Leones Homus

[QUOTE] At what age did the atheists here, become atheists? [QUOTE}

About 14 i guess, but being only 15 it isnt really long. Haven't really ever been an enthusiastic christian though.

Mageth

God also can not be disproved to exist.

Are you not saying, in a sense, that "no proof exists that god does not exist?" By your own logic, is it not true that "Proofs of god's non-existence cannot be proved not to exist?"

It is irrational to believe in that which cannot be proven.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Denis Giron:

"I think that if a positive atheist said 'God does not exist,' the burden of proof is on him."

Right.

"To do so would require an argument that God necessarily does not exist, ..."

No, just that God does not exist in the actual world. (If God is defined to be a necessary being (something I don't think is intelligible), then it would also show ipso facto that God does not exist necessarily.)

"...but as absurd as the ideas of God is it, I still think it is at least possible that a deity could exist."

You seem to have abandoned the distinction you mentioned in the beginning. The positive atheist need not say "All conceived-of gods do not exist," only that "God X does not exist." Most of the time, God X is the God of Christian theism.

"That being conceded, it would still be a bit problematic to be a proverbial 'Positive A-300lb-mouse-ist' who asserts that they certainly don't exist. What is your evidence to back up such an assertion?"

It could go a couple of ways, mirroring some a priori and a posteriori arguments for God's nonexistence. A priori, a case could be made that a 300 lb anything is not a mouse; it is an essential property of mice, say, that they weigh 299 lbs or fewer. Then the concept of a 300 lb mouse is incoherent, the way the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being is incoherent. A posteriori, a case could be made that if 300 lb mice existed, we'd probably know about them, and therefore, probably, they don't exist. This would be analogous to, say, the evidential argument from evil.

"The objection that I feel is the most powerful (though some philosophers disagree) is still Kant's: existence is not a predicate."

That works against classic ontological arguments. Against modal arguments, I think something similar works: alethic modal status is not a predicate.

"However, if existence is not a predicate, we cannot deny this predicate to any thing..."

This is not exactly what Kant meant. We can certainly say things don't exist; what we can't say is that things that don't exist don't exist, or that things that exist exist, without making simple analytic statements. We can't define something to exist or not to exist, but we can certainly make statements about existence or nonexistence. So nonexistence is not a predicate -- there is no good way to say "an omnipotent, nonexistent God... exists" or to deny that -- but we can certaintly say whether beings of properties P, Q, and R where none of these is existence or nonexistence, exists.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Metcalf ]</p>

JerryM

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is irrational to believe in that which can't be proven. (We also have the issue of what standard of proof is required--let's assume empirical, directly or indirectly observable evidence.) I think if a suppostion has logical coherency, is not self-contradictory, and has not been clearly disproven, then it could be considered rational. To my knowledge, there is no empirical proof for superstring theory, but my understanding is that it does have some mathematical consistency--so I would consider it rational. It may be completely wrong, but it would be rational to believe in it, at least PENDING FURTHER EVIDENCE. Oxymoron's earlier post had it right. There are many arguments, extensively discussed in this forum, which, I feel, clearly show that the Judeo-Christian, Biblical God cannot exist because his attributes are contradictory and logically incoherent. Thus, I feel it is completely rational to state that the specific God described in the Bible does not exist. But belief in some general, transcendant, universal force might be rational if the qualities of this force have a logical consistency. At least such a belief may be rational until further evidence proves otherwise.

Vorkosigan

Denis, Positive atheism is both logically and empirically valid. To say that "There is no god" does not deny the potentiality of a god, only the reality of one. My astronomy textbook says Venus has no moon. Is this a logically invalid statement, or a simple summation of what we know? Similarly, "There is no god" is a summation of the best evidence and arguments we have. This summary you have made fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the statement "there is no god," at least as I understand it when I make it.

Furthermore, your formulation of the problem does not admit that it may be possible to logically demonstrate not merely that there is no god, but that the whole concept of god is logically and empirically flawed. It may be possible to think of a god that is potentially real, but no god mankind has proposed meets the test of logical possibility, unless it be one of the brutal, indifferent, chaotic gods of HG Lovecraft or KE Wagner. And nobody thinks they exist.

Finally, the existence of god is a not a logical question but an empirical one. Thus, logic may bear on the question of deities, but ultimately philosophy is incapable of answering the questions it proposes, that must be left to empirical methods, like science. Philosophy is an utterly sterile method, incapable of real discovery, good only for posing questions, and even then only in a very limited and often pointless and stupid way. Logic, in other words, cannot make any truth-claims about Positive Atheism. Only empirical methods can. And the only empirical methods we have soundly disprove the reality of gods.

One more word. You said "Positive Atheism is logically invalid, and debates between Atheists and Theists are problematic since we cannot argue positively for Atheism." I resent that "we" you stuck in there. You may handicap yourself in the arguments about gods by relying on the essentially sterile and hopeless methods of philosophical discourse. But you speak only for yourself. You do not speak for me.

There are no gods.

Vorkosigan

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Biff the unclean

IMO Wackyboy is just another one of these morally bankrupt Christians who think they are being oh so clever by sneaking in an insult in the form of a question. He wants to play the innocent and call Atheists irrational at the same time. Simple prejudice and religious bigotry, and not to be tolerated. I wonder if he thinks he could get away with asking the same question about Jews?

We Atheists keep falling into the same trap when we try to be polite to these people. We keep thinking we can appeal to them on an intellectual level. We would be better off using an old sock filled with horse manure than logic.

This thing isn't even about if god exists or not. What god? Nobody presented any gods to accept or reject around here.
What was presented was a STORY, not a god.
What proof do we have that the story isn't true? All the proof we need; the people who tell it admit that they are liars. Wackyboy admitted lying when he said A theist is one who positively asserts that there is a God or gods….God can not be proven to exist. A person who asserts something to be true that he has no way of knowing is true is--by definition--a dirty stinking liar.

Now, shall we discuss whether a person who has Faith in their own acknowledged lies is rational or not?

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wackyboy:
[QB]I'm pretty new to the message board and have spent a bit of time trolling around trying to gauge the general attitude of the board. Please forgive me if I am rehashing an old topic.

[Fiach] But it does need clarification.

Before I begin, let's be clear on definitions. An atheist is one who positively asserts that there is no God or gods.

[Fiach] False. An atheist is literally a person who lacks a believe in God. That is not an affirmation that God doesn't exist. It simply means a "lack" of belief. A = without, "ism" = belief, "theos" = god. Atheism = lack of belief in God. No one can know that there is not something for which there is no evidence. I don't believe in space aliens travelling 100 light years to stick a rod up some redneck's arse in Kansas. That doesn't mean that I deny life exists outside of our solar system.

A theist is one who positively asserts that there is a God or gods.

[Fiach] Aye.

An agnostic is one who doesn't know if there is a God or not. (If you don't agree to these terms go get a dictionary)

[Fiach] Some dictionaries are written with a certain bias and the terms may not be "gospel" true. An agnostic is one who does not know of any evidence therefore reserves any opinion on the subject. Many of us are a mix of Atheist and Agnostic. I am an Atheist regarding the Judeo-Christian God Joe Hovah, but agnostic about some possible yet undefined god.


God can not be proven to exist. I am going to concede this point right from the get go. God also can not be disproved to exist. I am not sure if the atheists within earshot are going to concede this as well or not, if not I would appreciate if they would prove me wrong.

[Fiach] I agree with you. I cannot disprove God. Christians cannot disprove Zeus or Dagda. You cannot disprove that 20 kilometres below your house there is homosexual pink dragon with 5 horns.

It is irrational to believe in that which can not be proven. It's not bad to be irrational, lot's of people are irrational.

[Fiach] All fictional fantasy is to some extent irrational. We can enjoy it, but generally not believe it to be real or true. One can be irrational at times but it carries a price. The more time one spends in his/her irrational universe, the harder it is to think logically in the real matter-energy universe. That is what we call psychosis. Yet you are right, most of us have our irrational moments. It is just that we recognise them as irrational that separates us from the nutters.

My perception of most people who claim to be atheist is that they exalt and cling to rational thought above all else and yet agnosticism is by far the most rational approach to take concerning the existence of God question.

[Fiach] My view is that Atheism is really a type of agnosticism. We who call ourselves Atheists are saying that we lack a belief in a god. Why? Because we have no evidence of such a thing. That sounds like agnosticism. There probably hard atheist who say they "know" that there is no god. To me that is not rational thinking and not really Atheism. I would coin a word, "Negotheism" to describe them.

So it seems to me that atheism is irrational and yet most atheist use ration as the reason they give for being atheists.

[Fiach] It is a problem with definitions. If Atheism is defined by its Greek roots, it is rational, it is simply a lack of belief. A lack of belief cannot be evaluated let alone classed as rational or irrational. Theism is definitely irrational because it postulates one or another god, without evidence.

That's how I see it,

[Fiach] I think you understand the issues but are tripping over questionable definitions.

Wackyboy

Slainte mhaith,

Fiach

Goliath

Wackyboy,

Your set of definitions for "atheist," "theist," and "agnostic" seems incomplete. What about people such as myself who hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever regarding the existence of any supernatural being?

Sincerely,

Goliath

(edited because not such good grammar got)

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Ronin

That would make you, what I term, an 'apatheist' ~ which is exactly what I was...until the theists imposed their oppressive and nonsensical dogma into my personal life.

Now ~ I actively engage mindless cult members in as many arenas of life as possible.

Call it a reckoning.

Keith Russell

Goliath:

But, beliving that you hold no beliefs regarding a supernatural being, is holding a belief regarding a supernatural being.

Keith.