• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

Lord Emsworth said:
Hmmm ... I am not quite sure that it is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition. It has meaning in principle, as it identifies a separate reality which is undetectable. But it's meaningless in real, practical terms, because there is no way of verifying the statement either way - if this undetectable other reality interacts with our own in any way, it becomes detectable.

Sagan's Dragon has more meaning than this - at least he identified a species.
 
Navigator said:
Defining anything (even a thing which is not seen to exist) means that it can be defined.

If something cannot be defined, then it cannot potentially exist. (it hasn't been defined) Something which does exist but hasn't been defined is something which hasn't been discovered to exist. << it has been loosely defined (as undiscovered) as possibly existing but has not been defined as something.

If something can be defined (even things which are not seen to exist) then potentially they can exist.

But what 'Navigator keeps saying' is that belief (which can be defined) is illogical. It is one thing to define things which cannot be seen to exist. It is something else altogether to believe the things defined actually exist, or as ideas (like god) exist as they are defined, or to argue against them actually existing, however they are defined.

The invisible pile of gold in my backyard which gentlehorse defines might exist, doesn't exist because gold is by nature, not invisible. The definition cancels out its existence.

It might be redefined as a special type of gold normally only found on planet XYZ in universe ZYX, which is invisible and undetectable in any way because it is in my backyard in this universe in which case I have no argument, which is the point. I have no need to argue. I have no need to believe one way or the other.

It is not as if the special gold is going to get in the way of me doing the gardening... :)
Click to expand...

Er, no. Normal gold is visible.

Invisible gold is, by definition, invisible.


Let me ask you if you take it as an article of faith that each and every ridiculous thing I listed doesn't exist? Or are you able to dismiss any of them as ridiculous and not requiring of faith in their non-existance?
 
Recovering Agnostic said:
Depends on your definition. It has meaning in principle, as it identifies a separate reality which is undetectable. But it's meaningless in real, practical terms, because there is no way of verifying the statement either way - if this undetectable other reality interacts with our own in any way, it becomes detectable.
Click to expand...

mm-hmm

It also has something to do with whether it is merely in practice undetectable or whether it is a matter of principle undetectableness. I mean, any chicken, cows or dragons on, say, Alpha Centauri are utterly undetectable to me now. And not just the inherently undetectable ones.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
mm-hmm

But I don't think you'll find any mechanism.
Click to expand...
But there may be a mechanism non the less.

You could easily treat it as an axiom.
Click to expand...
Yes.


And it is really not our task to address this. Theists have taken this responsibily upon themselves, but are doing jack to attend this their duty.
Click to expand...
It depends who is making a positive statement regarding the existence of God/god.

By the way, theists have addressed it amply in my opinion. Not in a scientific way unfortunately.
 
Navigator said:
How does 'I don't know either way' make it appear that I believe? How does "I don't believe, I either know or I don't know" appear to be belief?

How does "if their is a creator or creators involved in the reason it exists, that god or gods are unlikely to be easily comprehended by human thought and understanding processes
Given that, I do not see any logic in trying to understand 'what god is' beyond the idea that (as an idea) it may have something to do with the existence of the physical universe." equate to belief?
Click to expand...
I did not say you believe in any gods. You are, however, saying you consider the existence of gods to be possible. The contradiction comes from having said both that you cannot define such gods and that a thing cannot even be possible if not defined.

I actually tend more or less to agree with what you state here, except that I seriously doubt that such a thing is either possible or existent, and if the latter, there is a serious question of relevance. However, I think the statements you have made include a contradiction, and that is what I am addressing.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
He's saying that there might be an undetectable reality. Which is not a problem in my book.
Click to expand...

The problem is that he brings forth from that undetectable reality many things which are odd and strange.
 
punshhh said:
I don't know, but I doubt reality is only what we can perceive with our evolutionary inherited capacities.
Click to expand...

If reality didn't conform to what we can perceive with our evolutionary inherited capacities we wouldn't have survived.
 
punshhh said:
But there may be a mechanism non the less.
Click to expand...

If you recall we were talking about something that just exists. So that alone leaves no room for a mechanism. Or if you want to have a mechanism, then the mechanism will be what just so exists.

punshhh said:
Yes.


It depends who is making a positive statement regarding the existence of God/god.

By the way, theists have addressed it amply in my opinion. Not in a scientific way unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Scientific or not is nothing I care about so much actually. (Except you want to reduce 'scientific' to rigour.) And theists have not addressed anything much. They have created the illusion of having addressed stuff amply. You could say a whole lot of empty talk.
 
tsig said:
If reality didn't conform to what we can perceive with our evolutionary inherited capacities we wouldn't have survived.
Click to expand...

I suspect punshhh was referencing hallucinations and concepts that we can think of that will not be part of reality, but he's vague enough that I'm uncertain.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
If you recall we were talking about something that just exists. So that alone leaves no room for a mechanism. Or if you want to have a mechanism, then the mechanism will be what just so exists.
Click to expand...
Yes, The distinction may be beyond us.

We do have some mechanisms to observe, along with causality in the reality we are aware of.

Scientific or not is nothing I care about so much actually. (Except you want to reduce 'scientific' to rigour.) And theists have not addressed anything much. They have created the illusion of having addressed stuff amply. You could say a whole lot of empty talk.
Click to expand...
You are of course entitled to your opinion.
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
What exactly do you mean by "validity"?

If God is responsible for both you and me existing (the God of creation) then he would also be your God, even though you may refuse to accept this. Hopefully in your case all of the many promises he has made within the revelations which have been sent down are anything but true.
Click to expand...



Why is that? Because it is such a monster, your god, that it would torture people for all eternity for having the temerity to reject a monster that would do such a thing to intelligences that it created with the capacity to reason that such a thing as your idea of a creator god is nonexistent?

It creates me with the capacity to reason; then through reasoning and sharing the knowledge that the collective efforts of human intelligence have discovered about the way the universe works, I come to the conclusion that the rubbish you call a holy book is a worthless bit of politics cum mysticism from a primitive and ignorant source, and that no such thing as a creator god is required or even possible. Then this monster that set me up for this conclusion tortures me for all eternity.

And you have the gall to call this thing merciful and compassionate, and align yourself with uncompassionate fanatics who murder in the name of the monster god allah, and take the self-righteous position that you are a moral and worthy person, but I am not, even though I see no reason to believe you are even honest, and I have the integrity to reject your coercive creator even to his face, if he were to turn out to be real, because I would refuse to align myself with such a monster. I have integrity, but your god values a submissive mind over creative intelligence and integrity, so I am damned, and the mindless go to heaven.

Your god and your religion disgust me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
The Paradox Of Nothingness And The Case For The New Deism
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
Brian-M
Brian-M

Back
Top Bottom