Atheism - Page 7 - Religion, God, and Theology

Aaron W. · 03-20-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batair

Do you think the reason for the dominance of the deist or cosmological God by theists in this forum is for the same reason, it easier for Christians to defend.

This is true. It's probably also because there is the understanding that there is no shared ground to have that particular conversation. If this forum were full of deists and Christians instead of atheists and Christians, I think the discussions would naturally gravitate more towards describing particular gods rather than matters of existence.

Edit: Alternatively, Christians and Muslims... or Muslims and Jews...

I'm not sure where the conversation would be if it's something like Eastern mystics and atheists... that might be an interesting combination.

batair · 03-20-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLK

I think this statement is fair. I consider myself a Christian, but the position that the Christian religion is the one and only completely correct representation of God is not defensible to me (even if that existed, which it doesn't).

The problem I have is that some atheists on this site (not all to be sure) make assertions that only make sense under strong atheism but will only defend weak atheism.

I would agree with that. Especially when it comes to meaning and design questions. Though i think it has more to do with inconsistency then a ploy.

tame_deuces · 03-20-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...attack-816352/

I don't think so.

Well, you can also use the term wrongly.... in which case you can call yourself a strong iguana for all I care.

tame_deuces · 03-20-2012, 12:58 PM

As should be self-explanatory, "the God does not exist" is not a problematic claim for a weak atheist - at all... however, "a god does not exist" is slightly worse, but since most weak atheists are also agnostics, and will merely say that such usages of the word god doesn't really point to anything meaningful... it all boils down to a very, very simple position.

batair · 03-20-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

This is true. It's probably also because there is the understanding that there is no shared ground to have that particular conversation. If this forum were full of deists and Christians instead of atheists and Christians, I think the discussions would naturally gravitate more towards describing particular gods rather than matters of existence.

Edit: Alternatively, Christians and Muslims... or Muslims and Jews...

I'm not sure where the conversation would be if it's something like Eastern mystics and atheists... that might be an interesting combination.

Fair enough.

All-In Flynn · 03-20-2012, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RLK

If you accept that definition, is it incorrect to apply that to our reality?

I'd say it is incorrect to apply it to our reality. We know what the probabilities are in the case of the poker game. I don't think we can say the same with respect to reality.

We can say that a car 'appears designed' because we know that its components "don't do that" without intelligent agency being involved. We can say the same of the monolith in 2001; stone "doesn't do that" without intelligent agency being involved. But we know nothing of the sort about universes.

This line of reasoning holds perfectly valid even if it happens that the universe actually is designed. I don't see a way to justify a claim of appearance either of design or non-design, regardless of whether design or non-design is the case.

**Louis Cyphre** · 03-20-2012, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

Well, that's a shocking admission. I'll openly admit I only think you claim this position in order to provoke. Anyways; to be a strong atheist you have to claim special revelation, so any strong atheists who protests against revealed religion is by default an... well... there are many colorful terms we could use.

I disagree. You don't have to be 100% certain to rationally form a positive belief. Deeming it highly likely is sufficient in my opinion.

tame_deuces · 03-20-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre

I disagree. You don't have to be 100% certain to rationally form a positive belief. Deeming it highly likely is sufficient in my opinion.

You are forgetting you also have to claim there can never be any evidence to the contrary. Because you know.

**Louis Cyphre** · 03-20-2012, 03:29 PM

I don't understand why I have to make this claim.

tame_deuces · 03-20-2012, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre

I don't understand why I have to make this claim.

Maybe this whole discussion is moot then. It seems that the majority of RGT is intent on using definitions on weak and strong atheism that are identical. Heck, the version of strong atheism you just outlined can even be agnostic.

Personally, for me it is simple:
Strong atheists are persons who hold that "there is atleast one god" is a false proposition.
Weak atheists are the rest who do not believe in gods, lack belief in god(s) or find belief in god(s) to be unreasonable.

I can't really say I see any other meaningful way of dividing up the terms.

**Original Position** · 03-20-2012, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Every now and then, I think it's worth remembering that the language of twoplustwo atheism does not necessarily match the use of language in the rest of the world. Consider, for example:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

And this language is far from an older or remotely obsolete usage:

I think that article is a very poor one--one of the worst I've read on SEP. The article by McCormick at IEP is much better and is the one I generally link people to. Also, while the SEP article has been recently revised, it is not at all up-to-date.

asdfasdf32 · 03-20-2012, 05:03 PM

tame_deuces, if you consider the possibility of a personal god to be highly unlikely under which group would you belong?

For instance, someone gives you a barrel of 10,000 white marbles and says it may contain blue marbles as well. You are allowed to pick out marbles blindly one by one and after 9,999 marbles they've all been white. Using your definition, would you be considered a "strong blueist" or a "weak blueist"?

tame_deuces · 03-20-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

tame_deuces, if you consider the possibility of a personal god to be highly unlikely under which group would you belong?

For instance, someone gives you a barrel of 10,000 white marbles and says it may contain blue marbles as well. You are allowed to pick out marbles blindly one by one and after 9,999 marbles they've all been white. Using your definition, would you be considered a "strong blueist" or a "weak blueist"?

Weak...

For the record; I also think weak atheists can say "The christian god does not exist". We don't need a special label for something as trivial as noting a specified claim of existence to be false. If we did, then weak atheism would imply you have to tack "but we can't know for certain" to all claims they ever made, which is sillyness.

(To use your example as an analogy that would merely be someone who noted that there were no purple marbles in the barrel.)

Dominic · 03-20-2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodachoda

Well, these are both pretty odd scenarios you've presented and I've never thought of either of them. The Christian generally believes God is "beyond time and space", meaning he doesn't need a creator and he is alone in this other, supernatural dimension. This means both your scenarios are impossible, since God can't even be killed, and because he's not a being that needs creating.

But in both scenarios, yes, God is something that explains why things are the way they are today (to the Christian. Again, I'm an atheist), even if God was somehow killed, say 60 years ago before you were born. God explains why humans and all of reality exists, flying teapots and fairies don't, so that's why I think Russel's Teapot analogy fails.

I don 't understand this Christian belief that God did not need a Creator yet the Universe did. Why is it more likely that there is an "uncaused cause" as a Creator than as a universe?

tame_deuces · 03-20-2012, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

I don 't understand this Christian belief that God did not need a Creator yet the Universe did. Why is it more likely that there is an "uncaused cause" as a Creator than as a universe?

Good luck... I think I have asked this question 50 times on this forum, and not once has it been answered. The closest thing I have come is Craig's revised kalam cosmological argument, which basically says that since science can't know what caused the universe (a claim that requires you to know all past, present and future... so if we accept a person could know this, shouldn't we just worship that person?) personal evidence is valid.

I'm not completely certain what happens if this personal evidence says that the universe is a sophisticated rorschach-test... as far as I can tell you're usually either ignored or chided for being dishonest.