If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.
Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.
This is the world of Patrickatheism.
762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
1) Does so.
2) I keep forgetting that you have appointed yourself decider in chief. Your life must be simple when you can simply decide stuff by fiat without any explanation or argument
peace
In the context of this thread I have been very clear about asking for both a clear definition and supporting evidence. I have repeated that consistently.
No, I have not. Read in context and assume good faith.
Or just continue to fly in, crap all over a bunch of threads, and fly off again, if you must get in touch with your seagull nature.
Here are the criteria:
I’m interested in a definition of “god” that:
a) is internally consistent.
b) is not contradicted by real world observations.
and
c) is roughly in the same ballpark as what other theists would generally agree is what they worship.
Here’s the non-definition you posted:
That’s just babbling, frankly. What possible evidence could support the existence of such a thing?
You’re projecting again. You have provided nothing in any discussion on this site other than baseless claims that you refuse to support.
was that one of your criteria?
1) is not
2) I keep forgetting that you have appointed yourself decider in chief. Your life must be simple when you can simply decide stuff by fiat without any explanation or argument
peace
It’s a good sanity check of whether or not a definition deserves the name. A related way of putting it would be to ask how one might distinguish between a god and a non-god based on what you’ve written.
OK
among other things
It can not be said of a non-god that he cannot be comprehended of any but himself, dwelling in that inaccessible light, that no eye can attain unto, whom never man saw, nor can see;
and
It can not be said of a non-god that he is of Himself, that is, neither from another, nor of another, nor by another, nor for another:
I could go on but you get the point.
peace
Why not just say your comment should have been more specific and less general so as to avoid confusion?
No mention of restricting that claim to this thread.
Why do I think I’d be accused of moving the goalposts if I pulled a stunt like that?
If I misinterpreted your first statement I apologize.
You’re delusional [no asterisk].
This is good. This is what you mean by a rigorous definition, so we don’t have to ask what you mean by rigorous?
Right again! But do you also agree that naturalists here show no sophistication? Or, if you disagree, then which one of the principals here shows some?
Erik,
I’ll ask one last time and if I get no response I’ll just assume you guys don’t have one:
Do you think God talked to Moses and many others as the Bible tells us, and that therefore Moses had objective empirical evidence of God?
Do you think Jesus resurrected and performed miracles, and that there were witnesses of those miracles? Did those witnesses also have empirical evidence that Jesus was who he said he was?
Feel free to suggest what you want. Nobody has to comply to suggestions. Proof and evidence would be a different matter.
Basically, you said you have no proof and you don’t care. Don’t be astonished when, in response, people don’t care about what you are saying.
Irrelevant questions, when it comes to me. If you have paid attention, I am not Christian. Not a Jew either.
What are you then if I may ask?
Still nothing stops you from answering those questions. If you’re a classical theist, do you think those things are consistent with the classical theist definition of God or not? You have no problem addressing ID as inconsistent with classical theism, why not the Bible? or the Torah? Or the Quran?
Ouch.
But I think KN has at least put forth some effort. Perhaps he is not alone?
Do you have any objective empirical evidence that you are not a Christian and that you are not a Jew…
blah … blah … blah…
You look like a duck, you swim like a duck, you quack like a duck… Therefore… you’re a duck.
To an atheist, everyone else looks like a duck.
Yes, I think God spoke to Moses and others.
If you hear a voice, do you immediately assume that you have no objective empirical evidence of a speaker?
No? Thought not.
Do you have any evidence at all that this God who speaks does not also act?
No? Thought not.
What would objective empirical evidence of God look like, to an atheist?
Yes, I think Jesus performed miracles and that Jesus was resurrected. That there were both witnesses to his miracles and to his having been raised from the dead.
Do you have any objective empirical evidence to the contrary?
No? Thought not.
Isn’t that obvious?
IOW, they didn’t just hear some voice, as you suggest was the case with Moses and others, but they also saw things [which you appear to deny of Moses and others]. But why you should accord a higher priority to seeing than hearing is not yet clear.
Do tell.
You obviously never understood my argument. I completely agree that would count as objective empirical evidence
so…
if Moses and Jesus’ witnesses had objective empirical evidence of God…
and if the classical God is defined as imperceptible, undetectable, and therefore demanding objective empirical evidence for Him is nonsensical…
then it follows that the God of the Bible couldn’t be the classical theistic God
Mung,
Remember that you started this thread to mock Patrick. He’s been asking for evidence and you (finally?) admit that the god you believe in can be shown to exist, empirically. Now you’re without excuse, you can’t pull the classical theistic “God can’t be probed empirically therefore it makes no sense to ask for empirical evidence”
Where’s the evidence Mung?
Good.
As I see it, most of the people at TSZ don’t have the time or patience for serious scholarship. They come to TSZ because they enjoy talking with others, there’s a pleasure in intellectual conversation, and it’s a bit addictive. I’m not going to start lecturing anyone here, “well, you ought to read Dewey!” or berating them for not being up to date on philosophy of science. There are some people here who strike me as having the time and interest for more substantive philosophy, and to them I’m willing to say, “if you’re interested in sophisticated contemporary naturalism, then you might consider reading ____”.
That said, BruceS was one of the people I found most interesting to talk with here. I don’t know why he hasn’t been active here in the past few months. I very much enjoyed our discussions in philosophy of cognitive science.
Now do the right thing and go tell classical theistic christians they’re full of it instead of pestering atheists with consistent worldviews. Go Mung, Go, go, go, go!
BruceS, Reciprocating Bill, _hotshoe, Elizabeth… All MIA.
And perhaps there are others I missed.
Of course not. I’m an apatheist (H/T KN) and have an interest in religion that is limited to it’s historical, cultural and political aspects. Like most humans, as a first approximation I tend to think other people are like me in how their thoughts, beliefs, imagination etc work, but I do feel on the outside of things when spiritual matters are discussed. The whole concept seems to me so obviously a product of human invention, yet for others it would appear to be a real and central part of their existence. I find it baffling and have often remarked there must be more to this difference than just worldview. Perhaps there is a genetic element.
Isn’t that for mathematicians?
Evidence (like British civilisation) would be a marvellous thing. I’m inclined to side with P Z Myers on evidence for Gods, though. It’s hard for me to see what could possibly count as evidence for the supernatural. I could be a brain in a vat for instance*.
Not really. What I think is the only evidence we have for the supernatural and religious ideas such as gods is what people assert or repeat from other people’s assertions. Proof is for mathematicians.
Communication is worth it if there’s something to share. I find condescension quite a turnoff to communication.
ETA *not seriously!
Sure. Snowflake, sleet, hail, raindrop development. Erosion formation of river canyons. Mesa formation. Mountain range formation. Cloud formation. Hurricane formation. Forest succession. Particle organization on beaches around the world. Solar system formation and planetary organization and movement.
I think you’re missing the point here. It’s not a question of “incomplete understanding of the system” that some percentage of people are allergic to opioids, others are highly susceptible to addiction to them, and still others (like me) who are completely unaffected by them. This is simply a case where people have variation in their biological makeup. Some of that variation is highly unpredictable.
The point appears to be that you have no idea what you mean when you use the word “god”. You explicitly admit that you can’t comprehend your own god concept.
I guess I’ll have to wait for someone else to provide the definition and evidence to save my soul.
I would be more than happy to consider a design perspective of value if someone who was a proponent could…you know…actually demonstrate some value. Simply stating that you see some value in it or that you assume it has some doesn’t do much for anyone.
I have a son who is experiencing this now. He’s dating a girl from a fundamentalist religious family. She’s fallen (so to speak) somewhat far from that tree, but is still close to her parents. Before my son went to spend a week with her and her family I warned him that the attitudes toward religion would be quite a bit different than he was used to, given that the majority of his friends are either non-religious or cultural Jews. He thought I was overstating the case. He came back telling me I hadn’t emphasized it enough.
Even though I grew up in that environment, like you it still bemuses me that people take it so seriously.
On a related note, the first thing the girlfriend’s mother said to her after meeting him was “He’s a nice boy. He needs Jesus.” I suggested he ask how she knows our lawn needs mowing*, but evidently we have different senses of humor.
* Yes, the lawn service company we use is owned by a Mexican-American. It’s not as racist a joke as it could be.
Apparently Mung, FMM, and co worship Happy Fun Ball…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Fun_Ball
Robin,
I think this is a valid criticism.
Hahahaha, I’m a fan of insult comedy, and this is a winner. Offending two groups in a single joke… well played, sir, well played
I’m going to print this out and show it to my wife the next time I get the raised eyebrow “You think that’s funny?” look.
You do know that there is a difference between a conception of something and the thing itself?
I don’t have to fully comprehend Quantum Mechanics to know what is meant by the term.
I don’t have to fully comprehend a soliloquy written in Sanskrit to know if I’m holding one in my hand.
Just because you don’t like the definition does not mean that a definition has not been given. I’ve given one that meets all of the criteria you gave.
You have not even disputed that fact.
Pretending that a definition has not been offered is difficult when it’s right in front of you.
peace
When some tells me something is for my own good, I count the silverware.
That sums up the entire atheist enterprise in one sentence.
The atheist refuses to trust that God is good and is therefore left to his own devises…..hell is endlessly counting the silverware when the streets are paved with gold.
Peace
There is no atheist enterprise that claims to speak for or represents atheists as far as I am aware. Atheism is just a point of view on the existence of gods.
As I’ve said before, atheists are a disparate group. The only commonality is that they reject the concept of “gods”.
I guess people who reject the idea of “gods” can decide for themselves what risks they are running by doing so
Or perhaps, as Sartre suggested, hell s other people! 🙂
Peace
Enterprises generally don’t speak. Generally enterprises are projects mounted to achieve a goal.
IMO for the atheist the overarching goal is to rid yourself of that pesky feeling that you are not the one who is in charge here.
No offense but I would vehemently disagree. I see all sorts of commonalities among atheists.
The problem with deciding for yourself what risks you are running is that your information is by definition incomplete.
Because you are not God.
For the narcissist that would certainly be the case. Nothing like competing interests to complicate the self love.
😉
peace
Not even close. Here’s what I asked for:
I’m interested in a definition of “god” that:
a) is internally consistent.
b) is not contradicted by real world observations.
and
c) is roughly in the same ballpark as what other theists would generally agree is what they worship.
Here’s what you provided:
So let’s go step-by-step. Is your description internally consistent? You say your god “cannot be comprehended of any but himself”, which makes it impossible to determine internal consistency by definition. You also use words like “spirit” without defining those.
Is the entity you describe contradicted by real world observations? You claim it “gives being . . . to all other things” and is “infinite in . . . justice, goodness . . . .” Since we observe injustice and evil in the real world your description fails that criteria.
Is the entity you describe roughly in the same ballpark as what other theists would generally agree is what they worship? I’ll give you half credit for this one. When pressed by non-believers, many theists will spew nonsense like yours. In the pews, though, they demonstrate that they actually believe in an anthropomorphic sky daddy.
Your non-definition is not sufficiently coherent to be useful for distinguishing between a god and a non-god.
No, atheists simply lack belief in any god or gods in the first place. We’d need some evidence that such a thing actually exists before discussing any other characteristics.
You need to interact with and actually listen to some actual atheists instead of basing your views on the boogeyman version you hear from the pulpit.
Has nothing to do with god.
Has to do with my experience with people who attempt to control or manipulate me with silly threats or silly promises.
So do I. Condescension such as knowing to have nothing meaningful to contribute to conversation on the topic, yet pretending to have the high ground in it You know that you have nothing meaningful to contribute, because you are eternally baffled how people can take the topic seriously.
Is it baffling when people take mathematical proof seriously? Metaphysical proofs and mathematical proofs are of the same nature. Ask KN if you don’t believe me. If the one is serious, then so is the other. These things were always serious in terms of being subject to logical proof, had you ever encountered an actual theist of sound theology, not just indifferent nominal Christians and over-the-top sectarian fundies.
If I were like you, I should not take, for example, physics seriously, because in real life I have met only crude Newtonians and entrenched Einsteinians who are either dim or dismissive of quantum mechanics. Luckily I have read up some on quantum mechanics and theoretical physics myself to know better. You, on the other hand, have not studied metaphysics and theology with any sense of understanding, yet you think you have things to suggest, without realizing that someone else might be much better informed in this area. How condescending!
Erik,
Perhaps!
A.K.A. atheism
Why would you think I’d agree with you on this specific point? I don’t agree with that at all!
Or, more precisely: I recognize that pre-Kantian rationalists thought that there were metaphysical proofs identical in structure (but not in content) with mathematical proofs. But I also think that the arguments of Kant and post-Kantian philosophers (esp. Peirce) are decisive in showing that the pre-Kantian rationalists were mistaken about that!
I think it is fair to say I have never knowingly studied theology, so whether there is something to understand has yet to be answered.
That happens. Darwin wrote his On the Origin of Species without realising Patrick Matthew had already proposed the essentials of his theory.
Disagree. Ignorance is treatable. If there is an important treatise on theology that you think might persuade me to change my view about the supernatural, I’ll give it a go. If it helps I’m more sympathetic towards Buddhism and Quakerism than I am to the various Christian sects. And you have said you are not a Christian so I can be spared all that nonsense, presumably.
1) You are still confusing a concept with the thing itself, God can be internally inconsistent and my definition be perfectly consistent.
2) You don’t have to fully comprehend a thing to know that it is internally consistent. I don’t fully comprehend the universe but I know it’s internally consistent.
There are lots of words in the definition and I did not define any of them. If you like I can define all if them one at a time. Just say the word.
1) You have not demonstrated that there is injustice and evil in the world. I’m not sure how you would do so. How would you objectively measure it?
2) injustice and evil don’t have any being. They are simply the negation of justice and good. A lack of being if you will
1) My definition and ones similar to it are recited in the pews most Sundays. It’s studied in Sunday schools and expounded on from pulpits.
2) You are constantly telling me that I should accept what you claim to believe about God. It’s beyond hypocritical to now ignore what people claim publicly and make judgements about what you think they secretly believe.
Claiming something does not make it so. You need to provide evidence and arguments.
What about the definition is incoherent?
peace
You have repeatedly said that the only God you are interested discussing is the “anthropomorphic sky daddy”. How can you be sure you lack belief in any God when you are so focused on you own particular straw-man?
You have plenty of evidence. There is no need to discuss characteristics.
Yet you seem to be obsessed with the characteristics of the “anthropomorphic sky daddy” of your imagination .
Peace