Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 05:27 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 04:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  e.g based on direct personal experience. Do we have any strong atheists in the room? :-)

As an aside, I'd like to point out that direct personal experience is not the same as fact derived from evidence.

Also, how can you have direct personal experience of something not existing?

hehe this, I love the "personal experience" argument. My boss has that down pat. "you can't tell me I didn't experience god".

You are right, I can't, and I am not a clinical psychologist or neural specialist so I can not get into the nuts and bolts of self delusion/hallucination or the positioning of your subjective opinion that god touched you personally because you felt something or think you feel an answer in your head from a question that you have prayed about...the brain is an odd thing isn't it? That usually shuts him up.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
17-08-2014, 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2014 07:30 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 04:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I am curious wether there are any strong atheists in here (e.g. persons who are happy to make the negative truth claim that god does not exist) whose position on the existence of God is actually facts-based.

Notes:

* I am not really interested in hearing from people who reference any external authority as a source of truth. Please refrain from posting if this is the source of your ideas.
* I am not really interested in hearing from people who operate from theories of "refuting intelligent design". Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically to my satisfaction that all "intelligent design" arguments, wether for or against, are inherently meaningless, and I'm not really interested in debating that on this thread.

So - just strong atheists who reckon they have a position which is facts-based, e.g based on direct personal experience. Do we have any strong atheists in the room? :-)

Phil

negative truth claim...is that even a valid term?

Since all forms of god were created philosophically by man, then yes I say there exists at this moment zero evidence of any god. I however, do not claim to know everything in the universe by a long shot, and maybe on planet Xenu a god exists, or in the 17th dimension of venus. But for right now, the man created anthropocentric posit that a god exists is with zero evidence, thus false.

Most Atheists that I know don't make knowledge claims that a god doesn't exist, it is the creationists/theists that emphatically make the knowledge claim that a god exists. We can systematically disassemble their faith by breaking down from whence it came, and scientifically disprove the BS story, forensically dismantling the authors of the delusion and invalidate the extraordinary story. That doesn't mean that it is absolutely impossible that some super genie exists..somewhere, or at sometime, I suppose, even though that is such a ridiculous perspective, but ANYTHING is possible if you want to play that game.

It is possible that venus is hollow and full of little blue men too, doesn't make it plausible or true simply because we cannot solidly, completely disprove it.


1) An un-evidenced, unverifiable God possesses certain presupposed attributes as found in religious propaganda, folklore and literature
2) It is impossible for any presupposed un evidenced entity to attain any verifiable attributes without the intervention of a creative entity
3) Overwhelming evidence indicates that humans create and compose propaganda, folklore and literature having to do with all gods.

Therefore a creative entity superior to all presupposed gods exists, and that entity is man.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
17-08-2014, 07:37 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 04:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I am curious wether there are any strong atheists in here (e.g. persons who are happy to make the negative truth claim that god does not exist) whose position on the existence of God is actually facts-based.

Notes:

* I am not really interested in hearing from people who reference any external authority as a source of truth. Please refrain from posting if this is the source of your ideas.
* I am not really interested in hearing from people who operate from theories of "refuting intelligent design". Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically to my satisfaction that all "intelligent design" arguments, wether for or against, are inherently meaningless, and I'm not really interested in debating that on this thread.

So - just strong atheists who reckon they have a position which is facts-based, e.g based on direct personal experience. Do we have any strong atheists in the room? :-)

Phil

Yes. God does exist, as a an invalid concept in the minds of believers and that's it. In reality the concept of gods violates the primacy of existence principle and is logically impossible, which is why there has never been a successful argument for God and believers have to rely on faith.

Think about it. If such a thing existed it would have been proved by now conclusively just as electrons have been proved conclusively to exist.

A lot of apologists have attempted to refute the principle but have failed. I've read every attempt I can find on the internet. They fail because they avoid the central issue which is the relationship between consciousness and existence. They either don't have a good understanding of what the principle entails or they purposefully misrepresent it in order to dismiss it. I think many realize the doom that it is for their whole worldview and so they skirt around it while claiming to have refuted it But they can't refute it because it is true.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
17-08-2014, 07:51 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 04:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I am curious wether there are any strong atheists in here (e.g. persons who are happy to make the negative truth claim that god does not exist) whose position on the existence of God is actually facts-based.

Notes:

* I am not really interested in hearing from people who reference any external authority as a source of truth. Please refrain from posting if this is the source of your ideas.
* I am not really interested in hearing from people who operate from theories of "refuting intelligent design". Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically to my satisfaction that all "intelligent design" arguments, wether for or against, are inherently meaningless, and I'm not really interested in debating that on this thread.

So - just strong atheists who reckon they have a position which is facts-based, e.g based on direct personal experience. Do we have any strong atheists in the room? :-)

Phil

Fact based on personal experience is a contradiction in terms, but I do have the personal experience of being "filled with the Holy Spirit" and speaking in tongues.
I can still speak in tongues as an atheist, my personal experience proves the lie to this numinous experience, there is no way, if this concept of god had any reality, that I would be able to speak in tongues as someone that has committed the unforgivable sin.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
17-08-2014, 08:07 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 04:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I am curious wether there are any strong atheists in here (e.g. persons who are happy to make the negative truth claim that god does not exist) whose position on the existence of God is actually facts-based.

Notes:

* I am not really interested in hearing from people who reference any external authority as a source of truth. Please refrain from posting if this is the source of your ideas.
* I am not really interested in hearing from people who operate from theories of "refuting intelligent design". Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically to my satisfaction that all "intelligent design" arguments, wether for or against, are inherently meaningless, and I'm not really interested in debating that on this thread.

So - just strong atheists who reckon they have a position which is facts-based, e.g based on direct personal experience. Do we have any strong atheists in the room? :-)

Phil
What exactly is "God" just so we all know what we're discussing in this thread?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
17-08-2014, 08:10 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 08:07 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(17-08-2014 04:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I am curious wether there are any strong atheists in here (e.g. persons who are happy to make the negative truth claim that god does not exist) whose position on the existence of God is actually facts-based.

Notes:

* I am not really interested in hearing from people who reference any external authority as a source of truth. Please refrain from posting if this is the source of your ideas.
* I am not really interested in hearing from people who operate from theories of "refuting intelligent design". Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically to my satisfaction that all "intelligent design" arguments, wether for or against, are inherently meaningless, and I'm not really interested in debating that on this thread.

So - just strong atheists who reckon they have a position which is facts-based, e.g based on direct personal experience. Do we have any strong atheists in the room? :-)

Phil
What exactly is "God" just so we all know what we're discussing in this thread?

Indeed. That's the problem with this sort of lazy equivocation...

For any discussion to be meaningful "God" must be well-defined.

Since the OP wants to have the discussion, the OP should provide that definition.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-08-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 04:45 AM)phil.a Wrote:  I am curious wether there are any strong atheists in here (e.g. persons who are happy to make the negative truth claim that god does not exist) whose position on the existence of God is actually facts-based.

Notes:

* I am not really interested in hearing from people who reference any external authority as a source of truth. Please refrain from posting if this is the source of your ideas.
* I am not really interested in hearing from people who operate from theories of "refuting intelligent design". Godel's incompleteness theorem proves mathematically to my satisfaction that all "intelligent design" arguments, wether for or against, are inherently meaningless, and I'm not really interested in debating that on this thread.

So - just strong atheists who reckon they have a position which is facts-based, e.g based on direct personal experience. Do we have any strong atheists in the room? :-)

Phil

FACT, the only place science observes cognition is in biological evolution. FACT, humans have made up fictional sky heros only to have them scrapped for newer fictional sky heros. Which means human perceptions are notoriously flawed and lead humans to fill gaps with bullshit.

For the same reason humans no longer think an ocean god named Poseidon causes hurricanes, life and the universe does not need a non material, invisible cognition with super powers.

Stephen Hawkins "A God Is not required".

The bullshit tactic of "prove it isn't true" does not work. The real issue is that "God" of the gaps is not worth considering as an answer because it is rooted in mythology first off, it reflects human ignorance and has no basis in science.

"You don't know the future" is bullshit. If I claim "You cant prove snarfwidgets don't exist" how much time to you waste on a claim I make starting with a naked assertion?

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

The concept of all god claims are merely human imaginations and a reflection of our own ignorance in needlessly fearing our own finite existence.

It is simple human psychology. The same conspiracy crap that causes people to make up gods and falsely believe in them is the same intellectual laziness and wishful thinking that causes someone to believe in rabbits feet or lucky socks. Selection bias and sample rate error.

Time after time in scientific history, we find what was once claimed to be of the divine is latter explained through natural science.

Bottom line, there has never been and never will be an invisible sky hero. There is only human superstition and the unwillingness to face reality.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
17-08-2014, 08:34 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2014 12:10 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 05:16 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "u" don't have a position on god's existence which is "facts-based."

The burden of proof lies with you. Read that again.

End of discussion...till you come up with one.

Eh, given that he's explicitly addressing STRONG atheists, and that he started a thread posing pretty much the exact same question to theists? I'll give him a bye on this one.

I'm going to mirror Evolution Kills on this one, only I'm going to go a little bit further. On a case-by-case basis, there isn't any god that I've encountered in human mythology that I believe in, and quite a few that the evidence suggests did not do the things the myths say they do, or reveal themselves the way that the myths say they revealed themselves. Quite a few are described in a logically self-contradictory way, and thus clearly cannot exist... at least, not as they are described.

And there's the rub. Before we can even get into the question of whether a particular claim is true, or is false, we have to get into what a particular claim IS. Without a clear, well-defined, coherent claim, evaluating it for truth or falsehood is impossible. Let's stick with the claims surrounding the Christian God for a moment. Is this a being of infinite justice, compelled by its nature to condemn sinners to torment? Is this a being of infinite mercy, able to forgive and NOT do exactly that? Is it somehow both? We see a lurking self-contradiction here if the answer is "both". But more pressing than that, we see the ambiguity of the claim, and how the ambiguity makes it impossible to evaluate. This question isn't peripheral to the claim... it's rather central to Christian theology... and yet Christianity as a whole has no clear answer to it. Similarly, it is not irrelevant to whether the claim is believable or not, because it has within it a potential contradiction that could render the claim clearly false. We're not asking whether God is a baritone or an alto. This is a question of substance. Before we can get into asking whether something is true or false, we have to have a decent understanding of what that something is claimed to be, because whether the claim is true or false can change as the claim does.

Moving from Yahweh/Jehovah/whoever to something more general, the question of the supernatural. Again, this is a problem of an ambiguous claim. For someone to discuss supernaturalism, would require them to make a division between what is natural and what is supernatural. To my mind, if echos of our personality existed beyond death, a la ghosts, and this was somehow evidenced in reality, then that would be part of how the universe worked. End of story. I would have no desire to sort it into a bucket labeled supernatural, rather than a bucket labeled natural. I don't have the two different buckets. A person arguing for supernaturalism must, at the least, provide a fairly coherent definition of what it means for something to be supernatural rather than natural, BEFORE any evaluation of the truth claim can be made. If we arbitrarily define gravity to be supernatural, then the supernatural does exist, end of story. But if we're not clear whether gravity counts as supernatural, under the claim of supernaturalism being advanced, then we may find ourselves unable to state whether the supernatural exists or not.

A recognition of this problem of vagueness is called ignosticism, especially in regard to claims of deities.

Turning this concept back to the question of strong atheism, we can now recognize how the varied, vague, and often mutually-exclusive definitions of the Christian God makes it hard or impossible to evaluate for truth or falsehood. That said, some variants CAN be evaluated.

Is the Christian God a being who will mark anyone who has said the Salvation prayer as His own, and who will grant them miracles of healing if they just pray for them? Then this claim is false. Direct negative evidence of this has been gathered through statistical analysis of prayer-healing versus placebo... and by prayer-healing, I mean attempted prayer-healing, because that shit don't work. This is a miracle that does not happen. This isn't evidence that a similar God, one alike in many ways but which either does not grant healing prayers or grants them to a narrower group, does not exist, but it is evidence that THIS one does not exist.

Is the Christian God a perfect being who sent Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans and the US at large for an increasingly libertine lifestyle (as some conservative Christians have claimed)? We can argue a bit about the vagueness of the word "perfect" there, but the answer will be a clear no. The French Quarter, one of the most libertine districts of New Orleans and the South at large, was also one of the least-hard-hit by Katrina. Either this being doesn't particularly claim about punishing the "guilty" at least as much as those around them (which would indicate that Katrina was not about punishing that particular "sin"), or this being has sucky aim, indicating imperfection. Or, you know, didn't send Katrina thataway with anything like that particular purpose, and maybe doesn't exist at all. That particular God being claimed is disproven by evidence.

Following this pattern, I am a strong atheist towards most specific claims of a Christian God, an Abrahamic God, or most gods found in existing human mythologies. For some of them, I'm an agnostic strong atheist, in that I positively believe that they are false (simply because they bear such similarity to the ones that can be proven false, and because I think they're based on such blind faith as to not be trusted), but I acknowledge a degree of uncertainty and incomplete examination in that position. That belief of falsehood is more of a first-blush reaction than a carefully-considered position because, let's be honest, there's too damn many gods for any of us to carefully examine each one. However, theistic gods -- that is, gods with human-ish minds (personalities, memories, desires, goals, emotions, etc) which intervene in the world through magic/miracles/whatever, are testible in principle, because we can monitor the world for that same magic/miracle/whatever.

More vague claims of gods, from across the spectrum, I will identify as ignostic regarding. I don't regard the claims as sufficiently precise to evaluate as true or false. I have something I call the Toaster Test. If something is so vaguely defined that a toaster fits the bill, then it is cannot be evaluated as a god claim. For example: "I believe that there's.... SOMETHING.... that exists." TOASTERS EXIST! Others -- such as a deistic god -- are somewhat-well defined (though I could hope for better), but impossible to test. I'd be a weak atheist regarding these.

Finally, there are the weasel-semantic claims, in which the concept of a god is arbitrarily defined as something other than what most people think of a god as being. For example, I've encountered people who say that Love is God and God is Love in a DEFINITIONAL sense. I'll agree with them that love exists, but I will argue the semantics of whether that can be called a god.

....

Yes, I know someone will respond to this post by inventing a toaster-god. You're all freaks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
17-08-2014, 08:34 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
The only good thing about studying claims of fictional sky heros is good for is a study in our species flawed logic in terms of psychology. But for an actual god exiting, not even remotely worth considering.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 08:39 AM
RE: Strong Atheists: do any of u have a position on god's existence which is facts-based?
(17-08-2014 04:56 AM)One Above All Wrote:  I am a gnostic atheist for pretty much two reasons.
1 - The concept of "god" is left up to the individual. Therefore, I've created my own definition, based on what I believe a god (perfect being) should be like (which is what everyone does, really). This would be an omnipotent and omniscient deity. For it to be worthy of worship, it must be benevolent as well.
2 - My definition is logically inconsistent with itself (omnipotence paradox, omniscience paradox, and the problem of evil) and reality (if such a being existed, reality would be much different), so not only does it not exist, but it cannot exist.

I fall more or less into this camp. "God" seems like the proper label for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being... the kind I'm fairly satisfied is ruled out by the problem of evil. That just leaves "then why call him 'God'"? What's the difference between a weakened form of god who is missing an omni- attribute and just some super powerful alien with advanced technology? What is the difference between the weakened form of god and the devil? I find it fiendishly difficult to envisage a circumstance I might find myself in where I feel comfortable describing any being I might encounter now or in the future as "God". So I'm a gnostic atheist but I don't rule out weird and powerful aliens who I can't comfortably label as "God" but otherwise might display some "godlike" properties. Does that make me agnostic? The shaky definitions of both "God" and "knowledge" make this whole area of vocabulary uncertain and somewhat irrelevant.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: