Atheism

[quatona]

well you can't say that evil exists therefore God does not exist, under the same guidelines.

Yes, exactly, you can´t - and if you think that that´s what atheists are doing you are misunderstanding their arguments. All you can possibly achieve with this line of reasoning: prove the concept of an omnibenevolent god inaccurate. To be even more precise: the concept of an omniscient+omnipotent+omniscient god. All other god concepts are unaffected by the PoE.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, exactly, you can´t - and if you think that that´s what atheists are doing you are misunderstanding their arguments. All you can possibly achieve with this line of reasoning: prove the concept of an omnibenevolent god inaccurate. To be even more precise: the concept of an omniscient+omnipotent+omniscient god. All other god concepts are unaffected by the PoE.

Then answer a simple question "how can people strongly believe God does not exist? Without evidence?"

 

[Non sequitur]

Your just being snippy today. I never said my God does not exist. I said "god in general" does not exist for the atheist.

By no means and I getting "snippy", because your argument might hold some weight.

I wouldn't be getting upset, if I didn't have to keep correcting you.

You said, "Like atheism in general : God does not exist." Atheism does not say that.

references please

references please

"The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence."

What you said it true, because I can not prove something that does not exist. It would have to exist, for me to try and prove or disprove it.

I can't prove that you are wrong, because you aren't.

But you still seem to be missing the point.

This is a straw man and you keep using it, to establish your claims.

An atheist is not making a negative claim, therefore you can't use this line of thinking.

Oh your god!

He is agreeing with your straw man arguments and is wrong, because atheism does not assert things.

I didn't say, find someone who will relabel definitions with you.

Find someone who agrees with you that positive claims are true until proven negative.

 

[quatona]

Then answer a simple question "how can people strongly believe God does not exist? Without evidence?"

I don´t know. You better ask those who do. (I suspect, they do it for the same reasons they strongly believe that the Toothfairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don´t exist. Without evidence. But who am I to interprete their reasons? Go ask THEM).
Unfortunately, for you, there are very few atheists of that sort to be found on CF or elsewhere.
So I suggest you either argue against the positions the people you are talking to hold, or you look for people who hold the positions you would like to argue against.
Personally, I am not even going to waste my time with a question like "Does God exist?" until my simple question "God? What do you mean??" is answered in a well-defined way. And even then, my response will only apply to the very god concept of yours (the God you mean), not to any other.
As far as "proof" is concerned: The god concept in question would have to be falsifiable, in the first place. I can make ten unfalsifiable claims in two minutes, and then demand that you disprove them if you don´t believe them.

Congratulations, anyway: You have succesfully distracted from the original topic of our discussion: Your mistaken idea that atheists hate god.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don´t know. You better ask those who do. (I suspect, they do it for the same reasons they strongly believe that the Toothfairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don´t exist. Without evidence. But who am I to interprete their reasons? Go ask THEM).
Unfortunately, for you, there are very few atheists of that sort to be found on CF or elsewhere.
So I suggest you either argue against the positions the people you are talking to hold, or you look for people who hold the positions you would like to argue against.
Personally, I am not even going to waste my time with a question like "Does God exist?" until my simple question "God? What do you mean??" is answered in a well-defined way. And even then, my response will only apply to the very god concept of yours (the God you mean), not to any other.
As far as "proof" is concerned: The god concept in question would have to be falsifiable, in the first place. I can make ten unfalsifiable claims in two minutes, and then demand that you disprove them if you don´t believe them.

Congratulations, anyway: You have succesfully distracted from the original topic of our discussion: Your mistaken idea that atheists hate god.

okay, how can you believe there is no god, without evidence? Don't you NOT believe in the God of the Bible BECAUSE He is Just and will condemn millions, if not billions to eternal torment? Hitchens, Dawkins, and Underdown do. I saw a transcript of one of their debates.

http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/audio/Darwin-Audio.mp3

 

[TScott]

Look at the statement to which Eudaimonist responded.
(emphasis added)
Now you are explaining that even to an atheist God(s) (as a concept or several different concepts) does/do exist. Quite obviously that was not what the poster meant, and consequently it was not what Eudaimonist responded to.
If you wish to equivocate God (the entity) and God (the concept) the target of your argument would have been gradyll, not Eudaimonist.

Yeah, I got that. My response would be regardless of what Grady said, and your right it could have as easily been directed at him as Mark. Concepts do exist. We all know that. Things do not have to be corporeal to affect us.

 

[createdtoworship]

By no means and I getting "snippy", because your argument might hold some weight.

I wouldn't be getting upset, if I didn't have to keep correcting you.

You said, "Like atheism in general : God does not exist." Atheism does not say that.



"The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence."

What you said it true, because I can not prove something that does not exist. It would have to exist, for me to try and prove or disprove it.

I can't prove that you are wrong, because you aren't.

But you still seem to be missing the point.

This is a straw man and you keep using it, to establish your claims.

An atheist is not making a negative claim, therefore you can't use this line of thinking.



Oh your god!

He is agreeing with your straw man arguments and is wrong, because atheism does not assert things.

I didn't say, find someone who will relabel definitions with you.

Find someone who agrees with you that positive claims are true until proven negative.

you must disagree with famous athiest dawkins then? Is this true? Or Bart Ehrman famous agnostic. And His new book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer?

 

[Non sequitur]

you must disagree with famous athiest dawkins then? Is this true? Or Bart Ehrman famous agnostic. And His new book God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer?

Find me a quote where Dawkins asserts the claim that there is no god.

Where does Ehrman speak on atheism?

(Either way, I have no idea how this has anything to do with your constant mislabeling of atheists claiming there is no god...)

 

[createdtoworship]

Find me a quote where Dawkins asserts the claim that there is no god.

Where does Ehrman speak on atheism?

(Either way, I have no idea how this has anything to do with your constant mislabeling of atheists claiming there is no god...)

Mr Ehrman...
is allegedly an agnostic, but doesn't speak much on atheism. Doesn't make him money with book sales. Religion sells, thats why He can be an agnostic and yet sell all these books on religion.

here is your quote

God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.
Richard Dawkins

 

[Tinker Grey]

Mr Ehrman...
is allegedly an agnostic, but doesn't speak much on atheism. Doesn't make him money with book sales. Religion sells, thats why He can be an agnostic and yet sell all these books on religion.

here is your quote

God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.
Richard Dawkins

That quote =/= "god doesn't exist."

 

[Non sequitur]

Mr Ehrman...
is allegedly an agnostic, but doesn't speak much on atheism. Doesn't make him money with book sales. Religion sells, thats why He can be an agnostic and yet sell all these books on religion.

here is your quote

God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.
Richard Dawkins

I've been thinking, how unethical would it be to write a book on religion and make a ton of cash...

It sounds like he is talking about, if he had to assume there was a god, it only exists in the minds of men.


You ever find someone who agrees with you that positive claims are true until proven negative?

 

[TScott]

You ever find someone who agrees with you that positive claims are true until proven negative?

There are also lots of folks who believe everything is false until it is proven positive. Both groups must find it very difficult to learn anything new.

 

[Non sequitur]

There are also lots of folks who believe everything is false until it is proven positive. Both groups must find it very difficult to learn anything new.

That's a creepy avatar...

Anyway.

Are you agreeing with that?

(If you are going to get all esoteric on me, please don't bother responding.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Since you are improperly defining the word referent

I'm defining it the way I've seen it defined in philosophy.

Concepts refer to something. What they refer to is called a "referent". What atheists claim, as atheists, is that theists have not made a successful case that the concept "God" has an existing referent, just as unicornists have not made a successful case that the concept "unicorn" has an existing referent, e.g., that you can ride.

You are right that corporeality isn't the point here. A referent can be anything. Even the concept "concept" refers to concepts (including itself). However, the distinction between a concept and the set of things that it refers to should be retained, just as one should retain the distinction between a road sign in California that says "California" and California. The point here is not that concepts can't be self-referential, but that if you understand the function of a sign, you'll make the distinction based on that context.

Let's set up a more precise language to consider your example of the anti-theist who is allegedly an atheist.

Let's consider the following entities (or alleged entities):

T for a theist
g for a god-concept
G for God, whatever that might be
H for an anti-theist

And the following relationships:

refers to
does not refer to
believes (in the existence or truth of)
does not believe (in the existence or truth of)
is angry at
has a (written as X(y), X has a y)
is (actually)
is also (equivalent to)
is not also (not equivalent to)

You had written: If she considered God to be a concept that others believed in even though she did not, then I think she could be angry at God.

This is confusingly worded, but I take you to mean:

T has a g
T(g) refers to G
T believes G
T does not believe g is also G

(Translation: A theist has a god-concept of God and believes that God exists, though not simply as a god-concept.)

Also:

H has a g
H(g) refers to G (just like T(g))
H believes (in the existence of, not the truth of) T(g)
H does not believe G
H is angry at T(g)

(Translation: An anti-theist, using the same god-concept as theists do, does not believe in the existence of their God. However, the anti-theist hates those theistic god-concepts.)

Is H an atheist? Yes. Does H hate God? No.

H hates the god-concepts. Hating a concept isn't the same thing as hating the referent to a concept. That's why it is so important to make that distinction.

Perhaps instead of "H is angry at T(g)" you meant "H is angry at G", but that makes little sense, since H does not believe in the existence of G. H would in reality be angry at g.

You could have meant that "H believes G", but then this wouldn't be an atheist any longer, and would in fact be a theist.

But perhaps you meant something else. What did you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

your statement about unicorns would be unprovable as well (at least until they could become visible). So the statement is neither true nor false, just unprovable.

The statement is true or false, we just don't know, with 100% certainty, whether it is or not. But the point is that we don't believe it just because it's unprovable, which contradicts what you stated about negative statements.

T rexes could live on another planet somewhere in the universe. We don't know. Therefore it is unprovable, like the rest. Married bachelors is an irrational concept and unworthy of response (like square circles, or a God who Creates a rock so Big He can't pick it up).

Of course it's worthy of response, the response is obvious: they don't exist. Categorically, absolutely, 100%, don't exist.

 

[quatona]

okay, how can you believe there is no god, without evidence?

This is not an accurate description of my state of mind. Thus, the premise of your question is false, and I cannot answer it.
On another note, I feel quite comfortable with rejecting (or even ignoring) that which is asserted without evidence - and I´m sure so do you, except when it comes to your god concept.

Don't you NOT believe in the God of the Bible BECAUSE He is Just and will condemn millions, if not billions to eternal torment?

No, that´s not the reason why I don´t believe there´s a god as depicted in the bible.

Hitchens, Dawkins, and Underdown do.

If so, you would have to discuss their positions with Hitchens, Dawkins, and Underdown.

 

[Eudaimonist]

okay, how can you believe there is no god, without evidence?

That's not the way I would word it, but for me it would be the same way I don't believe in the existence of unicorns without evidence -- it is not my burden to disprove the existence of unicorns, but for believers to provide evidentiary support. There simply is no point to believing in the existence of things without good reason. Imagination by itself has little weight. Until I have good reason to believe in the existence of unicorns, my worldview is rightly unicorn-less.

Likewise, until I have reason to believe in the existence of God, gods, goddesses, or whatever, my worldview will be rightly god-less.

Don't you NOT believe in the God of the Bible BECAUSE He is Just and will condemn millions, if not billions to eternal torment?

Not even close. If there were such an evil God, I would be a maltheist. I would believe in the existence of an evil God. However, I have no reason to think that such an evil God exists.

Hitchens, Dawkins, and Underdown do.

Please provide a link to the transcript. I'd like to see their exact words in context.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not the way I would word it, but for me it would be the same way I don't believe in the existence of unicorns without evidence -- it is not my burden to disprove the existence of unicorns, but for believers to provide evidentiary support. There simply is no point to believing in the existence of things without good reason. Imagination by itself has little weight. Until I have good reason to believe in the existence of unicorns, my worldview is rightly unicorn-less.

Likewise, until I have reason to believe in the existence of God, gods, goddesses, or whatever, my worldview will be rightly god-less.



Not even close. If there were such an evil God, I would be a maltheist. I would believe in the existence of an evil God. However, I have no reason to think that such an evil God exists.





eudaimonia,

Mark

mental blight said >>I'm in a club at my school my principal demanded we call it the Association for Atheist Students. I live in a small town with a very close minded population. Me and my friends get harassed, beat up and accused of things we didn't do. All of these things are done by so called "loving Chistians"

and that doesn't make you not believe in God?

Please provide a link to the transcript. I'd like to see their exact words in context.

all I have is an mp3 transcript, where you listen to the debate.

 

[createdtoworship]

This is not an accurate description of my state of mind. Thus, the premise of your question is false, and I cannot answer it.
On another note, I feel quite comfortable with rejecting (or even ignoring) that which is asserted without evidence - and I´m sure so do you, except when it comes to your god concept.

No, that´s not the reason why I don´t believe there´s a god as depicted in the bible.

If so, you would have to discuss their positions with Hitchens, Dawkins, and Underdown.

did you read mental blights comment, they get beat up by christians for being athiest. That doesn't make you reject the God of Christianity? If so you would be guilty of a universal negative. You would be saying a good God doesn't exist in the universe. And therefore you have searched every asteroid and every planet in teh universe and stated it confidently.

 

[steve_bakr]

okay, don't be offended but why post to a Christian forum, your views. Why not athiest forums, just curious. Is it because you see something you like here or is it because you were once christian or something? I don't get it really. Since your so anti religious and all.

all I have is an mp3 transcript, where you listen to the debate.

I would make a similar observation for someone who is so obviously drawn towards a Christian forum. There must be some reason for it. But I think we ought to try and show such a person patience and love. There is a line in Shakespeare that says, "Thou dost protest too much," which is to suggest that there is something going on under the surface of things.