Foundations for Atheism

[Tyler]

Umm well disbelief is the same thing as lack of belief. You've confused "disbelief that a god exists" with "belief that a god does not exist".

Prince's statement is essentially correct - atheism is primarily a disbelief in gods.

Yeah you're right. He's just deriving weird things from "disbelief". I think because he believies it implies committing to a non-belief.

 

[valich]

Chris: the very fact that you admit that it is a "fantasy" makes it a fantasy according to your beliefs. Welcome to the 21st Century. The scientific community has given so many factually proven answers contrary to what the bible says, that it makes it unplausible to beleive in anything that the bible says. To support this fact, everything in the bible as we know it today was written three hundred years after Christ died! Tell your friend something that happened and listen to what his friend tells you in reply to what you originally said. Do you know what I am talking about? This is a popular exercise in any communication or foreign language class. The end answer has no relation to the original input. Sounds very clear to me!

"God created the earth in seven days." No way, and we know it. And this everything said in the bible. The earth is over 450 billion years old. Do you want to believe a antiquated book, or recently proven evidence that can be reduplicated to justify the facts?

The fact is that "God is dead" and he died in the 20th century when we - as in we, as in the intelligent scientific community - realized the tremedous inconsistencies in believing the a higher being created all this. And to believe that it would be an "anthropomorphic" higher being is esoteric, self-centered, and accentric belief.

People that believe that there is a "God" as the ultimate creator are thimbly holding on to thread of belief in life that they will be "saved," or more hilariously, "to be save again," as if something happened the first time when they were saved. The whole concept denies the facts that we have discoverd in the 19th and 20th century. How dumb! Wake up to reality.

 

[Sarkus]

The earth is over 450 billion years old.

You may want to reduce that estimation by about 445 billion years.

 

[geeser]

sarkus I think valich meant 4.50 billion years, for the want of a decimal point, the universe was lost.

 

[Cris]

Valich,

Hi.

Chris: the very fact that you admit that it is a "fantasy" makes it a fantasy according to your beliefs.

Not quite sure of your point here. Religious belief is fantasy because religionists cannot demonstrate otherwise. This is an objective observation and not my opinion or belief. But what did you mean by "according to your beliefs"?

I essentially agree with the remainder of your post.

 

[valich]

Yes, I meant 4.5 billion years: just a typo that wiped out the earth while writing in haste. Sorry: poor souls.

The comment regarding religous belief being a fantasy was an agreement to the email posted by Chris on the previous page (4):

"A fantasy is a fantasy no matter how long it has been around. You are arguing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The fact that a false idea lasts a long time in no way makes it more truthful because of the passage of time."

Personally, I think that the late Carl Sagan got it right when he said that it depends on how you define God:

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying . . . It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." by Carl Sagan

But if you define God as a spiritual presence or a spiritual force then I'd be more inclined to believe in that. Scott Dewiler wrote that concepts of a God as a supernatural being saving the world at the last possible moment inhibits our desire to solve our problems ourselves.

And then a beautifully written post by Dr. Ed G (Avator), also very much in line with Carl Sagan's view on the subject:

"Fundamentally, most of the most commited scientists I've known are in the game because of the profound sense of beauty and asoinishment they get from the study of the Universe. For example, for me, the beauty of a simple flower is made many more orders of magnitude greater when one finds out phenomenal intricacy of complex processes of how a flower comes to be a flower. So far from taking away from an aesthetic or even spiritiual understanding of the Universe, Science can make that appreciation deeper, in my honest opinion, than we've ever been able to grasp in the history of humankind....Having said that, I do acknowledge that much religion in the past has been simply a means of explaining what we have not yet managed to explain. And this continues, and is often used as the argument that we should stop doing science, because the more we know about the Universe, by this manifestation of religion, the less God has to do with the Universe. For such a theological/philosophical position, I could not be more in opposition, and the pure fallacy of the logic of such a position is so ludicrously patent that it often makes me just want to scream (which is unfortunate because screaming will never win an argument with a creationist, or any other form of fundamentalist, for that matter). However, I'm quietly comforted by the fact that such a position is fundamentally one of conscious ignorance, and it's extremely unlikely for anyone to win a war of ideology, in the long term, with only ignorance at their side."

(www2.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn-archive1/posts/topic33497.shtm)

uh-oh. I've just been informed by an al-Qa'ida operative that they just proclaimed Jihad
on me because of my views and are sending over the suicide bombers. Gotta run!

 

[Prince_James]

Tyler:

You're simply saying something that's not true. There is a great long history of disproving Anselm's arguement. And it is a circular arguement. In fact, I believe there's one famous letter from Russell to Cantor where Russell says "you do realize the ontological arguement is circular?" and Cantor replies "yes, but isn't it pretty?"

In what manner would you proclaim it is circular?

And no, under no condition does the arguement stand as valid. It assumes in it's premise the conclusion, that is invalid - absolutely no doubt. Logic (as a formal thing) completely names it invalid. If your beef is with logic, fine thats another debate. But for the love of god, Anselm's arguement is the prototypical invalid arguement!

"Logic claims it is invalid"? That's a bit much.

Here, I'm going to attempt to defend the Ontological Argument with one of my own. Let's call it, the Prince James Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. Let's see what you think of it.

First Part: That Existence is Superior to Non-Existence

1. All which does not exist is necessarily false.
2. Falsehood is inferior to truth and is its opposite.
3. If falsehood is the opposite of truth, then all which is true exists.
4. Owing from falsehood's inferiority, truth is superior, and therefore existence (as truth exists and falsehood does not) is superior to non-existence.

Second Part: The Classical Theory

1. God is the greatest possible being with all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Third Part: Existence is a Perfection by Default

1. Something can either exist or not exist.
2. Stemming from the first argument, that which does not exist is false.
3. Falsehood cannot be conceived as perfection.
4. Stemming from the first argument, that which exists is the opposite of that which does not exist, and thus existence is truth.
4. Truth can be conceived as a perfection and is the opposite of an imperfection.
5. Therefore, existence is a perfection.

Fourth Part: God is Not Impossible

1. There exists atleast one perfection (existence).
2. God is a being with all perfections.
3. Since perfection is not absurd, it can exist.
4. God, as a being with all perfections, has no internal inconsistancies as such.

I could go on from this to get into some of the classical attributes of God being not absurdities, to avoid the notion that every being which exists is God, but let's just see if you think this is a valid argument as is.

Yeah, that's the issue. Godel assumes stuff that his conclusion makes. You can't do that. It's called invalid. That's why a thousand people have a thousand times used it in textbooks and logic classes. It's as stereotypical as the "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man..." example.

I'll opt to make support the notion of omniscience and rationality sometime soon, again, for the purpose of debate.

Why? You might as well tell them arguements for why the earth is flat. Super, they were once arguements, now we know they're invalid. They're done, leave 'em.

Generally empirical claims can more easily be refuted than philosophical ones. Ontop of that, I am quite sure that the bulk of people here on SciForums which are Atheists don't even know of the arguments which they claim are false, nor their counter-arguments, and thus hold philosophical invalid opinion.

You're backing up your claim by quoting arguements that have been proven (and there is no room for debate on this, Anselm and the ontological arguement have been proven mathematically and FOL-terms to be invalid).

I'll put it this way - it's a theorem in FOL that if Anselm's system holds, all claims can be derived. That's saying - if Anselm's right, then EVERYTHING is true.

See my ontological theory as a correction of Anselm's.

Mystech:

I don't believe in God for the same reason that I don't believe the stuff down in the pseudoscience board. There's just not enough evidence of any sort for me to lend any sort of provisional agreement to the idea - and you've got to admit the people who buy into it big time do seem just a little scary!

I don't consider Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, et cetera, scary.

When you think about it we're all kind of atheistic - there's just one more God that I don't believe in when compared to a Christian, and I don't see anyone demanding to know why most Americans don't accept Vishnu or follow the teachings of the Buddha. It all boils down to a lot of very old and convoluted story telling surrounded by a lot of hubris and sanctimonious individuals who think they've got a hotline to the truth even if they can't prove it in any way, except maybe to themselves through loud repetitious chanting.

This is not religion.

Cris:

A fantasy is a fantasy no matter how long it has been around. You are arguing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The fact that a false idea lasts a long time in no way makes it more truthful because of the passage of time.

Let me ask you this: Is the notion that God exists a necessary absurdity? That is to say, an absurdity of the type which would affirm that a square is a circle?

There are a few gems of debates in past threads. But mostly this is a place for ordinary people to explore their own perspectives and attempt to put those ideas into words. There are few real philosophers here.

And that is the problem. Atheism, unless s supported by philosophy, is a religion without God. It is faith-based.

SkinWalker:

One doesn't need a reason for disbelief. If that were so, then you could ask for my reasons for not believing in bigfoot, esp, psychic surgery, the sorcery of the Azande, or the tarot card reader down the street. Not to mention santa claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

One doesn't need a reason for disbelief? Then that is either: 1. Agnosticism, where one makes no claims to the truth of either. 2. Ignorant faith.

Tyler:

I may have to type it out, I'm not sure I can find it online. I'll check but I may have to PM it to you in a couple days if this thread is down.

If I seem like all I'm doing is asserting a couple mathematicians debates - it's because I'm not nearly learned enough in math or logic to be able to hold debate at that level.

Send it to me, also. I'd be interested.

valich:

Your entire statement revolves around the idea of a creator God and, furthermore, the notion of a CHRISTIAN GOD. How many times must I state that -we are not discussing Christianity here-?

 

[SnakeLord]

1. God is the greatest possible being with all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Lol...

Even if I agreed with the second statement, (which in itself is a bit.. 'off'), 1 is a complete guess and does not by any means belong, and the same goes for number 3. Basically you said:

1. god exists and is perfect
2. Existence is perfect
3. god exists.

That's royally daft. Hell, you don't even need number 2:

1. god exists and is perfect
3. god exists.

Wait.. you don't even need number 3:

1. god exists and is perfect.

That's all you said.. and it's the dumbest thing I've heard this year.

Then again...

And that is the problem. Atheism, unless s supported by philosophy, is a religion without God. It is faith-based.

So, you're saying that your lack of belief in leprechauns is a religion? Same shit, different non-existent entity.

 

[Prince_James]

SnakeLord:

You seem to have ignored the first, third, and fourth parts of my argument. Respond to those and then we can discuss the critique. Also note that the second part of the argument is the classical argument as presented in modern terms.

So, you're saying that your lack of belief in leprechauns is a religion? Same shit, different non-existent entity.

Yes. The belief that leprechauns do not exist is a religion. Empirical claims are rooted in contingency. Contingent beings cannot be proven to necessarily (logically necessarily) exist. COncerning contingent beings, one cannot claim that they cannot exist and thus hold a justified true belief. One can only claim that it is improbable and, until proven to exist, ought not be held to.

 

[dr. cello]

While the ontological argument is daft and inherently contingent upon very exacting and inaccurate definitions, it's quite clear that SnakeLord has never encountered one before.

Ontological is defined as 'of or relating to the argument for the existence of God holding that the existence of the concept of God entails the existence of God.' James' argument is not assuming the existence of God, but rather, he is defining the -concept- of God. 'God is a being with all perfections' is not proclaiming the existence of God, but it is saying 'for the purposes of this argument, this is how the word God is being used.'

 

[valich]

Prince James: No, I think you are hastily and aggressively jumping to conclusions. You state :

"valich:

Your entire statement revolves around the idea of a creator God and, furthermore, the notion of a CHRISTIAN GOD. How many times must I state that -we are not discussing Christianity here-?"

I vehemtly deny that God is a creator! Where did you get this idea from? Slow down a bit, aye? I only suggested that if we define God as being a non-anthropomorphic being, and instead acknowledged God as a spiritual presence or force in the universe, then this would be more acceptable. Sometimes I feel a presence of a spiritual nature that gives me a "rush" - I don't know how to explain it, but it is not adrenaline - but it is a highly motivating presence or spiritual force that compelles me, in the face of all adversity, to do something that I feel that is right or that I need to do. This in no way relates to religion or a Christian God.

 

[Cris]

Prince,

Second Part: The Classical Theory

1. God is the greatest possible being with all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is total gibberish of course which I’m sure you must know. The first premise is not substantiated so the conclusion is invalid.

1. There exists atleast one perfection (existence).
2. God is a being with all perfections.
3. Since perfection is not absurd, it can exist.
4. God, as a being with all perfections, has no internal inconsistancies as such.

Similar gibberish.

Statement 4 also does not follow from 1, 2, and 3. You haven’t established “all perfections” is consistent with “no inconsistencies”. For example God must be the perfect liar which is inconsistent with the perfection of always telling the truth. We can derive endless examples of such inconsistencies.

But the only perfection you have established is existence. You have not established any other perfections.

I am quite sure that the bulk of people here on SciForums which are Atheists don't even know of the arguments which they claim are false, nor their counter-arguments, and thus hold philosophical invalid opinion.

But then the same can be said of all the theists here as well. Every poll we have run here asking about religious beliefs or not show a consistent 50% split between atheists and theists. The bulk of the arguments come down to –

Theist – god exists.
Athiest – prove it.

There has never been any progress beyond that. And despite attempts to explore the more exotic philosophical arguments which you are advocating the end result still comes down to the absence of empirical evidence.

Let me ask you this: Is the notion that God exists a necessary absurdity? That is to say, an absurdity of the type which would affirm that a square is a circle?

It depends entirely on the precise definition of the god. For example it must avoid obvious paradoxes like being all good and allowing the existence of evil, or being omniscient and the impossibility of freewill, etc. Once you establish the definition then we can examine whether its potential existence is absurd or not. Until then it is not possible to state that the notion is necessarily absurd or not.

And that is the problem. Atheism, unless s supported by philosophy, is a religion without God. It is faith-based.

Neither can be true. Atheism does not posit any claims.

How many times must I state that -we are not discussing Christianity here-?

Ok I give up, how many?

 

[Prince_James]

valich:

I vehemtly deny that God is a creator! Where did you get this idea from? Slow down a bit, aye? I only suggested that if we define God as being a non-anthropomorphic being, and instead acknowledged God as a spiritual presence or force in the universe, then this would be more acceptable. Sometimes I feel a presence of a spiritual nature that gives me a "rush" - I don't know how to explain it, but it is not adrenaline - but it is a highly motivating presence or spiritual force that compelles me, in the face of all adversity, to do something that I feel that is right or that I need to do. This in no way relates to religion or a Christian God.

I didn't realize that you were attacking Cris' personal notion of God and not the topic at hand fully. My apologies for that.

Cris:

Second Part: The Classical Theory

1. God is the greatest possible being with all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God exists. ”

This is total gibberish of course which I’m sure you must know. The first premise is not substantiated so the conclusion is invalid.

Cris, as Wikipedia can give you the foundation for this assertion in the original argument from Anselm, I'll just link you there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

It's rooted in Realism (Platonism).

“ 1. There exists atleast one perfection (existence).
2. God is a being with all perfections.
3. Since perfection is not absurd, it can exist.
4. God, as a being with all perfections, has no internal inconsistancies as such. ”

Similar gibberish.

In what way is this gibberish? As we know there exists one thing which is perfect, based on the first argument, we know that the notion of God being a perfect being is not, in and of itself, an absurdity. Ontop of that, please refute my arguments with a bit more than "gibberish".

Statement 4 also does not follow from 1, 2, and 3. You haven’t established “all perfections” is consistent with “no inconsistencies”. For example God must be the perfect liar which is inconsistent with the perfection of always telling the truth. We can derive endless examples of such inconsistencies.

Here is an excellent point. Well done. However, what I meant is tha the one known perfection (in this argument), existence, is not impossible. Other perfections may be impossible, in which case we can say they do not exist, and thus they are not truly perfections, owing to the fact that what does not exist is flawed.

But then the same can be said of all the theists here as well. Every poll we have run here asking about religious beliefs or not show a consistent 50% split between atheists and theists. The bulk of the arguments come down to –

Theist – god exists.
Athiest – prove it.

We're not discussing Theism. The Theists here are 95 percent retarded. But Atheists ought to have rational beliefs, not pseudo-religious ones, which all opinions end up being.

There has never been any progress beyond that. And despite attempts to explore the more exotic philosophical arguments which you are advocating the end result still comes down to the absence of empirical evidence.

One might be able to defend God's existence without recourse to empricial claims, if logically he is necessary.

It depends entirely on the precise definition of the god. For example it must avoid obvious paradoxes like being all good and allowing the existence of evil, or being omniscient and the impossibility of freewill, etc. Once you establish the definition then we can examine whether its potential existence is absurd or not. Until then it is not possible to state that the notion is necessarily absurd or not.

Free-will is not a given, but I do agree with the notion of all good. All good is pretty much nonsense.

As to a definition, I gave the traditional Western Theological model for God, and later ammended it to avoid omnibenevolence. So you have ominpotence, omniscience, omnipresence, infinity, and eternity.

Neither can be true. Atheism does not posit any claims.

It does. Atheism rejects the notion of God. "God does not exist" marks the cornerstone of belief for Atheism. Agnosticism makes no claims.

Ok I give up, how many?

53.

 

[dr. cello]

agnosticism makes the claim that god is unknowable. every belief system makes claims. ever.

ever.

EVER.

 

[Sarkus]

"First Part: That Existence is Superior to Non-Existence

1. All which does not exist is necessarily false.
2. Falsehood is inferior to truth and is its opposite.
3. If falsehood is the opposite of truth, then all which is true exists.
4. Owing from falsehood's inferiority, truth is superior, and therefore existence (as truth exists and falsehood does not) is superior to non-existence.

Second Part: The Classical Theory

1. God is the greatest possible being with all perfections
2. Existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Third Part: Existence is a Perfection by Default

1. Something can either exist or not exist.
2. Stemming from the first argument, that which does not exist is false.
3. Falsehood cannot be conceived as perfection.
4. Stemming from the first argument, that which exists is the opposite of that which does not exist, and thus existence is truth.
4. Truth can be conceived as a perfection and is the opposite of an imperfection.
5. Therefore, existence is a perfection.

Fourth Part: God is Not Impossible

1. There exists atleast one perfection (existence).
2. God is a being with all perfections.
3. Since perfection is not absurd, it can exist.
4. God, as a being with all perfections, has no internal inconsistancies as such.

First Part: That Bananas are Superior to Apples

1. All which is not a Banana is necessarily false.
2. Falsehood is inferior to truth and is its opposite.
3. If falsehood is the opposite of truth, then all which is true is a Banana.
4. Owing from falsehood's inferiority, truth is superior, and therefore Bananas are superior to Apples.

Second Part: The Classical Theory

1. God is the greatest possible thing with all perfections
2. Bananas are perfection.
3. Therefore, God is a banana.

Third Part: Bananas are a Perfection by Default

1. Something can either be a Banana or not a Banana.
2. Stemming from the first argument, that which is not a Banana is false.
3. Falsehood cannot be conceived as perfection.
4. Stemming from the first argument, that which is a Banana is the opposite of that which is not a Banana, and thus a Banana is truth.
4. Truth can be conceived as a perfection and is the opposite of an imperfection.
5. Therefore, Bananas are a perfection.


Fourth Part: God is Not Impossible

1. There exists atleast one perfection (Bananas).
2. God is a being with all perfections.
3. Since perfection is not absurd, it can exist.
4. God, as a being with all perfections, has no internal inconsistancies as such.



The problem goes further with this Fourth Part.
If God truly is a being with ALL PERFECTIONS and has no INTERNAL CONSISTENCIES....

Can he create a rock that he can't lift?
If yes - he is not perfectly strong.
If no - he is not perfectly able to create.

Oooh - look at that - an internal inconsistency.

Go figure.

 

[Sarkus]

It does. Atheism rejects the notion of God. "God does not exist" marks the cornerstone of belief for Atheism. Agnosticism makes no claims.

Atheism does reject the notion of God.
It can do it either with a belief that God does not exist (although there is no evidence), or it can do it with merely nothing more than by not having the belief that god exists.

It is not a case of either having a belief that God exists or having a belief that God does not exist.
The (weak) atheist option is that there is no belief in either.
Usually this is due to Agnosticism with respect to God - i.e. lack of evidence either way.

But you can get Agnostic Theists and non-Agnostic Atheists.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Atheism does reject the notion of God.
It can do it either with a belief that God does not exist (although there is no evidence), or it can do it with merely nothing more than by not having the belief that god exists.

It is not a case of either having a belief that God exists or having a belief that God does not exist.
The (weak) atheist option is that there is no belief in either.
Usually this is due to Agnosticism with respect to God - i.e. lack of evidence either way.

But you can get Agnostic Theists and non-Agnostic Atheists.

If the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God, then his position is one of belief. To sit back and demand the onus is on the theist to prove Gods existence, is a ploy to win the argument and give justification to your belief.
If the theist cannot cannot prove the existence of God, then his position is one of belief.
If you replace the word 'belief', in your post, with the word 'faith', then you begin to make sense.

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

If the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God, then his position is one of belief.

LOL. Jan, how would you know? Are you an athiest? If not, then you really have no idea what you're talking about. Even if so, you are not every athiest and as such are performing under your mandate of talking out your terminally confused ass.

To sit back and demand the onus is on the theist to prove Gods existence, is a ploy to win the argument and give justification to your belief.

?

Jan, that is stupid. If you make a claim and expect someone else to believe it, you have to be able to motivate them to do so. Hence, you need to provide whatever evidence it takes to overcome that person's skepticism of your claim. That's just the deal. That's why the "onus" is on the person making a claim.... ANY claim. Der frickin DUH Jan. You're such an obnoxious, snippy bitch. Wait maybe that's me. Either way, as is par for your course - your argument is crap.

If the theist cannot cannot prove the existence of God, then his position is one of belief.

You don't think it'd be belief either way? Oh, and what's proof Jan? Bad crops this year, a sacrifice and good crops next year? A book? Okay, that may work for you... but you really should try to understand why others may not buy the same shit you do. Of course in doing so, your glass house of a belief system could be shattered, so it's easy to see why you're so doggedly protective of it. You run around with your verbal glass cleaner, squeeking it clean ad nauseum. What do you care that others don't accept your "proof"? Eh? Why is it such a threat to you?

Jan, I'm totally cool with your belief system. Do it up however you like. The issue is when you choose to discuss it with others who don't buy it and you simply can't relate to why. You think of them as evil to placate your desperate attempts not to face the fragility of your mental dwelling. Is that what jesus would do Jan? Would he pity them? Would he damn them for questioning his claims?

 

[everneo]

1. All which does not exist is necessarily false.

What about something that existed once but does not exist now?
Get rid of all good things out of existence and they become false?

 

[Sarkus]

If the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God, then his position is one of belief. To sit back and demand the onus is on the theist to prove Gods existence, is a ploy to win the argument and give justification to your belief.
If the theist cannot cannot prove the existence of God, then his position is one of belief.
If you replace the word 'belief', in your post, with the word 'faith', then you begin to make sense.

Jan Ardena.

You are not understanding the position of the (weak) atheist - which I think most of us on this site are.

Option 1: Theist: Belief in God.
Option 2: (Strong) Atheism: Belief in the non-existence of God.
Option 3: (Weak) Atheism: No belief in God nor in the non-existence of God.

Options 1 and 2 are both illogical / irrational - due to the utter lack of evidence for both - and both rely equally on faith.

Option 3 is often confused with Agnosticism.
But it isn't.

All Atheists will counter those who believe in God with "prove it".


So, if you continue to refer to all atheists as though they are of the "strong" variety then you will continue to be misled by the term "atheist".