21 reasons to be an Atheist

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Granted that correct reasoning from a false premise leads to wrong conclusions.
You take the existence of God as a premise, I don’t. So how can we make statements about this very existence?

I derived a logical conclusion from the proposed nature of God which lead to a contradiction, thus there is something wrong with a) the propoesed nature or b) the logic. I say the logic is sound, thus there is something wrong with the premise.

don’t forget (C) there is something wrong with the other premise(s).

this is your original argument:

AnAtheist:

Assume a set of all things, that can be known. You can then construct a power set of that set (i.e. knowing, that you know all). That power set has more elements than the original set, thus the original set could not include *all *knowable things. q.e.d.

it seems to me that the most reasonable conclusion is that there is no such thing as the set of all truths.

but, at any rate, this argument has nothing to do with omniscience, which can be defined as “knowledge of everything it is logically possible to know” (just like omnipotencec can be defined as “power to actualize any logically possible state of affairs”); if your cantorian argument demonstrates anything, it demonstrates only that there is no set of all truths - that it is, in other words, logically impossible to know such a set. but so what? not only is omniscience not defined in set-theoretical terms, it’s also exempt from logical absurdities, just like omnipotence: in the same way god’s not being able to make a rock heavier than he can lift in no way impugns his maximal power, god’s not knowing the surface area of a square circle in no way compromises his maximal knowledge.

 

[AndyF]

VoiciMike:

***2. I have looked through my telescope countless times. I have never seen God. Therefore, God does not exist.

I have never seen a thought either, nor a memory.

Right on. He can’t see the lens while looking through it either, which proves he depends on something he can’t see to assist him.

***3. There are many different religions. All of them can’t be correct, but all of them could be wrong. Therefore, God does not exist.

Or, one of them could be correct and the others wrong to a greater or lesser degree. Sort of like the answer to a simple math problem.

He’s right in that all of them can’t be correct. There is only one religion since Christ showed the true one and revealed which are bogus.

***5. Scientists have proven that there is no God. Like, they probably have a mathematical formula for it, and stuff. Therefore, God does not exist.

Show the proof.

(courtesy Radio Replies, Vol 1

On having Biblical evidence - Some people think that evidence must be seen and touched, as an animal sees a patch of grass and eats it. But men are not mere animals. They have reason, and can appreciate intellectual evidence. For example, the evidence of beauty in music or in painting is perceived by man’s mind, not his senses. An animal could hear the same sounds, or see the same colours, without being impressed by their harmony and proportion. Apart from the Bible altogether, reason can detect sufficient evidence to guarantee the existance of God.

** Non-biblical evidence for the existance of God.
**
Causality - The universe, limited in all it’s details, could not be it’s own cause. It could no more come together with all it’s regulating laws the the San Francisco Bridge could just happen, or a clock could assemble itself and keep perfect time without a clockmaker. On the same principle, if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute it’s existence. A second indication is drawn from universal reasoning, or intuition of men. The universal judgement of mankind can no more be wrong on this vital point than the intuition of an infant that food must be conveyed to the mouth. The stamp of God’s handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation, and ,above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe there is a god. The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves thet there is God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temprary persuasion, has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea of God, they endeavor to grow out of it.

Sense of Moral Obligation - In every man there is a sense of right and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after it’s violation. The law dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written his law in our hearts. And has God alone can do this, it is certain that He exists.

Demands of Justice - The very sense of justice among men, resulting in law-courts, supposes a God. We did not give ourselves our sense of justice. It comes from whoever made us, and no one can give what he does not possess himself. Yet justice cannot always be done by men in this world. Here the good often suffer, and the wicked prosper. And, even though human justice does not always succeed in balancing the scales, they will be balanced some day by a just God, who most certainly must exist.

Andy

 

[Tulkas]

AndyF:

VoiciMike:

***2. I have looked through my telescope countless times. I have never seen God. Therefore, God does not exist.

I have never seen a thought either, nor a memory.

Right on. He can’t see the lens while looking through it either, which proves he depends on something he can’t see to assist him.

Are you kidding me? I love how the ignorance of Theists allow themselves to over simplify everything when it comes to the view’s of atheists. What is a memory or a thought? It is simply letters combined to create a word, representing an action. With this action, there IS proof of, because we experiance it every day. Just because you can’t see it under the microscope does not mean it cannot be proven.

AndyF:

VoiciMike:

***3. There are many different religions. All of them can’t be correct, but all of them could be wrong. Therefore, God does not exist.

Or, one of them could be correct and the others wrong to a greater or lesser degree. Sort of like the answer to a simple math problem.

He’s right in that all of them can’t be correct. There is only one religion since Christ showed the true one and revealed which are bogus.

Thanks for damning far over 50% of the world. I gues all those Islams who are saying the EXACT same thing about their validity right now, are just ****ed right?

AndyF:

VoiciMike:
***5. Scientists have proven that there is no God. Like, they probably have a mathematical formula for it, and stuff. Therefore, God does not exist.

Show the proof.

There is an invisible pink monkey sitting next to me! I don’t believe so, but you say it is true. I cannot prove what does not exist… The burden of proof is clearly in your court, not mine.

All you argument’s for ‘proof’ are simply natural causes of nature. I would go through each one, but if u need more, i will gladly do so. Whatever the case, they contain no validity. They are long drawn arguments which have been proven/disproven/and argued over again…

 

[john_doran]

Tulkas:

Are you kidding me? I love how the ignorance of Theists allow themselves to over simplify everything when it comes to the view’s of atheists. What is a memory or a thought? It is simply letters combined to create a word, representing an action.

thoughts and memories are “letters”? you believe that the first-person experience of neurobiological events in the brain are lexical/linguistic phenomena?

interesting. can you provide some kind of rationale for this position of yours?

Tulkas:

Just because you can’t see it under the microscope does not mean it cannot be proven.

uhh…right. and just because you can’t see it through a telescope doesn’t mean it can’t be proven, either.

Tulkas:

There is an invisible pink monkey sitting next to me! I don’t believe so, but you say it is true. I cannot prove what does not exist… The burden of proof is clearly in your court, not mine.

the “burden of proof” is on anyone making a positive or negative affirmation - i.e. on anyone making a claim about the world. which means someone saying “x does not exist” has the same epistemic duty with regard to evidence as does the person claiming “x exists”. the only exemptions from this requirement belong to those withholding judgment - i.e. to those saying “i don’t know whether x or ~x”.

Tulkas:

All you argument’s for ‘proof’ are simply natural causes of nature. I would go through each one, but if u need more, i will gladly do so. Whatever the case, they contain no validity. They are long drawn arguments which have been proven/disproven/and argued over again…

the argument from causality is that natural causes entail a first supernatural cause.

you obviously disagree, but the arguments are no less valid for all that.

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

the “burden of proof” is on anyone making a positive or negative affirmation - i.e. on anyone making a claim about the world.

There is another view - first and foremost, the burden of proof is on the party wishing to convince. Convert. Whatever. Unless I try to convince you that a claim I make is true, I do not owe proof to anybody, not even myself.

you obviously disagree, but the arguments are no less valid for all that.

But are they sound?

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

There is another view - first and foremost, the burden of proof is on the party wishing to convince. Convert. Whatever. Unless I try to convince you that a claim I make is true, I do not owe proof to anybody, not even myself.

yes, you’re right. but that’s rarely the point being made.

eptatorata:

But are they sound?

yes.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

the “burden of proof” is on anyone making a positive or negative affirmation - i.e. on anyone making a claim about the world. which means someone saying “x does not exist” has the same epistemic duty with regard to evidence as does the person claiming “x exists”. the only exemptions from this requirement belong to those withholding judgment - i.e. to those saying “i don’t know whether x or ~x”.

Hm, I tend to agree. But the problems we face here are the following:
Party A claims ~x and proves that by using method S, but proof is rejected by party T because party T does not regard method S to be applicable to x.
Party T claims x and proves that by using method M, but proof is rejected by party A because party A does not regard method M to to be valid for anything.
Then both parties bring forth evidence N for both cases. Plus party T brings forth evidence SN, which is rejected by party A as S(SN) → SN is in fact N or S(SN) → ~SN

A - atheists
T - theists
S - science
M - metaphysics in its broadest sense
N - natural phenomena
SN - supernatural phenomena
x - God or similar

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

but that’s rarely the point being made.

As opposed to “I’m right and you are wrong - njanjanja”. I find that the theists I enjoy talking to most are those that don’t buy the proofs of god’s existence themselves.

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

As opposed to “I’m right and you are wrong - njanjanja”. I find that the theists I enjoy talking to most are those that don’t buy the proofs of god’s existence themselves.

well, fair enough, i guess. makes sense.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Hm, I tend to agree. But the problems we face here are the following:
Party A claims ~x and proves that by using method S, but proof is rejected by party T because party T does not regard method S to be applicable to x.
Party T claims x and proves that by using method M, but proof is rejected by party A because party A does not regard method M to to be valid for anything.
Then both parties bring forth evidence N for both cases. Plus party T brings forth evidence SN, which is rejected by party A as S(SN) → SN is in fact N or S(SN) → ~SN

A - atheists
T - theists
S - science
M - metaphysics in its broadest sense
N - natural phenomena
SN - supernatural phenomena
x - God or similar

wow. that made my head hurt.

i agree with pretty much all of that. except the first part: in my experience, the problem with so-called scientific disproofs of god’s existence is that they fail on their own terms, and not (simply) because they conflict with other non-scientific assumptions made by theists.

but again - you’re right that no consensus can be reached on an issue if the opposing parties proceed from divergent and mutually exclusive assumptions.

of course, i believe it’s possible to draw conclusions here from a foundation of common assumptions.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

but again - you’re right that no consensus can be reached on an issue if the opposing parties proceed from divergent and mutually exclusive assumptions.

Well, if both parties could agree on a common method to derive conclusions from those assumptions, then the assumptions could be proven or disproven. But that common method is not there.

of course, i believe it’s possible to draw conclusions here from a foundation of common assumptions.

Agein, only if both use the same methods.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Well, if both parties could agree on a common method to derive conclusions from those assumptions, then the assumptions could be proven or disproven. But that common method is not there.

Agein, only if both use the same methods.

i think we’re saying the same thing here. except that i would observe that, at some point, the assumptions on both sides will be incapable of proof in the sense of “deductively demonstrable from prior, more certain truths”.

when i say “common assumptions”, i mean to include things like “a commonly acceptable methodology”.

 

[adnauseum]

Tulkas:

Im far to lazy to make a full 21 bullshit point system

Clean your mouth up or get off the board, mister atheist. Kids can read what’s here. How dare you.

Moderator?

 

[adnauseum]

There is nothing new under the sun. The same old tired atheist clap-trap is here.

I studied Nietzsche to see what all the fuss was about. I figured this was the pagan world taking it’s best shot at Christianity.

What I saw was a philosopher who was simply convinced Christians suffered from a mental disorder and that he, being a free thinker, wasn’t. Yawn.

Also, I was perhaps not too surprised when Mr. Nietzsche ranked the religions of his day in terms of their nearness to what he considered the true nature of humanity. He picked militant Islam as the religion closest in its moral rank to his own enlightened atheism. Not Islam, but militant Islam. In light of the unfolding of history, I think we can agree Nietzsche’s anthropological insights have been shown to be, shall we say, mistaken.

Atheism is willful ignorance. Nietzsche shows just how easily they are duped.

 

[turboEDvo]

john doran:

this sounds like transfinite math: the cardinality of the set of natural numbers is http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.co...c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png(aleph-null), which is the first transfinite number. multiplication and addition can be performed with this number, but not division or subtraction.

2^http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png, however, is a transfinite number larger than http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png(i.e. it cannot be put in a one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers), and is called http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.co...c9d952e0d3fb65351053e08b3dfe0a.png(aleph-one), or c (“continuum”, in set theory). http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/9bc9d952e0d3fb65351053e08b3dfe0a.png is the cardinality of the set of real numbers. to be pedantic, http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/9bc9d952e0d3fb65351053e08b3dfe0a.pngis the smallest infinite set larger than http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/math/be4c703ed73456618ed283b892c6715a.png, and cannot be proven to equal c - Cantor assumed that it was, and this assumption is called the Continuum Hypothesis.

anyway. none of this has anything to do with omnipotence or omniscience.

Sorry, you lost me with that one. We definitely haven’t gotten that far yet…as my teacher would say…“And it is all very interesting, but beyond the scope of this class, and we just don’t have time to cover it.” Ah well…so basically 2^(infinity) > infinity, right? Thus (inifinity)#1>(infinity)#2, and 2^infinity2> 2infinity, so (infinity)#1 is greater than 2*infinitiy, is that what you are saying (or am I saying that in an attempt to prove myself correct?)

Eamon

 

[turboEDvo]

Tulkas:

Please do not refute these, because it is only meant to mock your original ignorant statement. Perhaps in the dispaly of my intentional ignorance, you will see your own.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have found in many situations of debate that the other party is far less likely to be open to your viewpoint if you mock them. A well-thought, coherent argument seems to win every time over a jumbled, angry, sarcastic statement. Something about taking offense or something…I dunno, but why use mockery, honestly? It just makes people mad (unless that is your goal of course)

Eamon

 

[eptatorata]

turboEDvo:

Maybe I’m wrong, but I have found in many situations of debate that the other party is far less likely to be open to your viewpoint if you mock them.

Ah, the opening post?

 

[john_doran]

turboEDvo:

…so basically 2^(infinity) > infinity, right? Thus (inifinity)#1>(infinity)#2, and 2^infinity2> 2infinity, so (infinity)#1 is greater than 2*infinitiy, is that what you are saying (or am I saying that in an attempt to prove myself correct?)

Eamon

almost.

infinity#1 multiplied by anything is equal to infinity#1.

2 to the exponent infinity#1 is greater than infinity #1 and equals infinity#2.

2 to the exponent infinity#2 is greater than infinity#2 and equals infinity#3.

and so on.

 

[jeffreedy789]

Possibly we are not arguing any more.

i think we are not.

God’s peace be with you, my friend.

 

[turboEDvo]

jeffreedy789:

i think we are not.

Calculus saves the day!! :bowdown: Wow, I swear that I never once in my life expected to say that. Well, that’s how we roll!

Eamon