An Atheist's Letter

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, wolpert, I still submit that the person had to make the conscious decision to decide that “it is not able to be decided”. That is what I meant to convey. Any decision, even the decision not to make a decision, is still a decision. Right?

 

[caroljm36]

Monarchy:

Athiesm

Also, since I have seen it for the umpteenth time, Stalin, Hitler, Etc. did not kill in the name of Athesim, but of the state. They wanted the state to be the dogmatic belief of the people and religion got in the way.

But they rejected God and replaced it with the State. The state was their substitute for religion. Because everyone needs to worship something. Nationalism and Communism were the great secular religions, the “thinking man’s” replacement for God. And oh, the world got so much better didn’t it.

 

[wolpertinger]

Tantum ergo:

Well, wolpert, I still submit that the person had to make the conscious decision to decide that “it is not able to be decided”. That is what I meant to convey. Any decision, even the decision not to make a decision, is still a decision. Right?

I’ll admit that I misread your post.

 

[Podo2004]

kepha1:

In less than 4000 characters? I’m sorry this person has such a sick view of biblical history and a perverse method of interpretation, with no regard for context. Perhaps he would hold up as moral the very thing that God was opposed to, the very reason for some of those things that occured. But I am not about to pick apart each and every verse and waste the time it would take on someone who is not the least bit interested in changing their life. This person hs created God into his own image, and his god is boring.

some atheists are like that(sick view of biblical history) like some of my friends for instance … just have to pray that they will come to accept God in their heart
Podo

 

[Exporter]

The writer of the Atheist Letter emphasises that he is a vegetarian.

He does not explain what being a vegetarian has to do with being an Atheist.

This is not a boy you want to hire as a babysitter !!! !!!

 

[Exporter]

Wolpertinger,

Your use of English is better than many Americans, so don’t use the excuse of English as a second language as the reason you didn’t repel that argument.

I believe that you used the term “Atheistic Apologetics”. I think you took the position that you have never thought about that topic. It is rationally impossible to prove a negative, no matter how hard you try. Therefore,athiest have no apologetics, but Christians do. Christians must have Christian Apologetics to thwart aside the attacks of the outsiders and also to aid their own members to deepen their understanding.

 

[kepha1]

He is not an atheist, but a pantheist, who puts the same value on a human being as he does on a misquito.

Mankind was given dominion over animals, not the other way around. This “atheist” would have to let his mother die instead of having heart repair done with animal membranes, or let his children die of diabetes because insulin was developed from from the pancreas of animals.

Then there is the wool in his clothes.
I bet his running shoes, his belt and wallet are made of leather, but worse than that, even if they are synthetic, made by child slave labor in third world countries, with a mark up of 900%. Of course, its the fault of Christianity.

Speaking of synthetic clothes this person may claim to wear, they are made from petroleum products which originally came from dead animals a long time ago.

An atheist? No, a worshipper of the self, a rebellious idiot.

 

[FelixBlue]

Wolpertinger,
I believe that you used the term “Atheistic Apologetics”. I think you took the position that you have never thought about that topic. It is rationally impossible to prove a negative, no matter how hard you try. Therefore,athiest have no apologetics, but Christians do. Christians must have Christian Apologetics to thwart aside the attacks of the outsiders and also to aid their own members to deepen their understanding.

Rationally impossible to prove a negative? Isn’t evil a negative? A lacking? And isn’t God a kind of “negative”?

How do we prove God? We prove him by what we know…what exists. In the same way, someone might “prove” that God must not exist given what he knows: suffering, evil, silence, etc.

I think it is incorrect to say that it is impossible to prove a negative…

 

[wolpertinger]

Exporter:

Your use of English is better than many Americans, so don’t use the excuse of English as a second language as the reason you didn’t repel that argument.

Thank you, but mistakes still happen; I used the phrase ‘special pleading’ for a reason. Now, I’m not entirely sure what argument you refer to.

As I recall, somebody took offense at “the OT being something to be apologetic about”. What I meant was that I consider it positive that Christians feel a need to apply apologetics to the OT, but upon reflection and with all due respect, if I were a Christian I would be apologetic about the OT myself.

I believe that you used the term “Atheistic Apologetics”.

My recollection is that it was the poster I answered to.

I think you took the position that you have never thought about that topic.

Strictly speaking, this isn’t entirely true. Those atheists that do make the strong claim that god doesn’t exist must be prepared to meet a challenge to their position. Since I don’t happen to be one of them, I never gave this more than a cursory thought.

Once in a while I dispute with evangelists, but I don’t so much defend my position as point out why their arguments have no traction.

It is rationally impossible to prove a negative, no matter how hard you try. Therefore,athiest have no apologetics, but Christians do. Christians must have Christian Apologetics to thwart aside the attacks of the outsiders and also to aid their own members to deepen their understanding.

Fair enough.

 

[wolpertinger]

FelixBlue:

Rationally impossible to prove a negative? Isn’t evil a negative? A lacking? And isn’t God a kind of “negative”?

“Evil a negative” is an equivocation, unless you literally mean that evil doesn’t exist. I’m not sure what you mean by And isn’t God a kind of “negative”?

How do we prove God? We prove him by what we know…what exists. In the same way, someone might “prove” that God must not exist given what he knows: suffering, evil, silence, etc.

A common “stumper question” to atheists is something like “How can you prove that god doesn’t exist until you looked everywhere?” It is this question in particular that invites atheists to prove a negative.

I think it is incorrect to say that it is impossible to prove a negative…

You are mistaken. I invite your to prove that invisible pink unicorns will never perch on anybody’s shoulder.

 

[john_doran]

Exporter:

It is rationally impossible to prove a negative, no matter how hard you try.

prove it.

 

[wolpertinger]

john doran:

prove it.

 

[ISABUS]

Hello Wolpertinger,

Your comment in thread #69 'if I were a Christian I would be apologetic about the OT myself ’ implies you have read the bible. This makes me wonder if you may have more respect for the conduct of people in the NT. Do you? What particular passage or passages within the bible do you think an Atheist and a Christian might possibly agree upon? Do you have a favorite book of the New Testament that you tend to favor? And, why were you drawn to read the bible in the first place?

I appologize for all these questions. It must be that I’m a very curious creature.

Thank you,

Mary

 

[Monarchy]

caroljm36:

But they rejected God and replaced it with the State. The state was their substitute for religion. Because everyone needs to worship something. Nationalism and Communism were the great secular religions, the “thinking man’s” replacement for God. And oh, the world got so much better didn’t it.

Whenever you worship something dogmaticaly it will be trouble. Marx stated that “religioin is the opiate of the masses” or a simular phrase. It’s not that we need to worship something, They needed religion out of the way. I as an atheist have no desire to get ride of religion. What ever floats your boat man. Whoever wrote the letter is not a mature individual, whatever his beliefs. But the same can be said for the letters atheists sites get from theists.

 

[ISABUS]

Monarchy:

I as an atheist have no desire to get ride of religion. What ever floats your boat man.

Hi Monarchy,

I’ve been a Catholic for 40 + years. If I understand you correctly, you don’t object to my Faith which is based on reason. Am I correct?

Thank you,

Mary

 

[JamesS]

Monarchy:

Whenever you worship something dogmaticaly it will be trouble. Marx stated that “religioin is the opiate of the masses” or a simular phrase. It’s not that we need to worship something, They needed religion out of the way. I as an atheist have no desire to get ride of religion. What ever floats your boat man. Whoever wrote the letter is not a mature individual, whatever his beliefs. But the same can be said for the letters atheists sites get from theists.

That would be **opium **of the masses. As at that time, the use of opium and ‘chasing the dragon’ was quite common.

 

[FelixBlue]

“Evil a negative” is an equivocation, unless you literally mean that evil doesn’t exist. I’m not sure what you mean by And isn’t God a kind of “negative”?

A common “stumper question” to atheists is something like “How can you prove that god doesn’t exist until you looked everywhere?” It is this question in particular that invites atheists to prove a negative.

You are mistaken. I invite your to prove that invisible pink unicorns will never perch on anybody’s shoulder.

Are pink unicorns a negative? And neither am I mistaken. But perhaps we need to better define “negative” here. See the other thread I started on this issue…on the possibility of proving a negative.

I agree with you in that it would be absurd to ask the atheist to look “everywhere” before he can come to assent to the conclusion that there is no God.

Evil is a negation in that it is a privation of a good. Thus, evil in itself, as an absolute, does not exist. Evil is only a lesser good than what ought to be.

When I say God is a negative, I am referring to the fact that he is “not” what we are. He is not finite; he is infinite.

 

[wolpertinger]

FelixBlue:

Are pink unicorns a negative? And neither am I mistaken. But perhaps we need to better define “negative” here.

No need to get fancy. For any proposition P, a negative is the claim that NOT P holds true. I claim that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. If you wish to prove a negative, show me wrong or at least tell me how you would proceed to do so.

When I say God is a negative, I am referring to the fact that he is “not” what we are. He is not finite; he is infinite.

You may say that, of course, but you are committing the fallacy of accent in the context of ‘proving a negative’.

(on edit: Replace ‘fallacy of accent’ with ‘equivocation’. It’s been a long day…)

 

[FelixBlue]

wolpertinger:

No need to get fancy. For any proposition P, a negative is the claim that NOT P holds true. I claim that invisible pink unicorns do not exist. If you wish to prove a negative, show me wrong or at least tell me how you would proceed to do so.

You may say that, of course, but you are committing the fallacy of accent in the context of ‘proving a negative’.

(on edit: Replace ‘fallacy of accent’ with ‘equivocation’. It’s been a long day…)

Again, what is the negative we are wishing to prove? You have to demonstrate to me that it is a substantial/real negative rather than merely a logical or linguistic negative. Yes, I agree that Not-P is the negation of P. Still, in order for those symbols to make any sense, I have to substitute in values. What is the value of P?

Questions: is cold the negation of hot? Is negative five the negation of five? Is Grendaline the negation of Jill? Is atheism the negation of God?

Atheism is only a linguistic negation of theism. Substantially, atheism either corresponds to reality or it does not, regardless of its linguistic relation to theism.

I ask again, clarify you meaning of a negation.

Second, how in the world does your example of an invisible pink unicorn work here? Are you suggesting that because you claim (though do not prove) that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, that I therefore have the burden of proof simply because you have made a positive claim and I am making the countering negative claim? Tell you what, I will be happy to prove they do exist (smiles) when you go through the work of proving they do not.

You may be right about the fallacy of equivocation. But that would require much more argument than this present question involves.

As I see it, I am simply making the argument that one can rationally defend atheism despite the fact that it is a linguistic negation of the word theism.

 

[wolpertinger]

FelixBlue:

Again, what is the negative we are wishing to prove? You have to demonstrate to me that it is a substantial/real negative rather than merely a logical or linguistic negative. Yes, I agree that Not-P is the negation of P. Still, in order for those symbols to make any sense, I have to substitute in values. What is the value of P?

I don’t want to prove any negative at all - you stated in #68:

“I think it is incorrect to say that it is impossible to prove a negative…”

I am curious how you back up this claim. ‘Proving a negative’ has a very specific meaning - it is an invitation to falsify a logically negated claim by exhaustively searching an infinite problem space.

It is exactly like you said:

Second, how in the world does your example of an invisible pink unicorn work here? Are you suggesting that because you claim (though do not prove) that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, that I therefore have the burden of proof simply because you have made a positive claim and I am making the countering negative claim? Tell you what, I will be happy to prove they do exist (smiles) when you go through the work of proving they do not.

To get back into context, I encounter the concept of proving a negative on two occasions:

First, strong atheists claim that god doesn’t exist. They go where I cannot follow, because their position presupposes proof of a negative.

Second, certain evangelical Christians challenge atheists to prove that god doesn’t exist. Unless they are debating a strong atheist, this is a blatant attempt to shift the burden of proof.

We seem to be in sufficient agreement to show mercy and stop beating this dead horse.