Do all atheists believe that the Abrahmic God be disproven beyond a"reasonable doubt"

[Yazata]

Atheists' common reason for disbelieving God is their observation that this is a character in a fairy tale. The evidence for this view is exegesis, which can be done superficially, like tossing it aside simply because the magical elements are a dead giveaway, to something more detailed, like actually studying scholarly analyses. I would guess the vast majority of atheists fall somewhere in the middle, shifted far to the left.

That doesn't explain how 'exegesis' leads to the conclusion that the Biblical God is a 'character in a fairy tale'.

It's interesting that most of the critical "scholarly analyses" of the Bible have been written by Christian scholars. It's the so-called "higher criticism" that the fundamentalists hate so passionately. The thing is that the scholars that performed these analyses didn't arrive at the conclusion that God is a character in a fairy tale.

So it seems that this variety of atheist is drawing very different conclusions from the higher-criticism of the Bible than were drawn by the Bible scholars who actually wrote the studies. That difference needs to be explained and justified.

All of the logic that comes next, that asks whether there's proof for or against God, tends to sidestep this.

Sidestep what?

So in other words we are asked "Assume the Easter Bunny is the Supreme Commander of the Universe. Now prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following...."

It's moot. There is no Easter Bunny. Therefore, God does not exist.

That doesn't make sense. You just stuck 'the Easter bunny' in there because it sounds absurd to you. Obviously you think that the "Abrahamic" image of God is equally absurd, and you may very well be right about that. But that point still needs to be made.

Now, if we step back from the American experience and visit all the other cultures around the world, you can just as easily take the same exegetical position and carve out the sections of their scriptures that amount to fairy tales, arriving at the same conclusion that God therefore can not exist.

How does highlighting the parts of religious mythologies that seem to contradict modern science or historical understanding (or something) imply the very strong conclusion that "God therefore can not exist?"

I think that arguments like these are more probabilistic than apodeictic. They result in estimations of likelihood, not in statements of logical necessity.

To play the Devil's (actually in this case God's) advocate, why couldn't somebody say that these ancient people were indeed touched by some divine power, which these ancient cultures then tried to understand in their own culture's terms and perhaps tried to put to their own uses? Many theologians have said that.

After all, if a time-traveler were to visit 1000 BCE and showed the locals helicopters, electric lights and televisions, the breathless accounts that would have made their way down to today would be expressed in miraculous mythological imagery as well. That wouldn't prove that helicopters, electric lights and TVs "can not exist". It would just mean that they had been misdescribed by primitive people who had no conceptual framework from which to understand them.

In other words, these kind of arguments don't seem to result in proofs that "God can not exist". Rather, they seem to suggest the weaker conclusion that certain purported descriptions of God and accounts of divine activity probably have a low likelihood of being completely and literally true. (In my own estimation, too low to really take seriously.) So, if somebody is looking for information about whatever it is (if anything) that's responsible for reality being here and is keeping it in existence, the Bible might not have very much to tell us.

Unless we begin every analysis and discussion of God with the statement that God is a myth, we are just pursuing bogus reasoning that stands on a foundation of sytrofoam.

But if you "begin every analysis and discussion of God with the statement that God is a myth", you would appear to be reasoning in a circle. You're introducing your atheistic conclusion as your initial premise.

That isn't dissimilar to what the religious fundamentalists do, when they begin their own discussions of religion with the unshakeable initial assumption that God exists and that their Bibles are God's inerrant Word.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I would being by stating that I dont hold the abrahamic god to be real because no conclusive proof of his existence has been presented to us so far.

 

[spidergoat]

I would being by stating that I dont hold the abrahamic god to be real because no conclusive proof of his existence has been presented to us so far.

Not the point of this thread. Read the title.

 

[spidergoat]

The proof is in the lack of his presence. He promised not to interfere..

This post is also proof of something.

 

[Balerion]

We aren't talking about all gods. We are talking about the God of the Bible specifically and the question is can this one be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt, and I say it can because the Bible gives us enough information about how this god interacts with the world.

I'm pretty sure Id was talking about all gods. That's why he talked about the scholarship done by Christians into other faiths.

He's essentially saying that the concept of "God" was a creation of man, so there is no reason to assume that the concept is possible, and plenty of reason to assume it isn't.

 

[spidergoat]

Not the point of this thread. Just because the topic is God doesn't mean everyone has to pile on with their obvious and repetitive observations.

 

[Balerion]

Not the point of this thread. Just because the topic is God doesn't mean everyone has to pile on with their obvious and repetitive observations.

I'd hardly call Aqueous' observations "obvious and repetitive." And most arguments against the Abrahamic God apply to any deity, including some arguments you've used in this thread.

 

[Aqueous Id]

That doesn't explain how 'exegesis' leads to the conclusion that the Biblical God is a 'character in a fairy tale'.

Which is why I gave the superficial form, the one that simply reacts prima facie to its literary treatment of magic. Actual exegesis is just the nail on the coffin. I'm saying atheists generally regard the Bible in this light, rendering the question of the disproof of God moot.

It's interesting that most of the critical "scholarly analyses" of the Bible have been written by Christian scholars. It's the so-called "higher criticism" that the fundamentalists hate so passionately.

Now we're getting to the dishonesty of fundamentalism. My favorite example is their loathing for Catholics, who built their canon for them. This absurdity, if anything, adds to atheists' view of the meaninglessness of proof (disproof, as framed here).

The thing is that the scholars that performed these analyses didn't arrive at the conclusion that God is a character in a fairy tale.

Scholars generally assume some degree of sophistication among readers, including this much.

So it seems that this variety of atheist is drawing very different conclusions from the higher-criticism of the Bible than were drawn by the Bible scholars who actually wrote the studies. That difference needs to be explained and justified.

Not necessarily. It's not a very deep level of inquiry, just one that makes a prima facie observation that God is an invention, although with higher criticism we can reference higher elements of myth, such as those drawn from pre-existing creation myths. From either vantage point, there is nothing to disprove.

Sidestep what?

The fact that it is myth which is the premise from which a request for disproof arises.

That doesn't make sense. You just stuck 'the Easter bunny' in there because it sounds absurd to you.

What I actually had in mind was that myth survives as long as the mind does not mature.

Obviously you think that the "Abrahamic" image of God is equally absurd, and you may very well be right about that. But that point still needs to be made.

I think it's more absurd to reference God outside of the context of myth. It's rather moot that the Abrahamic idea of God is absurd, since the greater absurdity is the rational treatment of a myth. This is the premise atheists reject, that renders disproof moot.

How does highlighting the parts of religious mythologies that seem to contradict modern science or historical understanding (or something) imply the very strong conclusion that "God therefore can not exist?"

It's not a conclusion per se. It's a disavowal of the premise required by the question. Conclusions imply some kind of valid logic at play. There is none here, insofar as we are asked to construct a standard of proof around a fairy tale.

The prima facie uses of magic in the Bible contradict common sense. Science and history explain better the nature of the myth and its creators, and exegesis helps further. What's to disprove here, the atheist asks.

I think that arguments like these are more probabilistic than apodeictic. They result in estimations of likelihood, not in statements of logical necessity.

I'm agreeing in the lack of logical necessity, not probability, insofar as the athiest generally regards the question of disproof as arising from a non-sequitur premised on myth.

To play the Devil's (actually in this case God's) advocate, why couldn't somebody say that these ancient people were indeed touched by some divine power, which these ancient cultures then tried to understand in their own culture's terms and perhaps tried to put to their own uses? Many theologians have said that.

They can, and will, but it's a hypothetical to support a non-sequitur.

After all, if a time-traveler were to visit 1000 BCE and showed the locals helicopters, electric lights and televisions, the breathless accounts that would have made their way down to today would be expressed in miraculous mythological imagery as well. That wouldn't prove that helicopters, electric lights and TVs "can not exist". It would just mean that they had been misdescribed by primitive people who had no conceptual framework from which to understand them.

Chariots of the Gods. Same as above, a hypothetical to support a non-sequitur.

In other words, these kind of arguments don't seem to result in proofs that "God can not exist". Rather, they seem to suggest the weaker conclusion that certain purported descriptions of God and accounts of divine activity probably have a low likelihood of being completely and literally true. (In my own estimation, too low to really take seriously.) So, if somebody is looking for information about whatever it is (if anything) that's responsible for reality being here and is keeping it in existence, the Bible might not have very much to tell us.

They don't result in proofs that God can not exist because it's moot. I think atheists discount the question. There is no probability involved here, unless we were to engage something more complicated than the atheist reason for recognizing that the question is moot. As for ontological grounds, I think atheists regard the people who invented the myths as backward and superstitious, so it's hard for modern people with the same view to escape that stigma.

But if you "begin every analysis and discussion of God with the statement that God is a myth", you would appear to be reasoning in a circle. You're introducing your atheistic conclusion as your initial premise.

It's the other way around. And again, not a conclusion but a disavowal of the premise. It's circular reasoning to think that proof attaches to a non-sequitur, then validates it. Or, worse, that disproof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required to invalidate a non-sequitur. That's circular with a twist.

That isn't dissimilar to what the religious fundamentalists do, when they begin their own discussions of religion with the unshakeable initial assumption that God exists and that their Bibles are God's inerrant Word.

For the atheist, what's unshakable is common sense and reason, which collides against that circular reasoning just as hard as it does against myth and the non-sequitur that asks for disproof. Atheists and fundamentalists are of course as different as night and day.

 

[spidergoat]

Is it possible to accept the premise of OP just for the purposes of argument?

 

[gmilam]

Probably because the OP is so muddled. The title says "Abrahmic (?) god". The OP says "any deity". Which is it?

 

[river]

Probably because the OP is so muddled. The title says "Abrahmic (?) god". The OP says "any deity". Which is it?

well Abraham did have a god , in Ancient history , Abraham was born in Ur of Babylonia