| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rock Brentwood" |
| Date: |
11 Jan 2006 07:41:44 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
From: Jim07D5 <Jim0...@nospam.net>:
The short version: I have concluded that God does not exist,
But ... concluded that *what* does not exist. Until you actually say
*what* you're saying does not exist, then nobody (including yourself)
will ever know that what you're saying doesn't exist actually has
anything at all to do with anything that you're saying actually does
not exist.
The burden of definition always lies with you when proclaiming
something does not exist. Since there was no definition or anything
tantamount to one, then your statement is meaningless and even your
assertion about what you actually believe is false -- that is: your
beliefs even about your own beliefs are wrong because (for instance)
they pertain to some imaginary old man "up there" in Outer Space that
everyone in this (misbegotten) Judeo-Christian tradition seems to point
or refer to when speaking of God, rather than to God!
It's not enough to say "I'm an atheist". The sentence is incomplete and
only means something when completed "I'm an atheist *WITH RESPECT* to
this definition or conception of God."
Nobody is an atheist with respect to *all* possible conceptions of God
(e.g. if I simply *define* God as the universe, itself; or as the most
recent common ancestress of the human race -- as was the traditional
definition before the patriarchal religions ran amok the Middle East
and elsewhere).
You have to be clear on this point. For, when someone asserts that "98%
of all people believe in God", this is (at best disingenuous): 98% of
NOBODY believe in completely different, conflicting things that each
calls "God".
Since you have not availed yourself of the burden of definition then
you've defaulted and have to accept whatever is posited in its place. A
general, universal and neutral characterization of a Supreme Being may
be cast by the 4 criteria:
(1) Omni-presence: Has existence transcending space
(2) Eternality: Has existence transcending time
(3) Omni-potence (in the restricted sense to be described
here): determines the outcomes of all events
(4) Omni-science: has, knows or contains an account of all
outcomes of events.
All bona fide conceptions of God will -- at the very least -- contain
these 4 attributes, or otherwise will be cast as a form of glorified
idol worship suited for primitive cultures, but unbefitting any more
civilized or enlightened culture. Many conceptions will contain more
attributes, but none can be regarded as essential or (for that matter)
anything more than allegorical elements meant to keep the masses in
line with the lastest pharisaic enunciations on societal norms.
I can easily say "I'm an atheist" meaning I don't believe in the God of
the Judeo-Christian tradition (though, even there, that is STILL
ambiguous: is it non-belief in the Eloist version of God, the Yahwist
version of God, in the Goddess Asherah that lurks beneath the surface
and in older tradition, or of Wisdom, itself, which had also been
deified and likened to a Goddess in its own right, or something else).
But to say "I am an atheist" with respect to the 4 attributes outlined
above will be (at the very least) difficult, since the description is
partly fulfilled by the central object of study of Physics -- the laws
of Physics.
This is actually the oldest conception of God -- the Goddess that
comprises Nature, the world and the universe itself. The Law can be
taken as one and the same as the Being, itself, and (in turn) as one
and the same as the Will. Just conflat them all, have done with it, and
say they are different names for the same thing.
Then -- returning to your previous comment -- this WILL be a case in
point where you *thought* you didn't know all your life that there was
a God but actually did but thought you didn't because you had been
referring to the wrong concept of "God" all along. So, what I said
about the fact that it's possible to not even know what you believe and
to even have belief that you belief something other than what you
actually believe comes home to bear.
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
.
|
|
| User: "Sanitys little helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 01:52:21 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 17:41:44 -0800, Rock Brentwood wrote:
Nobody is an atheist with respect to *all* possible conceptions of God
(e.g. if I simply *define* God as the universe, itself; or as the most
recent common ancestress of the human race -- as was the traditional
definition before the patriarchal religions ran amok the Middle East
and elsewhere).
There are not an infinite number of definitions of God. Defining God as a
proven existing entity which has no consciousness and no free will
whatsoever is an exercise in facetiousness, and nothing else.
--
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208, HB #6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 03:15:56 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:52:21 +0000, Sanity's little helper
<elvish@noshpam.net> wrote:
- Refer: <1tzlieb6icej4$.1q9twdu2lt0ym.dlg@40tude.net>
On 11 Jan 2006 17:41:44 -0800, Rock Brentwood wrote:
Nobody is an atheist with respect to *all* possible conceptions of God
(e.g. if I simply *define* God as the universe, itself; or as the most
recent common ancestress of the human race -- as was the traditional
definition before the patriarchal religions ran amok the Middle East
and elsewhere).
There are not an infinite number of definitions of God. Defining God as a
proven existing entity which has no consciousness and no free will
whatsoever is an exercise in facetiousness, and nothing else.
A Rock-as-God proposition?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 01:46:01 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 17:41:44 -0800, Rock Brentwood wrote:
Nobody is an atheist with respect to *all* possible conceptions of God
Indeed, I am, and so are lots of people.
--
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
Why doesn't this sig chamger work?
AA #2208, HB #6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
11 Jan 2006 09:50:22 PM |
|
|
Rock Brentwood wrote:
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
Whatever it is or isn't, I don't believe in it.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 12:02:30 AM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Rock Brentwood wrote:
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
Whatever it is or isn't, I don't believe in it.
As the article you replied through just got through saying, that's
obviously not true. I could make it you or your left shoe, for
instance. So the "whatever it is" cannot be absolute.
So say "whatever it is or isn't (i.e. anything at all), I don't believe
in it" means the very same thing as saying "I don't believe in the
existence of anything". And I know you didn't say that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 12:09:32 AM |
|
|
Rock Brentwood wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
Rock Brentwood wrote:
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
Whatever it is or isn't, I don't believe in it.
As the article you replied through just got through saying, that's
obviously not true. I could make it you or your left shoe, for
instance. So the "whatever it is" cannot be absolute.
So say "whatever it is or isn't (i.e. anything at all), I don't believe
in it" means the very same thing as saying "I don't believe in the
existence of anything". And I know you didn't say that.
If you can cough up some folks that genuinely worship a left shoe, then
I'll worry about the subtelties of your argument....
but in real life such distinctions are unimportant. Most folks have an
idea of what the "god" thingy is purported to be, mainly that it's
something they can see and feel and not ever show you unless you get
some of that faith stuff. And that's the imaginary thing that they
believe in and I don't.
I don't really care that no one can accurately define such a
make-believe thingy, after all, it's make-believe!
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 02:28:58 AM |
|
|
On 11 Jan 2006 22:09:32 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
- Refer: <1137046172.325913.187430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Rock Brentwood wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
Rock Brentwood wrote:
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
Whatever it is or isn't, I don't believe in it.
As the article you replied through just got through saying, that's
obviously not true. I could make it you or your left shoe, for
instance. So the "whatever it is" cannot be absolute.
So say "whatever it is or isn't (i.e. anything at all), I don't believe
in it" means the very same thing as saying "I don't believe in the
existence of anything". And I know you didn't say that.
If you can cough up some folks that genuinely worship a left shoe, then
I'll worry about the subtelties of your argument....
Never seen "The Life of Brian"?
Not only are there left shoe worshippers, there are those who worship
the Holy Gourd of Antioch.
There is also a splinter group, who worship the right shoe alone.
Start worrying!
but in real life such distinctions are unimportant. Most folks have an
idea of what the "god" thingy is purported to be, mainly that it's
something they can see and feel and not ever show you unless you get
some of that faith stuff. And that's the imaginary thing that they
believe in and I don't.
I don't really care that no one can accurately define such a
make-believe thingy, after all, it's make-believe!
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 10:36:29 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 11 Jan 2006 22:09:32 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:
- Refer: <1137046172.325913.187430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Rock Brentwood wrote:
J Forbes wrote:
Rock Brentwood wrote:
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
Whatever it is or isn't, I don't believe in it.
As the article you replied through just got through saying, that's
obviously not true. I could make it you or your left shoe, for
instance. So the "whatever it is" cannot be absolute.
So say "whatever it is or isn't (i.e. anything at all), I don't believe
in it" means the very same thing as saying "I don't believe in the
existence of anything". And I know you didn't say that.
If you can cough up some folks that genuinely worship a left shoe, then
I'll worry about the subtelties of your argument....
Never seen "The Life of Brian"?
Not only are there left shoe worshippers, there are those who worship
the Holy Gourd of Antioch.
There is also a splinter group, who worship the right shoe alone.
Start worrying!
Yup...if the python can make fun of it, then it must be true!
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
11 Jan 2006 11:22:36 PM |
|
|
Rock Brentwood wrote:
From: Jim07D5 <Jim0...@nospam.net>:
The short version: I have concluded that God does not exist,
But ... concluded that *what* does not exist. Until you actually say
*what* you're saying does not exist, then nobody (including yourself)
will ever know that what you're saying doesn't exist actually has
anything at all to do with anything that you're saying actually does
not exist.
The burden of definition always lies with you when proclaiming
something does not exist.
Nobody is an atheist with respect to *all* possible conceptions of God
(e.g. if I simply *define* God as the universe, itself; or as the most
recent common ancestress of the human race -- as was the traditional
definition before the patriarchal religions ran amok the Middle East
and elsewhere).
Many kinds of gods are easily disproven and most really are
not a problem and don't matter to the world.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
"A dead religion is like a dead cat -- the stiffer and
more rotten it is, the better it is as a missile weapon."
- H.G. Wells
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 11:39:22 AM |
|
|
Rock Brentwood wrote:
From: Jim07D5 <Jim0...@nospam.net>:
The short version: I have concluded that God does not exist,
But ... concluded that *what* does not exist. Until you actually say
*what* you're saying does not exist, then nobody (including yourself)
will ever know that what you're saying doesn't exist actually has
anything at all to do with anything that you're saying actually does
not exist.
The burden of definition always lies with you when proclaiming
something does not exist. Since there was no definition or anything
tantamount to one, then your statement is meaningless and even your
assertion about what you actually believe is false -- that is: your
beliefs even about your own beliefs are wrong because (for instance)
they pertain to some imaginary old man "up there" in Outer Space that
everyone in this (misbegotten) Judeo-Christian tradition seems to point
or refer to when speaking of God, rather than to God!
It's not enough to say "I'm an atheist". The sentence is incomplete and
only means something when completed "I'm an atheist *WITH RESPECT* to
this definition or conception of God."
Nobody is an atheist with respect to *all* possible conceptions of God
(e.g. if I simply *define* God as the universe, itself; or as the most
recent common ancestress of the human race -- as was the traditional
definition before the patriarchal religions ran amok the Middle East
and elsewhere).
You have to be clear on this point. For, when someone asserts that "98%
of all people believe in God", this is (at best disingenuous): 98% of
NOBODY believe in completely different, conflicting things that each
calls "God".
Since you have not availed yourself of the burden of definition then
you've defaulted and have to accept whatever is posited in its place. A
general, universal and neutral characterization of a Supreme Being may
be cast by the 4 criteria:
(1) Omni-presence: Has existence transcending space
(2) Eternality: Has existence transcending time
(3) Omni-potence (in the restricted sense to be described
here): determines the outcomes of all events
(4) Omni-science: has, knows or contains an account of all
outcomes of events.
All bona fide conceptions of God will -- at the very least -- contain
these 4 attributes, or otherwise will be cast as a form of glorified
idol worship suited for primitive cultures, but unbefitting any more
civilized or enlightened culture. Many conceptions will contain more
attributes, but none can be regarded as essential or (for that matter)
anything more than allegorical elements meant to keep the masses in
line with the lastest pharisaic enunciations on societal norms.
I can easily say "I'm an atheist" meaning I don't believe in the God of
the Judeo-Christian tradition (though, even there, that is STILL
ambiguous: is it non-belief in the Eloist version of God, the Yahwist
version of God, in the Goddess Asherah that lurks beneath the surface
and in older tradition, or of Wisdom, itself, which had also been
deified and likened to a Goddess in its own right, or something else).
But to say "I am an atheist" with respect to the 4 attributes outlined
above will be (at the very least) difficult, since the description is
partly fulfilled by the central object of study of Physics -- the laws
of Physics.
This is actually the oldest conception of God -- the Goddess that
comprises Nature, the world and the universe itself. The Law can be
taken as one and the same as the Being, itself, and (in turn) as one
and the same as the Will. Just conflat them all, have done with it, and
say they are different names for the same thing.
Then -- returning to your previous comment -- this WILL be a case in
point where you *thought* you didn't know all your life that there was
a God but actually did but thought you didn't because you had been
referring to the wrong concept of "God" all along. So, what I said
about the fact that it's possible to not even know what you believe and
to even have belief that you belief something other than what you
actually believe comes home to bear.
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
The Atheist (nor anyone else) doesn't have to define what they lack
belief in. The atheist only has to define what they do believe in and
note that there are no gods on that list.
no (believe X) != believe (no X)
Semantics do not change this. Just because I believe in the Earth,
doesn't mean I believe in Gaia. Just because I believe in my ancestors,
doesn't mean I grant them an exhalted status.
And I think some religious groups do have clearly defined gods.
Especially the more fundamentalist type religious. If a fundamentalist
Christian said "God made the world in 6 days, made woman from man's
rib, ..." I think that is a pretty clear, albeit incomplete, definition
of who God is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
13 Jan 2006 04:41:26 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jan 2006 09:39:22 -0800, "Chris H. Fleming"
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1137087562.283279.210660@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Rock Brentwood wrote:
From: Jim07D5 <Jim0...@nospam.net>:
The short version: I have concluded that God does not exist,
But ... concluded that *what* does not exist. Until you actually say
*what* you're saying does not exist, then nobody (including yourself)
will ever know that what you're saying doesn't exist actually has
anything at all to do with anything that you're saying actually does
not exist.
The burden of definition always lies with you when proclaiming
something does not exist. Since there was no definition or anything
tantamount to one, then your statement is meaningless and even your
assertion about what you actually believe is false -- that is: your
beliefs even about your own beliefs are wrong because (for instance)
they pertain to some imaginary old man "up there" in Outer Space that
everyone in this (misbegotten) Judeo-Christian tradition seems to point
or refer to when speaking of God, rather than to God!
It's not enough to say "I'm an atheist". The sentence is incomplete and
only means something when completed "I'm an atheist *WITH RESPECT* to
this definition or conception of God."
Nobody is an atheist with respect to *all* possible conceptions of God
(e.g. if I simply *define* God as the universe, itself; or as the most
recent common ancestress of the human race -- as was the traditional
definition before the patriarchal religions ran amok the Middle East
and elsewhere).
You have to be clear on this point. For, when someone asserts that "98%
of all people believe in God", this is (at best disingenuous): 98% of
NOBODY believe in completely different, conflicting things that each
calls "God".
Since you have not availed yourself of the burden of definition then
you've defaulted and have to accept whatever is posited in its place. A
general, universal and neutral characterization of a Supreme Being may
be cast by the 4 criteria:
(1) Omni-presence: Has existence transcending space
(2) Eternality: Has existence transcending time
(3) Omni-potence (in the restricted sense to be described
here): determines the outcomes of all events
(4) Omni-science: has, knows or contains an account of all
outcomes of events.
All bona fide conceptions of God will -- at the very least -- contain
these 4 attributes, or otherwise will be cast as a form of glorified
idol worship suited for primitive cultures, but unbefitting any more
civilized or enlightened culture. Many conceptions will contain more
attributes, but none can be regarded as essential or (for that matter)
anything more than allegorical elements meant to keep the masses in
line with the lastest pharisaic enunciations on societal norms.
I can easily say "I'm an atheist" meaning I don't believe in the God of
the Judeo-Christian tradition (though, even there, that is STILL
ambiguous: is it non-belief in the Eloist version of God, the Yahwist
version of God, in the Goddess Asherah that lurks beneath the surface
and in older tradition, or of Wisdom, itself, which had also been
deified and likened to a Goddess in its own right, or something else).
But to say "I am an atheist" with respect to the 4 attributes outlined
above will be (at the very least) difficult, since the description is
partly fulfilled by the central object of study of Physics -- the laws
of Physics.
This is actually the oldest conception of God -- the Goddess that
comprises Nature, the world and the universe itself. The Law can be
taken as one and the same as the Being, itself, and (in turn) as one
and the same as the Will. Just conflat them all, have done with it, and
say they are different names for the same thing.
Then -- returning to your previous comment -- this WILL be a case in
point where you *thought* you didn't know all your life that there was
a God but actually did but thought you didn't because you had been
referring to the wrong concept of "God" all along. So, what I said
about the fact that it's possible to not even know what you believe and
to even have belief that you belief something other than what you
actually believe comes home to bear.
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
The Atheist (nor anyone else) doesn't have to define what they lack
belief in. The atheist only has to define what they do believe in and
note that there are no gods on that list.
no (believe X) != believe (no X)
Hoo-fuckin-ray!!!
This should be carved on stone tablets,
and handed down from Mount Improbable.
Seriously.
Semantics do not change this. Just because I believe in the Earth,
doesn't mean I believe in Gaia. Just because I believe in my ancestors,
doesn't mean I grant them an exhalted status.
And I think some religious groups do have clearly defined gods.
Especially the more fundamentalist type religious. If a fundamentalist
Christian said "God made the world in 6 days, made woman from man's
rib, ..." I think that is a pretty clear, albeit incomplete, definition
of who God is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why I [sic] am an Atheist |
12 Jan 2006 08:37:19 PM |
|
|
Rock Brentwood wrote:
From: Jim07D5 <Jim0...@nospam.net>:
The short version: I have concluded that God does not exist,
------
You have to be clear on this point. For, when someone asserts that "98%
of all people believe in God", this is (at best disingenuous): 98% of
NOBODY believe in completely different, conflicting things that each
calls "God".
Since you have not availed yourself of the burden of definition then
you've defaulted and have to accept whatever is posited in its place. A
general, universal and neutral characterization of a Supreme Being may
be cast by the 4 criteria:
(1) Omni-presence: Has existence transcending space
Nonsense. There are concepts of transcedent god and immanent god.
Neither are really necessary. Most prople believe in god
but can't tell you the difference between a transcedent or immanent god
and could attempt to prove god one for the other anyway.
(2) Eternality: Has existence transcending time
Again, not necessary or useful. One can argue god within time
or outside of it, its an argument from Augustine, not biblical
certainly.
And it has problems anyway that can be used to disprove any
concept of god out of time.
If existance is such that time is part of existance,
and is just an illusion, all things are Now. There
is no past, no future. All points of time and space
are as they are, and that includes all gods interactions
with all points of space and time.
God has no free will then, there is no past, no future its
all now, god and we are all trapped like flies in amber.
There can be no before, no start, no way out.
God out of time is a stupid concept that Auustine and then
Boethius gave us. Few people ever think about the consequences
of such a silly claim.
(3) Omni-potence (in the restricted sense to be described
here): determines the outcomes of all events
(4) Omni-science: has, knows or contains an account of all
outcomes of events.
If god is omniscient and creates all, at all points of
creation he must take into account consequences of his
acts, which he knews will cause certain other actions.
If he creates a world and knows all, he knows in 13 billion years if
there wil be a John Smith. he will know if Smith is evil or good.
He will then have to make a specific decision to allow the good Smithg
or evil Smith to exist.
God does no know all events. he specifically chooses and
creates all events according to his own purposes and volition.
If one accepts as dogma god created all and is omniscient,
god is then responsible for all evil.
And free wil lis impossible in principle.
Not a good idea. This dogma self destructs easily enoug when
couple with the claims god created all.
Omniscience vs omnibenevolence = problem of evil,
and omniscience + creator of all makes god evil,
since all evil is his specific and personal choice.
All bona fide conceptions of God will -- at the very least -- contain
these 4 attributes, or otherwise will be cast as a form of glorified
idol worship suited for primitive cultures, but unbefitting any more
civilized or enlightened culture. Many conceptions will contain more
attributes, but none can be regarded as essential or (for that matter)
anything more than allegorical elements meant to keep the masses in
line with the lastest pharisaic enunciations on societal norms.
I can easily say "I'm an atheist" meaning I don't believe in the God of
the Judeo-Christian tradition (though, even there, that is STILL
ambiguous: is it non-belief in the Eloist version of God, the Yahwist
version of God, in the Goddess Asherah that lurks beneath the surface
and in older tradition, or of Wisdom, itself, which had also been
deified and likened to a Goddess in its own right, or something else).
But to say "I am an atheist" with respect to the 4 attributes outlined
above will be (at the very least) difficult, since the description is
partly fulfilled by the central object of study of Physics -- the laws
of Physics.
This is actually the oldest conception of God -- the Goddess that
comprises Nature, the world and the universe itself. The Law can be
taken as one and the same as the Being, itself, and (in turn) as one
and the same as the Will. Just conflat them all, have done with it, and
say they are different names for the same thing.
Then -- returning to your previous comment -- this WILL be a case in
point where you *thought* you didn't know all your life that there was
a God but actually did but thought you didn't because you had been
referring to the wrong concept of "God" all along. So, what I said
about the fact that it's possible to not even know what you believe and
to even have belief that you belief something other than what you
actually believe comes home to bear.
At best, all atheists ... and all theists ... are permanently agnostics
and must remain so until they clearly define *what* they're atheizing,
agnosticating and theizing. Absent a definition, there is only
non-belief and non-(non-belief) and false beliefs about what beliefs
one believes one actually has.
All other concepts of gods have deep problems and self
debunk themselves easily enough.
Agnostic merely means you didn't think of them deeply enough.
Teh class of gods that are omni-everything and creators
of all are self debunking and cannot exist.
How many other classes of gods can you think of?
What are their problems?
----------------
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
"A dead religion is like a dead cat -- the stiffer and
more rotten it is, the better it is as a missile weapon."
- H.G. Wells
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
