A case for positive atheism

[Scented Nectar]

I'm definitely a 'strong', 'positive', 'gnostic', '7 out of 7' atheist. There are too many logical impossibilities in every definition of gods or deities for me to be otherwise. I think too many atheists are too generous in giving 'just in case' lip service to the whole 'we can't know for sure' thing.

[Tiberius]

My problem with this is that it's unclear how this is different from agnosticism. Agnostics aren't sure whether God exists or not, but they lack belief in a god as much as they lack disbelief.

And so in the first paragraph, you admit that you don't even know what agnostics are. Agnostics are people who hold that the existence of God is an unknown (and in some strong cases, unknowable). They may believe that God exists (as our fr0d0 does), or they may not believe that God exists (as I do).

To explain it in a simple way, atheism / theism is all about belief. Agnosticism / gnosticism is all about knowledge. Two very different things I think you'll agree.

1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.

I don't understand the first point. The differences between "infinite" and "very large" are staggering, so why the reference to both? It should be quite obvious that the human mind cannot conceive of an infinite, given that our minds are finite. That we can understand concepts of infinity doesn't mean we can imagine what an infinite amount of something looks like. Indeed, human minds can only imagine around 6 objects before we have to start grouping them (i.e. for 7, usually the groups are 3 and 4). No amount of finite groups can ever add up to an infinite.

2) There is no necessary correspondence between these ideas and reality. We can easily demonstrate this, because I can imagine there being a giraffe on my desk, but there is not. Nor are there any skunks, perpetual motion machines, 12th century minstrels, or purple fairies called Gerald.

How do you know? How can you tell there isn't a giraffe on your desk, or skunks, or perpetual motion machines, etc? To go further, how do you even know there is a desk in front of you?

3) Only if there is evidence for a particular idea is its existence in reality probable.

Not true. Before people even had ideas about pulsars, they existed in reality (at least that is what our science tells us). Existence isn't based on the evidence; existence is or it isn't. You can have as much evidence against something as you like; it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Same with having evidence for the existence of something.

4) Because there are so many things we can think of, none of which is necessarily real, what we think of is very unlikely to be real.

Non-sequitur. Simply does not follow that because we can think of a lot of things, the chances of them being real is very low. Us being able to conceive of things has no effect on their existence, or even their probability of existing.

5) There is no evidence, or no good evidence, for God's existence (this, of course, could be disputed, but that's no doubt been done and dealt with elsewhere).

Ok by me.

6) The concept of God is very unlikely to exist in reality.

Not true. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no evidence that the Higgs boson exists; absolutely none at all. The only reason we are looking for it is it's existence would fix some holes in the standard model, but there is no direct evidence it exists. This doesn't mean it is very unlikely to exist, nor does it mean it is very likely to exist. All it means is that as of this moment in time, we do not know if it exists. Existence isn't a probabilistic thing.

7) Ergo.. there probably is no god.

Since the argument is fatally flawed in several locations, the conclusion it draws is unsupported.

[theVOID]

And you reach that 7/7 irrationally.

Oh, and i would love to see you back up that pure assertion that all gods are logical impossibilities - but you can't, nobody can, hence agnostic atheism is the only logical and intellectually honest position. But please, do give it a go.

We give the whole 'we can't know for sure' "thing" because we're honest.

[Tiberius]

Oh, and i would love to see you back up that pure assertion that all gods are logical impossibilities

The assertion can be completely destroyed by postulating a God who by definition is logically possible.

Of course, then you'd get into a debate over what a "God" was.

[theVOID]

I consider myself a militant atheist or a hardcore atheist for the simple fact that I am convinced to my own satisfaction that god or any gods for that matter do not, nor cannot exist outside the confines of the imaginations of those that do believe in him or them.

Your conclusion is no better than saying "I believe in god for the simple fact that i am convinced to my own satisfaction that god is absolutely necessary for the universe to function"

Oh, and i would love to see you back up that pure assertion that all gods are logical impossibilities

The assertion can be completely destroyed by postulating a God who by definition is logically possible.

Of course, then you'd get into a debate over what a "God" was.

Precisely

"God is a myriad of quantum information that upon self-action caused inflation" for example...

[Scented Nectar]

Oh, and i would love to see you back up that pure assertion that all gods are logical impossibilities

The assertion can be completely destroyed by postulating a God who by definition is logically possible.

Of course, then you'd get into a debate over what a "God" was.

I'm going to back it up in a youtube one of these days soon. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. I will be using the definitions of god and atheism and other words from the following three sources: Mirriam Webster dictionary, Oxford dictionary, Wiki. None of the definitions are logically possible, unless it is not a god one is talking about. At some point a set of accepted definition has to be settled on, and I heard that those two dictionaries are considered to be the best ones. Wiki has some good articles regarding the currently defined strengths of atheism, so I'll be using those too.

[theVOID]

Oh, and i would love to see you back up that pure assertion that all gods are logical impossibilities

The assertion can be completely destroyed by postulating a God who by definition is logically possible.

Of course, then you'd get into a debate over what a "God" was.

I'm going to back it up in a youtube one of these days soon. I've been thinking about this for quite a while. I will be using the definitions of god and atheism and other words from the following three sources: Mirriam Webster dictionary, Oxford dictionary, Wiki. None of the definitions are logically possible, unless it is not a god one is talking about. At some point a set of accepted definition has to be settled on, and I heard that those two dictionaries are considered to be the best ones. Wiki has some good articles regarding the currently defined strengths of atheism, so I'll be using those too.

That would mean you are only disproving one definition of God... You just moved the goalposts forward like 200m. Ultimately god is defined by the person making the claim and backing up the claim that all gods are logical impossibilities is in my opinion an impossible task, the general definitions in Websters and oxford are only intended as summaries and generalizations, oxford and webster's are not an authoritative source on this subject.

As far as disproving a single definition of God, I'm pretty sure you will be able to do it.

[Tiberius]

In my experience, Dictionary.com is a better resource than Merriam-Webster. I've found several flaws in their definitions which make me wonder how they ever became a proper dictionary...

[fr0d0]

agnostic atheism is the only logical and intellectually honest position.

You yourself have a very warped idea about intellectual honesty tho' VOID. To you it's ok to ignore the truth of anything in favour of an over simplistic factual view of the world. With this one sided viewpoint you call other viewpoints 'dishonest'. Pot kettle black.

[Violet]

In my experience, Dictionary.com is a better resource than Merriam-Webster. I've found several flaws in their definitions which make me wonder how they ever became a proper dictionary...

A whole lotta money.

---

"God is a myriad of quantum information that upon self-action caused inflation" for example...

God is an atomic bomb!