Jobar

This argument seems to me to center more around 'logic' than around theism or strong atheism.

Yes, it is strictly illogical to absolutely deny the existence of God, or the Tooth Fairy, or the planet Giglax which orbits the star at the tip of Orion's club, and is populated by tiny lizards who communicate by farting at each other.

But it is not at all unreasonable to absolutely deny such absurdities exist. Logic is more a tool of mathematicians than of theologians or practical philosophy. We cannot make day-to-day decisions with logic, but we cannot live without some degree of reasoning.

curbyIII

A very wise teacher I once had told me:

David Gould

I think I must have my definitions wrong.

I have to wait until someone tells me which God they are talking about before I tell them exactly what my philosophical position is on it.

I am atheist on all of them, but on some I am agnostic as well.

For example, I am atheist but not agnostic with regard to the Christian God.

I am atheist and agnostic with regard to the deist God.

If I am not agnostic, I call myself a 'strong atheist'. If I am agnostic, I simple call myself an atheist unless asked to explain.

I do not however see the irrationallity of making a blanket statement of 'I am an atheist'. That fits me well enought to be going on with, I feel.

WJ

Hi John!

You said:

That I know (rather than imagine) it to exist and can reasonably prove so to a third party.

Reasonable proof? Subject to rigorous scrutiny and there are a number of methods to choose from.

What does it mean to a theist for god to exist?
[end quote]

Well, I think the question remains relative to expectation levels, and whether the discussion is about physical or metaphysical phenomena. And, what is consider absolute knowledge viz. what is percieved as *real*.

I think if you put together some of your other posts about these very same issues John, (common sense says or my interpretation of your philosophy) suggests there is no need for "rigorous" scrutiny(please explain here).

I think after a particular explaination/definition of 'rigorous scrutiny', there may not exist the type of certainty I think you are looking for with regard to physics. To that particular end, science has not yet solved that which is to be considered by the masses as universally absolute (the nature of human existence-consciousness).
(?)

Does that capture the essence of your concern?

Walrus
---------
What des it mean for some thing to exist?

HelenM

Wise?

Opinionated, certainly.

Synaesthesia

Reasonabledoubt,

That's exactly my point. I originally considered myself agnostic until I realized the infinitesimal liklihood of any arbitrarily complex creature.

So, as a matter of fact, it is more rational to believe that there is no santa clause. It is more rational to say that Zeus doesn't exist and is merely mythological. Simply because Yaweh is popular these days does not fundamentally change anything.

Yours in radical atheism and perdition,
Synaesthesia

Koyaanisqatsi

Picker of nits.

To pick in kind, the question of denial is applicable not to the "one," but to the "other one" who listens to the one who presents the evidence. It is the "other one" who then denies that the evidence exists or that the "one" has established that something exists.

Atheists are said to be "denying" God's existence, but that isn't true and cannot be true, because God's existence has never been shown to be true to a reasonable degree of certainty, for anyone to deny.

There is no evidence to deny; no reality to refuse to acknowledge, accept of course for the theist, who is the one actually in denial; denial over the evidence that exists to establish their mythology is nothing more than a mythology.

This is why theists use the word "deny" when referring to atheists. In case none of you have noticed, cult members almost always accuse others of what they are guilty as part and parcel to their "apologist repertoire."

True, and I guess I should have qualified it further. I wasn't referring to someone who proves to themselves that something exists only to then go on and deny it.

Think of the Kennedy Assassination conspiracies. There is a tremendous amount of evidence that points to some sort of conspiracy. To deny that evidence is certainly possible, but it would in fact be a denial of the evidence.

Atheists cannot be said to be in denial of the evidence or "denial of God", because no evidence exists that has established to any degree of certainty that such a fictional creature factually exists.

A collection of cult mythologies does not constitute such evidence.

Very true, however, again, I was directing this at somebody who claims that something is true and another who says you have no evidence to support your claim other than a work of cult fiction from thousands of years ago.

To say that the person pointing out the lack of evidence is "denying the truth" is incorrect.

There would have to be "more compelling" evidence--but not necessarily comprehensive evidence--than ancient mythology to establish anything substantial enough that could then be denied.

Regardless, the point is that there is no evidence at all that any of the mythological nonsense found in the christian myths is anything other than mythological nonsense.

To point that out is not to "deny" anything; quite the opposite. Pointing that out is to affirm the truth.

Any book wherein snakes talk and the dead rise from their graves is a work of fiction, always and forever, without question, regardless of how many people have been conditioned to think the opposite is true.

The fact that this has to be pointed out to grown men and women on a daily basis and those men and women respond with "you're just in denial" means only that the pot is calling the kettle black.

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Bullpuckie. I deny God's existence.

Koyaanisqatsi

F*ck it.

A theism.

Without a belief in a god or gods.

Period.

Totalitarianist

There is quite a bit of evidence that would suggest the origin of most/all of those beliefs.

I can give a rational explanation for every alien abduction case in history. Any rational person can do that.

You cannot do that for the "God" idea (and you must realise that the Christian God isn't the only one).

This has nothing to do with claims of seeing God or anything of that sort. It has only to do with his existence, not any version of his existence.

Accepting certain versions of God is illogical, accepting no versions whatsoever but accepting its existence is illogical, and denying all versions with 100% certainty and versions that haven't even been thought up yet is equally illogical.

It is only logical to merely lack a belief.

In my opinion, denying certain versions (i.e., the Christian God) can be logical, depending on the reasoning that had you arrive at that conclusion.

And Synaesthesia hasn't presented any evidence for the unlikelihood of the existence of God (any or all of the current versions--), or even his mere existence (-- or all versions set aside).

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>