Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[linwood]

Lets get back to the OP here.

Personally, I have been convinced by what I think is sound logic that the position of Strong-Atheism is a fallacy. I think the most reasonable position to hold is to be a Weak-Atheist/Agnostic.

The assumption of Prometheus is that a worldview should be based upon logic.

I disagree.

I would actually say that it is unreasonable to base a worldview upon logic and logic alone.
To do so is to open oneself up to any ridiculous premise that comes along.
One must first examine the evidence such logic is built upon.
Thats where one finds truth.
Logic is only as good as the premises it`s founded on.

Logic cannot even speak of the "truth" of god because the only consistent definable property of god is that he/she is supernatural.
If he/she is not supernatural then he/she is not god.
If something is supernatural there can be no empirical premise to build a logical construct upon therefore you cannot logically discern god with any measure of realistic accuracy.

A worldview should be based upon reason, rationality, and evidence.
I believe this because this is how the vast majority of people live their material lives without even thinking about it and they manage to survive quite well.

To do otherwise is to buy some postmodernistic/nihilistic pyramid scheme to base your worldview on.

Where`s the value in that?

Strong atheism may be a fallacy of formal logic.
It is not a fallacy in the reality of life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mobius muddle. Rofl. Is that a word you made up? It's a good one, if you did.

Yep - it just slipped out. Well, actually, linwood should get some credit for the inspiration ...

 

[linwood]

Just outstanding! So here we have the wisdom of linwood ...Congratulations. You've managed to promote a circular argument to a mobius muddle. Thanks for sharing.

Would you care to raise a point against the definition?

We both know you don`t fair well when you extend yourself beyond hyperbole into actual debate (Which is why your rarely do) but you can try .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Lets get back to the OP here.

<note> That strange sight you see is that of a contortionist back-peddling. </note>

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Would you care to raise a point against the definition?

We both know you don`t fair well when you extend yourself beyond hyperbole into actual debate ...

Sorry. Others might disagree, but perhaps not ... :no:

 

[linwood]

<note> That strange sight you see is that of a contortionist back-peddling. </note>

Again, would you care to attack any point of any post I`ve made in this thread.

Can you?

My position is clearly laid out in my post above to the Op.

It in no way deviates from any statement I`ve made anywhere in this thread.

There is no back-peddling here.

 

[linwood]

Sorry. Others might disagree, but perhaps not ... :no:

I thought not.

Your incapable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I thought not. Your incapable.

Whatever you say, linwood.

 

[Prometheus]

Strong atheism may be a fallacy of formal logic.
It is not a fallacy in the reality of life.

There's no such thing as a "fallacy in the reality of life."

The word "fallacy" is a term used in formal logic. You've admitted that it may be a fallacy of formal logic and that was all I was arguing for.

Also, being open to "daydreaming", as you would call it, doesn't mean I have to accept any if it as true. I don't accept that there is a God in the slightest, but I know a fallacy when I see one. It's reasonable to not believe in a God, but it's unreasonable to claim God's non-existence is an absolute, unwavering truth.

 

[des]

Though this is about all this is, a discussion on the internet. The actual consequences of this idea (that there is or is not a strong atheism) is sort of irrelevant to daily life.


--des

There's no such thing as a "fallacy in the reality of life."

The word "fallacy" is a term used in formal logic. You've admitted that it may be a fallacy of formal logic and that was all I was arguing for.

Also, being open to "daydreaming", as you would call it, doesn't mean I have to accept any if it as true. I don't accept that there is a God in the slightest, but I know a fallacy when I see one. It's reasonable to not believe in a God, but it's unreasonable to claim God's non-existence is an absolute, unwavering truth.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

At this writing, it is 4:49. I've been sitting here for about 7 minutes waiting for my wife to get dressed. (We're going out to dinner and the the Joffrey ballet.) I have a strong belief that my bedroom has been free of Unicorns for the duration. Why? I've never seen a Unicorn. I've never seen evidence of a Unicorn. I've never seen an event or complex of events that suggest Unicorn(s) as Inference to Best Explanation. I've never seen a credible report of an event or complex of events that suggest Unicorn(s) as Inference to Best Explanation. I feel my strong aunicorism to be fully warranted.

Well said. I would add, in addressing accounts of Unicorn sightings/encounters, that there is good evidence from fields such as psychology and social science that belief in Unicorns and sightings/encounters with Unicorns can be instigated and spread independent of the actual existence of Unicorns.

 

[Tiberius]

Your claim

• science is about things within the universe
• therefore there must be scientific data about all things

is simply and laughably incoherent, not to mention demonstrably false. There are vast quantities of things for which there is no scientific data.

And why do you conclude that if there is scientific data that we must have it?

It is perfectly possible for there to be scientific data that we do not have. And can you name something that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get any scientific data about?

When I asked you to back up this claim, I was after evidence, not merely restating the claim.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And why do you conclude that if there is scientific data that we must have it?

English?

 

[Tiberius]

You said there are things that we don't have any data for. I won't argue with that. But you seem to be assuming that if we don't have scientific data about something then there is no scientific data about that thing.

Just because we don't have the data NOW doesn't mean the data is not there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You said there are things that we don't have any data for. I won't argue with that. But you seem to be assuming ...

This conversation is worthless. Please read something - anything - on the philosophy of science, and then we'll talk more ...

 

[Tiberius]

Care to do something other than make unsupported claims?

 

[Aasimar]

Personally, I have been convinced by what I think is sound logic that the position of Strong-Atheism is a fallacy. I think the most reasonable position to hold is to be a Weak-Atheist/Agnostic.

If there are any Strong-Atheists here I'd be interested in changing your mind.

Heyas, just was curious as to what you meant by Strong-Atheism Vs. Weak Atheism. I've never seen the terms defined in any way. I am assuming Weak Atheism is the "I don't know" position and Strong Atheism is "There is no" position, but please let me know. After seeing the decay of my posts into interpretative anarchy I'd like to be clear what you mean before I post anything

 

[Yerda]

Heyas, just was curious as to what you meant by Strong-Atheism Vs. Weak Atheism. I've never seen the terms defined in any way. I am assuming Weak Atheism is the "I don't know" position and Strong Atheism is "There is no" position, but please let me know. After seeing the decay of my posts into interpretative anarchy I'd like to be clear what you mean before I post anything

That's more or less accurate. A weak atheist could adopt the position, "I don't know". I'm not sure that a strong atheist position needs to be "There are no gods." As far as I can see a strong atheist is one who rejects the claims to the existence of specific gods (and other religious claims) as false.

There are more experienced and insightful atheists on here who would be able to explain more clearly.

 

[Yerda]

Care to do something other than make unsupported claims?

Tiberius, what exactly is it you mean when you say that there is scientific data that we don't have. It appears to a self-contradicting expression.

 

[Willamena]

In fact, I would say that if there is anything at all that is supernatural that exists in this universe, there must be scientific data about them, as science is about things within the universe.
*snip*

It is perfectly possible for there to be scientific data that we do not have. And can you name something that it is IMPOSSIBLE to get any scientific data about?

When I asked you to back up this claim, I was after evidence, not merely restating the claim.

I think the point is that by definition "the supernatural" is not a part of this universe, but transcends it, so there could be no data about it.