Atheist Club. Begin.

[Pingfah]

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.

Goliath, if I understand you correctly you claimed to rageforthemachine that the assumption one cannot disprove god is false (see quote below), but you have done so by accepting the assumptions made about it by those who are religious and then using those assumptions against that belief.

The inability to prove God doesn't exist is a universal epistemological limitation and has nothing to do with the likelihood that God exists.

You know--I hear this a lot. And in my opinion, that's just not the case.

Those who are saying you cannot disprove god are not accepting those assumptions in the first place though, they don't believe in god, so why would they accept any assumptions about its nature?

Assuming we know nothing in advance about a potential creator, except that it created the universe, how can one apply the same argument?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, just understand your position.

 

[Goliath]

^ That''s very interesting, but I'm not sure I understand the original premise of either argument.

That's because my purpose was not to provide a full explanation of either argument.

My purpose, as I said, was merely to show that both arguments could be boiled down to a modus tollens.

There is an extensive literature on both the problem of evil and the problem of disbelief. If you're interested in learning more, it shouldn't be too hard to read up on the subject.

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

See above. I never claimed to be providing a full version of either argument. Merely to be showing that a negative can be proven, by way of a modus tollens, and that two of the most convincing arguments against the existence of God can be put in this form.

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

I'm not "conveniently ignoring" anything. Once again: you are misrepresenting my post and its purpose.

I'm fully aware of Christian claims about "original sin" and "free will." In my considered opinion, they're myths, and worse: they're gibberish. And in my considered opinion, far from justifying the ways of God to man, talk of "original sin" and "free will" merely underlines God's monstrous injustice, and the sophistry and pedantry of his apologists.

But my point was not to initiate an argument about the existence of God. If I wanted to do that, I would have started a new thread, entitled: "Does God Exist? Begin."

My point was to show:

--that it is, in fact, possible to prove a negative, by means of modus tollens;
--and that two arguments against the existence of God (which I find particularly cogent and convincing) can be reduced to this form.

This I did in fact show. Everything else was in the way of personal commentary.

Don't like my opinion? That's tough. It's a free country, and the only tribunal to which I have to answer is my own conscience.

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)

Yes. You are missing something.

On the one hand, you're committing the same fallacy that Brian committed. You're denying the antecedent instead of the consequent.

On the other hand--your argument just doesn't make sense.

Here--try this:

If Obama was born in the United States, then he would have a birth certificate attesting to that fact.
He does not have a birth certificate attesting to that fact.
Therefore, he was not born in the United States.

That is a valid argument: its conclusions follow from its premises. But I'm not sure it's a sound one. On the one hand, it seems possible for people to be born in the USA, and then lose their birth certificate. And on the other hand--doesn't President Obama actually have a birth certificate? I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere online.

And on the third hand: Obama is not God. The problem of disbelief does not apply to him. It's a particular problem of a being that is supposed to have God's combination of attributes.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

And on the other hand--doesn't President Obama actually have a birth certificate? I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere online.

In 2008, the Obama campaign released his birth certificate, certified by the Hawaii Department of Health, and posted a scanned image of it online. The posted certificate states that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. The certificate also states, "This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding". Frequent arguments of those questioning Obama's eligibility are that he has not released a photocopy of his "original" or "long form" birth certificate, but rather a redacted "short form" version. It has also been claimed that the use of the term "certification of live birth" on the document means it is not equivalent to one's "birth certificate". These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials—a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate. Asked about this, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo stated that Hawaii "does not have a short-form or long-form certificate". Moreover, the director of her Department has confirmed that the state "has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

 

[LitmusDragon]

I am a Athiest, but not a militant one. I just don't believe.

If someone wants a postcard for Atheism I would refer them to "Imagine" by John Lennon.

I claimed to be an Agnostic for years until someone in an online debate accused me (and others like me) of sitting on the fence. I realized he was right. If I didn't believe, that made me an Atheist. So I am one.

My parents found out I was an Atheist because that's what I put in my Facebook profile.

My parents are lapsed Baptists so it wasn't really a big deal to them.

 

[indianatrekker26]

I'm a born and raised Lutheran, and believe in the good Lord. But coming at it from the other side, I've seen so many christian believers who just go overboard with the whole thing.
I dont attend church regularly. But do believe. But there are christians out there who just shove it down your throat if you don't believe.
I don't agree with Atheists, but last i knew this was a free country. And everyone has the right to believe or not believe whatever they want to. Alot of christians out there don't respect people, by god if you dont believe in God, you must be walking with the Devil! it's all crap.
It's not religion that is driving this country into the ground, but the lack of respect for our fellow man.

 

[Goliath]

Goliath, if I understand you correctly you claimed to rageforthemachine that the assumption one cannot disprove god is false (see quote below), but you have done so by accepting the assumptions made about it by those who are religious and then using those assumptions against that belief.

The point of both arguments is to show that a being with the attributes imputed to God by his followers cannot exist.

If these arguments are correct, then one of two things must be true: either there simply is no God at all; or God is not what his followers believe him to be.

Those who are saying you cannot disprove god are not accepting those assumptions in the first place though, they don't believe in god, so why would they accept any assumptions about its nature?

I think this assumes that God's existence or nonexistence is an empirical question that can only be settled by going out into the universe and looking for him. If that was the case, then it would be very difficult indeed to prove that he doesn't exist.

But even if that was true, I would argue that it's a trivial fact. If I claim that, somewhere out in the asteroid belt, there is an asteroid made of chocolate cake, covered with chocolate frosting, it would be very difficult indeed to disprove this claim as well.

But that doesn't mean that people would be justified in believing in this asteroid's existence, just because some ancient book says it's out there.

In any case--that's not what either of those arguments are about. They're about showing that a certain type of god does not exist--namely, the Islamo-Christian god. The Godfather, as Mary Daly called him.

Assuming we know nothing in advance about a potential creator, except that it created the universe, how can one apply the same argument?

We can't. If we know nothing in advance about a potential creator, except that it created the universe, then neither the problem of evil nor the problem of disbelief arise. Because, as Hume pointed out, the argument from design doesn't prove anything about the Creator, except the fact that it created the universe. The Creator might be evil. Or it might be indifferent. Or it might be an infant, or senile.

The problems of evil and disbelief apply only to certain types of gods. The existence or nonexistence of some kind of deist watchmaker god is a completely separate and unrelated question.

[President Obama's birth certificate]

Thank you.

 

[Pingfah]

Goliath, if I understand you correctly you claimed to rageforthemachine that the assumption one cannot disprove god is false (see quote below), but you have done so by accepting the assumptions made about it by those who are religious and then using those assumptions against that belief.

The point of both arguments is to show that a being with the attributes imputed to God by his followers cannot exist.

If these arguments are correct, then one of two things must be true: either there simply is no God at all; or God is not what his followers believe him to be.

Those who are saying you cannot disprove god are not accepting those assumptions in the first place though, they don't believe in god, so why would they accept any assumptions about its nature?

I think this assumes that God's existence or nonexistence is an empirical question that can only be settled by going out into the universe and looking for him. If that was the case, then it would be very difficult indeed to prove that he doesn't exist.

But even if that was true, I would argue that it's a trivial fact. If I claim that, somewhere out in the asteroid belt, there is an asteroid made of chocolate cake, covered with chocolate frosting, it would be very difficult indeed to disprove this claim as well.

But that doesn't mean that people would be justified in believing in this asteroid's existence, just because some ancient book says it's out there.

In any case--that's not what either of those arguments are about. They're about showing that a certain type of god does not exist--namely, the Islamo-Christian god. The Godfather, as Mary Daly called him..

Assuming we know nothing in advance about a potential creator, except that it created the universe, how can one apply the same argument?

We can't. If we know nothing in advance about a potential creator, except that it created the universe, then neither the problem of evil nor the problem of disbelief arise. Because, as Hume pointed out, the argument from design doesn't prove anything about God, except the fact that it created the universe. The Creator might be evil. Or it might be indifferent. Or it might be an infant, or senile.

The problems of evil and disbelief apply only to certain types of gods. The existence or nonexistence of some kind of deist watchmaker god is a completely separate and unrelated question.

Gotcha, and yes that was essentially what I was getting at. One might be able to disprove the Christian god, but not the basic concept of a creator.

I agree that it IS a trivial fact, your point about the chocolate asteroid is spot on, yet that doesn't stop it being branded as a rhetorical weapon by fundamentalists which is why I have tried to formulate a good response to it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The point of both arguments is to show that a being with the attributes imputed to God by his followers cannot exist.

If these arguments are correct, then one of two things must be true: either there simply is no God at all; or God is not what his followers believe him to be.

Goliath:

My point was that I believe you have mischaracterized what "followers believe". Some may believe what you say, but many, if not most, don't.

The fact that there is evil in the world and the fact that not everyone believes in God did not escape the attention of theologians, you know. By reminding us of the theological concepts of "original sin" and "free will", I was trying to clarify the point that many theologians do not believe what you seem to assert that they do. In particular, many theologians generally deny both of your premises (1) and (2), which are

1) If God exists, then everyone is good.
2) If God exists, then everyone believes in Him.
​

A negative can indeed be proven, for example, by applying modus tollens, as you say.

However, unless you can demonstrate either of your premises (1) or (2), then all you have shown is (A) and (B), which are

A) If God exists, then there is someone who is not good.
B) If God exists, then there is someone who does not believe in Him.
​

These are points that almost everyone can agree upon, many serious theologians included.

To use either of your arguments to deny the existence of God, you must support either implication (1) or implication (2). How do you do that?

 

[auntiehill]

Funny, I wasn't aware the "Atheist club" thread was the "defend why you're an Atheist" thread. But, whatever, dude.

Trying to get back to more entertaining things, this pretty much describes my views--not to mention some of the unbearable dinner parties I've had to sit through.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s&feature=related[/yt]

“You’re so sure of your position
But you’re just closed-minded
I think you’ll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist”
“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

 

[6079SmithW]

I'll probably draw fire for this, but I think the problem with some people is that they view the entire universe through god tinted glasses. They actually are fundamentally incapable of understanding the difference because they cannot perceive a state of lacking belief. It's intrinsic to them as though they were born with it, except of course, they weren't.

It's not a question of smarts, but of conditioning.

I'd like to address this because I have a similar view regarding theists vs. atheists. There is a fundamental disconnect with regards to the basis of reality between the atheist and the religious.

I think of it like this: Someone trying to explain the difference between the colors red and blue to a person who has no concept of color.

The person who has no concept of color can be either the theist or atheist. The theist baseline for reality is that the spiritual realm, including God, exists. Period. The atheist baseline for reality is that nothing exists outside of the empirical realm because that is what we can and have observed.

To be sure, most people can tolerate the other viewpoint and many atheists don't have a problem with religious people and many theists have no problem with science. But when polarized extremism on either end occurs, it is this fundamental distinction between the nature of reality that is to blame.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

And on the other hand--doesn't President Obama actually have a birth certificate? I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere online.

I just wish to state that I DO believe that Obama has a legitimate birth certificate. The birth certificate mess was just a contentious issue that I grabbed (perhaps ill-advisedly!) to make an example out of.
I actually get a big laugh out of many naive individuals who have NO IDEA that a birth certificate from a state other than their own might look different from their own certificate, yet they act as though they are experts on the subject!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I just wish to state that I DO believe that Obama has a legitimate birth certificate. The birth certificate mess was just a contentious issue that I grabbed (perhaps ill-advisedly!) to make an example out of.

No worries, man. Didn't think otherwise.

 

[Shaytan]

I'm an atheist but I don't see why we should start a club or something like that. Except if it annoys some believers, it's a rare pleasure in life

 

[Robert D. Robot]

.... I was trying to clarify the point that many theologians do not believe what you seem to assert that they do. In particular, many theologians generally deny both of your premises (1) and (2), which are

1) If God exists, then everyone is good.
2) If God exists, then everyone believes in Him.
​

@Goliath-- yes, I now do see your points, regarding arguments. I DID take Logic in college, but it has been a long time!... and I was being too quick to try to make a joke in my earlier post.

More seriously, however, subsequent posts by you and CorporalCaptain have helped me better crystalize my own thoughts. In my opinion, the two arguments you present about god -while they are valid- are unsound as they are each based on a false premise. I have never heard anyone say that the existence of a god would lead to everyone being good or believing in him. I also do realize, however, that you were simply creating a couple of examples to demonstrate how you can prove a negative, albeit with presenting unsound arguments.

I think that part of the "problem" with creating a sound argument to disprove the existence of a god is coming up with a first premise that is clearly true... Fill in the blank: "If God exists, then ____________."

Maybe we can prove that an elephant is not in the room, but I do not see how we can possibly prove that God is not in the room!

 

[captcalhoun]

i refuse to believe in a God who lets people do the shit that gets done in His name. and i refuse to believe in a God who lets innocent people get crapped on and guilty people get away with it.

plus, it's all seems a bit too much like a fairytale.

 

[TheBrew]

Maybe I should form an Apatheist club for people who simply don't give a shit.

Religious Person: "There is a God"
Atheist: "There is no God"
Agnostic: "There may or may not be a God."
Apatheist: "Who wants to do shots?"

 

[Sephiroth]

I find that religions tend to be filled with two types of people, the true believers, those who seem dependant on it, it's like a drug to them, and they get crazy when you question their "faith" because it's like trying to take a pipe away from a crack head, it's something "vital" to them cause it makes them feel good

the other type are traditionalists, those who show up because their parents did, it's just how they were raised and they go for tradition or to "keep face" in their community.

I'd like to think I'm better than that

 

[KJbushway]

Funny, I wasn't aware the "Atheist club" thread was the "defend why you're an Atheist" thread. But, whatever, dude.

Trying to get back to more entertaining things, this pretty much describes my views--not to mention some of the unbearable dinner parties I've had to sit through.


“You’re so sure of your position
But you’re just closed-minded
I think you’ll find
Your faith in Science and Tests
Is just as blind
As the faith of any fundamentalist”
“Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit
Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."

Your right this thread wasn't defend your non-believe. It is merely a social gathering of atheist sharing stories and why they became one, struggles, ETC. I had no intention of trying to start such an arguement.

I was also suprised when I came on an saw it had 75 posts.
I will disregard your first post Locutus of Bored, mostly because my eyes drift to your avatar and I get distracted.

 

[KJbushway]

Maybe I should form an Apatheist club for people who simply don't give a shit.

Religious Person: "There is a God"
Atheist: "There is no God"
Agnostic: "There may or may not be a God."
Apatheist: "Who wants to do shots?"

Go ahead. But you might not get any posts.

 

[Kestra]

I find that religions tend to be filled with two types of people, the true believers, those who seem dependant on it, it's like a drug to them, and they get crazy when you question their "faith" because it's like trying to take a pipe away from a crack head, it's something "vital" to them cause it makes them feel good

the other type are traditionalists, those who show up because their parents did, it's just how they were raised and they go for tradition or to "keep face" in their community.

I'd like to think I'm better than that

I don't really feel I fit into either category. I mean, I probably wouldn't be Hindu if I hadn't been born into it, but it hasn't been a continuing requirement as I've gotten older.