God cannot exist...sue me!

[Cite134]

It is logically impossible for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim God to exist and yet I am led to believe that saying this deity is impossible makes me the asshole.

Neither Jehovah nor Christ the Second Person of the Trinity nor Allah exist.  But those are only three names and three theologies.  I can say those three names designate three non-existants because the theologies advocating them are intuitively ridiculous, in some cases logically self-contradictory, and in all cases run counter to science if their claims about Creation are taken literally.

The God of the Deist has no attributes claimed for it and no actions except the initial creation of the universe, said action being impossible at this time to refute scientifically.  If science ever determines that the universe was always here, that it didn't have a beginning, Deism will become untenable.

Most atheists claim agnosticism toward Deism only, not toward the Abrahamist faiths, which most atheists flat-out reject.

Agreed.

[radicalaggrivation]

But do we really need to have material proof to be certain that the sky god/eternal father figure myths are untrue or do we just need enough common sense?

I think the majority of atheists put the burdon of proof onto the theory side of the equation, we are not really in search for proof that there is no god although if this proof comes along we will embrace it, just as some of us will embrace proof of god if some should come along instead.

In the realities of life, what is the real difference between being strong atheist and weak atheist? It is not like there is a book of morals and how tos that strong atheists live by but weak atheists don't. The only difference I can see is a personal declaration of a label. Yes, strong atheists do have a belief where as weak atheists don't. Yes it would be hypocritical for strong atheists to ask theists for proof behind their beliefs. But ultimately beliefs can and do change. If all of a sudden there was some irrefutable proof that a particular god or group of gods exist then the weak atheists will become theists and say, here is the proof we have been waiting for. Strong atheists will become theists and say their previous beliefs were misguided.

Really I don't see any differing consequence between people taking strong and weak atheistic stances. Theists would deem us all as immoral.

Well said and I agree that we lend too much credence to these labels. That is a great point to bring up. Atheists have as many outward beliefs about philosophical and social problems as any other group. My issue is with this shying away from a definitive answer on the most prevalent god myths. I personally don't care if I am labeled a strong or weak atheist. I stand with my assessment that a god or gods do not exist to the highest degree of certainty I can have. I know some would ask for evidence to this assertion. Why is logic and the nonexistent track record of the contrary not enough? Should we hold off on any possible claim made just because we cannot provide the evidence to dismiss it? Hell no. We should treat all unsubstantiated claims for what they are. I say this without absolute certainty. I am not absolutely sure that evolution is correct and that creationism is incorrect. Thus we see the uselessness of arguing in absolutes; which seems to be the only reason to ask a person for evidence when dismissing an unprovable claim.

And that is what gods or God or Allah boils down to. They are allowed the luxury to exist outside of space and time. They are allowed the convenience of being knowable unknowns (whatever the hell that means). They are supernatural. Because of this they cannot be measured or quantified. Since we can never prove these entities do not exist we should be afforded the luxury of disbelieving them to the highest degree of certainty possible. If I later find out I am wrong, my feelings won't be hurt at all. I'm an atheist and most of us have to realize that we are really really wrong to make it that far.

[Inevitable Droid]

Really I don't see any differing consequence between people taking strong and weak atheistic stances.

Toward the Deist's God, I agree, there is no practical difference between strong and weak atheism - and that's why, toward the Deist's God, I remain not only agnostic but apathetic.  The Deist's God is a concept designed from the outset to be irrelevant.  No attributes and no actions subsequent to the initial creation.  Hence, utterly irrelevant to my life here and now.  Toward the irrelevant I am always apathetic.

But toward the Abrahamist creeds, I disagree with your statement above, as there is very much a practical difference between strong and weak atheism.  The Abrahamist creeds are (1) too illogical to be true; and (2) dangerous.  Because they're too illogical to be true, anyone who holds up logic as a value to be championed, as I do, must at least occasionally refute the claims of the Abrahamist creeds.  It would be insincere not to.  But beyond all that, the Abrahamist creeds are dangerous, because the Abrahamists seek global hegemony.  They are the enemies of the freedoms our Western culture holds dear, and which I personally hold dear.  Individual Abrahamists, and invidivual demoninations, may be more or less conscious of, or committed to, the quest for global hegemony, but taken in the aggregate, Abrahamism has, as a premise, world conquest.  They must be opposed.

[Inevitable Droid]

Even with the minimalist approach that Deists take I believe there is still no need to treat it with an agnostic point of view. We do not know what began the universe but even if we say that a god did it, there is no logical way to say a god did it knowingly or with purpose.

Deism in its purest form ascribes no attributes to God, not even knowledge or purpose.  I say that only to be clear that once I comment regarding knowledge or purpose, I've moved beyond Deism as a topic.  The Deist God could conceivably have created the universe accidentally, or could even have perspired the universe, our galaxies its beads of sweat.  I am apathetic toward the Deist's God because the Deist's God is presumed to be apathetic toward me.

But if we take a step beyond purest Deism, and speak of an Intelligent Designer, we are faced yet again with no reasonable position but agnosticism.  The universe could certainly be intelligently designed.  It is easy to look at organisms, see design, and see intelligence in that design.  In order to dispense with intelligent design as an unnecessary hypothesis, we have to posit a theory of mutation and natural selection over billions of years, and even when we do that, there are still mysteries, since even billions of years seems too short for some discovered marvels to have evolved without intelligent prodding, given our current level of knowledge.  But I, and you too, presumably, embrace a certain motto.  In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

If the prime mover is just an initial spark to set things off then why call it god? The term god refers to a deity that is in control of the universe or directly invested in the universe.

Unless we're talking about the Deist's God.

If that is the case a Deistic view of our origin is irrelevant to the question of a god. If they posit anymore attributes to this entity then we can talk, otherwise we could just call this idea the "source".

The Deist's God is irrelevant to life, irrelevant to me as a person, but it isn't irrelevant to the question of a god.  Deism is a theology.  We can be apathetic toward it but we can't just set it aside as not being a theology.  It is one.

Intelligent Design is also a theology.  But in its purest form, it doesn't posit any particular reasons why the Intelligent Designer did what it did.  Absent the reasons, the Intelligent Designer is just as irrelevant as the Deist's God.  The Intelligent Designer might have designed Homo sapiens for its entertainment, or as a scientific experiment, or out of malice, or out of benevolence.  Absent any knowledge of the reasons, I have no way to form an emotional response, and I also have no way to form a calculated strategy for exploiting any logical implications.  Hence apathy.

It is only when we take one more step, to the Abrahamist creeds, that I lose my apathy.  The Abrahamist creeds are (1) too illogical to be true; and (2) dangerous.  As I deem logic something to be championed, I must at least occasionally refute Abrahamist claims.  But more importantly, as I deem Abrahamism dangerous, I am compelled by common sense to oppose it.  Toward Abrahamism of any flavor I take a strong atheistic stance, in that I assert definite falsehood.  I go beyond even that, however.  Not only false but dangerous.  That is my response to all flavors of Abrahamism.  I am Anticreed.

[The Magic Pudding]

I am Anticreed.

You do explain what you mean by this well enough, but doesn't the first of these definitions of creed open the way for misunderstanding?
1) Any system of principles or beliefs
2) The written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

If someone saw Anti tacked onto creed they might think nihilist.
I'm not trying to be picky, I suppose any term than summarises an idea requires some clarification/investigation, not assumption.

[Inevitable Droid]

I am Anticreed.

You do explain what you mean by this well enough, but doesn't the first of these definitions of creed open the way for misunderstanding?
1) Any system of principles or beliefs
2) The written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

Maybe, but the connotation of creed is generally religious, and in the context of posting on this message board, will be understood, I think.  You're right that it's imperfect.  But the worldview field only permits a small number of characters.  I didn't see a good way to improve on Anticreed within the parameters imposed.  I could have gone with AntiAbrahamist but that seemed too narrow.  Although, come to think of it, I don't see any great need to oppose Hinduism, nor Asatru, since neither seeks global hegemony, nor does either suffer from logical inconsistency once you grant its founding premises.  Hmm.  Maybe AntiAbrahamist is more precisely my position.

[The Magic Pudding]

Maybe, but the connotation of creed is generally religious, and in the context of posting on this message board, will be understood, I think.

I think you are understood OK, any way Cecilie already blames me for wrecking her signature.
Attacking someone's world view could be considered even worse.

[Tank]

It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel.[Achronos's post]

Is Achronos representative of all Christianity? If not then one should really not direct one's comments at all Christians but at the member responsible for the post in question. As long as people feel they are being stereotyped and pigeon-holed they are less likely to take part in a conversation. Animateddirt is not Achronos yet by couching the comment in group terms you include Animateddirt in your criticism which is patently unfair on Animateddirt. I don't know about you but I dislike the comment 'all atheists blah, blah, blah,'.

From the forum mission statement:-

"It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints."

Group generalisations that demean Christians are counter-productive with regard to this aim.

[Gawen]

...

[radicalaggrivation]

It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel.[Achronos's post]

Is Achronos representative of all Christianity? If not then one should really not direct one's comments at all Christians but at the member responsible for the post in question. As long as people feel they are being stereotyped and pigeon-holed they are less likely to take part in a conversation. Animateddirt is not Achronos yet by couching the comment in group terms you include Animateddirt in your criticism which is patently unfair on Animateddirt. I don't know about you but I dislike the comment 'all atheists blah, blah, blah,'.

From the forum mission statement:-

"It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints."

Group generalisations that demean Christians are counter-productive with regard to this aim.

I'm sorry if I offended your sensabilities but I never implied or intended to lump all Christians into one group. I simply stated that I would like to see more Christians in the forum with interesting view points that aren't preachy or insulting. I believe I am justified in saying that and I won't apologize for it. Whether a Christian likes it or not, when they venture into an atheist forum they are representatives of their beliefs. If they take an approach that is repsectful and open (like many of my Christian friends), I return that repspect in kind. Instead I get a response that is off topic, preachy, and condesending. Instead of jumping down my throat to prove how much of an egalitarian you are maybe you should review the quote that I found insulting and comment on that. And if you don't like how I worded it thats your personal issue, not mine.

[Sophus]

The Jolly Green Giant actually exists. I can prove it with verifiable, testable evidence and repeatable testing. I'm not joking. There's a man living outside of Stockholm with gigantism who also has a melanin mutation which makes his skin appear to be a shade of green.

Here is an article about him from the Guardian, and here is a link to the study on gigantism of which he was a volunteer.


Did you click on the links? Did you, for one second, realize that there may be evidence for something which you were simply unaware of? That's because you also understand the concept that one cannot disprove a negative.

I think negatives can be disproved. To use a favorite of Stenger's examples, there are no elephants in Yellowstone Park. Because even if there were you would see the traces they leave behind (footprints, dung, etc.) This is also why I think the monotheistic God has been disproved. He simply did not show up where we would expect him to. Admittedly, Deism is a different story.

[radicalaggrivation]

Deism in its purest form ascribes no attributes to God, not even knowledge or purpose. I say that only to be clear that once I comment regarding knowledge or purpose, I've moved beyond Deism as a topic. The Deist God could conceivably have created the universe accidentally, or could even have perspired the universe, our galaxies its beads of sweat. I am apathetic toward the Deist's God because the Deist's God is presumed to be apathetic toward me.

I think this just waters down the definition of what a god is. An unpurposeful or accidental initiation of our universe by any entity summarily disqualifies that entity as a god, if we go by the definition of a god.

But if we take a step beyond purest Deism, and speak of an Intelligent Designer, we are faced yet again with no reasonable position but agnosticism. The universe could certainly be intelligently designed. It is easy to look at organisms, see design, and see intelligence in that design. In order to dispense with intelligent design as an unnecessary hypothesis, we have to posit a theory of mutation and natural selection over billions of years, and even when we do that, there are still mysteries, since even billions of years seems too short for some discovered marvels to have evolved without intelligent prodding, given our current level of knowledge. But I, and you too, presumably, embrace a certain motto. In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

I can't totally follow this. Intelligent design creates an infinitely more difficult problem for the theist or scientist to resolve. Even if we had no theory of evolution it would still be impossible to conclude that it was by design, when we consider how poorly designed much of life is. It would be even more impossible to say that we knew anything about the thoughts of that designers mind (which I would presume to be your conclusion as well).

The Deist's God is irrelevant to life, irrelevant to me as a person, but it isn't irrelevant to the question of a god. Deism is a theology. We can be apathetic toward it but we can't just set it aside as not being a theology. It is one.

I will not argue that some people use deism as a theology but many simply see it as a philosophical standpoint to try and identify God. There is a strong distinction. I would go even further by saying that Deism is only a religion if we refuse to define what a god is. I personally see that the theologically minded deists refusal to define any attributes of their god as an abdication of their ability to do so. I mean really, they expect people to believe that there is a God but we don't know any definable qualities or purpose. This is the ultimate form of theological fence sitting. It is simultaneously admitting that you know nothing of a God and still having the audacity to posit one anyway.

A deist would claim to know this god is real based off of what? Reason? What reason? There is no good reason or evidence to go from, there is a source to the universe, therefore that source is a god. That is a non sequitur and the basis of the belief. Because of this fallacious reasoning I will reject a deist "god" as well.

I would go even further to say that Deism is only a theology in title. I say this because when I talk about a god (as well as every dictionary that I check) there is a very general but clearly stated definition to be used. If deists want to worship something that does not fit this definition and call it God that is their prerogative but why should we all change the accepted definition of a god just because Deists want to move the goalpost to fit their tastes? If the Deists are correct in using the word God to describe something that we simply do not know isn't that just another God of the gaps?

And one last thing. If deists can call this unknown initiation god then all arguments for or against a god are useless, since there is no standard to hold this god to. Changing the definition of a god is a bogus tactic, I think, to legitimize deism as a religion. If all it takes to legitimize a god claim is to continually make God more and more ill defined then we are forced to either refute these claims due to poor reasoning or be agnostic to all hazy gods.That may be acceptable for some but I see no intellectual reason to fence sit about this issue, until evidence is presented otherwise.

[Tank]

It's a shame that we cannot get more interesting or appropriate discourse from Christians instead of this nonsensical drivel.[Achronos's post]

Is Achronos representative of all Christianity? If not then one should really not direct one's comments at all Christians but at the member responsible for the post in question. As long as people feel they are being stereotyped and pigeon-holed they are less likely to take part in a conversation. Animateddirt is not Achronos yet by couching the comment in group terms you include Animateddirt in your criticism which is patently unfair on Animateddirt. I don't know about you but I dislike the comment 'all atheists blah, blah, blah,'.

From the forum mission statement:-

"It is our goal to help dissolve negative stereotypes currently held towards atheists and facilitate productive dialogue with those of differing viewpoints."

Group generalisations that demean Christians are counter-productive with regard to this aim.

I'm sorry if I offended your sensabilities but I never implied or intended to lump all Christians into one group.

After slugging it out in forums for the last 4 years I don't think I have any sensibilities left    What you wrote could be read as a collective comment about Christianity and that is what I took you to task about. Obviously that was not your intent.

I simply stated that I would like to see more Christians in the forum with interesting view points that aren't preachy or insulting.

I agree with this completely, but that wasn't blindingly obvious from what you wrote

I believe I am justified in saying that and I won't apologize for it.

You are responsible for what you write, so am I. What you chose to apologise for and is up to you. In general terms I never expect apologies on forums as people often leave their manners at the door with their real names.

Whether a Christian likes it or not, when they venture into an atheist forum they are representatives of their beliefs.

If you mean 'their' as in them as an individual with specific interpretation of Christian teachings I agree with you. However if you mean 'their' as in a collective responsibility for the teachings and beliefs of all other Christians then I don't agree because any one Christian has no control on any other random person who also happens to stick the label 'Christian' on themselves. One person can only ever be responsible for their own actions. You have no responsibility for my actions or I yours whatever world view we share or not.

Also if a person joins in here, whatever their personal world view they are a person first and foremost not a caricature or stereotype of their world view. Just because you and I share an atheist world view does not make either of us responsible for the others actions.

If they take an approach that is repsectful and open (like many of my Christian friends), I return that repspect in kind. Instead I get a response that is off topic, preachy, and condesending. Instead of jumping down my throat to prove how much of an egalitarian you are maybe you should review the quote that I found insulting and comment on that. And if you don't like how I worded it thats your personal issue, not mine.

I have dealt with Archonos. I have formed my opinion of him as an individual a little while ago. I don't like his attitude. But he would probably have the same attitude if he were an atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim etc etc.  So by all means take him to task on his preachy and condescending attitude, he deserves it 100%. But inadvertently phrasing that criticism so it becomes a collective comment about Christianity isn't fair on some of the other Christians here is it? This issue has been dealt with in this thread Should one Christian be responsible for Christianity? so rather than derailing this thread you may wish to contribute to that thread. EDIT: Beg pardon, I see you did contribute to that thread. But I'll leave the link so others following this thread are aware of it.

Now regarding this comment you made "Instead of jumping down my throat to prove how much of an egalitarian you are maybe you should review the quote that I found insulting and comment on that." Am I to assume that any critical comment I make of you would be 'jumping down my throat'?  

Lastly, this is not my forum, it's not your forum, it's Whitney's forum. You and I post here under her rules and guidelines. That is why I made my comment to you about what you wrote. This place is valuable for the simple reason that it succeeds in creating an environment where people of all world views have a place to interact as individuals where each person can explore their particular world view with other individuals without fear of being stereotyped.

Regards
Chris

[Inevitable Droid]

I think this just waters down the definition of what a god is. An unpurposeful or accidental initiation of our universe by any entity summarily disqualifies that entity as a god, if we go by the definition of a god.

Creator but not Ruler, yes.  I agree that most want God to be Ruler of something, but to me, Creator is enough.  I have always deemed the question of whether there is a God to be the question of whether the universe was created.  If the universe was always here, then it wasn't created, so there's no God.  But I appreciate your point.  Certainly the usages in my Random House Webster's College Dictionary all imply some sort of Rulership.

Intelligent design creates an infinitely more difficult problem for the theist or scientist to resolve. Even if we had no theory of evolution it would still be impossible to conclude that it was by design, when we consider how poorly designed much of life is.

Imperfect design would still be design.  Many people find intelligent design hard to swallow due to their assumption of specific perfections the intelligent designer would have to have.  None of these perfections are logically necessary.  Wisdom, power, benevolence, all could be imperfect, and indeed the last could be lacking entirely.  No, the valid reason for dispensing with the intelligent design premise is that we don't need it.  All unnecessary premises should be discarded on principle.  But to really put the nail in the coffin, we need to show that even the most astonishing complex order could be plausible given the time allotted.  We aren't there yet but we're getting there.  Along the way we may discover that complex order is far more likely than we ever imagined, due to natural laws we haven't yet identified.  Natural laws, of course, are simply a way of describing attributes of energy.  If the universe was always here, then energy was always here, and its attributes have defined the parameters of all history in all places.  We might as well call energy, God, for we are ruled by energy's attributes.

It would be even more impossible to say that we knew anything about the thoughts of that designers mind (which I would presume to be your conclusion as well).

Yes.  Not just yes but hell yes.  As soon as we assign attributes, attitudes or aspirations to the intelligent designer, we enter the realm of myth.  

I will not argue that some people use deism as a theology but many simply see it as a philosophical standpoint to try and identify God. There is a strong distinction. I would go even further by saying that Deism is only a religion if we refuse to define what a god is.

Deism isn't a religion.  As for theology, it counts as that, because it makes two statements about God: (1) it exists; (2) it created the universe.  That's theology of the barest bones variety, admittedly.

I personally see that the theologically minded deists refusal to define any attributes of their god as an abdication of their ability to do so.

Or, better, an admission on their part of their inability to do so.  This is nothing other than simple honesty.

I mean really, they expect people to believe that there is a God but we don't know any definable qualities or purpose.

Deists typically don't care what anyone believes.  That's why I can tolerate them, and even welcome them as allies in the culture war against Abrahamists.

This is the ultimate form of theological fence sitting. It is simultaneously admitting that you know nothing of a God and still having the audacity to posit one anyway.

What it amounts to is the refusal to accept an uncreated universe.  Astonishing complex order compels some to be Deists.  Most of them move on from there to very happily leave advancement of our knowledge of the universe to science.  In fact many Deists become scientists themselves.  

There is no good reason or evidence to go from, there is a source to the universe, therefore that source is a god. That is a non sequitur and the basis of the belief. Because of this fallacious reasoning I will reject a deist "god" as well.

Fair enough.  Do you think there's a source to the universe?  I actually don't.  But I can't prove it.  It's just intuition and an untestable one at present.
 

If deists want to worship something that does not fit this definition and call it God that is their prerogative but why should we all change the accepted definition of a god just because Deists want to move the goalpost to fit their tastes?

Deists typically don't worship anything.

If the Deists are correct in using the word God to describe something that we simply do not know isn't that just another God of the gaps?

It is precisely God of the gaps.  Entertained because the gaps are intuitively bothersome to a certain kind of brain.  Although to some extent we're merging the Deist's God with an Intelligent Designer, which, strictly speaking, the Deist's God doesn't have to be.

Was the universe created?  The Deist says yes.  I say no.  Both of us have nothing but intution to go on, at present.  One day science may prove that the universe had no beginning.  On that day, Deism becomes untenable.

If deists can call this unknown initiation god then all arguments for or against a god are useless, since there is no standard to hold this god to.

Exactly correct unless/until we finally learn from science that the universe had no beginning.  I really don't think it had one.  But for now it's a mystery.

[The Magic Pudding]

Thanks Tank, those who stand up to their fellows and say we can do better than this deserve...

A Koala stamp