Jayhawker Soule

Exclamation Point

Totalitarianist

And guess what? I'm refering to the Atheists that deny/reject the existence of God.

They do exist.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, I tell you what. Explain to me how you can technically (not colloquially) deny/reject the existence of something that does not exist and I'll buy the first round.

After this pointlessness, I'll already be waiting on the third stool from the door...

Vorkosigan

Denial equals 100% certainty and therefore is illogical.

Pseudo --

in logical systems with defined axioms, 100% certainty is the norm. 2+2=4, for example. That's the essence of logic, not the non-existence of it.

How can you deny with certainty that something--sentient or otherwise--created the universe? How can you be so certain of this? You just "know"? There is no logical basis for this assertion.

The basis isn't logical, it is evidential; to wit, negative evidence -- there's no evidence of design or a designer, and positive evidence -- the existence of processes and laws that seem to completely explain everything before us. No evidence of a designer, and no need for one either.

"Logic" is a tool one applies to data to help understand its relationships. Either you are not saying anything very interesting when you say "There's no logical basis for....," or you've confused the words "logical" and "rational."

It is only logical to merely lack a belief in God.

Nonsense. It is logical to reject obviously incoherent, contradictory and absurd ideas, like personal gods. It is "logical" to reject anything that violates known natural laws.

Vorkosigan

Jayhawker Soule

I don't. Rather, I:

• hold theism as not worthy of belief
• reject theism as untrue, and
• maintain the doctrine that there is no deity

Jack the Bodiless

I wouldn't say that theism and strong atheism are comparable, because there ARE arguments against the existence of a (generic) God.

For instance: while definitions of God vary, a common denominator is sentience. Some might choose to believe in a nonsentient "creative essence", but such people are generally not classed as theists (for instance, who would describe "the Force" as a God?).

And everything we know about sentience indicates that it requires a brain or analogous device. A sentient entity needs a structure designed or evolved to store memories and process them in some fashion. While it's possible that the Universe incorporates such a structure, the "brain of God", I don't see how such a structure would evolve (where's the natural selection against "unintelligent" Universes?).

I don't think these doubts constitute an "extraordinary claim", which would require "extraordinary evidence" to support it. Theism is anthropomorphism: declaring that "the Universe doesn't think" isn't really any more remarkable than declaring that "trees can't talk". The extraordinary claim is made by those that DO assert that trees talk and Universes think, without any evidence that these structures posess the appropriate organs (or analogues) for these human activities.

John Page

So if god meets your expectations then he/she/it is real? Voodoo seems to work too. So does Islam. None of them stand up to rigorous and objective standards of proof.

I've put this link in other threads but god appears to be a <a href="http://www.hippocrates.com/archive/November1999/11departments/11integrative.html" target="_blank">Nocebos</a>. i.e. A scientifically proven phenomenon that belief can change your behavior simply because of belief alone.

Rather than point to lack of absolute proof and rigor in science, logic etc, where is the rigor in theistic doctrine?

Cheers, John

AtlanticCitySlave

"Accepting certain versions of God is illogical, accepting no versions whatsoever but accepting its existence is illogical, and denying all versions with 100% certainty and versions that haven't even been thought up yet is equally illogical."

-This thread (or argument) is obviously headed down the path of epistemology and how we can know, be certain, claim to know, etc., certain things. The problem, of course, as I imagine every strong atheist in here will admit (including myself) is that we really can't be 100% certain of anything. We have reasonable grounds for rejecting any belief in God (by arguing the "supernatural" cannot exist, i.e. showing it to lead to a contradiction.) We also have reasonable grounds for rejecting the belief in any natural conception of god(s) (Zeus, etc.)
We all admit (often those who think the term "God" is meaningless), that we cannot be 100% certain, that we are humans and liable to err (hence fallibalism in epistemology), but that doesn't mean we cannot claim strong atheism, or to have knowledge. In fact, it seems all you're really arguing for is blanket skepticism, although you try to curb that you are by saying you can argue there are no aliens with certainty (which, of course, you can't). There will always be that doubt of whether or not it's true.
Regardless, that doesn't make strong atheism/theism illogical. If the term "God/god" had no meaning, then sure, it would follow it's illogical to hold a belief in it. But, even Michael Martin, a strong atheist who, with no disrespect, would probably tear your argument apart in two seconds (as well as any of mine), admitted,in an interview, he is not 100% certain there is no God. In other words, it's not a necessary condition that you be 100% certain there is no God, just like you don't have to be 100% certain there are no invisible elves living under your bed, to claim a strong atheistic position (of cours, some people claim 100% certainty should be required for knowledge, but that, as many philosophers have pointed out, sort of leads us nowhere). Rather, you look at the evidence, arguments, etc., and you weigh them, seeing which ones fit in with our existing knowledge, have scope, testability, are conservative, simplistic, and fruitful.
The god hypothesis doesn't help us with anything, explaining anything we can't explain by other (simpler) means, and we have good arguments (you can check the modern library, read "Atheism: The Case Against God--Martin, Nonbelief and Evil--Drange, etc.) for claiming (or them claiming) to be strong atheists.
In other words, there is nothing illogical about denying the existence of God, even if you resort to overall skepticism.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

Totalitarianist

"Nonsense. It is logical to reject obviously incoherent, contradictory and absurd ideas, like personal gods. It is "logical" to reject anything that violates known natural laws."

I've agreed here that accepting the existence of personal Gods is illogical.

The existence of the universe violates known natural laws.

The mere existence of the universe proves the existence of unknown natural laws.

It is illogical to deny natural laws that have yet to be founded, without knowing their characteristics.

Do you deny all possibilities discovery?

Totalitarianist

I said alien abductions

I'll reply to the rest when I'm less exhausted (from lack of sleep).

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>