Jayhawker Soule

{ hit the 'quote' rather thank 'edit' icon }

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

MassAtheist

ResonableDoubt - you are, of course correct. The problem I was trying to point out was with the logical approach of disproving god by contradiction, not with the practicality of it. The problem I was referring to is that with proof by contradiction, you have to disprove every definition of god separately. IMHO, there is little hope in logically disproving the god concept.

jj

I've got to strongly disaree with the comment about the person making the "first assertion". This is often reduced to the skeptic being the "first asserter" even though the skeptic is questioning some absurdity or other, even though the "real" first assertion was contained as a presumption hidden deep in some premise of the original statement.

Furthermore, when we get to things like "god", we are dealing with ideas that specifically defy logic and proof, so there's no meat there in any case.

More to the point, I find, is that replying 'in other words, I am required to take all assertions you could possibly make as true unless I disprove each' will tell me quite a bit about who I'm dealing with. Anyone who says "yes" to that outright, without qualification, explaination, etc, is outright suspect.

I don't believe in the moon being made of green cheese, ergo I'm an a-green-cheesist. I don't believe that there is any conciously made face on Mars, that means I'm an a-alien-facist, and so on and so forth.

My point? It's the person that asserts something has substance, not the person who makes the "first assertion" who has the burden of proof. Someone says a god exists, they have to define god, explain the definition, and prove it. It's not my job to disprove it. If someone wants to say the moon is made of green cheese everywhere we haven't closely examined it, it's up to them to provide the evidence, not me to provide counter-evidence. If someone wants to claim that aliens made the face on mars (my space buggy don't go that far ) they need to come up with the face and the aliens, and the evidence. I owe them nothing for not accepting their statement, nothing at all.

THAT is a defensible position, and one that many people want to dodge. Trying to surruptitiously slip the burden of proof is an old, tired game that ought to be called head-on, as far as I'm concerned.

(edited for spelling.)

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: jj ]</p>

critical thinking made ez

Here is the conversation I had with my Aunt 20 years ago…

Aunt, do you believe in another dimension? She answered “Yes, there could be another dimension in which all kinds of things and creatures exist. We can’t disprove another dimension, therefore it could exist”

I replied “While there could be another dimension and all kinds of life or other things in it, what good is it to devote my life to believing that it exists since there is no “connection” between our dimensions that could be meaningful in the least?”

She responds with “If I am good because I believe someone there is watching me and I want to please this person because I think he wants me to act a certain way and will reward me for such actions, and it does truly make me a nicer person in this life, would that justify such a belief?”

I said “I don’t believe so. Are you wanting to act a certain way for a reward or because it is the right thing to do, which has nothing to do with what that creature wants?” “ What if this person/creature wanted you to act in a way that would hurt others, yet please him?”

My conclusion was that doing something for a reward was wrong when the same actions should be done for its own reward in doing the right thing.

Since there is no other “connection” with the other dimension except my own inner reactions to such a belief, it was not justified to waste my life believing in another dimension nor any God.

critical thinking made ez

Interesting Tercel, he is your scale and my scale combined:.


When asked "Do you think that a god exists?":

Strong Theist - I'm sure he does. I don't need any evidence to know that he does, since I use Faith and or emotions as the basis for belief.

Weak Theist - I think he might well exist but I don't know for sure, since I haven't seen evidence to convince me that he does. There are arguments that lead me to believe that he could exist. I prefer to think that he does exist.

Weak Agnostic - I don't really think he exists, since I haven't seen evidence to convince me that he does. There are arguments that lead me to believe that he could exist. I prefer to think that he doesn't exist.

Strong Agnostic - I can't know since I haven't seen evidence to convince me that he does. There are arguments that lead me to believe that he could exist. I don't think he does exist.

Atheist - I think he most likely doesn't, since I haven't seen evidence to convince me that he does. But I haven't see evidence to convince me that he doesn't exist either. I don't think he does exist.

Strong Atheist - I'm sure he doesn't, since I haven't seen evidence to convince me that he does. But I don't need any evidence to convince me he doesn't because I don't have to prove a negative.


Funny...
All the above types hold their positions based upon the "lack of evidence" in the existence of a god.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

case

I sympathize with Thomas. I called myself an atheist for many years, but, after reading and thinking more about it, have changed my views to more of an agnostic standpoint. I've also started talking about the subject of the existance of god more openly, and debating with others about it.

I see what I feel is an ugly trend nowdays: entirely too much cynicism. I post various ideas and replies on the forum, and disscuss them with others. I certainly don't feel this true of everyone, but I get a fair amount of resistance to many ideas that I express. Criticism I welcome; I look at it as way to learn and grow, and become stronger in my thinking. But all too often I am bombarded with questions like "You don't know if god exists!? How stupid is that?!"
I get this from both atheists and theists.

I'd like to think that this isn't some kind of war, and its ok to be wrong, and learn from your mistakes. Then again, I could be wrong...

critical thinking made ez

Case, I too have call myself an agnostic, but I don’t any longer. Here are my reasons:

1. I find that all the Gods taught about here on earth; are suppose to be here or left traces here, yet can't be found here, nor shown to have been here.
2. Any god that may exist in another part of the universe doesn't want any contact with us; nor to be found to exist. Therefore, he doesn't really exist in the human world nor will he ever in my life-time and most likely forever. In the far future, if man ever started to corner him somewhere, he would just move elsewhere, he would never be found. Therefore, if he does exist, he doesn't want to exist in our world or to our understanding.

It’s as if he doesn't want us to believe he exists.

Since I find it a silly statement of contradiction, I don't believe god(s) exists. If it is a true statement, then I am following God's desire not to have me believe, dispite the fact I don't believe a god exists. Either way I am right.

For these reasons and others (no first cause), I am atheist. Without a belief in the existance of a god.

case

I thank you for your reply. I find myself from time to time questioning my agnosticism. It devolped from scientific reasoning, and I have to reconcile that with my haste to think, "There cannot possibly be any type of god". Logically speaking, one would be hard pressed to prove the existance of god, even if one could define "god" to any acceptable degree. And yet, logic isn't always an accurate description of reality. The "hanging man" paradox and quantum mechanics comes to mind.

So I take the position of an agnostic, lacking a belief in any type of god, but not able to prove or disprove my lack of belief. Which then leads to migranes, but that's another topic.