I am not proving the existence of god I am disproving the fundamentalist atheist view.
Here we go again with the "fundamentalist atheist" rhetoric! Pray tell, what defines a "fundamentalist atheist"? The one thing uniting atheists is the lack of a belief in deities -- a position that may be arrived at from different directions, rationally or irrationally, with no unity in other beliefs, politics, ethics, or, by and large, anything at all. Yet I keep hearing about "fundamentalist atheists"... Is there, perhaps, some Atheist Bible or Atheist Manifesto that has somehow passed me by?

Since fundamentalism by definition refers to an adherence to a set of fixed ideas or principles, there must be a set you can define for us. It would also be interesting to hear how this pertains to the current discussion or any of its participants (exempli gratia, by what justification any poster here may be called an "atheist fundamentalist").

Throughout this and similar discussions, the unshakeable theist defence appears to be bipartite, comprised of

"You cannot disprove my god[s]!"
From the more sophisticated theists, "Your epistemology is flawed, incomplete, or otherwise short of perfection".

The first point is of course often true for a sufficiently high burden of proof, but it's also rather pointless, since it's well established that all manner of absurdities cannot be disproved -- hence Russell's Teapot, etc.

The second point is also true, but somewhat misleading. We've seen (I believe) in this thread alone a range of positions that fall within the broad category of debating epistemology, from solipsism to arguments about incompleteness (although the only math I've seen apart from a vague reference to Gödel is a set of equations with none of the variables defined, which is rather silly -- "x = y^[2i], therefore no god" does not a solid argument make).

These arguments are made, I'm sure, with absolute literal honesty, but a very great deal of hypocrisy, because the criteria here applied to the atheist's belief that there exist no gods are not the criteria anyone applies to anything else in their lives. True, Gödel showed us that our mathematical systems cannot be both consistent and complete. However, I've never yet come across a mathematician who argues that we must therefore distrust the results of the Principia. It is also true that I cannot prove beyond the doubt of a solipsist that anything is real, but the solipsist nevertheless lives his life exactly as if he believes that the world he perceives really is a systematic representation of reality -- except when he's arguing epistemology. Although an idea should be evaluated for itself rather than for its creator or deliverer, epistemological ideas that cannot even in principle be resolved are untractable, and I feel no obligation to take such arguments seriously when even the people who use them to attempt to stymy me don't seem to actually believe them.

Although it is, of course, possible to be an atheist for irrational or dogmatic reasons, I think I speak for most of the other atheists here when I say that we hold the position of atheism because we find the evidence for theism, deism, et cetera to be much too poor for us to take those positions seriously -- not on the grounds of faith or absolute conviction. I for one have never claimed that my atheistic position that "There is no god" is any firmer than my gravitational position that "Objects attract each other proportionally to the product of their masses divided by the square of their distance"; I see no reason why we should impose an additional burden of epistemology on the former. You who argue about solipsism or incompleteness on this subject, do you act with the same kind of doubts when you discuss Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, or Darwin? --Or are you willing to take provisional-but-very-high-probability positions even in the absence of infallible epistemology?

Oh its good to have you back! The syllogism I posted earlier was Gödel's ontological proof by the way.

My argument is based on using Gödel's theorems when trying to construct a TOE, which by pantheistic beliefs would be God.

As to your later question, my point was not to prove the existence of God(which is truly pointless IMO) but to poke holes in the high and mighty knowers of things; i.e. the fundamentalist atheist. Once again following Gödel's theorems how can I be a solipsist?


These arguments are made, I'm sure, with absolute literal honesty, but a very great deal of hypocrisy, because the criteria here applied to the atheist's belief that there exist no gods are not the criteria anyone applies to anything else in their lives. True, Gödel showed us that our mathematical systems cannot be both consistent and complete. However, I've never yet come across a mathematician who argues that we must therefore distrust the results of the Principia. It is also true that I cannot prove beyond the doubt of a solipsist that anything is real, but the solipsist nevertheless lives his life exactly as if he believes that the world he perceives really is a systematic representation of reality -- except when he's arguing epistemology. Although an idea should be evaluated for itself rather than for its creator or deliverer, epistemological ideas that cannot even in principle be resolved are untractable, and I feel no obligation to take such arguments seriously when even the people who use them to attempt to stymy me don't seem to actually believe them.

What does my belief in something have anything to do with addressing it?


Although it is, of course, possible to be an atheist for irrational or dogmatic reasons, I think I speak for most of the other atheists here when I say that we hold the position of atheism because we find the evidence for theism, deism, et cetera to be much too poor for us to take those positions seriously -- not on the grounds of faith or absolute conviction. I for one have never claimed that my atheistic position that "There is no god" is any firmer than my gravitational position that "Objects attract each other proportionally to the product of their masses divided by the square of their distance"; I see no reason why we should impose an additional burden of epistemology on the former.

Looking at part of a system requires different methods than looking at the whole system. That is why I used the Euclidean-Non Euclidean example earlier, would you rather quantum v relativity?



You who argue about solipsism or incompleteness on this subject, do you act with the same kind of doubts when you discuss Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, or Darwin? --Or are you willing to take provisional-but-very-high-probability positions even in the absence of infallible epistemology?

Once again what do my beliefs have anything to do with the holes in a fundamentalist atheist argument? As far as my own logic is concerned I stick with Emerson, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" It just irks me when people go spouting off how their views are "better" they "know" they are right and all others are morons for believing what they do, when their own views are inconsistant and truly unprovable.

Here we go again with the "fundamentalist atheist" rhetoric! Pray tell, what defines a "fundamentalist atheist"? The one thing uniting atheists is the lack of a belief in deities -- a position that may be arrived at from different directions, rationally or irrationally, with no unity in other beliefs, politics, ethics, or, by and large, anything at all. Yet I keep hearing about "fundamentalist atheists"... Is there, perhaps, some Atheist Bible or Atheist Manifesto that has somehow passed me by?

Since fundamentalism by definition refers to an adherence to a set of fixed ideas or principles, there must be a set you can define for us. It would also be interesting to hear how this pertains to the current discussion or any of its participants (exempli gratia, by what justification any poster here may be called an "atheist fundamentalist").

Would you prefer the term "strong atheist" or "de facto atheist"? I would say that is the same thing.

you seem like the person with the know it all complex. I think Zaprudest is drunk. There's no way someone can draw godel into god. Being that retarded takes drugs, or a natural dementia.

right wing radio much? you've been bombarded with too much propaganda, my little toolbag.

Fundies are the realm of theists. You know this, you are attempting to dance circles around minds that can grasp your "Let me reference something quickly to throw them off"
game.

I think zaphappy is referencing this stuff to compensate for a miniscule schlong.

I'm hung like a horse, thank god (pun intended)

I take my disbelief in god to the most extreme extent that's practically possible, which is the same extent I take the non-existence of zeus. I might be wrong, there could be zeus, or unicorns, but I'll need something better than "logical reasoning has limitations therefore unicorns exist." It isn't practical to conduct your life according to things that could exist by the most astronomically small probability. Conducting your life according to the idea that god exists, as in following a theistic doctrine to get to heaven, makes as much sense and sticking a purple umbrella up your arse to keep away the magical catch-wrestling goblins.

Your answer to Gödel's incompleteness theorems would be...?

Your answer to the Problem of Evil is?

Also: Finding holes in the opposition's argument does not automatically prove yours. It just proves the opposition wrong, but not necessarily you right.


Would you prefer the term "strong atheist" or "de facto atheist"? I would say that is the same thing.

Define "Strong atheist". Logic is stronger than belief, but some consider "I believe there is no God" to be stronger than "There is no proof of God."

LOL!!!! what the hell do you think that is? Are you trying to be an again?

Ha Ha Ha zapruder u iz funny

you has shown me I iz dumb from a typo.

I iz beliefing in you godz now. you haz de real religusisation.

now I canz too belief in somthings that iznt real so I can be smarts like you

I don't quite understand zaps position exactly, but I do understand that logic has limitations. You can use logic and still derive the wrong conclusion, or the right conclusion can appear to be illogical. But is there any reason at all, to take the issue of any particular god more seriously than zeus, thor or dragons?

I don't quite understand zaps position exactly, but I do understand that logic has limitations. You can use logic and still derive the wrong conclusion, or the right conclusion can appear to be illogical. But is there any reason at all, to take the issue of any particular god more seriously than zeus, thor or dragons?

Once again I am not trying to prove the existence of god, I am just disproving "strong atheism" (Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods.) You are about the only one left posting that still has some flexibility of belief, ie you dont seem to "know" that god does not exist, it is just a great probability that there is no god.

Once again what do my beliefs have anything to do with the holes in a fundamentalist atheist argument? As far as my own logic is concerned I stick with Emerson, "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" It just irks me when people go spouting off how their views are "better" they "know" they are right and all others are morons for believing what they do, when their own views are inconsistant and truly unprovable.

Zapruder, you cant tell me there's not the even smallest ounce of hypocrasy in this statement. Most Religions are based on the belief that they are correct and that every opposing or differing view is wrong. Even you are arging because you think that we are misguided and that you can explain the "true" way of thinking.

If a person thinks that they are wrong, then they are not likely to argue a point, unless of course they are trolling or trying to play devils advocate.

Your answer to the Problem of Evil is?

I am a pantheistic Taoist...so there is no problem.


Also: Finding holes in the opposition's argument does not automatically prove yours. It just proves the opposition wrong, but not necessarily you right

Once again I wasnt proving my side(which by Gödel's theorems I may not anyway), and yes what you have pointed out is correct.


Define "Strong atheist". Logic is stronger than belief, but some consider "I believe there is no God" to be stronger than "There is no proof of God."

Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues.

Zapruder, you cant tell me there's not the even smallest ounce of hypocrasy in this statement. Most Religions are based on the belief that they are correct and that every opposing or differing view is wrong. Even you are arging because you think that we are misguided and that you can explain the "true" way of thinking.

If a person thinks that they are wrong, then they are not likely to argue a point, unless of course they are trolling or trying to play devils advocate.

GOOD GOD MAN HAVE YOU NOT FIGURED IT OUT?!!?? I am opposed to fundamentalism! I dont care WHAT side you are on if you say you "know" the truth you are full of drippy ****! You have the choice of acknowledging that you have faith and do not know(ie religious types) or that you are dealing with an incomplete set and therefor can not deductively know.

Ha Ha Ha zapruder u iz funny

you has shown me I iz dumb from a typo.

I iz beliefing in you godz now. you haz de real religusisation.

now I canz too belief in somthings that iznt real so I can be smarts like you

For those wondering this would be an example of fundamentalist atheism

you seem like the person with the know it all complex.

Funny since that is what I have been ranting against...fundamentalist
intillectuals, fundamentalist atheist, FUNDAMENTALISM.


y There's no way someone can draw godel into god. Being that retarded takes drugs, or a natural dementia.

Do you even know anything about the man? He "drew" himself into god.


right wing radio much? you've been bombarded with too much propaganda, my little toolbag.

And what right wing propaganda am I spewing?


Fundies are the realm of theists. You know this, you are attempting to dance circles around minds that can grasp your "Let me reference something quickly to throw them off"
game.

I have posted examples if you still need help understanding this let me know and I will be glad to explain further.


I think zaphappy is referencing this stuff to compensate for a miniscule schlong.

I'm hung like a horse, thank god (pun intended)

You know the rules here video or its not true...

GOOD GOD MAN HAVE YOU NOT FIGURED IT OUT?!!?? I am opposed to fundamentalism! I dont care WHAT side you are on if you say you "know" the truth you are full of drippy ****! You have the choice of acknowledging that you have faith and do not know(ie religious types) or that you are dealing with an incomplete set and therefor can not deductively know.


So your fundimental point is that you hate fundamentalisim.

are you also fanatical about hating fanaticism?

I guess thats the trouble with taking a position on somthing. Its easy to appear overzealus.

So your fundimental point is that you hate fundamentalisim.

are you also fanatical about hating fanaticism?

I guess thats the trouble with taking a position on somthing. Its easy to appear overzealus.

Did you not catch the Emerson quote? Moreover I dont claim that my ideas are superior to others,which is a supreme tenant of fundamentalism...and I take it you are at work again with the flu?