Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Parsim0ny]

What's contradictory about, "I don't believe in gods"?

What's contradictory about it is that if you can't prove your own mind reliability to state objective truths , anything you say about such profound philosophical problems is at best subjective. Therefore hearing someone saying "I don't believe in gods" and hearing my pet dog barking in my bedroom are equally empty and irrelevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

What's empty and irrelevant is the non-sequitur you just made.

You may as well have said "Atheists don't believe in God therefore all bananas are made of candle wax."

Objective truths are true regardless of minds, regardless of what anyone says and regardless of whether they're proved or not. That's the whole point. This whole "brain fizz" non-argument against atheism is total incoherent non-sequitur nonsense. It's also extremely childish. Hence why Matt Slick loves it so much (you should see him in a debate with Dilahunty... it's the most childish behavior I've ever seen from a theist in a debate with a public intellectual). On the whole when you combine the pathetic non-sequitur and poisoning-the-well-typed-approach that the "brain fizz" non-argument has... I would say it's actually the worst theistic (non) argument that there is.

And what's worse is even if weren't an incoherent non-sequitur... if there's no God then the same applies to theists. Everything they supposedly say is equally "meaningless" they just merely think that there's more meaning when there isn't.

[Parsim0ny]

Don't worry, Parsim0ny -- first the monkey has to learn to read, write and speak a human language, graduate pre-med university with a high GPA, get accepted to medical school and pass all the exams, do a 5-year residency in Cardiac Surgery, do a 3-year Fellowship, and get hired by a hospital.  I for one *would* trust any simian that could achieve all that.  Because of the educational time required, the comparatively long-lived white-headed capuchin and the Guinea baboon are the most likely candidates.

More likely we'll see cardiac robots long before that happens, though, and ambitious monkeys will have to content themselves with other careers (parkour coach; rigger, roofer or skywalker; Shakespearean transcription) or explore entrepreneurship.

That's for cardiac surgery, but what about our preparedness to state/demonstrate objective facts about life and the universe ? I can safely assume - and nobody can refute my assumption - that the human mind must first survive ten thousand years of continous genome alterations and countless life-threating situations to begin ascertaning truths of any kind, wait 15 thousand more to consider our reasoning strong enough to start thinking about discovering objective facts. And even then, nothing indicates that our mind is reliable enough and we can never demonstrate it, it follows that nothing anyone can say has any objective value whatsoever.

---

Objective truths are true regardless of minds, regardless of what anyone says and regardless of whether they're proved or not. That's the whole point. This whole "brain fizz" non-argument against atheism is total incoherent non-sequitur nonsense. It's also extremely childish. Hence why Matt Slick loves it so much (you should see him in a debate with Dilahunty... it's the most childish behavior I've ever seen from a theist in a debate with a public intellectual). On the whole when you combine the pathetic non-sequitur and poisoning-the-well-typed-approach that the "brain fizz" non-argument has... I would say it's actually the worst theistic (non) argument that there is.

And what's worse is even if weren't an incoherent non-sequitur... if there's no God then the same applies to theists. Everything they supposedly say is equally "meaningless" they just merely think that there's more meaning when there isn't.

How do you know there are actually objective truths if you can't prove them ? And what's the point of this whole rhetorical discourse if you still can't come up with a sound argument proving your mind is reliable ? What about just acknowledging the fact that constructing any reasonable ground for objective truth outside religion is madness ? 
At least theists start from claim - regardless of its truth - : that there is a God. Therefore we - as creatures of God - are a product of a prefect being, this means that this being made us capable of following the right path towards him, which is equivalent to the reliablity of the human mind. 
This does not prove God exists, it only proves that it is possible to provide a coherent theory about objectivity if we warrant the religious premise.

---

I dont have a super powerful and reliable brain in my head.  I have a more powerful brain than a canary, that's reliable enough for my purposes.  An exterior being saying something to me won;t change any of that...and why would you trust the exterior beings word for it anyway?  Wouldn't they, then, by this batshit law of reliable minds you're proposing...need an exterior being to establish that?  And again, and again, and again..ad infinitum.

This is ignorance, Parsimony.  All I have to do to sufficiently establiosh the reliability of a human mind is to see whether or not it produces useful and reliable results at it;s purpose.  Acccurately modeling the environment to escape predation - for example.  Check.  Making profitable inferences as to where food may be found?  Check.  Correctly determining that my mate is not a simplteton...doublecheck.

That we can accurately and reliably make distinctions between a person with a reliable mind and a person with a deficient mind...again, shows us that there is no need to refer to some "exterior being".  We have enough information, ourselves, here, to make that determination....and even if there were some batshit requirement of an "exterior being" then why doesn't some other human mind count?  "Hey, Bill, is there a ball over there?"  "Sure is Steve, why?"  -Reliable mind confirmed.

You say that your mind is reliable enough for your purposes, which begs the obvious question : what are your purposes ? If your purpose is to be a dangerous predator on earth, your claim is plausible. But if we're talking about objective knowledge, then it can be easily dismissed as rubbish.
If the only thing you know is that you're more evolved than a canary, and if a canary is more evolved than, say, Mycoplasma, what prevents a canary from claiming that his brain is reliable since ((something))'s brain is less reliable than his ? What prevents a canary from coming here and debating us on the matter too, maybe even coming up with a better pretext than yours for trusting his brain ? What kind of reasoning is that ? 

Besides, why do you even put yourselves at the top of the universe ? If I'm much better at math than my baby sister, can I claim that some math equations I scribbled in the walls of my bedroom are reliable and can't be questioned, and that my IQ is higher than that of Terence Tao ? This is ignorance, Khemikal.

[Edwardo Piet]

How do you know there are actually objective truths if you can't prove them ?

You don't have to know of them for them to be objective. They're true regardless of what anyone thinks or has awareness of.

You're confusing ontology and epistemology and truth and knowledge.

---

And what's the point of this whole rhetorical discourse if you still can't come up with a sound argument proving your mind is reliable ?

Minds aren't always reliable or rational. They're often unreliable and irrational. But they can also be reliable and rational... and that's when they correctly follow objective lines of reasoning and logic.

2+2=4, all squares have four sides, all bachelors are unmarried and our minds can't possibly be mistaken about those truths. That's a few examples right there.

[Foxaèr]

Assuming no God can be proven by logic, how can one trust his judgment about religions/existence of god if his mind itself cannot be trusted ? 

The problem is letting go of a belief that is not logical, which is why theists have problems with logic.

[bennyboy]

That's for cardiac surgery, but what about our preparedness to state/demonstrate objective facts about life and the universe ? I can safely assume - and nobody can refute my assumption - that the human mind must first survive ten thousand years of continous genome alterations and countless life-threating situations to begin ascertaning truths of any kind, wait 15 thousand more to consider our reasoning strong enough to start thinking about discovering objective facts. And even then, nothing indicates that our mind is reliable enough and we can never demonstrate it, it follows that nothing anyone can say has any objective value whatsoever.

Those are some pretty arbitrary numbers you're making up there, bud. But I'd agree that, philosophically speaking, we can never be sure if what we consider truth represents an objective truth-- given that by objective, you actually mean "absolute," which seems to be the case.

How do you know there are actually objective truths if you can't prove them ? And what's the point of this whole rhetorical discourse if you still can't come up with a sound argument proving your mind is reliable ? What about just acknowledging the fact that constructing any reasonable ground for objective truth outside religion is madness ? 
At least theists start from claim - regardless of its truth - : that there is a God. Therefore we - as creatures of God - are a product of a prefect being, this means that this being made us capable of following the right path towards him, which is equivalent to the reliablity of the human mind. 
This does not prove God exists, it only proves that it is possible to provide a coherent theory about objectivity if we warrant the religious premise.

Hang on, there. You will have a much more "coherent theory about objectivity" if you warrant the following: that there's a material world, and for the most part we perceive it accurately.

Knowing God to be true for sure would also require senses-- might as well remove that extra step.

You say that your mind is reliable enough for your purposes, which begs the obvious question : what are your purposes ? If your purpose is to be a dangerous predator on earth, your claim is plausible. But if we're talking about objective knowledge, then it can be easily dismissed as rubbish.

There's no intrinsic purpose except those we are born with. It's apparent enough that for most organisms, genetic fitness is the "purpose." (Although really that's not accurate-- it would be better to say "tendency" or "program")

If the only thing you know is that you're more evolved than a canary, and if a canary is more evolved than, say, Mycoplasma, what prevents a canary from claiming that his brain is reliable since ((something))'s brain is less reliable than his ? What prevents a canary from coming here and debating us on the matter too, maybe even coming up with a better pretext than yours for trusting his brain ? What kind of reasoning is that ? 

Fair argument.

Besides, why do you even put yourselves at the top of the universe ? If I'm much better at math than my baby sister, can I claim that some math equations I scribbled in the walls of my bedroom are reliable and can't be questioned, and that my IQ is higher than that of Terence Tao ? This is ignorance, Khemikal.

I believe you are trying to arrive at God, but all the things you are saying about humanity's limitations serve to undermine the God idea. You're saying we're limited and cannot know objective truth. We could not, therefore, have the capacity to comprehend God. If we cannot comprehend, but nevertheless insist on carrying and transmitting ideas about God, then we are actually carrying and transmitting ideas of not-God. Therefore, all religions, including Islam, are intrinsically false-- either God does not exist, or He is not what they are insisting (sometimes at gunpoint) He is.

Since any argument you might make about Allah is intrinsically flawed, you should stop talking about Allah. I mean-- you are knowingly distributing falsehoods about the Creator, and that cannot be a good thing.

[Amarok]

I don't know why you guys bother he will just keep . Repeating religious premises lead to reliability when they don't . And he will keep chanting baselessly evolution or nothing non supernatural can't .He does not have an intuition that needs refuting he has an assertion that needs ridicule .

This is just the same tired argument from reason nonsense

https://infidels.org/library/modern/rich...positional

And even sillier appeals to matt slick BS

[GUBU]

Where can I get one of these atheist umbrellas? I've looked on eBay and Amazon, but can't seem to find them.

You have to join the rest of us in the atheist lobby.

[Astonished]

I just want to know why objectivity is dependent on the existence of a creator. Seems like a pretty stupid means of declaring objectivity, since we exist and that apparently isn't enough. What is it intrinsically about existence that creates objectivity that nothing else seemingly can? And how can we know that a deity, regardless of other characteristics, is responsible for or the author of objectivity? Or that one is even necessary for it? It's just another arbitrary characteristic you choose to describe your favorite flavor of god with and it's as meaningless as all the others without evidence (and since all logic and evidence seem to also discount the possibility of these characteristics individually, that's even worse than just being neutral).

I mean, it's like saying that we can't have objectivity without that statue of a pissing cherub in my backyard fountain. If that wasn't there, we couldn't have X, Y or Z. Fuck off with that ridiculous shit, and feel ashamed of yourself for being that damned simple.

[Amarok]

I just want to know why objectivity is dependent on the existence of a creator. Seems like a pretty stupid means of declaring objectivity, since we exist and that apparently isn't enough. What is it intrinsically about existence that creates objectivity that nothing else seemingly can? And how can we know that a deity, regardless of other characteristics, is responsible for or the author of objectivity? Or that one is even necessary for it? It's just another arbitrary characteristic you choose to describe your favorite flavor of god with and it's as meaningless as all the others without evidence (and since all logic and evidence seem to also discount the possibility of these characteristics individually, that's even worse than just being neutral).

I mean, it's like saying that we can't have objectivity without that statue of a pissing cherub in my backyard fountain. If that wasn't there, we couldn't have X, Y or Z. Fuck off with that ridiculous shit, and feel ashamed of yourself for being that damned simple.

Indeed it's arbitrary as fudge and ultimately his whole case is a giant Tu quoque. And it's worst a certain elements like logic if objective and external cannot rely on god. And even characteristics like omniscience are ultimately circular . To a point where I could simply declare myself all knowing .