Today is National Ask an Atheist Day

[scootsy]

Are we to critique all of those philosophers in response to your question?

Arguments for prime mover and all other similar arguments explain absolutely nothing. You cannot argue that the only explanation for a phenomenon is a more complex phenomenon that defies explanation. That's just silly. All of the Platonic philosophers you mention make the same argument over and over, just in different dressing. 'Nothing is perfect, but everything approaches a degree of perfection, so there got to be a perfect source'. 'Knowledge is inherently impossible, but since we can acquire knowledge, a source of all knowledge must exist.'

And so on. It's all a play on the same theme. It doesn't matter. Who cares about some ontological zen designed to justify the possibility of a generic god of any needed definition? Tell me the character of YOUR god, and it will either indeed be a conscious entity that resembles humans in cognition (very obviously false), or a vague deistic sentiment that barely grasps at a meaning.

I would LOVE to hear you explain this. And simply for reference, I was referring to the advanced idea of the prime mover (I shouldn't have used the classical name). But more on the lines of the arguments against skepticism. The only way that any event's historical causation does not lead to an infinite regress is that there is a first cause of everything which have been called God.

 

[Siro]

I would LOVE to hear you explain this. And simply for reference, I was referring to the advanced idea of the prime mover (I shouldn't have used the classical name). But more on the lines of the arguments against skepticism. The only way that any event's historical causation does not lead to an infinite regress is that there is a first cause of everything which have been called God.

Are you taking about Aquinas' Efficient Cause argument? Is this the advanced argument you speak of?

I'm sure if Hume failed to take it seriously hundreds of years before we actually had a decent understanding of causation (and some argue we still don't), I sure won't.

Additionally, this is one of the simpler prime mover arguments. Aside from failing Occam's Razor, it still boils down to an ad hoc about needing something to get the universe going. But it doesn't bother elaborating on the nature of such force. You should at least look into more modern arguments for god, like the Cosmic Fine Tuning hypothesis.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

That's just silly.

See they do what I said they do. They simply say "it is bad." In this case Siro just said "just silly" instead without giving evidence.

In regards to your failed attempt at showing God goes against Occrams Razor then books don't have authors because a brain is more complex then the book it writes. Very great counterargument.

 

[Siro]

See they do what I said they do. They simply say "it is bad." In this case Siro just said "just silly" instead without giving evidence.

In regards to your failed attempt at showing God goes against Occrams Razor then books don't have authors because a brain is more complex then the book it writes. Very great counterargument.

Against my better judgement, I'm going to break my rule of ignoring you.

I said explaining something by claiming a hidden mechanism that is beyond explanation is silly. And it is. You're only too blinded to see something so obvious. In fact, I can literally explain away anything I want using that logic. There is no gravity, only divine hands holding us to the ground. This isn't air I'm breathing, but the magical essence of life that is undetectably contained in the air. It is the silliest argument is the history of silliness.

When I was a kid I was still a believer (this isn't to belittle any believers, just a fact). I was around 10, and I would lie in bed for hours thinking about religion and god. And I had SO many doubts, but was still too young to have the desire or capacity to seriously investigate the subject. But as I wanted to so badly believe, I would always use the same argument to put my heart to rest; if there is no god, then where did everything come from? Just coincidence? Impossible!

See, that's the simplest possible argument for god. It requires no knowledge, experience, insight, or anything. It's almost instinctual. It is like thinking monsters hide in the dark. A meaningless statement that breaks every rule of logic. I explained why it is ridiculous a thousand times. But it's worthless. You'll only repeat the few catch phrases that you read on your religion forums.

And Occam's Razor states that given competing explanations, the one with fewest assumptions jumps to the front of the line. It has nothing to do with your simple-minded book analogy. If you find a book, the simplest explanation is that it was written by a human. There are competing explanations. Maybe it was written by an ancient race of elves that completely disappeared without leaving any trace. Maybe there isn't a book, but only a hallucination. Maybe it was written by the supernatural creator of all things to let us know how much it it likes rectangular objects. But Occam's Razor suggests we go with the first explanation. Don't you think?

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Against my better judgement, I'm going to break my rule of ignoring you.

I said explaining something by claiming a hidden mechanism that is beyond explanation is silly. And it is. You're only too blinded to see something so obvious. In fact, I can literally explain away anything I want using that logic. There is no gravity, only divine hands holding us to the ground. This isn't air I'm breathing, but the magical essence of life that is undetectably contained in the air. It is the silliest argument is the history of silliness.

When I was a kid I was still a believer (this isn't to belittle any believers, just a fact). I was around 10, and I would lie in bed for hours thinking about religion and god. And I had SO many doubts, but was still too young to have the desire or capacity to seriously investigate the subject. But as I wanted to so badly believe, I would always use the same argument to put my heart to rest; if there is no god, then where did everything come from? Just coincidence? Impossible!

See, that's the simplest possible argument for god. It requires no knowledge, experience, insight, or anything. It's almost instinctual. It is like thinking monsters hide in the dark. A meaningless statement that breaks every rule of logic. I explained why it is ridiculous a thousand times. But it's worthless. You'll only repeat the few catch phrases that you read on your religion forums.

And Occam's Razor states that given competing explanations, the one with fewest assumptions jumps to the front of the line. It has nothing to do with your simple-minded book analogy. If you find a book, the simplest explanation is that it was written by a human. There are competing explanations. Maybe it was written by an ancient race of elves that completely disappeared without leaving any trace. Maybe there isn't a book, but only a hallucination. Maybe it was written by the supernatural creator of all things to let us know how much it it likes rectangular objects. But Occam's Razor suggests we go with the first explanation. Don't you think?

You basically said it is silly again and then ranted on how religion is childish over and over again. There are no good counterarguments against the cosmological or the fine tune argument. Also most atheists (like One Brow) admit that there is no positive evidence towards the unbelief of god and you as well haven't provided any. You have failed once again to provide a defensible case against atheism and have failed to counter the arguments for theism. Of course you will disagree due to your irrationality.

 

[Siro]

Yep, a mistake.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Yep, a mistake.

Yep it was a mistake for you just like it would be a mistake for someone with down syndrome to challenge Einstein.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

In honor of atheist day, I did a bunch of religions stuff, and then a little extra for those that didn't get any today.
I read a few extra verses, found hidden meaning in all sorts of everyday things, and I said a few extra prayers for those that forgot to remember to say theirs.
I had some good conversations about Christ, and God, and how everything in this world points to them.

Awesome day.

Would do it again.

 

[MVP]

I am a man of science, reason, rationality, and logic so obviously I do not agree with you and other atheists because I follow where the evidence leads and not the opposite.

what?!!!!! Hahahaha.... who are you kidding??? You are exact opposite. Believing in tales and books written thousands years ago when people thought that Earth is flat and is laying on top of three big whales. And that old med you call god with grey beard sits on clouds and sends lightnings down the earth. Stop calling yourself a science person - you are a joke.

 

[Sandy Braille]

what?!!!!! Hahahaha.... who are you kidding??? You are exact opposite. Believing in tales and books written thousands years ago when people thought that Earth is flat and is laying on top of three big whales. And that old med you call god with grey beard sits on clouds and sends lightnings down the earth. Stop calling yourself a science person - you are a joke.

I think being an AK fan is a much bigger joke, but who am I to judge.

 

[babe]

Perhaps, but to me that is unimportant. I have no more than a passing familiarity with atheism and agnosticism, so my curiosities are basic. I would rather know what they consider themselves to be than argue about whether or not they conform to what I understand them to be. I have no desire to prove to someone that their beliefs relating to the existence of any supreme being are right or wrong. I respect their outlook just like I hope they would respect mine.

atheists have no positive value called "respect", and no concept of "tolerance" towards disbelievers in their presumed "right way". You can't find one who will just laugh and say "who the hell really knows anything?" what you do have is pretending atheists who are loaded with christian values nevertheless, but don't want to recognize them as such.

 

[Nate505]

I'll join in when it's national agnostic day.

 

[Nate505]

I would say many agnostics are also atheists. If you take the position that it is impossible to know if a God does or not exist (one sort of agnosticism), they you don't believe in a God (atheism). Probably both of those statements apply to me. I agree it's impossible to know if the God of classical Deism exists or not, for example, but I don't believe in that God any more than any other. Then, choosing/acknowledging a label becomes a matter of taste and presentation.

Probably some agnostics would say they have some level of belief, but not enough to say they really accept the existence of a God/gods. I would not be agnostic in that sense. I don't have a partial or tentative belief.

I take the first position, but disagree with conclusion that's made. In my view, the impossibility of not knowing if there is a God or not doesn't rule it out, where atheism is ruling out the possibility of whether a god or divine being or whatever label you want to call it exists, or maybe at the very least leaning towards that view.

Like I don't believe in any God that has been presented to me, but at the same time I put the probability of that one existing at the same unknown percentage that any other possibility exists. Considering that the ultimate part of this is me not knowing in the first place, I never felt it was worth much of my time or effort to consider the probabilities in the first place, other than that I refuse to rule anything out no matter how nutty it seems to me. On the flip side I refuse to rule anything in, so to speak.

Or to put it another way, if some force came down and had the truth and stated it for the world to hear (whether the Judea/Christian/Muslim God exists, whether multiple Gods exist, whether a different God exists, whether a God nobody has ever heard of exists, whether some spiritual otherworldly force exists, or whether no God exists) none of those results would shock me.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Can never positively prove a null hypothesis. Any man of science should know that...

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Can never positively prove a null hypothesis. Any man of science should know that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpNYIbSJFPQ

This statement that you can't prove a negative is simply not true. Your fallacious argument is completely dismantled here in less then a minute. Also if you taken any science class or any math class ever (even high school level) you will how wrong the statement that you just made is.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Countables aren't a null hypothesis...

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Countables aren't a null hypothesis...

Very clear cut case of strawman argument fallacy. Here is a list of fallacies so you do not keep repeating them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[One Brow]

Right atheism is not a religion, there are atheist conventions, atheist awareness promoters, gatherings of atheists, atheist fundraisers, symbols representing atheism that many atheists proudly display, and atheists see themselves to be right and all other worldviews to be wrong.

Atheism is a position on the nature of God/a god. It's also a disadvantaged group. Both of those come into play in the activities you mention.

It isn't a religion but acts pretty religion like. It is merely a cop out so that atheists don't have to defend their irrationality. Just like you dodging all my questions.

I missed that positive proof of the non-existence of fairies and unicorns you offered. If you can't offer such proof, what makes you think it could be offered for a non-existent God?

I am a man of science, reason, rationality, and logic so obviously I do not agree with you and other atheists because I follow where the evidence leads and not the opposite.

I find no evidence leading to the existence of a God/gods.

 

[One Brow]

What do modern atheistic philosophers think of the classical and modern arguments for the existence of God?anywhere from the prime mover, to st. Anselm, to Descartes, Berkeley, Kant, etc.

No moderately large group of philosophers agrees on anything the exact same way.

In any sort of logical argument, the conclusion is a subset of the premises. You can't prove the Pythagorean Theorem without bringing in a huge set of assumptions about the world. Similarly, you can't have a proof of God without making a huge subset of assumptions about the world. Generally, one or more of those assumptions is lacking. Sometimes, the arguments are very cleverly worded, so that the assumptions are hidden, but they are always there. It's the very nature of logical argumentation.

 

[One Brow]

I know the answer to it "it isn't good. it sucks because you are stupid.... oh ya btw I have to provide no positive evidence for my side of the argument" One Brow already admnitted there is no positive evidence towards the inexistence of god.

Your contribution was both false and unconstructive. Please don't answer for me in this thread.