Convince Atheists

[Mathbud1]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Careful philosophers note that a crucial element is missing in this kind of discussion. For a proposition such as "God exists", there are actually four possibilities: theism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-cognitivism. The last is the one that usually gets left out of the discussion, but is the most important.

To answer a question, the questioner and the answerer must have an understanding as to what the question means. For the proposition "God exists" this boils down to what is meant by "God". The non-cognitivist position is that the proposition is not sufficiently defined to allow an answer which would be understood by the parties of the discussion in the same way. Personally I am a non-cognitivist regarding the proposition "God exists". My usual response is "Which God?"

Now if I ask you "Do you believe in Jupiter?" You will answer "No" and I can confidently state that both you and I are atheists with respect to the existence of Jupiter.

In general terms, all questions of the form "Do you believe in X?" require a common understanding as to what X exactly is.

Something along those lines is brought up on the wikipedia page I linked to. Non-cognitivism is, I think, a form of Negative Atheism. A person who either chooses not to think about deities or who has never heard of any deity, does not believe in any deity. That person doesn't assert that there is not any deity, they simply do not think about deities at all (or at least not for any significant amount of time.) This is also known as Implicit Atheism as opposed to Explicit Atheism.

Anyone who does not believe that all deities exist can fit into one of these categories of Atheism with respect to any given description of a deity. To your example, I don't think many people believe in Jupiter any more. Even among Christian sects, the God one sect describes is not necessarily the same God that another sect describes. Some of the most vehement disputes I have witnessed about God were between two Christians.

That said, unless you are "Atheist" with regards to all deities (or at least every one you had ever heard or thought of) you would not describe yourself as Atheist in general.

 

[mamooth]

Convince atheists that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

For that to make any sense, you first need to specifically point to any atheists who stated that they are the highest form of intelligence in the universe.

If you can't or won't, you ought to apologize for engaging in dishonest trolling.

You too, MD, since you've directly supported that OP.

 

[Mathbud1]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Careful philosophers note that a crucial element is missing in this kind of discussion. For a proposition such as "God exists", there are actually four possibilities: theism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-cognitivism. The last is the one that usually gets left out of the discussion, but is the most important.

To answer a question, the questioner and the answerer must have an understanding as to what the question means. For the proposition "God exists" this boils down to what is meant by "God". The non-cognitivist position is that the proposition is not sufficiently defined to allow an answer which would be understood by the parties of the discussion in the same way. Personally I am a non-cognitivist regarding the proposition "God exists". My usual response is "Which God?"

Now if I ask you "Do you believe in Jupiter?" You will answer "No" and I can confidently state that both you and I are atheists with respect to the existence of Jupiter.

In general terms, all questions of the form "Do you believe in X?" require a common understanding as to what X exactly is.

I forgot to mention your last line. "Do you believe in God?" is, as you say, a very undefined question. If I describe God to you, then ask if you believe in that God, then you have more specific information to base your answer on. In essence, If I give X a definition, then I can ask you if you belive in X (or something similar.) For example, if I ask instead the question, "Do you believe that there could exist somewhere an entity whose cognitive abilities far exceed our own?" I have then asked you a question that is at the same time more defined and less specific. Based on questions like that you can flesh out a more full understanding of what you believe is possible, what you believe is probable, and what you simply believe is.

In reality there are so many degrees of belief that the topic is really hard to nail down to "Do you believe in God." For example, "I do not believe that God exists," and "I believe that God does not exist," are two very different statements.

 

[mamooth]

Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.

Strong positive atheism in regards to specific gods is quite rational.

For example, the Christian god's attributes lead to unresolvable logical contradictions. Therefore, I know that the Christian god can not exist, therefore reason states that I should be a strong positive atheist regarding the Christian god.

As far as other gods go, the default state of belief for _anything_ is "no", until evidence for it is presented. It would not be logical or reasonable for gods get a special exemption that the rest of the universe doesn't get. Therefore, until evidence is presented for such gods, the default belief state for all gods is "no". That is, atheism. Agnosticism can exist side-by-side with such atheism, but it is not the same as the atheism.

 

[Mathbud1]

Convince atheists that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

For that to make any sense, you first need to specifically point to any atheists who stated that they are the highest form of intelligence in the universe.

If you can't or won't, you ought to apologize for engaging in dishonest trolling.

You too, MD, since you've directly supported that OP.

I believe, and I could be wrong here, that the OP was making the assertion that Atheists do not believe that there are any deities (i.e. higher forms of intelligence.) To convince an Atheist that there could be somewhere in the universe a deity would be to convince an Atheist that there could be somewhere in the universe a higher form of intelligence than humans.

 

[Mathbud1]

Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.

Strong positive atheism in regards to specific gods is quite rational.

For example, the Christian god's attributes lead to unresolvable logical contradictions. Therefore, I know that the Christian god can not exist, therefore reason states that I should be a strong positive atheist regarding the Christian god.

As far as other gods go, the default state of belief for _anything_ is "no", until evidence for it is presented. It would not be logical or reasonable for gods get a special exemption that the rest of the universe doesn't get. Therefore, until evidence is presented for such gods, the default belief state for all gods is "no". That is, atheism. Agnosticism can exist side-by-side with such atheism, but it is not the same as the atheism.

Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?

The default state of belief for any thing is not "believing that that thing does not exist" it is "not believing that that thing exists." To believe that something does not exist you have to have been convinced that it does not exist. Otherwise you simply lack belief that it does exist. This is the same state you are in if you have never heard of that thing. And incidentally, you also lack belief that it does not exist.

 

[G.T.]

Im an agnostic because its the only rational conclusion within current human understanding.

Strong positive atheism in regards to specific gods is quite rational.

For example, the Christian god's attributes lead to unresolvable logical contradictions. Therefore, I know that the Christian god can not exist, therefore reason states that I should be a strong positive atheist regarding the Christian god.

As far as other gods go, the default state of belief for _anything_ is "no", until evidence for it is presented. It would not be logical or reasonable for gods get a special exemption that the rest of the universe doesn't get. Therefore, until evidence is presented for such gods, the default belief state for all gods is "no". That is, atheism. Agnosticism can exist side-by-side with such atheism, but it is not the same as the atheism.

I agree that the default state of belief of anything sans evidence is "no," and I am also firm in my belief of none of the religious gods - but my answer to origins is "I dont know," instead of "definitely no design, rhyme, or reason."

 

[billyerock1991]

that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

The few atheists I have known, do not feel that way about themselves. And they are not activists and don't approve of atheist activism.

the fact that I don't beliece in a god, to be truthful I just don't use the Idea of a god to live my life, to answer my questions in life ... or use the thought of quoting from god's book to look for the answers to the questions I have....

 

[mamooth]

Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?

Perfect omniscience contradicts free will, yet the deity is said to allow free will. If the deity knows 100% what I will do, I must do it. Moving the deity "outside time" just muddies the waters and doesn't change anything.

Infinite power combined with perfect omniscience means the deity deliberately allowed evil into the world, and that contradicts omnibenevolence. "Allowing for free will" is no excuse, because an infinitely-powerful deity could have jiggered a way to allow for free will without evil.

 

[mamooth]

I agree that the default state of belief of anything sans evidence is "no," and I am also firm in my belief of none of the religious gods - but my answer to origins is "I dont know," instead of "definitely no design, rhyme, or reason."

I see atheism/theism and agnosticism/certainty as two different categories, independent of each other. That is, one could be:

Agnostic and atheist
Certain and atheist
Agnostic and theist
Certain and theist

 

[G.T.]

I agree that the default state of belief of anything sans evidence is "no," and I am also firm in my belief of none of the religious gods - but my answer to origins is "I dont know," instead of "definitely no design, rhyme, or reason."

I see atheism/theism and agnosticism/certainty as two different categories, independent of each other. That is, one could be:

Agnostic and atheist
Certain and atheist
Agnostic and theist
Certain and theist

I can vibe with that.

 

[Mathbud1]

Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?

Perfect omniscience contradicts free will, yet the deity is said to allow free will. If the deity knows 100% what I will do, I must do it. Moving the deity "outside time" just muddies the waters and doesn't change anything.

Infinite power combined with perfect omniscience means the deity deliberately allowed evil into the world, and that contradicts omnibenevolence. "Allowing for free will" is no excuse, because an infinitely-powerful deity could have jiggered a way to allow for free will without evil.

How does perfect omniscience contradict free will? Knowing that someone will choose to do something does not equal forcing them to do that thing. I know how my wife will react to certain scenarios. Does that mean that I force her to react that way? Do I take away her free will by knowing beforehand how she will react when her sister says something stupid to her? That is the same thing as saying that knowing something will fall when dropped equals causing something to fall when dropped. The person who knows this does not cause the thing to fall. Gravity does.

For your second point: explain what you mean when you say that allowing evil to exist contradicts "omnibenevolence," and what you mean by omnibenevolence.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Which attributes of "the" Christian God lead to unresolvable contradictions?

Perfect omniscience contradicts free will, yet the deity is said to allow free will. If the deity knows 100% what I will do, I must do it. Moving the deity "outside time" just muddies the waters and doesn't change anything.

Infinite power combined with perfect omniscience means the deity deliberately allowed evil into the world, and that contradicts omnibenevolence. "Allowing for free will" is no excuse, because an infinitely-powerful deity could have jiggered a way to allow for free will without evil.

We only experience one facet of time, due to our brains being 'tuned' to our 'time'. Think of it as only having one cable channel. If all your ancestors and all of your personal experience was through one cable channel, it would likely be difficult to imagine two. "Why would I want another channel?", "What would ya do with the other one?", "What purpose would it serve?" ... and so on.

But there is no reason to believe that time does not have infinite 'frequencies' and were your brain to change channels, just ever so slightly and your perception of the universe around you would be completely different, how you were perceived by others, would be completely different.

Where your brain was able to consider time more quickly than our time, the world around you would appear slower, it would appear that everything else was in S L O W M O T I O N . . . Even faster and the world would appear frozen. Likewise, if it considered its environment slower, the world around you would appear to be moving in Fast Forward. A little faster and objects that are animated in our time, would by imperceptible to you.

These are inaccurate terms, of course, but they help in understanding the concept.

A being who had the means to scan the spectrum of time, would have absolutely no problem, being everywhere, at once, because time and space are correlated somehow, in ways we can barely comprehend.

But, I can tell you, in my own experience, I've experienced this 'shift' in time. I had a life after death experience when I was in my 20s and I can tell you that it is all somehow tied to time. I have't the slightest idea how or why, I just know that 'out there', relates as much to time as it dos to space.

God is... that's not even a debatable point. What makes it 'feel' debatable is our own limited means to understand the universe around us. Which is fine, because we're not designed to understand, at least while we're locked up 'in here'.

Good discussion. So solid insights coming in, from a good number of folks.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Convince atheists that they are not the highest form of intelligence in the universe. (Impossible.)

For that to make any sense, you first need to specifically point to any atheists who stated that they are the highest form of intelligence in the universe.

If you can't or won't, you ought to apologize for engaging in dishonest trolling.

You too, MD, since you've directly supported that OP.

I believe, and I could be wrong here, that the OP was making the assertion that Atheists do not believe that there are any deities (i.e. higher forms of intelligence.) To convince an Atheist that there could be somewhere in the universe a deity would be to convince an Atheist that there could be somewhere in the universe a higher form of intelligence than humans.

The anti-theist is a wholly subjective personality; strong sociopathic tendencies.

 

[mamooth]

How does perfect omniscience contradict free will? Knowing that someone will choose to do something does not equal forcing them to do that thing. I know how my wife will react to certain scenarios. Does that mean that I force her to react that way?

That's not perfect omniscience, that's making an educated guess.

If god _knows_ I will sing Yankee Doodle Dandy on the streetcorner tomorrow at 7AM, I _must_ do it. I might think I'm doing it freely, but I still have no choice in the matter. If I did differently, the being would not be perfectly omniscient. The free will I think I have would be an illusion, since my course is absolutely predestined. The same can not be said about your wife, as she may surprise you.

Where_k uses both of what I call the "infinite universes" explanation and the "God is outside time" explanation, but I think that's just muddying the waters. I am not outside time, and I'm stuck in one universe as far as I can see, so my actions are still predetermined if a being with perfect omniscience knows my future actions.

For your second point: explain what you mean when you say that allowing evil to exist contradicts "omnibenevolence," and what you mean by omnibenevolence.

Perfect goodness and compassion. What I'm talking about is generally referred to as "The Problem of Evil". There's far more of it you can read about it than I can write here, if you want to look it up. Basically, a being with infinite knowledge and power would not need to allow evil to exist, yet it does, so it can't be perfect good.

The Jews are more sensible on such matters. They don't assign the omni-attributes to God, so they don't run into such problems.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How does perfect omniscience contradict free will? Knowing that someone will choose to do something does not equal forcing them to do that thing. I know how my wife will react to certain scenarios. Does that mean that I force her to react that way?

That's not perfect omniscience, that's making an educated guess.

If god _knows_ I will sing Yankee Doodle Dandy on the streetcorner tomorrow at 7AM, I _must_ do it. I might think I'm doing it freely, but I still have no choice in the matter. If I did differently, the being would not be perfectly omniscient. The free will I think I have would be an illusion, since my course is absolutely predestined. The same can not be said about your wife, as she may surprise you.

Not necessarily. God knows your circumstances, the issues at hand and your choices. The odds are that you do them all and are judged for each decision.

Where_k uses both of what I call the "infinite universes" explanation and the "God is outside time" explanation, but I think that's just muddying the waters. I am not outside time, and I'm stuck in one universe as far as I can see, so my actions are still predetermined if a being with perfect omniscience knows my future actions.

Your stream of consciousness is here... yes. It is likely also in an infinite number of 'here(s)', playing out every possible scenario. In one you're likely the salt of the earth, in another you probably made Hitler blush... .

I agree with you that the possibility serves no purpose in the 'here'... except to say that you DO have choices and God wants you to recognize the laws he has established in nature for you to live by, to respect those laws and to prosper and be happy for having adhered to them.

For your second point: explain what you mean when you say that allowing evil to exist contradicts "omnibenevolence," and what you mean by omnibenevolence.

Perfect goodness and compassion. What I'm talking about is generally referred to as "The Problem of Evil". There's far more of it you can read about it than I can write here, if you want to look it up. Basically, a being with infinite knowledge and power would not need to allow evil to exist, yet it does, so it can't be perfect good.

The Jews are more sensible on such matters. They don't assign the omni-attributes to God, so they don't run into such problems.

Nature's perfection is in the balance... from which our choices are culled. There is no potential for perfect good, where there does not exist perfect evil.

What God does not seem to have an interest in, is sympathy. There is right and there is wrong. We have been given the instinct and means for objective and subjective reasoning. Where you consider God's will, you reason objectively, having sought that which exists beyond yourself. Such choices neve fail to bring the highest, most coveted rewards; Ie: Happiness.

Where we consider our own desires, we reason subjectively, which never fails to sum to result in the triumvirate of evil: Chaos, Calamity and Catastrophe; Ie: Misery.

It all seems pretty simple... .

 

[Mathbud1]

That's not perfect omniscience, that's making an educated guess.

If god _knows_ I will sing Yankee Doodle Dandy on the streetcorner tomorrow at 7AM, I _must_ do it. I might think I'm doing it freely, but I still have no choice in the matter. If I did differently, the being would not be perfectly omniscient. The free will I think I have would be an illusion, since my course is absolutely predestined. The same can not be said about your wife, as she may surprise you.

Where_k uses both of what I call the "infinite universes" explanation and the "God is outside time" explanation, but I think that's just muddying the waters. I am not outside time, and I'm stuck in one universe as far as I can see, so my actions are still predetermined if a being with perfect omniscience knows my future actions.



Perfect goodness and compassion. What I'm talking about is generally referred to as "The Problem of Evil". There's far more of it you can read about it than I can write here, if you want to look it up. Basically, a being with infinite knowledge and power would not need to allow evil to exist, yet it does, so it can't be perfect good.

The Jews are more sensible on such matters. They don't assign the omni-attributes to God, so they don't run into such problems.

Perfect omniscience is nothing but the perfect educated guess. Imagine a pool table. You have a cue and are about to take a shot. If I know all the variables involved I can tell you with precision exactly what will happen when you hit the ball. Did I make it happen by knowing it would happen? Knowledge of something does not cause that thing to happen.

The problem of evil presupposes that evil bring present in this world outweighs any good that could come of it. Does a parent always stop a child from being hurt even when a small amount of pain can teach that child an important life lesson that cannot be learned any other way? In infinity life on earth is less than an instant is in our perception. If God is infinite, and we are infinite after this life, then evil here is nothing in the grand scheme.

The point in all this is that any "proof" of non-existence hinges on very specific conditions. Changing even one of those conditions even slightly renders the proof null. You can disprove the existence of a God that is incapable of allowing harm but does allow harm, but that proof does not apply to a God that would allow small harm for greater good.

 

[Mount Brocken]

I have always been fascinated by the burden of proof clause in a debate. For atheists often appeal to this, in that, a theist claims something and the atheist is questioning that claim, therefore there is a burden of proof established in favor of the atheist. And yet, there are implicit assumptions that the atheist claims, such as there being an objective world, that is denied by some, say, idealists. If this is the case, then why isn't there a burden of proof on an atheist that promotes the view that the senses and objective reality exist in the first place?

 

[Mathbud1]

I have always been fascinated by the burden of proof clause in a debate. For atheists often appeal to this, in that, a theist claims something and the atheist is questioning that claim, therefore there is a burden of proof established in favor of the atheist. And yet, there are implicit assumptions that the atheist claims, such as there being an objective world, that is denied by some, say, idealists. If this is the case, then why isn't there a burden of proof on an atheist that promotes the view that the senses and objective reality exist in the first place?

To me, if I am trying to convince you that God does exist then the burden of "proof" is mine. If you are trying to convince me that God does not exist, then the burden of "proof" lies with you. Beyond trying to convince someone there really isn't any burden of proof.

 

[Mount Brocken]

So.....would any of you consider "Mother Earth" as God or A God?

I would think that God is any sort of being whose existence is a.) purely metaphysical and b.) a being whose reason and ability to exist emerges or stems from itself/himself/herself.