Samhain

Begging the question. First, Atheism is not a belief, atheism is a lack of belief. We do not "believe" anything or "deny" anything or even "assume" anything. We just choose not to believe when no gods/creators/dieties have been proven to exist. Second, you are begging the question saying that all atheists feel that no supernatural phenomena exists. While some may not agree with the supernatural, just because one does not believe in any god does not mean that one does not believe in some kind of supernatural in our world today (perhaps reincarnation, perhaps some non-diestic form of life after death, etc.)

Creating a false dilemma while begging the question. Must we now? As I stated above, not believing in a god does not mean that one does not believe in the supernatural, and in such a case, no materialist explanation is necessary. Don't make hasty generalizations.

Ok...

Begging the question. You forgot to add yet at the end of that. There is no logical answer for that yet. First of all, as I stated, having no belief in a god does not mean that we must do anything to try and prove how the world was created. An atheist can still believe in the supernatural/unexplainable because they still coincide with nature, and not with some imaginary guy sitting in the clouds in the sky. Even if one did not believe in the supernatural, we could just believe as equally as any theist, by saying that while we cannot prove that there is a materialistic explanation, there is one out there (which is more likely than some "being" which we cannot comprehend created us and everything around us). While this shifts the burden of proof a little bit, it still makes less of an assumption than any theist would make in the matter.

Atheists do not count out the possibility that a god exists, we just know that because of inconsistencies in the gods of today we cannot possibly believe in any of them. We do not believe because none of them have, or can be proven. Until a theist presents us with an infallible argument as to the existence to any god, we will continue to not believe that such a god exists. Prove to us that your god exists, and we'll talk.

Once again with the belief/disbelief thing. No belief does not constitute any belief at all, it means exactly the opposite: the absence of belief.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

uhcord

We do not claim to know how it all began, unlike theist.

We just make logical theories and conclusions on the REAL proof infront of us. No need to rely on an unmoral, contradictory, illogical, unrational book written in the time where they still believed the earth to be flat.

Here is why I (and many other atheists) assert there is no god.

If your friend claimed that there is an invisible dragon in his garage, but could not prove of its existance, I'm sure you would stand at the 'does not exist' stand point because of how illogical it would be for him to have such in his garage.

We just put your 'god' under the 'does not exist category' right beside the tooth fairy, santa, dragons, unicorns, etc.

By your 'logic', it would be illogical to claim that Santa does not exist.

It pretty much comes down to, atheist do not have to prove the negative. You must prove it, since you claim it to be true.

WJ

All!

Here's another couple of great examples of the atheists logical inconsistencey that was originally asserted:


"First, Atheism is not a belief, atheism is a lack of belief. We do not "believe" anything or "deny" anything or even "assume" anything. We just choose not to believe when no gods/creators/dieties have been proven to exist."

It is logically inconsistent to discuss some concept that is believed not to exist. By discussing the concept you are assuming the concept is true. To assume the concept is true, you believe it 'may' exist, when in fact you believe it doesn't. That is logically inconsistent.

vonmeth and sanhain need to demonstrate why they believe it is logically impossible that God does not exist since atheism relies on logic for its statements and beliefs of a truth.


Further, vonmeth said: "We do not claim to know how it all began, unlike theist"

That statement is false. The atheist's claim through objective reason and FL that God cannot exist as an object Being, therefore, you/they are making a claim by default that they do posses this knowledge.

Let us be clear, agnosticism is what the Atheist would like to claim. Atheist's need to do some soul searching to see what they actually know or feel about their own faith. If they/you claim nothing can be known, then you are an agnostic (and you possess no belief or faith on the matter); not an atheist.

So the challenge is put to the atheists (just like it would be to the theist) to prove your belief!

Walrus
---------
Atheism is another Religion

FOIL

I'm sure that we'd all love to help out, but unfortunately, as WJ explained, we're in an epistemological quagmire, unable to justify our knowledge of anything. Therefore, we can't be sure that our answer would be of any use to you whatsoever.

Perhaps if you pray, God will send the answer...

FOIL

PS. Of course, I can't be sure due to the ultimately unfounded nature of any knowledge that I might fallibly believe that I hold, but if you look to the left of the "message reply" box, you should see a link entitled "UBB Code is enabled". Failing that, there should be one under the "Instant UBB Code" buttons titled "What is UBB Code?"

Clicking on either of these links should bring up a window explaining the various code tags available.

That is, I believe that it will. Of course, I'm just an atheist. What would I know?

WJ

All!

"...as WJ explained, we're in an epistemological quagmire, unable to justify our knowledge of anything..."

Perhaps Foil would really like to assert that truth is Subjectivity. He would be epistemologically correct in asserting so; however, he would be epistemologicaly incorrect to justify by pure reason alone that a Being concept of God doesn't exist.

The next question to the atheist is; what comprises a justified true belief of their claim that the concept of God doesn't exist?

Walrus

Godless Sodomite

And a quick check of "atheist" over at dictionary.com says that an atheist is:

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being."

Like I said earlier, I disbelieve--I don't deny. I dislike even this definition, though, due to its biased language. There are gods who have been held up for worship that I have no doubt do not exist, but that doesn't mean I "deny" them. The phrase "denies the existence of god," perhaps unintentionally, favors the theist position--anyone else is in denial. I can only guess why such prejudicial language is used since I know nothing about the writer of the definition.

To state that god is a logical possibility is quite different from saying that god is concluded from the evidence at hand. The evidence at hand regarding the brute fact of the existence of matter is that we don't know if it has always existed or if it were somehow begun. Since we can only start exploring by examining what we have, we have to look at matter and its properties. I have no reason just to assume that matter needs a beginning--I have no need just to assume anything about it. If you want us to believe that matter had to have a beginning, you'll need to provide evidence for it. Absent an evidentiary argument, all we can do is speculate and there's no reason to favor your pet theory over any other speculative assertions.

Human history is full of deities created to provide explanations for then unknown causes of physical phenomenon, which are discarded as the gaps in our collective ignorance are filled. I have no idea what your concept of god is, but if it's merely defined as the "intelligence that created matter," then time may well tell whether or not your god will be among the discarded. Myself, I'd rather wait to see where the evidence points. If I want to indulge in fantasies, I'll go to the movies and imagine myself going down on Russell Crowe.

-Jerry

Darwin's Finch

WJ: "It is logically inconsistent to discuss some concept that is believed not to exist. By discussing the concept you are assuming the concept is true. To assume the concept is true, you believe it 'may' exist, when in fact you believe it doesn't."

Nonsense. If I discuss Emma Bovary's motivation or Stephen Dedalus's theory of Hamlet, how am I committed to believing that these fictions 'may' exist? Same with Krishna, Zeus, and Yahweh. If I tell a joke that includes in the punchline the phrase "the present king of France," does this mean that I 'may' believe that such a personage exists? Context, man, context.

Philosoft

Atheism makes no assertions at all. Only an atheist can make such an assertion about the existence of a deity. An atheist can also make no assertion about the existence of a deity. This would be logically identical to a 'position' in a universe wherein the concept of 'deity' did not exist. You must now show that the latter position is impossible or untenable.

<strong> I'm not sure I know where to start. I'm going to ask that you stop anthropomorphizng 'atheism.' It's mere obfuscation at this point. Atheism doesn't proscribe anything. There is no positive action that must be taken to fulfill some nebulous qualifications for atheism. Some atheists (metaphysical naturalists) certainly hold the beliefs that you presume, but it is not required. A nominal atheist, such as myself, makes no claim about metaphysical truth; my position is that deity assertions currently have no truth value. I do not claim that deity assertions cannot have truth value. I am not a metaphysical naturalist. The rest of your paragraph is silly: It is not clear that I need to logically justify my existence at all. I cannot deny the supernatural because I have no concept of it.

<strong> If you understand what I have written, and you are intellectually honest, you will be able to answer this yourself.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

You want evidence that matter has to have a beginning or a cause? Look around you. Are you aware of anything which does not have a cause? The evidence around you suggests that all phenomena have a cause. Why should the universe be any different.

Please understand my point, I am not YET seeking to prove the existence of god or any particular god. Before one can do that we must all accept that god is possible. Most of the posts seem to agree that god is a logical possibility. I must agree with WJ that most of the atheists sound more like agnostics in their definition of atheism.

DarkBronzePlant

That paragraph is utterly false, and borderline absurd.

In particular, the sentence "By discussing the concept you are assuming the concept is true" makes no sense at all. The primary reason most of us atheists discuss this concept (i.e. the existence of god) is because it is a patently false concept that we nonetheless have forced upon us on a daily basis. There is no assumption of truth there whatsoever.

Right there your argument fails, but delving a bit deeper, you make the mistake of trying to combine the various personal beliefs of individual atheists. Again, atheism is merely the belief that a god does not exist. Some atheists go so far as to positively assert that no god exists. Others are content to simply say that they don't believe in the existence of any god. A subtle, but important, distinction. Either one fits into atheism with no inconsistencies.