Atheist Club. Begin.

[CorporalCaptain]

Ditto for why would everyone believe in God, if God existed. Goliath, you give no reason why this must be so, either.

You conveniently ignore traditional Christian theological concepts such as "original sin" and "free will", which in Christian theology actually negate both of your premises.

In other words, you are attributing properties to God, which not even theologians assume God has.

 

[Venardhi]

Atheism and agnosticism are widely used without much thought as to what they mean. Atheism at heart is simply "Not believing" whereas one would need to be an "Antitheist" to believe in the lack of god(s). Agnosticism on the other hand is usually assumed to be more along the lines of what atheism actually is, or instead interpreted as a refusal to pick a side. Agnostics don't think one can ever know for sure, but it doesn't mean that none of them are religious.

In short:
Atheist: I don't believe.
Antitheist: I refuse to believe.
Agnostic: I can't believe, and neither can you.

 

[Danoz]

For the record, neither stance is arrogant in and of itself, it's how you behave as a result. For instance, if I went around harassing and belittling people of faith who have not harmed anyone it would absolutely be arrogant, but just choosing not to believe in a higher power without evidence is not arrogant in the slightest.

My point is more that there is an arrogance in believing that ones limited observation is the know-all-end-all and that people who subscribe to a higher power are acting purely on superstition. I may be skeptical, but who am I to say that the Buddhists I met in Japan or my childhood pastor are all lost in religious fairy tales? It would be arrogant and close-minded for me to believe that about those people, simply because I don't understand it they way they seem to.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

So... Have I got this right (based on the reasoning given above)? (maybe I am missing something):

If Obama's birth certificate existed, then everyone would believe that he was born in the United States. (Or: if birth certificate, then universal belief)
But not everyone believes the birth certificate exists. (Not universal belief)
Therefore, Obama was not born in the U.S. (Therefore, Nigerian)

I think there are some faulty assumptions/connections made in this sort of argument....

 

[Pingfah]

My point is more that there is an arrogance in believing that ones limited observation is the know-all-end-all and that people who subscribe to a higher power are acting purely on superstition. I may be skeptical, but who am I to say that the Buddhists I met in Japan or my childhood pastor are all lost in religious fairy tales? It would be arrogant and close-minded for me to believe that about those people, simply because I don't understand it they way they seem to.

When I refer to what I consider superstition, I am referring to beliefs that have no basis in science.

I'm not saying they can't be drawing on personal experience or something else. But those things aren't useful in trying to empirically demonstrate something, which is the standard of evidence I require in order to believe in a deity. It's not arrogant at all to require that standard for myself.

 

[think]

1+1=2 or is one and one three?

 

[Brian]

The simplest way to prove a negative is by denying the consequent:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

If (it is sunny) then (it is daytime). [a logical conclusion, and one you can always make]
Not (sunny today). [a fact, a negation of Q]
Therefore, not daytime? [you cannot conclude that]

BZZZ.. It's merely a cloudy day.

You cannot always disprove P by negating Q, unless P is all Q depends on.

If there was an elephant in this room, I would see it.
I don't see it.
Therefore, there is no elephant in this room.

Or you are blind. Or you are looking in the wrong direction. Or the elephant is inside a big box. etc.

 

[think]

P and Q creates a combination that is neither more or less then the absolute values of P and Q yet is not P and Q.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I am a "weak atheist," meaning I don't fully discount the existence of any higher powers, but I've seen no evidence to convince me that they exist, and in any event I don't care too much whether they're out there.

My primary beef with religion is the codification of such beliefs into law. You can practice your religion however you like, just keep it the hell out of my life.

 

[Brian]

My primary beef with religion is the codification of such beliefs into law. You can practice your religion however you like, just keep it the hell out of my life.

This. ^

 

[Locutus of Bored]

My point is more that there is an arrogance in believing that ones limited observation is the know-all-end-all and that people who subscribe to a higher power are acting purely on superstition. I may be skeptical, but who am I to say that the Buddhists I met in Japan or my childhood pastor are all lost in religious fairy tales? It would be arrogant and close-minded for me to believe that about those people, simply because I don't understand it they way they seem to.

No, it's not arrogant at all, just as it isn't arrogant for those Buddhists and that pastor to have beliefs that are at odds with each other. I don't take pride in being an atheist; nor do I think people of faith are inferior, both of which are qualities that would be required for one to be considered arrogant.

My position as an atheist is not just based upon my limited observation. No one can produce testable proof of the existence of a deity. Nor am I expecting them to. That's faith, and I'm fine with people having that and finding personal fulfillment in that. As I am with them believing certain events or phenomenon they've observed constitute proof enough for them of the existence of a higher power. However, I am not obligated to agree with that without testable scientific evidence.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I think it's arrogant to assume that a god would love you and that you know anything about It.

 

[Brian]

Ironically, it's always those who rely on faith for their belief system who call those who rely on evidence to form their perception of the universe to be closed-minded. But that is actually the reverse of what's really going on. This explains it well, IMO:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/yt]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If I wanted to be part of a club where people got together to talk about their stance on religion, I wouldn't be an atheist.

This. "Not collecting stamps, hobby," etc etc.

I've been an atheist as long as I can remember. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[siskokid888]

Kudos to you for leaving superstition behind. The sooner the world comes around to rationality, the better off we will all be. Be loud, be proud and don't take any theist nonsense lying down. To quote Woody Allen, all religion does is give us another way to seperate "us" from "them". Time to break away from the "spirituality" bullshit. Newsflash - there is no such thing as "spirituality", its a made up term for a made up idea. Non-theists forever!

 

[think]

concerning the odds of the Christ and the Buddha I consider them the opposites of each other and both attainable with the discipline of wisdom and timing. neither and both are real and or unreal yet neither and both mean more or less than the other. When the door opened during 1925 and was written of in the 30's and 40's it could never close to the dismay of the arrogant priests and pastors at odds to each other.

When cosmic consciousness is defied in mere mockery there is no true meaning left. This is more of a given then an actual value of true meaning.

 

[Goliath]

The simplest way to prove a negative is by denying the consequent:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

If (it is sunny) then (it is daytime). [a logical conclusion, and one you can always make]
Not (sunny today). [a fact, a negation of Q]
Therefore, not daytime? [you cannot conclude that]

BZZZ.. It's merely a cloudy day.

You cannot always disprove P by negating Q, unless P is all Q depends on.

You don't know what you're talking about.

What you posted there was not a modus tollens. It was, in fact, a fallacy which is called "denying the antecedent".

What I posted was this:

If P, then Q. (If it is sunny, then it is daytime)
Not Q. (It is not daytime)
Therefore, not P. (Therefore, it is not sunny)

That is a modus tollens. What you posted was this:

If P, then Q. (If it is sunny, then it is daytime)
Not P. (It is not sunny)
Therefore not Q (Therefore, it is not daytime)

That is a fallacy, as you say. But it's a fallacy that you committed--not me.

If there was an elephant in this room, I would see it.
I don't see it.
Therefore, there is no elephant in this room.

Or you are blind. Or you are looking in the wrong direction. Or the elephant is inside a big box. etc.

This is a red herring.

The modus tollens is a valid argument, whether you accept its premises, or not.

It may not be a sound argument, if one or both of its premises are false. But anyone who knows anything about logic knows that. In fact, I said as much myself:

These are both valid arguments. If both of their premises are true, then their shared conclusion must follow. And since, in both cases, the second premise is obviously true, they can only be unsound if the first premise is false.

Emphasis added.

I'm assuming that you understand the distinction between validity and soundness. But since you don't seem to know the difference between denying the consequent and denying the antecedent, or even the difference between P and Q, I suggest you look it up.

 

[Kestra]

P.S. Agnosticism is another word I think is unnecessary because again it actually refers to an epistemological stance not a religious one. There are agnostics who believe in God.

Yeah, I think I'd be considered an agnostic theist.

 

[TheGodBen]

I was raised as a Catholic, my mother brought us to church every week and I was taught Catholic theology in school. I believed in God, I believed in Jesus and I believed in the Holy Spirit, even though I had absolutely no idea what it was. I believed in the virgin birth, I believed in transubstantiation, I believed in the power of confession. Until I actually put some thought into it.

When I was 12, my school started to prepare me for my confirmation ceremony and I had to learn off some lines and hymns and publicly declare my belief in God. But, as I was learning this stuff, I seriously questioned whether I believed it for the first time and found that I had doubts. I didn't want to go through with my confirmation until I was really sure. But Catholicism is really smart, and there was a tradition here that after your confirmation you visit all your relatives and they give you money and, being Catholic, I had a lot of relatives. So I went through with it for the money and made around £200, which I used to buy a new bike.

But the doubts remained and it led into a period of depression. I couldn't square the idea that there were all these problems in the world that an all-powerful and all-loving God not only allowed, but sometimes even caused. God no longer seemed like a friend and helper, but an all-powerful tyrant. People sometimes question my atheism with the viewpoint that it must be depressing to not believe in a god, but from my point of view it is far more depressing to believe that there's a massive cunt up there pulling all the levers.

So, a year later, I was standing in the yard in school and it happened in an instant: I decided it was time to label myself as an atheist. And while I wouldn't say that my depression suddenly went away, I did feel a sense of relief that led me to be a much happier, more optimistic person. It wasn't always easy, my religion teacher used to pick on me because I openly declared myself an atheist in her class, but it was easier than continuing to lie to myself.

Exactly. If I categorically reject the existence of leprechauns, does that make me an “anti-leprechaunist”?

Heathen!

I may be skeptical, but who am I to say that the Buddhists I met in Japan or my childhood pastor are all lost in religious fairy tales? It would be arrogant and close-minded for me to believe that about those people, simply because I don't understand it they way they seem to.

The other day I watched an interview with Martin Sheen that was all about his religious beliefs and he talked at length about his Catholic faith and how it impacted his life. At one point the interviewer asked him how he would feel if somebody went up to him and said that everything he believes is a load of nonsense and he's stupid for believing it, and I found myself thinking that I would never act in such a way. Martin Sheen is a good man and one that I greatly admire, who am I to say that he is wrong? I know no more about this subject than he, I have just come to a different conclusion. I think that it is highly unlikely that he is right, but there's always a chance that he could be.

I'm still an atheist. I don't view that title as arrogant, it's just accurate. I don't believe in any gods, ergo I am an atheist. I refuse to shy away from that word just because others have an erroneous interpretation of what it means, just like I refuse to label myself as a progressive when I'm really a liberal.

 

[iguana_tonante]

If (it is sunny) then (it is daytime). [a logical conclusion, and one you can always make]
Not (sunny today). [a fact, a negation of Q]
Therefore, not daytime? [you cannot conclude that]

BZZZ.. It's merely a cloudy day.

You cannot always disprove P by negating Q, unless P is all Q depends on.

You don't know what you're talking about.

What you posted there was not a modus tollens. It was, in fact, a fallacy which is called "denying the antecedent".

What I posted was this:

If P, then Q. (If it is sunny, then it is daytime)
Not Q. (It is not daytime)
Therefore, not P. (Therefore, it is not sunny)

That is a modus tollens. What you posted was this:

If P, then Q. (If it is sunny, then it is daytime)
Not P. (It is not sunny)
Therefore not Q (Therefore, it is not daytime)

That is a fallacy, as you say. But it's a fallacy that you committed--not me.

Or you are blind. Or you are looking in the wrong direction. Or the elephant is inside a big box. etc.

This is a red herring.

The modus tollens is a valid argument, whether you accept its premises, or not.

It may not be a sound argument, if one or both of its premises are false. But anyone who knows anything about logic knows that. In fact, I said as much myself:

These are both valid arguments. If both of their premises are true, then their shared conclusion must follow. And since, in both cases, the second premise is obviously true, they can only be unsound if the first premise is false.

Emphasis added.

I'm assuming that you understand the distinction between validity and soundness. But since you don't seem to know the difference between denying the consequent and denying the antecedent, or even the difference between P and Q, I suggest you look it up.

Yeah, I was going to point out the error in his reasoning, but you saved me time and effort. I wish everybody should be taking a class in logic, that would save everybody a lot of time and effort.

Funnily enough, I was reading up about Gödel's ontological proof this week for a talk I am giving. The logic of his argument is formally correct, but the axioms upon which it's build are rather fuzzy. So while the proof is valid, it's definitively not sound.