Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Detached9 · 06-18-2002, 11:59 AM

God could be messing with someone's mind in such a fashion that they only have the illusion of sensory experience.

Yes, I know this is a spin-off of the brain-in-a-jar theory. I don't care much for the argument from illusion, but it is a possibility than can never be proven or disproven.

My point? Not every definition of God can be disproven, hence positive atheism is inherently flawed.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-18-2002, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Detached9:
My point? Not every definition of God can be disproven, hence positive atheism is inherently flawed.

You seem to be suggesting that some can and have, while others cannot and have not ...

What definitions of 'God(s)' can/have been disproved?

Samhain · 06-18-2002, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Detached9:
My point? Not every definition of God can be disproven, hence positive atheism is inherently flawed.

Well, actually, what it really depends on is how one wishes to define "God" and whether that definition is universally accepted as what could possibly be a "god" without being flawed. As I stated in a different thread, one may define their cat as "God", but this definition is not universally accepted. Note that many will agree that just being the "Creator" does not necessarily define one as "God" or a "god" either, but, many theists and atheists alike have high standards for the attributes of "God" regardless of their stance.

dangin · 06-18-2002, 12:55 PM

To a christian I am an atheist, to a muslim I am an atheist, to a hindu I am an atheist. To a deist, well I can't really argue with that, can I? So I guess then and only then I am an agnostic. But positive atheism as a counter position to "revealed" religions is not only completely acceptable, it is the only well thought out position.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-18-2002, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin:
To a christian I am an atheist, to a muslim I am an atheist, to a hindu I am an atheist. To a deist, well I can't really argue with that, can I?

So, I guess I'm both an atheist and an adeist. What a great language.

By the way, what is Deism if not ID looking to Thomas Paine for legitimacy?

Mageth · 06-18-2002, 01:43 PM

What dangin said.

My point? Not every definition of God can be disproven, hence positive atheism is inherently flawed.

A problem I have with this is that there are an infinite number of definitions of god that cannot be disproven, as well as an infinite number that can. Hell, there's an infinite number which we haven't, and never will, even conceive of, much less get a chance to disprove.

So why should I even consider this infinite number of non-disprovable gods, or even a finite subset of them? How can I make a distinction among an infinite number of non-disprovable gods, sans evidence to support even one of them?

Automaton · 06-18-2002, 03:26 PM

Undisprovable God concepts are useless, they usually involve equating God with being itself or some other pointless tautological equivocation. Strong atheism can still be valid in light of what "theism" means to most people.

Detached9 · 06-18-2002, 03:34 PM

What definitions of 'God(s)' can/have been disproved?

Some Gods supposedly lived in a specific area, the first one that comes to mind is a God that lived on top of Mt. Olympus. This obviously can be disproven.

one may define their cat as "God", but this definition is not universally accepted

We have sensory evidence of cats' existence. We don't yet have (or know if we can have) sensory evidence of God's existence. Obviously the definition of what a cat is will be more universally accepted than the definition of God.

positive atheism as a counter position to "revealed" religions is not only completely acceptable, it is the only well thought out position.

Positive atheism in regards to certain definitions of God is more acceptable than positive atheism in regards to the existence of God(s). Positive atheists typically claim that "There is no God" or "God doesn't exist", which is not a specific claim, it is a universal claim.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]

AtlanticCitySlave · 06-18-2002, 04:58 PM

Actually, positive atheists usually claim there is no God, referring to the Christian god. What they often do (George Smith for example) is try to argue that the supernatural is illogical, and thus in one swoop eliminate all gods.

Philosoft · 06-18-2002, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Detached9 wrote:

Positive atheism in regards to certain definitions of God is more acceptable than positive atheism in regards to the existence of God(s). Positive atheists typically claim that "There is no God" or "God doesn't exist", which is not a specific claim, it is a universal claim.

It is only a universal claim in this sense: "All god-concepts of which I am aware do not refer to existing things."

It is not a universal claim in this sense: "All possible god-concepts do not refer to existing things."

If taken correctly in the former sense, "positive atheism" (I think you mean the more common 'strong atheism') is entirely reasonable.

06-18-2002, 11:59 AM	#1
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	The Possibility of God's Existence God could be messing with someone's mind in such a fashion that they only have the illusion of sensory experience. Yes, I know this is a spin-off of the brain-in-a-jar theory. I don't care much for the argument from illusion, but it is a possibility than can never be proven or disproven. My point? Not every definition of God can be disproven, hence positive atheism is inherently flawed.

06-18-2002, 03:34 PM	#8
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	What definitions of 'God(s)' can/have been disproved? Some Gods supposedly lived in a specific area, the first one that comes to mind is a God that lived on top of Mt. Olympus. This obviously can be disproven. one may define their cat as "God", but this definition is not universally accepted We have sensory evidence of cats' existence. We don't yet have (or know if we can have) sensory evidence of God's existence. Obviously the definition of what a cat is will be more universally accepted than the definition of God. positive atheism as a counter position to "revealed" religions is not only completely acceptable, it is the only well thought out position. Positive atheism in regards to certain definitions of God is more acceptable than positive atheism in regards to the existence of God(s). Positive atheists typically claim that "There is no God" or "God doesn't exist", which is not a specific claim, it is a universal claim. [ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

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

06-18-2002, 12:55 PM	#4
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	To a christian I am an atheist, to a muslim I am an atheist, to a hindu I am an atheist. To a deist, well I can't really argue with that, can I? So I guess then and only then I am an agnostic. But positive atheism as a counter position to "revealed" religions is not only completely acceptable, it is the only well thought out position.

06-18-2002, 01:43 PM	#6
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	What dangin said. My point? Not every definition of God can be disproven, hence positive atheism is inherently flawed. A problem I have with this is that there are an infinite number of definitions of god that cannot be disproven, as well as an infinite number that can. Hell, there's an infinite number which we haven't, and never will, even conceive of, much less get a chance to disprove. So why should I even consider this infinite number of non-disprovable gods, or even a finite subset of them? How can I make a distinction among an infinite number of non-disprovable gods, sans evidence to support even one of them?

06-18-2002, 03:26 PM	#7
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	Undisprovable God concepts are useless, they usually involve equating God with being itself or some other pointless tautological equivocation. Strong atheism can still be valid in light of what "theism" means to most people.

06-18-2002, 04:58 PM	#9
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	Actually, positive atheists usually claim there is no God, referring to the Christian god. What they often do (George Smith for example) is try to argue that the supernatural is illogical, and thus in one swoop eliminate all gods.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.