Mission Impossible: Atheism
Posted by RazorsKissNov 6
Posted originally as one of the opening entries on this blog. I’m pressed for time, as you may have noticed, and I feel bad just letting this blog sit here. Some of you may not have seen this one…
So, enjoy.
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 prove this 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 impossibility. 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.
7 comments
Comment by Matthew Goggins on November 10, 2005 at 3:22 am
I believe that there is not one example anywhere in the universe of an eight-headed unicorn endowed with the power of speech and extra-sensory perception (ESP).
I believe this to be an absolute truth, although strictly speaking, as a negative belief, it is not amenable to proof. My belief can only be disproved, by the existence of a counter-example, and can never be proved.
Yet, as much as I find the idea of an eight-headed speaking unicorn with ESP to be nonsense, the idea of an omnipotent personal God is something I consider to be nonsense squared. That doesn’t mean I think you or anyone else who believes in an omnipotent, personal God is guilty of being nonsensical — to the contrary, I don’t think that at all.
But if someone else were trying to convince me that I should believe in such a God, then I would find such a belief, based on my own life experience and accumulated knowledge, to be nonsense as far as I am concerned. I would sooner believe in an army of eight-headed speaking unicorns with ESP on planet Beldar-X-99 on the other side of the universe.
Comment by RazorsKiss on November 10, 2005 at 7:46 am
You would be correct in believing so. There is not one example of an eight-headed unicorn endowed with speech and ESP even as a concept – until you referenced it here π
So, I’d have to say I’d agree. It’s too weird!
As noone has ever seen a unicorn – much less an eight-headed one – and certainly not a speaking one – and definitely not one with ESP… that would make sense.
But, to finish your analogy – throughout history, and recorded in the bible, are accounts of persons who claim to have spoken with, and even met this God. So, we have gone from a probability of approximately 0, with no recorded witnesses, and no historical records, to a higher probability (I can’t say what that would be), recorded witnesses, historical records, and literature (extensive) about the contact with this omnipotent, personal God.
Hrmm. Seems to me like you’re comparing apples and oranges.
Well, if you consider it so… that’s your perogative, I suppose π
Actually, that’s being a bit fallacious. If you consider it nonsense, then it’s nonsense (to you). If someone believes in something you consider to be nonsense, they are, by definition, nonsensical (to you). It’s mincing words. If you believe it to be nonsense, then we *are* nonsensical to you. We just aren’t nonsensical to ourselves. That’s what you’re trying to say – but it’s a bit of a reach to try and make it sound as if you really don’t think we are being nonsensical believing in something you have clearly stated is nonsense (squared).
Once again, your perogative. But don’t tell me you don’t think we are nonsensical, when you just said it was nonsense. It’s not being honest. It’s being politically correct π I would much rather have honesty π I don’t mind if you consider it nonsense.
1 Corinthians says it pretty clearly.
That’s about all I can say about that.
Comment by Matthew on November 10, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Boom goes the dynamite.
Comment by Apathy on November 10, 2005 at 7:32 pm
The Bible is an extremely biased source. This makes it pretty much irrelevant for use when arguing for Christianity. Siting a quote from the Bible works no miracles when it comes to converting/convincing an atheist about anything. Just thought you should know.
Comment by RazorsKiss on November 10, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Ignoring the rest of the response to zero in on the fact that I *gasp* used a quote from the Bible (and a relevant one, which states exactly the point he’s trying to make) doesn’t strike me as very honest.
When I cite a quote which *directly* responds to what he is saying – that is both on-topic and an appropriate response.
I don’t expect it to work any miracles, contrary to your assertion. I expect it to show that the Bible does answer the objection raised – that the God of the Bible appears to be nonsensical – aka “foolishness”.
As far as biased goes – every source has a bias. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, and never has been. So I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. Or what relevance it has to the discussion.
When you argue for Christianity, the source text for Christianity, and everything it believes is, well, the Bible. So, I don’t see what, if any, arguments concerning Christianity can be made without using it. For Theism, or general ontological concepts which set the stage for the debate? Maybe. For a debate directly concerning Christianity? I don’t think so, Tim.
Thanks for the sarcasm, incidentally. I thrive on it – it lets me know I’m on track π
Comment by Matthew Goggins on November 11, 2005 at 10:41 am
Razorskiss,
Thanks for your friendly and thoughtful response.
Let me give you the honest truth about what is nonsense and what is not.
Let’s say one day I get some kook angry about something I write on the internet. And let’s say Mr. Kook decides to retaliate against me by creating a malicious, dishonest website that makes up all kind of slander against me.
If Mr. Kook uses some creativity and imagination in developing and maintaining his website, he could easily fool some people into believing some of his slanders about me. From my pont of view, these slanders would be nonsense and absolutely false. But at the same time, I can readily understand that the innocent dupes of Mr. Kook are not believing something nonsensical from their point of view — they just don’t know any better.
In general, when someone disagrees with me about something, I don’t assume that person is stupid or crazy or has a penchant for believing nonsense. Most of the time, I don’t even assume that the person is wrong. Maybe I am wrong and he is right. Or quite often, we are both right, but are looking at things from different angles, like the blind men in the parable of the elephant.
If at some point I am convinced that I am indeed right about something and someone else is wrong, even then that doesn’t mean the wrong-headed person is being nonsensical. It could just mean, like in the example I gave of Mr. Kook’s dupes, that the person just doesn’t know any better. That certainly happens to me a lot, so it’s an easy assumption to make about other people!
So when I say other Christians and other religious people don’t believe nonsense, and are in fact quite reasonable, I definitely mean it. Even if it would be nonsensical for me to believe the same things.
Thanks again for your comments. Your calm and thoughtful reply reflects highly on you and your church.
Cheers!
Pingback by Mission Impossible: Atheism on November 27, 2007 at 3:02 am
[…] This is the cached version of https://razorskiss.net/wp/2005/11/06/mission-impossible-atheism/ We are neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content. Mission Impossible: Atheism Posted originally as one of the opening entries on this blog. I’m pressed for time, as you may have noticed, and I feel bad just letting this blog sit here. Some of you may not have seen this one… So, enjoy. Atheism Definition: Dictionary.com Quote: 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of […] Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:53:37 +0000 in Cutting Edge on RazorsKiss.net https://razorskiss.net/wp/2005/11/06/mission-impossible-atheism/ – Original Article […]