I am an atheist!

[tangoen]

I have a question for the atheist out there. you almost always seem to describe atheism as a lack of belief and this is something i understand . But how come you all seem to be so adamant about the fact that the universe had no creator. I'm not saying "god" as it implies a man made creation. I'm just trying to say some indescribable omnipotent entity could exist and there is no proving it one way or another. So why do atheists "believe" there was no possibility of a greater entity. Wouldn't the lack of belief mean you'd have to say you don't know and so far there is no way of knowing. Maybe I don't fully understand what atheism is.

Can God crate a Rock so big that even he himself can't lift it?

Well as much as i like it when someone answers my question with a question
I understand your point in proving the fallacy of the biblical god but that's not what I'm talking about. The simple answer I have to your question is no. "God" doesn't have arms, a body or can even be comparable to any type of life as we know it . I think you'd have to be irrational to think god has any viable effect on our space and time. I mean miracles do not happen.
Basically I'm trying to argue that from what i've read here most atheist seem to have a belief that no "god" exists and it seems contradictory to the statement that atheism means a lack of belief(and i use the "god" term loosely)
But please correct me on what you think atheism means if i indeed have misinterpreted

 

[Squawk]

This one always bothers me, so I'll jump in.

There are, it seems, two concepts of omnipotence. The one that is subject to paradox's, and the one that isn't.

I personally grant a deity with omnipotence the freedom to be bound by a paradox, thus defining omnipotence to be the abilty to do anything that is not logically impossible. It's more fun that way anyway, since you first of all allow them to have their omnipotent deity and think they scored a point, then you point out that omnipotence is paradoxical with omniscience, which swiftly removes it again

The other omnipotence involves the ability to break a paradox, so god could make a rock that he couldn't lift, could then lift it, and wouldn't have contradicted himself. Logic went out of the window of course.

 

[Deleted member 619]

But how come you all seem to be so adamant about the fact that the universe had no creator.

You'll have to point out an atheist who actually says that. I don't think you'll find any here, but that's possibly because most of the atheists here are scientifically literate and, as a result, eschew any such categorical assertions without categorical supporting evidence.

For my part, it's not that I insist that the universe had no creator, but that there's no reason to include a creator in our models of the universe, for several reasons. Firstly, it's far from clear that the universe had or required a creator. It isn't even clear that the universe had a beginning. In the immortal words of Laplace, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,"

I'm not saying "god" as it implies a man made creation. I'm just trying to say some indescribable omnipotent entity could exist and there is no proving it one way or another.

Indeed. But there's still no reason to include one in our models. They work perfectly well without one so far, and no principle of the universe has thus far been elucidated that requires such an entity for its operation.

So why do atheists "believe" there was no possibility of a greater entity.

I have no such belief. In fact, I have issues with the entire concept of belief. It's such a nebulous, woolly term that it's far too open to equivocation, and for any degree of belief you care to name, there is a better, more rigorous term that is not so open to said equivocation. In any event, I am perfectly open to the possibility that there is a creator entity. I do, however, recognise that no formulation of a creator thus far proposed manages to pass the very first test of a hypothesis, namely the shaving implement of the late, lamented cleric of Norfolk.

Wouldn't the lack of belief mean you'd have to say you don't know and so far there is no way of knowing.

That's precisely what the vast majority of atheists do say.

Maybe I don't fully understand what atheism is.

What's to understand. In the most rigorous terms, atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. This is the only rigorous definition of the word, simply because it's the only definition that applies to the full set of all atheists. It consists of the principle 'you assert that your deity exists, you support that assertion'.

 

[Ozymandyus]

This one always bothers me, so I'll jump in.

There are, it seems, two concepts of omnipotence. The one that is subject to paradox's, and the one that isn't.

I personally grant a deity with omnipotence the freedom to be bound by a paradox, thus defining omnipotence to be the abilty to do anything that is not logically impossible. It's more fun that way anyway, since you first of all allow them to have their omnipotent deity and think they scored a point, then you point out that omnipotence is paradoxical with omniscience, which swiftly removes it again

The other omnipotence involves the ability to break a paradox, so god could make a rock that he couldn't lift, could then lift it, and wouldn't have contradicted himself. Logic went out of the window of course.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, the argument against omnipotence from impossibility is just a complete and utter misunderstanding or strawman of the idea of omnipotence. The rock so heavy argument implies a creator who wants to create something he cannot lift. As long as that creator wants there to be something he cannot lift, there will be - because he is omnipotent he can do whatever he wants including not lifting a rock. As soon as he wants to be able to lift it - he will be able to - because he is omnipotent and can do whatever he wants including lifting a rock that he used to not want to lift.

Now, can he both want to be unable to lift something, and then kind of want to lift it? Sure why not? That is what free will is all about. The question for an omnipotent God is simply how much does he want which thing - whatever he wants most is what happens. If that means that for moments of time the God cannot do certain things that he does not want to be able to do - is that truly a limit on omnipotence or merely the result of omnipotence? The whole conundrum really tells us more about the limits of the human mind than the limits of omnipotence, in my opinion.

 

[tangoen]

Atheism as a word seems way to subjective to me. I'm just going to stick to non-religious as its implications are obvious.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I have said this before, and I will say it again, the argument against omnipotence from impossibility is just a complete and utter misunderstanding or strawman of the idea of omnipotence. The rock so heavy argument implies a creator who wants to create something he cannot lift. As long as that creator wants there to be something he cannot lift, there will be - because he is omnipotent he can do whatever he wants including not lifting a rock. As soon as he wants to be able to lift it - he will be able to - because he is omnipotent and can do whatever he wants including lifting a rock that he used to not want to lift.

Now, can he both want to be unable to lift something, and then kind of want to lift it? Sure why not? That is what free will is all about. The question for an omnipotent God is simply how much does he want which thing - whatever he wants most is what happens. If that means that for moments of time the God cannot do certain things that he does not want to be able to do - is that truly a limit on omnipotence or merely the result of omnipotence? The whole conundrum really tells us more about the limits of the human mind than the limits of omnipotence, in my opinion.

That's guff, frankly. If he can simply will himself able to lift it, then he was never unable to lift it, and therefore not omnipotent. Say it as many times as you like and it will still be bollocks.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Basically I'm trying to argue that from what i've read here most atheist seem to have a belief that no "god" exists and it seems contradictory to the statement that atheism means a lack of belief(and i use the "god" term loosely)

A-theism, in oposition of theism (which means belief in a God), means tha one does not believe in a God, and that is all it should mean. Of course you can say that are atheist that believe that god doesn't exist (myself included) but that is something else added besides what atheism means. The same way that most people can drink cofee with milk and yet those people are cofee drinkers, that doesn't mean that all cofee drinkers drink milk with their cofee.

 

[Ozymandyus]

That's guff, frankly. If he can simply will himself able to lift it, then he was never unable to lift it, and therefore not omnipotent. Say it as many times as you like and it will still be bollocks.

You may want it to be bollocks, but it doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly logical. Ability coincides perfectly with will in an omnipotent being. He was unable to lift it for exactly as long as he wanted there to be a rock he could not lift.

The truth is the challenge itself is meaningless, of course. The concept of Heaviness means nothing to an omnipotent being. The concept of not being able also means nothing. For an omnipotent being there is only Will. Will can contradict itself, it can change. Which is why I think this has always been a silly silly argument.

Wanting something to be a logical impossibility does not make it so, sadly. You can say its bollocks as many times as you like, but it will still be true.

 

[Deleted member 619]

You may want it to be bollocks, but it doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly logical.

Nonsense.

Ability coincides perfectly with will in an omnipotent being. He was unable to lift it for exactly as long as he wanted there to be a rock he could not lift.

Drivel of the highest order. If he could will himself to lift it any time he felt like it, then he was never without the ability to lift it.

The truth is the challenge itself is meaningless, of course. The concept of Heaviness means nothing to an omnipotent being. The concept of not being able also means nothing. For an omnipotent being there is only Will. Will can contradict itself, it can change. Which is why I think this has always been a silly silly argument.

But it isn't a silly argument, it only shows the silliness of the concept of omnipotence. If all it takes is will, then the ability is always there.

Wanting something to be a logical impossibility does not make it so, sadly. You can say its bollocks as many times as you like, but it will still be true.

Sorry, dude, but there's only one thing to say to this:

Logic: You're doing it wrong.

On a side note, the usual apologetic evasion in this regard is that omnipotence only includes the logically possible. While that's guff in and of itself, and amounts to no more than the watering down of the concept of omnipotence, there is actually more to be said. There's nothing logically impossible about creating a rock so heavy that youo can't lift it. Indeed, given the right kind of furnace and the requisite fuel, any one of us could do it. It's trivial, in fact. There's nothing remotely logically impossible about anything in the exercise except omnipotence itself, which is an utter absurdity.

 

[Ozymandyus]

You may want it to be bollocks, but it doesn't change the fact that it is perfectly logical.

Nonsense.

Ability coincides perfectly with will in an omnipotent being. He was unable to lift it for exactly as long as he wanted there to be a rock he could not lift.

Drivel of the highest order. If he could will himself to lift it any time he felt like it, then he was never without the ability to lift it.

The truth is the challenge itself is meaningless, of course. The concept of Heaviness means nothing to an omnipotent being. The concept of not being able also means nothing. For an omnipotent being there is only Will. Will can contradict itself, it can change. Which is why I think this has always been a silly silly argument.

But it isn't a silly argument, it only shows the silliness of the concept of omnipotence. If all it takes is will, then the ability is always there.

Wanting something to be a logical impossibility does not make it so, sadly. You can say its bollocks as many times as you like, but it will still be true.

Sorry, dude, but there's only one thing to say to this:

Logic: You're doing it wrong.

On a side note, the usual apologetic evasion in this regard is that omnipotence only includes the logically possible. While that's guff in and of itself, and amounts to no more than the watering down of the concept of omnipotence, there is actually more to be said. There's nothing logically impossible about creating a rock so heavy that youo can't lift it. Indeed, given the right kind of furnace and the requisite fuel, any one of us could do it. It's trivial, in fact. There's nothing remotely logically impossible about anything in the exercise except omnipotence itself, which is an utter absurdity.

I'm not an apologist by any means, I'm an atheist. But this argument has never held any weight with me: it is silliness through and through. It is a completely abstract use of logic that completely disregards what an omnipotent being would be like if an omnipotent being existed. It is circular and applies to something that never has been claimed to exist nor ever could - it does not at all apply to what a real omnipotent being would be like - which is why I approach it from the angle of will and what it would mean for an omnipotent being to endeavor to create something that limited its power, which is what the question attempts to consider. And that is completely embedded in reality AND logical.

I am not claiming to be doing abstract logic - I am simply claiming that trying to apply logic abstractly in this case leads to a misunderstanding of what an omnipotent being would be like or what is ACTUALLY meant by the idea of omnipotence. It is a completely ridiculous argument - completely devoid of any meaning or applicability, and yet people spout it again and again as if it is somehow incredibly deep and devastating.

 

[Worldquest]

This is so off topic now.

But I can't resist joining in. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and all the other omnis, are tricky concepts. I hate to say this but to be ok with them, you have to let go! You have to wipe the slate clean of everything you take for granted. Don't automatically apply what you take for granted to these concepts.

So, god is omnipotent. Can god lift a rock which he created to be too heavy for him to lift? Yes. Because he's omnipotent, he can do anything. He can defy the contradiction. He has that ability / strength / potency / power. So, omnipotence is linked with transcendence. We commonly think of omnipotence as being able to do anything within certain boundaries. But if god is omnipotent / transcendent, there's no problem. Instead of splitting up each part and examining it, look at it as a whole. God isn't omnipotent and then omni something else, god is all these things simultaneously. Each word refers to an aspect of the whole, but it is part of a whole. The words are being used to describe a whole. A cube isn't a side, plus another, plus four more. A cube is all 6 sides, arranged in a certain way, they define the cube.

Sometimes things make sense when you step back and look at the whole, then you can see how each part looks within the whole picture.

 

[5810Singer]

@ Hackenslash and Ozymandyus:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2772&start=0

:lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm not an apologist by any means, I'm an atheist.

I'm aware of that. I do hope you don't think I was suggesting you were an apologist. The last paragraph wasn't directed at you, as indicated by the 'on a side note'.

But this argument has never held any weight with me: it is silliness through and through. It is a completely abstract use of logic that completely disregards what an omnipotent being would be like if an omnipotent being existed. It is circular and applies to something that never has been claimed to exist nor ever could - it does not at all apply to what a real omnipotent being would be like - which is why I approach it from the angle of will and what it would mean for an omnipotent being to endeavor to create something that limited its power, which is what the question attempts to consider. And that is completely embedded in reality AND logical.

The problem here is that you are suggesting that omnipotence is anything other than logically absurd. 'What an omnipotent being would be like'? Non-existent, because the concept is self-refuting. The only way around this is to reduce omnipotence to something that is not omnipotence. The meaning of the word is clear, and contains no ambiguity.

I am not claiming to be doing abstract logic - I am simply claiming that trying to apply logic abstractly in this case leads to a misunderstanding of what an omnipotent being would be like or what is ACTUALLY meant by the idea of omnipotence. It is a completely ridiculous argument - completely devoid of any meaning or applicability, and yet people spout it again and again as if it is somehow incredibly deep and devastating.

Well, I don't. I have much more solid arguments. I do agree that it isn't a brilliant argument, but that doesn't remotely detract from the fact that the concept of omnipotence is logically impossible, and that the argument does demonstrate it beautifully. We're not even asking this entity to be able to do something that is logically impossible, as apologists suggest. The fact is that creating a rock that the creator could not lift is a trivial act, and there's nothing illogical about it. It only becomes illogical when this entity is supposed to be able to do absolutely anything. This is a digital situation, in which he can either create the rock or he can't. Either way, he cannot be omnipotent.

I never said it was a brilliant argument, but it is logically sound.

 

[Deleted member 619]

This is so off topic now.

But I can't resist joining in. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and all the other omnis, are tricky concepts. I hate to say this but to be ok with them, you have to let go! You have to wipe the slate clean of everything you take for granted. Don't automatically apply what you take for granted to these concepts.

So, god is omnipotent. Can god lift a rock which he created to be too heavy for him to lift? Yes. Because he's omnipotent, he can do anything. He can defy the contradiction. He has that ability / strength / potency / power. So, omnipotence is linked with transcendence. We commonly think of omnipotence as being able to do anything within certain boundaries. But if god is omnipotent / transcendent, there's no problem. Instead of splitting up each part and examining it, look at it as a whole. God isn't omnipotent and then omni something else, god is all these things simultaneously. Each word refers to an aspect of the whole, but it is part of a whole. The words are being used to describe a whole. A cube isn't a side, plus another, plus four more. A cube is all 6 sides, arranged in a certain way, they define the cube.

Sometimes things make sense when you step back and look at the whole, then you can see how each part looks within the whole picture.

Sometimes, you have to stop working so hard to make reality fit your concepts. In this instance, reality is laughing at you.

 

[Demojen]

Worldquest says:
You have to wipe the slate clean of everything you take for granted.

You seem to be the one taking logic for granted.

He can defy the contradiction.

No, he can not. You see, then he is the contradiction and subsequently our understanding of the rules of evidence is wrong. Since this is a rather BASIC logic argument and the understanding of man is practically governed by logic, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the rules premised by the argument made by proponents of the myth were made to represent a truth or even logic. Rather they exist to represent an idea.

Ideas are powerful things.
However, if you believe that God is above logic then you're a fool. You have no basis for the argument but to say you have a faith that is based in illogic.

In the words of a religious person, "God does not save he who does not save himself"

Hackenslash summed it up best.

I will add this, though.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[e2iPi]

I hate to say this but to be ok with them, you have to let go! You have to wipe the slate clean of everything you take for granted.

This is the exact reason I am an atheist. I can't just pretend that something is a somehow a circle and a square at the same time--it is completely impossible, be definition. Any nominal child can tell you that.

Why would I want to delude myself in order to hold a belief for which there is no demonstrable evidence? More importantly, why would some god require me to do so? Would he not prefer that I marveled in his creation as it actually is?

-1

 

[Durakken]

The problem with atheist vs theist arguments is that it boils down to a lot of semantics that both side thinks are bullshit because they are both idiots and think that semantics are just word games instead an integral part of all human understanding. People want to keep on inventing and misusing words for concepts that already have labels and words that apply to them and no matter how many times you correct them they are going to continue to use them.

For example... agnosticism <- that word when I hear people use it or describe what it is pisses me off every time, because it only takes a rudimentary understanding of the English language to figure out what it means even though it's been bastardized and misused by just about everyone...

a- = without/rejection of/lacking
gnosis = knowledge
-ic = concerning the nature of
ism = a belief

If you think about it, it's pretty simple to see that the damn word means "A rejection of a belief concerning the nature of knowledge" That belief being that one can have absolute knowledge of anything when we are talking about philosophic positions which is what everyone is using it as.


This is the same thing with atheism, theism, god, feel, think, believe, know, cult, religion, mythology, good, evil, omnipotent, omnibonevolent (yeah that's not a fucking word btw), omniscient, free will... and many many many other words that are used. There needs to be a discussion about semantics so everyone can stop playing word games. Until you figure out what the fuck you're talking about, you shouldn't be making any other comments about the subject.

So when you ask me to take the other side that's a bit impossible considering the other person's side could be anything from the universe has a consciousness to who gives a fuck how the universe got created, this how x got created. When one talks about deities there is a huge spectrum that one is covering from things that i could agree with to things that are just ludicrous and until you pin down what you are talking about there is no way I can give my true input on such a thing.

In terms of "do I believe that there is a transcendent creator" I'm an atheist, but if you are asking "do you believe energy exists in reality" I'm a theist. And we all know I'm not being farcical about that being a concept of what a god is. So before i give you my input, explain to me what the fuck I'm supposed to be talking about... ie, give me semantics.

 

[5810Singer]

a- = without/rejection of/lacking
gnosis = knowledge
-ic = concerning the nature of
ism = a belief

If you think about it, it's pretty simple to see that the damn word means "A rejection of a belief concerning the nature of knowledge" That belief being that one can have absolute knowledge of anything when we are talking about philosophic positions which is what everyone is using it as.

That's just one interpretation, one could just as easily re-order the words like this: "lacking knowledge concerning the nature of belief".

Or in other words: "I don't know".

 

[Durakken]

a- = without/rejection of/lacking
gnosis = knowledge
-ic = concerning the nature of
ism = a belief

If you think about it, it's pretty simple to see that the damn word means "A rejection of a belief concerning the nature of knowledge" That belief being that one can have absolute knowledge of anything when we are talking about philosophic positions which is what everyone is using it as.

That's just one interpretation, one could just as easily re-order the words like this: "lacking knowledge concerning the nature of belief".

Or in other words: "I don't know".

no.

Gnosis is the root word. Knowledge is the root word.

-ic then modifies gnosis. Concerning the nature of then modified knowledge

-ism then modifies gnostic. Belief modifies Concerning the nature of knowledge

For your reading... the way the word would be constructed would be something else... something like : Agnosi fysicism

Though I don't know greek so I'm fairly certain that is wrong...

but now that I look at it that's what Physics minus the ism is... Belief concerning the nature of nature...

 

[Deleted member 619]

a- = without/rejection of/lacking
gnosis = knowledge
-ic = concerning the nature of
ism = a belief

If you think about it, it's pretty simple to see that the damn word means "A rejection of a belief concerning the nature of knowledge" That belief being that one can have absolute knowledge of anything when we are talking about philosophic positions which is what everyone is using it as.

That's just one interpretation, one could just as easily re-order the words like this: "lacking knowledge concerning the nature of belief".

Or in other words: "I don't know".

No, and this is really a pet niggle. If you check any rigorous definition of agnosticism, it is a position concerning the possibility of knowledge, not the possession of it. Indeed, with regard to its usual application, it would be a completely redundant word, because nobody knows whether god exists. You cannot simply be 'agnostic', because it isn't an exclusive position. Further, even given that utterly useless and inappropriate usage, you would still either believe in a deity or not. In other words, you'd still be a theist or an atheist. This is a true dichotomy, and you absolutely must be one or the other, as there is no middle ground.