Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205349 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #600 –
@ Smiley & Belfrager--Your description of atheism is not bad, just substitute 'by the laws of nature' for 'magically' and 'evolved' for 'turned into' and now it is easy enough, even for two simpletons like you, to understand.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #601 –
@jseaton2311
You call me simpleton again and I'll reduce you to shit starting with your mother. Are we understood?
Good.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #602 –
I just call 'em as I see 'em.  I am giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling you a simpleton instead of a retard--be more grateful, moron.  My mother is deceased, so you can start immediately with me once you find those little cojones of yours.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #603 –
Before calling someone else a simpleton or possible retard perhaps  in what is properly fairness one should look at one's self before snarling!
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #604 –
Guys: If your repertoire of invective is so limited, perhaps you should ignore each other...? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #605 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Guys: If your repertoire of invective is so limited, perhaps you should ignore each other...? :)

Oh, but that's what I'm doing, you can call it a form of personalized ignoring.
It works.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #606 –
But do remember, how Frenzie began this thread… :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #607 –
Can we stop with the playground insults please, It adds nothing to the debate. 
The start and end to every story is the same. But what comes in between you have yourself to blame.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #608 –
The problem with atheism is that, for believers, it usurps the whole idea of there being any god to save them from this, apparently miserable, existence.   Those who mock atheism, must do so out of fear of it being true and hence, they make a joke out of it to ease the stress of their fears.  This makes me wonder just how strong their belief could be, not just in the most powerful force in the universe, but anything.  One would think that belief and devotion to the most important aspect of one's life would be positively impregnable.  

I began studying theology in an effort to help a blind girl get through her seminary college.  I now thoroughly enjoy studying theology because it gives me a historical perspective of how religion has evolved over the centuries and how religious theologians have thought in the past as compared to today.  I don't normally mock religion because I have a better understanding of its beginnings and why people have so devotedly followed it. 

In my view, religion has served a historical purpose (strength in times of despair, meaning to life, hope, etc.), and continues to serve a good purpose for many people today.  I seriously doubt that religion could continue to serve that purpose without the idea of a god and eternal life behind it, hence, I don't think that belief in a god is a bad thing. 

In my opinion however, I don't believe that any god, as a creator of this universe and provider of everlasting life, is the true nature of things.  I see enough mounting scientific evidence about our creation to make belief in anything supernatural unnecessary for me--and presumably, many millions of other atheists and agnostics.  The supernatural, for me, is merely an imagination of man, but apparently it can be useful to those who need it, so the idea is not completely without merit. 

I have no quarrel with religion, except for those who use it to manipulate people for personal financial gain or to harm innocent people.  For the most part, I express my agnostic atheism thoughts on forums such as this, simply because I don't wish to publicly offend believers.  I do however, believe that I have as strong a conviction for my beliefs as any religious person does theirs, moreover, one would certainly think there would be a modicum of respect for my beliefs coming from any morally good religion.  If one must mock and make fun of my beliefs (or anything else), then they certainly have some sort of fear of it which again, only brings into question the strength of their own religious convictions.  :knight:  :cheers:
James J

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #609 –
Keith Parsons published today the article The Theistic Arguments: A Brief Critique. Keith Parsons is an atheist philosopher who has had one of the better debates with William Lane Craig. Better in the sense that he didn't get totally beaten up, but (by arguably balanced opinion) scored a win against Craig.

The article this time is rather general and abstract. Totally my type, so I gave it a read. The article introduces itself thus:

Quote from: Keith Parsons

Some of humanity’s greatest intellects have tried to prove the existence of God, and any atheist will have to consider these arguments and provide rebuttals, that, by his lights, are sufficient. Arguments for the existence of God fall into two broad categories: demonstrative and non-demonstrative. The former supposedly prove the existence of God with all of the rigor and formality of a mathematical proof. That is, they attempt to show that the existence of God is in some sense necessary. The necessity purportedly established in these arguments is of two types, logical necessity and metaphysical necessity. If God’s existence could be shown either logically or metaphysically necessary, this would be ideal. God’s existence would be truly indubitable, that is, beyond rational dispute.


And now some of my comments over the main points.

Quote from: Keith Parsons

To say that it is logically necessary that God exists is to say that the denial of God’s existence entails a contradiction. That is, "God does not exist" must entail a proposition of the form "p and not-p." ---- For the sake of argument, let’s assume that existence and even necessary existence are ordinary, first-order predicates like “green.” In that case, to say that "the necessarily-existent being does not exist" is indeed contradictory, just as much as to say "green grass is not green."

But to say that there is no necessarily-existent being is not to say anything at all like "the necessarily-existent being does not exist." Instead, what you are saying is that, limiting our discourse to extra-conceptual reality (i.e. objective, "out there" reality), there is nothing (no "x") that has the property of instantiating the concept "necessarily existent being." Such an assertion denies nothing in the content of the concept "necessarily existent being." It is not even about that concept.

Now, the last sentence is correct. When reality is delimited the way Parsons delimits it in the second paragraph (as extra-conceptual and objective), the atheist thesis "God does not exist" does not address the (logically or metaphysically) necessary being. But this fact is by itself part of the problem because, with this limitation, the atheist thesis cannot constitute a response to the theist thesis. When reality is reduced to that which is "out there", any statements about God are not statements about God as meant in classical theism. This way atheism does not provide an alternative to theism.

Moreover, with the stated limitation, Keith Parsons builds up his own reality which fails to account for his own mind. His reality is extra-conceptual, objective, "out there",  and therefore the penultimate sentence ("Such an [atheist] assertion denies nothing in the content...") cannot get off ground. When reality is limited to "out there", there's no person, subject, or internal organ (i.e. mind) here to issue any assertion in the first place.

Some things really are logically necessary. To have an argument that relies on a certain assertion construed a certain way, it is logically necessary to first posit a mind. The construal cannot be such that the mind is excluded.

Quote from: Keith Parsons

Well, what about arguments purporting to demonstrate the metaphysical rather than the logical necessity of God's existence? Such an argument will --- claim that the denial contravenes a self-evident metaphysical principle. ---- An instance of such a supposedly self-evident principle would be the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), the claim that nothing exists unless there is a sufficient reason for its existence. ---- If you accept the PSR, you cannot hold that there are any brute facts. However, it seems self-evident to me that there could possibly be brute facts, i.e. states of affairs that are just so with no sufficient reason for their being so.

---- if we deny the existence of brute facts, then we either have to say that the chain of causes that we invoke to account for any phenomenon either extends ad infinitum, or it ends with something that has no further cause or explanation, in short, a brute fact. If God is the end of our explanatory chain, then God is a brute fact.

In the last sentence here Parsons relies on his own peculiar definition of brute fact. Apparently "brute fact" means to him any end of explanation. However, for those who hold to the principle of sufficient reason, a brute fact is something that itself defies explanation, while the end of all explanation is that which explains everything else and is therefore in harmony with PSR.

Admittedly there are two opinions about God. God is said to be a mystery and thus apparently defying explanation. This cannot be so under the principle of sufficient reason. God is not a brute fact because God is the explanation of everything else.

Philosophical classical theism differs on this point from scriptural theology, but this is an inevitable difference, inasmuch as we are having a philosophical discussion. Parsons continues:

Quote from: Keith Parsons

Of course, some philosophers have tried to avoid this consequence [i.e. that God is a brute fact] by saying that God is his own sufficient reason. However, trying to make sense of this, without returning to the concept that God is logically necessary, is notoriously difficult.

Here Parsons problematises something that is actually the solution, not a problem. When God is logically necessary, then this is the explanation that satisfies the principle of sufficient reason. God is the end of all explanation, but it's the kind of end that provides an explanation to everything else and is itself explained by the fact of being logically and metaphysically necessary. Therefore God does not defy explanation and is not a brute fact.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #610 –
Well atheism is boring and the playground much more fun when I was young.  :sing:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #611 –
God, necessarily, has to be logically necessary but also at the same time has necessarily to remain a mystery. Reason, the source of logics, it's also a product of God ( a gift?) and, necessarily, can't encompass it's Creator in all his entire fullness. That's why philosophical theism differs from scriptural theology. Two ways of knowing (the best it is possible to know) God.

Some people prefers the hardness and hard work of philosophy, others the sweetness and rewards of religion. A few other starts babbling, usually with a lot of media coverage, those are the atheists. Such is life.

A matter of attitude.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #612 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
God, necessarily, has to be logically necessary but also at the same time has necessarily to remain a mystery.

This is in-disputable! Which brings the rationality of terminological determinism into disrepute…
Can we agree, that the word-based -definitional- proofs of God's existence are … deficient?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #614 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
This is in-disputable! Which brings the rationality of terminological determinism into disrepute…
Can we agree, that the word-based -definitional- proofs of God's existence are … deficient?

As are all other "proofs." In fact, they aren't proofs at all.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #615 –
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
This is in-disputable! Which brings the rationality of terminological determinism into disrepute…
Can we agree, that the word-based -definitional- proofs of God's existence are … deficient?

As are all other "proofs." In fact, they aren't proofs at all.

I think the term you're looking for is "pseudo-intellectual wankery" :right:

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #617 –
Quote from: Macallan on

Quote from: ersi on

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on

Can we agree, that the word-based -definitional- proofs of God's existence are … deficient?

And what would you say about disproofs?

Disprove something that's not supported by any actual evidence in the first place? Why?

Let's see you try to define "actual evidence" by providing just facts or whatever you think should do the work. Don't resort to what you call "pseudo-intellectual wankery".

Nobody in the history of mankind managed to pull it off so far. Let's see if you can perform a miracle.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #618 –
Dogs are atheists as are new-born babies. That's good enough for me.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #619 –
Just one question is enough: can God be evidenceless?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #620 –
Quote from: Barulheira on

Just one question is enough: can God be evidenceless?
No. And God is not evidenceless. You can reach a different conclusion only by misconstruing the evidence.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #621 –
God talks to one of my friends. Bobby will be out of the facility as soon as he stops throwing feces at the staff.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #622 –
Teism and atheism both are isms .
Teism Fundamentalist and Atheism Fundamentalist , both are Fundamentalists .
This is not like The problem with  Theism nor atheism .

but The Problem With Emotion .

faith , believe , religio , etc ...  those are feelings .

Teists Believe if God Exist
and Atheists Believe God Never exist

The Nature Of human with their Feelings is absolutely Hilarious .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #623 –
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Can we agree, that the word-based -definitional- proofs of God's existence are … deficient?

Yes. I agree with that.
Maybe ersi doesn't... :)

Deficient as much we are deficient. But there's something that keeps on making us trying to be better at such understanding. We are basically an impulse towards and we can't aspire to be much more than that.
That's my Moor ascendancy, fatalism.
A matter of attitude.
 

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #624 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Can we agree, that the word-based -definitional- proofs of God's existence are … deficient?

Yes. I agree with that.
Maybe ersi doesn't... :)

I have some questions about Oakdale's statement:

Precisely what is deficient? Are definitions deficient? Are proofs deficient? Deficient in what sense? For what purposes? And what would be the better alternative that would not be deficient?

So, I'd say Oakdale's statement itself is deficient. It lacks the definitional clarity necessary to determine if one could agree or disagree with it.