The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist

[Audley Strange]

1 Conrinthians 2:11 "No man can know the mind of Jehovah"

No one can purport to make claim on behalf of Jehovah. Thus discussion about Jehovah or it's motivations are meaningless.
In fact in Kings and Numbers they claim the entity bumps people off for excatly that.

So I'd take the claims of the faithful about Jehovah with the same weight I take the claims of my cat about it.

[Svartalf]

But the Cat IS God.

[Audley Strange]

No that would be Ceiling Cat.

Both mine are emissaries of Basement Cat.

[Svartalf]

But each regards himself as supêrior to ceiling cat and more worthy of worship from the hairless two legged servants

[surreptitious57]

Agnostic Atheists are merely evading the most essential question in any investigation of the existence of God which is what is the scientific definition of God that must be used in any attempt at scientificaly investigating he she it

They evade it deliberately most of the time, using precisely the same illogic as you have used to justify their denials of the existence of God God cannot exist because God is supernatural because nothing supernatural can exist because there is only nature It s childlike circular reasoning you see Thats why I created the Atheist's Fallacy in the first place, because that tautological train of though is perhaps the most common Atheist fallacy ever seen on the face of the planet throughout recorded history Its so pervasive among Atheists that it deserves it's own special fallacy

There is no such thing as the scientific definition of God since He does not reside within the physical
If He did He would be capable of detection but is not so that then leaves two possibilities : He does
not exist at all or He exists in the meta physical : how ever neither of these can be demonstrated
And you have referenced a paradox in claiming agnostic atheists deny the existence of God : an
agnostic is one who has no definitive view on existence or non existence : so how ironic then
that in your eagerness to reference the so called athiest fallacy that you end up committing
a fallacy which then invalidates your own argument : make sure the next one is watertight

[Seth]

God cannot exist because God is supernatural, because nothing supernatural can exist because there is only nature.

I'm not sure which agnostic atheists you're running around with, but they're clearly not very bright.

Yes, I must agree that almost every Atheist I've ever met, agnostic or not, is not very bright.

This agnostic atheist is such because: 1) he doesn't know whether or not any god(s) exist(s), and 2) he lacks any faith that they do in fact exist.

Strictly speaking, that is all my agnostic atheism means to me, your crude strawman notwithstanding.

It's not a strawman, it's a valid observation of Atheist dogma and belief.

[Seth]

Agnostic Atheists are merely evading the most essential question in any investigation of the existence of God which is what is the scientific definition of God that must be used in any attempt at scientificaly investigating he she it

They evade it deliberately most of the time, using precisely the same illogic as you have used to justify their denials of the existence of God God cannot exist because God is supernatural because nothing supernatural can exist because there is only nature It s childlike circular reasoning you see Thats why I created the Atheist's Fallacy in the first place, because that tautological train of though is perhaps the most common Atheist fallacy ever seen on the face of the planet throughout recorded history Its so pervasive among Atheists that it deserves it's own special fallacy

There is no such thing as the scientific definition of God since He does not reside within the physical

And your critically robust scientific proofs of this assertion are...??

If He did He would be capable of detection but is not

Are you certain of this, or could it be that our puny human intellects are simply not capable of detecting God at our present level of intelligence and technology? I'd like to see your critically robust scientific proofs that God is "not capable" of being detected.

so that then leaves two possibilities : He does
not exist at all or He exists in the meta physical

No, It leaves at least three other possibilites: You are wrong. Humans are not yet smart enough to detect, examine and quantify God. Or, God does not wish to be subjected to scientific analysis at this point in time and (being very powerful, perhaps omnipotent) deliberate chooses to evade and frustrate any such attempt for reasons of his/her/its own.

: how ever neither of these can be demonstrated

...by you, at this stage in your evolution and paltry understanding of the universe(s)...

And you have referenced a paradox in claiming agnostic atheists deny the existence of God : an
agnostic is one who has no definitive view on existence or non existence : so how ironic then
that in your eagerness to reference the so called athiest fallacy that you end up committing
a fallacy which then invalidates your own argument : make sure the next one is watertight

It's funny how "agnostics" are rarely actually agnostic in their comments on the existence of God, much less their true internal beliefs. Usually it comes out as, "I'm agnostic about the existence of God, but because I have seen no credible scientific evidence that God exists, I don't believe he does." That's not agnosticism, that's equivocating Atheism.

[Coito ergo sum]

God cannot exist because God is supernatural, because nothing supernatural can exist because there is only nature.

I'm not sure which agnostic atheists you're running around with, but they're clearly not very bright.

Yes, I must agree that almost every Atheist I've ever met, agnostic or not, is not very bright.

This agnostic atheist is such because: 1) he doesn't know whether or not any god(s) exist(s), and 2) he lacks any faith that they do in fact exist.

Strictly speaking, that is all my agnostic atheism means to me, your crude strawman notwithstanding.

It's not a strawman, it's a valid observation of Atheist dogma and belief.

Note the use of the capital-A "Atheist." This was raised in a previous thread wherein Seth clarified that not all atheists are Atheists. It's hard to pin Seth down as to who, exactly, falls within this subset of atheists, but he is referring to something less than all atheists by his use of Atheists. At least, that is my understanding of his intent.

Now, Seth does use this small-a, capital-A distinction as a kind of rhetorical trick, from time to time, wherein the conversation gets muddled because people think he's referring to atheists, when he's referring to this made up category of Atheists. It would be better if the terms were "atheist" and "Beetheists" or something that more clearly revealed that the words were not the same, but that would not serve the tricky gambit that the small-a, capital-a distinction is meant to further.

So, that being said, I think it would be helpful if Seth wold fill in the following blank:

Atheism (proper noun with capital-A) means: _____________________________________________________________________________________________

atheism (common noun with small a) means: ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Seth, would you be so kind as to provide those underlying definitions?

[Seth]

God cannot exist because God is supernatural, because nothing supernatural can exist because there is only nature.

I'm not sure which agnostic atheists you're running around with, but they're clearly not very bright.

Yes, I must agree that almost every Atheist I've ever met, agnostic or not, is not very bright.

This agnostic atheist is such because: 1) he doesn't know whether or not any god(s) exist(s), and 2) he lacks any faith that they do in fact exist.

Strictly speaking, that is all my agnostic atheism means to me, your crude strawman notwithstanding.

It's not a strawman, it's a valid observation of Atheist dogma and belief.

Note the use of the capital-A "Atheist." This was raised in a previous thread wherein Seth clarified that not all atheists are Atheists. It's hard to pin Seth down as to who, exactly, falls within this subset of atheists, but he is referring to something less than all atheists by his use of Atheists. At least, that is my understanding of his intent.

Now, Seth does use this small-a, capital-A distinction as a kind of rhetorical trick, from time to time, wherein the conversation gets muddled because people think he's referring to atheists, when he's referring to this made up category of Atheists. It would be better if the terms were "atheist" and "Beetheists" or something that more clearly revealed that the words were not the same, but that would not serve the tricky gambit that the small-a, capital-a distinction is meant to further.

So, that being said, I think it would be helpful if Seth wold fill in the following blank:

Atheism (proper noun with capital-A) means: _____________________________________________________________________________________________

atheism (common noun with small a) means: ______________________________________________________________________________________________

Seth, would you be so kind as to provide those underlying definitions?

Sure. Persons who have simple "lack of belief" in or about God are small-a atheists. These are "implicit atheists," and that subset is comprised ONLY of those who have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of theistic or deistic concepts or who have no mental capacity to know or understand the concepts involved. Small children and infants and the severely mentally defective are examples of implicit small-a atheists.

Persons who have been in any way exposed to theistic or deistic concepts or notions who are mentally capable of rationally analyzing the claims made by the various proponents and who therefore must necessarily have assigned a truth-value to such claims as a function of giving them consideration and who have therefore formed a belief about the claims, where that person rejects the claims or concepts are "explicit atheists." Many explicit atheists actually qualify as small-a atheists because their atheistic beliefs are not practiced "devotedly" and to them their atheism is not a "point or matter of ethics or conscience." Such people simply do not believe in God, but they never effectuate or actuate those beliefs in any deliberate or intentional fashion in their social or political lives. To the explicit small-a atheist, not believing in God is simply how they are, and they don't make an issue of it or make an issue of the beliefs of others contrary to their own beliefs.

Explicit atheists who go beyond the inherent decision-making involved in considering theistic claims and forming beliefs about those claims by putting those beliefs into action in their lives either socially or politically, those who use those beliefs as a part of a system of external practices in their social, political or religious lives that show that the atheistic belief/practice set is "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience," qualify as capital-A proper noun Atheists and most often practitioners of Atheism as a religion. Richard Dawkins clearly qualifies as someone who "believes in and follows devotedly" atheism, and to him it is clearly "a point or matter of ethics or conscience," and there is no doubt whatsoever that he is highly religious about his practice of Atheism.

Nearly every member of this group, and RDF, and RatSkep easily qualifies as a religious capital-A Atheist, and a good many of them are self-evidently and obviously (and sometimes proudly) bigoted, intolerant, hateful religious zealots of the very worst sort, no better than the very worst of theists whom they deride, excoriate, insult, belittle and attack.

Is that sufficiently clear to you?

[Coito ergo sum]

Not quite, but it's close.

When you talk about the capital-A Atheist being "practitioners" of "Atheism" (capital A) as a "religion," we will also need to know what the tenets or basic principles of this "Atheism" of which you speak. As a Christian devotedly follows certain tenets and articles of faith, so too to be "as a religion" Atheism must have basic tenets and articles of faith. So, I would ask you to let me know what some major examples of those are.

"atheism" without the capital A just means nonbelief or disbelief in gods (not just whatever capital G God you're mentioning). So, I'm not clear if you're saying that the capital A Atheist merely adds "devotedly follows" his disbelief in gods to the disbelief, or if you are saying that capital A atheists follow more than mere disbelief in gods, and move on to other tenets, principles and articles of faith beyond that.

Can you help me there?

[Blind groper]

I might add that 'small a' atheism cannot imply naivety or lack of smarts either. Most scientists are 'small a' atheists, in that they do not believe in any deity, but that lack of belief does not impinge on their lives, and they make very little or nothing of it in their dealings with other people.

[camoguard]

I don't believe in a God because no deity based religion sponsors orgies. Therefor, believing in a God does not accomplish my goals. Now to disappear off to the Grounds because having classmates sometimes does lead to said goals.

[Seth]

Not quite, but it's close.

When you talk about the capital-A Atheist being "practitioners" of "Atheism" (capital A) as a "religion," we will also need to know what the tenets or basic principles of this "Atheism" of which you speak.

No, you don't. You need only observe how Atheists act and it's easy to deduce that they have any number of things in common, primary among those traits are an active rejection of theistic claims, very often an active hatred of organized religion combined with social and political actions in support of Atheism (atheistic evangelization) and in political and social opposition to some or all organized religions. The basic belief of Atheists is that religion is a bane to human advancement and that belief in deity is indication of mental derangement, along with a belief that society would be better off if no one believed in God (in spite of the clear evidence that when societies organize around atheism it always ends badly, with mass death as one of the most frequent results), and a strong belief that science can answer all questions.

Besides which, a set of "tenets" or "basic principles" held in common by all members is not a requirement of religion.

As a Christian devotedly follows certain tenets and articles of faith, so too to be "as a religion" Atheism must have basic tenets and articles of faith. So, I would ask you to let me know what some major examples of those are.

Atheists are as Atheists do, and I've pointed out significant similarities that demonstrate the practice of religion by Atheists.

"atheism" without the capital A just means nonbelief or disbelief in gods (not just whatever capital G God you're mentioning).

Not quite. "atheism," as defined by both dictionaries and particularly by Atheists (who insist on this definition with great vigor whenever they are accused of practicing religion) means "a lack of belief in god or gods." Not disbelief, just a lack of belief. This is the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. A lack of belief implies a lack of consideration and value judgments about the claims of theism. It means ignorance of theistic concepts because once a person, any person who has a competent mind, is informed of theistic concepts, they naturally and inherently, and inescapably, give those concepts or ideas consideration, compare them against personal experience and education and other internal touchstones, and they inevitably and irreversibly make a value judgment about the claims. Some people form a belief in the concepts or claims. Some people dismiss or discard the concepts or claims as insufficiently supported by scientific evidence. But only small children and idiots can justifiably or rationally claim to have "a lack of belief" in or more importantly about the existence of god or gods.

If you learn of the claims of theists, and you consider and test them internally and then reject them, you have formed a belief about the existence of god or gods. That is active disbelief, which defines the explicit atheist.

If you hold that belief (which is itself a manifestation of faith in that you cannot DISPROVE the existence of god or gods, you merely have faith in the lack of personal knowledge of what you consider to be credible evidence for the existence of god or gods, which you then extend to support a claim that god or gods cannot or do not exist when in fact you are making that judgment in ignorance), and you build a practice set around that belief, like spending time participating in discussions on line with other like minded individuals, donating to Atheist organizations, proselytizing about the benefits of "reason" and "science," attacking theists, engaging in political activities to advance Atheism and secularism and other actions that are based in your rejection of the claims of theism and your belief that god or gods do not exist and that the influence of religion on society is negative and must be opposed, you are practicing the Atheist religion in every relevant way.

[Seth]

I don't believe in a God because no deity based religion sponsors orgies. Therefor, believing in a God does not accomplish my goals. Now to disappear off to the Grounds because having classmates sometimes does lead to said goals.

What about Baccus? Or Mithras? Or even some forms of Paganism. Any number of religions celebrate with sexual orgies. You just haven't looked hard enough.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not quite, but it's close.

When you talk about the capital-A Atheist being "practitioners" of "Atheism" (capital A) as a "religion," we will also need to know what the tenets or basic principles of this "Atheism" of which you speak.

No, you don't. You need only observe how Atheists act and it's easy to deduce that they have any number of things in common, primary among those traits are an active rejection of theistic claims, very often an active hatred of organized religion combined with social and political actions in support of Atheism (atheistic evangelization) and in political and social opposition to some or all organized religions. The basic belief of Atheists is that religion is a bane to human advancement and that belief in deity is indication of mental derangement, along with a belief that society would be better off if no one believed in God (in spite of the clear evidence that when societies organize around atheism it always ends badly, with mass death as one of the most frequent results), and a strong belief that science can answer all questions.

Besides which, a set of "tenets" or "basic principles" held in common by all members is not a requirement of religion.

As a Christian devotedly follows certain tenets and articles of faith, so too to be "as a religion" Atheism must have basic tenets and articles of faith. So, I would ask you to let me know what some major examples of those are.

Atheists are as Atheists do, and I've pointed out significant similarities that demonstrate the practice of religion by Atheists.

"atheism" without the capital A just means nonbelief or disbelief in gods (not just whatever capital G God you're mentioning).

Not quite. "atheism," as defined by both dictionaries and particularly by Atheists (who insist on this definition with great vigor whenever they are accused of practicing religion) means "a lack of belief in god or gods." Not disbelief, just a lack of belief. This is the distinction between implicit and explicit atheism. A lack of belief implies a lack of consideration and value judgments about the claims of theism. It means ignorance of theistic concepts because once a person, any person who has a competent mind, is informed of theistic concepts, they naturally and inherently, and inescapably, give those concepts or ideas consideration, compare them against personal experience and education and other internal touchstones, and they inevitably and irreversibly make a value judgment about the claims. Some people form a belief in the concepts or claims. Some people dismiss or discard the concepts or claims as insufficiently supported by scientific evidence. But only small children and idiots can justifiably or rationally claim to have "a lack of belief" in or more importantly about the existence of god or gods.

If you learn of the claims of theists, and you consider and test them internally and then reject them, you have formed a belief about the existence of god or gods. That is active disbelief, which defines the explicit atheist.

If you hold that belief (which is itself a manifestation of faith in that you cannot DISPROVE the existence of god or gods, you merely have faith in the lack of personal knowledge of what you consider to be credible evidence for the existence of god or gods, which you then extend to support a claim that god or gods cannot or do not exist when in fact you are making that judgment in ignorance), and you build a practice set around that belief, like spending time participating in discussions on line with other like minded individuals, donating to Atheist organizations, proselytizing about the benefits of "reason" and "science," attacking theists, engaging in political activities to advance Atheism and secularism and other actions that are based in your rejection of the claims of theism and your belief that god or gods do not exist and that the influence of religion on society is negative and must be opposed, you are practicing the Atheist religion in every relevant way.

So, there aren't any tenets and principles then?

In whatever way you want to phrase it, atheism is the belief that gods do not exist, or the lack of a belief in a god or gods.

You are incorrect in your distinction between this explicit and implicit atheism, though. You seem to think that explicit atheism requires an "examination of theistic beliefs" and formation of a belief that they are wrong. This is not correct. One can never have examined all of the theistic or polytheistic or deistic beliefs and rejected them all. Atheism is merely the statement of "I don't know, therefore I don't believe." Or, it is "based on the evidence I have so far, I don't believe." Atheism is either "I don't believe in gods, or I lack a belief in gods." Those are functionally equivalent phrases.

I've certainly come to the conclusion that there very probably isn't a god or gods out there, to the point where I'll just shorthand it and say "I don't believe in gods."

I mean -- your argument is as applicable to a Christian who rejections Allah or Vishnu. You're going to suggest that a Christian is an implicit a-Vishnuist if he hasn't examined Hinduism, but if he gets a whiff of Hinduism and rejects hinduism, then he's somehow doing so irrationally because he can't prove it wrong?

That's the essence of your argument.

It's specious, at best. Pure sophistry and circularity.

Your argument really very silly. For example, the argument you make that only idiots or small children could "lack a belief" in gods. I mean, that's just patently ridiculous. If you don't believe in Bacchus, you lack a belief in Bacchus. You may have arrived at your lack of belief through examination of the claims for the existence of Bacchus and found them wanting. When you reject Bacchus, you lack a belief in it. Same thing with whatever this "God" thing is that you keep referring to. By examining your God claims, and seeing that they are nonsensical and childish, at best, one is justified in certainly considering them unproven claims. It's irrational and stupid to believe in an unproven claim. Therefore, the only rational conclusion is to not have a belief in God. All knowledge being provisional, of course, said conclusion is always subject to being falsified as it is based on the best of knowledge at the time, which may change.

It's the reasoned, considered judgment that sets atheists apart, generally, from the typical theist. The typical theist is superstitious and frightened, wondering "what will happen after I die" and various other wish-thinking. The theist in his natural habitat seeks to get around the idea of death, preferring to think of himself solipsistically, as having been lucky enough to be born of the one species that goes on living on some astral plane after death. The theist is arrogant and conceited, needing a "special purpose" in the world, and needing to know that he is part of "God's Plan." It is the wish of a child that big daddy will make it all better and kiss the booboo to make it go away. This is why you see a dramatic statistical difference in IQs between those that are atheists and those that are God-believers. The former are generally far and away smarter than the latter.