My little thing.

[tnick777]

A few days ago I was thinking... thinking about true atheists... then I realised that most atheists have said something that totally refutes their beleifs... That one phrase is 'I do not beleive in God'.

Sure if you hear it you brush it off and know that they are atheists and don't follow a certain path. But look at it again. Though unwillingly they have just said they beleive there is a god but they just say they don't follow him.

The true phrase that atheists should conjure next time they're in a deist hot seat is 'I am Atheist' or 'I do not follow religion', both do not give any reverence to there actually being a god!

The next thing is proof that God is real. Maybe not on that level that church goers feel is true, but of course he is real. God or any deity is real for that matter on some level, because they have been created by people. So in reality, they are real in idea!

Then you have to define 'real'. Is real something tactile? Is it something that your sences experience? Nothing in the dictionary says that something real has to fit any of those.

For example:
Right now I am thinking of a bunny with human legs.

It is real in thought.


So next time Atheists say 'I don't beleive in God' or 'God isn't real' they are refuting themselves and incorrect. Even if you are atheist you cannot help but agree with this.


Tyler

[Gwendylyn]

A few days ago I was thinking... thinking about true atheists... then I realised that most atheists have said something that totally refutes their beleifs... That one phrase is 'I do not beleive in God'.

Sure if you hear it you brush it off and know that they are atheists and don't follow a certain path. But look at it again. Though unwillingly they have just said they beleive there is a god but they just say they don't follow him.

You have discovered "debate around semantics". Congrats.

More seriously, one of the most insulting and condescending things non-atheists do towards atheists - in my personal opinion - is to twist their words against them to make it seem like they really do believe in a god. All it really is is an arguement to convince oneself that true atheism cannot exist, and that all atheists are just scared theists. Your argument, should you actually want to use it, really isn't an effective one.

[Garnier]

Gwendylyn is right. This thread doesnt seem like it will go anywhere.

[Mathias]

The thread title can easily be misunderstood...

[empty]

The thread title can easily be misunderstood...

Yeah, first it sounded a little rude.

When I read the OP's post I understood a bit more, but the title is like a bit conotative, you know.

[Tom Paine]

Descartes' ontological argument, basically; we deny the predicate of the existence of God, but that is internally incoherent because if God didn't exist he wouldn't be God. I point you, now, to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Section IV, in which he debunks the ontological argument absolutely. In fact using an excerpted essay I recently wrote for a philosophy lesson, I'll destroy the argument...

The second objection Kant levels at the ontological argument that bears reference to that used by and contrasted by Descartes is that existence can be denied, even if it is a predicate, without contradiction, because we also, in denying existence, deny the thing itself; while it is impossible to say that “this supremely perfect being that exists does not have the perfection of existence”, because that is internally incoherent, it is possible to say that “this supremely perfect being which does not exist does not have the perfection of existence”. Kant expresses it more flowingly and fully, saying that ‘if… I annihilate the predicate in thought, and retain the subject, a contradiction is the result; and hence I say, the former belongs necessarily to the latter. But if I suppress both subject and predicate in thought, no contradiction arises; for there is nothing at all, and therefore no means of forming a contradiction.’ (Kant); this runs directly counter to Descartes’ belief that to deny God’s existence is internally inconsistent and illogical. While this second objection seems to accept existence as a predicate, it does so only in so far as it must in order to rule out the possibility of it being so; it criticises the logical reasoning of Descartes rather than his premises, saying that his conclusion does not follow from his premises, or rather it does not follow from his stated premises.

Source of quote: Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, trans Meiklejohn, J. M. D, 1890; Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4280

[RZZZA]

Descartes' ontological argument, basically; we deny the predicate of the existence of God, but that is internally incoherent because if God didn't exist he wouldn't be God. I point you, now, to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Section IV, in which he debunks the ontological argument absolutely. In fact using an excerpted essay I recently wrote for a philosophy lesson, I'll destroy the argument...

Nice, we learned about descartes and kant and ontological/cosmological, theocidy...etc...stuff in the last class I took. It can be be some pretty confusing stuff, all it was was lots of names thrown at you which have to be memorized and linked with their specific contribution to theology. I hate memorizing, worst form of learning imo.

Anyhoo, I think atheists are a bit perplexing myself. Especially young atheists. I have always thought that, being young, I should not presume to be omniscient as teenagers often will. Following that train of thought, Atheism seems too absolute and cocky for my tastes. I enjoy the inherent skepticism of the people who profess to be atheists and I will often find myself agreeing with them the most over any other religious affiliation...

But at so young an age, to absolutely deny the possability of the existence of some God seems too foolhardy imo. Thats why I like agnosticism, "no knowledge" seems more descriptory of me than just "no God".

[TheKwas]

Anyhoo, I think atheists are a bit perplexing myself. Especially young atheists. I have always thought that, being young, I should not presume to be omniscient as teenagers often will. Following that train of thought, Atheism seems too absolute and cocky for my tastes. I enjoy the inherent skepticism of the people who profess to be atheists and I will often find myself agreeing with them the most over any other religious affiliation...

But at so young an age, to absolutely deny the possability of the existence of some God seems too foolhardy imo. Thats why I like agnosticism, "no knowledge" seems more descriptory of me than just "no God".

Atheism entails, minimally, the absence of belief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism.[3] However, others define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[4] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating all agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[5][6] In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).[7][8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Just adding this before the thread dies. Most self-described atheists use the bolded definition.

[Armatus]

In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).[7][8][9]

why confound things with bolded and non bolded, strong or weak atheism? If you're not a true atheist assuming you have some understanding of these concepts then your an agnostic.

[TheKwas]

why confound things with bolded and non bolded, strong or weak atheism? If you're not a true atheist assuming you have some understanding of these concepts then your an agnostic.

Can't edit on this computer, so I apoligze to moderators for double posting. I missed this.

I didn't create the definitions, that's just the history of the word and that's how most atheists use it. Atheists themselves are trying to redefine the word to make it more precise and end the confusion once-and-for-all, but people do what people do.

I was more or less replying to the assertion 'atheists are perplexing/absolute' when many of those that call themselves atheists would include him in that definition. Perhaps he's making this judgement call based on the individuals actual beliefs, but I am inclined to believe (based on personal experiance with others rather than any experiance with RZZZA) that he is making that judgement based on what these individuals label themselves.

[TheKwas]

But at so young an age, to absolutely deny the possability of the existence of some God seems too foolhardy imo. Thats why I like agnosticism, "no knowledge" seems more descriptory of me than just "no God".

I'm wondering if you extend this agnosticism also to historical Gods like Thor, Odin, Zeus, Ba'al (take your pick), Gaia, Brahma, Enki, Utu, Thoth, Re-Atum, Epona, Sucellos, ect?

Would you go one step further and proclaim no knowledge towards possible god figures like Invisable-Pink Unicorns, Spagetti Monsters, and flying centaurs?

Exactly how much improability does it take for you to reject something out of hand?

[Armatus]

I'm wondering if you extend this agnosticism also to historical Gods like Thor, Odin, Zeus, Ba'al (take your pick), Gaia, Brahma, Enki, Utu, Thoth, Re-Atum, Epona, Sucellos, ect?

Would you go one step further and proclaim no knowledge towards possible god figures like Invisable-Pink Unicorns, Spagetti Monsters, and flying centaurs?

Exactly how much improability does it take for you to reject something out of hand?

What is your point, if someone wants to believe there are pink elephants flying around in outer-space well that's their prerogative... if you're trying to make an agnostic come up with an absolute you better look at the definition again:

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...&q=agnosticism

[RZZZA]

I'm wondering if you extend this agnosticism also to historical Gods like Thor, Odin, Zeus, Ba'al (take your pick), Gaia, Brahma, Enki, Utu, Thoth, Re-Atum, Epona, Sucellos, ect?

Would you go one step further and proclaim no knowledge towards possible god figures like Invisable-Pink Unicorns, Spagetti Monsters, and flying centaurs?

Exactly how much improability does it take for you to reject something out of hand?

I have no idea how many Gods there are, zero or an infinite amount. I will continue with my agnosticism until something happens in my life, something strong enough to break through all my cynicism/skepticism. I can reject them offhand at anytime, I can believe that no such Gods exist but believing isnt the same thing as knowing is it? I can never know such a thing, until I do know. Makes sense?

If nothing happens then I'll be like George Carlin, 120 years old and still an atheist/agnostic.

[TheKwas]

I have no idea how many Gods there are, zero or an infinite amount. I will continue with my agnosticism until something happens in my life, something strong enough to break through all my cynicism/skepticism. I can reject them offhand at anytime, I can believe that no such Gods exist but believing isnt the same thing as knowing is it? I can never know such a thing, until I do know. Makes sense?

If nothing happens then I'll be like George Carlin, 120 years old and still an atheist/agnostic.

Strong Atheism is the just the disbelief in gods, so I don't think that any claim to know god does not exist (not even Dawkins goes so far). What they do know (or think to know) is that the probability of god existing is so low that it's negligible and isn't worthy of real consideration. Really, there could be invisable unicorns wanding around downtown New York, we can never know for sure, but we can reduce the notion to a level of utter improbablity where we don't even take it seriously (and we don't).

To a typical atheist the only thing that keeps back others from reaching the same conclusion towards the Abrahamic god is the general acceptance of him. If society worshipped a teapot in space, you would likely give up your stance of 'agnosticism' towards the Abrahamic god and move it towards the space teapot.

if you're trying to make an agnostic come up with an absolute you better look at the definition again:

http://dictionary.reference.com/sear...&q=agnosticism

First off, in this context I think it is fair to assume he is talking in purely theistic terms and that his entire approach to everything isn't agnostic. Secondly, if we define agnosticism (in reference to God) as the belief that nothing is 'knowable', and nothing more then every self-declared atheist I know would be considered an agnostic.

If we want to make these two terms completely seperate and distinct, then we should most likely redefine agnosticism or atheism. Strong Atheism is hard to redefine, because if we define it as 'knowing' god does not exist, the label will become obsolete.

I like the idea of defining agnosticism as thinking god is 'somewhat probable'.

Thirdly, I made no judgement on those that believe in Flying Pink Elephants.

[Silver Guard]

A few days ago I was thinking... thinking about true atheists... then I realised that most atheists have said something that totally refutes their beleifs... That one phrase is 'I do not beleive in God'.

Sure if you hear it you brush it off and know that they are atheists and don't follow a certain path. But look at it again. Though unwillingly they have just said they beleive there is a god but they just say they don't follow him.

How can we believe but not believe? How? Just how? If we said we do not follow we would SAY we do not follow?
Those smilies were deserved

The true phrase that atheists should conjure next time they're in a deist hot seat is 'I am Atheist' or 'I do not follow religion', both do not give any reverence to there actually being a god!

Nor does I do not believe....

The next thing is proof that God is real. Maybe not on that level that church goers feel is true, but of course he is real. God or any deity is real for that matter on some level, because they have been created by people. So in reality, they are real in idea!

Okkaaaay... now to work out how you went from reality... to idea... and back... in one step... Please, show us your logic in that idea is reality.

So next time Atheists say 'I don't beleive in God' or 'God isn't real' they are refuting themselves and incorrect. Even if you are atheist you cannot help but agree with this.

Just did. Note for future refference, never say that

[Tom Paine]

But isn't it also equally foolhardy to assert absolutely the existence of a God? And what has age to do with mental ability and maturity?

[RZZZA]

But isn't it also equally foolhardy to assert absolutely the existence of a God?

Yes I would say so...

And what has age to do with mental ability and maturity?

Age has to do with experience, and with experience comes wisdom.

I'm so young, who knows maybe when I'm 30 I'll climb a mountain and discover God up there.

[Lusted]

A few days ago I was thinking... thinking about true atheists... then I realised that most atheists have said something that totally refutes their beleifs... That one phrase is 'I do not beleive in God'.

Not really. Most atheists in Western countries use that phrase given the majority religion is Christianity which features a singular god called God. I personally use the phrase:

I do not believe in any god or diety.

Just because atheists use the name of the god of the majority religion does not mean they believe in the god, or in the religion.

[Irishman]

Descartes' ontological argument, basically; we deny the predicate of the existence of God, but that is internally incoherent because if God didn't exist he wouldn't be God. I point you, now, to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Section IV, in which he debunks the ontological argument absolutely. In fact using an excerpted essay I recently wrote for a philosophy lesson, I'll destroy the argument...

This is actually an argument originally posed by St. Anselm, not Descartes.

It was used by Descartes but It is Anselm's

A few days ago I was thinking... thinking about true atheists... then I realised that most atheists have said something that totally refutes their beleifs... That one phrase is 'I do not beleive in God'.

Sure if you hear it you brush it off and know that they are atheists and don't follow a certain path. But look at it again. Though unwillingly they have just said they beleive there is a god but they just say they don't follow him.

The problem with this line of thinking is that you are equating existence in the mind to existence in reality. The problem is that you cant have existential value if you do not exist, therefore the ontological argument fails due to the fact that God existing only in the mind has no value, therefore is not less than the actual God.

A counter argument to the ontological is the perfect island.

P1. Ok I can picture an island that by defenition is the perfect island. Now I will specify a certain number of traits in order to make this possible.

P2 This island is by nature the most perfect island, so lets assume that the island does not exist, thereby existing only in the mind.

P3 Because it exists only in the mind, there could exist some island which is more perfect (exists in real life) than the island which is the most perfect.

C. This is an explicit contradiction and therefore in Reductio ad Absurdum form, the perfect island must exist.

Since we know the perfect island does not exist (lets say one which is always sunny and has 10000 perfect palm trees), we know the argument is not sound.

This is why the ontological argument is not accepted in philisophical groups.

I typed this very fast as I have to go so ask if it isn't clear but the ontological argument (which you seem to be using) is flawed.

[Tom Paine]

Age has to do with experience, and with experience comes wisdom.

I'm so young, who knows maybe when I'm 30 I'll climb a mountain and discover God up there.

Wisdom has nothing to do with intelletual probity and integrity.

This is actually an argument originally posed by St. Anselm, not Descartes.

It was used by Descartes but It is Anselm's

They used different forms; Anselm's does not posit existence as predicate, Descartes' does, and the latter is what is done herein. The two arguments are actually not as similar as they are often thought to be, amusingly enough.

Oh, and nice summarisation of Gaunilo