http://debate.atheist.net What exists and how do we know it? What is good and what is evil? Reason or faith? Discuss the meaning of concepts, human understanding, and the nature of knowledge. en Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:41:01 GMT vBulletin 60 http://debate.atheist.net/images/element/misc/rss.jpg http://debate.atheist.net http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3887&goto=newpost Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:20:00 GMT The broad definition of atheist is simply lack of belief in gods. By this definition a baby would be an atheist (the baby lacks the belief that gods... The broad definition of atheist is simply lack of belief in gods. By this definition a baby would be an atheist (the baby lacks the belief that gods exist). Now this seems to be the preffered definition on this site (at least when the atheists are claiming babies amongst their rolls for tax fund allocation purposes).

But there is the alternate definition - or the strong atheist who believes that there are no gods.

I do not believe there are gods => weak atheism.
I believe there are no gods => strong atheism.

For my purposes here I will call this strong atheist belief the theory that "There Are No Gods". Or T.A.N.G for short.
(and my apologies to anyone who thinks the word "theory" should be reserved for well established and rigorously proven concepts (facts) - just substitute "hypothesis" if you will)

Now some people on this site seem to believe that TANG is true. They say things like "There are no gods" and "Gods do not exist" etc. so I don't think I am just constructing a straw man.

Now I just spent an hour on the web looking for evidence or proof in favour of the TANG theory. I found many sites and videos that started off claiming they would prove that gods did not exist but what they invariably ended up doing was to demonstrate that theists haven't proven that god DOES exist. Or they demonstrated that a particular concept of god can not exist. At least a few admitted shortly into the article or video that "of course you can't prove that god does NOT exist" even tho the title of the video or article was "proof that god does not exist."

So I have come to at least the tentative conclusion that there is no (or at least minimal) evidence in favor of TANG. And if a theory doesn't have any evidence - isn't it irrational to believe it?

Let me illustrate with the following:

1) There is as much evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn as there is for TANG.
2) Therefore it is equally rational to believe in TANG as it is to believe in the IPU.
3) Atheists think belief in the existence of the IPU is ridiculous.
4) Therefore atheists should think that belief in TANG is ridiculous.


Or alternately:

P1 There are equal amounts of evidence for both TANG and the IPU (none).
C1 If it is rational to believe in TANG, it is rational to believe in the IPU.
P2 Atheists think it's irrational to believe in the IPU.
C2 Atheists should think it's irrational to believe in TANG.

Whaddaya think?:insecure: ]]> Philosophy 1dave1 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3887 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3886&goto=newpost Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:26:23 GMT I can't work out what all the fuss about compatibilism is. It seems not to refute determinism but to redefine free will as lack of coercion by some agent. As uncoerced choice if you will.

Does anyone have a more interesting definition where compatibilism is defined in terms that determinists would find unacceptable? ]]> Philosophy GordonHide http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3886 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3862&goto=newpost Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:04:15 GMT Sam Harris has written a new book “The moral Landscape” in which he argues that Science can inform moral decision making in more than just the... Sam Harris has written a new book “The moral Landscape” in which he argues that Science can inform moral decision making in more than just the trivial sense of providing objective factual data.

He seems to believe that science can inform our moral values and objectives. I would like to believe he is right. What do you think?

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_t...th-sam-harris/ ]]> Philosophy GordonHide http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3862 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3846&goto=newpost Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:16:04 GMT I felt like we've dealt with the First Cause argument, and I am well pleased with your contributions. As part of my knocking down Aquinas' five 'proofs' I have started this topic to examine and refute the fourth proof, which I believe to be an ontological argument, but I am not entirely sure if it is or not.

The Argument from Degree

"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."

I don't really understand this argument at all, at least not in the sense that it is logically plausible. I mean, is he saying that because we can conceive of something that is great, it must exist?? This would seem to me to be axiomatically false. Does that entail that there exists something that is maximally ugly? What about the contradictions? If there is something that is maximally good, wouldn't there also be a being that is maximally evil? How could both co-exist??
If someone is capable of deciphering this I would kindly ask they post it here in premise form, ie:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
Conclusion:

That would be much appreciated.

I would also like if someone could please confirm or deny that his fourth proof is an ontological argument, I believe it is but I am only doubtful because from what I have read, St Thomas Aquinas criticized the ontological argument several times during his lifetime, so therefor I would think it odd that he include it as his fourth proof.


His fifth argument is an argument from design, the teleological argument, and I don't think that needs discussing here, evolution has already blown that out of the water.

HELPFUL LINKS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Thomas_Aquinas

Thanks in advance,
OhMan. ]]> Philosophy OhMan http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3846 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3571&goto=newpost Fri, 06 Aug 2010 02:46:05 GMT I would like to take a look at this argument objectively. Not as an argument for an attempt to prove Yahweh (for which it horribly fails), but as an... I would like to take a look at this argument objectively. Not as an argument for an attempt to prove Yahweh (for which it horribly fails), but as an argument for the "beginning" of our universe.

The way I see it, we have an infinite regress: "everything has a cause".
And something that "breaks" the infinite regress: "the unmoved mover, the first cause".

We must ask the question, why is this first cause exempt from the infinite regress?

Or we must also ask ourselves, are infinite causal loops a possible answer to the problem?


EDIT: I heard molecular physics demonstrates that molecules move around without anything required to push them (unmoved movers), this would completely devastate the view that everything that moves must have a mover. Can anyone confirm this? (Got it off Wikipedia.)

Input, please! ]]> Philosophy OhMan http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3571 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3556&goto=newpost Mon, 02 Aug 2010 08:21:30 GMT Hi there! I've been suffering from writer's block for a very long time now, so I thought I'd get myself registered on a forum. Here goes my first post.

The past few months I've been fixated on the phenomenon known as communication. Mainly language and interaction between beings. It started out as pure fascination, now it's more like a thinking-trap. Wherever I turn my head I see communication, whenever there's a question I find some sort of communication all over the answer and whenever there's trouble I start looking for acute flaws in the pattern of interactions involved. We are in many ways exclusively identified by these actions.

Our spoken/written languages will be the topic:
I sometimes wonder if we run the language or if we simply run according to it. I think the answer is somewhere in between. The urge to communicate seems to be genetic, and our methods of communication have been inherited since oblivion. It has always been the standard tool for all judgement.

I was going to write shitloads of text 'cause I've been thinking about this a lot and there's a lot I'd like do discuss. But this being a forum and all I figured the discussion will unfold by it self.

There are loads of situations in life where language leave you helpless and confused. Why? Let me know your own thoughts about language in general, it's influence on the intellect, in society, religion or science. Bad things, good things, whatever. There's language in everything. Communicate! ]]> Philosophy RiceMother http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3556 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3549&goto=newpost Sun, 01 Aug 2010 05:57:37 GMT It has always been a desperate consequence of my atheism that I have not been able to reconcile with my day-to-day reality. If I am honest, I need to... It has always been a desperate consequence of my atheism that I have not been able to reconcile with my day-to-day reality. If I am honest, I need to come to terms with it. But how? ]]> Philosophy Sparkletts http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3549 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3531&goto=newpost Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:30:23 GMT I once heard tell, I can't think where of however, of this interesting little theory.
Now, imagine this: a species of intelligent creatures creates a society advanced enough that it is capable of digitally reproducing an accurate universe on an entirely virtual scale. Now, if it is an accurate universe, then that would mean that the creation is capable of creating artificial intelligence with a level of intellect equal to that of the creators, if not surpassing it. In that case, in this virtual world, it is possible that another virtual world can be created, and the pattern can continue, with world inside world inside world, much like the effect created when two mirrors are pointed at each other.
Theoretically, were this to happen, then millions of worlds would be created, one after another. Now think about this: what are the odds that we live in that one "real" world rather than one of the virtual duplicates?
Very, very, slim.
Just an interesting thing to think about. ]]> Philosophy Vermillion http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3531 http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3529&goto=newpost Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:27:38 GMT Ok, so I'm an 18 year old guy and I live in England. As I've grown up I've thought more and more about life, and what exactly we're doing here. I've found that looking at things from a non-human perspective casts the world in a very different light.

The human body, and every other 'body' or organism on the planet and maybe beyond is a machine. We ourselves are extremely complex but take insects; they observe a stimuli and respond to it. Responding to the correct stimuli in the correct ways increases chances of survival and so by the process of evolution this system becomes more and more complex until the organism made up of millions of single celled organisms develops a conscience. Now this may seem like a gift, but to me it just makes the whole of humanity seem pathetic and dumb!
The human body does a good job at surviving, and it's amazing to think that it's developed from a single celled organism. However, it doesn't do that efficient a job, we have to waste time eating, sleeping, and of course trying to reproduce. Maybe in the future people will abandon their inefficient bodies in favor of a machine which supports the parts of our brain required to have a conscience.
So I've given a zoomed in picture of the waste of life we spend here on Earth, but when I look at the big picture things get bleak.
There's no god. That's been obvious to me since I can remember, it's just a retarded idea that goes against all science. I just don't understand how people can believe in god. Are they all just dumb? Are we more influenced by our parents than we'd like to think? (the people I know who believe in god have religious families) Or do people find the prospect of life without some kind of supernatural being watching over them, or perhaps of death being the end, too daunting to deal with?
I admit that unless the universe has existed forever it must have started somewhere...where did it come from? What was there before? Some people would say god, personally I find that explanation almost comical, a 5 year old could come up with a more logical answer.
There's so many unanswered questions and so much we don't know, but one thing really digs at me. The universe is huge and perhaps isn't the only universe or is part of a much bigger picture. The human race is a species of evolved monkeys who have managed to gain a conscience and ponder their existence; we're stuck on a rock in the milkyway galaxy and we're totally and unimaginably insignificant. Nothing we do matters, if anything we have a negative effect on our environment, not that that matters because everything just exists, nothing has a purpose it just exists because it can exist. We all go about our pathetic insignificant wasted lives and nobody at all seems to think! Why am I waking up in the morning? Why find a job? Why bother to do anything? There's no point to any of it!

The only positive outlook I can draw from all this is simply stick around on Earth and see what happens, enjoy yourself, who cares if eating and fucking are only fun because our body responds to the hormones they cause to be released. But still, that perspective doesn't always get me through...
So this is an Atheism forum, if there's people who think out there then maybe I'll find you here. Does anyone have any views on what I've said? ]]> Philosophy spacedog http://debate.atheist.net/showthread.php?t=3529