Atheists: does God exist?

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

"Being an atheist" doesn't mean anything.

I call that Seinfeld Atheism.

It’s about nothing, and bears a striking resemblance to Seinfeld Christianity.

Would you like to know what Seinfeld Christianity is all about?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and even within the confines of marriage there's a narrow line as to what's respectful and inconsequential.
I'm against all recreational drugs, violence, abuse, bigotries, intoxication, gluttony, lying, cheating, arrogance, vanity, laziness, excessive wealth without philanthropy, high stakes gambling, abortion, all forms of homosexuality and trans.

OK, but why tell others? Are you virtue signaling here? I could give you my analogous list, but you probably are no more interested in where I differ from you than others are in what you approve and disapprove of.

Incidentally, you've contradicted yourself. You say that you oppose bigotry, but you're homophobic and transphobic.

I notice that you left out self-righteousness.

One does not derive concern for others from stardust and protoplasm, or any cosmic slime. Only creatures with a spiritual dimension have that discernment and affinity. You sound incredibly 'silly' when you show that you are unaware of this.

It sounds silly talking about a spiritual dimension like that's a thing. You have no special senses or "dimensions," just unfalsifiable beliefs that you think elevate you for holding them. You're playing the same game as the next poster, who also represents himself as seeing further without actually producing anything substantial to support that.

It's a common thing to do among the faithful. This is also the posture many assume trying to disqualify dissenting opinion about scripture when they claim to have special insights granted to them. We see it outside of religion as well. It's all gaslighting to me:

Us skeptics can be like that.

You pride yourself on your logic, but I'm a little confused. You wrote, "Everything is applied mathematics. The rest is pure mathematics." There is no "the rest" after one has included everything.

And I think you've misused the word skeptic. You're not playing the role of skeptic. You're playing the role of "I'm too deep to understand. I say provocative things that are incorrect if taken at face value, so you need to try to figure out what I might have meant that makes those words sensible." The word that describes what you're doing here is being enigmatic, or maybe opaque, mysterious, or occult.

And he told you that he doesn't want to bother doing that, when he wrote, "I get the sense that you're jumping into this with a basketful of prior assumptions that I'm not interested in unpacking or examining." But you then cast yourself in the role of skeptic and him in the role of somebody who doesn't want HIS assumptions questioned because he isn't interested in questioning yours.

I hope you don't mind a little constructive criticism, but this is a common problem.

Us is not the correct pronoun for the subject of a sentence. Subjects are pronouns like I, you, he, she, it, we, and they. When those are objects, they become me, you (same), him, her, us, and them. Thus they gave it to us and we gave it to them. Us doesn't do anything. We do things.

As I noted, these are common errors, as when somebody says she gave it to him and I. It's him and me, which becomes obvious when we omit him: She gave it to I or she gave it to me?

And don't say she gave it to him and myself. The pronoun myself is only appropriate when the subject is I. Thus, I gave it to myself, but she gave it to me.

Our prior assumptions may be different from your prior assumptions, so your reluctance to avoid having your prior assumptions challenged by skeptics is understandable.

You've just explained why you would be reluctant to have your mysterious pronouncement unpacked. But don't be alarmed. Just as the other poster isn't interested in trying to ferret out something meaningful in those words by asking you to amplify on your meaning, I suspect that not many here feel much differently. I know I don't. If you have anything to say and want to be understood, you can say it again, but this time using plain language.

 

[Pogo]

How in the world did you manage to get 4 likes on this post?

He presented a cogent argument and it was recognized as such in distinction from many others.

 

[F1fan]

I call that Seinfeld Atheism.

It’s about nothing, and bears a striking resemblance to Seinfeld Christianity.

I see.

Would you like to know what Seinfeld Christianity is all about?

It’s about nothing.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I see.


It’s about nothing.

 

[F1fan]

No, you consider relgion is be in effect X and not Y.

First, I have no idea what you mean by the X and Y values. Second. Where did I write anything that fits this pattern?

I consider it Y and not X.

This clarifies nothing.

And we have been here before about what is rational and so on. I see no reason to do it again.

Too late.

I shouldn't have answer your post, but I had forget our previous debates.

It was a rhetorical question. It’s not complicated. You have a talent to complicate discussions with ambiguity and tangents.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

You pride yourself on your logic, but I'm a little confused. You wrote, "Everything is applied mathematics. The rest is pure mathematics." There is no "the rest" after one has included everything.

Actually, I like a lot of stuff in math. Not just logic.

I’m not convinced that there is no “the rest”.

So far as the ad-hom stuff, it is uninteresting and does nothing to bolster your argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

First, I have no idea what you mean by the X and Y values. Second. Where did I write anything that fits this pattern?


This clarifies nothing.


Too late.


It was a rhetorical question. It’s not complicated. You have a talent to complicate discussions with ambiguity and tangents.

You consider religion in the sense of supernatural and I assume the idea of divine commands. If that is even close, then that is not how I consider religion. That is all.

 

[Yerda]

take a look at your avatar - ask him or her as to what's right or wrong.

It's fine to say you've got nothing. I don't mind at all.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

And I think you've misused the word skeptic.

This raises an interesting question for us atheists.

What is skepticism?

Do I exist?

Do you exist?

Does God exist?

Does 5 exist?

Does the square root of 2 exist?

 

[McBell]

What is skepticism?

Skepticism, also spelled scepticism in British English, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.[1] For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim. Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology.​

​

Skepticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This raises an interesting question for us atheists.

What is skepticism?

Do I exist?

Do you exist?

Does God exist?

Well, skepticism comes in local variations where only some forms of claims are doubted as knowable.
Where as a global skeptic like me would claim that knowledge is not really possible and for:
Do I exist? I can even doubt that just as the other 2.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Skepticism, also spelled scepticism in British English, is a questioning attitude or doubt toward knowledge claims that are seen as mere belief or dogma.[1] For example, if a person is skeptical about claims made by their government about an ongoing war then the person doubts that these claims are accurate. In such cases, skeptics normally recommend not disbelief but suspension of belief, i.e. maintaining a neutral attitude that neither affirms nor denies the claim. This attitude is often motivated by the impression that the available evidence is insufficient to support the claim. Formally, skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy, particularly epistemology.​

​

Skepticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Works for me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is skepticism?

The word is used in a variety of ways. The definition I gave comes from epistemology, or the science of knowledge and knowing. Empiricism is the idea that knowledge about the world comes only from experiencing it and deriving generalizations (inductions) that can be used to predict subsequent outcomes. Implicit is the idea that things believed to be true about reality obtained by other means are not knowledge, including revelation, insufficiently supported claims, and other things believed by faith. Skepticism is the term that implies that one should reject such claims.

Do I exist?

Yes. To exist means to occupy some place at some time and to be affected by other things around you that exist and to be able to affect them. Wolves exist and all of those things are true about them. Werewolves (presumably) don't exist, and none of those things is true about them. The idea of werewolves meets those criteria, and this can be said to exist for as long as some minds hold that idea.

Do you exist?

Yes

Does God exist?

We don't know, but we have insufficient reason to answer yes.

Does 5 exist?

No, except as an idea. The idea of five exists, and there are many examples of five things, but five is an abstraction and doesn't exist by itself except in minds.

Does the square root of 2 exist?

Same answer as with 5.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The word is used in a variety of ways. The definition I gave comes from epistemology, or the science of knowledge and knowing. Empiricism is the idea that knowledge about the world comes only from experiencing it and deriving generalizations (inductions) that can be used to predict subsequent outcomes. Implicit is the idea that things believed to be true about reality obtained by other means are not knowledge, including revelation, insufficiently supported claims, and other things believed by faith. Skepticism is the term that implies that one should reject such claims.

Yes. To exist means to occupy some place at some time and to be affected by other things around you that exist and to be able to affect them. Wolves exist and all of those things are true about them. Werewolves (presumably) don't exist, and none of those things is true about them. The idea of werewolves meets those criteria, and this can be said to exist for as long as some minds hold that idea.

Yes

We don't know, but we have insufficient reason to answer yes.

No, except as an idea. The idea of five exists, and there are many examples of five things, but five is an abstraction and doesn't exist by itself except in minds.

Same answer as with 5.

In order to qualify as a skeptic, would one be required to answer these questions the same as you have?

 

[F1fan]

This raises an interesting question for us atheists.

What is skepticism?

Do I exist?

Do you exist?

Does God exist?

Does 5 exist?

Does the square root of 2 exist?

The solution to these questions is a big doobie.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In order to qualify as a skeptic, would one be required to answer these questions the same as you have?

No, in general there are local or global skeptics. The answer you got was local. It denied local variants but accepted empericism.
Where as a global skeptic deny all postive claims of knowledge.

 

[F1fan]

In order to qualify as a skeptic, would one be required to answer these questions the same as you have?

And there’s the blood test to check for purity of essence.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The definition I gave comes from epistemology

Anthropologists sometimes talk about creative epistemology and transvaluation.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

No, in general there are local or global skeptics. The answer you got was local. It denied local variants but accepted empericism.
Where as a global skeptic deny all postive claims of knowledge.

I believe in 5 and the square root of 2 (at least at the moment), so I guess I’m not a global skeptic.