Ahh right, i don't do philosophy, i have enough trouble dealing with reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheistic Double Standard?
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
Ahh right, i don't do philosophy, i have enough trouble dealing with reality.
Sorry. I guess that I began by reading your words and not mine. What I was looking for was whether you considered me an atheist ("Given that position, do you consider me an atheist?") and agnostic ("Given that position, do you consider me an agnostic?"). I didn't realize that those were responses to those questions.
Can you give me a yes or no answer to each? Say more if you want thereafter, but two es-no answers would be appreciated.
The original comment is here.
I said, in my reply, that I consider you an atheist because of the admission that you have no god belief. That's all it takes, that's the claim of atheism implicitly stated (implicit atheism). You then asked if I consider you an atheist because of further claims that you made about yourself, and I said it doesn't matter what claims you make about yourself, that atheism is "not about you" (in the sense that what you claim about yourself isn't what makes you an atheist. Same as if you declared yourself President of the World, that doesn't make it so.
)You then said you have no evidence for gods so abstain from making judgement about their existence, which is a reasonable anti-realist position to take. The thing is, the reasonable anti-realist position is a perfectly good reason to consider yourself an atheist. Atheism explicitly stated is that there are no gods, and that sort of rejection is reflected in the resounding "No!" that crops up when people consider things that are not falsifiable in regards to whether they believe in them. Generally, we reserve belief for those things that are demonstrable, even if not in evidence.
Does that make you an agnostic? Sure. Some would allow that it would because of the impossibility of believing in unfalsifiable things, and I would not contest that. I, though, would allow that it does because of the admission of the limitation of your own capacity to know.
I said, in my reply, that I consider you an atheist because of the admission that you have no god belief. That's all it takes, that's the claim of atheism implicitly stated (implicit atheism). You then asked if I consider you an atheist because of further claims that you made about yourself, and I said it doesn't matter what claims you make about yourself, that atheism is "not about you" (in the sense that what you claim about yourself isn't what makes you an atheist. Same as if you declared yourself President of the World, that doesn't make it so.
You then said you have no evidence for gods so abstain from making judgement about their existence, which is a reasonable anti-realist position to take. The thing is, the reasonable anti-realist position is a perfectly good reason to consider yourself an atheist. Atheism explicitly stated is that there are no gods, and that sort of rejection is reflected in the resounding "No!" that crops up when people consider things that are not falsifiable in regards to whether they believe in them. Generally, we reserve belief for those things that are demonstrable, even if not in evidence.
Does that make you an agnostic? Sure. Some would allow that it would because of the impossibility of believing in unfalsifiable things, and I would not contest that. I, though, would allow that it does because of the admission of the limitation of your own capacity to know.
OK. Then I don't know what we've been disagreeing about. I thought that it was the definition of atheist, but we apparently use the same one.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Without doubt, no question, a problem worse than you could possibly know, undeniably, etc..........
They in fact reverse the burdens entirely.
1. Faith's burden to an atheist - Absolute empirical proof in their hands, and many would reject even that.
1A. Faith's actual burden - The absence of a defeater.
2. Science's (materialism's, naturalism's) burden to an atheist - That a hypothetical can't be shown to be impossible.
2A. Science's actual burden - Observation, question, hypothesis, experiment (many times), make a conclusion that best explains the data.
An example:
1. I make the Kalam cosmological argument or Leibniz's arguments from explanation. They both concern actually observable interactions concerning empirical entities, which have no known exceptions.
2. The Atheist counters with an argument about multiple universes - Which have no evidence, which even if true are not accessible to us in any way, and never will be, would not counter most of my above argumentation even if true, and who's only merit is that no one can prove they are impossible.
It's like having a debate in Seinfeld's bizarro world.
Last edited:
The Kalam cosmological argument is one of the two worst arguments I've ever seen outside of message boards, the other being the ontological argument.
William Lane Craig has made a living promulgating the Kalam cosmological argument, which depends on the universe having a first moment, a fact which he says points conclusively to a god.
But I say that Craig makes the biggest leap of faith I've ever seen in an argument:
Kalam cosmological argument
- Like everything that comes into being, the universe has a cause.
- If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
- Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
That argument is refuted two other ways.
[1] Nothing which exists can cause anything which does not exist to begin existing. Things which do not yet exist cannot be causally influenced.
[2] Existing outside of time excludes all acts including creation, thinking, or even existing. They all require that something pass through a series of continuous moments, before which it didn't exist, during which it does, and after which it no longer exists. Thoughts and deeds require before and after moments. These are arguments from people that didn't think things through.
********
Here's the other really horrible argument, which is basically, if you can't think of anything greater than a god, one must exist. From www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/ :
Ontological Argument:
The best-known version of the Ontological Argument comes from St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. It is an argument from reason alone, and it focuses on the definition of God. In short, if God is a being than which none greater can be conceived, then God cannot not-exist, or else we could conceive of a greater being-one that exists:
- God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
- The idea of God exists in the mind.
- A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
- If God does not exist in reality but only in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being-that which exists in reality.
- We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- God exists.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Dozens of mainstream professors of philosophy consider the ontological argument for God to be the most reliable. I have never understood it myself, but since I didn't mention it your merely using red herrings.
He makes a living out of being a board sitting college professor in philosophy, what do you make a living doing? Craig didn't invent the Kalam cosmological argument (it's actually Islamic but it has been formulated in different ways by just about every mainstream culture in the last 5000 years) so an (unfounded attack) against Craig does nothing to question the cosmological argument.
I did not mention Craig.
This is funny, your attempting to disprove what I said by doing exactly what I said. I couldn't make this stuff up. You roundly rejected Kalam (which is simply cause and effect) which is based on principles to which there is no known exception, and then appealed to a multiverse for which there is no known evidence. Verbatim what I said atheist's do.
BTW the multiverse (as if there was any reason to believe there is one) is also an effect, all your doing is kicking an invisible can down the road in the exact way I described.
You did not even quote Kalam, and I don't think you even quoted Craig correctly but I need to kill some time, so on rides the mail.
The BGVT second to (and consistent with) only the BBT, posits a universe that began to exist a finite time ago. So cosmologists say that what you said can't happen is exactly what did happen.
Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”
Vilenkin revealed his teams model at Stephen Hawking's birthday, what are your credentials, and where is your model?
BTW the word universe includes all matter, time, and all space. They are all finite and require both an explanation and a cause which they do not contain. All of nature requires a cause that all of nature lacks, therefor that cause must necessarily be non-natural (or supernatural).
I am going to split this in two. Continued below.
Last edited:
H.L.
New Member
1robin
Christian/Baptist
As for your second gem of a response. There are many ways to resolve this and if you had any experience in philosophy you would have known of at least a few.
1. God was causally prior to the big bang, not temporally prior in space time.
2. God is independent of time (actually whatever created time by necessity MUST be independent of time).
3. God's actions are independent of space-time as he himself is.
4. God is not bound by natural law, in fact I bet you cannot tell me anything that God is bound by.
5. There exists no know reason to believe that God's will to act and the act it's self are not instantaneous.
6. Your arguing against a God you made in your own image. God does not have neurons, is not finite in any way, and has no nerves which require time to carry out our wills.
You need to read up on what your condemning. The men (on both sides) have forgotten more about cosmology that we will ever know.
In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith
You will find professional explanations as to where your objection number [2] went so wrong. However I am betting you won't spend the ten minutes to read the paper at the link.
I know what the ontological argument is but I didn't use it. I do not understand it, but those that do say it is the most solid argument there is for God. There is a reason the argument has survived for at least a 1000 years of scrutiny. I am not going to defend something I didn't mention but if you want the best defense of the ontological argument that can be found: Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Pay special attention to Alvin Plantiga's response, even among philosophy professors he is on a higher plane.
So in summary.
1. You tried to counter my argument by doing exactly what I said atheists do, you denied what has no known exceptions, and invented a hypothetical multiverse who's only merit is that no one can prove they don't exist.
2. You rejected Kalam by attacking (unjustly) a well credentialed philosopher who uses it among dozens of arguments for God's existence.
3. Then you said something about existent things cannot cause other things to begin to exist, and based it on absolutely nothing.
4. Then you created a straw man God in your own image and restricted my God by that govern your self.
5. Then you finished up by attacking an argument I do not understand and did not mention.
For those interested in the problems with the ontological argument:
Ontological argument - Iron Chariots Wiki
Ontological argument - RationalWiki
Ontological argument - Iron Chariots Wiki
Ontological argument - RationalWiki
Hola, amiga - great to see you here.
You failed to address virtually the entire content of my post. Do you not understand that that means that the argument still stands unrebutted? I could respond to your specific points, but I have no need to because of that fact. The discussion has stalled at the point at which you chose to disengage.
I'm good with that.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Since you responded to my claims about what atheists do concerning double standards by doing in exact detail specifically what I described, I think you proved my point better than I could ever hope to do. I have nothing to add, you somehow managed to nail your coffin shut from the inside.
What point do you think has been proven? What double standard are you saying exists, and how has it been demonstrated?
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Lots of people choose titles for themselves that are inappropriate to them. I have spoken to many atheists who clearly hate the God that they claim does not exist.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
You and me both.
I still haven't gotten over my hatred of Darth Vader, either.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
And that is because Darth Vader exists, even if only a concept or a character in a film...he exists.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
Apes don't lack tails. They don't have tails. Only an atheist would employ such a devious and fraudulent definition for the word lack.
Sonofason
Well-Known Member
My comment wasn't directed to you. No where in this comment have I suggested that I call atheists agnostic atheists. That was all your doing.