Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

"Hard Atheism" is not illogical at all.

1) Not if you add it in your premise.

---

This is not correct. It begs the question.

Quote:

---

Without theists there would be no atheists.

---

This doesn't follow. Atheism is not a parasitic position.

Quote:

---

It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all.

---

This is a non sequitur.

Quote:

---

Pindar, I know you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way...

---

I have not made the above claim. There is nothing personal in my above posts. The focus is the logical standing of atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aenlic

Don't worry, Pindar! It's still possible to protect yourself and rejoin rational humanity. It'll just take a little bit of effort. Like this:

---

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Kojiro my good man, If you are familiar with the literature on the subject a variety of examples should come to mind. If you are not then your earlier comment was presumptive. In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

The above is a simple valid argument.

---

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

Quote:

---

You do not understand. To say "I believe X" the predicate reflects back on the subject. The statement makes no demand that the X has existential standing.

---

And when someone says "how about this weather" they want to talk about the weather :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

See Papewaio's comment.

---

I didn't understand Pape's comment :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

---

What makes one a more valid claim if one can not chose between them logically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god.

---

If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

---

This moves beyond the base issue. We could explore this, but it moves beyond the focus: logical standing itself.

Quote:

---

And when someone says "how about this weather" they want to talk about the weather :dizzy2:

---

"How about this weather" is either a question, serves as an introduction or acts as an interrogative phrase.

Quote:

---

I didn't understand Pape's comment :embarassed:

---

OK, consider the difference between the following two statements:

1) Bob is a Martian.

2) I believe Bob is a Martian.

1) asserts a fact. 2) asserts only the belief of the subject. Belief alone, irrespective of intensity, does not make any claim on the larger universe. Further, its relevancy is determined by one's interest in the asserting subject only. In simple terms 2) is emotive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.

---

Are saying first cause = god?

Quote:

---

This moves beyond the base issue. We could explore this, but it moves beyond the focus: logical standing itself.

---

When faced with several illogical choices, if you choose one in a logical manner does not your choice become logical?

Quote:

---

"How about this weather" is either a question, serves as an introduction or acts as an interrogative phrase.

OK, consider the difference between the following two statements:

1) Bob is a Martian.

2) I believe Bob is a Martian.

1) asserts a fact. 2) asserts only the belief of the subject. Belief alone, irrespective of intensity, does not make any claim on the larger universe. Further, its relevancy is determined by one's interest in the asserting subject only. In simple terms 2) is emotive.

---

You're being academic, not realistic. We're talking about people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

What makes one a more valid claim if one can not chose between them logically?

---

Who says we can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

If something is valid then it is logical. Whether one is persuaded is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Are saying first cause = god?

---

---

My above comment concerns validity. As far as the argument: yes.

Quote:

---

When faced with several illogical choices, if you choose one in a logical manner does not your choice become logical?

---

?

Quote:

---

You're being academic, not realistic. We're talking about people here.

---

The focus is the meaning of knowledge claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

---

I don't understand what you meant by the last part of that snippet Sasaki, but yes, it is possible to have two differing but both reasonable beliefs about something:

As Ghazali put it (a simplification, but he is making a point):

Quote:

---

All men can be divided into two classes

(i) the class of the people of the truth (i.e. theists and more specifically Muslims, but the argument can be extended for Judaism and Christianity of course). They hold that the world began in time; and they know by rational necessity that nothing which originates in time originates by itself, and that, therefore, it needs a creator. Therefore, their belief in the Creator is understandable.

(ii) the Materialists. They believe that the world, as it is, has always been. Therefore, they do not ascribe it to a creator. Their belief, too, is intelligible — although rational arguments may be advanced to refute it.

But the philosophers (i.e. al-Farabi and Avicena, whom Ghazali was attempting to refute) believe that the world is eternal. And still they would ascribe it to a creator. This theory is, therefore, even in its original formulation, self-contradictory. There is no need for a refutation of it.

---

Note: (parentheses mine)

Quietus and Aenlic: You may wish to ask yourselves exactly what has caused you to taunt Pindar in such a way. He is a very careful debater and has certainly done nothing to warrant such behavior, if indeed it can be warranted.

In my personal opinion, I think that Quietus and Aenlic have displayed exactly the sort of glib impudence which ends up giving all Liberals a bad name.

..

Quote:

---

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

---

Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?

Quote:

---

As Ghazali put it (a simplification, but he is making a point):


Quote:
All men can be divided into two classes

(i) the class of the people of the truth (i.e. theists and more specifically Muslims, but the argument can be extended for Judaism and Christianity of course). They hold that the world began in time; and they know by rational necessity that nothing which originates in time originates by itself, and that, therefore, it needs a creator. Therefore, their belief in the Creator is understandable.

(ii) the Materialists. They believe that the world, as it is, has always been. Therefore, they do not ascribe it to a creator. Their belief, too, is intelligible — although rational arguments may be advanced to refute it.

But the philosophers (i.e. al-Farabi and Avicena, whom Ghazali was attempting to refute) believe that the world is eternal. And still they would ascribe it to a creator. This theory is, therefore, even in its original formulation, self-contradictory. There is no need for a refutation of it.

---

Very interesting, Reenk Roink, though I would argue as to whether a creator cannot exist in an eternal world. (It may depend on the sense of the word "creator".)

..

Sasaki Kojiro: I feel that the essential answer to all your many questions here is this-- Stuff is more complicated than you thought it was. Surprise surprise. You are young now, you'll keep on learning til you die.

It has also been said that some things are beyond human understanding.

If pressed, I would have to take issue with Pindar's 7 statement proof at statement number 5, that a contingent being cannot be caused by another contingent being, because it leads to a infinite regression which is a logical fallacy. I disagree with this one point (the other 6 are bravo). Why would a continuous causal system, with no defined non-contingent originator necessarily be fallacious?

However, something else Pindar said struck me as much more profound.
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

I was thinking about this very issue in Church yesterday, and it made me a little sad. At the end of the day, those of you who have convinced yourself that it is not possible that God exists (Quietus, et. al) or thiat is not possible to logically fathom whether God exists or not (Sasaki, et. al.) have commited the same error of logic that you accuse believers in God of.... you have precluded the possiblity that you might be wrong. There is nothing, no evidence, no proof that I could provide to Quietus that would convince him that God's non-existence is in fact erroneous. Any evidence on the matter (and at the end of the day, faith is belief in the absence of empirical evidence) would be rejected through one interpretation of facts or another. I sadly suspect even an encounter with the Almighty Himself would be rejected. Likewise, Sasaki would sit, judgement neutral, refusing to commit, even under such circumstances.

I'm not picking you two out to embarrass you. I just find that you two make as glib arguments for your respective positions as anyone, so I'm making you symoblic figureheads of your respective camps.

To all in either of these 2 camps, I just want to ask you two simple questions? 1) Is it possible you might be wrong? 2) What would it actually take to convince you that you are?

I can in fact freely admit that it's very possible that I am wrong and God doesn't exist. For me, question 2 is more difficult to answer, but I suppose it would come down to an absence of the personal, anecdotal 'evidence' (and it's not empirical evidence, I just use that term for a lack of a better word). You see, I truly see prayers answered in my life. Sometimes I don't recognize them as such, but upon further reflection, I do. Were I to describe these events to you, I'm sure they would sound like campfire ghost stories, but there is a sense of authenticity, at a fundamental level, that I look for and recognize. It's not just random events, and it's not always a favorable outcome. Were these reinforcing, incredibly unlikely, meaningful 'coincidences' (I guess that's the best way to describe it to you) cease, I suppose my faith would falter and I would have to entertain the notion that I had previously been wrong and I had misinterpreted meaningful twists of fate.

How about you? Could you be wrong? When would you begin to suspect that you are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Who says we can't?

---

Actually I thought you did in your statement of It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

So what from re-reading the statement - and seeing my misread, the question should be.

Which logical claim is more valid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Actually I thought you did in your statement of It's valid but I don't think it makes a logical case for god. Even Aquinas admitted that it was logically possible that the universe always existed. If there are two logical possibilities for the universe then how can one choose between them logically?

So what from re-reading the statement - and seeing my misread, the question should be.

Which logical claim is more valid?

---

As I said earlier, I prefer the simpler explanation. If the universe can operate without a supernatural being, why introduce one? This is a matter of preference not validity.

God is logically possibly, but undefinable. You can argue for a creator of the universe but that is a small small part of god as religions have him. Theres no logical or rational argument for the Christian God, and when most atheists say they don't believe in god that is what they mean, creator is quite different from god. I think you can be an atheist and believe in a creator. Arguing that atheism is absurd because the creator isn't disprovable is a straw man really.

In the end you think god approves of certain things and approves of others based on what you were taught and what you've considered on your own, and I consider some things right and some things wrong based on what I was taught and what I've considered. The difference isn't that great.

I'm sure some things are beyond understanding Del Arroyo. Perhaps one of them is a universe operating without god?


And Don, I'm sure I could be convinced that there was a God. I'm convinced there's something in the dark after watching a scary movie ~D it's a natural human predilection.

Quote:

---

I think you can be an atheist and believe in a creator.

---

A deist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

A deist?

---

Deism is essentially atheism. How do you live your life differently if you believe there was a creator or if you believe there wasn't? Not in the slightest. Perhaps you wonder more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

As I said earlier, I prefer the simpler explanation. If the universe can operate without a supernatural being, why introduce one? This is a matter of preference not validity.

---

This was actually the type of answer I was looking for. Since belief requires a judgement concerning the preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

To all in either of these 2 camps, I just want to ask you two simple questions? 1) Is it possible you might be wrong? 2) What would it actually take to convince you that you are?

---

It is possible that the secular camp is wrong, and it is also possible that the theists are wrong...

personally I find it tedious and uninterresting after a while to ask the simple question of the existence or non-existence of deities. no one has reliable answers, just arguments...

personally, as an Atheist/Humanist, I find it more interresting to say for the sake of the argument that there is something in the universe that some would interpret as god/s... okay, assuming (without evidence of course) that there are deities and so on... what sort of deities would they logically be?

I find it more interresting to ask this question because many deities that are currently popular are incredibly absurd, even nonsensical... many of them make the Flying Spaghetti Monster look rational in comparison...

so instead of asking the basic question of weather deities do or do not exist, I ask theists - what rational argument can you give to say that YOUR God/s exists?

not even "Intelligent" Design could create a rational argument as to why there must be an intelligent designer...

Even if there is some force in the universe that some interpret as God/s, why should that mean that it operates on things such as Heaven, Hell, Sin, judgement and forgiveness of Sins, love, hate, and divine intervention?

why is this thing seen as the supernatural creator of everything?

why should it be assumed that this thing desires worship and sacrifices or demands that intelligent animals such as Humans live by various moral codes and laws?


I think that the basic argument over the existence vs non-existence of gods is a debate that can never be answered to any satisfaction... but the question of the existence of specific gods promoted in religion and scripture... that is an interresting question to me...

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You can argue for a creator of the universe but that is a small small part of god as religions have him. Theres no logical or rational argument for the Christian God, and when most atheists say they don't believe in god that is what they mean, creator is quite different from god.

---

If that is really what they mean then I would not expect they would call themselves atheists... I would imagine they might prefer the label of "agnostic", if they would want a label at all.

I think you are quite right in stating that most atheists are reacting to popular concepts of God which they have been exposed to, and which to them seem absurd-- but they jump to the conclusion that there must be no higher power, while I would say that they simply have it all wrong about God.

Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.

So what? you may say. The Bible is only one book, and in these new times with so many books to draw on, it is one we can do without. But this is what the foolish would say. A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arrayo

A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.

---

Eloquent and all, but how's that fit with the way the believers pretty much per definition have to declare Scriptures other than their own to be, uh, rubbish, to put it mildly ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.

---

What was the Book's point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

If that is really what they mean then I would not expect they would call themselves atheists... I would imagine they might prefer the label of "agnostic", if they would want a label at all.

I think you are quite right in stating that most atheists are reacting to popular concepts of God which they have been exposed to, and which to them seem absurd-- but they jump to the conclusion that there must be no higher power, while I would say that they simply have it all wrong about God.

---

perhaps... the difference in my mind between atheism and agnosticism is the argument favoured by Atheists: that Deities are man-made ideas which helps to answer difficult questions, organize and bring order to sociey, and give some measure of comfort to people... the Atheist view is that God/s are entirely artificial.

though I think you are correct when saying that when looking at specific gods - ie the god of the Bible - that Atheists are quite firm in the belief that this or that specific god does not exist as theists would have it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Any body of writings and ideas interpreted outside of its native context will likely seem absurd. When atheists interpret the Bible literally with 21st-century eyes, they commit the exact same error as do the Fundamentalists. They simply miss the point.

---

I'm sorry to say that I agree with you on this, many of us in the Secular camp (myself included) have been guilty of criticizing Christians based on the entirety of the Bible taken literally... it makes a better argument to highlight the horrors of Deuteronomy and so on...

still, even Jesus himself is not above strong criticism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

So what? you may say. The Bible is only one book, and in these new times with so many books to draw on, it is one we can do without. But this is what the foolish would say. A love of knowledge has no bias-- it cannot treat one source unfairly, and be expected to make a sound judgement on the next.

---

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

The Holy Bible is an important piece of literature for academic study, but it should never be taken seriously as a historical text nor taken seriously as a universal guide to ethics, but the bad stuff is still in the Bible and isn't going away any time soon... so it still deserves plenty of criticism...

---

This does not make logical sense.

How so ? If you remove assumptions of divinity from the book - as for example a Christian interested in not letting his or her confessional affiliation get in the way of analysis might, and Atheists and Agnostics do more or less by default - it's 'just' a writing of considerable historical and social significance. But then, so is Das Kapital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is not correct. It begs the question.

---

Then your logical reason for theism begs the same.

Quote:

---

This doesn't follow. Atheism is not a parasitic position.

---

Theism came first. We were labeled atheists. We didn't labeled ourselves atheist. I label myself neutral if it weren't confusing to popular language and discussion.

Quote:

---

This is a non sequitur

---

Not at all. Defining without knowledge is impossible. Hence it is just a fantasy.

Quote:

---

I have not made the above claim. There is nothing personal in my above posts. The focus is the logical standing of atheism.

---

You made the above claims. I clearly remember in at least one thread. :) With me, Hurin Rules ( I think) and Big John.

I just couldn't add those myself until now since you broke off discussion with me, remember?

Quote:

---

Arroyo.

Quote:
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?

---

Not classical, but medieval, possibly Aquinas IIRC. It's an old ontological argument developed by those devilishly clever monkish chaps many hundreds of years ago. They were very persuasive, but I think this type of argument is generally not accepted nowadays, although it still has some advocates. One problem for the faithful is that they quite naturally equate the necessary being with 'God', but that's fallacious. Pindar quite rightly doesn't make this connection, and he's showing his knowledge of medieval scholarship. :2thumbsup:

Just looking at it myself, I'd guess that this argument can also be attacked on grounds of circular reasoning/begging the question, and maybe on other points as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

---

And the darkness surrounded the light and said, "Hey, look, a party! Where's the keg?"

All things considered, I'll just have to say no to the Holy Underwear, but thanks anyway! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Very interesting. I admit I have not read any classical works on logic, what might be a good place to start?

---

Hi Del Arroyo,

Logic's formal start is Aristotle's Organon. This may be rather dry reading. Aristotle can be tedious for those not used to it.

As far as simple introductory textbook: Copi's Introduction to Logic is quite good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If pressed, I would have to take issue with Pindar's 7 statement proof at statement number 5, that a contingent being cannot be caused by another contingent being, because it leads to a infinite regression which is a logical fallacy. I disagree with this one point (the other 6 are bravo). Why would a continuous causal system, with no defined non-contingent originator necessarily be fallacious?

---

A contingent being can be caused by another contingent being. The issue is if the entire line is only contingent. The problem that leads to the reductio ad absurdum is that there is no way to ultimately ground being. This is because any noted causative contingent agent is not self causative and is always already dependant on a prior cause. Thus, one asserts contingent being without explanation which then either begs the question or can no longer be considered a knowledge claim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Deism is essentially atheism.

---

This is not correct. Deism is a theism. Divine interaction is a separate consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quietus

Then your logical reason for theism begs the same.

---

No, it does not. You do not understand. The argument is valid.

Quote:

---

Theism came first. We were labeled atheists. We didn't labeled ourselves atheist. I label myself neutral if it weren't confusing to popular language and discussion.

---

Chronology does not impact the meaning. Atheism is conceptually distinct. Atheism and neutrality regarding Deity are not the same.

Quote:

---

Not at all. Defining without knowledge is impossible. Hence it is just a fantasy.

---

This comment: "It's a claim based on absence of proof or evidence. Without any evidence or proof there would be no knowledge, no understanding, no definition nor any claim at all." is a non sequitur.

Quote:

---

You made the above claims. I clearly remember in at least one thread. :) With me, Hurin Rules ( I think) and Big John.

---

I have never made this comment: "you say that God sends signals straight to your head that you characterise as one-way..." neither does it relate to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

Not classical, but medieval, possibly Aquinas IIRC. It's an old ontological argument developed by those devilishly clever monkish chaps many hundreds of years ago. They were very persuasive, but I think this type of argument is generally not accepted nowadays, although it still has some advocates. One problem for the faithful is that they quite naturally equate the necessary being with 'God', but that's fallacious. Pindar quite rightly doesn't make this connection, and he's showing his knowledge of medieval scholarship. :2thumbsup:

---

Hi Red Peasant,

Actually the argument finds reference in Plato. It was also used by Aristotle. St. Thomas picked up the idea from Aristotle's work via Maimonides.

There are no positions within the larger Western Tradition that define God as contingent as the notion would be an absurdity.