Biff the unclean

God is not capable of creating the universe because he is fictional.

If you will take a quick look at the novel in which god creats the universe you see that it isn't even our universe. If fact the author had no idea that Earth was a planet, he thought the sky was solid and had water above it and little stars hanging from it.

Jack the Bodiless

Precisely.

I'd just like to add that IF someone wishes to create a fictional being, then they're free to use that being's claimed powers as part of the definition. The Invisibe Man is invisible because that's a defined characteristic of this fictional character. As a fictional concept, "The God who created the Universe" does indeed have this power.

But the theistic position is that God is an actually-existing being. Even if we assume that this being exists, we are not justified in assuming without evidence that the various claims made about this being are automatically true.

Magic Primate

This is a really long thread, so I don't know whether this has been brought up or not. A big part of the problem is that the way that atheism is defined both popularly and by theists differs from how atheist thinkers define it, how atheists actually think and from what actually makes philosphical sense.

Atheism is not a belief. It is not the belief that there are no gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods - it is defined negatively. There are atheists ('strong/positive atheism') who believe there are no gods, but to use that as the definition of atheism would exclude all the other atheists ('weak/negative atheism').

Any person lacking god-beliefs is an atheist. This is not a position that needs to be defended - we are not born with a belief in gods, atheism is the default state.

Positive atheism is an unprovable position, but IMO it is not an irrational belief given that there is no real evidence for gods.

Stephen T-B

The Bible gives the distinct impression that Man gives God a purpose. God, it seems, creates the Earth (and Heaven), the beasts of the field, the herbs, the sun, the moon and the stars to be the domain of a spiritual being which he creates in his image.
He apparently has no other interest outside observing Man - and specifically his chosen people, the Jews - giving them instructions and punishing them when they don’t obey them, and ordering them to massacre their neighbours on a fairly regular basis.
So what is this god for?
I mean, is this ALL he does?
And if he hadn’t anything do before he created Man, was he in a kind of coma?
The fact is, Man gives God meaning; not the other way around.
For instance, I definitely don’t need god to give my life meaning: it was because my life had enough meaning without a god in it that I was able to come to the conclusion that god, if there were a god, was irrelevant.
And when god becomes irrelevant, there’s no point in believing in it.

Absence of belief is not belief.

Or is it the case that Mr Darwin has a belief that Zeus doesn’t exist, or Loki, or Aphrodite, or Thor or Eros? Is it part of his belief system that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn’t exist?
Do I need to believe that there isn’t a giant bear sitting beside me whose existence is undetectable by any means known to man?

People who think unbelief is a species of belief don’t properly understand either.
The word “belief,” suggests a possibility of error. Thus: “I believe my son was home in bed and not out on the street mugging an old lady,” is not even remotely the same as “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth.”
Mr Darwin, I venture to say, does not “believe,” in god. He knows there is a God.
The difference between him and me is that I do not know there is a god. In fact, I’m pretty damn sure there isn’t one.
The believer asserts there is a god; the unbeliever either sees no reason to assert there’s one, or goes a little farther and asserts there isn’t one.

scombrid

I get as far as page 2 and hit this gem. I see where he's going and seriously doubt the need to read the remainder of this thread.

Actaully, a lot of those explanations were devised by believers. They weren't adopted as explanatory theories because they were naturalistic. They were adopted because the data fit. You mention the earth-moon system but I'm rather sure by your pseudonym and your assertion that atheism=religion that you think teaching evolution in science class = teaching atheism and thus violates CSS. You probably want equal time for ID or YEC or some such pseudoscientific claptrap.


Funny thing is I accepted evolution long before I quit believing in the supernatural. As much as it probably confuses your straw-man, I didn't accept evolution because I was seeking materialistic explanations for the world so I could reject religion. The same applies to most scientists. I was pretty darned faithful at the time.

If you've got a bone to pick with historic sciences, and specifically evolution, I suggest you visit the appropriate fora.

scombrid

Muddling on through the thread.

To date most problems incurred by science have been temporary. Damned blasphemers are always taking away god's power with natural explanations that fit observations far better than the previously useless "Goddidit". Look at Ben Franklin's lightening rod. All of a sudden the phenomenon becomes predictible and defendible.

Well, then it's totally unobservable. If we can detect it by any means, it can be dealt with and explained through science. If we can't detect it, does it matter whether it exists or not? If we can't detect it, it has no effect in the world.

Ahh, I bet equivocation of abiogenesis with evolution isn't too far off.

Currently there is nothing indicating divine intervention (other than the old argeement from incredulity) .

scombrid

I knew it was coming. Why didn't you just come out at the start of the thread and say (since you posted in CSS) evolution constitutes a religion and thus shouldn't be taught in schools since that point is your agenda. Then the thread could have rapidly been moved to GRD to discuss the the difference between scientific knowledge and religious guessing and just-so-stories and moved to E&C so you could discuss the "problems" with evolution like tordanoes in junkyards.

Better head to E&C with the bat ecolocation. There are some biologists there that could be very helpful on that topic.

trillian

Atheist here. I am convinced that there is no god. I do not believe that there is "not a god". (hopefully this repetition helps memory)

There is NOTHING inherently metaphysical about atheism. Please pick some philosophy to debate, like naturalism or materialism. Atheists are not necessarily either of those things. Then provide exact definitions.

If you care to draw a Venn diagram of all atheists, you'll see how no other belief system or philosophy fits the entirety of the atheist circle and most would simply remain outside or overlap. In 10 pages this fact still hasn't sunk in apparently.

I liked reading how Douglas Adams talks about it. He explains it pretty well. Here's the link:http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

Most religions are full of "beaver cheese" and as such cannot stand on equal footing with science.

This is why your debate moves to abiogenesis, because your god-of-the-gaps didn't survive those other things which had been attributed to him. Abiogenesis is all this god has left. (Oh and he's got the YEC's who try to deny evidence and twist it so that this invisible god has a little more room.)

Most things in science which are provided to me with evidence and good rational thought, I accept with differing levels of confidence. Science has no sacred cows. Even Einstein predicted that his theory would one day be surpassed by an even better one just as he had changed Newtons. Science is great in that if you hold on to the rules too tight, you'll never get anywhere.

A question for you: Is it impossible to believe that a human being can have no metaphysical beliefs? I have gaps in my knowledge which are filled with wonder, but I don't think the emptiness there is filled with fairies and goblins- just something which is not known. I don't think emotions are metaphysical at all(other animals show emotion too you know!).

You still have not provided an example of something an atheist would necessarily believe which is metaphysical. Wasn't that your whole point? And no examples?


Somehow for you
"I don't know"=metaphysical
"I am convinced there is no god"=metaphysical and
"I wonder about the answer to this mystery but there aren't any good explanations yet"=metaphysical


trillian

Charles Darwin

What is the strawman that you think I am advancing?

Stephen T-B

Straw-man?
(Just hinting here - and Scombrid will quickly put me right if I'm wrong, - but might it have something to do with atheism being a religious belief?)