Done, versus no substantiation whatever in the other direction, but they will still go on to preach God as fact and truth, which was always a deception to begin with, and I suppose they still will.
Definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Done, versus no substantiation whatever in the other direction, but they will still go on to preach God as fact and truth, which was always a deception to begin with, and I suppose they still will.
In short, neither side is convinced by the other side's substantiations (and even claims none have been made).
:shrug:
I think it is valid to say that all are atheists until exposed to religious beliefs.
This & similar threads deteriorate because nobody seems to realize that Theist, Atheist, & Agnostic views are opinions/beliefs.
Only the very naive think that you can prove or disprove the existence of a deity. If you think otherwise, start with a set of axioms and then base your proof on them.
Why confuse simple definitions with concepts belonging to a philosophical treatise?
The basic definitions are excellent starting points.
BTW: Atheism & theism are opposite points of view/belief. Saying that atheism is a reaction to theism is a valid view of a person who (for example) became an atheist due to being abused by theist parents. It is not a valid view of a person who became an atheist due to either not accepting theist views or not having been exposed to theist views.
I started on the road to being an atheist (at about age 7-8) due to viewing Job as having been mistreated by the god of the old testament. My view was reinforced by the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son: I could not imagine my father being willing to sacrifice me. I could not imagine that an entity worth worshiping would make such a request.
By the time I was 12-13, I was an atheist who called himself an agnostic. By the time I was 19-20, I considered myself an atheist.
I do not consider my becoming an atheist to be a reaction to theism. It was a mental process taking place over a period of years.
This & similar threads deteriorate because nobody seems to realize that Theist, Atheist, & Agnostic views are opinions/beliefs.
Only the very naive think that you can prove or disprove the existence of a deity. If you think otherwise, start with a set of axioms and then base your proof on them.
The axioms should include some relating to allowable logical operations (EG: Law of the excluded middle) as well as axioms pertinent to the actual topic.
BTW: If asked to support my atheist view, I would say that it seems consistent with mathematics & science, but I would not consider this to be a proof.Why confuse simple definitions with concepts belonging to a philosophical treatise?
Agnostic atheist? Agnostic Theist? Maybe you should include Atheist Theist: A theist who might consider changing his mind on the question of god's existence.
Such phrases are meaningless without further discussion of the intended semantics.The basic definitions are excellent starting points.
Theist: One who believes that a god (or gods) exists. You can further qualify by specifying which god, how many, & the belief in the possibility (or impossibility) of a proof of existence. One can call a person a Theist with occasional doubts.
Atheist: One who does not believe that a god exists.
Agnostic: One who cannot assign true or false to the statement: "A god exists." I think this is a vaid definition, but would not object to various other definitions with equivalent semantic implications.
Phrases like agnostic atheist or agnostic theist are some type of undefined shorthand for a particular point of view. Atheist: One who does not believe that a god exists.
Agnostic: One who cannot assign true or false to the statement: "A god exists." I think this is a vaid definition, but would not object to various other definitions with equivalent semantic implications.
BTW: Atheism & theism are opposite points of view/belief. Saying that atheism is a reaction to theism is a valid view of a person who (for example) became an atheist due to being abused by theist parents. It is not a valid view of a person who became an atheist due to either not accepting theist views or not having been exposed to theist views.
I started on the road to being an atheist (at about age 7-8) due to viewing Job as having been mistreated by the god of the old testament. My view was reinforced by the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son: I could not imagine my father being willing to sacrifice me. I could not imagine that an entity worth worshiping would make such a request.
By the time I was 12-13, I was an atheist who called himself an agnostic. By the time I was 19-20, I considered myself an atheist.
I do not consider my becoming an atheist to be a reaction to theism. It was a mental process taking place over a period of years.
BTW: Claiming that either atheists or theists have a burden of proof is a ploy & probably should be viewed as a fallacious proof. It attempts to discredit the opposing POV by requiring the opponent to do an impossible task & thus win the argument.
Emotion on the God belief side will cause 'neglect', which is why one will seldom even see an attempt to refute my disproofs. Or they don't care, for they just want what they want. And some will just restate their magic definitions, which, of course, does nothing whatsoever.
How can something or anything, even the most complex and highest Being possible, be forever there, all made and defined without ever having been made and defined in a first place that never was? Believers don't care, for they want magic and comfort. They halt at a word.
We'd all be better off to proceed on into why God belief becomes immune to all but magic, and there is much scientific reasoning and efforts on the subject.
While I agree with the definitions of atheism/theism, as a start, the main issue, I think, would be in what is meant by your definition of atheist.
There is a difference in meaning between "not believing that a god exists" and "believing that a god does not exist" which many do not appreciate.
I can not agree with this definition.
(A)theism is an ontological position... on the existence of God. Do you believe God exists, or do you not believe?
Agnosticism is an epistemological position... on the knowledge of the matter in hand. Agnostics either hold that they, personally, have no knowledge, or they hold that knowledge is impossible etc.
It is often the case that one's epistemological position leads to their ontological position.
For example, most accept that coffee exists because they personally have the necessary knowledge, or at least are aware that knowledge of coffee is obtainable etc. This epistemological position therefore leads them to accept the existence of coffee as fact.
With God, many people either have no personal knowledge or consider the very idea of God to be unknowable - and thus their agnosticism leads them to reject belief in God... i.e. they do not believe that God exists.
Some take a more hard-line view and actually believe that God does not exist.
However, there are some agnostics who still believe in the existence of God.
No, they are fairly well defined.
Combinations of (A)theism and agnosticism should be reasonably well understood by anyone who appreciates the underlying meaning of the terms.
Confusion tends to arise when people consider Agnosticism to be a middle position on an ontological scale between "Belief in God's existence" and "Belief in God's non-existence".
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
The problem is some atheists don't want to prove that God dosen't exist.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Belief is not self-reliant. God revealed Himself to man, and if it were not the case, I can say with certainty that I would have remained an atheist.
'God' never said a word; humans did, and we've already ruled out the Bible and what mammals says for use either way. Felt sensation above neurology doesn't cut it, plus I have already disproved 'God' as entirely self-contradictory, and that cannot be undone.
Physics theories have proposed other dimensions exist outside/between our known universe. This is often called parallel universes. Something similar had been the claim about God, cmany enturies before the physics proposed the same thing. For example, Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world. It was not about matter like we know.
As a scientists, if I want to prove or disprove something, I need to make sure I am unising the correct experimental conditions. You can't prove turtles can't fly, by looking under the water; yup no flying turtles; QED.
Unless you can go between the proposed dimensions, as postulated by science, looking in this particular universe will not set up the proper experimental conditions. It may be a while before science can catch up with the technical capability for a real experiment.
As a scientists, if I want to prove or disprove something, I need to make sure I am unising the correct experimental conditions. You can't prove turtles can't fly, by looking under the water; yup no flying turtles; QED.
Unless you can go between the proposed dimensions, as postulated by science, looking in this particular universe will not set up the proper experimental conditions. It may be a while before science can catch up with the technical capability for a real experiment.
Huh?
When? Where? How do you know?
What nonsense. You've convinced yourself (or been convinced) the above is true.
I don't need to. Just like I don't need to prove pink elephants doesn't exist.
IOW the existance of God is a scientific question.
Ok. I claim that I can fly. Prove that I can't please.
Would it be more reasonable if you asked me to prove that I can? I think so. It's not a ploy. It's about making outlandish claims and then telling other people to prove that your claims are false. It's ridiculous to spin it the other way around.
Exactly!
Arguments for and against something are meant to facilitate thought on an issue, not to convince people one way or another.
To assign the burden of proof to the other person is to delegate to that person the responsibility for one's own beliefs/convictions/stances.
Which is an extremely irresponsible thing to do!
You are missing Dinosaur's point.
Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist.... Seriously....
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'll respond to the original post in this thread in due course, but this subsequent post caught my eye first. It's posed as a challenge to "atheists" and (despite being a self-styled "agnostic") I kind of like rising to challenges and engaging the challengers. It's intellectual entertainment, I guess.
I'm not sure what "emotional answers" means. I think that some of the implied arguments that MoM dismisses are pretty good in logical terms, and here's why --
1. God dosen't exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
Evil, suffering and death create no end of difficulties for those theists who want to retain the traditional "theistic attributes" of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. It's philosophical theology's historic 'problem of evil'. Of course, an ignorant, uncaring or impotent 'God' might be more consistent with evil, suffering and death, but that's a pretty dramatic redefinition of the concept.
2. God dosen't exist because believers are hypocrites.
That one doesn't speak to God's existence so much as it tends to discredit theistic believers' arguments from religious experience. Religious believers often claim to have been touched, even to have had their lives transformed, by the "holy spirit" or something. But in reality, religious believers don't seem to be any different than non-believers when conducting their secular affairs and they don't seem to be any more moral, caring, compassionate or wise.
3. God dosen't exist because believers can't prove God exists.
The idea of proof is kind of a red-herring. (Proofs are rarely encountered outside mathematics and logic.) The issue is whether there is convincing (if probabilistic) evidence for some generic philosophical "God's" existence, or for the existence of some particular "God" such as Yahweh or Vishnu derived from a particular religious tradition. (The word 'God' is rarely defined adaquately. In Western discussion, it's typically just assumed that the word connotes the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.) Lack of evidence isn't "proof" of 'God's' non-existence. But lack of evidence for something is excellent justification for not believing in the existence of that thing. That's how we typically operate in our normal lives.
4. God dosen't exist because I have never seen or felt God.
That's essentially the last one restated. I guess that the difference here is the implied argument from authority. Maybe YOU have never seen or felt God, but I HAVE. Or MY PERFECT CHURCH HAS. The question then is whether it's reasonable to accept claims about the existence of something unseen (and seemingly unseeable) simply on the authority of the individual theist or his or her church.
5. God dosen't exist because my prayers aren't answered.
I don't think that one would arise for an atheist, would it?
6. God dosen't exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
This one essentially restates number two, up above. If God changes lives, then one would expect to observe believers living more moral, compassionate and wise lives than the rest of us lead. One would expect the action of the "holy spirit" to actually have observable effects.
7. God dosen't exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
This one doesn't address God's existence so much as it attacks the idea that the Bible is the one unique (and some would insist infallible and inerrant) revelation of God. (Whatever 'God' is.) If the Bible is, as it certainly appears to be, man-made and rather crude in spots, then that would seem to create greate difficulty for the religious claim that it's God's own word. If one's only reason for believing in God is what the Bible says, then this one certainly impacts that justification of that belief.
8. God dosen't exist because God killed people in the Bible.
This one revisits the problem of evil. It represents a strong (and to my mind irrefutable) argument that the God of the Old-Testament is not a suitable object of human worship. Even Adolph Hitler would be shocked by some of the things that God supposedly did. If human beings are judged 'evil' for doing X or Y, then I can't see how God can escape the same judgement for doing the same things. To expect anything less would be to accept that God is mankind's moral inferior.
9. God dosen't exist because Jesus is not God.
That's a Christian-specific point that probably doesn't make much sense to an atheist.
Bottom line:
I think that most of your nine "emotional answers" are actually pretty good. Taken together, they represent good justification for questioning the kind of claims that theists often make.
I'm not sure what "emotional answers" means. I think that some of the implied arguments that MoM dismisses are pretty good in logical terms, and here's why --
1. God dosen't exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
Evil, suffering and death create no end of difficulties for those theists who want to retain the traditional "theistic attributes" of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. It's philosophical theology's historic 'problem of evil'. Of course, an ignorant, uncaring or impotent 'God' might be more consistent with evil, suffering and death, but that's a pretty dramatic redefinition of the concept.
2. God dosen't exist because believers are hypocrites.
That one doesn't speak to God's existence so much as it tends to discredit theistic believers' arguments from religious experience. Religious believers often claim to have been touched, even to have had their lives transformed, by the "holy spirit" or something. But in reality, religious believers don't seem to be any different than non-believers when conducting their secular affairs and they don't seem to be any more moral, caring, compassionate or wise.
3. God dosen't exist because believers can't prove God exists.
The idea of proof is kind of a red-herring. (Proofs are rarely encountered outside mathematics and logic.) The issue is whether there is convincing (if probabilistic) evidence for some generic philosophical "God's" existence, or for the existence of some particular "God" such as Yahweh or Vishnu derived from a particular religious tradition. (The word 'God' is rarely defined adaquately. In Western discussion, it's typically just assumed that the word connotes the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.) Lack of evidence isn't "proof" of 'God's' non-existence. But lack of evidence for something is excellent justification for not believing in the existence of that thing. That's how we typically operate in our normal lives.
4. God dosen't exist because I have never seen or felt God.
That's essentially the last one restated. I guess that the difference here is the implied argument from authority. Maybe YOU have never seen or felt God, but I HAVE. Or MY PERFECT CHURCH HAS. The question then is whether it's reasonable to accept claims about the existence of something unseen (and seemingly unseeable) simply on the authority of the individual theist or his or her church.
5. God dosen't exist because my prayers aren't answered.
I don't think that one would arise for an atheist, would it?
6. God dosen't exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
This one essentially restates number two, up above. If God changes lives, then one would expect to observe believers living more moral, compassionate and wise lives than the rest of us lead. One would expect the action of the "holy spirit" to actually have observable effects.
7. God dosen't exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
This one doesn't address God's existence so much as it attacks the idea that the Bible is the one unique (and some would insist infallible and inerrant) revelation of God. (Whatever 'God' is.) If the Bible is, as it certainly appears to be, man-made and rather crude in spots, then that would seem to create greate difficulty for the religious claim that it's God's own word. If one's only reason for believing in God is what the Bible says, then this one certainly impacts that justification of that belief.
8. God dosen't exist because God killed people in the Bible.
This one revisits the problem of evil. It represents a strong (and to my mind irrefutable) argument that the God of the Old-Testament is not a suitable object of human worship. Even Adolph Hitler would be shocked by some of the things that God supposedly did. If human beings are judged 'evil' for doing X or Y, then I can't see how God can escape the same judgement for doing the same things. To expect anything less would be to accept that God is mankind's moral inferior.
9. God dosen't exist because Jesus is not God.
That's a Christian-specific point that probably doesn't make much sense to an atheist.
Bottom line:
I think that most of your nine "emotional answers" are actually pretty good. Taken together, they represent good justification for questioning the kind of claims that theists often make.
No I'm not. He has no point. I'm saying that he's wrong and why.
That is fairly easy to do.