Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me first define true atheism

Atheism is a complete and total rejection of all theistic claims. If theists assert God (creator of the universe and all life in it) does exist, atheists must assert the contrary , i.e. God does not exist. The only middle ground in this true dichotomy is agnosticism (undecided), which is not true atheism.

-and when you're done I'll define true ignorance. Since we're in the mood to define the positions of others tonight.

A.We have observable empirical evidence of a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes, existing here on earth

Yup

B.Therefore a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes existing elsewhere in the universe, including other possible dimensions, is a logical possibility and can not be ruled out

Sure.

Therefore If A is true then B is logically possible and can not be rejected

Oh it can be rejected fairly easily - rejected out of hand even.

Atheists will easily accept the existence of a sentient life form (lets call it life form 1.1) that is 1% superior in intelligence to humans, and they will accept this possibility by blind faith using nothing more than logical inferences.

I need blind faith to accept some logical inference? I think that you may be mistaken. Also..."an atheist" (anyone remember the scene in fear and loathing, with the druug conference? everytime someone goes douchemode like this that's all I can think of) probably won't easily accept any horseshit you've concocted, you realize that, right?

So then we must assume life form 1.1 could exist,

Actually, since you mentioned inferences...assumption would be the wrong term to use. You're talking about people inferring aliens, not assuming them, but carry on.

therefore can not be ruled out of existence. And life form 1.1 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.2., and life form 1.2 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.3 etc. etc.

And at every step along the way an intelligent life form that is 1% superior in intelligence/attributes can logically & rationally exist from the perspective of the life form that is 1% inferior, and at no point along the way does this chain of slightly superior life forms become an irrational concept (i.e flying spaghetti monsters) from the perspective of the preceding slightly less intelligent life form.

Sure, we can partition life in increments of 1% or a half of .01% all day long, especially if it;s hypothetical life, eh?

Therefore in this chain of logically possible life forms, the existence of life form 100000^100000 (i.e creator of the universe, thus God) becomes as logical a concept as life form 1.1 is.

Generally speaking, when you use the word "therefore" something is following. In this case, it's not. 1.1, 2.9, A billion.1...all your line of reasoning would lead us to is incrementally more intelligent than the last (and less intelligent than the next). You've made a leap of faith - over your own argument, invoking a god for no reason whatsoever. Gratz.

The concept of a God-like intelligence is only rejected by narrow minded subjective atheists that are incapable of mentally grasping the existence of BIG LIFE, when in fact there is no rational, logical or mathematical basis to reject a God-like intelligence from existing. Just as single celled organisms and trillion celled organisms have the same mathematical chances of existing , humans and a God-like sentience also have the same mathematical chances of existing

Let's see that math then, eh?

Understand, the "SIZE OF INTELLIGENCE" has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the potential existence of a sentient life form. Therefore unimaginably small life has the exact same chances of existing as unimaginably big life does as far as logic is concerned, and the IIT proves it at every incremental step.

No it doesn't. Ask yourself what the odds would be of a new creature the size of a blue whale cropping up on this rock would be? Now weigh that against the emergence of novel forms of single celled life. There;s a reason that there are more different types of germs on this planet than there are whales (a whole host of reasons, actually).

Once the atheist opens the door of possibility to the existence of life form 1.1, he then must produce a reason to stop this incremental intelligence from reaching Godhood in a stepwise fashion. And the atheist can never produce a valid reason to stop the progression of this incremental intelligence other than he can't mentally comprehend a God-like intelligence existing. Therefore the atheist is forced to compare the concept of God to absurd concepts like flying spaghetti monsters to justify his reasoning in what should be a perfectly logical concept.

-Or-, you're fapping all over a self serving construct of what you think an atheist must do, must think, must "whatever".

Atheists illogically and irrationally put a cap on the intelligence/attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, and do so without ever giving an explanation why a God-like intelligence can not exist or is highly unlikely to exist.

Why would I do that? I'd imagine a "godlike intelligence" would be a small feat if this cosmos were teeming with life...if the intelligence of our human gods are the bar that needs to be met. Shooting for the bare minimum on that one, it would seem.

In fact the only logical reason someone has to put a cap on the intelligence levels in the universe, is if a life form knows all that can be possibly be known, thus is all knowing and can't know any more

Therefore true atheism (not agnosticism) is an illogical concept

You keep using that word.....as before, therefore usually indicates something that follows, and here again it does not.

[IDScience]

I know what you believe because I know what you don't believe. Either God exists or he does not exist. Therefore If you claim you don't believe your team will lose, I understand you must believe your team will win because no third option exists.

I don't believe in any theistic claims until compelling evidence can be shown and evaluated. I don't care about winning or losing, my only concern (such as it is) would be can you support what you claim?

That's fine, just as long as you understand that equates you believe God does not exist. Just as not believing in Santa, equates believing Santa does not exist

But I would prefer a logical and rational rebuttal to the position of atheism, rather than "I don't see it, therefore I don't believe it exists"

[Cyberman]

No it doesn't. I don't have a belief that "God" doesn't exist, I lack the belief that it does. This is exactly what I meant by telling us what we believe.

[JuliaL]

So, how about:
The 7.3 Dimension
The Bleen Dimension
The -3.141592654 Dimension
The Infinity Dimension
The 17/23 Dimension

You missed the 8th dimension. With Lectroids.

[Jenny A]

I'm sorry to jump right in when we haven't been introduced.

Let me first define true atheism

Atheism is a complete and total rejection of all theistic claims. If theists assert God (creator of the universe and all life in it) does exist, atheists must assert the contrary , i.e. God does not exist. The only middle ground in this true dichotomy is agnosticism (undecided), which is not true atheism.

Hardly. I suggest you check a dictionary.

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/atheist

Agnostics are atheists because they lack a belief in god. I personally disbelieve in all the gods invented by man. Any god at all I just find extremely unlikely.

The Incremental Intelligence Theorem

A.We have observable empirical evidence of a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes, existing here on earth

B.Therefore a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes existing elsewhere in the universe, including other possible dimensions, is a logical possibility and can not be ruled out

Therefore If A is true then B is logically possible and can not be rejected

Sure there might be sentient life elsewhere. Check.

Atheists will easily accept the existence of a sentient life form (lets call it life form 1.1) that is 1% superior in intelligence to humans, and they will accept this possibility by blind faith using nothing more than logical inferences.

Um, no. We just from possibility to existence. You missed a crucial step here.

So then we must assume life form 1.1 could exist, therefore can not be ruled out of existence. And life form 1.1 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.2., and life form 1.2 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.3 etc. etc.

And at every step along the way an intelligent life form that is 1% superior in intelligence/attributes can logically & rationally exist from the perspective of the life form that is 1% inferior, and at no point along the way does this chain of slightly superior life forms become an irrational concept (i.e flying spaghetti monsters) from the perspective of the preceding slightly less intelligent life form. Therefore in this chain of logically possible life forms, the existence of life form 100000^100000 (i.e creator of the universe, thus God) becomes as logical a concept as life form 1.1 is.

Ah, back to possibilities. Actually, the possibility of something 1% greater does not lead to an infinite string of larger larger possibilities. For example, there are physical limits on mammals living out of the water with regard to load bearing weight, consumption of food, and blood pressure constraints which elephants and giraffes push the boundaries of. Brains require an enormous about of energy, produce heat, and create problems in the birth canal. Life forms else where may have different physical constraints, but constraints there will be. Infinite intelligence is therefore not possible in a life form.

The concept of a God-like intelligence is only rejected by narrow minded subjective atheists that are incapable of mentally grasping the existence of BIG LIFE, when in fact there is no rational, logical or mathematical basis to reject a God-like intelligence from existing. Just as single celled organisms and trillion celled organisms have the same mathematical chances of existing , humans and a God-like sentience also have the same mathematical chances of existing

I'd like to see how you calculated the possibility of god. Humans or any multi-celled animal are much less likely than single celled animals. God, would be off the scale. If a god were as likely as single celled animals, we'd be hip deep in gods.

Understand, the "SIZE OF INTELLIGENCE" has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the potential existence of a sentient life form. Therefore unimaginably small life has the exact same chances of existing as unimaginably big life does as far as logic is concerned, and the IIT proves it at every incremental step.

emphasis mine.

Nonsense. Just a quick survey of the life we know shows increased intelligence is quite unlikely. There are very few animals approaching human intelligence, but a number of animals are sentient, depending on how you define sentient..

Once the atheist opens the door of possibility to the existence of life form 1.1, he then must produce a reason to stop this incremental intelligence from reaching Godhood in a stepwise fashion. And the atheist can never produce a valid reason to stop the progression of this incremental intelligence other than he can't mentally comprehend a God-like intelligence existing. Therefore the atheist is forced to compare the concept of God to absurd concepts like flying spaghetti monsters to justify his reasoning in what should be a perfectly logical concept.

Just covered that, see above.

Atheists illogically and irrationally put a cap on the intelligence/attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, and do so without ever giving an explanation why a God-like intelligence can not exist or is highly unlikely to exist. In fact the only logical reason someone has to put a cap on the intelligence levels in the universe, is if a life form knows all that can be possibly be known, thus is all knowing and can't know any more

I just explained why infinite intelligence is unlikely.

Therefore true atheism (not agnosticism) is an illogical concept

Back to "true atheism." What you define as true atheism is gnostic atheism. Few atheists are gnostic.

[JuliaL]

That's fine, just as long as you understand that equates you believe God does not exist. Just as not believing in Santa, equates believing Santa does not exist

Everybody knows that God, like Santa exists in a superposition of states. It takes five year olds to collapse that Eigenfunction solution into definite religious claims.... or maybe just the intellect of a five year old.

[IDScience]

Oh it can be rejected fairly easily - rejected out of hand even.

That's not a rebuttal, explain why the logical inference can be rejected "out of hand". Don;t wast my time with personal assertions without an argument to be made for them, or ill cease responding to you

I need blind faith to accept some logical inference? I think that you may be mistaken.

Not mistaken. If it must be inferred there is no observable evidence for it, thus must be taken in faith. Empirical evidence does not need to be inferred

Actually, since you mentioned inferences...assumption would be the wrong term to use. You're talking about people inferring aliens, not assuming them, but carry on.

You must assume the existence of something before you can infer the existence of something

Sure, we can partition life in increments of 1% or a half of .01% all day long, especially if it;s hypothetical life, eh?

Shall we delve into scientific hypothetical's? that have no observable evidence, eh?

Generally speaking, when you use the word "therefore" something is following. In this case, it's not. 1.1, 2.9, A billion.1...all your line of reasoning would lead us to is incrementally more intelligent than the last (and less intelligent than the next). You've made a leap of faith - over your own argument, invoking a god for no reason whatsoever. Gratz.

I have made a leap of faith based on observable evidence, logical inferences and evolutionary theory. Unless your going to postulate evolutionary theory predicts intelligence must stop evolving at some point. Which I doubt you will go there

Let's see that math then, eh?

Ill use your math for evolutionary theory. If it becomes exponentially more difficult for life to become more intelligent the longer it exists, then you argue against your own theory of abiogenesis and evolution

No it doesn't. Ask yourself what the odds would be of a new creature the size of a blue whale cropping up on this rock would be? Now weigh that against the emergence of novel forms of single celled life. There;s a reason that there are more different types of germs on this planet than there are whales (a whole host of reasons, actually).

The odds of quantity are due to reproductive abilities and resources available. This has nothing to do with my argument, as I believe there is only one God. The only logical way to reject God is to have a logical reason to reject a God-like intellect, which you don't have

-Or-, you're fapping all over a self serving construct of what you think an atheist must do, must think, must "whatever".

I should have clarified. Its what a rationally thinking atheist must do. Any atheist that accepts the possibility of any other life (by faith) but rejects a God-like life form from existing is not logical, but emotional

Why would I do that? I'd imagine a "godlike intelligence" would be a small feat if this cosmos were teeming with life...if the intelligence of our human gods are the bar that needs to be met. Shooting for the bare minimum on that one, it would seem.

Of course, and since you have no idea what life forms do exist and don;t exist in our own solar system, you then can;t possibly know what life forms do and don't exist throughout the entire universe can you?. Thus can't logically make emphatic claims about what life forms do and don't exist

You keep using that word.....as before, therefore usually indicates something that follows, and here again it does not.

Therefore God could logically exists does follow unless you can prove a God-like intellect is incapable of existing or highly unlikely to exist. Therefore God could exist, just as life form 1.1 and 1.2 could exist.

Now explain to me why life form 1.1 can exist . but life form 10000000 can not. And if you can't explain it , then you have no logical basis for atheism.. You will eventually be forced to admit your atheism is based in 100% subjective faith

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let me first define true atheism

Atheism is a complete and total rejection of all theistic claims. If theists assert God (creator of the universe and all life in it) does exist, atheists must assert the contrary , i.e. God does not exist.

.... aaaaaaaaaannndd you lost me. G'night, Irene.

[IDScience]

Hardly. I suggest you check a dictionary.

I have "checked a dictionary". Either God exists or he does not exist. Its either A or B, if you reject A you must accept B, and vice versa. Learn the law of exclude middle

Agnostics are atheists because they lack a belief in god. I personally disbelieve in all the gods invented by man. Any god at all I just find extremely unlikely.

Incorrect, agnostics also lack a believe in Gods non existence, their undecided on the issue. Just as someone can be undecided on string theory or multiverse, they have not accepted or rejected the claims, but remain undecided

Sure there might be sentient life elsewhere. Check.

Then there might be a God, therefore atheism is not logical

Um, no. We just from possibility to existence. You missed a crucial step here.

Yes I jumped from life form 1.1 to God, both of which have no observable evidence. But I accept the possibility that both are equally probable

Ah, back to possibilities. Actually, the possibility of something 1% greater does not lead to an infinite string of larger larger possibilities. For example, there are physical limits on mammals living out of the water with regard to load bearing weight, consumption of food, and blood pressure constraints which elephants and giraffes push the boundaries of. Brains require an enormous about of energy, produce heat, and create problems in the birth canal. Life forms else where may have different physical constraints, but constraints there will be. Infinite intelligence is therefore not possible in a life form.

Using physical limitations of life forms on earth, then extending that argument to places elsewhere in the universe is not possible . Secondly the argument is about size of intelligence not physical dimensions. Third an infinite intellect is not needed to create the universe because the information contained in the universe is limited thus the intellect required to create it can also be limited. All knowledge does not equate unlimited in knowledge. Someone can know all that can possibly be known (thus be all knowing) but still not have infinite knowledge

I'd like to see how you calculated the possibility of god. Humans or any multi-celled animal are much less likely than single celled animals. God, would be off the scale. If a god were as likely as single celled animals, we'd be hip deep in gods."

And how do you know we are not hip deep in Gods?. You can't see beyond your limited scope. We are gods (Elohim)

Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.
Psa 82:7 But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

God is a position of authority not a person, just as president is a position not a person. The Hebrew judges were also called Elohim.

Nonsense. Just a quick survey of the life we know shows increased intelligence is quite unlikely. There are very few animals approaching human intelligence, but a number of animals are sentient, depending on how you define sentient.

And just a quick survey 3.5 billion years ago would have shown you increased intelligence was quite unlikely. Your at odds with your own theory of evolution.

Back to "true atheism." What you define as true atheism is gnostic atheism. Few atheists are gnostic.

Gnostic is not a valid term. No one knows (via empirical observation) anything, they only believe. So we are technically talking about 4 groups of people

1. Those who believe God does exist
2. Those who believe God does not exist
3. Those who are undecided on Gods existence
4. Those with no concept of the question (babies, mentally ill)

And since you reject option 1 & 3, you must accept option 2. Because either God exists or he does not exist. You are not undecided on Gods existence as agnostics are

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not a rebuttal, explain why the logical inference can be rejected "out of hand". Don;t wast my time with personal assertions without an argument to be made for them, or ill cease responding to you

Promises, promises. I doubt that someone so intent on wasting the time of others has any leverage for complaint.

It wasn't offered as a rebuttal. No rebuttal is required.

Not mistaken. If it must be inferred there is no observable evidence for it, thus must be taken in faith. Empirical evidence does not need to be inferred

Inference relies upon (and requires) accurate observation of some sort. Try it, try to make some logical inference that you won't be able to quantify with observation. You observed, for example - that there is life on this earth. You then inferred..from that observation -not blind faith- that life would be logically possible elsewhere in the cosmos. From that inference, you are not required to believe that there actually is life anywhere else (blind faith or otherwise), and a statement regarding what is logically possible is a description of a formal system - no faith required (either in forming the description or -of said system-).

You must assume the existence of something before you can infer the existence of something

-and lo, the ugly spectre of solipsism doth raise it's ugly head...and the people trembled, for they were afraid. Did you assume that there was life on this earth in your example? Uh-huh.......

Shall we delve into scientific hypothetical's? that have no observable evidence, eh?

A hypothetical with no evidence wouldn't be very scientific, now would it?

I have made a leap of faith based on observable evidence, logical inferences and evolutionary theory. Unless your going to postulate evolutionary theory predicts intelligence must stop evolving at some point. Which I doubt you will go there

I need to posit no such thing. Is there some point at which you are going to describe the observable evidence, logic, and evolutionary theory that led you to determine that at some point "The possibility of a creature 1% more intelligent, incrementally, than the last hypothetical species of hypothetical life is equivalent to "god"?

So yeah, I'd say you made a hell of a leap. Right over the entirety of what you claim to have done, and what you claim to possess.

Ill use your math for evolutionary theory. If it becomes exponentially more difficult for life to become more intelligent the longer it exists, then you argue against your own theory of abiogenesis and evolution

Are you done with incremental idiocy? Math, my friend, is what this thread is lacking. -Or- we could drop the pretense of statistics, odds, chance, this- that- or the other.

The odds of quantity are due to reproductive abilities and resources available.

Do you imagine that there are not similar (or even precisely the same) constraints upon intelligence? The claim that any two different creatures have exactly the same odds of existing is ludicrous and grinds against our observations, and our understanding of "chance". You've explained why, yourself - in this response to me. Logic has to allow those modifiers.

This has nothing to do with my argument, as I believe there is only one God. The only logical way to reject God is to have a logical reason to reject a God-like intellect, which you don't have

I "reject god" on moral grounds. I don't believe in god because I don't believe that characters from books have ever managed to jump out of the pages of those books. They are two very different positions. The second, that I do not believe - makes me an atheist. The first, rejecting god, makes me something else. Just because you make a demand....that doesn't mean that anyone has to give you what you what - or that your demands are reasonable. I'm sure that you're already aware of this

I should have clarified. Its what a rationally thinking atheist must do.

You hookers like to tell other people what they have to do, that's for sure. You'd think you'd be better at it, what with all the practice.

Any atheist that accepts the possibility of any other life (by faith) but rejects a God-like life form from existing is not logical, but emotional

You're shooting for "god-like" now? I'm sure the big guy will be pleased with how you've described him. You're a brave man, god has been known to fly dissidents from his alien world into volcanos. I have no problem accepting that there is a godlike species in our universe. Hell, we're one of them - for obvious reasons. Limited, capricious, irrational, etc. We sort of wrote that book...so I guess that's to be expected.

Of course, and since you have no idea what life forms do exist and don;t exist in our own solar system, you then can;t possibly know what life forms do and don't exist throughout the entire universe can you?. Thus can't logically make emphatic claims about what life forms do and don't exist

As above, I need look no further than the earth to find an example that would fit the bill. But no, I don;t have any idea what life would be like elsewhere - even in trying to imagine it I would unwittingly (and perhaps inescapably) draw from my experiences here on earth. Now...when you asked that question up above - how I might reject something out of hand.......

Therefore God could logically exists does follow unless you can prove a God-like intellect is incapable of existing or highly unlikely to exist. Therefore God could exist, just as life form 1.1 and 1.2 could exist.

Actually. "therefore incrementally more intelligent alien life is a possibility" would be what follows. God is the leap you took, after prevaricating on some bs about a "god-like" intelligence as a transitional peice. It's all over the board really. You'll need to rewrite from scratch.

Now explain to me why life form 1.1 can exist . but life form 10000000 can not. And if you can't explain it , then you have no logical basis for atheism.. You will eventually be forced to admit your atheism is based in 100% subjective faith

Why would I have to explain that? They could both exist and it would still be possible that neither 1.1 or 10000000 (nor any creature in between) is "god". We could go a step further, 100000001 is still 100000001..we still don't have a god on our hands. I gave you one of the reasons for my atheism above. I don't require faith to make that statement, so I guess your fantasies about what you might be able to force me to do don't apply.