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.
walto,
Well, duh. If you haven’t noticed, people who engage in debates usually think they’re right and that the other person is wrong. Their disagreement is the reason for the debate.
The back-and-forth ideally leads to the discovery of who, if either, is actually right.
I’ve made my latest volley. Let’s see if Patrick returns it.
Meanwhile, what’s with the following bit of dishonesty? Can you really not help yourself?
I haven’t said anything like that. You’re making shit up again, walto.
Are you kidding, Ray? You won’t even suggest that you know your own name!! It’s modesty like that that makes this place absolutely HUM!
Let’s back up to my original statement:
1. I fail to see how one could be an atheist without lacking belief
2. nor can I see any other requirement for being an atheist.
Which of these statements about my personal understanding is wrong, and how do you know I’m wrong about what I can see?
Walto, can you understand the difference between a claim that something is such and such, and a statement that I cannot see otherwise?
Now, I would be willing to follow a link to a clear demonstration that one can be an atheist without lacking belief, and I would follow a link to a clear demonstration that one cannot be an atheist simply by lacking belief, but I am not going to reread an entire lengthy thread, particularly since I saw no meeting of the minds in that thread.
Something must have been less than clear.
My problem is with 2. Rocks lack beliief in Gods but are not atheists. This matter was discussed at great length in that thread, and I have no interest in rehashing. If you’re interested in the highlights, I recommend Allan Miller’s contributions.
But I disagree with your post, and I see no reason to suggest that i’m using words strangely just because I disagree with you. A number of people do, as can be seen on that thread.
walto,
Your argument was a red herring, as I pointed out at the time:
You never did.
Notice that petrushka is talking about one who lacks belief, not something that lacks belief.
I think it strange that the word “one”, in the context of my statement, requires a qualification that excludes rocks.
There is such a thing in polite society as benefit of the doubt in informal chat.
And if that leads to a WTF moment, there is always the possibility of asking for clarification.
I do not wish to rehash the other long thread, but I can’t resist asking one clarifying question. Back in the days of the Vietnam war, I had to fill out a form for dog tags. In the place for religion, I put “none”. Back in college, there was a dorm section that called itself “The Nones.”
Would an ordinary person hesitate to think a “none” to be an atheist?
I guess I don’t understand why every personal statement of understanding has to be treated as a declaration of war.
I am a fallible human being who lapses into flame war mode on occasion, but I am truely trying to avoid the I’m right you’re wrong kind of post. I try to post things as my opinion or my understanding.
I have spent nearlr sixty years avoiding the atheist label, not for any philosophical reason, but because it would have made my family unhappy and in some cases, made employment less likely. Aside from my wife, I have never had a non churchgoing friend. It has, on occasion, been lonely being a none.
On the internet, atheism carries a lot of baggage. The people who have been vocal atheists have also been vocal about politics.
I do not wish to be paired with political atheism or with firebrands.
I believe that people who talk about aarklefarkel don’t know what they’re talking about. I believe that people who talk as though I might believe in aarklefarkel don’t know what they’re talking about.
petrushka,
Aside from my daughter, a neighbour and possibly the creationist I met at the local folk club, I don’t know anyone who attends church regularly. Very different cultures.
Of course I responded to all your customary drivel, Cranward, perhaps thirty times, on that thread and will not do so again.
Sorry, I’m not going to play pseudo-Socratic games with you. This isn’t my first rodeo — I’m very familiar with the dodging and weaving tactics of theists challenged to provide actual evidence for their beliefs.
Define exactly what you mean by “god” and provide whatever evidence you think you have for it, then we can discuss it.
That does not follow from what Nick wrote. There are many reasons why people are atheists. The only characteristic they necessarily share is lack of belief in a god or gods. Personally, I am an atheist because I’ve never seen any evidence for, or even a consistent definition, of any gods. Such entities could exist and have provided no evidence, of course. That would make it rational to be an atheist while still being wrong.
petrushka comes right to the point. That’s the perfect challenge to theistic beliefs. Of course, the usual caveats about no special pleading and no double standards apply.
I get no results searching for Cranward on this site, and no google results searching for cranward and atheism.
I intend to, but I’m traveling. I’ll re-read the thread and try to reply later this week.
Haha, Cranward.
I told you twice already, petrushka. Check Allan’s contributions. (Will this third time be the charm?)
ETA: Re Cranward, maybe that’s the wrong name. I don’t see how *I* can be expected to remember it if he/she doesn’t know it him/herself!
I found two Allen Miller comments:
I’m having browser troubles, so it’s a bit difficult to copy and paste. more later.
Walto, I found this post of yours to me:
I have given thought to what kind of person is mentally capable of being an atheist. If you read my posts you might recall my specialty was special education.
It’s just that in an informal chat I assume some minimal level of good will among interlocutors. I would hate to add you to a list that includes phoodoo and mung and people who insist on full, formal academic level qualification of simple statements.
I am not personally aware of any culture in which humans of normal intelligence are not exposed to the concept of religion. Some are encouraged to adopt a religion, and some are discouraged, but most are exposed.
The sticking point here may be that I think — for the purpose of saying someone is an atheist — it is unimportant to know why a person is not a believer in deities. Nor do I think it is important to know what other ideas or opinions a person may hold. I do not think it is important to know whether a person is merely skeptical, or whether a person strongly asserts that gods do not exist.
The word atheist carries baggage — not unlike the baggage carried by political labels, such as socialist or capitalist. I personally understand why people resist being labeled. Labels carry social consequences. I also understand why some people are proud to be labeled and carry banners and wave flags. I am not one of those people.
Yes, people can be wrong. But since we are the people, then who is to say which one of us is wrong? And, more importantly, wrong in what way and why.
Again, atheism is, as per Neil, an inscrutable and unimpeachable psychological state, according to Alan, atheists are a disparate group, and according to Glen, atheism is an empirical, cognitive state instead, while petrushka plays monkey with it.
Who is right? Just you? Why?
Patrick,
I have defined God as the creator of the universe we live in, for argument sake. If you want a more specific definition then I would not be prepared to make an argument.
I read an interesting Scientific American article a while back, which posited our universe as deriving from a phase change in some pre-existing condition. Quite possibly, a dynamic pre-existing condition might from time to time give rise to such phase changes, in the form of new universes. Now, what that pre-existing condition might be like, I couldn’t follow the math. The article was not religious, but I suppose it could be made to seem that way.
Flint,
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on a Universe from nothing and it was interesting from a pure physics stand point but required the four universal forces to exist especially gravity. The question is what caused all we are experiencing. Could it be a random accident? Was an intelligent creator behind it? IMHO there is evidence supporting both positions which make the discussion fascinating.
Patrick and Neil appear to prefer a non-falsifiable atheism. And yet they demand a falsifiable theism.
Can you imagine the outrage of theists to a Patrickatheism approach to theism, in which it doesn’t matter whether or not God actually exists?
That’s Patrickatheism. God could actually exist, and Patrickatheism could still be true.
??? How can you “falsify” a lack of belief? Presumably you lack belief in the vast majority of all the gods people have worshiped. Can you try to falsify your lack in such beliefs?
Bullshit. They don’t “appear” to “prefer” anything. They’re simply saying they don’t buy the premise of theism in the absence of empirical evidence.
Where did anyone demand that theism be falsified? That would be impossible.
I’m not sure what you mean by “evidence” in this case. I recall that the phase-change model was at least consistent with most hypotheses about the nature of the big bang and inflation. Perhaps you are saying that attributing the universe to an intelligent creator is consistent with the religious propensity to attribute everything else to an intelligent creator?
I don’t see that being consistent with one or more hypothetical models really constitutes “evidence” as we generally understand it.
Why? Since atheism isn’t falsified if God does really exist.
By which I mean Patrickatheism.
Prove that god exists and they might rethink the issue. Wouldn’t that be nice?
All this seems to be saying is that given an agreement to follow certain rules disputes may be resolved regardless of the objects under dispute.
That tells us nothing about how “success” ought to be measured unless we define success as “capable of resolving disputes.” Where’s the value in that?
If people agree what the rules of chess state we can successfully resolve disputes about chess. Sports comes to mind as well. What does empiricism have to do with it?
I don’t just think I’m right I know I’m right. Which is why you should listen to me. Oh ye who lack knowledge. Can you sense me now?
This belongs in your thread on refusing to admit mistakes. That people aren’t really debating to arrive at the truth, but rather to demonstrate who is right and who is wrong. You may be on to something.
Where do I demand that?
Patrick’s afraid someone might ask him for evidence that God does not exist.
Patrick is a disbeliever:
– inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.
But God forbid he should provide a reason, or objective empirical evidence, for his disbelief.
Is it ok if we call you a disbeliever Patrick, or is that too strong a word for you? Do you also lack disbelief, or do you merely lack belief?
Exactly. Patrickatheism is not falsifiable. If the actual existence of God would falsify atheism we might have something worth debating. Else we’re just engaged in polling.
Several scenarios come to mind.
1. Lack of belief is not a positive assertion about the existence or nonexistence of something. A jury verdict of not guilty is not the same thing as a declaration of innocence. It says not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. The standard of proof required for belief in a deity is a personal thing. You are free to think my standard is wacked. That doesn’t bother me, and I see no reason why you should have any interest in my personal belief or nonbelief.
I was suggesting that there’s a category error here. I can (and surely do) sincerely believe things that are actually false. Discovering my error doesn’t “falsify” the fact that my belief was incorrect — it genuinely and truly WAS my belief. So it only falsifies the contents of my belief, which is something different.
As I understand it, the atheists here aren’t categorically saying that NONE of the many proposed gods have existed. They are saying that the empirical evidence for any of them is unconvincing. There is plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
Flint,
Evidence is made up of facts that support the hypothesis. Phase-change is probably not evidence but a hypothesis based on evidence.
And this justifies the belief? Now apply the same reasoning to theism. Is theism justified merely by the fact that it’s genuinely a belief, even if the content of the belief were wrong? Is any belief justified this way?
You are not demontrating a category error. Instead, you are asserting a distinction where it’s inappropriate. The discussion is not whether a/theism is a belief or not, but whether it’s right, wrong, justifiable, good or bad, things like that.
Different atheists are saying different things. Some say God does not exist. Some say God probably does not exist. Some say they have not seen evidence for God. Some say belief in God is evil or stupid. All different statements with different motivation and implications, but all characteristic to atheism.
And there is a particular additional feature in modern Western atheism – give the word “g/God” a meaning you want it to have, never acknowledge the meaning that theists attribute to it. This feature is manifest in the Sam Harris video in the other thread.
The good thing about Sam Harris is that he actually defines God. Definitions are good for clarity. The bad thing is it is not the God any Christian believes in, apart from literalist fundies. This way Sam Harris reduces all believers to literalist fundies and is willing to engage the topic only on that dummy level. To be fair to him, I am not aware of any atheist active in this century who would be on a better level than this.
Besides, in the video Harris is not even talking to a Christian, but he can operate with just that one single concept of God. And there are still people who invite him to speak about religion…
Last time I checked, chess and sports were examples of rules being applied to objects with determinable sensible properties and spatio-temporal events. If you want to know if a king is going to be checked in two moves, you need to know not just the criteria of “being in check” and the legal moves of the relevant pieces, but also you need to be able to look at a chess-board, recognize a piece by its shape and size, distinguish between White and Black, and so on.
That’s what it means to say that chess and baseball are not exclusively formal, as logic and mathematics (arguably) are.
And that’s the contrast I was aiming to draw — not between social practices that are rule-governed and those that are not (for there are no social practices that are not rule-governed), but between rule-governed social practices that also involve states of affairs in the world (games, sports, science) and rule-governed social practices that do not (logic, maybe mathematics).
In games and sports, we are not testing our hypotheses — though of course the outcome of the game partially depends on the world, and even how the rules are to be applied depends on how the world is. (To know whether there was a touch-down in American football, you need to know not just the rules of the game but also being able to observe the relative position of the running back’s knee to the end-zone when he attempted to make the goal.)
In constructing models of phenomena and testing them in experiments and further observations, we are bringing our hypotheses to bear against the world in a more deliberate and controlled way, and so our rules are revised in light of phenomena.
There’s much more to the story than that, but it’s enough to illustrate the differences between logic and mathematics on the one hand, and games, sports, and sciences on the other hand.
What do they have in common, other than lack of belief?
Interest in the subject.
That’s a claim about something your god did, not what it is.
You’re unable to define what it is you worship? Strange.
In any case, what evidence do you have for this entity?
PS: I’m traveling, so responses may be infrequent for the next couple of days. I apologize in advance.
The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. Theists are claiming that a god or gods exist. The burden of proof is on them.
It’s just atheism. People who lack a belief in a god or gods lack that belief for many different reasons. My personal reason is the utter lack of any evidence for such entities. They could still exist, but until the evidence is presented there is no reason to consider that possibility.
I’m hardly afraid of people asking stupid questions — if I were I’d be unlikely to engage with IDCists such as your good self.
You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. You’re the one claiming a god exists. Provide some evidence for it.
I’ll go along. An atheist is a person of normal intelligence (capable of language, forming sentences and such) who has been made aware of claims that deities exist, and who doesn’t believe in the existence of deities.
I would say that there have been so many religious claims made in the course of human history that it is impossible to actively disbelieve them all. Nor, I think, is it possible to be interested in all the claims.
After a while, one can generalize about extraordinary claims, including claims of UFOs, ESP, pyramid power, XENU, and so forth, and one can simply say, show me.
So I would say any normal person who is without belief is an atheist. I really don’t care if political activists wish to associate the term with orthogonal propositions.