21 reasons to be an Atheist

[Fashina86]

turboEDvo:

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

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH… SCARY!! I never thought that I would ever hear that said… however, very convincing arguement (and great right before a calc exam!)

God Bless–JMJ
Laura

 

[SamCA]

12. George Carlin is an Atheist. He is hilarious. Therefore, God does not exist.

You have to admit, this one’s pretty convincing.

 

[turboEDvo]

eptatorata:

Ah, the opening post?

I never said that the opening post did not mock atheists. I am simply pointing out that mockery occurs when two people with different beliefs assume that they are correct and thus have some kind of right to act superior to each other. So, they start mocking each other rather than participating in a civilized debate. I will admit that I am presupposed to agree with and argue for the Catholic viewpoint, and I will admit that I found the opening post funny. I also think that a legitimate point (not about religion vs. atheism) was made by the facetious post about why we must believe in God. Then again, I don’t get mad over debates (other things tweak me, but generally not debates), I just come up with better arguments than the other side .

Now, do at least give me the fact that on this Catholic forum, posting a light, meant-for-entertainment bit on atheism is to be expected. Also realize that (at least I think that) the original post was not an attack so much as an observation with the intent to poke fun at a belief diffent than our own. It was not done out of anger or spite, whereas the comments made about why God exist (fake ones by the atheists) were made up on the spot to throw it right back in our faces.

K, thanks for listening, I would like to hear your opinions regarding this issue as well.

Eamon

 

[eptatorata]

turboEDvo:

Now, do at least give me the fact that on this Catholic forum, posting a light, meant-for-entertainment bit on atheism is to be expected.

I’ll grant you that on any site dedicate to a contentious belief, be that Catholicism or atheism, I expect to find opinions running the gamut from reasoned discussion to outright hate speech. I am rarely disappointed.

Also realize that (at least I think that) the original post was not an attack so much as an observation with the intent to poke fun at a belief diffent than our own. It was not done out of anger or spite, whereas the comments made about why God exist (fake ones by the atheists) were made up on the spot to throw it right back in our faces.

I give the poster the benefit of doubt. Subsequent posts on either side I’d have to examine individually.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Tulkas

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

*You may dismiss Christ, as did Nietzsche. But Christ will still rule long after Nietzsche and you have been dismissed from this life.

 

[psalm90]

The conclusion that “God does not exist” does not follow from the fact that God cannot make a rock that He cannot lift.

God can lift any rock that He could make, if lifting such a large rock makes any sense when gravity is so distorted by such a large rock. At a certain size, the rock would be so large as to attract other nearby rocks, so “lifting” becomes meaningless.

A rock of any given size is lighter on the earth’s moon but many times heavier if one could imagine lifting it on the surface of one of the giant gas planets in our solar system. It is terribly simplistic to posit God’s existence on any assertion about gravity. Better luck next time.

 

[AnAtheist]

psalm90:

The conclusion that “God does not exist” does not follow from the fact that God cannot make a rock that He cannot lift.

“An omnipotent God does not exist” follows from that fact. Unless of course, you redefine omnipotence to be slightly less than omni-.

 

[oriel36]

“An omnipotent God does not exist” follows from that fact. Unless of course, you redefine omnipotence to be slightly less than omni-.

Love is Eternal,any lesser conception of God is simply a convenient unfolding of the basic tenet of Christian faith.The highest faculties of Christian existence revolve around the intuitive experience of Christ and God as Love alone , like all things we do not choose who and what we love in natural things likewise we receive Christ and His Life as a gift of God through experience rather through any effort of our own.Anyone who falls in love and knows its joys and pains knows Jesus to some extent and this is the ground at which God enters a Christian at conversion.

Atheists are too clever for their own good and can argue anything into and out of existence but what they cannot do is fall in Love with either man or God through their own intellectual powers.The following powerful extract from Dionysius the Pseudo-areopagite outshines the pathetic reduction of existence to logic and reasoning for it celebrates the existence of God encompassing All creation (joy/sorrow,particular/general,grief/elation).

I suppose you miss the Catholic point of “seeking to know nothing in order to know everything” for like fellow empiricalists you can throw your voice in pretending to know everything but logically you know nothing.

CHAPTER V That it that is the pre-eminent Cause of all things intelligibly perceived is not itself any of those things.

Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.

esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/MysticalTheology.html

 

[john_doran]

“An omnipotent God does not exist” follows from that fact. Unless of course, you redefine omnipotence to be slightly less than omni-.

i was pretty sure that this had already been covered rather thoroughly…

it’s just ***false ***that “god cannot make a rock bigger than he can lift” entails “god is not omnipotent”, since omnipotence does not mean “capable of performing logically impossible or absurd actions”.

but even if you wanted to insist on giving “omnipotence” a definition embracing logical absurdities, and if god was therefore not “omnipotent”, it would be irrelevant, since all that matters about god’s omnipotence is that he is capable of actualizing any possible state of affairs.

think, rather, of god as being maximally powerful.

 

[oat_soda]

you can make all of the arguments proving there is a God but it really all comes down to the grace of God. people will believe anything, no matter how contrary to common sense. the reason i think atheism is silly is that they believe for the most part that things only exist as ideas and not that ideas are by which we know things. basically, things exist with or without me knowing about them.

also, the universe is ordered according to weight measure and number, just like the book of wisdom says “11:20 …But you have disposed all things by measure and number and weight.” -how true.

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

it’s just ***false ***that “god cannot make a rock bigger than he can lift” entails “god is not omnipotent”, since omnipotence does not mean “capable of performing logically impossible or absurd actions”.

Please note that I never made a claim whether or not omnipotence is self-contradictory or not. However, I just have to nitpick. Starting with dictionary.com, omnipotent is defined as

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. (usage note omitted)

Please note that the dictionary definition does not include any qualifiers. We all know that dictionary definitions only go so far, so here’s the only question that interests me in this context. Did theologicians always use the term omnipotent in a carefully guarded way or is limiting the scope of omnipotence to the logically possible and actually doable an attempt to salvage an earlier “design flaw”?

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

Please note that I never made a claim whether or not omnipotence is self-contradictory or not. However, I just have to nitpick. Starting with dictionary.com, omnipotent is defined as

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. (usage note omitted)

Please note that the dictionary definition does not include any qualifiers. We all know that dictionary definitions only go so far, so here’s the only question that interests me in this context. Did theologicians always use the term omnipotent in a carefully guarded way or is limiting the scope of omnipotence to the logically possible and actually doable an attempt to salvage an earlier “design flaw”?

well, this is what aquinas has to say about it:
St. Thomas Aquinas:

If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, “God can do all things,” is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent…

…God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.

i don’t think excluding logical absurdities from the scope of the definition of “omnipotence” is either being “carefully guarded” or engaging in some kind of lexical triage - it’s merely making the logic of the language explicit.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

i don’t think excluding logical absurdities from the scope of the definition of “omnipotence” is either being “carefully guarded” or engaging in some kind of lexical triage - it’s merely making the logic of the language explicit.

That’s ok. Just keep in mind that atheists do not argue from a Christian viewpoint. So, the argument implies that certain kinds of gods cannot exist. Which, by your argument, do not resemble the Christian God.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

That’s ok. Just keep in mind that atheists do not argue from a Christian viewpoint. So, the argument implies that certain kinds of gods cannot exist. Which, by your argument, do not resemble the Christian God.

well, that’s certainly one way to look at it.

but the way that seems to make the most sense to me is to look at it as a semantic issue rather than a theological one: it’s an issue about what language can be used to do, and what, if any, the ontological implications of one’s linguistic philosophy might be.

for example, as i suggested before, if the sentences used to phrase the so-called paradoxes of omnipotence do not actually express propositions, then there’s nothing that is being said by them that is capable of being true or false, which means that there’s nothing interesting being said at all. which in turn means that, as i suggest, the problem is cut-off at the pass, so to speak, before it even has a chance to be a theological issue.

in essence, it’s not that god can or can’t make a rock bigger than he can lift, it’s that when you say something like that, you’re not really saying*** anything***. any more than you would be if you were to ask if god can change the color of the number “5”. or bend courage in half. or measure the surface area of a square circle. none of those sentences actually mean anything.

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

it’s merely making the logic of the language explicit.

I respectfully disagree. Your point about the limitations of language is well taken. However, were the semantics that were originally intended to be conveyed mistaken or is language such a poor vehicle that certain concepts cannot be communicated clearly? Or both? I don’t see the issue of lexical triage as being settled, one way or the other. I start from the premise that theologies evolve and adapt to challenge and my working hypothesis is that in the dawn of Christianity, god was indeed considered allmighty with no strings attached and that the rigor of formal logic didn’t have a theological impact until much later.

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

I respectfully disagree. Your point about the limitations of language is well taken. However, were the semantics that were originally intended to be conveyed mistaken or is language such a poor vehicle that certain concepts cannot be communicated clearly? Or both? I don’t see the issue of lexical triage as being settled, one way or the other. I start from the premise that theologies evolve and adapt to challenge and my working hypothesis is that in the dawn of Christianity, god was indeed considered allmighty with no strings attached and that the rigor of formal logic didn’t have a theological impact until much later.

well, you may be right. it’s a historical point you’re making, and i don’t know enough about it to make any claims one way or the other.

but at any rate, the substantive philosophical point remains: even if christians have ever actually said that god could do things like make rocks bigger than he could lift, they were never actually saying anything about god - their sentences would always have been empty of logical content. even if it sounded like they were saying something interesting about the nature of god, they weren’t.

do you see what i’m saying? these observations about logical absurdities are not observations about the definition of omnipotence, they’re observations about language; i am not suggesting that the definition of “omnipotence” be circumscribed in any way - i am simply pointing out that whatever definition you use for the term, it’s only possible to use that term meaningfully in certain specific ways.

so. “omnipotence” ***does ***mean “all-powerful”, or “of unlimited, universal power”. and these putative limitations that exist are not limitations on god’s power, but only on what it’s possible for us even to talk about.

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

well, you may be right. it’s a historical point you’re making, and i don’t know enough about it to make any claims one way or the other.

Frankly, neither do I.

but at any rate, the substantive philosophical point remains: even if christians have ever actually said that god could do things like make rocks bigger than he could lift, they were never actually saying anything about god - their sentences would always have been empty of logical content.

To that I would reply that anything anybody ever said about one god or the other is pure conjecture. Nobody ever said anything about god or gods, but legions of people voiced their personal ideas about deities.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

in essence, it’s not that god can or can’t make a rock bigger than he can lift, it’s that when you say something like that, you’re not really saying*** anything***. any more than you would be if you were to ask if god can change the color of the number “5”. or bend courage in half. or measure the surface area of a square circle. none of those sentences actually mean anything.

Not really.
The rock thing is a semantic antinomy, while your example is just mixing up definitions.
From your other post I suppose you’re well into mathematics, aren’t you? Then you perhaps know how Russel attempted to solve his own antinomy, which belongs to the same class of problems. He set up a “type hierarchy”, and a statement like the rock ting would be mixing a type 0 statement with a type 1 statement. In fact any self-referencing statement would be a type violation, therefore they must not be done.
Of course there is no other reason, WHY they must not be done than “otherwise one gets logical absurdities”, so it is not fully satisfactory, but at least something to think about.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Not really.
The rock thing is a semantic antinomy, while your example is just mixing up definitions.

right. but they’re both meaningless in the sense that each sentence fails to express a proposition. i just find that it helps to illustrate the meaninglessness of antinomic statements when you equate them, semantically, with other statements that are more obviously without any real sense.

AnAtheist:

From your other post I suppose you’re well into mathematics, aren’t you? Then you perhaps know how Russel attempted to solve his own antinomy, which belongs to the same class of problems. He set up a “type hierarchy”, and a statement like the rock ting would be mixing a type 0 statement with a type 1 statement. In fact any self-referencing statement would be a type violation, therefore they must not be done.
Of course there is no other reason, WHY they must not be done than “otherwise one gets logical absurdities”, so it is not fully satisfactory, but at least something to think about.

yeah, a whole bunch of theorists have come up with different solutions to the problem: quine, brouwer, zermelo, von neumann, etc.

and you’re right - they’re all ad hoc, but no less interesting for all that. if the foundations of math is your thing, that is…

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Hi to all seeking the 21 reasons why God does not exist!

I had a laugh, Steevereno, and then I started to catch the drift …see the wood not the trees, sort of…

I’m a fan of Anthony de Mello, SJ (now sadly dec’d) - although I do not believe necessarily all that I read etc. But certainly I often really appreciated de Mello and with a smile. Your post on athiestic logic to their doctrine reminded me of a variation of mine on a little parable by de Mello in “Heart of The Enlightened”…catch the book if you want to know the real parable he presents…here’s my variation (though the inspiration was/is de Mello’s, I have exercised considerable licence in this variation!). Steevereno’s post brought my variation back to mind:

A village had walked on crutches for many generations. A real ssssstrange,sssssstranger walks into town and to them, because he doesn’t walk on crutches - oh boy is he weird, crazy, off his rocker. They thought everyone had to walk on crutches because they’d never known any different. So the stranger says to the elders "What’s wrong with you lot, God gave you two good legs - yer don’t HAVE TO WALK ON CRUTCHES! AND I CAN PROVE IT! Well that up set these elders no end! so they decided to teach this ridiculous upstart a real lesson. They arranged for an extra pair of crutches to be available and for the whole village to gather in the Town Centre…the stranger takes the pair of crutches from the elders and walks to the edge of the crowd and gets on the crutches. Well this whole gullible crowd watch the stranger with baited breath and wide eyed amazement - They are actually going to see a human being walk without crutches, fer goodness sakes!..the stranger hobbles on the crutches and he is almost in the centre of the waiting tense and expectant crowd …hobble!..hobble! …then suddenly…one of the strangers crutches falls into a little incline in the ground and he falls FLAT ON HIS FACE!!! Well the crowd gasped absolutely stunned,. while the elders burst out laughing at this stupid and ridiculous stranger. That proved to that whole village to this very day that it is imossible to walk without crutches - yer know?
Regards,
Barb