Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[Yerda]

Likewise, we have no scientific data about aliens that live on a planet hundreds of lightyears away, but that doesn't mean that they aren't able to be described by science.

I would have thought that this is precisely what it means.

 

[Thales of Ga.]

Tiberius, so right. It is my contention that after thousands of years that theist will never procuce any evidence for God that here it is the matter of the auto-epistemic [Robert Moore] that evidence of absence is definitely absence of evidence and no argument from ignorance. Theists merely put old garbage into new cans.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is my contention that after thousands of years that theist will never procuce any evidence for God that here it is the matter of the auto-epistemic [Robert Moore] that evidence of absence is definitely absence of evidence and no argument from ignorance. Theists merely put old garbage into new cans.

You have every right to contend what you wish, but you may be wiser to adopt Huxley's responsible exercise of caution. The fact of the matter is that excluding existence and the creative capacity associated with emergence as evidence for God is a judgment call, one which I provisionally embrace, but a judgment call nonetheless and your "auto-epistemic" certainty little more than the residue of selection bias.

 

[Tiberius]

I would have thought that this is precisely what it means.

We may not be able to describe it simply because of a matter of circumstance (it's not possible for us to get there), but that doesn't mean that they are indescribable by science.

 

[Pah]

We may not be able to describe it simply because of a matter of circumstance (it's not possible for us to get there), but that doesn't mean that they are indescribable by science.

Those that believe do describe a god, those that do not believe, can not.

However, science and logic can, and do, address dismissively attributes the believers accept.

 

[lamplighter]

From Futurama episode Godfellas
"God"- When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Now granted we can certainly go on with our lives knowing that theres an absence of direct interaction from any so called higher power. But humanitys grasp of whats reasonable is subjective to our technology. We haven't even probed every crevace of earth or walked on the planet next door yet people assert we've looked. But the concept of god is subjective too.

 

[Yerda]

However, science and logic can, and do, address dismissively attributes the believers accept.

Like?

 

[Aasimar]

Like?

Omni benevolence + Ebola Violence = Not so much

Omni benevolence + Stoning children to death passages in holy book = Not so much

Omnipotence + Circular Square = Not so much

Omniscience = Knowing the future = No free will = Not so much

All Good = Everything he does is good => good doesn't mean good. Good implies a choice. If everything you do is inherently good, then you aren't doing good, you're just doing what you do.

I'm too tired to type this articulately, going to sleep now

 

[Fredx10]

I have problems with "out there." Out where?

 

[Fredx10]

What the hell is "worship" anyway???

 

[logician]

Atheism to me is not a belief, but a conclusion based upon best evidence. I see no reason to jump into the agnostic position, because it allows for the possibility that some god concept is true.

 

[rojse]

What the hell is "worship" anyway???

Worship is trying to coerce an entity of more power than you to do something that benefits you, or to stop the entity doing something bad to you, through prayer, ritual or sacrifice. Worship is not limited to religion.

That definition will probably be dismissed by more religious people on the forum, but that's what my definition is.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That definition will probably be dismissed by more religious people on the forum, but that's what my definition is.

It will also be dismissed by people who seek to use English rather than abuse it for apologetic purposes.

 

[Willamena]

Worship is trying to coerce an entity of more power than you to do something that benefits you, or to stop the entity doing something bad to you, through prayer, ritual or sacrifice. Worship is not limited to religion.

That definition will probably be dismissed by more religious people on the forum, but that's what my definition is.

So when Elton John sings about worshiping Marlyn Monroe from the 22nd row, he's actually wanting her to leap of the silver screen and make out with him?

I think you're right. That definition will be dismissed, and by folks not limited to relgiion.

 

[rojse]

What is your definitions, then?

 

[Runt]

Our inability to know everything there is to know about the universe makes it impossible to state, with 100% certainty, that there is no God. Some future discovery---some scrap of evidence in a distant, yet-unknown corner of reality that we simply have yet to find---may exist to “prove”, once and for all, that there is a God. Because we cannot prove that such proof does not exist, we cannot assert definitively that God does not exist………just as we cannot assert that fairies, the Holy Grail, Homer Simson, the Deathstar, vampires, Voldemort, ghosts, genies, the boogeyman, Excalibur, Bigfoot, werewolves, Santa Clause, magic mirrors, mermaids, UFOs, Bloody Mary, Mary Poppins, Atlantis, the Tooth Fairy, centaurs, unicorns, leprechauns, unitars, leprechorns, unileprechorns, snurgle puffs, the invisible dragon in my garage, or any other objects, creatures or entities ever envisioned by mankind do not exist.

After all, without 100% certainty, it is a logical fallacy to assert that something does not exist. Thus, we might as well stop trying to contemplate what the universe isn’t, and start working on what it is.

But wait….

…If there is the remotest possibility that somewhere, in the far reaches of the galaxy, evidence that something we now believe to be true exists to disprove what we think we know as fact, can we ever logically assert that something exists???

Crap! We might as well just stop pretending to know anything! Any moment now something we haven’t considered yet may arise to throw our perceptions to the wind! So stop succumbing to the logical fallacy that you can definitely say anything!!!



Seriously though... I admit the logical fallacy is there in the Strong Atheist arguement. It is the reason I myself am not a Strong Atheist---I can't disprove God. But it is far, far, far more logical to believe there is not a God than to believe that there is. The illogical nature of the belief in God does not, however, invalidate it.

It's a tricky issue.

 

[logician]

"Our inability to know everything there is to know about the universe makes it impossible to state, with 100% certainty, that there is no God"

Whose god? The are many god concepts, and many can be disproven.

 

[Runt]

Whose god? The are many god concepts, and many can be disproven.

1) If God can't be seen, it's because he's invisible
2) If God can't be touched, it's because he's incorporeal
3) If God can't be heard, it's because he communicates telepathically
4) If God can't be tasted, it's because you lack the "taste God gene"
5) If God can't be smelled, it's because he used antiperspirant
6) If God can't be detected in any way, it's because we lack the means to detect him
7) If God doesn't talk to you, it's because you're not listening
8) If God doesn't make sense, it's because you don't understand

The list of excuses goes on and on and on. No matter what proof one tries to offer to disprove God, there is always a possible explanation---no matter how far-fetched---to "disprove" your proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[rojse]

1) If God can't be seen, it's because he's invisible
2) If God can't be touched, it's because he's incorporeal
3) If God can't be heard, it's because he communicates telepathically
4) If God can't be tasted, it's because you lack the "taste God gene"
5) If God can't be smelled, it's because he used antiperspirant
6) If God can't be detected in any way, it's because we lack the means to detect him
7) If God doesn't talk to you, it's because you're not listening
8) If God doesn't make sense, it's because you don't understand

The list of excuses goes on and on and on. No matter what proof one tries to offer to disprove God, there is always a possible explanation---no matter how far-fetched---to "disprove" your proof that God doesn't exist.

Well said. I completely agree.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What is your definitions, then?

Perhaps one of these ...