The atheist gods of 'Lack', the only true religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Jun 29, 2018.

  1. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.
    First, one can be Both an atheist and an agnostic.

    I am an atheist.
    I believe there is No god
    Which is Not to say 1000% "there is no god'".
    But logically, there is No Proof or even evidence of Any god, and All gods on which we have a verdict have been proven Bogus.
    Tens of Thousands of False Gods (Fire, Lightning, Fertility, etc) which have the Same bogus basis as the current necessarily Whittled Down gods (life, universe). IOW, we don't have an explanation so let's assign a god for it.

    Then there's the issue of WHICH "god".
    If, by some miracle, one happens to be correct, all the others are wrong.
    So at least ¾ of believers are Necessarily Wrong (99.8% if you're Jewish or Native American) even if the One stepped in it.

    Macro-viewing Hundreds of cultures, all with their own deities, it's Obvious these are convenient local legends, Not any universal truth.
    IOW, which 'god' the vast majorities believe in depends on a Geographic/cultural Accident of birth, Not a discernible truth.

    So in light of:
    ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
    The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
    The Many "only" "gods" which negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
    I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is No god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.

    But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to Change my mind.
    Until and unless, Atheism is the most logical position.
    `
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2018
    Arjay51 and tecoyah like this.
  2. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am also Atheist/Agnostic in that I know I do not know what might be out there but I absolutely KNOW that none of the thousand things we humans made up are certainly not it.
     
    Arjay51 and Taxonomy26 like this.
  3. Taxonomy26

    Taxonomy26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps the country's foremost Theological scholar is BOTH!

    A lecture at the Freedom From Religion Foundation/FFRF by one of thee most Renowned professor's of Religious Studies, Bart Ehrman!
    One of the world's foremost experts on Christianity/NT.
    New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
    Can't say he doesn't know his topic.

    99% of the time he is invited to speak to religious groups.
    But, as it turns out, he's an "Agnostic and an Atheist."




    I gotta do a full thread on this.
    `
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2018
  4. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm in.
     
  5. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even the teeniest bit?

    As to resorting to soapbox name calling rants with no hypothesis rebuttal, reason or logic like the retards do, to get you to agree, I think I'll pass.

    OTOH, considering that the inferences and implications of your own arguments are dependent on the concision of same in the first place, perhaps that is a more fruitful approach to obtaining even the teeniest tiniest level of awareness.
     
  6. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well lets apply it to religious belief. Now what is your answer? Is not having disbelief in god the same as belief in god? That should be and easy yes or no answer.
     
  7. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,176
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry for the long response time, I've been on vacation.
    I see no distinction here between first or third person. If you think that is important, we can try to resolve the question using "he does not believe in God" rather than "I do not believe in God". I personally don't think that'll make a difference.

    Well, I've been mostly addressing your arguments that our disagreement is somehow a grammatical one.

    Either way, the statement "rocks don't think" conveys very specific information about the condition of the rock. It conveys the notion that out of all/any things that a rock does (regardless of whether a rock can be said to do anything at all), thinking is not one of them. The sentence does in itself not convey the piece of information that rocks are in fact unable to think (even though that too happens to be true).

    So it becomes important to figure out which "condition" we're interested in conveying. You seem to say that you're interested in conveying all information, whereas in the examples (in particular the "I don't believe there is a god" example) that's rarely the case. If we truly cared about all information, then we should be conveying what size/colour/composition the rock has, which we clearly have no interest in. In practice, those who say "I don't believe there is a god" are often not interested in showing that there is no god (although they may believe that), they are interested in considering religious claims, and at that point, the important piece of information is that "there is a god" has been unpersuasive, not that "there is no god" has proven persuasive.
    It doesn't seem to me to be more correct, both sentences seem to me to be fully correct, they just say different (albeit closely related) things. Your statement includes more information, but there is no reason to believe that it is more correct.
    As mentioned above, that depends on what you think the context is. In my understanding, the context for most self-proclaimed atheists is not the argument that god doesn't exist, but an opposition to the claims that god does (the distinction being that atheists are relatively happy to see the issue unresolved).

    The sentence conveys a particular piece of information for a particular argument. If you think that renders the argument baseless, then you have fundamentally misunderstood which argument was being made.
    So? The authors are speaking to humans. For instance, they say "obviously, rocks don't think", so while we might not agree on what that means, they're clearly talking in a context where everyone knows everything they need to know about rocks' ability to think.
    To exist is a verb, it is something that a rock does, so it must be something that rocks are able to do. You're right in that rocks are unable to do anything of their own accord or by their own decision, but that's not the same as not doing anything. Existing, lying still etc. are things that rocks can do.

    The fact that you can make an observation accordingly doesn't change anything. "Alice sings" describes something that Alice does, and it can also be an observation.

    But sure, we could rephrase the entire argument assuming that "do" concerns only active actions, with decisions behind them. In that case, not believing in a God is not something which is being done, it is merely what you call an observation. Just like "not singing" is not a type of singing, nor is it an activity. I guess you can call it an observation. This particular word play does not aid your position.

    You have yet to provide a reason to believe there is a difference between the two. Inanimate objects happen to be unable to do most things, but they're not categorically unable to do everything. Just the things that require thought. The rest, like existing, rocks can do.
    What do you mean by don't apply?
    I am happy for your arguments to be given in more detail if there are any misconceptions. It seems to me your supposed proofs have failed, and you haven't really met my criticisms.
     

Share This Page