Topic: Strict Atheism is illogical (Read 11141 times)

David · « **on:** December 11, 2005, 01:05:21 PM »

By strict atheism I mean atheism that makes the positive statement, "There is no God."

My beef with this is that to say that there is no God requires proof that is by its very nature illogical. You can not disprove the existence of something that exists in a higher realm of reality.

Copernicus-

I understand presupposition now. It is just assuming something and then making statements or asking questions based on that original assumption, be it true or untrue.

"When did you start beating your wife?" is an example. The questioner assumes that the man is beating his wife, although he may not be.
The question is more of a statement than a true question. Correct?

Copernicus · « **Reply #1 on:** December 11, 2005, 01:46:49 PM »

Quote from: David

By strict atheism I mean atheism that makes the positive statement, "There is no God."

My beef with this is that to say that there is no God requires proof that is by its very nature illogical. You can not disprove the existence of something that exists in a higher realm of reality.

And my disagreement with your beef is over what you demand as "proof" to license the belief that there is no God. I might try to mount an argument that your God, as you define him, couldn't possibly exist. Such arguments have been made for centuries by people. But the logic that allows me to claim that there are no gods at all is the same as the logic that allows you to claim that there are no leprechauns at all. There are good reasons to disbelieve in leprechauns, even though you can never prove beyond all doubt that they do not exist.

Quote

I understand presupposition now. It is just assuming something and then making statements or asking questions based on that original assumption, be it true or untrue.

"When did you start beating your wife?" is an example. The questioner assumes that the man is beating his wife, although he may not be.
The question is more of a statement than a true question. Correct?

Correct. My point was about the meaning difference between "believe" and "know". It is a very interesting difference, because it hangs on presupposition. The speaker commits to the truth of the object of "know", but not of "believe". Otherwise, the words mean the same.

David · « **Reply #2 on:** December 11, 2005, 08:07:50 PM »

Quote

There are good reasons to disbelieve in leprechauns, even though you can never prove beyond all doubt that they do not exist.

Exactly. Therefore, a logical and intellectually honest person will say this about leprechauns: "I believe and have good reason to, that leprechauns do not exist. However, I have no proof of their non existence, so I do not know they do not exist.

Even if all the arguments for God's existence failed,(I am only allowing this for the sake of argument) this is the best you could do in respect to God.

Quote

Quote:
I understand presupposition now. It is just assuming something and then making statements or asking questions based on that original assumption, be it true or untrue.

"When did you start beating your wife?" is an example. The questioner assumes that the man is beating his wife, although he may not be.
The question is more of a statement than a true question. Correct?

Correct. My point was about the meaning difference between "believe" and "know". It is a very interesting difference, because it hangs on presupposition. The speaker commits to the truth of the object of "know", but not of "believe". Otherwise, the words mean the same.

Yes, the speaker obviously believes that the object of 'know' is true, but what I am saying is that the speaker has to know that the object of 'know' is true to be intellectually honest.

For instance, take a parachute. You and I are watching a guy skydive and I say, "I know the parachute is not going to fail." You say, "I know the parachute is going to fail."

In this situation, one of us is being dishonest and misusing the word 'know'.

Lets say that you happened to be the one that packed the parachute and you poured a whole bunch of glue into it when it was folded up because you wanted to kill the guy or something.

You know the parachute will fail. I am being dishonest and using know when I really mean to say, "Have strong reason to believe."

Copernicus · « **Reply #3 on:** December 11, 2005, 09:22:54 PM »

Quote from: David

Exactly. Therefore, a logical and intellectually honest person will say this about leprechauns: "I believe and have good reason to, that leprechauns do not exist. However, I have no proof of their non existence, so I do not know they do not exist.

I agree, and this is just what I say about gods. That makes me an atheist. I believe that gods do not exist, but I do not know that they do not exist. Atheism is a claim about belief, not knowledge. You seemed to disagree with me earlier. Are we in agreement now?

Quote

Even if all the arguments for God's existence failed,(I am only allowing this for the sake of argument) this is the best you could do in respect to God.

Absent any definition of God that is logically contradictory, I totally agree with you.

Quote

Yes, the speaker obviously believes that the object of 'know' is true, but what I am saying is that the speaker has to know that the object of 'know' is true to be intellectually honest.

No, the speaker only has to honestly believe that the object is true. Honest people can be mistaken.

Quote

For instance, take a parachute. You and I are watching a guy skydive and I say, "I know the parachute is not going to fail." You say, "I know the parachute is going to fail."

In this situation, one of us is being dishonest and misusing the word 'know'.

Not necessarily. We could just be having an honest disagreement. Both of us could be wrong, in fact, if our reasons for believing that the parachute was going to fail were wrong. You can believe something that is true for the wrong reasons.

Quote

Lets say that you happened to be the one that packed the parachute and you poured a whole bunch of glue into it when it was folded up because you wanted to kill the guy or something.

I can't imagine myself doing such a thing, but OK. I'll play.

Quote

You know the parachute will fail. I am being dishonest and using know when I really mean to say, "Have strong reason to believe."

No, you are just saying that you consider your reasons for believing in the safety of the parachute to be unimpeachable. You could still be wrong without being intellectually dishonest.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #4 on:** December 12, 2005, 03:51:48 PM »

The Christian God does not exist because his/her/it can not be proven to exist.

David · « **Reply #5 on:** December 13, 2005, 12:52:16 PM »

Quote

David wrote:
Exactly. Therefore, a logical and intellectually honest person will say this about leprechauns: "I believe and have good reason to, that leprechauns do not exist. However, I have no proof of their non existence, so I do not know they do not exist.

I agree, and this is just what I say about gods. That makes me an atheist. I believe that gods do not exist, but I do not know that they do not exist. Atheism is a claim about belief, not knowledge. You seemed to disagree with me earlier. Are we in agreement now?

We might be, if you agree that the statement "There is no God" is dishonest.
Some people make this claim. I am trying to point out that this claim is unfair.

By Huxley's definition, you would be an agnostic.

Quote

bsent any definition of God that is logically contradictory, I totally agree with you.

Are you implying that the Christian God is logically contradictory?

Quote

Quote:
Yes, the speaker obviously believes that the object of 'know' is true, but what I am saying is that the speaker has to know that the object of 'know' is true to be intellectually honest.

No, the speaker only has to honestly believe that the object is true. Honest people can be mistaken

The person is misusing the word 'know'.

Take the bridge example the encyclopedia used. Tom says he knows the bridge will fail. Jim says he knows the bridge will hold.
No matter which way you slice it, these two people do not both know their respective opinions. Both of them could only believe, and one of them could know, max. How do you respond to this, Cop?

Copernicus · « **Reply #6 on:** December 13, 2005, 02:08:01 PM »

Quote from: David

Quote
Are we in agreement now?

We might be, if you agree that the statement "There is no God" is dishonest. Some people make this claim. I am trying to point out that this claim is unfair.

The claim is both fair and honest.

Quote

By Huxley's definition, you would be an agnostic.

That's what I'm trying to tell you. There is no fundamental contradiction in being both. I believe that gods do not exist (as Huxley almost certainly did), but I don't claim to know that they do not exist. You still pretend that there is no difference between a claim about what we can know and a claim about what we believe. Huxley merely denied "gnosis" about ultimate reality, not that he failed to take a belief position on the existence of gods. He was quite critical of belief in gods.

Quote

Quote
Absent any definition of God that is logically contradictory, I totally agree with you.

Are you implying that the Christian God is logically contradictory?

I do not believe that there is any single concept of the Christian God, but some definitions of that god are logically contradictory. Many philosophers have mounted arguments to that effect. See the collection of essays in The Impossibility of God. That book is chock full of detailed arguments about the logical inconsistencies in the concept of an omnimax God.

Quote

Quote
No, the speaker only has to honestly believe that the object is true. Honest people can be mistaken

The person is misusing the word 'know'.

No, the speaker is using the word in exactly the meaning that it has. He is just mistaken that the evidence for his belief is unimpeachable. Why do you have a problem with this? Most of the claims that people make about knowledge are demonstrably based on conviction rather than absolute knowledge. Your criteria for knowledge are too rigid, and they render the word virtually useless in ordinary conversation.

Quote

Take the bridge example the encyclopedia used. Tom says he knows the bridge will fail. Jim says he knows the bridge will hold. No matter which way you slice it, these two people do not both know their respective opinions. Both of them could only believe, and one of them could know, max. How do you respond to this, Cop?

Thusly: by your criteria, neither of them can actually know that the bridge will fail, but one of them happens to be correct about the matter. Your criteria for "know" would have both of them misusing the word. Future events are neither true nor false at the time of utterance. Any time that someone applies the word "know" to a future event, they can only be taken to mean that they have a strong conviction about the truth of their belief and nothing more.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #7 on:** December 13, 2005, 04:46:46 PM »

Heretic · « **Reply #8 on:** December 15, 2005, 08:00:44 AM »

You can not disprove the existence of something that exists in a higher realm of reality.

Can you at least demonstrate the existance of a "higher realm of reality"?

I would contend there is none based on the same reason I contend no gods exist. Insufficent evidence, only your say-so.

You can't demonstrate or provide any evidence of this God you claim exists so you create a "realm" to place him/her/it in that is unaccessable and then expect us to accept and believe in the existance of this realm based on nothing but your say-so.

Funny, funny shtuff there.

Ragnar · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2005, 09:38:28 AM »

David, do you also believe that strict theism is illogical? Just want to see if you're consistent.

David · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2005, 04:50:13 PM »

If the claim that there is no God is fair and honest, then prove it.

However, know that we are not talking about Zeus here. We are reffering to the Christian God, who exists on a higher realm of reality. He is Shakespeare and we are Hamlet.

Stathei · « **Reply #11 on:** December 15, 2005, 06:19:36 PM »

The burden of proof is not on the Atheist, but on the Theist. Of course I can't prove there is no God. Can you prove I am not an alien starfish who takes human form to go on internet forums to talk about Atheism? Of course not - but the claim is so preposterous that the burden of proof would be on me. So it is with God. The notion of God is preposterous and therefore does not require to be positively disproven.

dark territory · « **Reply #12 on:** December 15, 2005, 08:48:14 PM »

David · « **Reply #13 on:** December 15, 2005, 09:42:14 PM »

Quote

The burden of proof is not on the Atheist, but on the Theist. Of course I can't prove there is no God.

If you can't prove that there is no God, then don't state it as if it were proven. Put up or shut up.

Quote

Can you prove I am not an alien starfish who takes human form to go on internet forums to talk about Atheism? Of course not - but the claim is so preposterous that the burden of proof would be on me

No. Because I cannot I am not going to make claims about the truth or falsehood of the claim.

'Preposterous' is a subjective term.

The notion of God is a claim like any other. It requires proof. But by the very nature of the claim, repeatable empirical proof is out of the question.

[/i]

Stathei · « **Reply #14 on:** December 15, 2005, 11:01:14 PM »

Quote

Quote:
Can you prove I am not an alien starfish who takes human form to go on internet forums to talk about Atheism? Of course not - but the claim is so preposterous that the burden of proof would be on me

No. Because I cannot I am not going to make claims about the truth or falsehood of the claim.

But you still don't believe it. Proof is irrelevant to that belief. You don't believe that I am an alien starfish because you can't, based on what you know about the world. Atheists don't believe in God because they can't, based on what they know about the world. Proof or disproof has nothing to do with it.

Copernicus · « **Reply #15 on:** December 16, 2005, 12:23:26 AM »

Quote from: Stathei

But you still don't believe it. Proof is irrelevant to that belief. You don't believe that I am an alien starfish because you can't, based on what you know about the world. Atheists don't believe in God because they can't, based on what they know about the world. Proof or disproof has nothing to do with it.

Stathei is just saying what I've been trying to tell you, David. Atheists believe that gods do not exist. That is not a claim about knowledge, but about belief. You will find few atheists who claim to "know" that gods do not exist.

dark territory · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2005, 02:38:32 AM »

Stathei · « **Reply #17 on:** December 16, 2005, 10:40:57 AM »

Quote

Rather to there is not belief in God

I agree dark.

Quote

If it isn't faith in dogma then I think it must be arrogance

I am not the one who believes that God will lift me up, or something.

dark territory · « **Reply #18 on:** December 16, 2005, 03:29:02 PM »

Stathei · « **Reply #19 on:** December 16, 2005, 03:56:48 PM »

Quote

How could you or any atheist say there is not a God?

Dark, I do not say there is not a God. I simply say that I do not believe that there is a God. I also say the notion of God is preposterous, in my opinion, because it is at odds with the evidence, in my opinion. In my opinion, the expression in my opinion should be implicit in what I am saying. But that's just my opinion. Opinion is a funny word, in my opinion....

Quote

In this case I am saying this is not a matter of going about how to skin a cat. But more rather it must be is or isn't (in existence or is not in existence). I hear you say you have evidence there isn't. At the same time I hear you deny you have such evidence. Both can not be true.

Author Topic: Strict Atheism is illogical (Read 11141 times)

David

David

David

David

Stathei

David

Stathei

Stathei

Stathei