WJ

As a Christian (xian if you like) my thesis is that the reality of a no-god belief [atheism] translates into a political, social and psychological response to a hatred or slight resentment toward Religion, but more importantly, have realized atheism is logically inconsistent.

Some thoughts on the subject:

1. Why does the atheist feel the need to debate the EOG? As atheist AJ Ayer remarked, it remains nonsensical to discuss a non-existent Being.
2. How do you arrive at judgements about all things that in their essence, are mysterious with no explaination at all?
3. Pragmatically, have you benefited from a country founded upon 'god' principles, and if not, would you prefer a 'godless' country? Assuming so, would actual relocation be the appropriate solution to your dilemma? And if not, how is atheism a better alternative to a belief in God?
4. What is the common expectation level of the atheist when establishing a methodolgy to prove something exists, not god necessarily, but just a 'proof' in general? Do you need to physically "see" something?
5. What does it really mean to understand or believe something from reading, comprehending, and otherwise using the tools of logic and reason and other parts of the intellect to determine or verifying the true-ness or false-ness of a statement made by someone and/or from a book?
6. If the athiest uses analytic apriori propostions for the bases of conclusive evidence or otherwise making a judgement that there is no God, why doesn't he use the analytic apriori for all his reasoning? Isn't he using the theist's ontological argument-logic as the sole means in establishing whether something does or does not exist? To the atheist, is that not logically inconsistent?

What reason, through logic or otherwise, would be compelling enough for me or any other individual to want to adopt, hold or maintain a no-god belief?

WinAce

*Approaches betting booth*

5 bucks on this getting moved to RRP in a hurry, please.

sir drinks-a-lot

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Secular Elation

My reasons for my atheism are as simple as this:

1. Religion, in so much as I can indicate, is nothing more than mythology.
2. There is no evidence for god(s), or if there are some that theists purport to point out such existence (such as intelligent design) , they are faulty and are subject to overbearing skepticism.
3. Beyond terms of 'evidence,' there is no actual proof that any gods exist.
4. Therefore, I do not accept the existence of god(s).

simian

1. The same reason I discuss the existance of "polywater" (or "ultra-pure water") - when some person comes along claiming it exists and does all these miraculous things, I challenge the truth of their statements. Same goes for bigfoot, loch ness monster, and any number of urban legends. If people weren't promoting it, I would not need to respond to it.

2. ?? example ??

3. I don't know where you are, but I live in the United States, a nation founded on secular principles. We rejected the biblically inspired "devine right of kings" and many other "Christian" principles. What were kept were the principles that made sense. Of course there were still wrinkles to be ironed out, but the United States has not claimed to be a god..

4. No, but I should see some interaction with the alleged item. Perhaps those more into philosophy could better answer this one.

5. Looks like a philosophy question - not my field.

6. I apply the same reasoning to your god (and the one I grew up believing in) as I do to all gods and other mythological creatures. I think I am being consistent, I make no special exception for one just because I already "believe" in it.

Your final question: I am assuming you already hold a no-gods belief. "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
...Stephen F Roberts
Why do you make the exception for one god?

Edited to add:

Looks like WJ has been around here long enough (6 months, nearly 800 posts) to know how many atheists would answer the questions. Looks like I wasted my time responding to this.

Simian

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: simian ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke

Arguing is fun, and you have implied that Ayer means something he doesn't. It always makes sense to discuss *whether* something exists; it doesn't make sense to discuss something that doesn't exist *as if* it did.

What's wrong with saying, "I don't know, but I'd like to find out"?

It's a mixed bag. First of all, as I'm sure you are aware, there is no mention of God in our Constitution. The country is founded on purely secular principles. Historically, however, the Christian churches have been a major "player," and usually to good effect. They do provide a channel for the socially useful actions such as works of charity that most people engage in. They also defended slavery for a very long time, as the existence of "Southern" Methodist and Baptist denominations still indicates.

I don't have to have all my neighbors agree with me. I'm content mostly with things as they are. Atheism is better because it's much more in accord with ordinary common sense, and it's a position that doesn't have to be pumped up constantly like a leak balloon, in contrast to theism, which collapses unless the believer is constantly praying, attending worship, listening to religious broadcasting, or otherwise getting assurance that other people believe these improbable things also.

No, radio waves are a good example. But existing things give consistent observations across people and occasions. The claims of theism do not.

Consistency with what science renders probable is an important criterion. Consistency with other sources is next in importance.

I don't use analytic a priori propositions to conclude that God doesn't exist. The universe just makes more sense on an atheist foundation.

You'd need to examine the particular properties of the god you believe in. The reasons would be different in different cases.

Vorkosigan

1. Why does the atheist feel the need to debate the EOG? As atheist AJ Ayer remarked, it remains nonsensical to discuss a non-existent Being.

As I recall, Ayer wrote a couple of books on the topic. I guess we must give up discussing Frodo and Oliver Twist too....

2. How do you arrive at judgements about all things that in their essence, are mysterious with no explaination at all?

There are plenty of mysterious things. Doesn't mean that they are supernatural in nature.

3. Pragmatically, have you benefited from a country founded upon 'god' principles, and if not, would you prefer a 'godless' country?

The US was founded on secular principles, with a constitution -- A Greco-Roman innovation, recognition of rights -- traces back to old germanic and anglo-saxon customs -- and a legislature -- an idea much older than Christianity -- with an elected leader -- an idea much older than Christianity. I currently live in Taiwan, and also have lived in Kenya. I have never lived in a country founded on 'god' principles, and prefer the godless ones.

And if not, how is atheism a better alternative to a belief in God?

The body count is much lower, as is the stupidity quotient.

4. What is the common expectation level of the atheist when establishing a methodolgy to prove something exists, not god necessarily, but just a 'proof' in general? Do you need to physically "see" something?

See norms of science for discussion of this. 'Proof' is possible only where axioms are agreed on beforehand (math and logic, for example).

5. What does it really mean to understand or believe something from reading, comprehending, and otherwise using the tools of logic and reason and other parts of the intellect to determine or verifying the true-ness or false-ness of a statement made by someone and/or from a book?
6. If the athiest uses analytic apriori propostions for the bases of conclusive evidence or otherwise making a judgement that there is no God, why doesn't he use the analytic apriori for all his reasoning? Isn't he using the theist's ontological argument-logic as the sole means in establishing whether something does or does not exist? To the atheist, is that not logically inconsistent?

What analytic a priori do all atheists use? Not all atheists approach the problem of god in the same way. In any case, reasoning methods are tools and must be used as appropriate.

What reason, through logic or otherwise, would be compelling enough for me or any other individual to want to adopt, hold or maintain a no-god belief?

How long have you been on this board? Many reasons are offered every day. The SecWeb library is full of them.

What exactly is it you want to do here, WJ?

Automaton

If a large proportion of the world's population held a stedfast, emotional belief in faires or leprecauns, wouldn't you feel compulsed to debate them? Religion is just as ridiculous. As George Carlin put it, "Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!"
I try to go about it in a methodological rather than completely arbitrary fashion, as people of religion do. "X is mysterous, therefore God did X" is a gross misapplied pseudo-induction that perhaps better deserves the title of "pulling stuff out of your ass!"
We have possibily benefitted from slavery, in that it helped construct valuable infrastructure, but I would, hands down, any day of the week, perfer to live in a country that has never had slavery, nor even considered it.
The truth has nothing to do with how practically good a sociopolitical system is.
In a word, yes. We need to experience something before we can learn of its existence. Otherwise, we would, again, just be pulling things out of our ass. What you don't understand is that "proof" that doesn't actually prove anything is worthless.
Wooza-wozza-huh?
Because this is absolutely ridiculous. Why should we resict our reasoning to one form just because something is analytically a priori impossible?
No, the theist's ontological argument "logic" starts with the premise that God exists (or God necessarily exists), to get to the startling conclusion that God exists! All some people have done is scrutinized the God concept and found it to be empty, incoherent and self-contradictory on many levels.
No. WJ, get a life.

Family Man

How do any of these questions even broach the subject of logical consistency? They look to me to be a scattershot of unrelated questions posed for the emotional, not logical content.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Autonemesis

So stop discussing him, and we will stop telling you there is nothing to discuss.

I already live in a godless country (USA), and have benefitted from same. So have Christians. This is the intent of the secular Constitutional government established by the founders.

Yes, I do. What I need to see most is rigor, but I also need to see demonstrable explanatory power, better than the current theory. Otherwise, why drop the current theory if it explains things better than the new idea?

Demonstrable rigor and explanatory prowess on the part of the author. Intellectual honesty. Relevance. Usefulness.

Who says he doesn't? Informed speculation is a very useful tool to uncover new ideas and new avenues of research. If a speculation provides nothing like that, then it is just idle meanderings of the imagination, harmless musing.

Because explanations that make no reference to god have far better explanatory power than explanations that do make such reference. The idea of god is an encumbrance to learning new things. Those who are mindful of god are conditioned to receive from authority, and not motivated to explore new areas.

[ August 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>