and unnecessary suffering are not mutually exclusive?

When he came to encounter the inner space -- the infinity, someone asked him, "Marpa, how are you now?"

Marpa's answer is exceptional, unexpected. No buddha has answered that way. Marpa said, "As miserable as before."

The man was bewildered. He said, "As miserable as before?"

But Marpa laughed. He said, "Yes, but with a difference, and the difference is that now the misery is voluntary. Sometimes, just for a taste of the world, I move outwards, but now I am the master. Any moment I can go inwards, and it is good to move in the polarities. Then one remains alive. I can move!" Marpa said, "I can move now. Sometimes I move in the miseries, but now the miseries are not something which happen to me. I happen to them and I remain untouched." Of course, when you move voluntarily, you remain untouched.