The Futile Arguments Thread

[Existentialist]

Mad means angry/upset...as in "don't get mad" or "why are you mad at me".  You act defensive every single time someone disagrees with you which leads me to think disagreement offends and upsets you...perhaps you don't see your posts this way but your tone makes you come across in that manner.

I find it hypocritical that you would complain about the usage of words after having asked everyone to not tell you how to use words.

I've been running this forum for over 4 years now and HAF gets tons of compliments on how civil it is compared to other forums...I'll ask you to not tell me how to construct my posts.

Thank you for your reply once again.  I have not 'complained' about the usage of words, please could you cite examples - it really is an extremely vague allegation as it stands and I have gone to some lengths to affirm everyone's freedom to use words of their choosing.  I may have commented and expressed my opinion on how people describe my views, ideas and contributions, but I would not characterise this as having 'complained'.  

I do not act defensive "every single time" someone disagrees with me.  Please substantiate that observation if you wish to persist with it.  I don't concur with it though.

Your comments about my 'tone' are of course impossible for me to answer: 'tone' is a very personal thing to each individual and one person's friendly post can be read as an impolite post depending on the reader's disposition.  I have gone to great lengths to explain my stance as neutrally as possible, but in all these matters I do have a stance.  As you have second guessed from my responses that you conclude I have an underlying motivation that any 'disagreement offends and upsets' me, would I be overstepping mark to read into your reaction some ulterior motive to do with your negativity towards my minority opinion in this forum on the subject of atheism, and what it means?  

I do take offence, and am upset, at being accused of being 'hypocritical'.  That to me looks like rather inflammatory language.  I reserve the right to defend myself from any such accusations, I am sure you will support this right.

'Mad' also means insane, which is why I did not, and do not, use the word.  I think there may be geographical differences between us in the general acceptability of this word, but in my own circles it would be extremely insulting for me to use it about another person to describe them as angry, which is why I don't use the word.  Using that word to mean 'angry' is becoming rather archaic locally, probably due to the onward march of political correctness, but generally I think it's right that people should be careful about using it.  If such considerations are not relevant in your own circles in respect of the word 'mad' then I apologise for the misunderstanding, but that is why I don't use the word 'mad' as a shorthand for 'angry'.  

How people express themselves is a matter of negotiation in any conversation, but in all my posts I have been civil and polite.  I agree that HAF has a track record of being a particularly civil forum.  I have not told you how to construct your posts, but obviously if you describe me and how I have expressed myself negatively as you have done on several occasions now, in a way that is not backed up by evidence and examples, I feel totally within my rights to reply.

[Existentialist]

I have to agree with Whitney because this forum is far more civilized than most. Rarely do I see personal attacks or someone devaluing someone as a person here in regards to their beliefs, or regardless of subject, argument, or discussion. We all might have disagreements but none of those should be taken on an emotional level or offensively, but rather be regarded as simply a difference of view. As long as we all act like adults and give each other respect, we can always get passed the differences without attacking each other verbally or physically. Emotions however will run high, and some will become defensive, but I am glad to see civil behavior on this forum. And that is why I like this site more than others..

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, TheJackel.  I think this is an unusually civilized forum and it is my intention to keep it that way as is the case I am sure with everybody else I have exchanged messages with so far.  I would deserve to be strongly criticised and even have moderation applied to my account if at any time I became insulting or disrespectful of others.   I have not done so and will not do so.  I am sure that any disagreement can be dealt with in an adult way as you say.

[Existentialist]

I have no problem with you calling yourself an atheist.  The issue is that I am an atheist as well, but not by your definition. I also feel that theists can and do sometimes get the wrong impression that an atheist is a person who believes that there is no god. In some way this could be seen as similar to your definition.
The problem I have with that is that the vast majority of atheists (and for that matter the vast majority of participants on this site) do not fit your atheist definition. Our stance is not based on a belief system, we base our stance on empirical evidence. This is an important distinction to me and for you to blur those lines and simply call me agnostic and not an atheist is somewhat insulting. I am both agnostic and an atheist, in so far as atheist goes I am a weak atheist as I do not implore a belief system. I like to back up my stances with proof which for me is important.

Your definition adds confusion and misleads people as with regards to the stance of the vast majority of atheists.

Thanks Stevil for your reply.  Thanks also for saying you have no problem with me calling myself an atheist.  It's certainly not my intention to insult anyone but I cannot help my thoughts, that if someone is describing themselves as an agnostic atheist, they are an agnostic - their stance on the existence of God is undecided, pending further evidence.  I would welcome your putting me right on this - it is a well-worn path I understand, but I can't guarantee that at the end of it I will have changed what I think.

I am a little bit sceptical about your statement that the vast majority of atheists do not fit the same definition of atheist that I use.  Without an international survey of everybody in the world I do not think this is a statement that can be substantiated.  I think it likely that a lot of people have a settled view that there isn't a god.  I would suggest such people are atheists, even if they haven't adopted that term themselves.  I realise there is a tension between the right of people self-define on the one hand, yet on the other hand as an observer needing to categorise people according to a systematic set of consistent descriptions.  I don't think there's an easy answer to this dilemma, and I openly admit I've adopted both positions at different times even in this thread, such is my own inconsistency.  The thing is, though, how would a survey work?  Would it be right to open a question by saying, do you consider yourself to be an atheist?  Or would it be better to start with non-labelled questions like, do you believe there is no god?  Then, do you believe there is a god?  It's only when such a process has been completed that anybody can say with any certainty how the vast majority of atheists in the population should be categorised.  

I agree that the majority of atheists on this website probably do not take the view that there is no god, as I do.  It probably is the case that when people adopt the term atheist about themselves and then join a website of atheists, they are overwhelmingly not of the type who 'deny the existence of god'.  The reason for this is the importance of empirical evidence to those people.  

The problem I have with empirical evidence is that it raises the issue of the objective interpretation of empirical evidence, and I believe we cannot be objective beings because we are subjective beings.  Objectivity is a model that is extremely useful in science and some other situations, indeed I would insist on it if for example someone were testing the safety of my car.  But to my mind - and I completely admit my thoughts are incomplete on this which is why I post in forums like this one - for a subjective being like a human to submit to an objective model on something like the existence of God is a distortion of their subjective reality.  There is no greater authority than the individual human being in deciding anything, not even a valid, repeatable objective proof can be a greater authority than the individual.  In that respect, I see the theist and the 'agnostic atheist' as being very similar in that both may have reached their conclusions as a result of submission to something external to themselves - either an imaginary god, or a body of evidence.

Of course it is always possible that a theist may have decided for themselves that God exists, having made no reference to any evidence or any supposed evidence and no apparent calling from any god or being told what to think by someone else.  Some theists do cite evidence as their reasons for belief.  My criticism of them would be the same as of the agnostic atheist - that they have submitted to a source of authority outside of themselves.  I realise that your criticism of them would be that they have drawn incorrect conclusions from the evidence they have considered.

I realise there is plenty that can be disagreed with in what I have said, I do not offer this as a conclusive, definitive statement of my atheist or existentialist position, but I did just want to give you a flavour of my thinking at the moment.  My stance on atheism is a subjectivity-objectivity based stance, not an empiricist one.  

Thanks for listening!

[Byronazriel]

Incorrect.. Again I think you miss the point entirely and why it indeed is an argument against gods existing. You also do not seem to understand, or at least not paying attention to the fundamentals of the meaning power under this argument. Humans are fundamentally more powerful than lets say a single ant to which can easily be squashed and killed. Power is irrelevant.. Man can nuke and destroy entire civilizations, or grow new ones from it's ashes. For that we can call ourselves GODS under your argument. Ants can plant entire forests that creates ecosystems for other living things, and that we could call them GODS under your argument. And that is why I say you are incorrect, I can call anything a GOD and make it as such, or I can say there is no such things as GODS under the same fundamental conceptual reasons and have it be 100% correct.

And you're not paying attention to the fact that power is just the first on a list of things that define a god. Gods are also representations of ideas or forces, and they are also immortal. At least by my defintion.

So when you attempt to define GOD, you are only placing opinionated expectations on what you would consider to be a GOD regardless of what entity, object, thing, or being you try to attach it to. Otherwise it is nothing more than just another existing thing like everything else is. So indeed there are no such things as GODS because I wouldn't care what entity exists, what it could or could not do, or how much supposed power it might have. All that crap is irrelevant, and thus so is the concept of GODS.

So gods, in the sense that I defined earlier, can exist... you just don't care.

Actually it is a completely worthless concept.. GOD's are inherently concepts of power, and anything with power is powerless without what gives them power. And everything that exists contains power on some level or another to which makes the argument irrelevant and moot as a logical fallacy. The only worth an opinion has is the worth it has to only that which has the opinion, otherwise it's essentially worthless.  You may believe GOD's exist under opinion, but it has absolutely no value what-so-ever in my own perspective. I don't need to prove to you that GOD's don't exist because they simply do not exist under my standards and expectations. It is simply by nature and virtue not an applicable concept since it's definition is boundless or inherently undefined. There is a reason why the title and concept of GOD is vague and only a concept of opinion, and a title of opinion. The existence of any entity, object, person, place, or thing is irrelevant to this argument. Everything that exists can in fact be worshiped and regarded as GOD!. And the ultimate power is existence itself, the rules of existence, and the substance of existence from which everything is bound to, slave to, and in need of in order to exist. There is no power greater than the lowest power possible!.

You can tell a karate master that their so called "power" is meaningless because they coulnd't gain it without training, but don't expect it to help much in a fight against them.[/b]

Examples:

Consciousness and awareness can not function or exist without information. A 100 story buildings can not exist without the 99 other floors below it. Ground state is more powerful than any supposed thing that relies on it in order to exist just because it is the very base to all that exists. No person, place, or thing of any sort or kind could exist without material physicality derived from the substance of existence itself.  That is the ultimate power, and I still don't apply the concept of GOD because under those guidelines, all things are GODS or there are no GODS at all.

So the 100th floor is not higher than the floors benoeath it? Just because somethign requires other things to come into being doesn't make it worthless, or weak.

So here is my argument..

Someone worships all things of existence as GODS..Where does your concept of GOD go at that point? What actual relevance is left? It's no different at that point than calling all things as things of existence. It becomes moot. And it's still irrelevant because another persons can have a difference of opinion and consider nothing in existence is applicable to being a GOD because they realize the irrelevance of the concept. Hence why I can say with 100 percent absolution that there is no such things as gods. So the concept is a logical fallacy..

If everythign is god, then you worship and vernerate everything! Also just because people have different opinions about somethign doesn't make it non-existant. Tell me why the fact that people worship fish and trees makes Thor not exist.

[Existentialist]

... I think there is more than one definition of atheism that works and is understood by the majority of people.  If you ask the majority of people the question, "What do you call someone who believes there is no god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist".  If you ask the majority of people, "What do you call someone who doesn't believe in god?" I feel sure that the majority of people would say, "An atheist."  Therefore we have two established definitions of atheism which both mean something different, but which both work and are understood by the majority of people.  I have not at any point 'reinvented' the definitions of words - please supply your evidence that I have done so if you think this is the case.  

The definition that atheism is the denial of the existence of gods is a standard definition that has been around for a long, long time.  Please feel free to check this and let me know you findings.

It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate for someone who denies the existence of God to deny God completely in every respect.  This is a logical consequence of the type of atheism I represent, though obviously not a definition of it.  I hope this is useful, at least.

You're right. I withdraw my objections.

I prefer the definition "someone who doesn't believe in any gods", as this can apply to both weak and strong atheists and applies personally to me, but your definition works too, I suppose.

Thanks for that.  It's good to be acknowledged, thanks for your response.

[Recusant]

This is a pretty cool thread.  We got the "what is atheism?" thing going good and strong, and "what is/isn't a god" running along side it. Double-barreled fun!

If an agreement on definitions cannot be reached by two (or more) interlocutors, then  dialog will be difficult and cumbersome, but not impossible.  If those involved in the conversation each have a different definition, then for many of the instances where the word arises, each will have to say whether they're using it under this definition or that definition. Workable, but tiresome.  Needless to say, there have been many discussions here about the definition of "atheist," and I don't think that I've ever seen it settled.  I consider it a perennial divertissement, but nothing more.  I do enjoy reading good posts on that subject however, and there have been several by both sides in this thread.  I'm looking mainly at you, Existentialist, though I can't say that I particularly agree with your position. Especially in your latest, where it seems that you're giving opinion precedence over objective evidence.:yay:

[TheJackel]

If something which exists (the sun, for instance) is believed by one or many to be a god, is it a god which exists?  It would seem that it is, according to this formulation:

Yes and no in the most literal context. That means it is both 100 percent a GOD and 100 percent not a GOD because it's relative to opinion. Those who think it's not a GOD will simply see no relevance in the conceptual idea by others as being one. This can be said for any object, thing, or entity that exists.

What follows seems to be an expression of opinion, rather than a logical progression, however:

That was by intention. Logical progression can not seem to easily progress in matters of concepts that are purely subjective, and opinionated. That is as far as it can go, and also why it's indeed a moot concept to begin with

Logical progression depends on your opinion. So if you believe X (lets say proven to exist entity, object, or thing) as a GOD for whatever reason, that only holds value within your own opinion. It however hold zero value with someone else who doesn't. It's both relevant and irrelevant based on opinion. Theists like to weigh relevance in regards to how many people they think believe it, but regardless of that it's still 100 percent irrelevant to those who don't. It's at best a war of opinion, and that is why I see it as complete irrelevance or moot.


So no, either all things are GODS, or no GODS exist. That is the logical outcome I have come to see.  

[Stevil]

I cannot help my thoughts, that if someone is describing themselves as an agnostic atheist, they are an agnostic - their stance on the existence of God is undecided, pending further evidence.

LOL, What you call an agnostic I would call a weak atheist. To me an agnostic is
"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
NOTE: I have taken this from dictionary.com as you seem to not like wikipedia
The key is lack of knowledge rather than lack of making a decision. I feel a person with lack of knowledge can make a decision regardless hence an agnostic could also be a theist, a strong atheist or a weak atheist.
But we can agree to disagree with regards to the definition of labels.

BTW - "Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism," and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism."" - this from infidels.org contains a sidenote that many people do use your definition although the article standardises on the definition that I use.

I am a little bit sceptical about your statement that the vast majority of atheists do not fit the same definition of atheist that I use.  

" The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[36] and in Catholic apologetics[38] since at least 1813.[39][40] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists." - from wikipedia
"Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as weak atheists" - bookrags.com
I am yet to see an article that suggests it is the other way around. However, there may not have been a big enough and objective enough survey carried out to conclusively back up my statement. regardless of whether it is the vast majority, the majority or the minority I feel it is significant enough especially for the site that you posted your statement within to cause much confusion.

In that respect, I see the theist and the 'agnostic atheist' as being very similar in that both may have reached their conclusions as a result of submission to something external to themselves - either an imaginary god, or a body of evidence.

I feel that an imaginary god would be internal to one's self hence I would put both a theist and a strong atheist as very similar in that they hold onto beliefs with regards to the existence of god/s.

I realise there is plenty that can be disagreed with in what I have said

Most of our disagreements are with regards to definition of words. I respect that you have a belief that there are no god/s just as I respect that a theist has a belief that there are god/s. This is not the position I hold for myself but I respect others beliefs.

[hvargas]

Life exist in more places than just one and we are just one specie in an ocean of billions of galaxies. As no one has seen a god, no one can prove its existence. Faith is not prove of god existence. In any case you can't prove something that does not exist and logic will say that in order to prove whatever it has to exist. For example, scientists are trying to find dark matter or something that is causing something to behave in a certain way. The point is, that first there must be something presenting itself even when not being observed and its having some causes or effects upon  something else. Therefore god does not exist cause there is nothing that we can point to that will give us a starting point, that is something that god is causing to behave in some way or other. In more simpler turns, the number zero exist cause of the number one and so on for all other numbers. It is pointless to tried to prove something that does not exist in the definitions given by believers.

[Event_Horizon]

Let's see, to prove God exists.... Well first you'd need a definition.

Here's a really basic one: A God that is all powerful is a being that possesses the unlimited ability to influence, create, manipulate, and/or destroy any physical matter/energy or physical force.

And here's why that God doesn't exist:

Can an all powerful God create an object that even it cannot move?

If it can create the object: Then it is not all powerful because it cannot move the object.

If it cannot the object: Then it is not all powerful because it cannot create the object.

Therefore an all powerful God cannot exist because it is a logical paradox.

That pretty much throws a monkey wrench into many of the popular contemporary monotheistic deities. Of course I'm always open to evidence of such. I don't 100% assert that God(s) cannot exist, but the logical impossibility of some and the lack of evidence for the rest makes it a reasonable assumption in my view.

P.S. Sorry if I derailed the thread.

[LegendarySandwich]

Therefore the concept of a God with infinite power cannot exist because it is a logical paradox.

Which is what most Christians view God as. So, I can safely say with reasonable certainty that the traditional Abrahamic god cannot exist.

[defendor]

Which is what most Christians view God as. So, I can safely say with reasonable certainty that the traditional Abrahamic god cannot exist.

I apologize for mishandling my etiquette.

But now to the issues ha
How is it, that an infinitely powerful being can't exist?  What reasonable certainty?  I know you will point to the law of non-contradiction, but I would like you to go into the specifics of the philosophical tangibilities as to what premises you arrived at your conclusion

[LegendarySandwich]

Which is what most Christians view God as. So, I can safely say with reasonable certainty that the traditional Abrahamic god cannot exist.

I apologize for mishandling my etiquette.

But now to the issues ha
How is it, that an infinitely powerful being can't exist?  What reasonable certainty?  I know you will point to the law of non-contradiction, but I would like you to go into the specifics of the philosophical tangibilities as to what premises you arrived at your conclusion

Let me ask you something, Defendor. If I asked you if an invisible unicorn exists, what would you say?

[defendor]

Let me ask you something, Defendor. If I asked you if an invisible unicorn exists, what would you say?

For simplicity sake, I would generally say no, they do not exist

[LegendarySandwich]

Let me ask you something, Defendor. If I asked you if an invisible unicorn exists, what would you say?

For simplicity sake, I would generally say no, they do not exist

There you go. I didn't even have to add a logical contradiction or two to my invisible unicorn, which would make it more accurate of an analogy.