Supernatural and Atheism

[Objectivist]

I'm not agnostic.  I'm a strong atheist.  The notion of God violates the axiom of existence. The notion of God violates the axiom of consciousness. The notion of god violates the axiom of identity.  The notion of God violates the primacy of existence.  The notion of God violates the law of causality.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of pure self-reference.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.  The notion of God is a floating abstraction.  The concept of God is invalid as it can't be reduced to sense data.  The claim that God exists is self-contradictory, making use of the primacy of existence in making the claim while denying the primacy of existence in the content of the claim.  I can go on with much more.  

While most atheists are agnostic, some are not and I'm one.   I don't even think it's debatable.  Debate presupposes the primacy of existence, the notion of gods assumes the primacy of consciousness.  To even debate it is to make use of stolen concepts.

There are god-concepts that do not require the primacy of consciousness, but I agree that most do.

Pantheism and Christian process-theology posit that God evolves, and that we are part of the evolution of God.  It makes no sense to me either, but at least it isn't an primal magician.

Well, to be clear I had originally said that in regard to the Abrahamic gods but I took it out for brevity.  I am not required to refute each and every notion of god that exists out there.  No one has an obligation to prove that the non-existent doesn't exist.  But my refutation applies to all gods that are said to be "supernatural"  which every notion of gods I've heard about includes, whether it be a supernatural realm that it exists in or supernatural powers that defy nature.  The notion of the supernatural is invalid and self-contradictory.  A realm that by its nature transcends nature is incoherent.  It makes use of the axiom of identity while at the same time denying the axiom of identity.  It's a simple matter to refute.  No one needs to remain agnostic towards it forever.  

I have more ways of refuting it such as the fact that the notion of God is indistinguishable from something that is merely imaginary.  If you think about it, any notion that is false contradicts reality at every turn.  It's a target rich environment.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I tend to call myself an atheist out of convenience. Technically, I’m a theological noncognitivist.

Boru

[Nay_Sayer]

I tend to call myself an atheist out of convenience. Technically, I’m a theological noncognitivist.

Boru

Isn't that just ignosticism?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I tend to call myself an atheist out of convenience. Technically, I’m a theological noncognitivist.

Boru

Isn't that just ignosticism?

Yes, but the extra syllables make me sound pretentious.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

That ones always seemed a bit off, to me. The various descriptions we give for our various gods are all intelligible and have meaning. Again, to me, it seems like theological noncognitivism posits some other god (an unintelligible one with no meaning), rather than addressing the various god claims that do exist - and then, in answer to a question about those claims, refers to their posited non intelligible meaningless "god"... instead.

Something like "and furthermore" - after having silently dismissed the very thing in question.

[LinuxGal]

[Simon Moon]

I tend to call myself an atheist out of convenience. Technically, I’m a theological noncognitivist.

Boru

Seems to me, being a theological noncognitivist is still a subcategory of atheism though, right?

After all, whether you feel that the phrase, "god exists" is unintelligible, meaningless, incoherent, it still puts you into the position of not accepting the claim that a god exists.

[LinuxGal]

I'm sure that the Force runs strong in your family.

Well my grandma has spiritual gifts. I think I get it from her. My parents are not so special, in that regard.

[GaugeBoson]

The claim that we are part of a larger more complex system is more valid than the reverse. From life's connectivity to living universe and all points in between. I kind of stay on earth but a living universe isn't totally irrational. To me, more atheist need to stand up and say that. And they shouldn't back down from fundamental think types in atheism.

To me, once we agree that "They are wrong" we can start comparing our thoughts. Special pleading like "I don't have have to give my thoughts" is ok until we reach a point where we are hyper focused on religion for 100's to 1000' of posts. And as soon as we are more worried about atheism's unity before the best truths we can have, that's religious. For me, a statement of belief about god doesn't determine reality. Anti-theism or otherwise.

There is no deity and if we can't link our beliefs back into the list of facts we have about our universe its just blind faith to me.

[LinuxGal]

Scientific knowledge is in one sense asymptotic. We can approach facts, but probably cannot fully understand them, perhaps because we're inside the system and thus can't analyze it objectively. Godel's Theorem implies at that as well.