Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 4:04 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 random arguements for atheism.
#21
RE: 4 random arguements for atheism.
Answered on topic thread
Reply
#22
RE: 4 random arguements for atheism.
FOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM (Non-Existence of God)

1. Failure of Revelation

Dotard argues first that divine revelation "is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation—if not all revelation—from God or gods must be false" (emphasis added). If this is an argument for atheism, as he claims, it seems to be a modus tollens argument: (i) If God exists, some religious texts would contain no inherently contradictory material. (ii) All religious texts contain inherently contradictory material. (iii) Therefore, God does not exist.

(i) If P, then Q.
(ii) ¬Q.
(iii) Therefore, ¬P.

The problem with such an argument is that ¬Q carries no weight, because it does not follow that P necessarily implies Q in the first place. The strength of the second premise is robbed by a weakness of the first premise. The fact is, there is no logical contradiction between the propositions "All religious texts are false" and "God exists" (i.e., it is logically possible for every religious text in the world to be false and yet God nevertheless exists). Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism. Second, if "all" religious texts contain inherently contradictory material, it does not follow that only "most" of them are false. Logic dictates that if all, then all. Third, since it is not prima facie evident that "all [religious texts] contain inherently contradictory material," the premise shoulders an extraordinary burden of proof (for the substantive importance, logical relevance, and controversial nature of the premise does not allow us to simply assume its truth). But this is moot in the face that P does not necessarily imply Q anyway.

He argues second that "if any revelation had been from a true god or gods, one might reasonably expect parallel versions of the religion to arise in different locations independently of each other." First, this argument holds only if we have reason to believe that God revealed himself to multiple peoples. If most (or all) religious texts are false, then we do not have reason to believe such. Dotard's first argument undercuts this argument. Second, there is no logical contradiction between the propositions "There are no geopolitically parallel versions of religion" and "God exists" (i.e., it is logically possible that one text is the product of an existent God revealing himself and all other texts are human fabrications). Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism.

He argues third that the diverse pattern and spread of so-called revelation suggests that "religious revelation always arises from the imagination of individuals." First, this argument holds only if all religious texts are false (which shoulders an extraordinary burden of proof), for, as previously indicated, it is logically possible for one of those religious texts to be the product of an existent God revealing himself, while all others texts are human fabrications. Second, again as previously indicated, there is no contradiction between the propositions "All religious texts are false" and "God exists" (i.e., it is logically possible for every religious text in the world to be the product of human imagination and yet God nevertheless exists). Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism.

He argues finally that "the main reason that people come to believe in gods is not revelation, but tradition." However, even if it were true that every single circumstance of God-belief was the product of tradition, it does not follow that God does not exist. Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism.

2. God as a Bad Explanation

Dotard argues that as gaps in our knowledge about the natural world close, it becomes increasingly unreasonable to affirm supernatural explanations. However, even if the scientific community produced natural explanations for absolutely every empirical phenomena, effectively undercutting God-of-the-gaps arguments, it does not follow that God does not exist. Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism. Furthermore, his argument is further weakened by the fact that God is not merely a placeholder for unexplained empirical phenomena. If that was the only thing the existence of God explained, his argument might carry some kind of weight.

3. Divine Silence

It is difficult to determine how Dotard proposes 'divine silence' as an argument for atheism. Perhaps he is again making a modus tollens argument: (i) If God exists, he would enable everyone to believe in him. (ii) God has not enabled everyone to believe in him. (iii) Therefore, God does not exist.

(i) If P, then Q.
(ii) ¬Q.
(iii) Therefore, ¬P.

There exists again the problem of ¬Q carrying no weight, for it does not follow that P necessarily implies Q in the first place. As indicated previously, the strength of the second premise is robbed by a weakness of the first premise. The fact is, there is no logical contradiction between the propositions "God has not enabled everyone to believe in him" and "God exists." In other words, it is logically possible that God exists and does not enable everyone to believe in him. Moreover, formidable arguments can be made by Deists on the one hand and Christians on the other that this is indeed the case. Also, weaknesses in the Free Will Defense count against the Free Will Defense, not against the existence of God. Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism.

Disembodied Brainless Thinkers

This argument fails in and of itself, as Dotard tries to use an argument for cause to reach a conclusion for identity. Specifically, an argument that brain states cause mental states does not somehow prove that mental states are identical to, the same thing as, brain states; q.v. ontological reduction (e.g., an argument that fire causes smoke does not somehow prove that smoke is the same thing as fire). Also, argument from personal incredulity is fallacious; it is a species of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. Just because a person finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, it does not allow him to assume that the premise is false (e.g., Dotard finds it "extremely unlikely" that mental states could exist independent of brain states). Likewise, it does not follow from Dotard's inability to find any "reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect" that therefore a thinking being cannot exist without a body.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
Reply
#23
RE: 4 random arguements for atheism.
(July 27, 2009 at 12:56 am)Arcanus Wrote: FOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ATHEISM (Non-Existence of God)

1. Failure of Revelation

Dotard argues first that divine revelation "is the basis for a myriad of competing scriptures, all of which contain inherently contradictory material. Hence, it is clear that most revelation—if not all revelation—from God or gods must be false" (emphasis added). If this is an argument for atheism,

He argues third that the diverse pattern and spread of so-called revelation suggests that "religious revelation always arises from the imagination of individuals." First, this argument holds only if all religious texts are false .......... it does not follow that God does not exist. Therefore, this fails as an argument for atheism.

Failure of revelation was not offered as proof of God's non-existance. Sure, it's a logical possibility a God exists. It's also a logical possibility ravenous bug-blatter beasts from the planet Trol created life on earth. There just exists not enough evidence to warrant such a belief in either. Failure of revelation merely points out revelation fails as a proof of a God's existance and supports the not enough evidence to warrant belief therefore supports the atheistic contention.


Quote:2. God as a Bad Explanation

Dotard argues that as gaps in our knowledge about the natural world close, it becomes increasingly unreasonable to affirm supernatural explanations. ......it does not follow that God does not exist.

I offered this not as proof of God's non-existance but as a reason why the God of the gaps does not offer a reason to warrant a belief in the logical possibility of a God existing. It is a logical possibility that the vacuum that poster claims is God, is God. I offered this NOT as proof it is not, but as an arguement God as an explaination fails, increasingly so as our knowledge increases, and supports the atheistic contention.



Quote:3. Divine Silence

It is difficult to determine how Dotard proposes 'divine silence' as an argument for atheism. Perhaps he is again making a modus tollens argument: (i) If God exists, he would enable everyone to believe in him. (ii) God has not enabled everyone to believe in him. (iii) Therefore, God does not exist.
..... it is logically possible that God exists and does not enable everyone to believe in him.

Logical possibility yes. The divine silence was offered not as proof of God's non existance. It supports the atheistic contention of not enough proof to warrant such a belief.


Quote:Disembodied Brainless Thinkers

This argument fails in and of itself, as Dotard tries to use an argument for cause to reach a conclusion for identity. Specifically, an argument that brain states cause mental states does not somehow prove that mental states are identical to, the same thing as, brain states; q.v. ontological reduction (e.g., an argument that fire causes smoke does not somehow prove that smoke is the same thing as fire). Also, argument from personal incredulity is fallacious; it is a species of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. Just because a person finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, it does not allow him to assume that the premise is false (e.g., Dotard finds it "extremely unlikely" that mental states could exist independent of brain states). Likewise, it does not follow from Dotard's inability to find any "reason why a thinking being should exist without a body to nurture and protect" that therefore a thinking being cannot exist without a body.

Sure, it's a logical possibility, but is there any reasons to warrant such a belief? Fire cause smoke, it is logically possible smoke can exist without fire, but is there reason to warrant such a belief?
Is there reason to warrant a belief thought, mind states, brain states, whatever, cease to exist when the body does? EVERYTHING is logically possible, my arguements, I believe, give atheism more logical plausibility than the logical possibility theism offers.


Quite an effort you put into attempting to turn all my arguements into proof of God's non-existance arguements so you could easily knock them down.
I used to tell a lot of religious jokes. Not any more, I'm a registered sects offender.
---------------
...the least christian thing a person can do is to become a christian. ~Chuck
---------------
NO MA'AM
[Image: attemptingtogiveadamnc.gif]
Reply
#24
RE: 4 random arguements for atheism.
@ Arcanus

Just thought I'd say something on the matter of brain states.

There is indeed evidence that if the brain gets damaged then this affects your memory and behavior, etc.

And I have no evidence for thought or any brain states being seperate to the brain in any way.

I have evidence of brain states being anything extra. Do you?

Untill I know of such evidence I will not believe they are anything extra. Because, I believe it is more parsimonious, and probable, to just believe they are basically the brain, untill there is any evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

It is the less complex hypothesis I think...

They certainly aren't necessarily Indentical to the brain, but for me the question is - why believe anything extra unless you've got any evidence?

So, what do you think about that Arcanus?

EvF
Reply
#25
RE: 4 random arguements for atheism.
(July 27, 2009 at 8:49 am)Dotard Wrote: ... was not offered as proof of God's non-existance.

But the non-existence of God is precisely what atheism is about—definitive proof that "God does not exist" specifically (strong atheism) or definitive proof that "God is not required" more generally (weak atheism). None of your arguments for atheism succeeded in accomplishing either aim, which my rebuttal underscored. If you assert them as arguments for atheism, then they will be evaluated accordingly. If they were simply arguments for skepticism about certain theistic claims, then you ought to brand them as such. However, skepticism is not the same thing as atheism; all four of your arguments could be presented by deists, who would not conclude with atheism. Arguments for atheism need to be incompatible with deism.

(July 27, 2009 at 11:18 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: There is indeed evidence that if the brain gets damaged then this affects your memory and behavior, etc. ... I believe it is more parsimonious, and probable, to just believe they are basically the brain ...

From arguments that X (mental states) are caused by Y (brain states), it is invalid to conclude that X and Y are basically the same thing. Attempting to substantiate the belief that X and Y are ontologically the same thing by showing that X and Y are causally related is horribly invalid; in other words, one cannot draw an ontological conclusion from a causal argument. Ontological conclusions are validly produced only from ontological arguments. To show that X and Y are the same thing, you have to show that every property true of Y is also true of X and vice-versa. If some property is true of Y but not true of X (or vice-versa), then X and Y are not the same thing.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
Reply
#26
RE: 4 random arguements for atheism.
Quote:But the non-existence of God is precisely what atheism is about—

Oh pickle! ANOTHER apologist trying to tell atheists what they do or do not believe.



Atheism is about lack of belief. Period.It makes no claim to truth or even to reason,nor any other claims whatsoever.

Occasionally I run across someone sufficiently arrogant to claim "there is no God". Viz "I believe there is no god" . I see a few like that on line,but have never actually met one in real life.

I do not believe in god(s), in pink unicorns or that the moon is made of green cheese.I have no burden of proof for any of these lack of beliefs. Such a burden only exist when I claim such things are the case.

Brought up devout Catholic,my journey to atheism took over 20 years. It was not a choice. I finally reached the point where I simply no longer believed.

My position is :God may not be reasoned into or out of existence. Like metaphysical propositions generally the existence of god is [so far] unprovable and unfalsifiable.


For me to be able to assert " There is a god" I demand empirical evidence.Apologist sophistry won't do it.

Nor will some ignoramus claiming "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" enable me to claim "there is no god"

For now, my position is "I do not believe,but concede the possibility of error". I will continue to live my daily life AS IF there is no god.
Reply
#27
RE: 4 random arguements for atheism.
(August 2, 2009 at 11:43 pm)padraic Wrote: Oh pickle! ANOTHER apologist trying to tell atheists what they do or do not believe.

I'm sorry, I did not realize we were in the presence of the Infallible Pontificate of Atheism, the Most Holy Padraic.

All sarcasm aside, my view of atheism is not the product of convenient whim. It is a view formed from years spent as an atheist, reading scores of books and essays from atheistic philosophers and popularizers of atheism, interacting with atheists of varied stripes, evaluating critical material for and against atheism, engaging in formal and informal debate with atheists, etc. ad nauseam. You are entitled to disagree with my view, but in no way is my view uninformed or inaccurate.

The notion that atheism is strictly the absence of a particular belief about God is only superficially true. On the surface an atheist is someone who is without God-belief. But as one gets below the surface of the issue, one finds that all atheists universally have a particular belief about God—(i) some atheists, as you acknowledge, that God does not exist, (ii) but all atheists without exception affirm the belief that "God is not required." This is the very nature of atheism; i.e., when it comes to science, reason, knowledge, ethics, etc., all atheists universally believe and affirm that God is not required. For anything. On the surface, atheism is the absence of belief. But only at the surface, for beyond superficial treatments of atheism lies a very important and substantive belief.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Random Facebook god post Rahn127 10 1340 June 27, 2019 at 8:40 pm
Last Post: Chad32
  Random evolution purplepurpose 57 10766 November 3, 2017 at 8:03 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Atheism VS Christian Atheism? IanHulett 80 26874 June 13, 2017 at 11:09 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Atheism, Scientific Atheism and Antitheism tantric 33 12380 January 18, 2015 at 1:05 pm
Last Post: helyott
  Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism Dystopia 26 11973 August 30, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Last Post: Dawsonite
  Debate share, young earth? atheism coverup? atheism gain? xr34p3rx 13 10393 March 16, 2014 at 11:30 am
Last Post: fr0d0
  A different definition of atheism. Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in god/s fr0d0 14 11961 August 1, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  "Old" atheism, "New"atheism, atheism 3.0, WTF? leo-rcc 69 37889 February 2, 2010 at 3:29 am
Last Post: tackattack



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)