Strong Atheism starts from faith

[Edwardo Piet]

Are you a conspiracy theorist now Evie? There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been, and almost certainly never will be. It's not like this argument, if it existed, wouldn't be known about, it would be big fucking news mate. So currently there exists no valid logical argument for the existence of God, got a problem with that statement?

I'll believe it when i see it.

Well if you are claiming absolute knowledge then I still don't see how you can hold that.

And the belief that there absolutely cannot be any valid logical arguments otherwise we would have known about it - seems logically fallacious and once again seems to be claiming the absolute to me. So are you claiming the absolute or not?

You'll believe it when you see it, well, fair enough. Me too. But I don't claim that there definitely aren't any valid arguments out there already (however improbable they are) because I cannot know that - I don't have access to absolute knowledge, I don't believe anyone does.

What conspiracy theorist? What are you talking about? I'm testing your agnosticism or lack thereof

So you're really on the fence on this one? I would have thought atheism has some position for the non existence of "God" otherwise you're really being skeptical which isn't proper atheism to me.

"proper atheism" what's that? If he doesn't believe in God then he's an atheist. What's 'proper atheism', what's a 'proper atheist'? I mean... what's the alternative? An improper atheist? What's that? A theist/deist?

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

So you're really on the fence on this one? I would have thought atheism has some position for the non existence of "God" otherwise you're really being skeptical which isn't proper atheism to me.

"proper atheism" what's that? If he doesn't believe in God then he's an atheist. What's 'proper atheism', what's a 'proper atheist'? I mean... what's the alternative? An improper atheist? What's that? A theist/deist?

EvF

Proper atheism is about not believing in "God". If you're hooked up on subjective interpretive you might as well abandon the term atheism and adopt skepticism.
Also, I don't see a point in dubbing yourself an atheist only to turn around and say "There is an equal chance that there is a "God"; or, "God may very well exist". It completely defies the supposed position of non-belief. Either don't believe, or assume realistic possibility for "God's" existence, fence sitter's are basically skeptics, and there's nothing "wrong" with being a skeptic as long as it doesn't try to incorporate the side of disbelief and neutrality simultaneously.
That's all I'm trying to say.

[rjh4 is back]

I view claims about Nature through the scientific method, anything that manifests in nature can be measured and studied, including the effects on our reality by supernatural forces, of which there are none currently testable.

If you have a logical argument, it gets examined like a logical argument... I make sure there are no fallacies or unproved assertions in the premise and see if the conclusion logically follows from there.

If you have changed your position, Void, fine. I can only go by what you say. In the past you have said:

"Oh come on, we both know that the only time progress was ever made in science is when the explanation "god did it" was ignored in favour of digging deeper - setting aside the claims of the bible and the mindset it's based upon in favour of a new methodology for evaluating truth claims, the scientific method." (emphasis added)

This seems to indicate that you are saying that the scientific method is the new methodology for evaluating truth claims. You did not qualify this in any way, i.e., distinguishing questions about nature from other truth claims.

1) I didn't make a truth claim

You mean to tell me that the statement "There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been" is not a truth claim? Considering the context in which you made the statement, I don't know how it could be anything but a truth claim. You made a statement about something, Fr0d0 said something regarding your statement, Evie indicated that Fr0d0 said what he did because you did not qualify it with something like "I think" so as to indicate that it was just your opinion, and then in response to what Evie said, you made the statement. So while I would normally take your statement as just an opinion, the context seems to make it a truth statement.

2) You don't use the scientific method to assess logical arguments!

See above.

Look, Either there is no valid logical argument for God or someone has one, but it's being hidden away and nobody uses it, nobody brings it up in debate, nobody else has ever thought of it and there is no way to compare it to an argument that doesn't exist, so lets drop all the fucking assumptions and stick with the most reasonable premise, that there exists currently no valid logical argument for the existence of God.

Or you simply refuse to accept any valid logical argument for God and insist that it is not valid.

I don't have absolute certainty that no argument exists, i just don't see the point in beating around the bush because the explanation for why this argument exists and nobody uses is an tangle of unfounded assumptions and hypothetical situations.

See above. Also, maybe you just need to learn how to communicate in such a manner as to distinguish when something is merely your opinion and when you think it is a fact (certainty).

No it's not, you just seemingly have zero idea what my position is.

Maybe so...but that may be because you do not communicate it very well.

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

Get it?

I get it. You have no evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God. From that you say that you have no reason to favor either position...and yet you live your life as an atheist. So while you admittedly have no reason to favor either position, you do, in fact, favor one of them. Sounds irrational and arbitrary to me.

[TruthWorthy]

I have plenty of corroborating evidence which is in support of religion being a human invention and a mockery.

[Edwardo Piet]

Proper atheism is about not believing in "God".

Yes and theVOID doesn't believe in God, so how is he not a 'proper atheist'?

If you're hooked up on subjective interpretive you might as well abandon the term atheism and adopt skepticism.

Hooked up on subjective interpretation? I thought it was you doing that. Either someone is an atheist or they aren't... I don't see what a 'proper' or 'improper' atheist is. Either someone is an atheist or they are not - either they believe in God or they don't. Is it not as simple as that?

Also, I don't see a point in dubbing yourself an atheist only to turn around and say "There is an equal chance that there is a "God";

Well I don't believe I know anyone here who does that. But if it was exactly 50/50 then I don't quite see whether that's belief or disbeleif.

or, "God may very well exist".

Eh? God indeed may exist (however improbable he is) - how can I know he doesn't? If he is completely undetectable and indistinguisble in experience from his non-existence?

Do I believe in God? No. So even if he may exist I don't believe... so long as I think he is more improbable than probable to exist than I'm an atheist. There almost certainly is no God I say.

It completely defies the supposed position of non-belief.

Please substantiate that. Are you saying that no atheist is a 'true atheist' (or, 'proper atheist' as you put it) if he is not a gnostic atheist? Atheism is only really atheism if it's absolute denial of any possibility of God's existence? Well I'm actually more against gnostic atheism than I am agnostic theism. I think that it's insane to think you can absolutely know God doesn't exist - because to know that... you'd have to have the mind of God yourself!! We humans don't have access to absolute knowledge, God or no God.

Either don't believe, or assume realistic possibility for "God's" existence, fence sitter's are basically skeptics, and there's nothing "wrong" with being a skeptic as long as it doesn't try to incorporate the side of disbelief and neutrality simultaneously.
That's all I'm trying to say.

So now you are speaking of a realistic possibility. Well sure, that's better. But any possibility left open is more intellectually honest than none of course. I am sure TheVOID didn't mean that he is a 'fence sitter' in the sense of it's '50/50' that God doesn't exist or not. I'm sure he's a much stronger atheist than that.

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

Yeah, I think it's pointless to assert you're an atheist unless you're prepared to state you either: a) don't believe in God without exceptions; b) are willing to state there isn't a God at all.
If the probability were split equally between yes or no on whether there is a God, then I think you qualify as a skeptic instead of an atheist.
No insinuation of theVoid's strength in atheism, just a pick at what seemed to be too flexible/accomodating statement from an atheist.
miley:

[theVOID]

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

So you're really on the fence on this one? I would have thought atheism has some position for the non existence of "God" otherwise you're really being skeptical which isn't proper atheism to me.

To be an Atheist is to be 'without belief in god(s)', literally. I am an Agnostic atheist, i do not believe in any gods not because i think they don't exist, but because there is no evidence either logical or empirical to support the position that they do exist. It is a simple position and is ultimately saying "I do not know", something that i am more than comfortable admitting.

If you want to argue that is is more reasonable to assume there is no god rather than to admit it is not known then i will gladly have that debate with you.

[chatpilot]

I consider myself to be a hardcore atheist for the simple fact that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the christian god or any god for that matter. I am convinced that religion and the worship of deities is an invention of the imagination of man nothing more and nothing less. The only purpose religious beliefs serve is to misguide and delude people to the world around them and promote false hopes. The very notion of a creator deity that requires worship or punishment for lack of acknowledging his or its existence is repulsive to me.

[theVOID]

I view claims about Nature through the scientific method, anything that manifests in nature can be measured and studied, including the effects on our reality by supernatural forces, of which there are none currently testable.

If you have a logical argument, it gets examined like a logical argument... I make sure there are no fallacies or unproved assertions in the premise and see if the conclusion logically follows from there.

If you have changed your position, Void, fine. I can only go by what you say. In the past you have said:

"Oh come on, we both know that the only time progress was ever made in science is when the explanation "god did it" was ignored in favour of digging deeper - setting aside the claims of the bible and the mindset it's based upon in favour of a new methodology for evaluating truth claims, the scientific method." (emphasis added)

This seems to indicate that you are saying that the scientific method is the new methodology for evaluating truth claims. You did not qualify this in any way, i.e., distinguishing questions about nature from other truth claims.

You did notice the first line of that sentence right? "The only time progress was ever made in science. That was specifically about conducting scientific examination without the presupposition of God, it was not about the scientific method being the only method for evaluating truth claims.

1) I didn't make a truth claim

You mean to tell me that the statement "There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been" is not a truth claim? Considering the context in which you made the statement, I don't know how it could be anything but a truth claim. You made a statement about something, Fr0d0 said something regarding your statement, Evie indicated that Fr0d0 said what he did because you did not qualify it with something like "I think" so as to indicate that it was just your opinion, and then in response to what Evie said, you made the statement. So while I would normally take your statement as just an opinion, the context seems to make it a truth statement.

I apologies if i gave the impression that i was speaking in certainties, that was not my intention. I still stand by the claim that the position that there is currently no valid logical argument for the existence is the only reasonable position.

Look, Either there is no valid logical argument for God or someone has one, but it's being hidden away and nobody uses it, nobody brings it up in debate, nobody else has ever thought of it and there is no way to compare it to an argument that doesn't exist, so lets drop all the fucking assumptions and stick with the most reasonable premise, that there exists currently no valid logical argument for the existence of God.

Or you simply refuse to accept any valid logical argument for God and insist that it is not valid.

I'm sure you want to believe that, it makes it easy for you to reject any opposition to your own views with that mindset, but that is not the attitude i have. I am only interested in the truth, regardless of what it is or where it leads me. If there was a valid logical argument for the existence of God i would be forced to accept it and honestly would have no problem accepting it. I have no vested interest in disbelief.

I don't have absolute certainty that no argument exists, i just don't see the point in beating around the bush because the explanation for why this argument exists and nobody uses is an tangle of unfounded assumptions and hypothetical situations.

See above. Also, maybe you just need to learn how to communicate in such a manner as to distinguish when something is merely your opinion and when you think it is a fact (certainty).

If you're unsure just ask, i usually try to state such things clearly, but considering the remark in question was not part of a debate and rather an assessment of the current state of arguments for the existence of God i didn't really feel the need to qualify my statement with disclaimers.

No it's not, you just seemingly have zero idea what my position is.

Maybe so...but that may be because you do not communicate it very well.

That shouldn't be the case considering all of the discussion we have had prior to now, i have been consistent in stating that claims about nature can be assessed through science, be it evolution of the age of the universe. Perhaps it was due to most of our previous discussions being about nature and science specifically that you have this impression.

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

Get it?

I get it. You have no evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God. From that you say that you have no reason to favor either position...and yet you live your life as an atheist. So while you admittedly have no reason to favor either position, you do, in fact, favor one of them. Sounds irrational and arbitrary to me.

An Atheist, by definition, is someone who lacks belief in the existence of God, which i currently do. What i do not do, and this i think is where you are confused, is claim that it is certain that God does not exist. Yes i do live life as if their is no God, because i see no reason to have positions informed by a proposition that i do not believe is valid. If you saw no reason to believe that the world was going to live in 2012 would it be irrational to live as if it was not going to happen? Of course not, and my world view is essentially the same, just replace 2012 with God.

[rjh4 is back]

You did notice the first line of that sentence right? "The only time progress was ever made in science. That was specifically about conducting scientific examination without the presupposition of God, it was not about the scientific method being the only method for evaluating truth claims.

Apologies and thanks for pointing out the distinction. I did not catch it before and it did not come up in our previous conversations even after I pressed things there. In any event, I understand your position regarding nature and logic.

On what basis do you evaluate other truth claims, e.g., moral or ethical truth claims?

I apologies if i gave the impression that i was speaking in certainties, that was not my intention. I still stand by the claim that the position that there is currently no valid logical argument for the existence is the only reasonable position.

Fair enough.

I'm sure you want to believe that, it makes it easy for you to reject any opposition to your own views with that mindset,

Maybe so

I am only interested in the truth, regardless of what it is or where it leads me. If there was a valid logical argument for the existence of God i would be forced to accept it and honestly would have no problem accepting it. I have no vested interest in disbelief.

While I certainly cannot prove that you have a vested interest in disbelief, so as to contradict what you say, I suspect that you do have such a vested interest. To believe in God is to recognize an authority higher than yourself and recognize that He has authority over your life. I suspect that you have no interest in giving up your own attempt at autonomy from God to willingly subject yourself to God's authority, and thus a possible vested interest in disbelief. (I know that you do not believe in God so you will argue that that is why my last couple of sentences do not apply. I understand this. My point is only relative to your comment about "vested interest".) I also recognize that you value intelligence and logic and you certainly must see how Christians regularly are accused of lack of intelligence and logic. So maybe this along with the desire not to be in a position to have such accusations thrown at you could also constitute a "vested interest in disbelief". I am not trying to debate the point, just give you something to think about. Only you can evaluate whether what I say really applies to you.

That shouldn't be the case considering all of the discussion we have had prior to now, i have been consistent in stating that claims about nature can be assessed through science, be it evolution of the age of the universe. Perhaps it was due to most of our previous discussions being about nature and science specifically that you have this impression.

I think you are correct here and I missed an important distinction. See my comments above.

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

Get it?

I get it. You have no evidence for either the existence or non-existence of God. From that you say that you have no reason to favor either position...and yet you live your life as an atheist. So while you admittedly have no reason to favor either position, you do, in fact, favor one of them. Sounds irrational and arbitrary to me.

An Atheist, by definition, is someone who lacks belief in the existence of God, which i currently do. What i do not do, and this i think is where you are confused, is claim that it is certain that God does not exist. Yes i do live life as if their is no God, because i see no reason to have positions informed by a proposition that i do not believe is valid. If you saw no reason to believe that the world was going to live in 2012 would it be irrational to live as if it was not going to happen? Of course not, and my world view is essentially the same, just replace 2012 with God.

It seems like you have a dilemma in your thinking. You don't want to portray yourself as a strong atheist because you think that position cannot be held logically, so you fall back to an agnostic atheist position as you presented above. But you seem to fall back into the agnostic atheist position for argument sake only and the rest of the time live as a strong atheist.