The Futile Arguments Thread

[Byronazriel]

In my opinion, everybody who's answered this thread, with the exception of the odd theist, is an agnostic, not an atheist.  You have all put forward the argument that the existence of God cannot be proved and for that reason they don't believe in him.  This is a classic agnostic position.  An atheist, in my opinion, is someone who believes there isn't a god of any kind.  The Dawkins categorisations and the strong/weak atheist definitions are just ways of deconstructing atheism, not clarifying it.

Theism has to do with belief, gnosticism has to do with knowledge. There's gnostic athiests, agnostic theists, and vice verse.

Therefore the biggest question for an atheist - one who believes there is no god - is what would you do if you were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God?  The answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.  Yes, we might spend a bit of time plotting to overthrow this upstart God in irritation at his vexatious existence, but that wouldn't be our primary reaction.  Our primary reaction would be indifference, since the existence of God can't make any difference to our subjective experience.

The existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our human experience.

What you're describing is apatheism, but really it sounds more like flat earth atheism mixed with a bit of no true scotsman.

[Existentialist]

Theism has to do with belief

Not really.  Theism is to do with God.  Belief and disbelief are subsets of that, not the other way around.

gnosticism has to do with knowledge.

Well not really.  I never link to Wikipedia on principle but I think the Gnostic Archive webpage sums up gnosticism.  There are major pitfalls in simply dropping the prefix 'a' from agnosticism and thinking we have come up with its logical opposite, which is why I never use the word.  Gnosticism is a religious movement.  In that sense a 'gnostic atheist' is a very misleading description.  Furthermore, while I take the stance that there is no God, I do not presume to know it.  I realise this will probably make me agnostic about my gnosticism in your eyes, I just don't see why I have to accept a word like gnostic which obviously means something profoundly religious to a lot of people.

What you're describing is apatheism

No, what you're describing is apatheism.  What I'm describing is atheism - the denial of the existence of god.

really it sounds more like flat earth atheism mixed with a bit of no true scotsman

Now, you've lost me.  Everyone knows the earth is round, they have done since ancient times.  And there's no need to bring Scotland into this.  Even I won't stoop that low!

[Byronazriel]

I've never heard theism described or defined without belief. Theism is the belief in at least one god, it's as simple as that.

The answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.

Looks a lot like the fallacious argument in question.

If a god was proven to exist, and you were still an atheist. That makes you a flat earth atheist. In other words in denial despite irrefutable evidence.



Unless you're actually arguing more towards Nay Theism. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NayTheist

[Existentialist]

So you understand my point about gnosticism being a religion, then?  If we're going to go down the ruthless logic route, we both need to do it.

[Inevitable Droid]

True atheists, on the other hand, people who take responsibility for examining all the consequences of the position that God does not exist, take no part in the 'proof' argument.  It is redundant, since all proof depends on the ability to take an objective viewpoint, which we can only model, we cannot actually do.

So then why do you believe there's no God?  Oh, and first, how do you define God?  Also, you self-identify as Existentialist.  How do you relate that to your atheism?

Therefore the biggest question for an atheist - one who believes there is no god - is what would you do if you were presented with a valid proof of the existence of God?

In my opinion what you ought to do is instantly become a theist.  That's what I would do.  

The answer is that it would make no difference to a true atheist.  Yes, we might spend a bit of time plotting to overthrow this upstart God in irritation at his vexatious existence, but that wouldn't be our primary reaction.  Our primary reaction would be indifference, since the existence of God can't make any difference to our subjective experience.

Why not?  This harkens back to your definition of God.

The existence or non-existence of God is therefore irrelevant to our human experience.

If the Abrahamist God existed it would be enormously relevant.  Insanely malevolent, and frighteningly relevant.

[Whitney]

What's the point in being stubbornly faithful to being a "true atheist"?

[Sophus]

It's been a bit surprising. I've stated a number of times here that I can disprove the Abrahamic God but haven't gotten so much as a funny look.

[McQ]

It's been a bit surprising. I've stated a number of times here that I can disprove the Abrahamic God but haven't gotten so much as a funny look.

Now you've gotten one!
 

[Stevil]

If the Abrahamist God existed it would be enormously relevant.  Insanely malevolent, and frighteningly relevant.

Given that it could decide on a whim to kill a group of people simply to prove its existence or even it could decide to wipe out all but a chosen few and to start again. We could take two approaches.
1. Bow down to it, worship it and unquestionly obey its rules.
2. Work out a way to kill or disable it as a threat.

[Inevitable Droid]

Given that it could decide on a whim to kill a group of people simply to prove its existence or even it could decide to wipe out all but a chosen few and to start again. We could take two approaches.
1. Bow down to it, worship it and unquestionly obey its rules.
2. Work out a way to kill or disable it as a threat.

And since the damn thing can read your mind, you couldn't even pretend to be obeying while secretly planning a coup.

The good news is, if the Abrahamic God exists, then Satan probably does too.  Hopefully he's recruiting.

[Existentialist]

Given that it could decide on a whim to kill a group of people simply to prove its existence or even it could decide to wipe out all but a chosen few and to start again. We could take two approaches.
1. Bow down to it, worship it and unquestionly obey its rules.
2. Work out a way to kill or disable it as a threat.

Exactly.  And in the case of Approach #2,  what we label ourselves in the process is really quite an unimportant detail.

What's the point in being stubbornly faithful to being a "true atheist"?

I use these terms (like atheist) relatively loosely, it's what a person means by them that matters, not the word itself.  The world of demanding that people accept the definitions of agnostic atheist, apatheist, gnostic atheist and all the rest brings a process of forcing people into a logical process that kills off free thought.  Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts, if necessary using existing words, not to accept a framework of linguistic logic of someone else's invention.  So I'm not stubbornly 'faithful' to being a true atheist (how loaded a question did you think you could get away with?) - but in the context of when I said that, my point was entirely relevant and you know exactly what I meant, i.e. a person who believes there is no god.  And incidentally I would go even further in defining my atheism - the introduction of the concept of 'belief' actually confuses it a lot - and if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.  

This is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory.  The problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.  Far from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.  The symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.  I'd go for the Molotov cocktail approach, personally.  

So then why do you believe there's no God? Oh, and first, how do you define God? Also, you self-identify as Existentialist. How do you relate that to your atheism?

God is an old bloke with a long beard who sits on a cloud.  Metaphorically, anyway.  Why I believe there is no God is a really irrelevant question.  To be an atheist you only need to disbelieve (or deny, in my case).  Asking why is really off-topic.  I know it isn't off-topic really but you get my drift.  There is nothing about being an atheist that imposes any obligation whatsoever to justify one's belief.  As it happens, the reason I take the stance that there is no God is probably to do with the same reasons all you agnostics disbelieve in Him - ie, you can't see any evidence or proof.  But that's only part of the story.  It seems to me that the way God is used to bolster authoritarianism means that his original invention was probably for political reasons, basically to keep people down.  That's enough for me to make the leap.  My existentialist credentials are probably not rooted so much in the writings of the great existentialists such as Sartre but more in a view that anything that is outside our human experience as individuals cannot be comprehended by us.  Things like death, for example, simply don't exist for us... and as for God, well, he's well and truly stuffed.  

Interestingly, though, when I read some of the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, such as Existentialism is a Humanism, I infer that his position also was that God doesn't exist and he came to this conclusion early in life.  He didn't seem to have any problem with the debate about whether he believed god didn't exist or whether he simply didn't believe in God.  Nowadays this debate seems to evoke the strongest emotions.  I think the reason why what I call agnosticism, and what some others call (bizarrely to me) agnostic atheism is the decline of the Left and a general shift to the right across the whole of capitalist civilisation.  I can elaborate on this for anyone who would like me to.

[Existentialist]

And since the damn thing can read your mind, you couldn't even pretend to be obeying while secretly planning a coup.

The good news is, if the Abrahamic God exists, then Satan probably does too.  Hopefully he's recruiting.

Leaving aside the fact that the Devil seems to have become the good guy in this scenario, it seems to me the question is not so much whether God exists, it's more at what point do you lose your individuality if he does?  Those who sink to their knees and worship lose it instantly, those who put up some resistance go through a more painful and dare I say punishing process.  Are we talking about the existence of God, or the loss of self?

[LegendarySandwich]

In my opinion, everybody who's answered this thread, with the exception of the odd theist, is an agnostic, not an atheist.

Most of us are both. The terms aren't mutually exclusive.

[Stevil]

The good news is, if the Abrahamic God exists, then Satan probably does too.  Hopefully he's recruiting.

I have a feeling they are different sides of the same coin. God is Satan, Satan is God. We need to look to our own resources in order to irradicate this beast

[Whitney]

Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts,

Free thought is not making up whatever you want...

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

If you want to just make up meaning for words you probably shouldn't expect anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say...most of us use the common definitions and are confused by those who misuse words.

how loaded a question did you think you could get away with?

Don't know what you mean here...my question wasn't loaded and there isn't anything to get away with.

but in the context of when I said that, my point was entirely relevant and you know exactly what I meant, i.e. a person who believes there is no god.  

You at the very least implied that a "true atheist" would reject god despite proof.  So, no, I didn't know what you meant and still don't because you don't like to use words properly.

and if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.  

It's also common use to mean someone who doesn't believe in god (ie one who is not a theist); which is different from deny.

This is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory

.  

huh?  There is no atheist agenda...

The problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.  Far from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.  

So you are saying we should discover truth without evidence or reason?  We do that how exactly?  That doesn't sound like a good idea...what does science and enlightenment thought have to do with capitalism?  I'm not seeing where the dots are being connected.

The symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.

There is no logical reason for why someone who only accepts evidence based truth would suddenly start to worship a god they found out to be real.  They could still decide there is no need to worship it, decide they hate it etc.  And who's to say that if a god were real that it would have a gender let alone be male...are you stuck only on worrying about if the Judeo-Christian god exists?