Atheism is a paradox and it results in chaos and madness.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Also something to point out. All theists are human All humans lack total experience All theists lack total experience Therefore theists don't exist either in this strict understanding of objectivity. Either the human atheist or the human theist are drawing conclusions from a non-totality of experience.

Actually, the argument does not preclude the existence of theists. The atheist claims to exist in his/her lack of belief/disbelief while at the same time needing to acknowledge, without dispute, the lack of total experience.

Conversely, the theist simply claims experience leading to a belief in God/gods/deity. Since the claim is made, evidence is demanded. That evidence is provided as a personal experience. Since that experience is outside the experience of the atheist, the atheist can make no claim regarding its validity/invalidity. Never and in perpetuity. This is not to say the experience of the theist cannot be wrong; of course, it could. Proving that, however, is an impossibility. The lack of this proof does not negate the possibility of theists.

Further, I begin to address this quote in this post.

Agnosticism as I understand it (as it was originally meant) is the methodology and not the position. Either way within the body of atheists many hold a belief based on how I am thinking you are calling agnostic.

Ultimately, the definition provided by www.atheists.org... is fundamentally indistinguishable from that of agnosticism.

Please see this:

‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it.

I can find nothing more descriptive or synonymous with the word "lack," (as utilized in the definition of atheist at atheist.org) than this definition of agnostic provided by Stanford. If an atheist stops at defining his/herself at the position of "lack of belief," they are nothing more than an agnostic as it stands. Of course, the definition provided at atheist.org may be changed further, but what is/would be the point except to serve or fuel the paradox?

reply to post by totallackey


I read this a couple weeks ago. I will read it again when I awake. I remember getting clarification from it I just don't remember what the clarification was

It's called Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism and it's from Atheists dot org

www.atheists.org...

I had a long painful day though so I am expiring for now.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Thank you and I hope you are able to resolve some, if not all, of the pain with some deserved rest.

The author, David Eller, presents this statement in the article you reference:

This general issue was raised in these pages by Tony Pasquarello, who distinguished between Atheism and what he called Natheism (as if we need another neologism!), the former being the good old dictionary-definition version of belief that there is no such thing as god(s) and the latter being a new position of rejecting belief without rejecting god(s). [1] This second position, which is sometimes called weak or negative Atheism, I also find incoherent, as I have argued in a previous article. [2] What could it possibly mean to say that I don't believe in X but I am not maintaining there is no X? That is why I concluded that all Atheism is positive Atheism - we do not believe in X because we maintain there is no X.

"All Atheism is positive Atheism - we do not believe in X because maintain there is no X." This sounds extremely definitive to me and is contradictory to the definition "lack of belief." It is more akin to "disbelief." And when I say akin I mean this:

Disbelief = we do not believe in X because we maintain there is no X.

In no uncertain terms, this can only be construed as there are no deities. It is a final statement on the state of the Atheist and the possibility of a deity. The atheist denies the existence of a god.

Further stated:

First, Agnosticism is not an alternative position to Atheism, because Agnosticism and Atheism are completely different kinds of phenomena, not simply different positions on the same continuum. Agnosticism is in fact not a position at all but a method for arriving at a position. It is not on the belief spectrum in any sense.

Ignoring Eller's fundamental contextual contradictory stance (on the one hand, they [Atheism and Agnosticism] lie on the same continuum, but agnosticism is not on the belief spectrum), and continuing to this:

Agnosticism, then, is not a branch of religion but of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge: what is it possible to say that we know with some acceptable degree of certainty, and how do we know that we know it? More accurately, it is a method in regard to knowledge, a method for separating out what we can justifiably say we know from what we cannot justifiably say we know. It is certainly not a body of particular knowledge, nor is it a position to take on any particular issue. It is the process by which to arrive at such knowledge on which to base one's position. In this sense, it is entirely consistent with - in fact, it is virtually the same thing as - reason. It is the demand for true facts and valid logic as the grounds for one's sound conclusions. In the absence of true facts and valid logic, one cannot call one's conclusions sound and should be at least cautious if not self-critical about them.

We find this position would only serve to solidify my argumentation. Remember, Eller claims the atheist derives his knowledge/lack of belief/disbelief from performing the method of Agnosticism. In other words, the atheist would, "demand true facts and valid logic as the grounds for one's sound conclusions." On the other hand, if atheism is truly defined as "lack of belief," well, of course, it too cannot lie on the proposed belief spectrum.

The true facts are this:

All atheists are human
All humans lack total experience
All atheists lack total experience

Since evidence of or the deity itself may lie outside the realm of experience of the atheist, the atheist cannot exist.

The argumentation provided by Eller is intellectually inconsistent and dishonest.

reply to post by jiggerj

Good morning! If you are conceding that we come from a consciousness of infinite wisdom, then what can we possibly learn here that we will bring back once we return to that consciousness?

Well.. *clears throat*. Good morning to you, too!
I'm not the one in charge, but I'm thinking it's rather the idea of "experiencing" what one knows can happen.

I don't think every living human is aware of the "wisdom" that some call the indwelling Spirit, others call Enlightenment -- I believe it is a growth curve, and must be lived to be learned.
Plus, I believe that once we have reached the apex of perfect awareness, we become "as gods", just as Jesus (and all the great teachers, in so many words) have reportedly said. Then we needn't return again, unless we choose to as a helper and guide.

But it takes many, many lifetimes to gather all the experiences, to feel all of the pain, joy, sorrow, regret, empathy, compassion, grief, fear, love, despair, awe....that we are capable of. And we also have roles to play as "partners" in learning; we aren't just always the "student"...we also have to do our part as the "teacher", or the "catalyst" for others.

This requires relationships. In my opinion, those relationships transcend our physical lifetimes; we come back in groups, pairs, clusters....until everyone is on the same page. Like the first graders waiting for Timmy to read aloud while he stutters and stumbles over the words in Dick and Jane Walk Home, we must have patience and understanding that Timmy doesn't have the same "equipment" that we do.

A person can read and listen and study all day about the human condition ---- for example that magical feeling of holding one's own newborn child for the first time, looking into its eyes, and instantly falling in love with that "new" human; about how kind and gentle women turn into Mama Bears when that child is threatened....

or any other deeply human experience, whether a homeless junkie, a holocaust survivor, a severe disability....these things must be lived to be truly understood....

and one can't possibly really "get it" unless they have experienced it personally. Like a male gynecologist, or a childless social worker, or a substance abuse counselor who's never had so much as a beer...they may ace the written tests, but if they have not walked the walk of the person they are "helping", they, IMO, are not really, truly qualified to talk to talk.

Hope that makes sense.
Need coffee..

I am not an atheist. I do believe in a higher power (call this God) responsible for the creation of this universe, and I also believe that all religions attempt to 'humanize' God...attach a personality to him, say he is jealous, say he he loves us etc when in reality he doesn't give a # .

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by jiggerj

 

So, you believe in near death experiences? Can you record an event that has already taken place before you turn on your camera? If a brain is completely dead, completely nonfunctional, it simply cannot record a memory before the brain is revived.

that old theory. Don't know if you've been out of the loop for long, but there are plenty studies being done and theories based on nonlocalized conscious that say and theorize that consciousness itself may not be dependent on the brain, but that it may that the brain is dependent on consciousness. This used to be an argument used plenty by materialists, but with all the recent advances and studies in consciousness, no longer holds the same weight as it once did.
reply to post by Klassified

 

Unlike animals, we are able to think and reason on a level they can't.

If Atheism is correct, then all we are is Monkeys 2.0. We are also animals that are merely smarter. So then as male we impregnate the hotter women, elude allimony more efficiently, kill or be killed more rapidly. Just smarter monkeys.

We don't live by the law of the jungle because we learned early on that if we wanted to survive as individuals, and as a species, and work together as a group, we needed to be in agreement with each other. Therefore, we needed rules and ordinances that the group followed.

Even so, with all of that in place we still see people acting like wild animals.

It's quite ironic that you use science to back up your religious claims and then use religious claims to denigrate scientific thought. Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways. Are you trying to be paradoxical on purpose?

I think a more logical way for one to profess his atheism is by saying "I believe the proposition ‘God exists’ is false."

If he says rather “I don't believe in God,” it implies that there is still a God to not believe in. This also invites people to say "Prove there isn't a God" and other strange paradoxical dead-ends. This is because God is still the subject of the sentence; and his existence or non-existence is the predicate. How can something non-exist if it never existed in the first place? For an atheist, God shouldn't even be talked about as the subject.

If the subject of the sentence is no longer ‘God,’ but the proposition "God exists," we remove the paradoxical idea of using God as a subject and immediately arguing its non-existence.

By stating the proposition "I believe the proposition ‘God exists’ is false," one needs only to have been alive for a number of years, and to go outside and look around to verify it. The proposition does not become illogical until it is proven that God does exist, which is so far impossible.

Any thoughts?

ETA:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

should be:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that the proposition "God exists" is false.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Describe the fundamental difference between denying the existence of God and claiming/believing the proposition of the existence of God is false.

ETA: While one can certainly make a belief statement concerning proposals made by others (one does not need to believe in any proposal), that does not disallow or otherwise negate what is currently known for a fact. The facts of current existence and knowledge are a given and indisputable.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Describe the fundamental difference between denying the existence of God and claiming/believing the proposition [God exists] is false.

edit on 19-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

God is no longer the subject. The subject is the proposition "God exists."

Is it true or false?

ETA:

I've corrected your quote in parentheses.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


Thanks. It is important to remain syntactically correct. I appreciate it.

Concerning your proposed definition...Should we continue to use the term theory or resort to hypothetical?

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Thanks. It is important to remain syntactically correct. I appreciate it.

Concerning your proposed definition...Should we continue to use the term theory or resort to hypothetical?

edit on 19-8-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)

Doesn't matter to me.

I was merely stating that someone arguing the non-existence of a subject while using the subject in a proposition is somewhat paradoxical. Using the subject God in any sentence does imply that at least the God exists enough that we can argue about it. We can avoid that in my proposition.

ETA:

We can all agree the idea of God does exist. Except it differs between everyone. We no longer need to include the idea of God in our arguments, and we can logically conclude that the assertion "God exists" is false until proven otherwise.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne


So, let us use your definition to bust my argument and end a paradox. If I misstate anything or analytically leave out a possibility, please correct me.

Scenario: A theist walks up to an atheist and asserts, "God exists." The atheist makes the statement, "That assertion is false," and can remain assured and confident in that statement.

Well, I am not sure this is the case. The atheist remains in the indisputable state of inexperience, leaving these possible outcomes:

1) The atheist cannot deny the theist's assertion without hearing the evidence.
2) What if the evidence the theist presents in the scenario is convincing?
3) What if, even after the evidence is presented, the atheist must acknowledge he/she may never be able to personally experience the evidence as presented by the theist?

Would this last possibility not leave the atheist in a position where he/she agrees with other propositions he/she cannot personally experience, rendering the disagreement as simply a matter of whimsy and objectively baseless?

ETA: Eller makes an attempt to address this in the prior referenced work. I believe his argumentation is faulty and circular, in part based on this supporting documentation::

Active agenthood is also realizable directly on the agent level. One may also choose to endow the agents with epistemic capacities facilitating special epistemic behaviors. Fagin, Halpern, Moses and Vardi have for instance considered ‘perfect recall’ (Fagin et al. 1995): interacting agents' knowledge in the dynamic system may increase as time goes by but the agents may still store old information. The agent's current local state is an encoding of all events that have happened so far in the run. Perfect recall is in turn an epistemic recommendation telling the agent to remember his earlier epistemic states.

An identification one is an active agent entails an acknowledgment of one's current and earlier states. It is required to aid in eliminating paradox.

Originally posted by rigel4
Atheism is a state of mind that would suggest a more sane mind than it's religious counterpart!

The reasons are fairly obvious... No Supernatural beliefs involved , just hard facts, usually scientific in nature.

The religious type on the other hand is driven to worship a sky deity, and as we all know millions have died
as a result of this crazy way of thinking.

why don't you just allow the good natured christians to believe what they want? the worst thing that could happen is you would be surrounded by good people. I listen to atheists all the time, and some are good, some evil... basically, christianity is a great winning philosophy. people who crusaded around are just simply not christians. technically no one is. that's the thing, even if God isn't real, he would be necessary to make up just to get some good sleep - anyways thanks for replying to my intro, and i hope God or whatever you believe in takes good care of ya.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I think a more logical way for one to profess his atheism is by saying "I believe the proposition ‘God exists’ is false."

If he says rather “I don't believe in God,” it implies that there is still a God to not believe in.

I didn't understand at first. I do now.

However when an atheist says "I don't believe in God" it's just the vernacular and they mean to imply ""I believe the proposition ‘God exists’ is false."

So no..... when the atheist says "I don't believe in God" they are not meaning to say they don't believe in a God that exists... even though it does imply it semantically.

Seems obvious enough I hope most people don't assume the later over the former. If that's the case perhaps that's why Christians call atheism a religion

***Okay reading all the posts and i'll reply to posts to me***