The Paradox of Atheism and God

[PureX]

You confuse atheism with anti-theism. They are not the same, even if they overlap to an extent.

Atheism is the antithetical position to theism. Theism is a philosophical proposition. Atheism is the antithetical position. Philosophy is a logical dialogue between the proponent and the opponent, each stating and defending their relative positions relating to a truth proposal.

Neither of these have anything to do with religion, or anyone's personal beliefs.

 

[Kfox]

Before I can prove to you, do you acknowledge that if a system is proven irreducibly complex, it requires a designer? I can than point you to such systems in nature.

Isn't your God incredibly complex? Who is his designer?

 

[Kfox]

There is no 'probably' in it. By definition ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS.
Until you understand that, you are wasting everyone's time typing anything here.

Does the Sun exist? Does Nature exist? There are all sorts of things people choose to call God that do exist. There are people as real as you and I that some people have chosen to call God. It would be foolish for an atheist to look at the Sun, or stand next to Kumari and claim they don't exist simply because there are those who choose to call them God. Remember; atheists reject ALL God claims; not just the one of the Christianity.

 

[ChristineM]

. It would be foolish for an atheist to look at the Sun, or stand next to Kumari and claim they

...

They are god

 

[Revoltingest]

Meaning, "against God" or "one who denies God," etc. If that is correct, then it is that prejudice of the question that would seem, to me, to doom the atheist to indefinite ignorance on the question. Because that which is denied is denied without evidence, not because of evidence. IE, "I deny the existence of God because I have no evidence of God." How is that any different than denying any other thing simply because one cannot observe the thing?

Here's the problem with that argument....

Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To elaborate, your definitions of atheism don't include the
most common usage of all, ie, not believing in gods.
(Note that this is more general than just about the
many versions of the Christian god named "God".)

Belief in unevidenced things rational. To select one of
the thousands of gods & versions of God, Allah, etc, &
to believe in it with certainty but no evidence is irrational.
Strictly speaking, the existence of gods is neither provable
nor disprovable. So we disbelieve, ie, don't believe.

 

[Altfish]

Does the Sun exist? Does Nature exist? There are all sorts of things people choose to call God that do exist. There are people as real as you and I that some people have chosen to call God. It would be foolish for an atheist to look at the Sun, or stand next to Kumari and claim they don't exist simply because there are those who choose to call them God. Remember; atheists reject ALL God claims; not just the one of the Christianity.

Of course they do, maybe I should have had an 's' on the end of 'god'

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This is you acknowledging the game you play. Even if you don't realise it.
Your double standard is showing.

It becomes extremely difficult to debate multiple subjects and streams of subjects at once in a single thread. It's much easier to debate one or two subjects because that way, you can keep track of where the Burden of Proof lies. And properly confront the points.

Honestly, if there was something other than the OP message which you really wanted to discuss with me, just create a thread here outlining your concerns: One-on-One Debates

And @ me in the post.

And I'll give it my full attention.

Otherwise, I may get too distracted to put much weight on these concerns, especially in a busy thread like this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is the antithetical position to theism.

Only insofar as theism respresenting belief and atheism....not. Not more or less.

Theism is a philosophical proposition.

It's an expression of specific types of belief.
Atheism is the lack of those beliefs. That's where the "a" stands for.

Like symmetrical is the expression of a specific type of shape.
Where asymmetrical is just a non-symmetrical shape.

I don't understand people's insistence on trying to make it about more then it actually is.

Atheism is the antithetical position. Philosophy is a logical dialogue between the proponent and the opponent, each stating and defending their relative positions relating to a truth proposal.

And the "truth proposal" here is the claim / belief of theism.
The theist tries to sell that claim / belief.

The atheist is simply the one who's not buying it. The mere atheist is not trying to sell something else instead.

Neither of these have anything to do with religion, or anyone's personal beliefs.

That's just bonkers. Theism is a religious belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Before I can prove to you, do you acknowledge that if a system is proven irreducibly complex,

How would you go about proving that?
It seems to me that it would be inevitable to end up in an argument from ignorance.
Inevitably, you are going to end up with a mere "I don't know how this can be reduced in complexity further, therefor it can't"
That's classic argument from ignorance.

On top of that, even if that weren't fallacious, to continue with "...therefor designer" doesn't follow at all from that.
That, by itself, would also be an argument form ignorance. Inevitably, you are once again going to end up in "I don't understand how this complex thing can come about naturally, therefor it can't"

Design is something that needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted based on a lack of evidence to the contrary.

So it seems to me that the only way for you to end up with such a conclusion based on what you said, is by using a double argument from ignorance.

Prove me wrong.
Give an example and argue your case without engaging in such a fallacy.

I can than point you to such systems in nature.

Go for it.

 

[PureX]

It becomes extremely difficult to debate multiple subjects and streams of subjects at once in a single thread. It's much easier to debate one or two subjects because that way, you can keep track of where the Burden of Proof lies. And properly confront the points.

Honestly, if there was something other than the OP message which you really wanted to discuss with me, just create a thread here outlining your concerns: One-on-One Debates

And @ me in the post.

And I'll give it my full attention.

Otherwise, I may get too distracted to put much weight on these concerns, especially in a busy thread like this.

You won't get anywhere with this because these anti-religious "atheists" are never going to admit that they believe that no gods exist. Because they know they can't defend that belief, logically, or evidentially. So instead, they just insist ad nauseam that they "unbelieve" whatever any theist or religious adherent asserts or believes regarding the existence of God/gods. And then they insist that it's everyone else's job to convince them otherwise, as if they are the sole designated judges of what is and is not true regarding the existence of any gods. And as if their criteria for making such a judgement is the only possible valid criteria. And of course they have no intention of ever being convinced that they are wrong in any case.

They have so wildly rigged the "discussion" that they cannot possibly be held to account, or found wrong. And they, of course, really like it this way. Because it justifies and insulates their illogical bias without them having to admit that it's bias.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You won't get anywhere with this because these anti-religious "atheists" are never going to admit that they believe that no gods exist. Because they know they can't defend that belief, logically, or evidentially. So instead, they just insist ad nauseam that they "unbelieve" whatever any theist or religious adherent asserts or believes regarding the existence of God/gods. And then they insist that it's everyone else's job to convince them otherwise, as if they are the sole designated judges of what is and is not true regarding the existence of any gods. And as if their criteria for making such a judgement is the only possible valid criteria. And of course they have no intention of ever being convinced that they are wrong in any case.

They have so wildly rigged the "discussion" that they cannot possibly be held to account, or found wrong. And they, of course, really like it this way. Because it justifies and insulates their illogical bias without them having to admit that it's bias.

Possibly, but I don't think I was inviting people to a debate about God or unbelief in that post. I was inviting someone to lay out their concerns.

 

[Orbit]

No, I'm really not. I asked philosophical questions. Whether you want to entertain those questions is up to you.

I just wanted to say that I liked your OP (and I'm an atheist). It was fine as a philosophical question. I'm frankly a bit confused as to why this thread has proceeded the way it has.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I just wanted to say that I liked your OP (and I'm an atheist). It was fine as a philosophical question. I'm frankly a bit confused as to why this thread has proceeded the way it has.

It happens. But I'd say not all scrutiny of me is always meaningless. Sometimes, it causes me to ask good questions - even about myself.

 

[Unfettered]

So you are more of an apath-fairies-in-my-gardenist?

LOL, I guess.

 

[PureX]

Possibly, but I don't think I was inviting people to a debate about God or unbelief in that post. I was inviting someone to lay out their concerns.

But the moment the sacred definition of atheism as 'unbelief' comes up, any possibility if an actual discussion of atheism goes off the rails. Because most of the folks that call themselves atheists on this site are so completely invested in this silly definition of atheism that they become obsessibly defensive in the face of any perceived hint to the contrary.

As to atheism being a "pathway to God", I think we need to define what aspects of "God" we're referring to, here. That term covers a lot of different concepts and phenomena. I would start with a good general definition of God as being the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Which is an idea that I suspect a lot of atheists would be willing to recognize so long as we are not anthropomorphizing it, or religisizing it. Though not all, certainly.

 

[Unfettered]

Here's the problem with that argument....

Etymological fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To elaborate, your definitions of atheism don't include the
most common usage of all, ie, not believing in gods.
(Note that this is more general than just about the
many versions of the Christian god named "God".)

Belief in unevidenced things rational. To select one of
the thousands of gods & versions of God, Allah, etc, &
to believe in it with certainty but no evidence is irrational.
Strictly speaking, the existence of gods is neither provable
nor disprovable. So we disbelieve, ie, don't believe.

I appreciate noting the nuance, but I don't see how that should influence my assertion. If one "doesn't believe," that is not a neutral position. It may not be outright antagonistic, but it is still prejudicial. If one doesn't believe "for lack of evidence," he still disbelieves—without evidence to inform the decision.

 

[PureX]

Only insofar as theism respresenting belief and atheism....not. Not more or less.

Theism is an idea. Belief is a way of relating ourselves to that idea. These are not the same things. Whether or not one "believes in" theism is irrelevant to the idea that God/gods exist, and exists in a way that matters to we humans.

Atheism is the lack of those beliefs.

Belief AND the lack of it are both irrelevant to the proposed idea that God/gods exist, and to the proposed idea that God/gods do not exist. Belief is a religious practice, not a theological position.

Like symmetrical is the expression of a specific type of shape.
Where asymmetrical is just a non-symmetrical shape.

Symmetry is an ideal. Asymmetry is the antithetical ideal. Both ideals are comprised of content that is based on logical and evidential reasoning. Asymmetry is not a "lack of symmetry". It is the antithetical ideological condition to symmetry. Asymmetry is a THING. Not the lack of a thing.

I don't understand people's insistence on trying to make it about more then it actually is.

You and some others here work very hard at not understanding this.

And the "truth proposal" here is the claim / belief of theism.

A claim is not a belief, and a belief is not a claim. And neither of them are "truth proposals" until they're expressly presented as such.

The theist tries to sell that claim / belief.

No, a theist is only someone that accepts the claim of God/gods existence and effect. Very few theists are actually trying to convince anyone else to accept it.

The atheist is simply the one who's not buying it.

That's just a skeptic. Not an atheist. But you don't get this because your definition of atheism has no actual definition. It's just meaningless negation.

The mere atheist is not trying to sell something else instead.

That's not true of most of those "atheists" that come on this site, though, as they are very clearly trying to "sell" us on their skepticism.

That's just bonkers. Theism is a religious belief.

And again, you prove my point.

 

[Revoltingest]

I appreciate noting the nuance, but I don't see how that should influence my assertion.

It should cause you to recognize that
your definition is incorrectly narrow.

If one "doesn't believe," that is not a neutral position.

The only neutral position is to not think
about it at all. But to not believe in things
unevidenced is as passive as it gets. And
the most rational approach to religion.

It may not be outright antagonistic, but it is still prejudicial. If one doesn't believe "for lack of evidence," he still disbelieves—without evidence to inform the decision.

It isn't prejudicial if one applies disbelief to all
things unevidenced.
I was born not believing in gods, & this happened
without applying any judgement whatsoever.
But with age I came to see many religious & other
beliefs, all unevidenced. I remained an unbeliever.
Loopy it would be to embrace one over others as
"The Truth".

Many believers & atheists have much in common.
We disagree primarily about the existence of one
particular god, but agree in disbelief in the
thousands of others.

 

[Unfettered]

It should cause you to recognize that your definition is incorrectly narrow.

The only neutral position is to not think
about it at all. But to not believe in things
unevidenced is as passive as it gets.

I'm trying to understand this, but you appear to be merging opposing ideas, and I can't get there.

If, for example, you call me on the phone and tell me that a man named Bob will arrive at my door in the next hour with a box of fruit, what evidence do I have that Bob exists? None. If I choose to disbelieve that Bob exists, am I not prejudicing the question of his existence without knowledge of his existence?

Clearly, I cannot "not think about it," which you say is the only neutral position, because your phone call pushed me out of that position. The only way I can not think about Bob is if I always remain ignorant of the idea of Bob. But I've left that point. I can never go back to that point. My choices are to believe you, disbelieve you, or in some way divorce myself from choosing to believe or disbelieve. The latter seems to be the only way to remain neutral as to Bob's existence. To choose either of the first two commits me either for or against Bob's existence.

What do you think I'm missing here?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm trying to understand this, but you appear to be merging opposing ideas, and I can't get there.

If, for example, you call me on the phone and tell me that a man named Bob will arrive at my door in the next hour with a box of fruit, what evidence do I have that Bob exists? None. If I choose to disbelieve that Bob exists, am I not prejudicing the question of his existence without knowledge of his existence?

That is disorganized reasoning.
Instead, consider a simpler & more specific approach....
- People claim that gods exist.
- They disagree with each other about which of these
mutually exclusive beings is singularly true.
- They try to offer evidence, but have nothing tangible.
- Instead of evidence, they offer personal feelings &
ancient books making unevidenced claims..
- Many of their claims are shown false.
- Many other claims are non-testable.

The most reasonable thing to do is not
believe their claim of having The Truth.

What do you think I'm missing here?

The perspective of the typical non-believer.