Gnostic Atheism

[PRmerger]

Yeah, I got that. Me flying around Jupiter isn’t logically impossible. Neither is me having a microscopic leprechaun as a best friend. If you accept that there is a being that can toss all of the physical laws of the universe out the window at a moment’s notice, then you can’t say anything is impossible, except a logical impossibility.

Well, you believe that all of the physical laws of the universe got tossed out of the window…unless you are a science denier and don’t believe in the Big Bang?

 

[PRmerger]

No, I’m saying that people don’t rise from the dead. If you want me to believe it happened, you have to prove it. Then you would also have to prove that it happened for the reason you said it happened. Until you can do that, I’m going to side with basic biology.

So that’s circular, Cat.

“God doesn’t exist because people don’t rise from the dead” and “People don’t rise from the dead therefore God doesn’t exist.”

You can’t have the same starting point as your ending point, Cat.

That’s basic logic and Philosophy 101.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you reading my arguments at all? I have already addressed this about 5 times. I’m not doing it again.

Sorry. I came late to the discussion.

Can you offer me the post # where you offer some arguments which prove that God is a contradiction?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Sorry. I came late to the discussion.

Can you offer me the post # where you offer some arguments which prove that God is a contradiction?

Only if you provide proof that Jesus’ bones are still on Earth.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

So that’s circular, Cat.

“God doesn’t exist because people don’t rise from the dead” and “People don’t rise from the dead therefore God doesn’t exist.”

You can’t have the same starting point as your ending point, Cat.

That’s basic logic and Philosophy 101.

Okay, I’m done. I don’t know if you can’t understand, won’t understand, or if there is some language barrier. Whatever is going on, you might as well have this conversation by yourself because…well because you already are.

 

[Samwise21]

For the record, in his book Penn Jillette explicitly says he doesn’t know for a fact there is no God.

He has said otherwise on multiple occasions.

 

[Vico]

I commend the Church’s efforts to categorize heresies, but if I want to lean about a group’s actual beliefs and history, I’ll go to the source.

These are not specific groups but beliefs. One can then identify a group when encountered without actually studying all the variations.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Knowing, for example, that everyone who claimed to have a direct, personal experience of God was wrong would be very difficult.* One would have to know quite a lot.* For example, Jesus claimed to have a direct personal experience of God and He worked miracles that He offered as evidence of His claim.* Some of his disciples made the same claim, working similar miracles.* People who encountered the disciples had similar experiences.* Then, through the history of the Catholic Church, for example, there is historical evidence of many saints and noted Catholics who also claimed a personal encounter with God and worked miracles that were witnessed by others.
Concluding, on whatever basis, that all of this is false - especially without detailed investigation of each case, I think would be very difficult and would require a lifetime of study and analysis.

If an atheist thought that they had sufficiently strong reasons for believing that no God exists, it could be relatively easy to dismiss “experiences” of God as some sort of psychological phenomenon or something similar. They wouldn’t need to examine literally every case to do this, and hopefully they would remain open to revising their confidence if they did come across a particularly well-evidenced case.

Bradski’s analogy with alien abductions and UFO encounters is a good one here. If one is convinced that the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is unlikely, then intelligent life is far less likely. Intelligent life that has mastered interstellar travel is less likely than that. And when you get to the point where this intelligent life has supposedly visited Earth in secret and is just messing with a few individuals, you’re at a point where alternate explanations for these supposed incidents seem very likely in comparison. Some are surely lying. Some are likely mentally ill. A great many of them are probably mistaken about what they saw or experienced. One needn’t devote their life to debunking these claims in order to arrive at this thought. But again, this should all be open to reevaluation if enough evidence presents itself.

 

[Vico]

But if you want a meaningful discussion, you are going to have to study the variations. Otherwise it’s like trying to have a discussion on transubstantiation without any knowledge of the concepts of substance or accidents. I imagine it’s good enough for Protestants condemning Catholicism, but it’s not going to get you farther than that.

But not all variations will be necessary, which is what I posted.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course there are atheists in foxholes. Why repeat an aphorism that is not true?

If you take ten seconds to google it, you will find hundreds of personal stories from them, plus groups in their name.

militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/
ffrf.org/outreach/atheists-in-foxholes

Here is one example of a story–a first-person story of a soldier, an atheist, on “the front lines” in South Vietnam for two years. He describes in depth about being an atheist on the front line, where he could have died at any moment:

americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/i-was-an-atheist-in-a-foxhole/

.

I would like 4 eyewitness reports for each of these atheists proclaiming that this atheist remained an atheist in the foxhole.

Also, something from each of these atheists documenting, prior to their “foxhole event”, that they were atheist.

It’s amusing to me to see how you believe so easily in these stories, with such a low bar for belief, while have such a weirdly high bar for the Christian story.

Would that there was some consistency here.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

? I’m confused.
Finke’s article doesn’t seem to say anything about atheists who claim to know *for a fact *that there is no God. Or if it does, I can’t find it.
He seems to be talking about “knowing” as more of an experience here–must like how many theists describe “knowing” there is a god because they feel/experience that there is.

I’m also confused. I don’t think I understand the distinction you’re drawing here. What does it mean to know something “for a fact” vs “‘knowing’ as an experience?”

 

[Vonsalza]

True, being unfalsifiable doesn’t make it false, but it does put the burden of proof on someone who is claiming it is true.

You’re absolutely, one-hundred percent correct.

The man that says there is a God has the burden of proof.

The man that says there isn’t shares the same burden.

If you remember back to your college days in stats, a laboratory science or intro to philosophy, the null hypothesis and default claim are both “unknown”. A la “agnostic”.

As a Christian, I’m perfectly comfortable admitting that I can’t prove the material existence of God any more than I can prove the material existence of any metaphysical ideas like “love” or “objective morality”.

You average atheist seems to balk at their equal inability. As a result, they will usually do their very best to deny they have a burden of proof at all.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You seemed to be suggesting that in order to say that they know God doesn’t exist, an atheist would have to know everything there is to know. That isn’t the case because knowledge doesn’t require absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty. If an atheist has enough evidence and sound arguments on their side, they may feel that their confidence in God’s non-existence is high enough to qualify as knowledge, even if they admit that they could still be wrong.

And proof is too high a standard for these sorts of arguments. Some people may think that this or that deductive argument for or against God’s existence works, but for the most part you’re going to get the most mileage out of evidential arguments.

No I am suggesting that the atheist is claiming to know that God does not exist because of only materialistic evidence. The atheist seems to have no transcendent experiences, feelings of awe or a sense of the poetic. I actually feel sorry for them, they have no imagination at all, they have the minds of accountants.

 

[reggieM]

If an atheist thought that they had sufficiently strong reasons for believing that no God exists, it could be relatively easy to dismiss “experiences” of God as some sort of psychological phenomenon or something similar. They wouldn’t need to examine literally every case to do this, and hopefully they would remain open to revising their confidence if they did come across a particularly well-evidenced case.

Having strong reasons to believe that no God exists would entail, I would think, a careful and thorough study of evidence from history, I would think. Simply dismissing what you don’t understand as a psychological phenomenon is not an evidence-based approach. How, precisely did this phenomenon occur? How did multiple witnesses see various miracles? Why are various experiences of God recorded from the time of the Old Testament prophets (those experiences actually formed the people we call the Jews who still exist today)?

Why would an atheist wait to “come across” something that runs counter to his supposed “strong reasons”? Why not go out and investigate - especially when the atheist’s reason for “dismissing” contrary claims is unfounded (where is the scientific evidence?).

If I was an atheist and wanted to be certain of my belief, I would research these lives, for a start: St. Vincent Ferrer. St. Francis Poula, St. Jean Vianney, St. Anthony Mary Claret, St. Padre Pio. Have you read the accounts of their miracles and experiences of God?
How about eyewitness testimonial evidence of saints who raised the dead to life?

I haven’t even mentioned how, and on what basis, all the miracles of Jesus - witnessed by people around him - are dismissed as psychological phenomenon.
There’s quite a lot of work and knowledge involved just in that alone.

Keeping in mind, to make a strong, positive statement of atheism - one would need “strong reasons” why none of the writings about Jesus’ miracles are true. Again, a strong reason to deny the Gospel evidence would not merely be to give an unexamined dismissal on the basis of psychology. Group hypnosis? Fraud? Mass hysteria?

As I said, this is not comparable to alien abduction claims. Take a look at the sheer numerical comparison. Look at the credibility of the witnesses. Look at the effect that miracles have had on those who witnessed them (the growth of communities with the teaching and miracles of the apostles, for example, or as I mentioned - the Jewish community that was held together through preservation of miraculous histories).

I mentioned just 5 Catholic saints – there are hundreds of them to look into.

All it takes is just one of those miracles to be true to invalidate the atheistic position.

Sweeping it all away without consideration or research is not what one should do in order to have a strong reason to believe in atheism.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

TheCuriousCat;14698792:

That’s exactly my point, The way that God is described it is unfalsifiable. If anyone points out that something is contradictory, the faithful will just move the goalposts.

Why don’t you offer something that you think is contradictory and therefore proves that God doesn’t exist?

So simple, it is almost embarrassing. Two non-negotiable attributes of God are:

1. God is perfectly just
2. God is infinitely merciful.

The definitions according to Catholicism:
Justice is when you get what you deserve.
Grace is when you get what you DON’T deserve.
Mercy is when you DON’T get what you deserve.

In the thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=1053261 the respondents agreed, that these are correct definitions. Now the definition of “justice” contradicts the definition of “mercy” (and also the definition of “grace”). It is impossible that “you get what you deserve” and that “you DON’T get what you deserve”.

Here is your contradiction. How do the apologists deal with it?

Usually by redefining the definitions. They argue that the definition is only applicable to human justice, grace and mercy; God is beyond the human terms, God is really indescribable, so the contradiction does not “really” apply. Sometimes they add insult to injury and declare a glaring contradiction to be a “mystery”.

---

Here is another one.

1. God is omnipresent.
2. The punishment in hell is the eternal separation from God.

Omnipresent is to be “present” everywhere and everywhen. So God is present in hell and not present in hell, at the same “time”.

---

Not to mention that the whole universe would simply flicker out of existence, if God would not maintain it every second. But God exists outside of time, he resides in a frozen, unchanging existence, and also is present in our ever-changing reality. What is the “solution”? They use the phrase: “God eternally wills” - which is simply a meaningless word-salad.

---

The number of nonsensical attributes and contradictory attributes is quite large. The “solution”? God is really impossible to describe, the “positive” theism is an error, we can only describe what God is “NOT” (called “negative” theism), and not what God “IS”. And then the apologists turn around and still assert that “God is love”, which is simply a linguistic nonsense.

Strictly speaking these are not “proofs” of God’s nonexistence. Nonexistence cannot be “proven”. The dumbest apologists like to ask for “proofs” for God’s nonexistence. What we can do is to show that the attributes marshaled for God are partly meaningless, partly plain nonsensical and partly mutually exclusive. So God still could exist, but the way how the apologists imagine him (or her or it) is illogical. Actually, the “deistic god”, a faceless first cause who started the whole shebang is not logically impossible, it is simply unnecessary.

I remember a wise observation: “almost everyone believed in God until some philosophers tried to prove God’s existence”. Even if they could be successful, the price for this “victory” would be Pyrrhic, it would make “faith” unnecessary.

---

I would have liked to choose the avatar “Diogenes”, but it was already taken. I would really like to meet some intellectually honest Catholic apologist. It looks like a vain hope, but I will keep on trying.

 

[minkymurph]

I would have liked to choose the avatar “Diogenes”, but it was already taken. I would really like to meet some intellectually honest Catholic apologist. It looks like a vain hope, but I will keep on trying.

Based on the definition of ‘intellectually honest,’ I don’t think the ‘intellectually honest’ person exists.

In my view the intellectually honest person is one who recognizes their own bias as recognizing one’s own bias is the first step to overcoming it.

To believe oneself or others are intellectually honest demonstrates bias as no one is completely objective and devoid of all bias.

To believe others are biased purely on the basis they believe in God or do not is not what I would describe as intellectually honesty for reasons stated.

I’m not persuaded the atheist can approach the question of the existence of God in an intellectually honest manner any more than those who believe in God can.

In my view the intellectually honest person feels no need to seek ‘proof’ from others in terms of their believes because their objectivity and lack of bias prevents them from sufficiently caring what others believe and whether or not they can prove it.

I concede however that everything stated here are my personal views and thus subject to a degree of bias, but I stand by this statement,

'No one is completely objective and devoid of bias, but recognizing our own bias is what compensates for this fact. One who does not recognize their own bias cannot compensate and thus will arrive at conclusion subject to bias.

 

[skeptical_dan]

Look, the way gnostic/agnostic is used in charts like this actok.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Agnostic+v+Gnostic+v+Atheist+v+Theist.png is nonsensical.

Let’s just go with this:
Theism: the position that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God exists
Atheism: the position that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God does not exist
Hard Agnosticism: the position that the question of whether an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God exists is unanswerable given human epistemic limitations
De-Facto Agnosticism: The position of someone who is investigating the question and has not taken one of the above positions

Now I suppose I am a de-facto agnostic, but leaning towards (narrow) atheism as defined above, while still having a suspicion that there might be some other kind of Absolute, which is partially based on “mystical” experiences I have had.

Now the best inductive arguments for atheism I think are the following:

1.There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2.An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3.(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Rowe 1979: 336)

1.If no perfectly loving God exists, then God does not exist.
2.If a perfectly loving God exists, then there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person.
3.If there is a God who is always open to personal relationship with each human person, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
4.If a perfectly loving God exists, then no human person is ever non-resistantly unaware that God exists (from 2 and 3).
5.Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists.
6.No perfectly loving God exists (from 4 and 5).
7.God does not exist (from 1 and 6).

I do think that Aquinas’s first three ways as well as some formulations of the ontological argument are interesting, but I don’t quite have the metaphysical expertise yet to say I accept them.

Also, I am interested in miraculous, paranormal, and supernatural claims, and feel that many atheists refuse to give them a real chance. However, the problem is that one cannot determine what supernatural force made those things happen even if they did.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

they have no imagination at all.

Actually, I have a vivid imagination. I just think the things I imagine are imaginary.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

You’re absolutely, one-hundred percent correct.

The man that says there is a God has the burden of proof.

The man that says there isn’t shares the same burden.

If you remember back to your college days in stats, a laboratory science or intro to philosophy, the null hypothesis and default claim are both “unknown”. A la “agnostic”.

As a Christian, I’m perfectly comfortable admitting that I can’t prove the material existence of God any more than I can prove the material existence of any metaphysical ideas like “love” or “objective morality”.

You average atheist seems to balk at their equal inability. As a result, they will usually do their very best to deny they have a burden of proof at all.

I would agree that the burden is on me if I claim that is categorically no God.

At some point, assuming that they have devised an adequate tests,the person who is “agnostic” to the hypothesis must accept that it has either defeated or failed to defeat the null hypothesis. Being agnostic about whether vapours cause cholera is or whether bumps on the skull predict personality is simply perverse.

I would agree it is impossible to prove that the objective morality exists, but depending on your definition, I would argue that love is possible to prove. My friends, mother, sister, and brother have all made sacrifices to benefit me. They have all sought out my company, and they have all demonstrated that they place a higher priority on making me happy than they do other people. I have also seen these traits in myself. I have also done the same with them. I also know that I am happier when they are happy. I might not be able to test my emotions, but the others are all testable, predictable, and objectively verifiable.

Willingness to sacrifice, desire to have someone in your life, and showing a preference for one person over others is a pretty good definition of love.

 

[reggieM]

Also, I am interested in miraculous, paranormal, and supernatural claims, and feel that many atheists refuse to give them a real chance. However, the problem is that one cannot determine what supernatural force made those things happen even if they did.

First, it’s great that you are open-minded about such things.
Second, how do you know that you cannot determine what supernatural force made them happen?