Should Atheism proper include scepticism?

[TruthWorthy]

So we come backwards once again to argumenting over something which is of an intangible nature.
I get the impression that you're not as unbiased on this topic as you claim to be.
I also get the impression that you're not listening and thereby preventing the discussion from developing naturally.

---

What good is any argument that has nothing supporting it, like "god", for instance, where there is entirely no evidence in support of the claim!

[theVOID]

Really Truthworthy? Because the conversation i've read points to you just not getting it.

Atheism can be skeptical (i withhold judgement of God until proven true or false) or unskeptical (I already know God does not exist), throughout the discussion Adrian has repeatedly stated his preference of the former position and i fail to see how he could have made it much clearer.

As for the issue of being able to claim knowledge on the non-existence of God, i hold the position that it is by definition impossible to disprove an unfalsifiable hypothesis, which the god hypothesis is, therefore claiming proof of the non-existence of God is an unreasonable position to take - the better position is that there is currently no compelling evidence empirical or otherwise to take seriously the idea of an immaterial, infinite, infallible intelligence outside of space and time who caused the universe to exist and thus it is rather moronic to organise your life around such an idea, let alone suppose it impregnated a virgin that gave birth to it's self so it could later sacrifice a weekend to save us from sin.

[TruthWorthy]

This forms part of the opening argument which is being ignored.
Also, I never claimed that I would prove the non existence but would provide 'such evidence'; you've really got to learn to 'listen' . . .

I can say "god's an invisible man who follows you around and talks to you, but you can't hear him". It doesn't matter how long that statement goes for or what it was that I made up, just as long as that thing isn't tangible.
So how can we talk about the truth of the matter, considering that neither of us can have physical basis?
Easy, we talk about the argument which supports that claim (yesterday).

The reliability of any argument can be attacked as a means to defence. I'm saying that the argument of "god" can be reliably refuted through honest dialogue.
Lets speak of what we know about "god", or how we come to learn about "god". Then we'll see how many shreds reality will take out of this "god" idea!

[theVOID]

This forms part of the opening argument which is being ignored.
Also, I never claimed that I would prove the non existence but would provide 'such evidence'; you've really got to learn to 'listen' . . .

I can say "god's an invisible man who follows you around and talks to you, but you can't hear him". It doesn't matter how long that statement goes for or what it was that I made up, just as long as that thing isn't tangible.
So how can we talk about the truth of the matter, considering that neither of us can have physical basis?
Easy, we talk about the argument which supports that claim (yesterday).

The reliability of any argument can be attacked as a means to defence. I'm saying that the argument of "god" can be reliably refuted through honest dialogue.
Lets speak of what we know about "god", or how we come to learn about "god". Then we'll see how many shreds reality will take out of this "god" idea!

Then show us a positive argument for the non-existence of God.

[TruthWorthy]

Haha, smooth.
a)
How about this: Amongst the billions and billions of things which happen, every one is subject to cause and effect and if we can't identify either cause or effect, there is still something lingering which will lead us to that.

b)
The argument for "god's" existence also claims by necessity that the state of nothingness is a possibility. For time to exist three parameters of: Space; Objects; and Motion need to be present. The notion that "god" who is invisible, who lives somewhere imaginary or non-physical removes the possibility of any objects in motion. This imaginary land of "god" can only exist within the mind, "god's" place of origin.

[Violet]

Of course there is a state of 'nothingness'. What do you imagine to be 'outside?' of everything? Absolutely nothing of course! The question isn't wether nothing exists... but what the properties of 'nothingness' are

Or perhaps better: what would the lack of properties produce? Absolutely nothing! But just what is nothing?


/silliness...

[TruthWorthy]

Nothing can not exist, because nothing is unable to exist!
To exist means there needs to be something or some quality, since "god" is "nothing" then neither can exist.
There you have my arguing logical statement:
"God is nothing but little more than an idea".

[Violet]

Nothing can not exist, because nothing is unable to exist!

So you are suggesting that there is something beyond everything? There's a whole lot of nothing beyond everything

To exist means there needs to be something or some quality, since "god" is "nothing" then neither can exist.

Nothingness is the absence of things... and therefore it is also the state of there being no things. God has many definitions, and we can be 100% positive both gods and nothingness exist... as ideas. If the god's existence is possible, then quantum theory. We might be able to figure out what is 'possible' for our reality... but this is not to state that <insert metaphysical _______ here>.

There you have my arguing logical statement:
"God is nothing but little more than an idea".

I contest that. For many theists... 'God' is their reality, he is a feeling, he is present everywhere around them. He is no mere idea.

To us: 'God' registers as nonsense. But then this is our reality, and not the theist's.

[theVOID]

Haha, smooth.
a)
How about this: Amongst the billions and billions of things which happen, every one is subject to cause and effect and if we can't identify either cause or effect, there is still something lingering which will lead us to that.

There are many events in quantum mechanics that appear to be non-causal but are rather entirely probabilistic and spontaneous, acting independently of external influence. A good example of this is the radioactive decay of a nucleus, or the change of a photon being reflected on a surface compared to it passing through - all of these things have no known cause, which is certainly not to suggest that it doesn't exist, but it does require the concession that we just do not know whether an truly uncaused event is possible or not.

b)
The argument for "god's" existence also claims by necessity that the state of nothingness is a possibility. For time to exist three parameters of: Space; Objects; and Motion need to be present. The notion that "god" who is invisible, who lives somewhere imaginary or non-physical removes the possibility of any objects in motion. This imaginary land of "god" can only exist within the mind, "god's" place of origin.

I don't quite think the belief is god exists in a state of nothingness, that of course would immediately rule him out of existence as nothingness is a paradox, so i'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting their argument here and because of that the rest of your argument would be invalid, but i'll wait and see what the theists have to say in response, i'm not good at defending their position.

[TruthWorthy]

Gentlemen, I concede my defeat.

While I don't like that the argument for "god has the luxury of the defending position, and in turn, being disproved.
I think it's probably likely that some time down the track someone who can be bothered will come up with a good enough reason to change the argument.
That wont be me I can't say that I know there isn't a "god anymore
I am grateful for your generous contributions and giving me a chance to save face.