How to be a strong atheist in a rather straightforward way

[Purple Rabbit]

Some atheists suggest the strong atheist position is incompatible with human infallibility or the nature of knowledge. But don't be hasty on such a conclusion. Reality is more complicated or not complicated at all, depending on your angle of view, just check out the video and see how a strong atheist position is viable even when human fallibility is taken into account.

[youtube]1YxnoSlLwIA[/youtube]

[Purple Rabbit]

"What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it."

—St. Augustine

[Pippy]

That the mystical is necessarily mystical.

That there are things we can't literally know one way or anther, so we have faith and belief.

It reminds me of the "god wouldn't make a world so cold" argument. All the cold world, and the assumption of god presupposes is that it is necessary, part of the system. Not that it is impossible, but the we don't know why it is the way it is.

I struggle with why the supernatural can't be fully comprehended, but it doesn't make me discount it's reality as a conclusion. The mystery being mysterious may be a necessity that we don't understand yet...

That's my take on that quote.

[Purple Rabbit]

That the mystical is necessarily mystical.

That there are things we can't literally know one way or anther, so we have faith and belief.

It reminds me of the "god wouldn't make a world so cold" argument. All the cold world, and the assumption of god presupposes is that it is necessary, part of the system. Not that it is impossible, but the we don't know why it is the way it is.

I struggle with why the supernatural can't be fully comprehended, but it doesn't make me discount it's reality as a conclusion. The mystery being mysterious may be a necessity that we don't understand yet...

That's my take on that quote.

My take would be that it is not possible to give sufficient meaning to the word "god" and the sentence "god exists". The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration.

I'll summarize some of the related points I've brought into the discussion here on AF:

1) About the agnostic label I argued to "be aware that you might be claiming something absolute" since agnostic can be interpreted in an absolute manner, i.e. that someone can make an absolute claim of fundamental unknowability about the existence of god. Being agnostic about god (we cannot know) simply does not mean that you have to be skeptic about the possibility of absolute knowledge.

2) There is a difference between possible positions regarding the existence of god(s) and valid positions. There is no Atheist Police around as of yet, and I personally feel no need for such a controlling institute, that prescribes valid use of certified terminology. Arguing that a position is not valid is irrelevant for the possibility of the position being taken.

3) Definitions of agnosticism and atheism abound differ considerably across (even renowned) sources. This makes their interpretation not unambiguous. Referring to original intended meaning of agnosticism by its proposer, Thomas Henry Huxley, does not clear this up, since Huxley was not clear on several points regarding its definition also. Furthermore two persons can both claim agnosticism on different grounds, i.e. there is no conclusive evidence for it and there is and will never be evidence for it.

4) Strong (or if you will gnostic) atheism is not necessarily a logically invalid position even if you are skeptical about human fallibility regarding knowledge or regarding the fundamental nature of knowledge. One can argue (as theological noncognitivists do) that the sentence "god exists" does not express a proposition since the word god has no meaningful attributes and hence that nothing named 'god' exists. The term “god” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration.

NB: Indeed some theological noncognitivists argue they are not adhering to some specific brand of atheism or agnosticism but form a league of its own, because atheists and agnostics alike generally regard the sentence "god exists" as a proposition that can be validated and therefore are cognitivistic regarding that sentence.

[fr0d0]

Re St. Augustine: We know what God isn't and therefore conclude from that what God might be.. was the common conception of the time, and perhaps now. You can't comprehend God - you can only know in part.

[Joe Bloe]

Only God is ultimately ineffable because only he cannot be fully comprehended by the finite mind.
[from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary]

If god is ineffable, the theists don't know what they are talking about.

[Purple Rabbit]

If god is ineffable, the theists don't know what they are talking about.

Frankly, then atheists don't know either.

[Pippy]

I agree with most of it Purple, but can't use as many big words to do so.

You're right about all points but one I guess, in my books. But that is just my little opinion and i appreciate yours. I think whether or not the word 'god' references a real thing is more subjective.

One can argue (as theological noncognitivists do) that the sentence "god exists" does not express a proposition since the word god has no meaningful attributes and hence that nothing named 'god' exists.

I would then argue the other side, that the term 'god' is (unfortunately) definable by the individual using (and hearing) it. God is just another word, and words are something I am intimate with. It is an abstract expression of a concept, so I had to disagree when you said it wasn't a definable concept. If it is anything, at the least it is a concept.

When I say 'God exists', I am using two small but powerful symbols in conjunction to try to express an idea or thought that I have in my head. That disassociation is part of the human condition, that in a sense we don't think in English (but in another Orwellian sense we do...). The idea I personally am trying to posit when I would say 'god exists' might not be the same as another theist, and there are way of meaning the term that are flawed, fallacious or untrue.

It's all about how you define the loose term of god. You, I think, would define God as something that does not exist. Or may not exist, I don't intend to speak for you... I define God as something, alternatively, that does or may exist. All the proof and evidence is wholly circumstantial and relative, God only exist in a debatable theory nowadays. So it's not that I feel I am denying scientific fact by believing in God, but that (as per my personal definition, and I can't speak for everyone) God and science are only opposed if you choose to believe in a God opposed to science.

Just for clarity, I can't leave out the personal definition of god I keep referencing. I think god is half intelligent design and half logical probability. The system as I see and exist in it appears far too complex to be accidental, coincidental or a matter of chance. And I don't mean to argue evolution, that would be flawed god. This goes all the way up, that a god would have created the systems in place that make evolution and life and existence possible. Evolution itself is not a driven process with any intent of even distinction of it's own. It is a side-effect, if you will, from the two basic rules of time and change. The fourth dimension, which is itself closely related to the possibility and reality of change. That's the big picture ID argument, augmented by classic examples of those silly flagellum motors. Then plausibility because of the chain of causality that is also part of the time/change system. We can have two answers to the causality debate, I think. Either there is not cause without and effect, and no effect without a cause, or there was one once. Either we are in a very lucky, very beatific and marvelously complex and essentially infinite series of causes, or it is more likely that there was something that made this. The unmoved mover. And then worship of god becomes more pragmatic, because you try to appreciate the complexity and interdependency of life and try to learn not to fuck with it to much. Come to terms with what you cannot control, so as to better understand what you can. And have a personified concept to say thanks to, which is always good for you. Humility is empowering.

That was a bit of a rant, thanks for listening.

-Pip

[Purple Rabbit]

I think whether or not the word 'god' references a real thing is more subjective.

One can argue (as theological noncognitivists do) that the sentence "god exists" does not express a proposition since the word god has no meaningful attributes and hence that nothing named 'god' exists.

I would then argue the other side, that the term 'god' is (unfortunately) definable by the individual using (and hearing) it. God is just another word, and words are something I am intimate with. It is an abstract expression of a concept, so I had to disagree when you said it wasn't a definable concept. If it is anything, at the least it is a concept.

You can define 'god' to mean for example (A) 'table' or (B) 'the esotheric essence of being that unnoticebly for others guides me in all I do'. A is in essence a homonym for table, it completely parasitizes on a concept with perceivable characterics or attributes and no one seriously proposes it. B does nothing of the sort. It rather cloaks all attributes of god since there are no specifics that can be verified by others. Theological noncognitivists argue that all proposed definitions of god(s) by religions are either refuted by evidence or are of type B, they have no unambiguously defining characteristics.

It's all about how you define the loose term of god. You, I think, would define God as something that does not exist. Or may not exist, I don't intend to speak for you... I define God as something, alternatively, that does or may exist. All the proof and evidence is wholly circumstantial and relative, God only exist in a debatable theory nowadays. So it's not that I feel I am denying scientific fact by believing in God, but that (as per my personal definition, and I can't speak for everyone) God and science are only opposed if you choose to believe in a God opposed to science.

I would not define god as something that does not exist. I'm open to assess existence of anything that somehow is perceivable. So what we need is perceivable characteristics that uniquely identify the proposed phenomenon. I feel no need to define god, since I have no believe in god.

Just for clarity, I can't leave out the personal definition of god I keep referencing. I think god is half intelligent design and half logical probability. The system as I see and exist in it appears far too complex to be accidental, coincidental or a matter of chance.

I also deny a purely accidental nature of the universe. The universe is not pure accidence but instead there's a pattern in this universe that science shows us, and we call it the laws of nature. Do you deny the laws of nature? If existence were pure accidence, we would not be around to testify about it. Reasoning for beings 'outside' or 'above' the universe that necessarily support this universe are fallacious (since they would be in need for some upport for the same reasons) and without evidence.

[Rhizomorph13]

So, what about this definition of God:

An unperceivable thing that, necessarily, exists outside the reality that it created. It is by definition unperceivable, and to create reality a thing would have to exist outside that reality.

Rhizo

Human please read no further!

P.S. IPU(BBYH) pay no attention to the woefully inadequete definition above; I didn't include YOUR attributes of being pink and hating worship because that is unprovable and this is an atheist forum. These dupes have no knowledge of your love and caring heart that burns trancendentally outside reality.