Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
It is the point I am making. People define gods as undetectable entities that live in an undetectable realm. How do you falsify the existence of such a being?
-
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!
Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
It is the point I am making. People define gods as undetectable entities that live in an undetectable realm. How do you falsify the existence of such a being?
Augustus
…
Why do you keep ignoring the words "their existence"?
Are you arguing that Bertrand Russell, author of texts such as "Is there a God?", never really gave much philosophical consideration to gods. That would be necessary to support your perspective that he considers them unworthy of consideration.
Obviously, this is not true, and what he said was their existence is not worth serious consideration due to its improbability, i.e they almost certainly do not exist.
Another quote which says exactly the same thing:
"At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists."
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
"their existence is not worth serious consideration" =/= "they don't exist"
Augustus
…
their existence is not worth serious consideration = I believe they almost certainly do not exist
Apologes
Active Member
As I said, the fact that one particular proposition cannot be proved wrong is not relevant to what I was saying.
Either way, X existing in an undetectable realm isn't enough to make the non-existence of X impossible to prove.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
almost certainly don't exist =/= don't exist
PureX
Veteran Member
You can keep repeating this until your cows come home, and it's still not going to be true, or even make sense. Demanding reasonable proof, and then rejecting a claim because you didn't get it, is a philosophical position based on the belief that the truth of a proposition can be determined via reasonable, evidential proof. Claiming this is "unbelief" is just nonsensical subterfuge.
PureX
Veteran Member
It is when you assume that the "is" proposition is untrue because of it. As every atheist I've ever met, does.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
So sorry that such a basic concept is beyond your ability to comprehend.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Time for you to expand the number of atheists you meet, because THIS atheist and most all atheists I know do not. Making blanket statements about an entire group of people based on your limited interaction with them isn't terribly bright.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
I've heard the argument "You can't prove God does not exist because sometime in the future new irrefutable evidence might be found." It seems to me you can say "God does not exist" because God still may exist. But I do see your point that the blanket statement you can't prove a negative is true for ALL negatives. But we were talking about atheism and the existence of God.
I still think theists are wrong in saying atheists are claiming God does not. You cannot prove God does not exist because you would have to be everywhere for all of time to confirm the proof. So there's probably some kind of qualifier to "you can't prove a negative" but I'm not sure how to word it.
You don't have to be snippy and insulting. Here is what atheists claim atheism is: What is Atheism? | American Atheists
Show me a link on the American Atheist website showing proofs against the existence of God.
I assume you are referring to this argument:
This a very childish argument and I am surprised you would even consider using it. It's like saying can God create a rock so big that even He can't lift it. Or can God have a thought so complex that even She can't understand it. Evil comes from man and not from God. It is a gimmick in language to say God has a choice to prevent evil if God gave man the ability to make choices. Man is evil because man has imperfections. It is a childish attitude to blame your creator for your own imperfections.
Show me where the words omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent are ever used in the Bible. These are gimmick words to make a gimmick argument. Most theists consider God to be the creator of all existence. If you accept this premise, then God is certainly powerful to some degree which is probably the most powerful of every other consideration.
Augustus
…
almost certainly do not exist = "I believe they don't exist but accept there is always the technical possibility of me being wrong".
Russell is saying that he considers, with a very high degree of probability, that gods don't exist. It is an explicit statement of belief and most beliefs are to some extent probabilistic.
If I was about to put my shoes on and someone said "careful, I think a wasp went into your shoe" you would withhold belief until you had checked.
If someone said "careful a baby fire breathing dragon went into your shoe" you would consider it so implausible that it was not worthy of consideration and you wouldn't check your shoe.
When we consider things so implausible as to be not worthy of consideration, we are expressing that we believe they do not exist and we act on the assumption that they do not exist.
A point acknowledged by BR, "An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists [i.e one who believes gods don't exist]"
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
If you want to put words in Russell's mouth, go for it. I would rather go with what he really said.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
What truths are you talking about?
Augustus
…
I'm happy to let him speak for himself, it's pretty clear after all which is why I quoted it in the first place.
If you claim I'm misrepresenting him and he is really taking a 'non-position' regarding the existence of gods, what do you think he is saying when he says:
"I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration."
"An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists"
And note he is using a far higher threshold for atheism (know) than I am (believe).
While acknowledging a purely philosophical technicality, do you believe BR considered there to be any practical difference between:
a) I believe gods don't exist
b) Despite being unable to prove it, I believe the existence of gods is so improbable as to be not worth considering.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
He is saying that gods could exist, but doesn't see it as a question worth serious consideration.
So do you consider Russell to be an atheist?
Augustus
…
You missed out the 2nd quote "An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists". This confirms a very different meaning and even repeats the same Greek/Christian reference (even though that meaning is quite clear in the one you did quote).
It also reflects his previously quoted indecision about whether or not he should be considered an agnostic or an atheist (which he defines as someone who knows there is no god). He said philosophically agnostic, practically atheist.
"if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist"
Do you really think the best interpretation of "None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist" is "the gods of Homer might exist but it's not worth thinking about" because that's what you claim was BR's stance?
And if you think he never really considered the existence of gods, why do you think he wrote and spoke extensively on a subject he didn't even think worthy of consideration?
In modern terms, yes, his view was the same as mine: the existence of gods is highly improbable so for practical purposes we can consider that they don't exist, even while accepting on philosophical grounds that we cannot prove this.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
On that point, we can both agree.
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
All theists make a positive claim that God/gods exist.
All atheists lack belief in the theist claim that gods exist.
Some atheist may claim there is absolutely no way gods exist.
Some atheists claim we can't possibly know for sure as of now but still lack belief gods exist.
Some atheist don't give a rats behind if gods exist but still lack belief in gods when a theist makes a positive claim that gods exist.
The only atheist making a positive claim same as the theist, is the atheist claiming there is no way gods exist.
It would be fair to ask that atheist to provide proof just as it would be to ask the theist for proof I think.
There really is no other simple way to explain it. Throwing in word salads and esoteric mishmash doesn't change what atheists are or are not.
Is it possible there really is a psychological reason why some theists are unable to understand these explanations? It's not meant to be insulting but a real question about the disconnect. Could it be that Gods are so real to some people that it is literally impossible for them to understand a position of lacking belief in them?
Maybe to them it is akin to a concept like: you are here and were born but your father is not a real entity. How can that be possible?
I don't know but there must be a reason it is so hard to understand.
All atheists lack belief in the theist claim that gods exist.
Some atheist may claim there is absolutely no way gods exist.
Some atheists claim we can't possibly know for sure as of now but still lack belief gods exist.
Some atheist don't give a rats behind if gods exist but still lack belief in gods when a theist makes a positive claim that gods exist.
The only atheist making a positive claim same as the theist, is the atheist claiming there is no way gods exist.
It would be fair to ask that atheist to provide proof just as it would be to ask the theist for proof I think.
There really is no other simple way to explain it. Throwing in word salads and esoteric mishmash doesn't change what atheists are or are not.
Is it possible there really is a psychological reason why some theists are unable to understand these explanations? It's not meant to be insulting but a real question about the disconnect. Could it be that Gods are so real to some people that it is literally impossible for them to understand a position of lacking belief in them?
Maybe to them it is akin to a concept like: you are here and were born but your father is not a real entity. How can that be possible?
I don't know but there must be a reason it is so hard to understand.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
It said exactly the same thing as the previous posts you had repeatedly said were false: considering something's existence so implausible it doesn't need to be taken seriously is the same as believing it doesn't exist.
