Atheists, why do you attempt to apply logic? (choice, explanation, different)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And here is the problem with just about everything you say. You claim that religion is untrue, the existence of a god is untrue, etc, etc. Claims for which you have no proof. Nobody does. Yet you argue that claiming something against not having proof isn't logical. So aren't you making an illogical examination without sufficient evidence to back it up?
I think it important to reiterate, even if it has already been done so innumerable times, that the common atheist position on god is not that there is no such entity... but that there is no reason on offer to think there is.
The issue is that what "god" is, is kept very vague by those espousing it's existence. So vague that it is unfalsifiable and hence no atheist can claim does not exist.
The occasional theist stumbles and gives two attributes that contradict and hence you can 100% say that THAT god does not exist.... like if I claimed to believe in unmarried bachelors... you can say by definition such a thing does not exist.
But the vague god concept itself is without evidence for OR against it and no one can say 100% it does not exist. They CAN say that the idea it does exist is entirely unsubstantiated and there is no reason to think it does atall.
The common theist canard therefore is to pretend Atheists are saying the entity does not exist... and are therefore expressing a faith position that is even more faith based than the theist position as they are claiming 100% certainty.
Yet they are not. They are simply pointing out that the idea there is a god is baseless fantasy and no more. We can say "There is no god" not as a "I know 100% there is no god" but as a "Given the entire lack of evidence for a god I adopt the life path based on there not being one".
If I said there was a pink unicorn behind you with the head of a human and the back legs of a frog, standing behind you right now. You could likely say "There is no such thing". You are not saying "I know 100% there is no such thing". After all, you CANT know that 100%. Yet you would still say "There is no such thing".
If you understand why you would say that, you understand the atheist position. The position you espouse of sitting on a fence waiting until one side or the other wins is untenable and comical. The issue is not a 50:50 one where either one side is right or the other is. The world is FULL of claims that people just made up and we dismiss them all when they are baseless. So what is it about the god issue that makes us act like we have to define a fence sitting position for it, when it is JUST as unsubstantiated as anything else you simply make up on the spot.
I think it important to reiterate, even if it has already been done so innumerable times, that the common atheist position on god is not that there is no such entity... but that there is no reason on offer to think there is.
An assumption that is as baseless as a theists claim there is reason to think there is.
Quote:
The issue is that what "god" is, is kept very vague by those espousing it's existence. So vague that it is unfalsifiable and hence no atheist can claim does not exist.
Yet they are not. They are simply pointing out that the idea there is a god is baseless fantasy and no more. We can say "There is no god" not as a "I know 100% there is no god" but as a "Given the entire lack of evidence for a god I adopt the life path based on there not being one".
If I said there was a pink unicorn behind you with the head of a human and the back legs of a frog, standing behind you right now. You could likely say "There is no such thing". You are not saying "I know 100% there is no such thing". After all, you CANT know that 100%. Yet you would still say "There is no such thing".
If I say there is no such thing, I would mean there is no such thing. No percent value is attached. A statement is a statement. Now if I said I don't think there is any such thing or I don't believe there is any such thing, then ok. That would not be saying it 100% that there is no such thing. Don't expect people to understand or read between the lines. Say what you mean. Since you are claiming you don't know 100%, the proper thing would be to say I do not believe there is any such thing. If we go off what you state, it would be reasonable that there is at least a 1% chance you believe such a thing exists. It is better not to attribute a number to it. Say what you mean or risk being misunderstood.
Now that we can establish that it is a (dis)belief, we can say that there is no thing to substantiate such a (dis)belief. Not saying you are wrong. I share this (dis)belief, I just don't claim its something other than exactly what I say. And FYI: atheist does mean a denial or disbelief in gods, deities, and supreme beings.
Quote:
If you understand why you would say that, you understand the atheist position. The position you espouse of sitting on a fence waiting until one side or the other wins is untenable and comical. The issue is not a 50:50 one where either one side is right or the other is. The world is FULL of claims that people just made up and we dismiss them all when they are baseless. So what is it about the god issue that makes us act like we have to define a fence sitting position for it, when it is JUST as unsubstantiated as anything else you simply make up on the spot.
I think sitting on the fence is a great idea. I'm not saying I'm going to join either side if there is a victor. I just like the view. Both are basically arguing the same points. Both want to have their view respected and to be left alone, but neither side can practice what they preach.
Last edited by fractured_kidult; 12-06-2011 at 12:51 AM..
An assumption that is as baseless as a theists claim there is reason to think there is.
Not baseless at all as simply claiming there is such evidence does not magically mean there is. You do not see science papers released saying "Here are my conclusions and there is a lot of evidence... honest" or lawyers going into court saying "The defendant is guilty and I know there is lots of evidence for this... bye now".
No, simply saying there is evidence is not enough. The telling fact is none of them are presenting a scrap of even an iota of it. Ever. Much less you or anyone on this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
If I say there is no such thing, I would mean there is no such thing.
And thats you. However this is not generally how language is used. People very very often state things as fact when in fact what they really mean is that they are stating the position they thing is the most likely.
If a spouse in the heat of argument brandishes a knife their partner will say "Look you are not going to stab me". This is not a 100% statement, it is a statement of likelyhood. "It is not going to rain tomorrow" "There is no god" "The dog will not bite you" "The plane will not crash". We use language in this fashion ALL THE TIME and yet at no point are we expressing a 100% certainty on any subject while doing so.
Again this is just how langauge is used.
So when an atheist says "There is no god" they are, for the most part, using language the exact same way as we do it everywhere else in common discourse. The onus of proof is on you if you think that in this one special case language is magically and inexplicably being used differently.
There are of course those who do have enough faith to be 100% on any given subject. But that is their problem not mine. The main atheist position is one that simply says that the god hypothesis is not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated and hence is no better than lies. There is nothing on offer to suggest we should subscribe to the god idea any more than any other idea you simply made up and is similarly unsubstantiated.
In a world full of unsubstantiated claims, the practice of accepting one and not the rest based on nothing at all is intellectual dishonesty at best. The theist trick is simply to pretend atheists are expressing a certainty beyond their ken. They are not. They are simply pointing out that the god idea is no better than anything else you simply make up on the spot.
As you say, atheist means a denial of belief, or disbelief. That does not extrapolate into a 100% belief of the opposite claim. Acting like it does is just a theist canard to divide the ranks and obfuscate discourse.
Not baseless at all as simply claiming there is such evidence does not magically mean there is. You do not see science papers released saying "Here are my conclusions and there is a lot of evidence... honest" or lawyers going into court saying "The defendant is guilty and I know there is lots of evidence for this... bye now".
No, simply saying there is evidence is not enough. The telling fact is none of them are presenting a scrap of even an iota of it. Ever. Much less you or anyone on this thread.
Are you saying atheists are showing evidence for what they claim? All theists have to do is show there is no reasonable doubt, atheists on the other have do have to show reasonable doubt.
Quote:
And thats you. However this is not generally how language is used. People very very often state things as fact when in fact what they really mean is that they are stating the position they thing is the most likely.
If a spouse in the heat of argument brandishes a knife their partner will say "Look you are not going to stab me". This is not a 100% statement, it is a statement of likelyhood. "It is not going to rain tomorrow" "There is no god" "The dog will not bite you" "The plane will not crash". We use language in this fashion ALL THE TIME and yet at no point are we expressing a 100% certainty on any subject while doing so.
All of those statements are making claims of certainty. Maybe you guys use grammar different... Where I am from if I said ,"that dog will not bite you." I am saying with certainty that it wont bite you.
If I was making a statement of uncertainty, I would say," The dog will not bite you?" But then it doesn't make much sense and is grammatically wrong. What I should say is, "I don't think the dog will bite you."
So when an atheist says, "There is no God." they are saying with certainty that there is no God. If they mean something else, they should say it how they mean it. Which would be, "I do not believe god exists." However, then they would have to admit that it is just a belief, as it is based on faith, and has no proof and lacks logic. That is why they say, "There is no god." It is a fallacy they think theists are too dumb to realize.
Quote:
Again this is just how langauge is used.
So when an atheist says "There is no god" they are, for the most part, using language the exact same way as we do it everywhere else in common discourse. The onus of proof is on you if you think that in this one special case language is magically and inexplicably being used differently.
Trust me, this is not proper grammar, at least not proper English grammar.
Quote:
There are of course those who do have enough faith to be 100% on any given subject. But that is their problem not mine. The main atheist position is one that simply says that the god hypothesis is not just slightly, but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated and hence is no better than lies. There is nothing on offer to suggest we should subscribe to the god idea any more than any other idea you simply made up and is similarly unsubstantiated.
Are you saying atheists are showing evidence for what they claim?
I do not speak for atheists. If an atheist claims something that you want evidenced, then ask him for the evidence. If you want evidence for something I have claimed then simply ask me for the evidence.
All I am claiming HERE is that the idea there is a god is an idea that is brought to be entirely devoid of any substantiation and I therefore dismiss it and resist it's use in our halls of power. I am not sure what claim there requires evidence for you but feel free to ask.
If you are aware of any evidence, argument, data or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim there is a god then by all means present it. Until you or someone does however I make no apologies for pointing out that no one is.
If someone makes up a claim however, based on nothing, then the onus is on them to substantiate the claim. Those who simply say "Your claim is unsubstantiated" have no onus of anything, much less to be casting doubts. An unsubstantiated claim is no different from fantasy. As Hitchens said "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
All of those statements are making claims of certainty.
No. That are not. Except to the pedant. The fact is we use language in this way all the time. We express things in the same language as certainty when in fact we are expressing our choice of the most likely by far position. If I say "The bus will not crash, youre safe" I do not know 100% the bus will not crash, you do not know the dog will not bite, but saying essentially "The statistical likelihood of a bus crash occurring is so small as to be insignificant". When we tell children there is no such thing as monsters have you had to prove it? No. Nor CAN you prove it. Yet you do not life a live sitting on the fence about monsters or pandering to those who things there is. So on what grounds anyone expects us to pander to those who thinks there is a god I have no idea nor has anyone, much less you, adumbrated a single reason why.
That is simply how we use language, much as you might want it to be otherwise and the only person using "grammar different" is the people who subscribe to the theist trick of pretending atheists are expressing a position of certainty beyond their ken. Of course if you simply make something up on the spot, with no substantiation whatsoever, there is no way someone can express 100% certainty you are wrong. This does not mean they should lend you even a modicum of credence or pander to those who act like you might be right. Operating on peoples baseless fantasy is simply not workable.
Such are the vagaries of the english language however. We speak with certainties we do not have or, when pressed to clarify, are not actually espousing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fractured_kidult
So when an atheist says, "There is no God." they are saying with certainty that there is no God. If they mean something else, they should say it how they mean it.
And when pressed to clarify they actually do. Read this forum. Read all the pointless arguments when theists get into the "Prove there is no god then" arguments. You will find atheists lining up to clarify what they actually mean is what I am saying here they mean.
The fact is however we use grammar in this fashion and for the most part we do not get pedants picking up on it. When I say the bus will not crash people realise what I mean and do not say "prove to me 100% it wont!!!!". So people are used to using language in this way and so I make no apology for it being used that way in relation to god either. People just expect their language to be taken the same way there as every where else. The pedants and those theists who want to play the canard want it otherwise however.
And here is the problem with just about everything you say. You claim that religion is untrue, the existence of a god is untrue, etc, etc. Claims for which you have no proof. Nobody does. Yet you argue that claiming something against not having proof isn't logical. So aren't you making an illogical examination without sufficient evidence to back it up?
I don't see sufficient evidence either way. I don't see lack of evidence or negative evidence, or evidence of absence as a logical argument. So, as I do doubt the existence of a god I cannot say without a doubt that I am right OR wrong. Basically I'm sitting atop the fence waiting to see who is right and who is wrong. Plus, I have a great view of the hypocrisy from both sides. It is quite entertaining at times.
That's a valid point. Let me say very succinctly, that the two cases against Bible god and the Bible are
(a) there is no sound evidence for a god interacting in this world and plenty of indication (incoherent history, natural disasters,) that we are on our own. This is negative evidence and pretty compelling I'd have thought.
(2) the Bible is full of falsity and contradiction and has every indication of being the work of men.
Thus the weight of evidence is that the reasons to believe in this particular god do not stand up and this fact should be accepted.
Are you saying atheists are showing evidence for what they claim? All theists have to do is show there is no reasonable doubt, atheists on the other have do have to show reasonable doubt....
This statement elucidates, completely, the #1 thing I don't get about a lot (most?) theists. Why on Earth do you take the God belief as the default position, with no real evidence to suggest it is true?
I'm willing to bet that you do not, in any other aspect of your life, accept that something is true without evidence. Right?
Trust me, this is not proper grammar, at least not proper English grammar.
Please prove this claim with 100% absolute certainty. It's ironic you insist on 100% airtight proof from atheists and then resort to "trust me" as the evidence for your view.
Quote:
Is the atheist claim substantiated?
It's a given that people have accurate knowledge of their beliefs. Atheists can therefore be assured that they have accurate knowledge of their beliefs when they state that it is true that they lack belief in gods.
So when an atheist says, "There is no God." they are saying with certainty that there is no God. If they mean something else, they should say it how they mean it. Which would be, "I do not believe god exists." However, then they would have to admit that it is just a belief, as it is based on faith, and has no proof and lacks logic. That is why they say, "There is no god." It is a fallacy they think theists are too dumb to realize.
You literally don't know what you're talking about.
When an atheist says, "I do not believe god exists" what we typically mean is that there has never been presented any evidence in support of any supposed god that would lead us, or any rational person, to believe that the proffered god exists.
When an atheist says, "There is no god," what we typically mean is that there is virtually no set of circumstances, consistent with what we actually know about the universe, that would be consistent with the existence of any god, or at least any god that has been claimed to exist so far.
It's similar to the concept of unicorns, which many people bridle at, but it's perfectly logical. If I say, "I do not believe in unicorns," or "There are no unicorns," in each case I am saying that there is no evidence that would lead me to believe that unicorns do, or ever did, exist. Even though there are lots of pictures and stories about unicorns. If things were to change, and evidence emerged to conclude that there is some unknown valley where unicorns prance and canter around, or if someone were to find a cache of fossils that could only be explained as unicorn fossils, I would change my belief, but I certainly won't do it without evidence.
Could we be wrong? Certainly, but we could also be wrong about the existence of gravity, the speed of light, the chemical composition of water, or any number of things. One key difference between an atheist and a theist is that we will admit the possibility that we are wrong.
Last edited by jackmccullough; 12-06-2011 at 09:27 AM..
Your comparison of what some believe to be god and an invisible pink unicorn is a fallacy, as neither have anything to do with the other.
First, you say it is invisible, none of the theistic beliefs that I know of claim god to be invisible.
From the bible:
(Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15)
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen... (Romans 1:19-20)
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17)
..whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:15-16)
By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. (Hebrews 11:27)
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 6:46)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
