Is Atheism faith based?

[TheTurkey]

Not sure where to put this so I'm taking a blind stab. Alright now onto the question.

To accept the existence of god, one must say "I see no evidence disproving him and I feel he exists." However it has been seen there is no evidence to disprove the existence of a god (well.. not that I've seen you can put the proof here if it exists I don't wanna overstep anything)

So is stating "I don't believe that a god exists in any form" a faith based statement seeing as there is no definite proof one way or the other?

[Goat]

I don't think you answered my question, you appear to be leaping ahead with discussion of proofs and disproving.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God(s), I'm contending the assertion that the existence of God(s) is a logical impossibility.

Is the existence of God(s) a logical impossibility?

First, define God.

Different people seem to have different definitions.

If I was trying to prove the existence of God(s), I certainly would, but again, I'm not.

Something that is undefinable is , by it's very nature, logically impossible to actually exist

I'm pretty sure that I didn't claim that God (or the shorthand phrase that I've been actually using: God(s) - which I mean to say the same thing as God or gods) was undefinable. Is this what is called a straw man argument?

If you aren't going to respond directly with supporting evidence, then why are we circling this topic and not moving forward?

What do you think McCulloch meant when they said, "God or gods" in the statement that I'm actually contending?

Well then, what is your definition of God. If you refuse to define what you mean by god, then this is totally moot, and you are totally avoiding things.

If you don't define things, then, why bother talking about it?

[Artheos]

I don't think you answered my question, you appear to be leaping ahead with discussion of proofs and disproving.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God(s), I'm contending the assertion that the existence of God(s) is a logical impossibility.

Is the existence of God(s) a logical impossibility?

First, define God.

Different people seem to have different definitions.

If I was trying to prove the existence of God(s), I certainly would, but again, I'm not.

Something that is undefinable is , by it's very nature, logically impossible to actually exist

I'm pretty sure that I didn't claim that God (or the shorthand phrase that I've been actually using: God(s) - which I mean to say the same thing as God or gods) was undefinable. Is this what is called a straw man argument?

If you aren't going to respond directly with supporting evidence, then why are we circling this topic and not moving forward?

What do you think McCulloch meant when they said, "God or gods" in the statement that I'm actually contending?

Well then, what is your definition of God. If you refuse to define what you mean by god, then this is totally moot, and you are totally avoiding things.

If you don't define things, then, why bother talking about it?

I'm challenging an assertion you have chosen to support, I'm not responsible for defining the terms used in the assertion. If you want to defend the position that the existence of God(s) is not logically possible, shouldn't you already understand what is meant by the words used in the position.

Back to my challenge...

I asked, "How is the existence of God(s) not logically possible?" in response to:

Speaking for myself, there is a smaller chance that God or gods exist than little green men from alpha centauri. At least the green men from alpha centauri are logically possible.

Even more importantly, I'm not even stating that the existence of God(s) is or is not logically possible, I'm contending that the perspective has not been established in this conversation.

[bernee51]

Xyrprtk, the President of Alpha Centauri system, is not claimed to have created the univerese, nor did he impregnate a virgin earthling with the resultant issue being executed and resurrected in order to save the rest of the earthlings from Xyrprtk's wrathful judgement.

None of my comments in this discussion has talked about the nature of God(s), so I'm not sure how responding to a not asserted perspective is furthering your position.

That would be a valid point except for the fact that you have capitalized the word “God�. As this, in normal usage, refers ONLY to the Christian god i.e. I regard the two statements “nature of god� and nature of God’ to not be identical, then I feel certain assumptions regarding the "nature of God� are valid.

Now given the Christian god is claimed to come with certain a certain nature that ‘nature’ can be used to ascertain logical possibility or otherwise. For example this version of the god concept is claimed to be a creator deity which is perfect, unchanging, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. As being a creator deity can be shown to be logically inconsistent with the nature and characteristics of ‘perfect and unchanging’ such a deity can be considered, like a married bachelor, or squared circle ‘logically impossible’.

The logical impossibility of god i.e. any god concept that can be imagined in the minds of men cannot IMO be shown.

An example may be a god who existed and, in the act of creation of the universe, ceased to exist.

[Artheos]

Xyrprtk, the President of Alpha Centauri system, is not claimed to have created the univerese, nor did he impregnate a virgin earthling with the resultant issue being executed and resurrected in order to save the rest of the earthlings from Xyrprtk's wrathful judgement.

None of my comments in this discussion has talked about the nature of God(s), so I'm not sure how responding to a not asserted perspective is furthering your position.

That would be a valid point except for the fact that you have capitalized the word “God�. As this, in normal usage, refers ONLY to the Christian god i.e. I regard the two statements “nature of god� and nature of God’ to not be identical, then I feel certain assumptions regarding the "nature of God� are valid.

I would disagree that your assumptions are valid - if you are referring to the assumption of my definition of God(s). As a point of fact, I was, I re-iterate again, responding to McCulloch, who used "God or gods", which I simply shorthanded to God(s), as explained in post 70.

I would also point out that in post 50, I did not capitalize gods twice, and in post 51, goat capitalized God three times, in post 67 goat also capitalized God, and I did so in my response to him. Would it then be reasonable to assume that I'm an atheist and that goat is a theist and likely a Christian?

The logical impossibility of god i.e. any god concept that can be imagined in the minds of men cannot IMO be shown.

This seems to disagree with McCulloch's apparent position that the existence of God or gods is not logically possible, is that a correct interpretation?

[bernee51]

Xyrprtk, the President of Alpha Centauri system, is not claimed to have created the univerese, nor did he impregnate a virgin earthling with the resultant issue being executed and resurrected in order to save the rest of the earthlings from Xyrprtk's wrathful judgement.

None of my comments in this discussion has talked about the nature of God(s), so I'm not sure how responding to a not asserted perspective is furthering your position.

That would be a valid point except for the fact that you have capitalized the word “God�. As this, in normal usage, refers ONLY to the Christian god i.e. I regard the two statements “nature of god� and nature of God’ to not be identical, then I feel certain assumptions regarding the "nature of God� are valid.

I would disagree that your assumptions are valid - if you are referring to the assumption of my definition of God(s). As a point of fact, I was, I re-iterate again, responding to McCulloch, who used "God or gods", which I simply shorthanded to God(s), as explained in post 70.

I would also point out that in post 50, I did not capitalize gods twice, and in post 51, goat capitalized God three times, in post 67 goat also capitalized God, and I did so in my response to him. Would it then be reasonable to assume that I'm an atheist and that goat is a theist and likely a Christian?

Fair enough.

I was merely expanding on the reason I posted as I did.

My bad for not thoroughly keeping in touch with the thread.

The logical impossibility of god i.e. any god concept that can be imagined in the minds of men cannot IMO be shown.

This seems to disagree with McCulloch's apparent position that the existence of God or gods is not logically possible, is that a correct interpretation?

I often disagree with McC - and often agree. The ONLY thing we need have in common (as atheists) is a lack of belief in gods.