A short article:
http://www.faithdefenders.com/ministry/articles/apologetics/humanism/Why+I+am+Not+an+Atheist.htm
August 15, 2007 by SLIMJIM
A short article:
http://www.faithdefenders.com/ministry/articles/apologetics/humanism/Why+I+am+Not+an+Atheist.htm
Posted in Apologetic Links, article, Atheism, Christianity, Evangelical, Evangelicals, faith, God, outline, Philosophy Links, Philosophy of Religion, Presuppositional Apologetics, Religion, Robert Morey | 100 Comments
That was very pretty!
The creed of atheism? Where did he get that? I’ve been an atheist for 16 years and have never heard of such a thing.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god or gods, nothing more nothing less.
JOe,
Let me ask you, in the entire universe, has there ever been in the past, or now in the present, or the future, any god, gods or goddesses of any size, shape or description?
Yes or no
Not that we have any evidence for.
Indeed. Only the deities that humans have created themselves in their intriguing attempt to explain the (to them) the unexplainable.
So that is your ‘creed’ so to speak
No. A creed is traditionally a passage or text, even a mantra, said aloud to reinforce faith in something. For example, the Apostle’s Creed.
No such thing exists for Atheism and nor would, I would think, Atheists want one.
I wonder what Robert Morey’s source is for this supposed “atheist creed”. I am guessing it is just something he made up.
Yay for his ability to destroy his imaginary enemies!
Joe, SLIMJIM’s only point was to show that you have asserted a statement:
“In the entire universe, has there ever been in the past, or now in the present, or the future, any god, gods or goddesses of any size, shape or description.”
without any proof. The lack of belief in any god would make you an agnostic, because your belief may change tomorrow. The assertion of the claim that there are no gods of any kind requires positive evidence for your case.
exactly, proapologian hit it right on the head
have you read the whole article joe?
Of course I have read the whole article and my point is that I have asserted no such statement.
I simply do not believe that there is a god. I don’t claim to have knowledge of things I haven’t seen or cannot see. I simply do not believe things without convincing evidence.
Joe,
What was my question to you again?
What was your answer?
ALso, whose ‘we” in your comment earlier as follows:
“Not that we have any evidence for.”
One more thing Joe,
Are you an atheist? Do you affirm that atheism is true?
Let’s put it this way. You can’t prove a negative. There is no way to prove that there is no god. (The doctor agrees with me on this.) Given that fact isn’t it reasonable to demand convincing evidence that there is a god BEFORE one decides to believe, rather than believing and bolstering ones belief by the impossibility of proving the contrary?
In other words, doesn’t the fact that it is logically impossible to prove that god does not exist put the burden of proof on the believer to produce the proof?
I am an atheist because the burden of proof is on the believer to make their case and they cannot. There is no convincing evidence that there is a god. That is sufficient reason not to believe.
“Are you an atheist?”
Yes.
“Do you affirm that atheism is true?”
That question is nonsensical. being an atheist means that I don’t believe there is a god. You’re asking if I affirm that I don’t believe there is a god? Didn’t I just do that?
1.)”You can’t prove a negative”
That’s why Dr. Bob is not an atheist, no?
2.)”There is no way to prove that there is no god.”
Wait how do you have this universal negative? How did you arrive at this claim? What are your premises to arrive at your assertion and are there any universals in any of those supporting premises?
3.)”Given that fact…”
Show me that the above (number 2) is fact
4.)”doesn’t the fact that it is logically impossible to prove that god does not exist ”
So if by your self-admission it is logically impossible to prove that God does not exist, why do you believe in Atheism? Why are you an atheist if you have no rational ground to be one?
5.) “I am an atheist because the burden of proof is on the believer to make their case and they cannot.”
So are you believeing in something because of a universal negative?
6.)”That is sufficient reason not to believe.”
What are these sufficient reason then?
7.)“ ‘Do you affirm that atheism is true?’
That question is nonsensical.”
If you just affirm it by “Didn’t I just do that?”, how is it nonsensical? In what ways is it nonsensical?
Aaaargh! All this atheism/agnostic banter grows tiring. On a very technical level, virtually every atheist can be called agnostic. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledged this.
I will assume that none of us here believe in Zeus. Would you consider your self to be atheistic or agnostic with regards to Zeus? Are you weighing the arguments for and against Zeus? Have you pretty solidly landed on your position with regards to Zeus?
I posit that we are all atheists with regard to Zeus. This does NOT say that, should compelling evidence for Zeus be presented, we could not change our mind. An atheist has just made up their mind on the matter given the available evidence.
Joe,
Would you debate on atheism and theism formally?
…sigh.
We are atheistic towards Zeus because the God of the Bible reveals Himself to be the only true God. We have a reason in our worldview to be atheistic towards other gods.
“I am an atheist because the burden of proof is on the believer to make their case and they cannot. There is no convincing evidence that there is a god. That is sufficient reason not to believe.”
Then, I believe in A-Atheism. The burden of proof is now on you. There is no convincing evidence that there is no god.
Do you see that circle? That is a non-statement…the burden of proof is on both of us. If you absolutely deny the existence of a god, then you share in the burden of proof. Notice the word absolutely.
You can’t prove an universal negative. EXACTLY. This is my point: no atheist is rational by definition. You guys are all crypto-agnostic. You can’t consistently believe in what you profess because you can’t account for it.
Atheism is logical. There are so many evidences for atheism. I can verify my experiences with my 5 senses. There are logical answers to life from the atheistic perspective.
But, where is God? Have you seen him?
Do you think that the only way you can prove things is through the five senses (or sometimes, seven by other standards)?
Prove to me that my great-great-great grandfather existed.
From the 5 senses, sorry i forgot to add.
Mike,
Btw, here’s one way a christian can rule out Zeus?
A christian is not agnostic towards Zeus, but Zeus is ruled out.
Only the God of the Bible exist. There is no other God that would exist.
Zeus is claimed to be a god.
Therefore, Zeus can not exist.
Now, how about youMike, on what basis do you rule him out?
Bong,
you assume an epistemology that is empirical; I was wondering if you have a blog or something, and let’s test whether or not your epistemology would be able to account for what you ‘know’ shall we?
=p
By the way for everyone else that is following this comment box, I want you all to know that I have in the process half way done an article that I title as the transcendental challenge to Greek Mythology, stay tune in the next couple of weeks for it, I think that would be interesting given that Zeus was bought up
Yah, I was about to say that, but…I didn’t want to steal SLIMJIM’s thunder.
Empiricism…is epistemologically self-refuting Bong. Sorry…
Prosapologian,
I might ask the other guys on Vertias Domain to add you as one of the contributors!
Bong,
One last thing for the night before I hit the bed,
Can you help offer me something that can help empirically prove to me that you exist, for instance, your real name, a finger print scanned and your address and phone number with your social security number?
That way, when I go to your address, I can call before I get there andsee if your finger print match, to verify that I have indeed seen you in person and also as one last verification, hear if you are correct about your social security number
I am therefore I exist.
=)
man…
Alright. A true rationalist could only say…
“Thinking is occuring somewhere.”
And that’s all he/she/it could say/express.
That statement presupposes I exist, therfore begging the question.
Bong…this might be fun for you, but do you actually believe what you’re writing?
not to mention the entire boatload of epistemological problems of how you came to that conclusion…
Slimjim said “Btw, here’s one way a christian can rule out Zeus?
A christian is not agnostic towards Zeus, but Zeus is ruled out.
Only the God of the Bible exist. There is no other God that would exist.
Zeus is claimed to be a god.
Therefore, Zeus can not exist.
Now, how about youMike, on what basis do you rule him out?”
I rule out Zeus because of total lack of evidence, but I would believe should evidence be presented. I rule out the god of Abraham for the same reason and would believe under the same conditions.
Many feel, as do I, that there is not one eensy weensy bit of *compelling* evidence for the god of Abraham (or any others).
If one little thing could be shown to be contrary to naturalistic explanations (i.e. prayer having a measurable effect), then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Mike,
In number 33, you can not rule out Zeus but can only remain ignorant unless you want to committ the logical fallacy of composition.
It is also lacking of evidence of atheism is true have you noticed that?
Bong,
I have yet empirically verify that you exist, feel free to provide those evidence beginning with your phone number, afterall, I wouldn’t know about your existence until you are empirically verified right?
SlimJim,
I think you are being far to literal. You are absolutely correct that I am ignorant as to the existence of Zeus and the Christian god (or any others). I have already acknowledged as much. But as a *practical* matter; the complete dearth of evidence, my active searching for evidence, my appreciation of the scientific method and my understanding of the sciences has let me to dismiss the supernatural as a real possibility.
Just because there is doubt, does not make both possibilities equally likely. As a technical issue, I am agnostic . . . as a practical matter, I am atheistic.
Remember . . . if you can provide one iota of compelling evidence, you will have my ear. If your holy text could be shown to have one unambiguous bit of [then] unknowable knowledge, then we have a conversation. If theistic practices were shown to affect our world in ways unexplainable by current knowledge, then we have a conversation.
So much has been posted since my last comment I don’t know if I should even bother. If I miss something feel free to ask again.
“1.)”You can’t prove a negative”
That’s why Dr. Bob is not an atheist, no?”
This was one of his premises. I am trying to explain why being an atheist does not require one to prove as negative. Being an atheist does not mean that one asserts the supposed “atheist creed”. It simply means that one does not believe a claim without sufficient evidence.
“2.)”There is no way to prove that there is no god.”
Wait how do you have this universal negative? How did you arrive at this claim? What are your premises to arrive at your assertion and are there any universals in any of those supporting premises?”
This follows from number 1. If it is impossible to prove a negative then it is impossible to prove there is no god. (Strictly speaking some negatives can be demonstrated and some things can be shown to not exist, but we can stick to this for simplicity sake.)
“3.)”Given that fact…”
Show me that the above (number 2) is fact”
Again it follows from number 1. What Dr. Morey is on about. I can’t scour the entire univers and look under every rock to verify that there is no god hiding there. I certainly can’t check outsid ethe universe.
“4.)”doesn’t the fact that it is logically impossible to prove that god does not exist ”
So if by your self-admission it is logically impossible to prove that God does not exist, why do you believe in Atheism? Why are you an atheist if you have no rational ground to be one?”
I’m explaining that in the very sentence that you just chopped in half. I don’t believe because the burden of proof is on the believer and they cannot carry it. I cannot walk around believing that anything and everything exists simply because I cannot logically prove it does not. The default position is reasonably skeptic disbelief until sufficient convincing evidence is produced. It’s the old teapot orbitting Neptune again. I refuse to belief that such a thing exists unless evidence is produced.
“5.) “I am an atheist because the burden of proof is on the believer to make their case and they cannot.”
So are you believeing in something because of a universal negative?”
No I am disbelieving in something because I have no reason to believe it.
“6.)”That is sufficient reason not to believe.”
What are these sufficient reason then?”
I just gave it. The lack of evidence is a sufficient reason not to believe. Otherwise I would half to walk around believing in all sorts of crazy things just because I can’t demonstrate their nonexistence. Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn do not exist? If not than is your disbelif in them illogical?
“7.)“ ‘Do you affirm that atheism is true?’
That question is nonsensical.”
If you just affirm it by “Didn’t I just do that?”, how is it nonsensical? In what ways is it nonsensical?”
Well my first impression was that it was nonsensical, my second that it is simply redundant. I am an atheist. Which means simply that I do not believe in god. There is no asserting involved. It is not so much nonsensical as misguided.
Mike,
1.)”my appreciation of the scientific method and my understanding of the sciences has let me to dismiss the supernatural as a real possibility.”
First off, what is the scientific method?
Secondly, after you have correctly establish that, what sphere of knowledge is the scientific method applied?
Thirdly, what is the supernatural?
Fourthly, is the scientific method for the natural realm?
Fifthly, do you know what a categorical fallacy is?
Sixthly, after you answer those question which establish your philosophy of science, demonstrate to the rest of us how logically it must follow that the scientific method ITSELF rule out the supernatural as ‘a real possibility’
2.) “As a technical issue, I am agnostic . . . as a practical matter, I am atheistic.”
Firstly, what do you mean by technical? I assume you are talking about theory and the realm of philosophical discussion?
Secondly within your worldview, I have to ask, is there discontinuity between theory and practice?
Thirdly, in practice you are an atheist but when it comes to philosophically articulating your position you are an agonistic?
Fourthly, did you read the article? Is the article dealing with agnosticism or atheism?
Fifthly, in regards to your “in technical terms” being an agnostic and in ‘practice’ you are an atheist, what do you think of this scenario: in technical terms I am not sure Atheism is true, but in practice I am a Christian.
3.)”If your holy text could be shown to have one unambiguous bit of [then] unknowable knowledge, then we have a conversation.”
What is ‘unknownable knowledge’? What do you mean specifically? Unknownable to who?
JOE,
1.) “If it is impossible to prove a negative then it is impossible to prove there is no god. ”
Which is the point of why Dr. MOrey is not an atheist right? You just admitted that it is impossible to prove your position. It is irrational.
2.)”Strictly speaking some negatives can be demonstrated and some things can be shown to not exist”
I want to see more clearly your theory of knowledge, how do you demonstrate some things not existing?
3.)”I can’t scour the entire univers and look under every rock to verify that there is no god hiding there. I certainly can’t check outsid ethe universe.”
And then you claim there is no god that have ever existed (remember the first question I asked?) Have you heard of the logically fallacy of composition?
4.)”I cannot walk around believing that anything and everything exists simply because I cannot logically prove it does not.”
Did you read the essay? Is Morey attempting to prove God?
5.) “I am an atheist. Which means simply that I do not believe in god. There is no asserting involved.”
Since you often complain about misrepresentation, what is an assertion? Define asserting.
I was wondering, if this is a proposition:
“God does not exist”
We’ll go on from there
“Which is the point of why Dr. MOrey is not an atheist right? You just admitted that it is impossible to prove your position. It is irrational.”
So you can prove that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist? Do you believe in it? Why do you persist in your irrational disbelief in the IPU? It is rational to disbelieve any claim without sufficient evidence. If you think it is irrational stop simply asserting that and support your assertion with something! If you can’t get the simple point that I am trying to make I am not going to continue to bang my head against your blog.
“I want to see more clearly your theory of knowledge, how do you demonstrate some things not existing?”
Things that are self contradictory cannot exist. (square circles) Things that contradict something that is known to exist cannot exist. I really did not want to go in to this though, because I believe it will just muddy the waters and distract us from our main conversation.
“And then you claim there is no god that have ever existed (remember the first question I asked?)”
I believe that is the case because it is the default position and there is not sufficient evidence to believe otherwise.
Is the burden of proof not on the person making a positive claim? How can it be otherwise when it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of god? (Understand that it is not impossible for god not to exist, merely impossible to prove it whether he does or not.) Is it logical to insist that atheists to the impossible to satisfy you? Are you comfortable that your belief is true simply because it is not even possible to demonstrate otherwise even if it is otherwise?
“Did you read the essay? Is Morey attempting to prove God?”
I read the essay. He was attempting to show atheism as illogical. he only showed that it is illogical to assert that there is proof that god doesn’t exist. Atheists do not assert this. They simply disbelieve in the claims of theists, because theists do not have the evidence to support their claims.
His article was entirely irrelevant to atheism because it is not the atheist position that you can prove that god does not exist. It is the atheist position that their is not sufficient evidence for a positive belief in god.
“Since you often complain about misrepresentation, what is an assertion? Define asserting.”
Asserting would be me saying “There is no god.” I do not say that. I say there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that there is a god, therefore no reason to believe. So the statement “God does not exist” is more likely to be true than false.
I don’t care whether or not you call it a proposition, that seems entirely irrelevant.
Joe,
1.)”It is rational to disbelieve any claim without sufficient evidence”
Picking up your worldview, I will take this up so shore up your ‘evidence’ for your atheistic worldview.
2.)”It is rational to disbelieve any claim without sufficient evidence.”
So operating in your worldview then, what’s the gripe with Dr. MOrey? Didn’t he claim that there is lack of sufficient reason to be an atheist?
3.) “Things that are self contradictory cannot exist. (square circles) Things that contradict something that is known to exist cannot exist.”
Those are your criteria to disprove something exist. Atheism asserts that god does not exist. Demonstrate then with those two criteria: a.) Self-contradiction (as oppose to just paradox) and b.)deductively rule out the proposition that “God exist” by showing the negation is true “God does not exist”
4.)”How can it be otherwise when it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of god?”
THat’s the atheist problem when they assert god does not exist, why is it mine?
5.)”Understand that it is not impossible for god not to exist, merely impossible to prove it whether he does or not”
So its impossible to prove it?
Again you are asserting another universal negative, how come you could assert such statement and demand others to prove things. And somehow its no longer your burden of proof when you assert things, when its logically impossible to prove it? Easy get away.
6.)”Is it logical to insist that atheists to the impossible to satisfy you?”
The atheist asserts the impossible, that is the point of Dr. Morey’s essay. Did you comprehend the essay?
7.)” he only showed that it is illogical to assert that there is proof that god doesn’t exist. Atheists do not assert this.”
Dr. MOrey showed how it is illogical to assert there is no god.
By the way, is it really true that “atheists” do not assert this? How do you know that there is no atheists that has ever asserted this? Are you asserting another universal negative and getting away with it again without proving it by saying its logically impossible to prove it? That logical problem is the problem in your arguments not mine, yet somehow you can assert things and not have the burden of proof because you keep on asserting universal negative.
JOE,
“Is the burden of proof not on the person making a positive claim? …It is the atheist position that there is not sufficient evidence for a positive belief in god.”
There is not sufficient evidence for a positive belief in atheism either. Atheism is not simply “the lack of belief in a god.” Atheism is an altogether entire WORLDVIEW- it randomly asserts a beginning point, material-only existence and metaphysics, empirical epistemology…etc etc. All these cases require positive evidence too.
I am A-Atheistic. Please provide me evidence for a positive case of Atheism. It is the A-Atheistic position that there is not sufficient evidence for a positive belief in Atheism.
“How can it be otherwise when it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of god? (Understand that it is not impossible for god not to exist, merely impossible to prove it whether he does or not.)”
EXACTLY. Atheists CANNOT remain rational and defend their position. Just because you can’t justify your claim does not mean that you get to change your definition so now you can justify it! You cannot prove the non-existence of god!
“Are you comfortable that your belief is true simply because it is not even possible to demonstrate otherwise even if it is otherwise?”
Uh…yeah, pretty much, according to your standards. According to your worldview, if you can’t demonstrate what you believe rationally (and empirically, might I add), I, using your standards, really see no reason why to believe in Atheism. Our claim is not that Christianity is true because it is not possible to demonstrate otherwise. Our claim is that Christianity is the ONLY claim that is consistent and all other worldviews are inherently self-contradicting or self-refuting epistemologically.
“Asserting would be me saying “There is no god.” I do not say that. I say there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that there is a god, therefore no reason to believe. So the statement “God does not exist” is more likely to be true than false.”
Joe, you’re an agnostic. We’re critiquing Atheism here.
I’m an atheist, but I am giving up on explaining atheism to you. Enjoy beating up your straw man version. I’ve said my piece.
Your argument is with the dictionary, Joe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
I am not straw-manning as much as to show the inconsistency between what you say you believe and how you can justify what you believe.
However, I am still open to accepting your version of Atheism if you still want to chat.
This is how every atheist I know uses the word: “2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.” Were you not able to read beyond definition number one?
Every atheist after the 1980’s, that is. No historic skeptic or philosopher ever held that position before the 1880’s.
I read all of them. You would actually like number 6 more. =)
Am I supposed to care how the meaning of the word has changed?
“You would actually like number 6 more. =)”
I don’t believe there is a sixth. 😉
Okay Joe,
you asserted some universal negative as pointed in my comment #41,
can you back them up?
SlimJim asks: “a) First off, what is the scientific method? b) Secondly, after you have correctly establish that, what sphere of knowledge is the scientific method applied? c) Thirdly, what is the supernatural? d) Fourthly, is the scientific method for the natural realm? e) Fifthly, do you know what a categorical fallacy is? f) Sixthly, after you answer those question which establish your philosophy of science, demonstrate to the rest of us how logically it must follow that the scientific method ITSELF rule out the supernatural as ‘a real possibility’”
All very leading questions to try to demonstrate that science has no role in matters of faith. Indeed, I have *as a practical matter* ruled out the supernatural as a real possibility because there is not one bit of evidence that there is or was any supernatural actor in our observable world/universe. Might there be some supernatural something somewhere? Maybe. I don’t know where the universe came from, but that does not mean that the god of Abraham created it. The fact is that Christianity (and other of course) makes very specific claims that ARE testable by the scientific method. Shall I trot out the empirical knowledge (what we ACTUALLY know) about near death experiences, the effectiveness of prayer, the sources of altruism and morality, the earth and its life, our universe, etc. etc.. Deism is the only defensible supernatural position because it offers nothing for the scientific community to falsify. When your religion makes specific claims and those claims are shown to be false, it just demonstrates your credulity.
SlimJim asks: “Firstly, what do you mean by technical? I assume you are talking about theory and the realm of philosophical discussion?”
I am talking about precise usage of language. To properly and accurately describe me, I would be agnostic on matters of the supernatural (and anything else for that matter) because there is always a level of doubt that goes along with critical thinking. I have some amount of doubt that water is made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, because I have not seen it myself. Yet in practical matters (everyday life) I ‘know’ the composition of water.
SlimJim asks: “Secondly within your worldview, I have to ask, is there discontinuity between theory and practice?”
I would not call it discontinuity. It is a matter of context. We all ‘know’ that water is H2O in our day to day life. But if we are having a discussion with a particle physicist, the context of that conversation might get into matters of ‘what are molecules’, ‘what is hydrogen’. In that context, there might be some ambiguity on the matter, but it does not change things at a practical level.
SlimJim asks: “Thirdly, in practice you are an atheist but when it comes to philosophically articulating your position you are an agonistic?”
It is that matter of context. If I buy something that costs $99.99, in practical terms, it is $100. If I am 99.99[99999]% sure that there is no biblical god, then in practical terms I am an atheist; even though I am 0.0000001% agnostic.
SlimJim asks: “Fourthly, did you read the article? Is the article dealing with agnosticism or atheism?”
[are you just trying to wear me down?]
I did read it and it is about atheism. My comments, though, were in regard to comments earlier in this thread.
SlimJim asks: “Fifthly, in regards to your “in technical terms” being an agnostic and in ‘practice’ you are an atheist, what do you think of this scenario: in technical terms I am not sure Atheism is true, but in practice I am a Christian.”
I guess it makes sense, although you seem to infer meanings to things differently than I do. I would take from that statement that the speaker is not entirely sure of their faith, but pretty solidly buys into the Christian dogma. [though I can tell you that atheism) is not ‘true’, as it makes no truth claims.] Christianity, on the other hand, makes claims of truth. (btw: you don’t capitalize ‘atheism’ just as you don’t capitalize ‘theism’)
SlimJim asks: “What is ‘unknownable knowledge’? What do you mean specifically? Unknownable to who?”
I thought it was obvious. I am referring to information that was beyond our ability to know at the time when the bible was written. Things that I would find compelling in this regard might be:
1) Describing accurately our place in the solar system, our solar systems place in the galaxy, our galaxy’s place in the universe. We had no way of knowing of the billions of other galaxies back in biblical times. All we could see were our nearest stars within our Milky Way.
2) Accurately describing the dinosaurs and their age
3) Predicting future events (i.e. earthquakes) in an unambiguous manner. Biblical predictions are great for having vague references that could be interpreted as having come to pass a gazillion times. [i.e. a bearded man will appear on a horse and will wreak havoc]
All that being said, I too, have said my piece and likely won’t comment here again.
Well if I didn’t make it clear before, let me say it again. I am tired of repeating myself. I have explained the reasonable basis of atheism sufficiently. Reread my earlier comments if you need to.
Atheism is true because I believe so. What is wrong if you believe in God and I believe in no God?
I cannot prove the big bang (I wasn’t there) and I cannot prove evolution scientifically. SO what?
I believe atheism to be true so I can get away from god. I don’t want this god thing to be on my life because I want to live mylife according to my way.
I have ask myself why I hate Christians even though you guys have been loving towards me. The christians have done a lot for the world, I am not going to say we atheists have done anything, actually nothing. And that is the point, I don’t want to do anything for anyone, I want to live my life the way I want to!
Bong,
I congratulate you on your honesty.
Mike,
I’m about to go to evening church so my response will follow tommorow.
Joe,
You need to read my comment #41 more carefully, you asserted several universal negative to defend your position.
Can you provide evidence for these since I am following the atheist worldview, and will not believe something unless I have ‘evidence’ for it.
Specifically, you claim that:
U1.) Its “impossible to prove it whether he does or not” exist
U2.) And that Dr. Morey “only showed that it is illogical to assert that there is proof that god doesn’t exist. Atheists do not assert this”
Interesting claims: (U1)That its impossible to prove God’s existence and that (U2)no atheist assert that there’s proof that god doesn’t exist.
Those claims of yours are universal negative!
The very fact that you assert a universal negative and then point out the logical problem with it is NOT MY PROBLEM, but your problem! You stated it, and you said you believe things only with evidence, so I ask for the evidence of your universal negative claim.
“U1.) Its “impossible to prove it whether he does or not” exist”
I said it was impossible to prove he does not exist, because it is generally impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything (with the noted exceptions). If I included the other I was in error. It would not be impossible to prove that god did exist, if there in fact was a god.
“(U2)no atheist assert that there’s proof that god doesn’t exist.”
I did not say that, my point was that atheism doesn’t imply that there is proof that god doesn’t exist. There are certainly probably ignorant atheists that might make that assertion. But most atheists do not.
None of my assertions were that something was proven not to exist. The impossibility I refer to is proving that something does not exist. If you thought I meant otherwise due to use of the term “negative” sorry I mislead you.
Oh BTW. Don’t believe for a minute that Bong is an atheist. That’s a lame parody of the common atheist straw man.
Joe,
I like your last comment about how “There are certainly probably ignorant atheists that might make that assertion” about disproving God’s existence, etc
If you note in comment 20, Bong believes that there are evidences supporting atheism.
I like to see you two interact with each other.
Is Bong an ignorant atheist?
Wow Joe,
I guess you don’t want to just describe Bong as an ignorant atheist but not an atheist?
What makes him not a true atheist?
Hm…
It is not that I don’t think he is a “true atheist”. It is that I think he is a theist pretending to be his idea of an atheist. Who knows though. I just don’t take him seriously.
Like Joe, I too believe that ‘Bong’ is a theist’s caricature of an atheist. I shan’t clue the ‘Bong’ author as to the obvious failures of his representation, but every non-theist would be puzzled at his position.
The whole ‘Bong’ personality is laughable.
Joe and Mike, look here guys, I am fighting against this christian nuts and you are attacking me personally. That is ad hominem. I am sharing my “testimony” just like how the christians do it when they talk about the existence of god.
If you want a fight with me, let’s take it on. We can do it the street or in a ring.
But, if you want to talk let’s talk.
I am an atheist as real as I am writing this words. I don’t like christians actually I hate them. I am not like you guys trying to justify why you actually love them like how they love you. I don’t play games, I am here to fight.
If you want to wear skirts and fight, find another job.
Fights among the atheists, I guess even the atheists dont agree! Maybe all these atheists dont even exist. Looking at all their arguments, I think they are all theists pretending to be atheist to show the pathetic bad arguments for atheism. From their arguments, it clearly shows they have not taken a class in logic!
Joe, Bong and Mike,
btw, how do you prove you guys exist? Because you have a blog name? or because you have words associated with your blog?
Drew,
Please enlighten me … what is so illogical about the Atheist position?
Bong,
I do not ‘hate’ the theist (the person). In fact I would be hard pressed to point to anyone I ‘hate’. My issue is with the theistic mode of thought and supernatural worldviews influencing public policy. In other words, I am not an anti-theist, but I practice anti-theism.
I hope you can grasp the nuance of that position.
Whatever, Bong. I don’t see any point in hating Christians. Nor do I love them or pretend to love them. I accord them the respect and civility I owe any other human being that does likewise.
My existence is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of these posts. You an I both know that. I could be a bot, but I think there is evidence against that possibility as well.
“Fights among the atheists, I guess even the atheists don’t agree!”
Haha, of course not! The only things atheists agree on is that they don’t believe in god!
Drew: Perhaps you can explain why atheism shouldn’t be the default position. Why should we assume there is a god and then demand evidence that there isn’t one? (I’ve explained why I think we should default to atheism and demand evidence to accept theism.)
Mike,
(FOR COMMENT 49)
1.) “All very leading questions to try to demonstrate that science has no role in matters of faith.”
All those questions were important to construct your philosophy of science, which you claim that the scientific method somehow rule out Christianity.
And what was the topic of Robert Morey’s essay?
You just brush aside those questions, I think if you want to invoke ‘science’, lets be clear about your claim about the nature and extent of science.
In light of you jumping the gun and brushing the questions aside, let ask you a seventh question: Is the scientific method applicable even to all ‘natural’ sphere of knowledge as well?
2.) “Deism is the only defensible supernatural position because it offers nothing for the scientific community to falsify.”
So one way of having something ‘defensible’ is if it can be nonfalsifable?
3.)”Christianity, on the other hand, makes claims of truth.”
Does atheism have makes any truth claims?
4.)”I am referring to information that was beyond our ability to know at the time when the bible was written”
In regards to your statement about ‘unknownable knowledge’, there is at least a dialetical tension (if not more) with your statement about ‘unknownable knowledge’.
If you ‘know’ something, how can it be ‘unknownable’?
Your criteria is problematic on the ground that of knowledge being unknownable. It doesn’t even make sense.
5.)”I would not call it discontinuity. It is a matter of context.”
So are those two context different, or are they connected?
6.)” ‘SlimJim asks: “Fifthly, in regards to your “in technical terms” being an agnostic and in ‘practice’ you are an atheist, what do you think of this scenario: in technical terms I am not sure Atheism is true, but in practice I am a Christian.’
I guess it makes sense, although you seem to infer meanings to things differently than I do. ”
If it makes sense, then I guess I could be specifically an A-atheist, but in practice I am a Christian. I doubt and see the problems of atheism.
WE’ll go on from there.
Bong,
(Comment 60)
You kind of scare me…
I wouldn’t want to meet you in the streets.
Joe,
“Oh BTW. Don’t believe for a minute that Bong is an atheist. That’s a lame parody of the common atheist straw man”
How do you know he’s not an atheist? Didn’t he say he’s one?
“My existence is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of these posts. You an I both know that. I could be a bot, but I think there is evidence against that possibility as well.”
Wait, how do I know you are not an athiest? What criteria have to be fulfilled in order for others to ‘know’ that you are an atheist?
Matt,
(comment 62)
“Drew,
Please enlighten me … what is so illogical about the Atheist position?”
Did you read the article?
SlimJim,
Do you have some mental handicap or something. I did answer your questions but you seem incapable of recognizing them. I shall not repeat myself.
Goodbye and enjoy your little world.
Mike,
1.) “Do you have some mental handicap or something.”
Are you familiar with what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is?
2.)”I did answer your questions but you seem incapable of recognizing them.”
Where did you answer my first set of questions:
First off, what is the scientific method?
Secondly, after you have correctly establish that, what sphere of knowledge is the scientific method applied?
Thirdly, what is the supernatural?
Fourthly, is the scientific method for the natural realm?
Fifthly, do you know what a categorical fallacy is?
Sixthly, after you answer those question which establish your philosophy of science, demonstrate to the rest of us how logically it must follow that the scientific method ITSELF rule out the supernatural as ‘a real possibility’
Along with one more I added:
Seventh, is the scientific method applicable even to all ‘natural’ sphere of knowledge as well?
Also what about post 65?
3.) “Goodbye and enjoy your little world.”
Enjoy the rest of your day.
Basically, the entire point of Morey’s article is this:
In order to adopt the “classical” Atheistic position in the belief that there are no gods at all times absolutely, we must know all knowledge at all times, future/present/past, and all space. Because we can’t prove a universal negative, we cannot prove the non-existence of god.
That is why Robert Morey is not atheistic. It’s very simple. I think it’s kinda cheating to use the 1980 redefinition of Atheism of “lack of belief”…well…obviously, because the Atheists back then saw their logical contradiction and had to scramble for a new definition.
Logically, Christian Theism and Atheism are COMPLETELY seperate worldviews. Atheism is not a lack of belief in a god, as much as atheists claim to be. Even in a lack of belief in a god, they are AFFIRMING (and therfore, needs positive evidence), that all is material and we discover things empirically, etc etc. These need positive evidences also, as much as the Christian worldview needs positive evidence to affirm its case.
If I were to say that Christianity is true because I lack belief in the non-existence of god (as shown by the inability to prove universal negatives)…besides making a logical leap…you wouldn’t accept that answer either.
By that same logic, we can not disprove the Celestial Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster or that there’s an invisible pink dragon slowly circling just out of reach above your head (you have to be really quick to net him!).
By that same logic, an ATHEIST cannot disprove the Celestial Teapot, etc etc.
However, that is not a refutation. You haven’t shown that that statement is logically contradicting…you merely asserted that you don’t like that line of reasoning.
A Christian CAN disprove the existence Celestial Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.
It’s quite simple: God revealed that that He is the only true God (John 17:3), and He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). You might not like that line of presupposed reasoning, but within my worldview, at least I can make sense of disproving mythological entities like Zeus or Thor and remain consistent.
How can you justify the non-existence of the Spaghetti Monster?
and talking about spaghetti is making me really really hungry…i need to eat lunch…
Yet that refutation relies on a text which is self-contradictory, historically inaccurate and generally not worth very as evidence at all.
Sure, you might use it as a fairy tale or fable but as accurate text? Not so much.
That is merely begging the question. You’re assuming that the text is just an ordinary text from ancient history. That is, you already precluded it from being God’s Word. If it is God’s Word as it asserts, then it is infallible and inspired even through (alleged) human errors.
Self-contradictions, historical inaccuracy? Of course, oh, please do mention some. If SLIMJIM and I can show them to be historically coherent or justified, would you be satisfied?
HAHA. I am actually eating spaghetti right now because that’s the only thing left in my fridge. man. Good times.
Matt,
(Post 74)
“Yet that refutation relies on a text which is self-contradictory, historically inaccurate and generally not worth very as evidence at all.”
So you rely on atheism that is logically problematic?
Matt,
(post 74)
Now that I think about it, what are some instances of ‘accurate’ text in history?
Joe,
you sound like a wimp. if you don’t feel anything why waste your time debating these people? all of us humans feels something for someone, either you hate someone or love someone…..you don’t feel nothing for anyone! and quit tellimg me what to do, it is my prerogative to hate who ever I want???!!
you sound like a kid who got no life and sit behind the keyboard and imposes your morals on people. you really sound like a christian. i think you are a christian pretending to be an atheist. all my atheist friends would cheer me on for whaever I do. when I beat some punk on the streets, they cheer me…..I am the super race.
we are the super race and the superman! go home and read Nietzsche again.
Hold on … what’s the logical problem with Atheism? Atheism is based on rational, evidence based reasoning. Hard to get any more logical than that.
Matt,
(Comment 80)
“Atheism is based on rational, evidence based reasoning”
Precisely, show me the rational evidence for your atheism as true then.
Bong,
??
Simply because there is no evidence for any sort of deity actually existing. To believe in something for which there is no evidence is really rather silly.
Therefore the default position is Atheism.
Matt,
So maybe I should define it better:
“Atheism is based on nonevidence based reasoning”
Matt,
I wonder how you synthesize your atheism lack of evidence and,
“believe in something for which there is no evidence is really rather silly.”
How do you assent and hold to an atheist worldview in light of your statement?
Bong,
I wonder how does an atheist even avoid the logical conclusion to being ‘Nietschistic’ and believe that the ultimate thing for an atheist or anybody for that manner is rise with the will of power…
Slimjim,
I’m left wondering if you’re asking daft questions just to be annoying or if you honestly don’t know.
Atheists tend (but it is not a complete coverage by any means) toward a naturalistic view of the world. Evolution, Abiogenesis, etc. The evidence to support that is present to the point of being overwhelming.
Since scientific theories such as Evolution tend to counter certain theistic theories/teachings which have no evidence, the naturalistic ones win out. They have evidence.
Matt,
(comment 87)
1.)”I’m left wondering if you’re asking daft questions just to be annoying or if you honestly don’t know.”
Isn’t this committing the either/or fallacy? Is it possible that I’m grasping for your atheistic theory of knowledge?
2.)”Atheists tend (but it is not a complete coverage by any means) toward a naturalistic view of the world. Evolution, Abiogenesis, etc. The evidence to support that is present to the point of being overwhelming.”
What is the ‘evidence’ for Naturalism? What is the evidence for abiogenesis?
I’d like to see how overwhelming is it.
3.) “Since scientific theories such as Evolution”
Does Evolution satisfy the criteria of the scientific method?
What is the scientific method?
I’m done here. Have fun guys.
I return to this thread briefly only to apologize for my “mental handicap” statement. It showed my losing my decorum and it was inappropriate. My sincere apologies.
As long as I am here, though, I will respond to SlimJims last questions of me. I responded to your first list of questions in total. I recognized that your list of questions was designed to lead me (and the reader) to the conclusion that science has nothing to say about the supernatural. I effectively conceded that. Should there be a supernatural realm, science has nothing to say about it as science deals with the natural, observable universe. You, however, seem to think that this invalidates the role of science in these matters, but it does not. Your theists make truth claims of their supernatural beliefs that, most assuredly, ARE testable and falsifiable through the scientific method. Without listing the myriad falsified religious truth claims, I will state that none have held up to the scientific method [SlimJim: look it up on Wikipedia. Don’t ask everyone to define things for you].
One last observation. I would posit that should some ‘supernatural’ effect be recognized and verified, then it becomes part of our natural world. Then it DOES fall into the domain of science.
Mike,
1.)” My sincere apologies.”
Apologies accepted. If I offended you in any way, let me know.
2.)”I responded to your first list of questions in total.”
I don’t think you did, but you just jump the gun and talk about my motive and goals for asking those questions, and I hope the following below shows that the questions I raised above is still left unanswered.
3.)”SlimJim: look it up on Wikipedia. Don’t ask everyone to define things for you”
I ask you specificly to define things to see how you use specific words; am I irrational when people like Joe dispute definitions even though Prosapologian cited the dictionary for his definition?
I’m trying to establish things with your own words.
4.)”science deals with the natural, observable universe.”
Is the scientific method applicable to even all sphere of ‘natural’ knowledge?
Furthermore if you do think so, I would wonder how you define the ‘scientific method’, so that is why I asked you and will ask you again,
What is the scientific method?
5.)”Your theists make truth claims of their supernatural beliefs that, most assuredly, ARE testable and falsifiable through the scientific method.”
First off, do atheist makes claims in the greater atheist worldview about tht nature of reality, theory of knowledge, ethics, etc that is testable with the scientific method?
Secondly, give just one example of the many theistic propositions that somehow properly falls under the category where the scientific method is applicable, and we’ll go on from there.
SlimJim said: “Is the scientific method applicable to even all sphere of ‘natural’ knowledge? ”
This is too ambiguous a question. What is “natural knowledge”? If you asking about ‘knowledge of our natural world’, then I would say yes. Science can play a role at some level on virtually everything. This may be as granular as understanding brain activity when making moral judgements.
SlimJim [again] asks: “What is the scientific method?”
Please read the following and stop asking this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
SlimJim asks: “give just one example of the many theistic propositions that somehow properly falls under the category where the scientific method is applicable, and we’ll go on from there.”
OK. Many religions (including Christianity) maintain (a truth claim) that the act of prayer can influence outcomes of events in our world (i.e. cure the sick, vanquish enemies). This is scientifically testable. It has been tested many times and been shown to have no effect that cannot be explained by natural causes. End of story.
Mike,
1.)”This is too ambiguous a question.”
RESPONSE: Fine, let me ask you another way: Are there any areas of knowledge or instances concerning the natural world where the scientific method are not applicable?
2.)”Please read the following and stop asking this question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method”
RESPONSE: Since you gave that link, I assume you accept the Scientific Method would consists of empirical observations and the ability to experiment. We shall apply this to atheism shall we?
3.)”Many religions (including Christianity) maintain (a truth claim) that the act of prayer can influence outcomes of events in our world (i.e. cure the sick, vanquish enemies). This is scientifically testable. It has been tested many times and been shown to have no effect that cannot be explained by natural causes. End of story.”
RESPONSE: Do you have any sources that you can cite of this being ‘tested many times’? Let’s deal with the specifics.
Mike,
You also stated the following:
“As long as I am here, though, I will respond to SlimJims last questions of me.”
How about my question from post 92:
First off, do atheist makes claims in the greater atheist worldview about tht nature of reality, theory of knowledge, ethics, etc that is testable with the scientific method?
Or from post 88:
“What is the ‘evidence’ for Naturalism? What is the evidence for abiogenesis?
I’d like to see how overwhelming is it.”
Does Evolution satisfy the criteria of the scientific method?
SlimJim asks: “Are there any areas of knowledge or instances concerning the natural world where the scientific method are not applicable? “
Still to ambiguous. In my interpretation of your question, I would say no. At some level virtually every field of knowledge and everything in the natural world could have the scientific empirical method applied to it at some. Again, this may be as granular as recognizing active brain regions and physiological responses to seeing a loved one. This is not empirically defining the (at present) ethereal concept of ‘love’, but it is the scientific method applied to something that is not necessarily completely quantifiable.
SlimJim asks: “I assume you accept the Scientific Method would consists of empirical observations and the ability to experiment. We shall apply this to atheism shall we?”
I am not sure where you are going with this but, yes, I accept observation and testing as eminently powerful aspects of scientific method.
SlimJim asks: “Do you have any sources that you can cite of this being ‘tested many times’? Let’s deal with the specifics.”
Here is a link to the latest, largest and most rigorous study:
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
I intentionally linked directly to the source so as to avoid the much of the editorializing that most news reports had (though it would be in my favor). Still; if you google “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer” (include the quotes) you will get a lot more, easily-digestible information on it. In the resulting information, you will find references to earlier test of the effectiveness of prayer.
SlimJim asks: “First off, do atheist makes claims in the greater atheist worldview about tht nature of reality, theory of knowledge, ethics, etc that is testable with the scientific method?”
I wish you would just say what you are trying to lead me to say. To start; atheism defines little of anything of a person’s worldview. We are hardly a homogeneous bunch. But, in general, I think it is safe to say that atheists form their worldview from evidence. For instance; we do not believe that any religion is the sole proprietor of ethics and morality because they church says they are (dogma). We instead use mathematics and the scientific method that shows no correlation between religion and morality. We also use the scientific method to catalog altruistic behavior of other species to form hypothesis’. We also test those hypothesis’ in lab environments. So, yes, in general the atheist does make the said claims about our natural world from evidence in our natural world.
SlimJim asks: “What is the ‘evidence’ for Naturalism? What is the evidence for abiogenesis? I’d like to see how overwhelming is it. Does Evolution satisfy the criteria of the scientific method?”
Matt used the term ‘overwhelming’ in a sentence that included ‘abiogenesis’ and ‘evolution’. I do not feel that there is overwhelming evidence for a specific sequence of events that would result in abiogenesis. I don’t think that was his intent. We do, however, have evidence that fundamental proteins for life (as we know it) can form from primordial ooze with enough energy. This is hardly abiogenesis, but considering that we have gleaned some insights in to a billion year process in our vanishingly brief time here is impressive.
The evidence for evolution-by-natural-selection is unquestionably overwhelming. In Darwin’s day (he planned on studying theology upon his return from his famous voyage) there were very few tools available to him. He could not excavate to ancient layers of earth and could only observe living and dead current species (at least one of his subjects graced his dinner table). Nuclear dating techniques did not exist nor did any knowledge of DNA. It is a great testament to his powers of observation that allowed him formulate his hypothesis. Some of the very compelling observations he made were that a great many species have five-fingered ‘hands’. With the exception of grossly different proportions, the whale’s flipper and the bat’s wing (as examples) are fundamentally identical in regards to the number of bones, how they are articulated, how they are attached (via similar arms and wrists), they are identical. Another observation was that (again adjusted for scale) early embryos of (for example) horses, mice and humans are virtually indistinguishable.
Most certainly, evolution satisfies the “criteria of the scientific method”. Charles Darwin’s grandfather had the idea of one species giving rise to other species. Charles further developed his grandfather’s concept and made some *predictions* (important to the scientific method) and looked for supporting evidence. If one species did give rise to other species, it would make sense that there would be great similarities between those species. The similarities that he observed were exactly what he predicted and looked exactly as they should if a natural process were passively selecting species based on their specific environment.
His observations on the Beagle (of which I only scratched) were compelling on their own. The scientific ‘holy grail’, however, is when completely unrelated fields of science confirm the predictions of the original theory. Enter our discovery of DNA. Once we understood the role of this molecule and had the technology to look at it closely, biologists made a *prediction*. That prediction was that, if Darwinian Natural Selection were true, then the various species’ DNA would closely related to where they fit on the evolutionary tree. DNA jived with evolution exactly.
Darwin *predicted* that there would be many more precursor species to those that he observed. Of course archeology has unearthed gazillions of fossils the perfectly supported evolution.
Darwin also postulated that the changes he theorized could only occur over vast time frames but had no way to predict or test what that time frame was. Enter nuclear physics and our tremendous understanding of the behavior of matter. Radio-Carbon dating showed that these processes took BILLIONS of years. That offered further support of evolution.
We have strong theories that we take for granted that are supported by far less than this. When a theory makes so many predictions that are supported by multiple fields of science, that is the gold standard. Darwinian Evolution is that gold standard. Overwhelming? Most certainly!
As far as the “evidence of Naturalism” . . . I could approach that two ways. I posit that the default position should be naturalism. For instance; if your car stops running you would, of course, look for natural explanations. Did you run out of gas? Did the alternator wear out? Did the emissions computer break? How many possible ‘natural’ causes would you pursue before you would consider supernatural causes? I would argue that Naturalism is the default reality requiring no ‘evidence’ and that Supernaturalism is the exceptional stance that would require evidence.
If you don’t buy into that argument, I will then point out that we have seemingly an infinite number of natural explanations for a seemingly an infinite number of things (i.e. why does it rain?, why does a planet stay in orbit around a star?) The box containing SUPERnatural explanations for things is empty.
Mike,
I wrote a response but I backspaced.
I will respond to this by sometimes next week as I’m writing for other places as well.
I hope to hear from you soon.
SlimJim,
Can I assume that you don’t care to respond?
Robert Morey is a wonderful scholar on many subjects