Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Robin]

I explained why your examples do not correspond to the problem of God's existence. Only if the concept of God was semantically or logically contradictory. I don't know if that's your position.

You should argue along that line, not giving other examples that are not relevant. For example: Do you have empirical evidence similar to the rocket in the void that proves that God does not exist? I am waiting for an answer.

Here was your statement:

You cannot consider a proposition implausible with independence of the arguments that support it.

It only takes one counter example to refute a general claim like that and I gave you three.

If you want to amend your claim above to refer exclusively to "God exists" then fine.

But as I pointed out that claim is certainly too vague to warrant any serious examination, given the various things that people mean by "God"

As I pointed out, your preferred definition of God would be rejected by all the mainstream branches of Christianity, if not regarded as outright heretical.

Which definition of God would you like me to address?

 

[Darat]

I explained why your examples do not correspond to the problem of God's existence. Only if the concept of God was semantically or logically contradictory. I don't know if that's your position.

You should argue along that line, not giving other examples that are not relevant. For example: Do you have empirical evidence similar to the rocket in the void that proves that God does not exist? I am waiting for an answer.

Again having a belief in a god, any god is the "positive" proposition, not having a belief requires nothing, it is not a proposition.

An atheist only has to not believe in a god to be an atheist.


It makes not one iota of difference if a god does exist or not. For example if someone was to define god to mean "white deaf cat called Sky who lives in Darat's house" then it would be irrational for me to be an atheist because I (and anyone else) can have proof that such a white deaf cat called Sky does indeed live in my house. However someone could still be an atheist if they didn't believe that that god existed.

 

[Robin]

The new phrase that you invent ...

Incidentally - which new phrase did I invent?

 

[Lithrael]

That applies in the case of theists and the idea of God because what we are discussing is the idea that they have in their head, which is what we say we don't believe.

I don’t think that’s actually right. It’s my idea of what gods are supposed to be that I don’t think fits into the real world. My idea is informed by a lot of reading about and chatting to religious people, but the whole reason why I dismiss the “Karen’s god, the cat Professor Jiggly” end of things is because I don’t think that’s what gods are.

 

[Lithrael]

You choose between the imperious commands of a heavenly Father or decide for yourself what you should do (autonomy). This choice does not imply any truth until you raise the second part: does that heavenly Father exist? I point out that there may be an option in the first choice without accepting the second. See the rebellion of Ivan Karamazov: God may exist. If so, he is an unjust and cruel father.

You’ve got the cart before the horse, still. What you call the second part is the first part! You’re making the ‘god has rules for you’ part way more important than it has ever been for many people. “God exists and I’m not doing what it says” and “God doesn’t exist” both mean you’re not bothered about what any gods want, sure. But what’s that got to do with atheism?

And doesn’t your way of thinking about this fall down when you’re talking about any types of gods that don’t involve commands? It doesn’t even work with the kind of Warm And Fuzzy Feeling Christianity that just talks about God as a loving friend who’s on your side and likes it when you’re nice. A kid raised in that who reaches the conclusion that it’s nice, but a lot of old tosh, is not choosing between autonomy and being commanded. Like kids raised with New Age Moms who conclude that crystal pyramids look cool but don’t make your razor sharper, there’s no upheaval involved, except the background noise of realising lots of people believe daft things.

 

[Robin]

Instead of saying that my definition is not suitable for the major religions of today's world, why don't you quote some of them that don't fit my definition? If you don't give examples, you don't know what you're talking about.

Do you want something more specific than Christianity?

How about Catholicism, Anglicanism/Episcopaleanism, Eastern Orthodox, Pentacostalism, Baptist churches

Can you give an example of a brand of Christianity where your definition does hold?

Hint: in Christianity, salvation is not deserved, or quid pro quo. It is not in return for behaviour.

 

[Robin]

You mix two different themes: The definition of God and his existence. The first is limited to how men use the word "god".

I am talking about a proposition.

A proposition involves a claim, not just a definition.

But in order for the claim in the proposition to be meaningful the terms must be defined suitably.

So yes, a proposition must contain both claim and definition.

That is how it works.

 

[Robin]

OK, lets look at this again:

You cannot consider a proposition implausible with independence of the arguments that support it.

I gave three counter examples, but you objected that the propositions in my counter examples could be defeated by logical argument or by empirical evidence.

You point out that "God exists" cannot be disproved by empirical evidence nor does it contain any internal contradiction.

So I offer a fourth counter example:

Proposition: "There is someone who is the nephew of a deceased corrupt politician from another country who is willing to share his uncle's ill-gotten gains with you if you are prepared to help finance the activities he needs to undertake to retrieve the money"

This proposition is internally consistent and there is no empirical evidence that it is false.

So, according to your claim above, there are no grounds for finding this proposition implausible independent of arguments that support it. Yes?

 

[David Mo]

Here was your statement:


It only takes one counter example to refute a general claim like that and I gave you three.

If you want to amend your claim above to refer exclusively to "God exists" then fine.

But as I pointed out that claim is certainly too vague to warrant any serious examination, given the various things that people mean by "God"

As I pointed out, your preferred definition of God would be rejected by all the mainstream branches of Christianity, if not regarded as outright heretical.

Which definition of God would you like me to address?

About the first part of your comment:
I made it clear that I was referring to propositions "like that". Then I made it clear why his three examples were not "like that" and therefore invalid. I am still waiting for your response.

On the second part:
Can you tell me how my standard definition of God differs from that of Christians, Muslims, Jews or similar monotheisms? I don't think it differs at all substantially, but I wouldn't mind modifying it if you'd give me a convincing reason.

I am waiting for your answer in both cases.

 

[David Mo]

Again having a belief in a god, any god is the "positive" proposition, not having a belief requires nothing, it is not a proposition.

An atheist only has to not believe in a god to be an atheist.


It makes not one iota of difference if a god does exist or not. For example if someone was to define god to mean "white deaf cat called Sky who lives in Darat's house" then it would be irrational for me to be an atheist because I (and anyone else) can have proof that such a white deaf cat called Sky does indeed live in my house. However someone could still be an atheist if they didn't believe that that god existed.

The phrase you quote refers to a previous comment from another colleague. If you take it out of context it loses all sense.

When someone gives a vague definition of "god" and you declare yourself an atheist you will have to justify your position in front that person or possible listeners. This will involve two ways: asking him to give proof of the existence of such a "god" or denying that his concept of "god" is suitable for discussion between atheists and theists. In both cases, you will have to take into account the definition of that special "god".
Naturally, I am inclined towards the second option. His definition of "god" is inappropriate within common speech and only introduces confusion.

 

[David Mo]

Incidentally - which new phrase did I invent?

"A rocket provides no thrust in a vacuum"

 

[David Mo]

I don’t think that’s actually right. It’s my idea of what gods are supposed to be that I don’t think fits into the real world. My idea is informed by a lot of reading about and chatting to religious people, but the whole reason why I dismiss the “Karen’s god, the cat Professor Jiggly” end of things is because I don’t think that’s what gods are.

What do you mean "gods are"? Are gods detectable in the world in some way? Can you point them out? Or are they (false) ideas in the heads of some men?

 

[David Mo]

You’ve got the cart before the horse, still. What you call the second part is the first part! You’re making the ‘god has rules for you’ part way more important than it has ever been for many people. “God exists and I’m not doing what it says” and “God doesn’t exist” both mean you’re not bothered about what any gods want, sure. But what’s that got to do with atheism?

And doesn’t your way of thinking about this fall down when you’re talking about any types of gods that don’t involve commands? It doesn’t even work with the kind of Warm And Fuzzy Feeling Christianity that just talks about God as a loving friend who’s on your side and likes it when you’re nice. A kid raised in that who reaches the conclusion that it’s nice, but a lot of old tosh, is not choosing between autonomy and being commanded. Like kids raised with New Age Moms who conclude that crystal pyramids look cool but don’t make your razor sharper, there’s no upheaval involved, except the background noise of realising lots of people believe daft things.

First:
I don't care if you consider that the question of whether God exists goes before or after you submit to His authority. I have shown you that logically you can go later with the case of Ivan Karamazov. But this is a secondary issue. I'm not going to be stubborn about her.

Second:
I don't know who those "diffuse Christians" are, but I know that all the Christendoms I know are based on the commandments of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. For example in the form of "do this", "do that", "don't do this other"... If they are not willing to follow them, it seems to me that they can hardly consider themselves Christians. Are you also going to tell me that these Christians do not believe in the promise of Paradise? I am simply not about to argue on the basis of eccentric and anonymous people who are particular cases.

 

[David Mo]

Can you give an example of a brand of Christianity where your definition does hold?

Hint: in Christianity, salvation is not deserved, or quid pro quo. It is not in return for behaviour.

I think you're the one who should file an objection. You won't expect me to take a course in Christian theology right now.

I suppose the only objection that has occurred to you is this: "salvation is not deserved".
I note that your knowledge of Christianity is quite limited. God's grace grants Paradise to those who have deserved it by faith and works. Even Paul, champion of Divine Grace, makes these two Christian dispositions a condition of salvation. Although works are worthless without faith. Caramba, that's basic Christian doctrine.

 

[David Mo]

You point out that "God exists" cannot be disproved by empirical evidence nor does it contain any internal contradiction.

So I offer a fourth counter example:

Proposition: "There is someone who is the nephew of a deceased corrupt politician from another country who is willing to share his uncle's ill-gotten gains with you if you are prepared to help finance the activities he needs to undertake to retrieve the money"

This proposition is internally consistent and there is no empirical evidence that it is false.

So, according to your claim above, there are no grounds for finding this proposition implausible independent of arguments that support it. Yes?

That proposition is verifiable or refutable by experience. It is a typical question of fact like any other scientific or merely practical hypothesis. It is verifiable means that there is a probability that it is so, but that it has not been so at present.
You cannot know a priori if it is false or true before you have the means to prove it. If someone says it is true, they must present the evidence.

"I am saying that a proposition can be examined and refuted without having to see the arguments in favor of it". This what you said.
Another thing is that you have strong indications that the proposition is false. But those clues are a strong argument for assuming it is false, if the proper evidence is not presented.

Do you have strong indications that God does not exist? You seemed to have them, but based on the false proofs that have been given in history. It seems to me to be a correct idea, which contradicts your earlier assertion.

 

[David Mo]

You point out that "God exists" cannot be disproved by empirical evidence nor does it contain any internal contradiction.

I didn't understand this.

I am not saying that the existence of God cannot be refuted by experience or by the logic of his concept. I say that you fell into contradiction when you said that it could be refuted without taking into account the arguments of believers. If this evidence were empirical, we would have to examine it and contrast it with the empirical evidence available to us. If the concept of God were contradictory, the concept of God of believers would have to be analyzed. In both cases it would be necessary to pay attention to what they say.
In my opinion, certain concepts of God are refuted by the game of proofs and counter-proofs and other concepts of God are contradictory in themselves. But this view is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I'm afraid I'm going a little fast and I've made more spelling mistakes than usual. I'll be back tomorrow to discuss more calmly.

 

[abaddon]

"A rocket provides no thrust in a vacuum"

Robin did not invent that.

Try again.

 

[Robin]

I think you're the one who should file an objection. You won't expect me to take a course in Christian theology right now.

I suppose the only objection that has occurred to you is this: "salvation is not deserved".
I note that your knowledge of Christianity is quite limited. God's grace grants Paradise to those who have deserved it by faith and works. Even Paul, champion of Divine Grace, makes these two Christian dispositions a condition of salvation. Although works are worthless without faith. Caramba, that's basic Christian doctrine.

It is actually a pretty important tenet of Christianity that our salvation was earned by Jesus Christ. That was supposed to be the entire point of the whole dying on the cross thing, he wasn't just into S&M.

Another point is that in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the God is not just some powerful supernatural force that just turned up and offered rewards, God is the creator of all things.

Do you think that Islam, for example, would accept a definition under which a powerful Djinn might be classified as God?

 

[Robin]

"A rocket provides no thrust in a vacuum"

We have had at least two threads here where that has been claimed.

 

[Robin]

By the by, here are a couple of emails I received today:

Hello friend,

My uncle was the Minister for the Interior for X and in that position he amassed a vast fortune. Recently he died, but before he died he contacted me to let me know how I could access the money.

Unfortunately it was not quite that easy, in X there are bribes to be paid and travel expenses that I cannot afford on my own.

I would be willing to share this fortune with you if you will help fund me to access the money. I am depending on you, please don't let me down

and

Hello friend,

I represent a powerful supernatural force who wishes to give you are reward in return for following some rules. Just follow the rules and, after you die, this force will bring you back to life and give you a reward

What do you think? Plausible?