Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James Hamlin · 02-25-2003, 05:21 PM

JubalsCall: I'm not a professional philosopher, but let me try this explanation.

*A theist makes the positive claim, "A god exists."
*A weak atheist makes no claim concerning a god at all. Similarly, you made no claim that the invisible pink unicorn existed.
*A strong atheist makes the positive claim, "No gods exist."

If a lack of belief in something must be a positive claim in its non-existence, then we must therefore hold an infinite number of such claims to account for the infinite amount of things/concepts/ideas we do not believe. I doubt we do this.

Philosoft · 02-25-2003, 05:38 PM

I didn't think my post necessitated quite so elaborate a dodge. Anyway luvluv, allow me to remind you of modern Christian doctrine: God provides two "locations" for souls - heaven and hell. The decision to send a soul one place or another is necessarily and entirely God's. By [insert denomination]'s doctrine, a person who does [insert doctrinally prohibited behavior] will go to hell. This, presumably, is the very foundation of divine justice. So, in order to be just, God must send all those who perform the aforementioned behavior to hell.

Now, "merciful" means something like "not strict or severe." If God's justice is strict, his mercy must be something other than his justice. If God is being merciful, he is not being strictly just because strict justice requires strict adherence to his standard of justice, by definition. So, given only two choices, God can be either just or merciful. There is no third choice that combines elements of both. If God sends [insert favorite term for unrepentant sinners] to hell, he is being just; if he sends them to heaven, he is being merciful.

MrDarwin · 02-25-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
It is pretty easy for me to see how God can be both merciful and just in the same instance. We do it all the time. Your son may wreck your $200, 000 sports car after he drove it without your permission. Mercifully, you are not going to expect him to pay for the entire 200, 000 dollars, because he cannot do that. But after your sense of justice, you will punish him in some way. It is simply consistent with moral decency to be both merciful and just. A being who was only one or the other would not be morally good by any conceivable standard.

If being committed to mercy and justice is a logical contradiction, none of us exist.

luvluv, this isn't a rap on the knuckles we're talking about here, or about being grounded, we're not talking about a fine or a speeding ticket, a stern talking-to or even a prison sentence. We're talking about eternal damnation. And I think the inconsistency most atheists perceive with the Christian concept of God is that a deity that would punish somebody with eternal suffering--for what? being honestly mistaken as to the existence of that deity--is neither merciful nor just.

A more apt analogy would be that your son wrecks your car, and having made up your mind to punish him, you torture him hideously without ever allowing him to make it up to you or even to have any respite from the punishment once the punishment begins. Of course, such a parent would be labeled a sociopath.

JubalsCall · 02-25-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by James Hamlin

*A weak atheist makes no claim concerning a god at all. Similarly, you made no claim that the invisible pink unicorn existed.

First, what you have said is not a definition of an atheist at all. That is a definition of an agnoistic person, one who doesn't make a descion on a subject.

Quote:

Originally posted by James Hamlin

If a lack of belief in something must be a positive claim in its non-existence, then we must therefore hold an infinite number of such claims to account for the infinite amount of things/concepts/ideas we do not believe. I doubt we do this.

Also how do you know that we can't hold that many claims?
I believe we can do it.

Tibbs

James Hamlin · 02-25-2003, 07:50 PM

Yes, an agnostic claims there is not enough knowledge available to make a decision.

A weak atheist lacks a belief in gods. Please tell me where the claim is made. It would appear to me that this is a neutral(non-active) position.

Pogue · 02-25-2003, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv

Inference would lead us to believe that, as there were sights to be seen before we had eyes and odors to be smelled before we have noses, so there may be a spirutal realm to be percieved, though we have not yet evolved (or been designed for) an ability to fully and accurately perceive it yet.

At the absolute best, the discovery of the biological nature of belief is totally neutral evidence.

I am not as gifted as some on here at expressing my beliefs, but I will answer this one as best as I can..

I read in your writing that you are offering that some may have a biological ability to detect the spiritual world. I submit that if a human can detect the spiritual world through use of what is biologically available to him (the abilities of the body), then eventually, science will be able to detect the same. When science can show me the spiritual world, then I will believe in it.

If God decided to "hard-wire" spirituality into our brains instead of just "making it so" to paraphrase the Bible, then it seems to me that God would have some place in the physical world, that could eventually be explained and detected.

I have debated many theists with strong opinions before, and when I questioned them on subjects that had been found to have scientific explanations, they told me, "God designed it to have a scientific explanation." But when I questioned them on subjects that science could never disprove, since they were abstract ideas, they told me "God just made it that way, and science has nothing to do with it."

Does your God only "dabble" in science?

Aside from all that, I introduce myself to the board.. Hello, all..

The reasons I do not believe in any gods...

More and more that was attributed to God or gods has now been explained scientifically. IF God exists, and IF God is the ultimate scientist, then that leads me to believe he exists in some detectable form in the universe. But what disturbs me, if this God is using science to create us, our world, and our "souls", then does he/she by default have the right to punish me for my disbelief, when that disbelief itself relies on the proof of science? I think not, and any self-respecting god wouldn't either. This brings most world religions under an unflattering light.

The idea of an all-powerful being who "is perfectly good, and cannot abide to have sin in his/her presence" seems very silly to me. An "all-powerful" being, but one who has limitations?? Hmmm...

Last but not least, human nature itself. Man craves power. Man can obtain power by controlling other men. Religion is an easy way to control men. A religion that offers eternal punishment for disobeying God (read:Church:clergyman:witchdoctor:et al.) would be most effective in controlling men. Hence, my conclusion.. Most religions make sense as a way of men controlling other men. They do not make sense seen through the eyes of a loving creator wishing to bestow gifts upon his children. 'Nuff said..

Please, some of the long-time posters please tell me if I have represented my view eloquently, or of I butchered it, lol..

Pogue

Jobar · 02-25-2003, 08:44 PM

They still made a positive claim that there is no god

That is a STRONG atheist.

A *weak* atheist makes no claims. He or she has not seen or heard anything which would lead them to have a positive belief in God(s).

And, just to make things more complicated- you can be a different variety of atheist for different gods.

For Jehovah, I am a strong atheist. All the many things I have been told about this version of God are so rife with contradictions that I hold a positive belief he does not exist.

For a deistic version of God, who does not interfere in the universe after he creates it, I am a weak atheist- I have seen no evidence which leads me to believe, but I have not seen anything which leads me to think such a god is impossible or self-contradictory.

Here's another way to think about it. Let's break the word 'atheism' down into its component parts: a - the - ism. 'A' means 'no' or 'not'; 'the' (from 'theos') means god; 'ism' is belief.

Now, let's try putting these parts together in two different ways: (no god) belief, or strong atheism; and no (god belief), or weak atheism.

This distinction between types of atheists is rather subtle- you aren't the first to have difficulty with it.

Viti · 02-25-2003, 09:14 PM

Strong atheist=I believe no gods exist
Weak Atheist= I don't believe any gods exist

or as RT states it

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.

"Weak Atheist," or "Negative Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence.

Only the strong atheist makes an active statement about belief.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm has even more possible views

Quote:

*A definite belief that no deity exists. The individual is solidly convinced that no supreme being exists in any form.

*No belief in a specific deity. Faced with a wide variety of conflicting beliefs about deities, the individual has not accepted any of them as true.

*A belief that the existence of a deity is unlikely, but not impossible. No certainty exists. However, if the person had to make a decision based on the existence or non-existence of a deity, they would probably assume that no deity existed.

*The inability to reach a conclusion about deity. The person may have investigated proofs about the existence and non-existence of a deity and has not accepted any of them. They remain undecided, at least for the present, because of insufficient data.

You may choose not to accept our definitions Jubal, but since we are atheists, and we are telling you what we believe and don't believe, you should probably just take our words for it or we can never have a meaningful discussion with you.

Do you believe in Allah? Do you believe in Vishnu? Why or why not?

Gunnaheave · 02-25-2003, 09:18 PM

Part of the trouble is that negation is ambiguous. It can take the form of a covert affirmation, e.g. "The chair I am sitting in is not blue." In this example the negation applies to the world that I purport to be describing. I do not question the meaning of any of the terms in questions, but I see that the chair I am sitting in is maroon (kinda ugly actually). In this case, yes, my negation is clearly on par with an affirmation insofar as it rests on an assertion that the state of affairs I believe to obtain is fundamentally inconsistent with the state of affairs described in the statement. At other times, however, one rejects a statement on grounds that question the meaningfulness of the terms in question. E.g. "Would you agree thatAmerica wants peace?" "No, I don't think America as such wants anything because it is not a person. Would you like to restate your question?" In such cases, rejecting the proposed statement does not amount to affirming a state of affairs inconsistent with the proposition. It amounts to questioning the adequacy of the terms in question. Weak atheism is closer to the later example and strong atheism is closer to the former example.

In any event, I would avoid thinking of the matter in such static terms as you suggest. There are not 5 specific arguments on the topic; there are a limitless number of arguments for and against the existence of God. Lists such as the one you call to question merely iterate the common themes, but it defeats the purpose of the dialogue to approach these topics as though the grounds of (dis-)belief wereset in stone.

Viti · 02-25-2003, 10:25 PM

luvluv, the difference is, when the toddler breaks your mothers china during a temper tantrum or whatver, you do not punish him for the rest of his life!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-25-2003, 05:21 PM	#41
James Hamlin Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 155	JubalsCall: I'm not a professional philosopher, but let me try this explanation. A theist makes the positive claim, "A god exists." A weak atheist makes no claim concerning a god at all. Similarly, you made no claim that the invisible pink unicorn existed. *A strong atheist makes the positive claim, "No gods exist." If a lack of belief in something must be a positive claim in its non-existence, then we must therefore hold an infinite number of such claims to account for the infinite amount of things/concepts/ideas we do not believe. I doubt we do this.

02-25-2003, 05:38 PM	#42
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I didn't think my post necessitated quite so elaborate a dodge. Anyway luvluv, allow me to remind you of modern Christian doctrine: God provides two "locations" for souls - heaven and hell. The decision to send a soul one place or another is necessarily and entirely God's. By [insert denomination]'s doctrine, a person who does [insert doctrinally prohibited behavior] will go to hell. This, presumably, is the very foundation of divine justice. So, in order to be just, God must send all those who perform the aforementioned behavior to hell. Now, "merciful" means something like "not strict or severe." If God's justice is strict, his mercy must be something other than his justice. If God is being merciful, he is not being strictly just because strict justice requires strict adherence to his standard of justice, by definition. So, given only two choices, God can be either just or merciful. There is no third choice that combines elements of both. If God sends [insert favorite term for unrepentant sinners] to hell, he is being just; if he sends them to heaven, he is being merciful.

02-25-2003, 07:50 PM	#45
James Hamlin Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 155	Yes, an agnostic claims there is not enough knowledge available to make a decision. A weak atheist lacks a belief in gods. Please tell me where the claim is made. It would appear to me that this is a neutral(non-active) position.

02-25-2003, 08:44 PM	#47
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	They still made a positive claim that there is no god That is a STRONG atheist. A weak atheist makes no claims. He or she has not seen or heard anything which would lead them to have a positive belief in God(s). And, just to make things more complicated- you can be a different variety of atheist for different gods. For Jehovah, I am a strong atheist. All the many things I have been told about this version of God are so rife with contradictions that I hold a positive belief he does not exist. For a deistic version of God, who does not interfere in the universe after he creates it, I am a weak atheist- I have seen no evidence which leads me to believe, but I have not seen anything which leads me to think such a god is impossible or self-contradictory. Here's another way to think about it. Let's break the word 'atheism' down into its component parts: a - the - ism. 'A' means 'no' or 'not'; 'the' (from 'theos') means god; 'ism' is belief. Now, let's try putting these parts together in two different ways: (no god) belief, or strong atheism; and no (god belief), or weak atheism. This distinction between types of atheists is rather subtle- you aren't the first to have difficulty with it.

02-25-2003, 09:18 PM	#49
Gunnaheave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: AZ Posts: 3,250	Part of the trouble is that negation is ambiguous. It can take the form of a covert affirmation, e.g. "The chair I am sitting in is not blue." In this example the negation applies to the world that I purport to be describing. I do not question the meaning of any of the terms in questions, but I see that the chair I am sitting in is maroon (kinda ugly actually). In this case, yes, my negation is clearly on par with an affirmation insofar as it rests on an assertion that the state of affairs I believe to obtain is fundamentally inconsistent with the state of affairs described in the statement. At other times, however, one rejects a statement on grounds that question the meaningfulness of the terms in question. E.g. "Would you agree thatAmerica wants peace?" "No, I don't think America as such wants anything because it is not a person. Would you like to restate your question?" In such cases, rejecting the proposed statement does not amount to affirming a state of affairs inconsistent with the proposition. It amounts to questioning the adequacy of the terms in question. Weak atheism is closer to the later example and strong atheism is closer to the former example. In any event, I would avoid thinking of the matter in such static terms as you suggest. There are not 5 specific arguments on the topic; there are a limitless number of arguments for and against the existence of God. Lists such as the one you call to question merely iterate the common themes, but it defeats the purpose of the dialogue to approach these topics as though the grounds of (dis-)belief wereset in stone.

02-25-2003, 10:25 PM	#50
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	luvluv, the difference is, when the toddler breaks your mothers china during a temper tantrum or whatver, you do not punish him for the rest of his life!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.