Atheism or No Intelligence Allowed

[TagliatelliMonster]

Proof of Theism:
1. atheism can be strong or weak. Thus, if the strong atheistic position would be proven illogical, then the weak atheism is illogical too.
2. Strong Atheism is not logical.
3. Thus, theism is proven.

ow my

even if I would grand your ludicrous premises, then still the conclusion doesn't follow.

 

[ratiocinator]

Proof of Theism:
1. atheism can be strong or weak. Thus, if the strong atheistic position would be proven illogical, then the weak atheism is illogical too.
2. Strong Atheism is not logical.
3. Thus, theism is proven.

As others have already pointed out, you don't seem to get how logic works at all. For example, the first line is simply a non sequitur.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When an atheist says: "I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists", he says a lie.
Correct?

How is that a lie if that is why that person is an atheist?

I too am an atheist because I see no evidence or proof for the claims of theism.
When claims can't be properly supported, you should not believe them.
And in this case, that means I'm an atheist. Which is to say: a non-believer of theistic claims.

The same illogical level: "I am atheist because the sky is blue."

No, because atheism isn't about beliefs concerning the color of the sky.
Instead, atheism is about beliefs in theistic claims. Atheism, specifically, is the position of non-belief concerning those specific claims.

So it's perfectly fine to say that one doesn't believe those claims because there is no evidence / proof to justify such a belief.

 

[ratiocinator]

I proved God sufficiently at the end of the post. Identity can't exist without perfect judgment defining it, and that perfect judgment can only be God's.

What is it with some theists and logic? An assertion is not a proof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

IAnd it is also why they say to believers. Your belief can not be true because you can not prove it by science that God exists.

I have never seen any atheist on this board, or anywhere else, say that.
And if you know of one, he was wrong.

Beliefs aren't wrong because they can't be supported.
A claim that can't be supported may or may not be wrong.
The thing about unsupported claims, is that there is no rational reason to believe them.

And that's all atheism is. Non-belief of theistic claims.

So where does it lead us by telling each other that they are lying?

I don't pay attention to his drivel on that point. He's even using the word wrong.
To lie is to say things which you know aren't true.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you asking for proof or evidence?

Though this thread is not really related to this topic, maybe a new thread could be opened on this.

Proofs or evidence? Heck, I'd take either -- but sadly, neither appears to be on offer. See, assertions of belief don't count as evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If you don't give God nor his Messengers nor any of their believers a chance to guide you and prove God, then blame yourself. If you hate believers so much that you reject all their reminders that prove God and his existence, blame no one, but yourself.

Yes, he is Atheist, because he doesn't see proofs for God. He is not the standard for humanity that we have to accept him as intelligent and honest to himself, neither is something we have to accept. This is while honesty radiates from the honest ones, and those who testify to God know God is a proof of himself.

But aside for being a proof for himself, his vision also is required and is a component that is part of who we are, we exist in his judgment and vision, and nothing with identity can exist with a reality other then God's perfect judgment or else would be false.

This is not a proof, nor even evidence. It is a bald assertion, without even the benefit of much meaning. The last paragraph, I would take to be what is called a "deepity."

 

[firedragon]

Proofs or evidence? Heck, I'd take either -- but sadly, neither appears to be on offer. See, assertions of belief don't count as evidence.

What proof of the existence of a God have you ever heard from a theist? And in this case, be clear and confirm that you are clear you are making the distinction between proof and evidence, and that I said "proof".

And maybe a new thread to discuss this afterwards because every thread cannot be the same old "give me proof of theism" by atheists like a mantra without an objective understanding of the topic and an attempt at an intellectual conversation.

 

[night912]

Proof of Theism:
1. atheism can be strong or weak. Thus, if the strong atheistic position would be proven illogical, then the weak atheism is illogical too.
2. Strong Atheism is not logical.
3. Thus, theism is proven.

Hahaha.
You really believe that that kind of illogical thinking is going to get your papers published in a scientific journal?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have never seen any atheist on this board, or anywhere else, say that.
And if you know of one, he was wrong.

Beliefs aren't wrong because they can't be supported.
A claim that can't be supported may or may not be wrong.
The thing about unsupported claims, is that there is no rational reason to believe them.

And that's all atheism is. Non-belief of theistic claims.



I don't pay attention to his drivel on that point. He's even using the word wrong.
To lie is to say things which you know aren't true.

My words may have been spoken to fast about what atheists say or think.
Maybe the word "believe" was wrongly used, i see that now

 

[exchemist]

This is not a proof, nor even evidence. It is a bald assertion, without even the benefit of much meaning. The last paragraph, I would take to be what is called a "deepity."

Thanks very much for this term. I had not come across it before. I instinctively assumed it was a reference to Deepak Chopra, but then thought I would look it up and - lo and behold - it comes from Daniel Dennett: Deepity - RationalWiki

Though I see from the note at the end that I am far from the first to think it might be connected with Chopra in some way.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean to say no one has every given you any proof for the existence of God? Or you are saying "No proof whatsoever"?

If someone could provide you proof would you say "No Proof"? You won't accept any proof of course, that's a given, and that's no problem. But you must say you won't accept them, not that there is "no proof". Because people do offer proof, though you won't accept any of them.

I'm saying there is not sufficient proof.

1. Science can only examine things that are within the realm of the natural. Things which can be seen, smelled, heard, felt, tasted, and otherwise measured. God is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

2. With regards to reason, each argument (no matter how good) has a counter argument, until you end up with nothing. Trust me, I explored this avenue to the fullest, hoping I could find some shred to hold onto. In the end, there is not argument that either finally proves nor disproves God.

For example, I look at the incredible beauty and complexity in nature, and my intuition screams "God." Such implicit design must have a designer. Right?

This is a common, common argument. But it has its flaws. Intuition is a strong way of thinking, but it is not infallible. It has certain weaknesses, and one of its greatest weaknesses is seeing agency where none exists. What do I mean by that? I mean that if we hear a rustle in the bushes, it is to our evolutionary advantage to think it is scary and a possible predator and to get away, even though the odds are far from it. IOW from an evolutionary standpoint, it is better for our survival to make an error and assign agency when there is none, than to make the opposite error and get eaten by a tiger.

Who is to say that when I assign agency to the design of the universe I am not making this fundamental error of intuition?

I spent a lot of time when I was younger following each of the many "proofs" of God's existence, and all of them can be explained away. On the flip side, it is impossible to prove something does not exist. And it may very well be that it is a tiger in the bushes.

My inclination is as follows: since science and reason are insufficient to reach a conclusion, I will go with my intuition. It may turn out to be wrong, but it is probably to my advantage. And at any rate, I think the religious life is the most meaningful life -- if it turned out there were no God, I would still live my life as though God existed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks very much for this term. I had not come across it before. I instinctively assumed it was a reference to Deepak Chopra, but then thought I would look it up and - lo and behold - it comes from Daniel Dennett: Deepity - RationalWiki

Though I see from the note at the end that I am far from the first to think it might be connected with Chopra in some way.

You're thinking of a "chopralite", which is
a particular kind of sublithic coprolite.

 

[exchemist]

I'm saying there is not sufficient proof.

1. Science can only examine things that are within the realm of the natural. Things which can be seen, smelled, heard, felt, tasted, and otherwise measured. God is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

2. With regards to reason, each argument (no matter how good) has a counter argument, until you end up with nothing. Trust me, I explored this avenue to the fullest, hoping I could find some shred to hold onto. In the end, there is not argument that either finally proves nor disproves God.

For example, I look at the incredible beauty and complexity in nature, and my intuition screams "God." Such implicit design must have a designer. Right?

This is a common, common argument. But it has its flaws. Intuition is a strong way of thinking, but it is not infallible. It has certain weaknesses, and one of its greatest weaknesses is seeing agency where none exists. What do I mean by that? I mean that if we hear a rustle in the bushes, it is to our evolutionary advantage to think it is scary and a possible predator and to get away, even though the odds are far from it. IOW from an evolutionary standpoint, it is better for our survival to make an error and assign agency when there is none, than to make the opposite error and get eaten by a tiger.

Who is to say that when I assign agency to the design of the universe I am not making this fundamental error of intuition?

I spent a lot of time when I was younger following each of the many "proofs" of God's existence, and all of them can be explained away. On the flip side, it is impossible to prove something does not exist. And it may very well be that it is a tiger in the bushes.

It's really an aesthetic judgement to ascribe design to the cosmos, I think. Certainly not proof, but then proof would never be demanded by science anyway.

 

[Clara Tea]

Dr. Richard Dawkins in a religious movie [Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed] said something like this: ``I am atheist because there is no
proof that God exists." I believe it is incomplete, so, let me try to read
between the lines: ``I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted]
proof that God exists and I want to be atheist." Many respectful and valid
theists say: ``I am the theist because I want so, however, there is no
scientific proof for God yet." Richard would demonstrate an un-emotional
reason to be an atheist if he would say: ``I am atheist because there
is [non-debunked] proof that God does not exist."

Atheists (including Dr. Dawkins) have a right to disbelieve in God.

Disbelieving because of a lack of proof seems valid. So, there is no need to poke fun of Mr. Dawkins just because he disagrees with theists who believe without proof.

Your quotation: "Any proof (even of the Pythagorean theorem) is the knowledge of God's mind. Therefore to prove God to God is easy."

It could be argued that any proof is proof of Satan's mind.

There is no guaranty that you have the right God.

It is also possible that the Pythagorean theorem works because it mathematically must, without a God to conceive of it.

 

[Clara Tea]

You're thinking of a "chopralite", which is
a particular kind of sublithic coprolite.

And here I thought that I have been mining copper. It turns out to be petrified dinosaur droppings.

Seriously, Chopra is an often quoted and highly respected person. So, I meant no disrespect by interpreting your joke. Geology is one of my hobbies. Being an astronaut is another hobby, but, alas, NASA doesn't want me tagging along.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if the strong atheistic position would be proven illogical, then the weak atheism is illogical too.

Nope. So-called strong atheism is a subset of what you call weak atheism. You've got it turned around. If weak atheism were disproven, it would take the subset strong atheism with it, but not the other way around. What is true of the set is true of the subset, but not the other way around.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

Picture a large circle representing mortals, a smaller circle within it representing all men, and a smaller circle within that one representing Socrates. All men is a subset of mortals, and Socrates is a subset of both. What is true of mortals is true of all men, but not the other way around. Some things that are true about man are not true about other mortals, such as the fact that man is a mammal, and some mortals are birds.

Somebody mentioned studying logic in this thread. This is an excellent venue for that. Here it is possible for those interested to practice identifying and naming fallacies. Somebody already called your comment a non sequitur, which true of all conclusions of fallacious arguments whatever the fallacy, since the conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it. I'm having difficulty giving your fallacy, assuming that what is true for every element of the subset applies to all elements of the set, its more specific name.

When an atheist says: "I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists", he says a lie.
Correct?

What the logically rigorous atheist says is that he is not convinced that a god exists, so he doesn't believe one exists. We don't require proof to believe, just compelling evidence. I see no evidence that is only explained or better explained by positing a god, which is what evidence for a god would have to be. Some people point to the universe, its beauty and complexity, and conclude that this can only be explained by a god. But that is not correct. There are naturalistic theories and hypotheses that might be correct instead, and nothing about nature requires an intelligent designer.

Do you recall the intelligent design people looking for irreducible complexity in biological systems, the argument being that there was no naturalistic pathway t the evolution of these irreducibly complex entities. Had they found it, THAT would be evidence that would be best explained by positing an intelligent designer, and undermine the theory of evolution. But they didn't, and the naturalistic explanation is still viable. That doesn't mean that an intelligent designer has been ruled out, just that one doesn't appear to be necessary. There is still no observation that requires a god to account for it, or is better explained with a god, and thus no evidence that points to a god.

If you don't give God nor his Messengers nor any of their believers a chance to guide you and prove God, then blame yourself

Give God a chance to prove He exists? How could anyone stop Him if he exists and wants to be known?

As for messengers, they're also given the chance to demonstrate what they can, such as you and the poster that started this thread. At least a dozen people on this thread have been willing and able to consider any evidence that either of you present to support your god beliefs. That's the chance you have to convince others that you are correct, but you'll have to do it using valid reason applied to evidence. Nothing else convinces the critical thinker.

If Theists have the burden to present proofs, then Atheists have the burden to listen to those proofs attentively.

Not forever. Eventually, one realizes that nobody has ever provided good evidence or a good argument for a god, and that none is likely coming. Open-mindedness requires the impartial consideration of evidence and argument, but as I alluded, there is no obligation to give time to everybody who wants it. You need to present something different up front to deserve that attention. Flawed syllogisms and unsupported claims are non-starters.

Here's a tip to all religious apologists speaking to unbelievers: Make arguments that don't assume and depend on the existence of a god. You're not talking to your audience, because they stopped listening as soon as you began giving your personal religious beliefs as facts.

Atheists tend to be stubborn, no matter how clear the signs and proof is, they will deny.

The rational skeptic uses a different method of deciding what's true about the world than the faith-based thinker. Yes, they are stubborn about insisting that you use reason applied to relevant evidence properly interpreted. Nothing else has a chance of convincing the skeptic.

Why does he insist on using this method to build his worldview, his mental map of the reality around him, and reject unsupported claims? Because he doesn't want there to be any wrong ideas in that map, or to use a literal map, he wants the features of the map to correspond 1:1 to the features of what is being mapped. He doesn't want a god on his map if there isn't one outside of his head. And there is no better way to accept wrong ideas than by faith, by which I mean to believe them without sufficient evidentiary support. Faith allows one to accept wrong ideas as readily as correct ones, and since there are more wrong ideas than correct ones, your odds of acquiring a false belief using faith are high.

So this is a good thing to be stubborn about. And of course, it frustrates the faith-based thinker. He knows that he can't get his ideas into the skeptics head just by asserting them, and criticizes the critical thinker for having a too-high standard for belief. It's the same standard that converted astrology and alchemy to astronomy and chemistry - weed out the faith-based assumptions about stars and transmutations, look at that is actually out there and identify the regular patterns. Only then do you have ideas that can actually be put to use. The faith-based systems of thought are sterile. There's a lesson there.

Same reason creationism is sterile, and can be used for nothing, whereas the scientific approach to life on earth unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. This is what happens when one converts from faith-based thinking to critical thought, and why the critical thinker simply won't accept the unsupported claims of religious apologists

And you being unconvinced doesn't do away with it being a proof.

One can't legitimately claim to have proved anything if nobody's mind was changed. It can't be called proof if it doesn't do that. I liken it to the comedian who tells us that he was very funny, but nobody laughed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look at my file above.

Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
It is not logical, the same level of dishonesty has this sentence:
``I am atheist because the sky is blue." He would demonstrate a reason to be an atheist
if he would say: ``I am atheist, because there is proof that God does not exist."

In other words, what he is saying is, "I am not convinced that there are god(s) because I've never been presented with evidence of god(s)."
Pretty straightforward, really.

 

[viole]

Proof of Theism:
1. atheism can be strong or weak. Thus, if the strong atheistic position would be proven illogical, then the weak atheism is illogical too.
2. Strong Atheism is not logical.
3. Thus, theism is proven.

Allah surely exists (strong claim)
An unspecified God exists (weak claim)

now, if Allah does not exist, and weaker claims are false when their stronger version is, then the state of affair that there is no God obtains.

ergo, either atheism is true or Allah exists.

now, we can come to the same conclusions by replacing Allah with Apollo. And come to the second conclusion

either atheism is true or Apollo exists.

Therefore, if atheism is false, both Allah and Apollo exist, which is a contradiction. Ergo, atheism is necessarily true.

according to your own « logic «

ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

And here I thought that I have been mining copper. It turns out to be petrified dinosaur droppings.

Seriously, Chopra is an often quoted and highly respected person. So, I meant no disrespect by interpreting your joke. Geology is one of my hobbies. Being an astronaut is another hobby, but, alas, NASA doesn't want me tagging along.

Chopra is one of my favorite comedians.