Foundations for Atheism

[valich]

Dear Dr. Cello:

If you've recently checked the sciforum homepage you will read the administrators recently posted rules about degrading people on the religious forums. Calling people names like imbecile or idiot will get you kicked off. The purpose for the administrator intervening by stating this is obvious: so that we all behave and communicate in a civilized, decent, and intelligent manner.

If you read my post above, I stated that the definition of ignorant means destitute or lacking of knowledge. We are in agreement about this, not in disagreement. And I totally agree with everything that you are saying in your last post. All I said was that a thesaurus does not give definitions: it give you synonyms and related words.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus:Again using Wikipedia: on the matter of the position of the Agnostic Theist: "The validity of the agnostic theist's position is debated because believers typically state "God exists" as a fact, implying knowledge of it on their behalf. The agnostic theist does not state that: he says that he doesn't know whether God exist or not, but simply believes in God."

Again: This is almost the textbook definition of delusion.

Firstly, how is this delusional?
A delusion is believing something to be true inspite of invalidating evidence. With regard to God, there is no evidence either way. So this can not be delusional.
Irrational, definitely, but not delusional.
(Might I suggest even a simple on-line dictionary, such as www.dictionary.com would be of use to you).

Secondly - how is this any different to those who believe and claim knowledge in something for which there is no evidence?
Surely claiming knowledge of something (i.e. not agnostic) for which there is no evidence is far more irrational and worrying than someone who admits he has no knowledge but believes anyway?

And if you claim there is evidence - please put it forward.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yet you cannot rightfully affirm that they do not exist and only note the improbability.

Sure, but that doesn't change it's default position of non-existence. I cannot rightfully affirm that there's no such thing as a 'Frkasdbfksb' living a happy life on Jupiter, but until such a belief is justified, the Frkasdbfksb does not exist. Any mention of the Frkasdbfskb without substantiation comes down to human imagination. Ok, so my imagination might be limited - I did after all just tap a few random keys on my keyboard, but then you still cannot rightfully affirm it's non-existence.

To then believe in the Frkasdbfksb is borderline lunacy. To have no belief in it is fully justified and the actual default position.

Please check my posts for the definition of God used. I have noted it several times over.

I'm sure you could have just noted it once more to save me having to scour through all your previous posts, but nevermind.

Ok I see this:

Omniscience
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Eternity
Infinity
Omnibenevolence (if he is a true being)

But wait, I then see this..

One can prune some concepts of God from the standard Western theological model and retain a God which we can discuss. Omnibenevolence, for instance, is a pretty weak idea which can be demonstrated to be wrong and which does not impact the other attributes and thus can be dropped.

Can I ask why you have then seemingly confined it to one being? There could be trillions no? Of course the definitions you have used don't change the default position of non-existence. So, as we're talking about any thing and any amount of things that can be defined in that way - they're still non-existant.

 

[charles cure]

Given there is zero evidence it is illogical to have a belief that it exists.
This is true for anything - including God.

Likewise, if there is zero evidence that it DOES NOT EXIST it is also illogical to have a belief that IT DOES NOT EXIST.

thats not true. you cannot prove that something doesnt exist. there is no evidence that things do not exist, only evidence that other things or conditions exist that preclude the existence of the thing that you seek to disprove. you cannot prove that god exists because there is no evidence for it, but i believe there a certain conditions that could be construed to at leas disprove the existence of god as it is portrayed by certain religions. god as a general concept or idea without specific form or continuity or range of actions cant be denied with total certainty, but thats a really different god concept than what the christians or the jews or the muslims or the buddhists have espoused.

 

[Russ723]

We Atheists are making great arguments.

Our debates are still eroding into basic comprehension 101.

The guy in the casket will never understand the eulogy.

It doesn't matter how well articulated it is.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Firstly, how is this delusional?
A delusion is believing something to be true inspite of invalidating evidence. With regard to God, there is no evidence either way. So this can not be delusional.
Irrational, definitely, but not delusional.
(Might I suggest even a simple on-line dictionary, such as www.dictionary.com would be of use to you).

Whilst I shall admit the third definition from the first source on dictionary.com does assert what you say, the second should be noted as stating:

A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

I claim such belief is false on the foundation that there is no rational reason to assert it. To be an Agnostic Theist is basically to say there is no proof then simply -believe-. Now, this -process- is a delusion, though. As one -cannot- believe without proof, it is impossible, thus he is holding to the delusion (in the psychiatric sense) of proclaiming that he believes when, evidently, he does not.

Secondly - how is this any different to those who believe and claim knowledge in something for which there is no evidence?
Surely claiming knowledge of something (i.e. not agnostic) for which there is no evidence is far more irrational and worrying than someone who admits he has no knowledge but believes anyway?

Considering the major arguments for God are very convincing and are far from (despite some claims here) being "closed cases" as regards logic, it is not delusion to affirm God in a logical theological manner.

And if you claim there is evidence - please put it forward.

See the Prince James Ontological Argument for the Existence of God parts 1-4 as a start point for one of the many theories attempting to prove God, although I actuallyu made it simply because I like to make theories.

SnakeLord:

Sure, but that doesn't change it's default position of non-existence. I cannot rightfully affirm that there's no such thing as a 'Frkasdbfksb' living a happy life on Jupiter, but until such a belief is justified, the Frkasdbfksb does not exist. Any mention of the Frkasdbfskb without substantiation comes down to human imagination. Ok, so my imagination might be limited - I did after all just tap a few random keys on my keyboard, but then you still cannot rightfully affirm it's non-existence.

Nay, you cannot say whether the frkasbdfsfg exists or not, simply claim ignorance. A contingent thing does not, by default, have to non-exist, but until its existence is verified, it cannot be rightfully affirmed as existing, nor can it be rightfully affirmed as non-existing. Contingent beings have no logical necessity that allows us to make these declarations.

To then believe in the Frkasdbfksb is borderline lunacy. To have no belief in it is fully justified and the actual default position.

Not at all. It is ac ontingent being, which does cannot be a logical necessity, thus you have no way of saying it does not exist. The idea that it doesn't exist is rooted in the irrational notion of holding to a belief that has never been refuted or proved.

Can I ask why you have then seemingly confined it to one being? There could be trillions no? Of course the definitions you have used don't change the default position of non-existence. So, as we're talking about any thing and any amount of things that can be defined in that way - they're still non-existant.

No. There can be but one infinity, and thus only one God. This is also in accords with the Western Theological model which I am using. Moreover, one can make compelling arguments for the existence of these things based on logic.

charles cure:

thats not true. you cannot prove that something doesnt exist. there is no evidence that things do not exist, only evidence that other things or conditions exist that preclude the existence of the thing that you seek to disprove. you cannot prove that god exists because there is no evidence for it, but i believe there a certain conditions that could be construed to at leas disprove the existence of god as it is portrayed by certain religions. god as a general concept or idea without specific form or continuity or range of actions cant be denied with total certainty, but thats a really different god concept than what the christians or the jews or the muslims or the buddhists have espoused.

Of course you can prove something doesn't exist, it's called impossibility. A square-circle is a fine example.

 

[Sarkus]

Whilst I shall admit the third definition from the first source on dictionary.com does assert what you say, the second should be noted as stating:

A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.

I claim such belief is false on the foundation that there is no rational reason to assert it. To be an Agnostic Theist is basically to say there is no proof then simply -believe-. Now, this -process- is a delusion, though. As one -cannot- believe without proof, it is impossible, thus he is holding to the delusion (in the psychiatric sense) of proclaiming that he believes when, evidently, he does not.

This is where your misunderstanding is.
A belief is not deemed false because of the reason you believe it. This merely makes the processing irrational.
A "false" belief is the end point - i.e. the thing you are believing in is "false" - not how you got to that point.

And as for believing without proof - I state again that this is what most "religions" require. Most religious people I know would also agree with that - but use the "but there's no proof against it" argument.

 

[SnakeLord]

The idea that it doesn't exist is rooted in the irrational notion of holding to a belief that has never been refuted or proved.

There's nothing irrational about it, it just seems you missed what I was getting at, (undoubtedly my fault). In the case of the Frkasdbfksb, not only has it never been refuted or proven, but until I happened to invent it in my last post, the name had never been mentioned - thus making it, until that point, non-existant, (to mankind). That doesn't mean people can't still use the rather tired and pedantic argument with never ending excuses - that I even pointed out in my post to you just to watch you then repeat exactly what I'd said.

But the notion isn't even given consideration - hell, you didn't even manage to spell it's name right. The default position is one of non-existence. To change it to "never refutable" possibility, one must describe the notion - and yet in honesty that doesn't change a thing. It is still non-existant to man without proof, residing solely in the human imagination.

Once the notion has been mentioned you can the 'protect' it behind a veil of nonsense, (eg.. "you can't say it doesn't exist unless you check the whole universe", and if one were to actually manage that it would change to; "but you need to check the whole universe simultaneously [be everywhere at the same time]") The excuses would be endless, but that is just stupid. Ok, so we cannot refute the possibility of the existence of a flying banana waffle living in the equally irrefutable maplesauce galaxy but no sane person would even give it a second thought - it is non-existant. If one day evidence comes along to suggest such a thing does indeed exist, then we can all happily apologise for our error, but until that time it firmly remains in the realms of non-existance.

I still probably didn't explain it in the manner I wanted to, but hey.. it's 6am.

As one -cannot- believe without proof, it is impossible, thus he is holding to the delusion (in the psychiatric sense) of proclaiming that he believes when, evidently, he does not.

So, are you confirming that you, seemingly as a believer, are delusional? Who has proof? (the answer is nobody), and thus according to you, belief is impossible - and yet all you need to do is look around to notice that isn't the case.

No. There can be but one infinity, and thus only one God.

How do you work that out? And says who?

This is also in accords with the Western Theological model which I am using.

But that is of no consequence. My statement said: "There could be trillions.." and given your own arguments to me is irrefutable. You could do no more than claim ignorance. They cannot rightfully be affirmed as being non-existant or existant - and thus have exactly as much worth as your 'one god' notion. So, why did you say "no"? According to you, doing so is irrational.

Moreover, one can make compelling arguments for the existence of these things based on logic.

Such as? I have yet to see one. The religious masses were and are doing a better job just by killing everyone who disagrees than they can ever manage when it comes down to logic and arguments.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

This is where your misunderstanding is.
A belief is not deemed false because of the reason you believe it. This merely makes the processing irrational.
A "false" belief is the end point - i.e. the thing you are believing in is "false" - not how you got to that point.

Epistemologically, one cannot conclude that it is simply the end result that makes it proper or not, but rather, that one must also -know- one is right to truly affirm something. For instance, I do not know for certain that there exists milk in the refridgerator at the time. I might say there is, but I do not -know- there is. In order to -know- it is, and to hold justified true belief, I'd have to actually see it there.

SnakeLord:

There's nothing irrational about it, it just seems you missed what I was getting at, (undoubtedly my fault). In the case of the Frkasdbfksb, not only has it never been refuted or proven, but until I happened to invent it in my last post, the name had never been mentioned - thus making it, until that point, non-existant, (to mankind). That doesn't mean people can't still use the rather tired and pedantic argument with never ending excuses - that I even pointed out in my post to you just to watch you then repeat exactly what I'd said.

But the notion isn't even given consideration - hell, you didn't even manage to spell it's name right. The default position is one of non-existence. To change it to "never refutable" possibility, one must describe the notion - and yet in honesty that doesn't change a thing. It is still non-existant to man without proof, residing solely in the human imagination.

Yet it is it not non-existant, but not known whether to be existant or not. There is no rational reason to suggest it exists, nor that it does not exist, simply that no claims at all can be made about it.

Once the notion has been mentioned you can the 'protect' it behind a veil of nonsense, (eg.. "you can't say it doesn't exist unless you check the whole universe", and if one were to actually manage that it would change to; "but you need to check the whole universe simultaneously [be everywhere at the same time]") The excuses would be endless, but that is just stupid. Ok, so we cannot refute the possibility of the existence of a flying banana waffle living in the equally irrefutable maplesauce galaxy but no sane person would even give it a second thought - it is non-existant. If one day evidence comes along to suggest such a thing does indeed exist, then we can all happily apologise for our error, but until that time it firmly remains in the realms of non-existance.

It's a ludicrous claim, but one -cannot- say it doesn't exist, only that there is no proof for its existence, it is not valid to hold that it exists until such proof is given, et cetera.

So, are you confirming that you, seemingly as a believer, are delusional? Who has proof? (the answer is nobody), and thus according to you, belief is impossible - and yet all you need to do is look around to notice that isn't the case.

Proof can be demonstrated by empirical evidence or by logical necessity, but unless you have one or the other, you cannot have a foundation for belief, or belief at all, as a foundationless belief is not belief.

How do you work that out? And says who?

To have two infinities is to invalidate the concept of infinity, as one infinity would not stretch to the other and vice versa.

But that is of no consequence. My statement said: "There could be trillions.." and given your own arguments to me is irrefutable. You could do no more than claim ignorance. They cannot rightfully be affirmed as being non-existant or existant - and thus have exactly as much worth as your 'one god' notion. So, why did you say "no"? According to you, doing so is irrational.

Better to proclaim them deities, if you're refering to gods such as Zeus, Odin, et cetera, rather than the God we are speaking of.

Such as? I have yet to see one. The religious masses were and are doing a better job just by killing everyone who disagrees than they can ever manage when it comes down to logic and arguments.

I'm going to be posting this as soon as I finish it. Probably in about an hour. Check the General Philosophy area.

 

[Sarkus]

Epistemologically, one cannot conclude that it is simply the end result that makes it proper or not, but rather, that one must also -know- one is right to truly affirm something. For instance, I do not know for certain that there exists milk in the refridgerator at the time. I might say there is, but I do not -know- there is. In order to -know- it is, and to hold justified true belief, I'd have to actually see it there.

Yet you do not require this for a belief in "God"?

Using your example - you have as much knowledge of the milk as you do of your God. In fact you know even more about the milk - as you have seen it in other places - you know what it is that might possibly be in the refrigerator.

Yet you have no evidence that it is in the fridge.
So you, by your own words, would not believe it is in the fridge.

So why do you believe in a God that you cannot see, for which there is an equal lack of evidence?

Oh, of course, you claim evidence - through logical reasoning. But this has been shown to be flawed. So what else do you put forward as evidence?

 

[SnakeLord]

In order to -know- it is, and to hold justified true belief, I'd have to actually see it there.

But that is not justified. Even if you see it you could not affirm or negate any further claim which would instantly invalidate 'true'.

What I'm getting at is this:

Let's say for argument's sake that you have personally seen and spoken to god. He came down from the clouds and spoke to you. You would now label this as proof of god, and that "belief" in this being is now justified. However, given our earlier arguments I could state any of the following:

1) There is a part of the human brain that is completely invisible and undetectable which makes certain people prone to having delusions that feature god like beings

2) Some aliens from the planet Zarg Minor sent out a cosmic space brain ray which makes you think you have seen something you refer to as a god, because they feed on the brains of god believers

3) A flying mermaid unwittingly sends out strange chemicals during the mating process which interfere with human brains that are subsceptible to those chemicals - resulting in bizzare and insane visions

4) You live in a matrixy type of world. Nothing is real, it's just a computer.

The list is literally endless. None of these things can be "rightfully affirmed as existing, nor can they be rightfully affirmed as non-existing".

As this is the case, nothing anyone says is of any worth to anything. You cannot prove anything - and as such, (in your own words), belief is impossible. But things do not work this way - most of humanity are not complete raving idiots intent on living a life saying "I can't say it doesn't exist". They can and do. If flying mermaids, gods and aliens from the planet Zarg Minor raise their ugly heads then.. well, shit happens, but until then they are completely entirely non-existant other than in the minds of men. It would be 'illogical', (I know you like to use that word), for man to give worth and value to each and every man conceived idiocy.

Of course we can just continue doing things your way and so everytime you claim to have witnessed god, or to have evidence of god I will come up with some equally ridiculous notion that you 'can not logically deny'. For instance:

Proof can be demonstrated by empirical evidence

Not if I tell you the three testicled strawberry king put that empirical evidence there just to lead you astray.

To have two infinities is to invalidate the concept of infinity, as one infinity would not stretch to the other and vice versa.

But your concept of infinity has no value to anything. It is but a concept devised by the human mind - which is far from being ready to understand what it's really all about. So sayeth Lenny the leprechaun.

Better to proclaim them deities, if you're refering to gods such as Zeus, Odin, et cetera, rather than the God we are speaking of.

What's the difference?

 

[SnakeLord]

P.S Although some will know I generally tend not to visit other sections of the forum, I have taken a brief look, (and will take an indepth look later). Amusingly enough perhaps was that the very first thing I saw were religious people debating against you. Kind of odd considering you're apparently arguing for something they very strongly believe in.

Other than that I noticed a lot of "this is impossible", "that is impossible", and "things must be one of these ways" - which is total bunk, (especially given your arguments in this very thread).

However, I will check it in depth before responding further.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

Yet you do not require this for a belief in "God"?

If God is a logical necessity, no. Logical necessity does not require validation through the senses. I do not need to never see a square-circle to know it is impossible.

Using your example - you have as much knowledge of the milk as you do of your God. In fact you know even more about the milk - as you have seen it in other places - you know what it is that might possibly be in the refrigerator.

Yet you have no evidence that it is in the fridge.
So you, by your own words, would not believe it is in the fridge.

So why do you believe in a God that you cannot see, for which there is an equal lack of evidence?

Oh, of course, you claim evidence - through logical reasoning. But this has been shown to be flawed. So what else do you put forward as evidence?

A new argument has posted in general philosophy "The Prince James Argument for the Existence of God". Check it out, I'd love to see how you respond to it.

SnakeLord:

But that is not justified. Even if you see it you could not affirm or negate any further claim which would instantly invalidate 'true'.

Yes, if someone took it out of the fridge whilst I was not looking, then yes.

Let's say for argument's sake that you have personally seen and spoken to god. He came down from the clouds and spoke to you. You would now label this as proof of god, and that "belief" in this being is now justified. However, given our earlier arguments I could state any of the following:

1) There is a part of the human brain that is completely invisible and undetectable which makes certain people prone to having delusions that feature god like beings

2) Some aliens from the planet Zarg Minor sent out a cosmic space brain ray which makes you think you have seen something you refer to as a god, because they feed on the brains of god believers

3) A flying mermaid unwittingly sends out strange chemicals during the mating process which interfere with human brains that are subsceptible to those chemicals - resulting in bizzare and insane visions

4) You live in a matrixy type of world. Nothing is real, it's just a computer.

The list is literally endless. None of these things can be "rightfully affirmed as existing, nor can they be rightfully affirmed as non-existing".

Having had experience of some sort, I'd have the empirical foundation for proof for myself (but no one else if I came away with no evidence) that I experienced something. Could it be a Matrix, or a mermaid? Yes. Possibly. I cannot disprove such things, but since they themselves cannot be proved, I'd have no reason to suspect them over the experience I had.

As this is the case, nothing anyone says is of any worth to anything. You cannot prove anything - and as such, (in your own words), belief is impossible. But things do not work this way - most of humanity are not complete raving idiots intent on living a life saying "I can't say it doesn't exist". They can and do. If flying mermaids, gods and aliens from the planet Zarg Minor raise their ugly heads then.. well, shit happens, but until then they are completely entirely non-existant other than in the minds of men. It would be 'illogical', (I know you like to use that word), for man to give worth and value to each and every man conceived idiocy.

I am not suggesting -value-, but empirical claims with no proof or disproof cannot be claimed to be right or wrong. We cannot give credit to either until something solid is presented. Epistemologically, it is -invalid- to say that Bigfoot, for instance, does not exist, we can only say "we have no proof that Bigfoot exists that sufficiently establishes his existence".

Of course we can just continue doing things your way and so everytime you claim to have witnessed god, or to have evidence of god I will come up with some equally ridiculous notion that you 'can not logically deny'. For instance:

This will only be valid if it is an empirical claim. If it is a logical claim, then no.

Not if I tell you the three testicled strawberry king put that empirical evidence there just to lead you astray.

I cannot invalidate your statement, but you cannot prove your statement, therefore, it is ignorable.

But your concept of infinity has no value to anything. It is but a concept devised by the human mind - which is far from being ready to understand what it's really all about. So sayeth Lenny the leprechaun.

Again.

What's the difference?

Personal deities such as those in the pagan traditions of Eurasia do not fullfill the philosophical theological definition of God. Moreover, since the beings/things referred to are obviously different, naming them different seems best.

P.S Although some will know I generally tend not to visit other sections of the forum, I have taken a brief look, (and will take an indepth look later). Amusingly enough perhaps was that the very first thing I saw were religious people debating against you. Kind of odd considering you're apparently arguing for something they very strongly believe in.

Yes, although my God differs from their one quite a lot.

Other than that I noticed a lot of "this is impossible", "that is impossible", and "things must be one of these ways" - which is total bunk, (especially given your arguments in this very thread).

Logical, not empirical, claims. You are not making the difference.