Ojuice5001

I think that if atheists invest enough effort into disproving God (a generic god or a specific one), this makes it look like the burden of proof is on them. I mean, there's something inconsistent about saying that it is unnecessary to prove that theism is false, and then putting a lot of effort into proving that theism is false. I've never seen why more atheists don't see it that way.

diana

G'day, Robert!

Here we go with the argument/discussion about what labels mean again.

Consider that the term "atheist," in and of itself, does not automatically rule out all supernatural beings. I can be a Xn atheist or a Muslim atheist, etc.

Of course, we generally agree that "weak atheist" is a person who doesn't believe in gods, and a "strong atheist" is one who believes no gods exist.

I combine the two ideas when I label myself a "strong atheist": I believe no gods I'm familiar with exist on the grounds that the defining characteristics of each are mutually exclusive. As for the gods I'm not familiar with, I revert to "weak atheist."

Yes. I try. I often fail, but the effort is ongoing.

Yes.

Your version is a bit too strong for me. I'd say a person would have to be out of their minds or just plain dense to make any of the three statements exactly as you did.

"I know there is no god"

To make this statement requires omniscience. No one knows there is no god, as there is the possibility that there exists a god who is unknown to all living beings whose characteristics are mutually compatible.

"God is in all cases absolutely impossible."

In all cases? Not only would someone need to be arrogant to make this statement, but just plain stupid, IMO.

I can prove there is no god

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha.

OK (I'd say). You have my attention. Go for it!

Agreed on all points, Robert. Except when confronted with a specific god--which is the normal course of conversation--when I have no problem pointing out that their god isn't logically possible.

(Occasionally, I'm confronted with someone who tells me earnestly that his god is "outside of logic." I just ask them to explain to me how that's even possible--since they just made a positive claim. And in the case of the Xn God, I can ask for book, chapter and verse that backs this idea up.)

There's nothing wrong with taking a position as a weak atheist. Like you said, it is the default position.

I argue that people who dub themselves "agnostic" are in reality "weak atheists." (Before anybody jumps, let me say that I know that an agnostic is a person who doesn't know whether gods exist or not. But as such, it is completely unremarkable, as every human who's ever been born can say the same thing. Believer/unbeliever is a different class than knower/not-knower. The only reason to profess belief or nonbelief in anything is if you don't know. Anyway...most people who simply call themselves "agnostic" really mean, "I don't know, I don't care, and I don't want to be bothered thinking too deeply about it because I have better things to do," or some variation thereof. It is this type that I say are really "weak atheists.")

I argue that anyone who cannot say for certain that they believe are, by default, an unbeliever. That is, an atheist.

Welcome to the board, Robert! Loved your essays.

d

Crito

Hi Diana,

I agree with you about self-proclaimed agnostics actually being weak atheists. However, take a look at the word history for the word "agnostic", found <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic" target="_blank">here</a>. In its true sense, "an agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist." Thus even the agnostic is making a pretty strong claim, not simply saying "I don't know," but "I don't know and I can't know."

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Crito ]</p>

Fiach

It seems to be a semantic argument. I certainly don't like the terms "strong" and "weak" Atheist. It is like arguing that Osama Bin Laden is a "strong" Muslim for wanting to kill unbelievers, while Anwar Sadat was a "weak" Muslim for seeking peace but both believing in the same god, Allah.

Weak and strong Atheists do not believe in God. The Strong Atheist says that he/she Knows with certainty that God under any definition does not exist.

The weak Atheist like myself, does not believe that God exists. I believe that God is unnecessary to explain anything. I believe that God, especially a conscious one is highly improbable by astronomical odds. For practical purposes my life is structured on the assumption that there is no God. But do I know with absolute certainty that Conscious God does not exist. Of course not, but he/she/it is without evidence, unnecessary, and improbable for a host of reasons.

I do agree with Hinduwoman that lack of evidence is in itself a form of evidence against the proposition. Not disproof but strong evidence to the contrary. God's improbabability, non-necessity, and the obviously nonsensical notion of a cosmic being with a human mind makes a very strong case against God. There are also the moral arguments against God that all of you already know.

The result is that as scientifically trained sceptics, we (I) cannot believe that such a God exists. But by the same mind set I can't say with 100% certainty that one might not exist. All of the abundance of evidence goes against a god.

Fiach

diana

Yes Crito.

I'd say that the person who says "I can't know" isn't making nearly as strong a claim as the one who says "I can." Those are the only two choices.

d

Edited to add: I suppose you could say, "I don't know if it's possible to know," but I'd probably not bother discussing the matter with a person who's that unwilling to take a stand. I've done that enough, and it isn't for me.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

Selsaral

HinduWoman: I think I disagree with you. I think the primary and most potent evidence to disprove the existence of (pretty much all) gods is what I call the 'big picture' argument, I'm sure someone else has stated it better and with a better name. But it goes like this: Isn't it obvious that it is human nature to be religious? Certainly everything I learned in my anthropology and archaeology studies have shown that essentially every culture of humans from the earliest times were exceedingly religious. With that in mind, you can see that even if one of the religions were true, and all the rest were false, people still adamantly believe in those false religions. Why should they, when (because they are false) they have no actual supernatural phenomena to reinforce their beliefs? Because it is human nature to be religious, and in fact it is human nature to believe in a wide range is crazy ideas including scientology, alien abductions, crop circles, tarot cards etc.

Knowing for a fact that human beings have a distinguished history of believing in ridiculous things, how can you take any of their ridiculous claims seriously? It's like crying wolf. Furthermore, isn't it suspicious that the vast majority of religions are based on the exact same type of knowledge, i.e. an ancient holy book and a lot of word of mouth? That no one religion has any more evidence for its truth than any other? That the study of religion throughout history shows a clear evolution of religious ideas, one such stage being polytheism to monotheism etc, and that religions borrow ideas madly, such as the myth of the great flood popping up in several different ancient religions? That humans in each different religion are just as 100% positive they are correct? That pretty much all religions provide explanations about the existence of the universe and our place in it? That most religions give power to believers to affect events in the real world, through prayer, rituals etc? I see a definite trend here...


First guy: 'Hey Selsaral, did you know Jesus died for our sins?'

Me: 'Really?'

Second guy: 'Hey, don't believe that guy, that's BS, but Muhammed was the true profit of God.'

Me: 'Oh, I thought..'

Third guy: 'Don't believe that rubbish. When you sacrafice a chicken according the rituals prescribed by the Nuer, you can fortell the future.'

Me: 'Fortelling the future, that rules! How...'

Fourth guy: 'Selsaral, ignore these fanatics, they have no idea. It can all be explained by the aliens. Yes, the Murcurions are behind it all.'

Me: 'The who?'

Fifth guy: 'Only Xenu can save you from your body thetins.'

Me: 'Alright alright, enough already!'

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Selsaral ]</p>

kctan

If we are discussing about using our faculties of interference as a gauge to accuracy, then it must be a priori & no proof should be needed. Otherwise any premise which you made using said faculties would be invalid.

Nietzsche is also making the same mistake here when he questions the accuracy of the faculties which came up with the premise in the first place. If the faculties are indeed inaccurate, then the premise is as good as moot.

To make a premise stand, it's a priori that the faculties which came up with it must be accurate, otherwise one should just shut up, don't you think ?

The question can always be fired back at him by asking, "if you can prove that your faculties are accurate in coming up with this premise, then I'll show you why it's a priori to deem our faculties as accurate".

Jayhawker Soule

And, the only answer to Does the Daoine Sidhe exist?" is the declaration of ignorance: "I don't know." This is likewise true regarding the existence of the now famous Purple Unicorn and White Raven. And what of the question "Do the laws of physics and chemistry apply to M51, the Whirlpool Galaxy", or "Is Homo Erectus a progenitor of Homo sapiens?"

Maybe the question is defective. Rather than asking "Does God exist?", perhaps we should ask "Is the belief in God(s) warranted?"

Koyaanisqatsi

*sigh*

One last time for auld lang syne...

[school] Fictional creatures do not factually exist. [/school]

This is incontrovertible and fundamental, which means that it is a default axiom of human existence and although I didn't make it up, I'm now going to call it "Koy's Axiom," because no one else seems to apply this most basic truism.

For anyone to make the claim that a fictional creature is not, in fact, fictional is to ipso facto invoke a burden of proof regardless of how strenuously one simply states that the fictional creature is not fictional!

There is no other burden of proof involved ("Koy's Corollary" ).

And make no mistake, this isn't a case of first-claimed/first-axiom, here, even if one is merely claiming that they have a cousin named Freddy.

Until such time as one adequately meets their burden of proof regarding their claim, even cousin Freddy is, technically, a fictional creature.

In other words, the question isn't whether or not Freddy factually exists, it is what evidence is there to adequately establish Freddy's existence in relation to those who are told of Freddy's existence?

Now pay close attention all you pedants: For all intents and purposes, this technically means that Freddy does not factually exist until this burden is met by one who has already met the burden of his or her own existence.

Let's repeat: Technically speaking, Freddy's factual existence is, indeed, dependent upon the fulfillment of that burden of proof; not as it concerns Freddy, but as it concerns those who have been told of Freddy's existence (i.e., in relation to other already established beings).

Freddy may very well factually exist, but his factual existence independent of adequate corroborative evidence would be TECHNICALLY irrelevant to anybody who was simply told of his existence.

Until the burden is fulfilled, Freddy does not exist in any meaningful sense; i.e., in only a fictional sense.

Get it? That's what is meant by Koy's Axiom.

Let's break it down to the barest of the bare necessities so that there is no further debate on this most ridiculous construct: Until such time as the burden of proof has been adequately met, Freddy is and must be considered--for all intents and purposes--a fictional creature that therefore does not factually exist in relation to any other beings who have already met their own burden of proof regarding their own existence.

Take particular note of the "until such time" and "in relation to others" qualifiers and have fun with the "regarding their own existence" sidetrack semantics shrapnel dance no-doubt already being choreographed in several heads right now.

The only reason we rarely if ever apply such an pedantic burden is obvious to most; it simply is not that critical to apply such a stringent technicality, because the claim of Freddy's existence is a relatively insignificant claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that a claim of cousin Freddy existing still merits a burden of proof; it simply means that nobody gives a shit about effectively meeting that burden. It's just not that important.

To claim that a being such as the one depicted in the Judeo/Christian bible (most commonly called "God") factually exists, however, carries with it, arguably, the ultimate burden of proof, because of the extremely large significance of such a creature factually existing (see every post ever posted in these fora for support).

It is this and nothing else that demands such stringent application of the burden of proof requirement; a requirement that applies universally to all such positive claims, of course, it's just that the significance of lesser claims in comparison just doesn't rate high enough for most to care.

This does not have any bearing, though, on Koy's Axiom one way or the other. Fictional creatures do not factually exist. So, until such time as anyone making a claim to the contrary meets their burden of proof, the axiom mandates position.

I'll repeat that as well: the axiom mandates position ("Corollary II," or, as I like to call it "Corollario Due").

Which is why, of course, atheism (the absence of a belief in a god or gods) is therefore the only rational, logical, default position for anyone who holds such lofty cognitive ideals to be inviolate, as do I.

Sorry folks, but these are absolutes and can not be refuted, only disagreed with, which is, of course, irrelevant mental masturbation.

Hence, the cult creating their cognitive "out," faith.

(Is anyone wondering yet why I retired? Or more so why I keep posting? )

This has been a Koyaanisqatsi drive by.

Kharakov

How can god know that god is god? Does god assume that god was not created by another god? Can god know that god is god?

I think an intelligent god would have to be agnostic- for there is no way that a god could know whether or not it was created by an even mightier being that can create gods that can create whole universes and other gods that can create gods that think they are the one true god that creates god....