Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diggler St. · 02-26-2002, 11:07 AM

Ok, this is the generic version of a statement that aided in my de-converting from the (I don�t want to say this because I know what everyone�s going to think) Independent Fundamental Baptist community. I know, I know, how could I? It�s in the past now (BAD! BAD! Diggler St.) and I�m interested in learning more about being antitheist. Anyway, this is the statement that made me stand on the side that there is a �god� or first cause, however, does not, DOES NOT, imply that I believe in it or that I still have a Xian stuck somewhere in my brain. I�m very new to this forum and antitheism so please take this my first crayons and coloring books. I�d like to learn about how this statement is true, or if it is wrong where is it wrong? I would also like some references so I can look them up and learn more. So...here I go...

To articulate that there is no �god� (not meaning Xian god) is to state an individual has enough knowledge to know there is no �god�. However, this individual can never have enough knowledge, data, or facts to be 100% accurate in stating there is no �god�. This individual would have to be entirely knowledgeable to everything, because if there are possibilities out of said wisdom then the possibility, in theory, could be �god�. This same individual would also, in conjunction with being all-knowing, have to be omnipresent, because if this individual was not then where he/she isn�t could be considered �god�. There is no individual that can declare complete knowledge or be everywhere all at once. Therefore, atheism is self-refuting. And creation is always a possibility.

Now I only believe this to the extent that creation is a possibility. I do not believe that if it is the truth that we have this massive, �loving�, Xian, mythical deity that is on constant surveillance of the world and composing this devious plan to send his chosen people to an eternal Disney Land. So, please tear �er up, I�d like to learn what I don�t know.

WJ · 02-26-2002, 11:42 AM

Digg!

Point well taken!

"This same individual would also, in conjunction with being all-knowing, have to be omnipresent, because if this individual was not then where he/she isn’t could be considered “god”. There is no individual that can declare complete knowledge or be everywhere all at once. Therefore, atheism is self-refuting. And creation is always a possibility."

I always tell people that the same logic that both the theist and atheist use to engage in say, the ontological argument, works against them in the end. I'm a Christian and a staunch opponent of FL viz. Being.

But there again, we are trapped in a physical world having to use mostly words to express and explain meaningful existence. What are the alternatives?

Anyway, just my 2 pennies.

Walrus

PS, Digg, in the context of this discussion, you might say that Keirkegaardian Fideism is alive and well.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

DarkBronzePlant · 02-26-2002, 12:07 PM

I agreed with what you were saying up until "Therefore, atheism is self-refuting." Atheism is simply lack of belief that there is a god; to say that the preceeding statement indicate that atheism is self-refuting is indeed a big leap.

Most atheists will admit that creation is a possibility. I'll admit it. Even if creation is "the truth", then there is an infinite number of potential "creators", the bible merely writing about one such possibility. It kind of reminds me of the evolution debate. Creationists will argue and argue and try to prove that evolution is wrong. And if they were ever to succeed, they will have proven just that. Evolution is wrong. Nothing more. Certainly not that god exists.

Same is true for creationism. While your post far from proved that creationism is true (and I know that you weren't trying to I the first place), even if creationism was conclusively proven, it would only show that something created the universe. In my mind, the odds would be quite small for said creator to share the attributes attributed in the bible to god.

eh · 02-26-2002, 12:11 PM

Hi Diggler, and allow me to welcome you to these boards. You should find a wealth of information here on the arguments for and against God, though it may take you a long time to read through them all. You should note that most people on these boards would call themselves atheists, as opposed to anti-theists. There is quite a difference.

Anyway, I'll just throw in my own comments on what you posted about God's existence below.

Certainly, we do not have 100% knowledge of the universe to declare with certainty that no gods exist. As such, a divine creation is possible. However, atheism is not about claiming to have absolute knowledge about our universe, but is simply the lack of a belief in any said deities.

It is possible that God created the universe. But possibility does not equal fact, or even probability. I think that many atheists here would merely say that there is no evidence that God exists, and so belief in him is suspended until evidence comes in.

Likewise, it is possible that other paranormal events or beings exist, but a lack of evidence for them suspends belief. Zeus may in fact be real, along with Santa Claus, Aliens who abduct humans, Goblins who steal socks, yadda yadda. But why believe in something there is no evidence for? Remember, you don't have to be a theist just because the possibility of deities is there. Possibility and probability are very different things.

Diggler St. · 02-26-2002, 12:50 PM

Oops! I appologize if I bashed anyone, it wasn't my intention. I understand that both probability and possibility are different and with same of antitheist and atheist.

Philosoft · 02-26-2002, 01:26 PM

At the risk of equivocating, it is not wrong to say there is a mathematical probability that a creator god exists, assuming one has stipulated a logical way for said creator god to exist. Simply saying "'God exists' is a logical possibility" is meaningless unless one can do the following (among other things):

-Define 'God' in such a way that it refers to a thing and not a concept

-Show that any properties attributed to 'God' are logically possible in an existing thing

Diggler St.,

Regards your use of the term 'antitheist'; this is a superfluous term. Its use gives unearned legitimacy to theism, in that it implies that theism is the default position that must be contravened. 'Atheism' is logically identical to a hypothetical state wherein god-belief is non-existent. Atheists may have doctrines, beliefs, what have you, but these things are not logical extensions of atheism.

Bialar Crais · 02-26-2002, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diggler St.:

To articulate that there is no “god” (not meaning Xian god) is to state an individual has enough knowledge to know there is no “god”. However, this individual can never have enough knowledge, data, or facts to be 100% accurate in stating there is no “god”. This individual would have to be entirely knowledgeable to everything, because if there are possibilities out of said wisdom then the possibility, in theory, could be “god”. This same individual would also, in conjunction with being all-knowing, have to be omnipresent, because if this individual was not then where he/she isn’t could be considered “god”. There is no individual that can declare complete knowledge or be everywhere all at once. Therefore, atheism is self-refuting. And creation is always a possibility.

So, what you're saying here is that the number of cups of coffee I had for breakfast this morning is essential in knowing wether or not their is a god? I.e person A holds all possible knowledge. Person B holds the sames knowledge except for how many cups of coffee my breakfast consisted of. Person A can be an atheist, person B can not. Damn, that must make me quite special, eh?

And yes, existance of one or more deities is of course always a possibility. That doesn't require me to go around believing in all those possibilities, nor is the lack of such belief self-refuting. However, I would agree that stating with 100% certainty that there can be no deities whatsoever is as self-refuting as saying with same certainty that "MY deity exists".

David Gould · 02-26-2002, 02:03 PM

I always make a distinction between my strong atheism and my weak atheism.

I am a weak atheist and agnostic with regard to, for example, the Deist idea of God - the indifferent and inactive creator.

This means that I do not know if it exists or not - hence the agnostic part - but I have no belief in it (the weak atheist part) becasue there is no evidence for its existence. No certainty is required to be a weak atheist.

However, I am a strong atheist with regard to the Christian God, in that I am absolutely certain that such a thing cannot exist. There are too many inconsistencies and contradictions. As such, the Christian God cannot even be defined in such a wasy as to make it possible to formulate a belief in it.

If the Christian God were defined in a way that is possible for it to exist, then I would revert to being weak atheist/agnostic until such time as evidence was presented for its existence.

Jayhawker Soule · 02-26-2002, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diggler St.:
To articulate that there is no “god” (not meaning Xian god) is to state an individual has enough knowledge to know there is no “god”. However, this individual can never have enough knowledge, data, or facts to be 100% accurate in stating there is no “god”.

To articulate that there is no “elf” is to state an individual has enough knowledge to know there is no “elf”.
To articulate that there is no “leprechaun” is to state an individual has enough knowledge to know there is no “leprechaun”.
To articulate that there is no “Kali” is to state an individual has enough knowledge to know there is no “Kali”.
To articulate that there is no ...

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

waxm · 02-26-2002, 05:20 PM

EH- Certainly, we do not have 100% knowledge of the universe to declare with certainty that no gods exist. As such, a divine creation is possible. However, atheism is not about claiming to have absolute knowledge about our universe, but is simply the lack of a belief in any said deities.

Wax- This is actually the best stance to take.
The problem with "belief" is the requirement to follow a given theology.

All "Christian" theology is based on a book that can not be devinely inspired, thus can not be 100% accurate.
There are many, many reasons why I say this, but here are just a few:
The four different stories of the resurrection.
The fact that Marys other children had not heard of or supported their brothers devinity (thus, Mary herself did not support the miraculous conception).
The fact that the writers of the New Testament, most pointedly Saul/Paul, never met Jesus...only claimed to know the answers, much like Charlie Manson did.
There are many more, but these are enough.

I have no problem with someone taking the position that they believe in a God, but have no answers, and because of this, can not expect others to believe also.
Just as I have no problem with someone who takes the position that Alien life exists, simply because it makes sense that it would.

But Christians, and all other theologies, are equivilent in my mind, to the person who says that they believe in Aliens, because Aliens from planet Noctoo have abducted them on a number of occasions and will return someday to take them back.
They will take you too, but only if you believe me now and do as I say, otherwise they will kill you with their deathray.
After a short pause, the only possible answer to this is...Uhmmmmm....OK.

02-26-2002, 11:07 AM	#1
Diggler St. Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 19	Please explain the existence, or lack of, "god" Ok, this is the generic version of a statement that aided in my de-converting from the (I don�t want to say this because I know what everyone�s going to think) Independent Fundamental Baptist community. I know, I know, how could I? It�s in the past now (BAD! BAD! Diggler St.) and I�m interested in learning more about being antitheist. Anyway, this is the statement that made me stand on the side that there is a �god� or first cause, however, does not, DOES NOT, imply that I believe in it or that I still have a Xian stuck somewhere in my brain. I�m very new to this forum and antitheism so please take this my first crayons and coloring books. I�d like to learn about how this statement is true, or if it is wrong where is it wrong? I would also like some references so I can look them up and learn more. So...here I go... To articulate that there is no �god� (not meaning Xian god) is to state an individual has enough knowledge to know there is no �god�. However, this individual can never have enough knowledge, data, or facts to be 100% accurate in stating there is no �god�. This individual would have to be entirely knowledgeable to everything, because if there are possibilities out of said wisdom then the possibility, in theory, could be �god�. This same individual would also, in conjunction with being all-knowing, have to be omnipresent, because if this individual was not then where he/she isn�t could be considered �god�. There is no individual that can declare complete knowledge or be everywhere all at once. Therefore, atheism is self-refuting. And creation is always a possibility. Now I only believe this to the extent that creation is a possibility. I do not believe that if it is the truth that we have this massive, �loving�, Xian, mythical deity that is on constant surveillance of the world and composing this devious plan to send his chosen people to an eternal Disney Land. So, please tear �er up, I�d like to learn what I don�t know.

02-26-2002, 11:42 AM	#2
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Digg! Point well taken! "This same individual would also, in conjunction with being all-knowing, have to be omnipresent, because if this individual was not then where he/she isn’t could be considered “god”. There is no individual that can declare complete knowledge or be everywhere all at once. Therefore, atheism is self-refuting. And creation is always a possibility." I always tell people that the same logic that both the theist and atheist use to engage in say, the ontological argument, works against them in the end. I'm a Christian and a staunch opponent of FL viz. Being. But there again, we are trapped in a physical world having to use mostly words to express and explain meaningful existence. What are the alternatives? Anyway, just my 2 pennies. Walrus PS, Digg, in the context of this discussion, you might say that Keirkegaardian Fideism is alive and well. [ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2002, 12:07 PM	#3
DarkBronzePlant Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA USA Posts: 3,568	I agreed with what you were saying up until "Therefore, atheism is self-refuting." Atheism is simply lack of belief that there is a god; to say that the preceeding statement indicate that atheism is self-refuting is indeed a big leap. Most atheists will admit that creation is a possibility. I'll admit it. Even if creation is "the truth", then there is an infinite number of potential "creators", the bible merely writing about one such possibility. It kind of reminds me of the evolution debate. Creationists will argue and argue and try to prove that evolution is wrong. And if they were ever to succeed, they will have proven just that. Evolution is wrong. Nothing more. Certainly not that god exists. Same is true for creationism. While your post far from proved that creationism is true (and I know that you weren't trying to I the first place), even if creationism was conclusively proven, it would only show that something created the universe. In my mind, the odds would be quite small for said creator to share the attributes attributed in the bible to god.

02-26-2002, 12:11 PM	#4
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Hi Diggler, and allow me to welcome you to these boards. You should find a wealth of information here on the arguments for and against God, though it may take you a long time to read through them all. You should note that most people on these boards would call themselves atheists, as opposed to anti-theists. There is quite a difference. Anyway, I'll just throw in my own comments on what you posted about God's existence below. Certainly, we do not have 100% knowledge of the universe to declare with certainty that no gods exist. As such, a divine creation is possible. However, atheism is not about claiming to have absolute knowledge about our universe, but is simply the lack of a belief in any said deities. It is possible that God created the universe. But possibility does not equal fact, or even probability. I think that many atheists here would merely say that there is no evidence that God exists, and so belief in him is suspended until evidence comes in. Likewise, it is possible that other paranormal events or beings exist, but a lack of evidence for them suspends belief. Zeus may in fact be real, along with Santa Claus, Aliens who abduct humans, Goblins who steal socks, yadda yadda. But why believe in something there is no evidence for? Remember, you don't have to be a theist just because the possibility of deities is there. Possibility and probability are very different things.

02-26-2002, 12:50 PM	#5
Diggler St. Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 19	Oops! I appologize if I bashed anyone, it wasn't my intention. I understand that both probability and possibility are different and with same of antitheist and atheist.

02-26-2002, 01:26 PM	#6
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	At the risk of equivocating, it is not wrong to say there is a mathematical probability that a creator god exists, assuming one has stipulated a logical way for said creator god to exist. Simply saying "'God exists' is a logical possibility" is meaningless unless one can do the following (among other things): -Define 'God' in such a way that it refers to a thing and not a concept -Show that any properties attributed to 'God' are logically possible in an existing thing Diggler St., Regards your use of the term 'antitheist'; this is a superfluous term. Its use gives unearned legitimacy to theism, in that it implies that theism is the default position that must be contravened. 'Atheism' is logically identical to a hypothetical state wherein god-belief is non-existent. Atheists may have doctrines, beliefs, what have you, but these things are not logical extensions of atheism.

02-26-2002, 02:03 PM	#8
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	I always make a distinction between my strong atheism and my weak atheism. I am a weak atheist and agnostic with regard to, for example, the Deist idea of God - the indifferent and inactive creator. This means that I do not know if it exists or not - hence the agnostic part - but I have no belief in it (the weak atheist part) becasue there is no evidence for its existence. No certainty is required to be a weak atheist. However, I am a strong atheist with regard to the Christian God, in that I am absolutely certain that such a thing cannot exist. There are too many inconsistencies and contradictions. As such, the Christian God cannot even be defined in such a wasy as to make it possible to formulate a belief in it. If the Christian God were defined in a way that is possible for it to exist, then I would revert to being weak atheist/agnostic until such time as evidence was presented for its existence.

02-26-2002, 05:20 PM	#10
waxm Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: saint peter mn Posts: 18	EH- Certainly, we do not have 100% knowledge of the universe to declare with certainty that no gods exist. As such, a divine creation is possible. However, atheism is not about claiming to have absolute knowledge about our universe, but is simply the lack of a belief in any said deities. Wax- This is actually the best stance to take. The problem with "belief" is the requirement to follow a given theology. All "Christian" theology is based on a book that can not be devinely inspired, thus can not be 100% accurate. There are many, many reasons why I say this, but here are just a few: The four different stories of the resurrection. The fact that Marys other children had not heard of or supported their brothers devinity (thus, Mary herself did not support the miraculous conception). The fact that the writers of the New Testament, most pointedly Saul/Paul, never met Jesus...only claimed to know the answers, much like Charlie Manson did. There are many more, but these are enough. I have no problem with someone taking the position that they believe in a God, but have no answers, and because of this, can not expect others to believe also. Just as I have no problem with someone who takes the position that Alien life exists, simply because it makes sense that it would. But Christians, and all other theologies, are equivilent in my mind, to the person who says that they believe in Aliens, because Aliens from planet Noctoo have abducted them on a number of occasions and will return someday to take them back. They will take you too, but only if you believe me now and do as I say, otherwise they will kill you with their deathray. After a short pause, the only possible answer to this is...Uhmmmmm....OK.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.