Mission Impossible: Atheism
Posted by RazorsKissJan 5
Atheism
Definition:
Dictionary.com
Quote:
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Language origin: Greek
“a” (negative, negator) – “theos” (god) = “No God”
Antithesis:
Theism – Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. (Dictionary.com)
Self-definitions
* “An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god.”
* “An atheist lacks belief in a god.”
* “An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all.”
* “An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry.”
* “An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas.”
Reasons:
1. Lack of Evidence
Example:
The supporting evidence isn’t good enough for him to affirm God’s existence. (agnostic?)
2. Illogical
Example:
Says there is evidence contrary to God’s existence.
3. Non-Issue
Example:
Lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible space snails in orbit around Saturn.
Common Presuppositions
(NOTE – NOT universally adopted. The ONLY common belief is a belief that God does not exist.)
1. There is no God or devil.
2. There is no supernatural realm.
3. Miracles cannot occur.
4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God’s will.
5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
6. Man is material.
7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
8. Ethics and morals are relative
Example Argument
God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.
Mission: Prove a negative, absolute statement
—————————————————— —————————————————————– —–
Your mission, should you choose to accept it – is to state that there is absolutely no god, and that the concept of god is absolutely false -then, to provethis statement: NO GOD =1
First, we have to make a couple definitions. A CANNOT be A and NOT A, at the same time.
To say there is NO God is an absolute statement. So, if you say that there is NO God, No God = NOT A. If you say that there IS a God, God = A. A cannot be A, and NOT A at the same time, remember. So, the mission is to prove that A =/= A – but A = NOT A.
If A = god, and NOT A = No god
A cannot be A, but MUST be NOT A, in order for NOT A to be true.
NOT A and A are not equal, and cannot have the same value – so, we must accept that NOT A =/= A.
In order for NOT A to be a true statement. A MUST be false. In order for NOT A to be accepted true, the axiom of “A =/= NOT A” MUST be accepted – thus, absolutes must be accepted, in order for there to be NO god. No is an ABSOLUTE statement – thus, A MUST be false, and it MUST be accompanied by a proof, for the statements GOD = A , and NO GOD = NOT A, to be logically true.
So, since we’ve established that “No God”, and “God” are mutually exclusive – we’ll move on.
———————————————————— —————————————————————-
“No God” is a negative value – so, the mission is to prove a negative. God cannot exist, and there must be proof of God’s non-existence – or there is still a possibility of A equaling A.
————————————————————- —————————————————————
To prove that A = A, however, is still pretty hard. It’s an axiom, like 0=0, or 1=1. To prove that God = A, requires that Not A also be proven false. So, on the other side, we’re also stuck.
But, we’ve proven that it’s impossible to “prove” God’s existence, or non-existence – and, we HAVE proven the existence of absolutes. So, it’s now possible to use absolutes in our argument,s henceforth. A, forever after, CANNOT also be NOT A – thus, unless you invalidate absolutes altogether, and thus, any scientific method, you’re stuck with absolutes as an axiom. So to accept that A cannot be NOT A did absolutely nothing but prove absolute exist. So, let’s move on.
———————————————————- —————————————————————– –
So, here’s the next question – if a statement is unprovable – how can it be absolute?
The answer?
It can’t.
So, the basic statement Atheism is founded upon is based upon belief, to put it bluntly – yet contains an absolute statement – which, in order to be undeniably correct, would have to prove a negative – something which has NEVER been done in the history of logical thought.
So, in order to back up that absolute statement saying there is NO god, you would have to prove a negative – but, how do you prove that the negative of something which you say does not exist, does NOT exist – without recognizing it’s existence?
On the other hand, any Religion has only the burden of evidence to bear – not the burden of proof – because all religions are based upon faith in the unprovable – not an absolute statement of fact. If you believe something, you believe IN something. You have no need to prove the non-existence of a thing – you just have to prove a thing exists. Also impossible, but not because of logical impossibility – but factual impossibilty. Noone, but the God believed in, can know ALL the facts – so, it’s unprovable. There is evidence, of course – which an Atheist can never have – there CAN be no evidence of the NON existence of something – because there would be nothing to see, if the thing which does not exist – doesn’t exist.
Existence is either believed, or disbelieved – but it is never known, with complete certainly.
11 comments
Comment by Mr. Bondarenko on February 4, 2005 at 11:07 pm
I have gone to every “atheism is wrong” site and you say the same thing; you cant prove a negative. No one is trying to, trust me. Its like a crime scene: you find lots of small things like fingerprints and broken glass that bring you to a conclusion. In a atheists case, this is that there is no god. Can we prove it? No. Are we convinced. You bet.
You were pwnt by:
Bondarenko
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 4, 2005 at 11:19 pm
“Pwnt”?
Perhaps, instead of posting a “you were ‘pwnt'”, perhaps you would like to answer one of the arguments listed?
Don’t play with straw men. Answer the arguments, please. You say you “find” things, and list none. You fail to answer anything except an exceedingly vague summation of a distorted version of the argument.
You also failed to note the main argument itself: There can be no evidence of a thing which does not exist.
Comment by Zaltys on April 8, 2005 at 7:32 am
Proving a negative isn’t always that hard – you can prove that for some other thing to be true, the thing you are observing must not exist. If your variable is dependent upon something else, the problem can become a lot easier. This isn’t the case here, though.
Of course, there is no excuse for strong atheism – saying that god absolutely, 100% cannot exist. This is founded on belief, as you say. Given the definition of god, no amount of evidence can possibly show that god does not exist.
Weak atheism, defined more by reasons 1 and 3, is a perfectly reasonable position – not believing in something until it is shown to be true is a perfectly reasonable standpoint.
I’m an atheistic agnostic (I tend to call it sceptical agnosticism) – while I don’t believe in a god due to lack of evidence, I am willing to accept the possibility that one might exist – I just don’t believe until that possibility is proven. Of course, it’s impossible to prove either way, so I don’t see my position changing much ;).
Comment by Chad McIntosh on April 12, 2005 at 9:46 pm
“Proving a negative isn’t always that hard – you can prove that for some other thing to be true, the thing you are observing must not exist.”
Here you would not be proving a negative, but a deductive subset of a positive.
“If your variable is dependent upon something else, the problem can become a lot easier. This isn’t the case here, though.”
It is the case, Your argument is self-defeating. Your variable (some other thing proven to be true) is dependent on the other thing prior to your advent of a negative, which by definition would reference a positive starting point.
“not believing in something until it is shown to be true is a perfectly reasonable standpoint.”
Agreed. Can you show me how “skeptical agnosticism” is a true belief? If you can, you’re neither skeptical nor agnostic.
I’m an atheistic agnostic (I tend to call it sceptical agnosticism) – while I don’t believe in a god due to lack of evidence, I am willing to accept the possibility that one might exist – I just don’t believe until that possibility is proven.”
Recognize the distinction between possibility and probability. Using your own words: “I am willing to accept the possibility that one might exist”, you acknowledged the possibility. I think what you meant was, “I just don’t believe until that ‘probability’ is proven.” In which case is much different.
“Of course, it’s impossible to prove either way, so I don’t see my position changing much.”
Wait, I thought you said you’re open to the possibilities – “I am willing to accept the possibility that one might exist” Anyway, Agreed. But it’s certainly not improbable either way. It’s either more or less probable.
Comment by RazorsKiss on April 13, 2005 at 5:41 am
Good discussion. I’m a bit tied up right now, but I appreciate you putting your two cents in.
Chad, fyi, you got caught in the spam filter earlier, which was why you weren’t showing up.
You should be “out of timeout” now.
Comment by WCH on April 30, 2005 at 2:51 am
Ugh. Why do theists keep falling back on this same old tripe? I’d call it outdated and debunked… except that the guy who first debunked it would probably be Hippocrates in 5-friggin-hundred BCE. The Scientific Method prescribes that the burden of proof is ALWAYS ON THE POSITIVE POSITION. Atheism is a simple denial that there is enough evidence in favour of God for the God concept to be followed, and NOTHING MORE. We do not have to probe ANYTHING AT ALL.
From that point, the entire rest of your argument falls to meaningless drivel.
Comment by RazorsKiss on July 15, 2005 at 1:42 am
Ugh. Why do atheists persist in calling anything they lack the stamina to refute “tripe”? Why do they persist in leaving throwaway comments devoid of useful argumentation? Why?
He said “do no harm.” I think you’re violently damaging my estimation of your intelligence right now – do what your boy Hippocrates says, and shut up. Maybe you meant Protagoras? Or Pythagoras?
Welcome to metaphysics 101. Philosophy, metaphysics, and logic DO NOT INCORPORATE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. “The burden of proof” is a term of LAW.
The scientific method can go fly a kite. This is philosophy, metaphysics, and logic.
The word itself means “No God”. You all state “there is no God”. To prove this, you have to prove that there is no God. This is proving a negative. Please.. shut up.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is faith-based education.
Well, at least it didn’t start with it, CAPITAL LETTERS GUY. I ws farther along to start with than you are, apparently. kbyeplzthx.
If you have an argument… argue something. Don’t just act the fool and post some sarcasm-laced screed. Right, thanks for playing.
Comment by Dan on July 30, 2005 at 2:51 am
RazorsKiss, you’re like that Tektonics Christian apologist Holding, getting all tetchy and throwing back more spleen than you got in the first place. Not a good witness.
You have a book by Francis Schaeffer on the left, I see. Schaeffer was a six day creationist. Do you defend that too? Or “intelligent design”, which is equally scientifically dubious? (The main case for it is made by a lawyer, not a biologist!)
Let’s just get to brass tacks, is my point. The abstract arguments for God, of the medieval variety, are fine – but they don’t go to the heart of the matter as far as you or any other Christian is concerned.
Firstly, they are not what you are really concerned to demonstrate. Secondly, it is not the speciousness of the “metaphyscial” proofs that has made (conservative) Christianity intellectually difficult for the past 100 years. It is the growth of biblical criticism, archeology, and secular science. All these cast doubt on the DETAIL of Christian claims, rather than on the “macro” claims which appears to be your preferred realm on this blog. The latter seem to me a lot less tricky to argue.
So – do you believe in the Garden, the Serpent, the Flood, as historical facts?
(There may be a faith statement on here somewhere which covers these points. If so, I apologise for missing it.)
Comment by RazorsKiss on July 30, 2005 at 3:59 am
The WCH guy is a troll. He won’t ever come back – but if he does, he’s welcome to respond. His “argument” was an unadulterated load of guano.
Yes. I do. I come in on page 2, I believe.
When the subject is science, I defend. It’s not my specialty, though.
Michael Behe?
Don’t think so. I appreciate what they are trying to do – discredit evolution. I don’t agree, however, that the Creation should be removed, so that it’s “less offensive”. Darwinists find anything but Darwinism offensive, scientifically. So, I can’t say as I think that it will work.
What does that have to do with anything, anyway?
They do if that is the objection. The task of an apologist is to clear the brush away from the path toward God. That’s what I do. If I *also* get to share the gospel, freakin-a.
Some plant, some water, some reap. We all have a job to do in evangelism and witness.
What is that, then?
I know that. Tell that to Joe Blow on the street that has been told, over and over again by popular culture, that christianity has been “debunked”. Not just in specific areas- but in *every way*. Apologetics is the serious, utterly grim task of taking on all of these objections, all of these cultural obstructions, and clearing as many away for as many people as possible, so that those with the gift of evangelism can exercise it in a more conducive environment.
No, it’s the insistence by those who don’t want God to exist, that these advances somehow constitute “evidence” against God. They don’t. That’s the point of apologetics – to point that out.
Specific logical proofs are not macro at all. They get *quite* detailed. Not to mention that certain methods of argument depend on arguing FROM the general down to the specific. You have to start at the general, if your claim is denied WAY back at that point, before you can address specifics.
Indeed, I do.
There is, for certain soteriological stances that are not negotiable. I’ve forgotten some, most likely, but I put up most of the ones that I consider incorrigible for Christianity.
For things like whether I believe Old-Earth or Young-Earth Creationism? Not particularly soteriologically relevant. Thus… i don’t bother with them.
Yes, I do macro arguments sometimes. I do lots of things sometimes. What I do here is write about God, and defend my faith. That’s about it. Am I a bit hard-edged? Yep. Am I usually hard-edged to people who weren’t intentionally obnoxious? Nope.
Comment by Dan on July 30, 2005 at 5:13 am
Fair enough, and thanks for the measured response. You probably can’t tell from what I wrote, but I am in fact a Christian myself, albeit very much a struggling one at the moment.
I respect your activity as an apologist, and I can see the sense of the rationale you mention. Begin with macro, and so forth.
My difficulties, however, are with the detail. Specficially, the inerrancy of Scripture, and just not being able to buy it any more. I won’t go into all the difficulties I have, because they are legion, and I find that the solutions proposed by apologists stretch my credulity beyond breaking point. Indeed, it was reading apologetics and finding them so inadequate, that got me where I am now.
The kind of authors I do find compelling are those like Pascal, Kierkegaard and Barth. Schaeffer didn’t rate these writers, perhaps because all of them, in different ways, are non-conservative and anti-apologetic. Their grounds for faith are existential, recognising that man does *not* make impartial, disinterested decisions, but (as you say in your last post) decides what he wants to believe, and then constructs reasons for believing it.
To that extent, I’m with you on the function of apologetics. It’s good to remove some of the objections that people have consciously constructed. However I find that faith is an oddly “two stage” process for the serious and honest enquirer. I personally came in via mystery and wonder, which was then “codified” into an evangelical Christian kind of faith – via an Alpha course. (I’m in the UK.) I.e. an apologetic thing. That, I would suggest, was the first stage.
It’s only now, 8 years on, after a fair amount of delving, that I find most of the apologists’ arguments to be hollow. Particularly the detailed Bible ones, usually lawyers. Lewis and Chesterton are somewhat better. However valuable Lewis and co were for me at the beginning, I simply can’t buy a word they say these days. I’m in a troubled, if honest, second stage. I still believe in Jesus’ deity, but I don’t think I have too many rational grounds for doing so. It’s more of a leap of faith.
Why the disdain for lawyers attempting to do theology and science? Because I’m a lawyer myself, and I know the mindset: “we deal in matters of proof, and legal techniques are transferable”. This is a woeful misunderstanding, and is the reason why the apologetics of people like Philip Johnson (intelligent design) and Frank Morison are so inadequate. They are not experts in the field on which they are writing, and they apply a misplaced lawyers’ approach to the evidence.
Morison, for instance, with Who Moved The Stone. It’s a convincing-sounding argument, and I liked it when I first read it a few years back. But there’s one massive, gaping hole in it: he assumes, like a lawyer dealing with affidavits, that the NT documents are *reliable*! That’s a prior Christian position. As Robert Price says, Morison and others who assume the reliability of the texts are battling an imaginery foe, the C18th deists, who took the odd position of believing Scripture but denying Jesus’ divinity.
Of course one can deduce the resurrection from the gospels: it’s there in black and white! The question is, are the gospels accurate? I’m led to believe that they are not – because of the myriad contradictions and other limitations – and therein lies my difficulty with apologetics and a purportedly rational basis for faith. And yet I still believe in the resurrection.
A superstition? Wishful thinking? Well, an antagonistic atheist would say so. (Although I hope s/he would respect my honesty in not claiming to have all the answers!) I prefer positive terms like “Romantic faith”: I’m religious because of my wonder at the world, and – to locate this Christianly – I’m Christian because of the character of Jesus, the quality of the sayings reported of him. You couldn’t make him up. The resurrection? Well, it’s one explanation for the rise of the early church, although it could equally have been mass delusion, rapidly supplemented by a passionate and lucid adherent (St Paul). However, I make a leap of faith and believe in the resurrection.
All of which makes me hopelessly ill-qualified to do apologetics, and very much a struggling Christian. I know there are many Bible verses with which to knock me back into my seat, but they won’t do – because, of course, those arguments are circular. It’s the authority of Bible statements that causes me a difficulty in the first place.
Comment by TKL on March 2, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I do not believe that unicorns (horses with very large horns on their heads) walk anywhere on earth. They exist in fiction, and such toys are marketed to children, but I am not aware of anyone ever claiming to have seen an actual unicorn, and furthermore, a singular pointed horn would seem to have no useful purpose (unlike the antlers of deer, which can be used for butting). I am convinced that unicorns do not exist.
I am fairly certain that there is no Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti wandering around the Northwest United States. There have been several reported sightings, but no one has ever been able to study one in the wild, capture one, or even get a good photograph or tissue sample, despite the zealous efforts of believers who seek it out. I imagine that, if a population of Bigfoots did exist, we would have proof by now.
We frequently form opinions about whether something is truth or fiction. The evidence for something that exists is not the same type of evidence we gather about something that does not exist. Nevertheless, by various methods, we can form rational convictions that certain things do not exist; indeed, it would be irrational to believe that these fictional entities do exist.
I live my life expecting never to see a unicorn or a Bigfoot. While I believe that whales exist, I live my life expecting not to see one on my way to work on a Tuesday morning (I don’t commute by sea). My attitude toward “God” is the same: given the general description provided by classical theologians, I consider its existence to be rather improbable. It seems consistent with a myth or fiction. Furthermore, if God did exist somewhere in the universe, I wouldn’t expect to meet it on my way to work, so I operate just fine on a daily basis without thinking about it. This is atheism in practice.