Taking atheism beyond Christianity...

[Largo62]

Originally posted by gex gex**
The atheist, or more accurately, this athiest believes that the specific knowledge of god is as knoweable as the specific knowledge of the Invisible Pink Unicorn sitting next to me is knoweable to you.**

We agree. We seem to be going round and round on this, but in essence we agree. Atheists believe you can know whether or not a god exists. So do theists.

There is no evidence that gods of any kind ever existed except in the imagination, but abundant evidence that people can see and experience things that are not there. I would have to say that theists are deluded.

Again, we agree. The only difference in our positions seems to be that you take the lack of evidence of a god as evidence in itself that there is no god of any sort, while I disbelieve with the stipulation that I may be wrong.

to the question of whether or not Saddam Husseing had, er, relations with the First Lady and her daughters you say**I’ve got this book that says it’s true, (and that Saddam has met Laura et al) - so it must be just as tenable a position as it not being true. **

Surely you don’t believe that something is true just because it’s in a book. A position is tenable because it is published? You’re putting me on, right?

[quote]
really, how can an agnostic have an opinion on anything?/

[quote]

The same way anyone can have an opinion. I leave the question of god open for lack of evidence, but I have opinions on everything. They may be wrong as often as they are right, but they’re mine and I express them, knowing full well that at least half the Dopers will disagree (okay nine-tenths).

**And one more amazing unknowable fact to ponder:

At a time in the future, a tower of 375 elephants stacked one on top of the other will appear in Kansas City, and they will have been ordered to appear there by a super-intelligent dolphin named Frank.**

Don’t you mean a super-intelligent dolphin named Hank? And if we all kiss Hank’s ass…(well, if you get the reference, great. If not, you’ll just be more certain than ever that I am nuts).

Actually, I’m beginnig to think that nothing at all exists. The world, the universe, the question of god, nothing exists at all except in my mind. The SDMB and all of you Dopers are figments of my imagination, created by my subconscious to test and torture me. and I’m mad, do you hear me, MAD! MAD! MAD!BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[Lemur866]

There is a difference between the belief that the question of God’s existence is unknown, and the belief that the question is unknowable.

To assert–without proof–that the question of God’s existance is unknowable is to make an unwarranted claim. Yes it is fine to say that the question is not settled, and that we don’t know and may never know. But what is the evidence that we CAN’T know?

It seems to me that heavenly choirs, the beast enslaving the nations, the rapture and the second coming might be evidence for the existence of God. Since this evidence currently does not exist, we therefore cannot say that God exists. But what is the evidence that such evidence will NEVER present itself? The fact that we have never before had such evidence? Well, that is a strong argument that such evidence will not present itself. But it is not evidence that the evidence CANNOT present itself.

Subtle, yet important point. I don’t believe in God. I’m open to changing my mind. I won’t change my mind without something more that what I’ve been given. I’m not expecting more than what I’ve been given in the past. But I cannot logically prove that such a thing could not happen. God may be unknown, but that doesn’t prove that He is unknowable.

[Mandos]

First of all, I would like to point out that just because it cannot be proven that something exists, does not mean that it doesn’t. If this were true, wouldn’t things come into existence only after we proved them to exist? Take the atom. Just because there was a time when humans could not prove that it existed does not mean that it didn’t. It is difficult to prove that something does not exist. Some examples must be provided to explore this. Let us assume that a man says that there is a multicolored ball in the top left corner of a room. If one walks into the room and does not see a ball, the boulder exists only in the man’s mind. However, if the man claims that the ball is also invisible another sense must be used to search for the ball. In this case the alternative is to feel around for the ball. If the ball cannot be felt, it exists only in the man’s mind. Yet, if the man claims that the ball cannot be felt, there is no way to prove whether or not the ball exists. If there is no way to observe something, it may or may not exist. It is impossible to prove one way or another. In this situation the specific location of the ball was given. If the man said that this ball existed somewhere in the universe and could be seen and felt, the only way to prove him wrong is to search the entire universe and find no ball. This being the case, is it rational to assume that it is impossible for God to exist? Would it have been rational to scoff at the existence of the atom before its existence could be proven? I would see God as one possible answer to questions concerning the beginning of the universe and what, if anything, caused it. True, one does not have to believe in God, but to believe that God does not exist is also a belief. How can one logically decided that it is impossible for God to exist? The assertion that it cannot be known might change if a substantial proof is discovered on some later date.

[Apos]

—Sounds like we got another person who likes to label people here…—

“Evangelical agnostic” is a joke: “I don’t know, and I don’t want you to know either.” But, okay, let it go.

—Don’t insult people in Great Debates.—

I don’t think I insulted you: I really do think that your claims about both atheists and theists are unjustified and unfair generalizations.

—I should have worded it more appropriately as “Both lack conclusive proof to establish that God exists or God does not exist.”—

Again, wrong. Some do, some probably don’t. Some theists have conclusive proof, some don’t. Some atheists don’t even claim that there are no gods: they just see no reason to believe in any that they’ve heard of.
It’s ill advised to generalize about either group.

—Technically, anyone can make a conclusive statement, regardless of the proof. This would include stating that Caesar is a God as well as relating personal experience that is useless for demonstrating it to anyone else (of course). If there was conclusive proof, further debate would be unnecessary.—

As far as I’m concerned, further debate IS unecessary as to some people’s gods. I agree that some people’s gods exist: they just aren’t my gods.

—“Which god” exactly. One reason why this debate has lasted so long is that the definition of “God” is as much an issue as whether this “God” exists.—

An issue, but not a problematic one. A given theist can simply define what they mean by their “god.” What it’s “an issue” with is in trying to generalize about all god claims, and all anti-god claims in one fell swoop, instead of going after specific instances and weighing them on their particular merits.

[Apos]

—First of all, I would like to point out that just because it cannot be proven that something exists, does not mean that it doesn’t. —

I think just about everyone agrees with this, or should.

—This being the case, is it rational to assume that it is impossible for God to exist?—

Only if one has a rational arguement ruling out a particular god. I think most people would agree that it is possible to rationally rule out some gods, such as those who have qualities that are illogical. It’s just that it’s important not to jump to any conclusions about other possible gods.

—True, one does not have to believe in God, but to believe that God does not exist is also a belief.—

But the first half of that sentance (a characterization of a person) doesn’t imply the latter (a belief a person might hold).

[Testy]

*Originally posted by Newton meter *
**

<<<SNIP>>>
I think your analogy is flawed. It seems to me that belief in God is more like belief that one has had a dream. Not belief in dreams, mind you, but belief in a particular dream.

I had a dream a couple of nights ago that I got in a fight with Harrison Ford (and I kicked his butt–go me!). You can choose to understand that I experienced something different from what you have experienced; or you can believe that I am either lying or too foolish to know what I’ve experienced. But you will have a hard time convincing me that I didn’t have that particular dream, even if your explanations claim the cachet of science.
I suppose so, if we allowed you to define objectively. I would actually call that sort of objectively by the name “subjectively”.

Is it really all that “alarming and dangerous” that not everyone thinks and believes the same things?

kg m²/s² **

Well, good on ya for kicking Harrison Ford’s butt! Now, if you can just figure out how to get paid for doing it.

If I understand you correctly, you equate a dream (or other purely subjective experience) to a belief in God. As in, something you can’t prove with evidence. I either take your word for it or I don’t but there’s no proof either way. Well, if I understand you correctly, then we’re not actually debating here. I also consider god to be a subjective experience, not amenable to proof.

As far as the last part of my post goes, I should have made that point better. I really don’t care whether someone has a firm belief in God or not. What I consider alarming and dangerous is the tendancy of many religions to shoot for secular power, forbidding many activities based on their subjective experiences with god or their holy writ of whatever sort. That really does lead to a world where everyone thinks the same, because they are afraid not to.

Regards.

Testy

[Banger]

Some theists have conclusive proof, some don’t.

Conclusive proof or convincing proof? If someone’s proof is based on something like a unique personal experience (e.g., “God spoke to me”), it could be convincing proof to that person, but would it be conclusive? Is there such a thing as proof that is conclusive only for one person?

Some atheists don’t even claim that there are no gods: they just see no reason to believe in any that they’ve heard of.

Do atheists see reason to believe that none exist? Or are they neither believing in the existence of a God or gods nor believing in the non-existence of any gods? Is such a thing possible, or is it like Anselm’s notion of that than which no greater can be thought?

I agree that some people’s gods exist: they just aren’t my gods.

Which gods do you agree exist? Or do you acknowledge the existence of things some people consider to be gods but you don’t consider to be gods? Once again, the question of defining godhood arises.

A given theist can simply define what they mean by their “god.” What it’s “an issue” with is in trying to generalize about all god claims, and all anti-god claims in one fell swoop, instead of going after specific instances and weighing them on their particular merits.

Can you give an instance of someone simply defining what he or she means by his or her god? In my experience, what often start as “simple” definitions of God or gods develop into very complicated and ongoing definitions, with more being added as discussion progresses. If one specific instance is weighed, new elements to that definition always appear, which are in turn weighed, and so on.

[Apos]

—Conclusive proof or convincing proof? If someone’s proof is based on something like a unique personal experience (e.g., “God spoke to me”), it could be convincing proof to that person, but would it be conclusive?—

In that case, no.

—Is there such a thing as proof that is conclusive only for one person?—

No.

But I already gave examples of theists that have a pretty conclusive case for the existence of their god. They don’t have an airtight case as to why everyone else should worship their god, however (but many aren’t interested in evangelism anyway).

—Do atheists see reason to believe that none exist?—

Not all atheists: I wouldn’t even guess that most atheists are really of this opinion. It’s far too broad.

—Or are they neither believing in the existence of a God or gods nor believing in the non-existence of any gods? Is such a thing possible, or is it like Anselm’s notion of that than which no greater can be thought?—

I lack god beliefs. I don’t believe that there are no gods (maybe there are: there are certainly things that do exist that some people consider to be gods)

—Which gods do you agree exist?—

Caesar. Existence. I already said this.

—Or do you acknowledge the existence of things some people consider to be gods but you don’t consider to be gods?—

Yes.

—Once again, the question of defining godhood arises.—

Indeed: but it is my opinion that we cannot have a meaningful general definition anymore. Instead, we have to simply listen to the person making the god claim.

—Can you give an instance of someone simply defining what he or she means by his or her god?—

Sure. Christians do an okay job. So do Muslims. So do pantheists. Granted, I might not know what they think they mean from time to time, but their definitions are at least good enough to distinguish their gods from other gods, and, for instance, a pine tree.

—In my experience, what often start as “simple” definitions of God or gods develop into very complicated and ongoing definitions, with more being added as discussion progresses.—

Well, sure. The characteristics of a specific god could BE very complex, just as with any specific thing. I am a person. But you can get a LOT more complex when describing me in detail, especially when making arguements about me.

—If one specific instance is weighed, new elements to that definition always appear, which are in turn weighed, and so on.—

Ok… so?

The point is that the theist is the one making the claim that this being in the first place: who the heck else, then, could possibly tell us about the characteristics of their claimed god?

[Banger]

Indeed: but it is my opinion that we cannot have a meaningful general definition anymore. Instead, we have to simply listen to the person making the god claim.

In that case, the pencil on my desk is God. God is a number two pencil. I write with God, I sharpen God, I erase with God, and eventually God will become so small and worn out that I will throw God away, if I don’t lose God first. I assure you that God exists, as I am looking at God as I type this post.

[Apos]

—In that case, the pencil on my desk is God. God is a number two pencil. I write with God, I sharpen God, I erase with God, and eventually God will become so small and worn out that I will throw God away, if I don’t lose God first. I assure you that God exists, as I am looking at God as I type this post.—

Yes, that is the sort of case that results… but ask yourself: what, really, is your problem with it?

I mean, obviously, pencils don’t fit YOUR personal standards for a deity, so you are being fairly facetious and silly in pretending that they ever could, even for a hypothetical dig. I said that the definition of god is rightfully the responsibility of the believer in that god: and I highly doubt you are a sincere worshiper of pencils.

But what if a particular someone DID feel that a pencil fit their standards just right? What if they did diefy that object, just as many many theists before them diefied what, to others, were only ordinary objects.
What’s your objection, on the theory? Would you make fun of them? Call them insane? Would you treat them any differently than you would all the other theists who have gods that aren’t your gods?

In short: how can YOU, who doesn’t even believe in the god in question, not agree that, at least, the pencil IS the god of the person in question? What’s your problem with that?

[Banger]

Originally posted by Apos—In that case, the pencil on my desk is God. God is a number two pencil. I write with God, I sharpen God, I erase with God, and eventually God will become so small and worn out that I will throw God away, if I don’t lose God first. I assure you that God exists, as I am looking at God as I type this post.—

Yes, that is the sort of case that results… but ask yourself: what, really, is your problem with it?

I mean, obviously, pencils don’t fit YOUR personal standards for a deity, so you are being fairly facetious and silly in pretending that they ever could, even for a hypothetical dig.

Are you saying that you don’t believe I am being truthful when I say that my pencil is God? Why is that so?

I said that the definition of god is rightfully the responsibility of the believer in that god: and I highly doubt you are a sincere worshiper of pencils.

Who said anything about worship? I said that my pencil is God, not that I worship my pencil.

But what if a particular someone DID feel that a pencil fit their standards just right? What if they did diefy that object, just as many many theists before them diefied what, to others, were only ordinary objects.
What’s your objection, on the theory? Would you make fun of them? Call them insane? Would you treat them any differently than you would all the other theists who have gods that aren’t your gods?

You are attributing many things I did not include in my statement concerning my pencil God. I didn’t know I was doing any deifying, whatever that may be. I merely stated that my pencil is God. I also don’t think I did any objecting or name calling, other than referring to my pencil, God.

In short: how can YOU, who doesn’t even believe in the god in question, not agree that, at least, the pencil IS the god of the person in question? What’s your problem with that?

Who is talking about belief? My pencil is God. It’s sitting right there on the desk in front of me. And no, it’s not the god of a person in question, it’s my God, unless someone comes along and steals God from me

Where are you coming up with all these words? Belief? Worship? Deify? What do they have to do with my pencil God?

[Apos]

—Are you saying that you don’t believe I am being truthful when I say that my pencil is God? Why is that so?—

Because I can tell that you’re lying simply to be contrarian. But I’ll play along if you wish.

—Who said anything about worship? I said that my pencil is God, not that I worship my pencil.—

Okay. Your pencil is your god. However, your pencil is not my god.

—I didn’t know I was doing any deifying, whatever that may be. I merely stated that my pencil is God.—

One in the same. If you say you regard your pencil as your diety, that’s what’s meant by its diefication.

So… what’s your problem here?

Oops, that crash you just heard was the bottom falling out of your tedious exercise.

[Banger]

Because I can tell that you’re lying simply to be contrarian. But I’ll play along if you wish.

What tells you that I’m lying simply to be contrarian?

Okay. Your pencil is your god. However, your pencil is not my god.

Yes, but if I gave you my pencil then the pencil would be yours. As such, my pencil, God, would become your pencil, God.

One in the same. If you say you regard your pencil as your diety, that’s what’s meant by its diefication.

I didn’t say my pencil was my deity. I said my pencil is God.