Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos wrote: »

ISAW: I don't believe the Hellenistic period of Christianity was positive. Mixing pagan philosophy with Christian belief never works. Indeed, it often fails. As much as I find some of Plato and Aristotle's work interesting. Their ideas are in many ways contradictory to Christianity. For example, Plato condones collective wives in his Plato's Republic. Essentially that any woman in society should be free for any man to use them as they please. Aristotle believed that the world would never end. These are just isolated examples. There are plenty more. This may have brought some advantages, but ultimately it was corrupting. Galileo was condemned by the RCC largely on the basis of Aristotle rather than Christianity.

that is a different point and may suggest throwing the baby out with the bath water. the point is that Christianity like science is firmly rooted in logos or logic and reason which is directly attributable to greek culture. Im referring to theology and philosophy in particular. Effectively Aquinas adopted greek reasoning into Christianity. to some extent ther are also Roman influences and i mean that in the broad sense including the Byzantines such as the code of Justinian but these are legislative rather than philosophical.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, but those arguments are not why I, and many others are atheist, nor are those arguments very good since there is a difference between a positive belief in there being no God and a lack of a belief in God.

for your information so we dont fudge I go by what atheists actually in A&A and in surveys such as aris
http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/american-nones-the-profile-of-the-no-religion-population/

page 11
When asked Regarding do you think...?

the following answers
Atheist= there is no such thing
agnostic = not sure/dont know
deist= ther is a higher power
theist= ther is a personal god

all the above are NOT Catholics Protestants islam or members of other religions as far as i know.

according to the above you are probably a hard agnostic and not an atheist.

Since most atheists are of the more reasonable option, it is not a positive position and can't really be supported by positive evidence.

No atheists are of the above option all agnostics are!

So again, what positive evidence do you have to support your afairyism and ateapotism and why should we choose those over some other forms of teapot/fairy belief?

You are asking someone to prove a negative which is like asking them to prove No God.
Atheism cant formally be proved in such a way no more than theism can.

Zombrex wrote: »

Sure.

Humans have evolved brains where a primary function is to process human to human interaction. As social creatures this is very important to humans from a survival point of view. It is very important that we can understand and predict the behavior of others, that we have methods of imagining what they are doing or will do, even if they are not there.

this isnt necessarily true. the philosophy of langiuage shjows us that while communication is inteed a main function of language the primary function is NOT communication but philosophy. talking to oneself in ones head if you will. this is not the same as communicating with someone else.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=douglas%20barnes%20philosophy%20of%20language&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.mac.com%2Fclcnet%2FP4C%2FPrior_Reading_Level_3_files%2Flev3%2520knowledge%2520ecchevaria%2520-%2520knowledge%2520and%2520classroom.rtf&ei=85ZQT-ydFMSJhQedhd2CDA&usg=AFQjCNEJC3Bvx5JXQgNDStP_YsQ27TeV1Q&cad=rja

We know the world only through language and can­not, as it were, “get outside” our particular languages (natural and scientific) to examine the extent to which they mirror The World As It Really Is. Language, as Rorty puts it, ought to be seen
not Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, and Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism. p. xviii f.

as a tertium quid between Subject and Object, nor as a medium in which we try to force pictures of reality, but as part of the behavior of human beings. On this view, the activity of uttering sentences is one of the things people do in order to cope with their environment. The Deweyan notion of language as tool rather than picture is right as far as it goes. But we must be careful not to phrase this analogy so as to suggest that one can separate the tool, Language, from its users and inquire as to its “adequacy” to achieve our purposes. The latter suggestion pre­supposes that there is some way of breaking out of language in order to compare it with something else. But there is no way to think about either the world or our purposes except by using language. One can use language to criticize and enlarge itself, as one can exercise one’s body to develop and strengthen and enlarge it, but one cannot see language-as-a-whole in relation to something else to which it applies, or for which it is a means to an end

These abilities of the human brain (often grouped under terms such as theory of mind) to processes these interactions provides the primary advantage to humans. We have not developed brains that are well suited to processing natural events, which often involve chaotic series of parallel systems, some visible and some invisible.

The primary function of language is in understanding and thinking -philosophy.

Or to put it another way, our brains are adapted to understand why you are violently annoyed at me cause I slept with your wife not where does snow come from or when is there going to be another Earthquake.

Because so much of our mental capacity is given over to these issues of humans interaction when attempting to process the natural world we co-opt these abilities. We assign human like agency to actions in nature, because our brain is so adapt at modeling human agents. This has worked good enough from an evolutionary point of view, it allows basic ability to cop with natural events. From a survival point of view the important thing is to stay away from lightening, not whether you think it is Thor's wrath or an electrical storm.

I can just as easily claim we model computers the universe on logic processing and laws of nature rather than a puppet master god.

So when we suffer in say a flood our instinctive response is to try and attribute this violent action against us to some mind that has some motivation to harm us. We search for a reason why this happened that fits with how our brains are mostly evolved to think.

i dont think christians today when there is a flood say "why is god punishing us" do they?
Certainly their churches are not directed at this -except maybe fringe christians and fundies. Most are concerned with addressing human agencies and actors rather than supernatural causes.

These detached "minds" that are doing good or bad things to us become the supernatural agents humans have always imagined existed throughout history, be they all powerful gods or simply supernatural creatures, or simply just mother nature herself.

As i have just stated "God did it" isnt a common christian reaction to disasters.

All this is backed up by years of scientific research. It is pretty well established by now that we do this.

And i have asked you to CITE the research. given you claim it is established you shoumld have no problem producing five or ten examples. Ill warn you in advance Please dont mention memetics or that journal among them.

[qauote]
Yes Christians (or any religious group) can argue that just because we as a species do this doesn't mean they are doing it when it comes to their beliefs in supernatural beings in the world.

But frankly that is a some what weak argument, like someone saying that yes they accept that schizophrenics can hear voices in their heads but that doesn't mean that in their particular case the ghost of Elvis isn't really telling them to burn down their local community centre.[/QUOTE]

and your piles and piles of established research to back this opinion up is?...
This being = try and attribute violent action against us to some supernatural mind that has some motivation to harm us.

where has the church stated a natural disaster is "god is punishing us" or "the devil is doing it"?

King Mob wrote: »

No I am both an agnostic and an atheist.
The definitions you are using are simply wrong.

Thjey qre definitions. i adhere to them so people like you cant come in and fudge the issue. Yo may believe as you wish in faries UFOs or atheism=agnosticism. I will adhere to the published definition.

Atheism = without or lacking theism. It is a lack of a belief in God
Agnostism = without or lacking gnosticism. Which is a lack of certainty about the nature or existence of god.

Ive told yo already what the published definition I am using is.
If you want to use the words with your own airy fairy definition fair enough. But what I mean is clear and I wont be changing the definition I have used established in the literatre since 2008 and backed up by separate references to suit you.

When asked Regarding do you think...?

the following answers
Atheist= there is no such thing
agnostic = not sure/dont know
deist= ther is a higher power
theist= ther is a personal god

THAT is what i mean by the words. i wont be changing it!

Most atheists if you ask them adhere to the position that there is no evidence for God, therefore lack a positive belief in God.
A few atheists state a positive belief that there is certainly no God, but this is not the position I am arguing.

you are not arguing an atheist position then. You are arguing an agnostic one.

Yes, this is the point I am trying to convey to Philologos, who is asking atheists to prove a negative.

which you cant formally prove.
But like the "no milk in the fridge" example we can actually look and see. That however is not formal proof.

Again I should point out the background to this harks back to the Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle and their verification principle. while there are other problems with this principle, one can never get through an infinite list of things to verify. so Popper in his Logic of Scientific Discovery came up with the falsification principle i.e propose a theory and propose a test which will prove it false. you then need to only do one test to disprove a positive.
Im sure you might identify the problem of disproving there is water on Mars being equated with proving there is no water on Mars.

Zombrex wrote: »

Would it echo a crucification if you had never heard of the story of Jesus' crucification?

These vague passages can echo anything you want once you have been given a context to interpret them by. Basically how horoscopes work.

there are huge parallels between the genesis 22 account of Abraham and Isaac and the crusifiction story of Jesus. this isn't a co incidence of interpreting it in hiddsight and looking for similarities. Exegesis is not Eisegesis.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#130
Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone." Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

King Mob wrote: »

Atheism is not a positive position,

Well that is one point i have continually tried to make. But it isnt positive for society is my point.
[/quote]
it is a lack of a belief.
[/quote]

No it isnt it is a belief of a lack of a God/gods/ supernatural forces!

http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/NONES_08.pdf
figure 1.13 page 11

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Please understand i/we use these explicit definitions here to avoid fudging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas

Some atheists have tried that one here claiming for example Norway is over 70% atheist and trying to include bhudists and one year old children (even then they dont reach 70%). Thats why i use the definition.

so we dont have to get sidelined into:
While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[44] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[54] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[55] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[56] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[57] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[58] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions along a spectrum of theistic probability—the likelihood that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[59]

I asked you to give examples of the positive evidence you use to support your negative positions on things you lack a belief in, namely Russell's Teapot and fairies.
So can you please provide examples of the type of evidence you are looking for, by providing positive evidence for Ateapotism and Afairyism?
If your request is a fair one, you then should already have this evidence and would have no problems presenting it.

But if you can't show it, please say as much as it shows a flaw in your point.

Russels teapot was created to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.

The problem above is that
either
1. YOU are the one saying god does not exist YOU are taking the atheist position.
or
2. You are claiming the burden of proof is on theists to prove a negative disprove -the positive evidence you use to support your negative positions- athiesm or Ateapotism and Afairyism. which compounds two logical fallacies proving a negative and shifting the burden the latter of which was ironically the reason russel invented the teapot.

By the way it isnt without counter argument in any case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot#Counterarguments

Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[8] He notes that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist." [8]

Another counter-argument, advanced by philosopher Eric Reitan,[9] is that belief in God is different from belief in a teapot because teapots are physical and therefore in principle verifiable, and that given what we know about the physical world we have no good reason to think that belief in Russell's teapot is justified and at least some reason to think it not.[10]

himnextdoor wrote: »

See! That's what I love about Christianity; we can compare the crucifixion to binding Isaac and building a bonfire around him but we can't compare Christmas trees to the prohibited tradition of taking trees from the forest and adorning them.

I didnt make any claims about chrizstmas trees. As far as I know they arent mentioned in the Bible and are a German Protestant tradition.

Typical; you rebut the claim that there is no evidence to support your claim by claiming that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; the fact that there is no trace of God's fingerprints goes to prove that God wears gloves. Can His fingerprints be found? No? Ergo, He wears gloves. QED.

there are huge parallels between the Isaac story and the passion story. christmas trees have nothing to do with it.

King Mob wrote: »

Good for you, but that's not what the words actually mean and it's not how I'm defining it.
... I'm not using your definitions.
My position is based on a lack of a belief in God but like all things can be changed by new evidence.
This is what I (and people who understand what the words are) define as agnostic atheism.

They are not MY definitions!
They are established in the literature and in discussion here and on other fora.
You are entitled to you personal opinion*. dont expect the established definition to change
to support your personal opinion.

you cannot use your definitions as the position does not fit into your narrow categories.

that is the whole point oif them in the first place!
Look. You can believe a kilo is a pound or a pînt is a litre or Pi=3 or whatever you want. People have gone about the task of defining what is meant and continuing to use that definition. That is what I use here. I have no problem in understanding you if you say it means something else so long asd you adhere to the same definition always. You define atheist and agnostic as the same thing. the actual published literature doesnt . But that doesnt matter all I have to do is understand is that you mean what everyone else calls "agnostic" when you use the word "atheist"

You can claim that it's whatever you like, but it would not be an accurate definition of what the argument is.

Look we all know you mean "agnoistic" by the dictionary and by official publications and by the accepted definition here. so dont worry about it. You only need to worry when you eventually supply arguments abut atheism i.e. about people who say they believe that there are no God gods or supernatural forces.

Nor is it positive argument evidence for a negative position.
Opening the fridge door to see if the milk is there is a test/falsification of the opposing positive position (that "there is milk in the fridge").

My point is that on has to do a test to find out whether the negative is true. One cant logically arrive at it as a formal conclusion unless it is a premise.
[/quote]
But my point is, again, to illustrate to Philologos that asking for positive evidence for a negative position (a lack of a belief in God, aka Atheism) is a non argument.[/QUOTE]


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative
How not to get sucked into an intellectual black hole
by Stephen Law, Ph.D.


The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable.

...
Let's sum up. If "you can't prove a negative" means you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain things don't exist, then the claim is just false. We prove the nonexistence of things on a regular basis. If, on the other hand, "you can't prove a negative" means you cannot prove beyond all possible doubt that something does not exist, well, that may, arguably, be true. But so what? That point is irrelevant so far as defending beliefs in supernatural entities against the charge that science and/or reason have established beyond reasonable doubt that they don't exist.

Science has not established that God does not exist!