An Introduction.

Atolla · Post by **Atolla** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:30 am

Hello to all,

I'm a (... 12 + 10),... ahem, 22-year-old student from Finland. Though I am reasonably assured of my atheism, I wish to better understand the scope, limitations, and structure of the arguments for it; in essence, how bullet proof are my beliefs? I hope discussion will also further elucidate some of my incipient ideas to myself and tell me exactly what I am thinking.

I look forward to stimulating discussions.

Post by **otseng** » Thu Jun 17, 2010 4:52 pm

Welcome to the forum.

OK, I'll shoot. To understand your atheism, do you claim that no gods exist?

Atolla · Post by **Atolla** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:13 am

Wow. A loaded question right from the start.

No. I can't possibly make such a claim. The universe is so damn vast I'd be surprised if flying pigs didn't exist somewhere. Further, the concept of god is so nebulous you'd have a hard time discerning it with the Hubble space telescope; the attosecond I make a claim that there are no gods, some smartass points out that the Roman Senate declared Caesar a god, and who am I to argue with that?

So I can't even be an atheist with regard to all gods -- which means I'll have to go through them one by one... Gah! That sounds such a Herculean undertaking. Maybe I'll just tackle them as they come. I shall need a list. Caesar, check...

Post by **otseng** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:51 am

Not trying to shoot any tricky bullets here. But, just trying to understand your meaning of being an atheist. What exactly then do you claim?

Atolla · Post by **Atolla** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:15 am

It's the simple things that are usually loaded with the most assumptions...

I suppose my contention is that most god claims (which I've been confronted with) are not convincing, those of supernatural character even less so.

Post by **otseng** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:25 am

Atolla wrote: I suppose my contention is that most god claims (which I've been confronted with) are not convincing, those of supernatural character even less so.

I can understand that. There are not many that I know of that have very persuasive arguments for the existence of any deity.

How would you differentiate your (weak) atheism with agnosticism?

Atolla · Post by **Atolla** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:28 pm

otseng wrote:How would you differentiate your (weak) atheism with agnosticism?

My understanding is that atheism is about disbelief in god claims, while agnosticism relates to lacking knowledge about their existence or regarding such knowledge as unattainable. I don't think it is necessarily unattainable; it very much depends on what we take to be a god. As for knowledge about their existence, I don't have a lot and it all concerns decidedly human characters, like Caesar. I also adopt the usual physicist's perspective: if it doesn't interact with observable reality, one might as well regard it as nonexistent.

Lux · Post by **Lux** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 1:59 pm

Welcome

There are no bullet-proof beliefs, just stubborn people.

Post by **otseng** » Fri Jun 18, 2010 2:35 pm

Atolla wrote:I also adopt the usual physicist's perspective: if it doesn't interact with observable reality, one might as well regard it as nonexistent.

I recently had a debate on the existence of a generic god. How would you respond to my arguments?

Atolla · Post by **Atolla** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:16 pm

otseng wrote:
Atolla wrote:I also adopt the usual physicist's perspective: if it doesn't interact with observable reality, one might as well regard it as nonexistent.
I recently had a debate on the existence of a generic god. How would you respond to my arguments?

I have reviewed your debate. I suspect I mostly tend to agree with McCulloch, but that's only natural since I'm an atheist. I think he was a bit unclear at times, and I really don't agree with his trying to drag evolution into the debate (though I somewhat understand it). His closing statement could've been more extensive. In general I think your style was constructive, but somewhat pigheaded with regard to Copernican principle/law of biogenesis. Personally I found Hugh Ross' claims dubious, but I lacked to inclination to verify their reasonability due to their number. I appreciate your clear closing statement, though, and in general you presented your case better (you did more recaps; they were easier to follow).

As for responding to your arguments, what do you have in mind? Am I to address the reasonability of believing in an existing god who just created the universe, fine-tuned it for only terrestrial (=occurring on Earth) life and created life here? Or would you like me to address your rebuttals of naturalistic explanations? Or do you have some specific point in mind? I'm asking this because working through a whole debate worth of arguments is going to take a life time (well, maybe not mine, but some thing's) and the amount of text will be huge. I like to eat my pies in pieces. Divide and conquer, you know?

There are also some points not necessarily disproving your points, but perhaps correcting some of your (and possibly McCulloch's) misconceptions, that I could address if you like.