A case for strong atheism

[Snow]

If Vanhin's assertion of a corporeal God and Spirit is accurate, then it stands to reason that you consider these things to be as much a part of reality as the physical, tangible elements that surround us. The problem is, God isn't tangible, nor is the human soul.

So you claim but I believe that God is, in theory, as is the human soul, tangible. Electrons are tangible but remained elusive until new methods of discovery were found and recognized.

LDS claim to have knowledge beyond faith that these things are real, yet they can't demonstrate it. Without evidence, I can't accept these concepts as part of my worldview.

I'm LDS - believing LDS. I don't claim to have any such knowledge and think that those that say do don't understand the difference between knowledge and faith - or between knowledge and being convinced.

The only evidence that you have is the argument from personal experience, and I shouldn't have to lecture you on the folly of using that one. Experiences are subjective. Without tangible evidence that can be observed and evaluated objectively, there is no case for the existence of God. And without objective evidence for his existence, the default position becomes non-existence, the atheist position.

Frankly that is untrue. There is other evidence, both tangible and logical. You may not agree that the evidence is valid or indisputable but to claim that it doesn't exist isn't fair.

At any rate, the (strong) atheist position is hardly the default position. It is a positive belief - not the absence of belief. You, with no evidence (at least no indisputable or convincing evidence), affirm the active belief that God does not exist. The default position is merely agnostic or skeptical.

An analogous illustration: In ancient Egypt, there was no known evidence that what we call the Snake River in the Pacific Northwest was real. To say, then, that there was no such thing would be both dumb and factually wrong. The default position, and logically correct position, would be that such things were, then, unknown.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Snow

[Traveler]

I understand that the universe has 4 dimensions. Fine. That's perfectly scientific.

But, I don't understand your inference from the existence of 4 dimensions to the existence (or plausibility of the existence) of the soul. The issue is not scientific illiteracy. The issue is that I don't understand your inference FROM science.

Does that make sense?

If you are going to ignorantly call something you do not understand “arbitrary” that has firm theoretical scientific backing then it is very difficult to have an intelligent scientifically based discussion. If you wish to rely on science then at least demonstrate some proficiency in the craft.

One very popular supernatural natural event based concept on intersecting dimensions was developed by Carl Sagan concerning singularity (created in a black hole) intersection with 3 dimensions and is the mathematical possibility of worm holes. To demand direct proof of worm holes before any willingness to discuss or explorer any “use” of such a theoretical concept and calling such a discussion arbitrary is completely out of touch with modern scientific thought. Even quantum mechanics deals with possibilities and probabilities which are outside of your demand for proof.

What I have done is use concepts already established in science and outside of any LDS or for that matter any religious ideology to demonstrate the possibility that other dimensional things can have supernatural effects within our concepts of physics in 3 dimensions, thus the argument that supernatural phenomenon are both possible and probable at intersection of dimensions.

But let me make this as simple as possible – your ignorance (as well as mine and everyone else’s) of how things happen does not in any way indicate that they can or cannot happen. Which BTW is exactly the point Snow is making from a completely different point of view.

What I have done is to go one step beyond such arguments and show conditions where the supernatural is both possible and probable within current science. So now I will test your intelligence with a simple question. What points in our 3 dimensional space are mathematical possibilities and probabilities for boundary points (points of intersection) with any intersecting 4 dimensional space?

Before we begin any discussion of human soul – let’s get a firm foundation of what is possible within our discussion. If there is not firm common ground – there is no reason for discussion. That you (and others claiming to be atheist based on scientific principles on this forum) are so fearful of any meaningful or logical discussion that you must reject all arguments at their first step of introduction because you are not making a final connection – leaves a strong impression that you argue your points for no other reason but to argue; which is, the common definition of a troll – which is, in my experience, the epitome of stupidity. In other words, there is no intelligent reason for me to logically proceed beyond step one until there is agreement on step one. Dah!

The Traveler

[personne]

But thus say if ever God created well the human beings through the evolution... We shall look like very stupid, when even, after ...when we shall know all the truth if ever we got it all wrong and what it is very like that that God created the world. He can indeed say to us " ah you then: you do not miss a nerve(cap)! You were there, in the creation of the world? Then, how you can allow to say that the theory of evolution it was matter what? Yes it is very like that that I created you. You are proud excessively, to claim to know how I, I made things! You did not content with putting back in doubt, humbly and sincerely, the theory of evolution. That still I would understand. Well, no. You persisted in demonstrating that it was necessarily false. As if you knew him(it), as if you were in my secrets.... And as if you were persuaded that I am incapable to create a mechanism of evolution!

si Dieu pouvait me dire...

Hey ho! But you understood nothing in your mission you! I I sent to you to say to the world that I am love, that the only things which count it is to love me and to like(love) you some the others. I thought that after Jesus, you would have understood him(it)! But not! Instead of it, you stumble to want to demonstrate to the world that I created you from clay! But we don't care, in the way I created you! For me what account it is that you see a sense(direction) in your life! I gave different talents to each. I looked to some of scientists' talents. The scientists are there to make of the science, to explain how of the life, and to use(get) it to improve your situation. I gave to the others spiritual talents. The monks are there to bring of the spirituality, to explain why of the life. What begins you to mix everything! You lose some energy and some paper to defuse(unsettle) the evolution, while theoretically

[personne]

Here is. I am not a God, but by putting me in his place, I say to myself that I would react like that, in front of all the religious movements which enjoy fighting against science with the creationism instead of filling their real role, that to comfort people.....

[Roundearth]

If you are going to ignorantly call something you do not understand “arbitrary” that has firm theoretical scientific backing then it is very difficult to have an intelligent scientifically based discussion. If you wish to rely on science then at least demonstrate some proficiency in the craft.

One very popular supernatural natural event based concept on intersecting dimensions was developed by Carl Sagan concerning singularity (created in a black hole) intersection with 3 dimensions and is the mathematical possibility of worm holes. To demand direct proof of worm holes before any willingness to discuss or explorer any “use” of such a theoretical concept and calling such a discussion arbitrary is completely out of touch with modern scientific thought. Even quantum mechanics deals with possibilities and probabilities which are outside of your demand for proof.

What I have done is use concepts already established in science and outside of any LDS or for that matter any religious ideology to demonstrate the possibility that other dimensional things can have supernatural effects within our concepts of physics in 3 dimensions, thus the argument that supernatural phenomenon are both possible and probable at intersection of dimensions.

But let me make this as simple as possible – your ignorance (as well as mine and everyone else’s) of how things happen does not in any way indicate that they can or cannot happen. Which BTW is exactly the point Snow is making from a completely different point of view.

What I have done is to go one step beyond such arguments and show conditions where the supernatural is both possible and probable within current science. So now I will test your intelligence with a simple question. What points in our 3 dimensional space are mathematical possibilities and probabilities for boundary points (points of intersection) with any intersecting 4 dimensional space?

Before we begin any discussion of human soul – let’s get a firm foundation of what is possible within our discussion. If there is not firm common ground – there is no reason for discussion. That you (and others claiming to be atheist based on scientific principles on this forum) are so fearful of any meaningful or logical discussion that you must reject all arguments at their first step of introduction because you are not making a final connection – leaves a strong impression that you argue your points for no other reason but to argue; which is, the common definition of a troll – which is, in my experience, the epitome of stupidity. In other words, there is no intelligent reason for me to logically proceed beyond step one until there is agreement on step one. Dah!

The Traveler

Okay, I'm going to undercut that whole discussion by pointing back to my OP. If it's supernatural, it doesn't exist. If it exists, it's natural. By definition. And if you disagree with that, you may grapple with my philosophical arguments for that conclusion.

Now, you make the perfectly legitimate point that I should know a fair bit about science before claiming that science rules out the possibility of the soul. However, I don't have to know that science rules out the soul. I just have to point out that thus far, nobody has provided a reasonable account of how something like the soul might come to exist, from known principles of nature. And the soul seems like a very strange thing from a naturalistic standpoint: an invisible form of matter that does not displace the rest of the matter in our bodies at all, and which science has, thus far, found no positive evidence for.

Am I arguing my points for no reason but to argue? Well, as I said in the OP, I'm here partly to hone my critical thinking skills, but that's not the same as being here just to argue. It's obvious from my record, as others have noted, that I'm sincere.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Roundearth

[Roundearth]

You (anyone) can't even prove law of gravity let alone prove that God does or does not exist. Let's stay grounded in reality. All you can provide are logical arguments and you ability to do so has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

False - you did no such thing. You simply pontificated some straw-man nonsense. Why can you not support your contentions?

Stupid remark. Try and focus.

False - and dishonest. You have zero proof of your ideology, that God does not exist. All you have is faith, as your obvious lack of the provision of such proof clearly demonstrates.

Nonsensical questions won't get you very far. I don't think Mormonism or atheism require proof. It is your failure to apply the same standard to your own beliefs as you apply to mine that is at issue.

Asking rhetorical questions is CLEARLY not the the same as providing evidence for your belief. It may impress the kiddies but won't fly here.

You seem unwilling to seriously consider my points, which means that I won't get any value out of conversing with you. I'm not going to continue this discussion. I will happily pick it back up if you make a new response that is more polite and demonstrates an understanding of the positions I've expressed in this thread. Edited March 1, 2010 by Roundearth

[rameumptom]

Now, you make the perfectly legitimate point that I should know a fair bit about science before claiming that science rules out the possibility of the soul. However, I don't have to know that science rules out the soul. I just have to point out that thus far, nobody has provided a reasonable account of how something like the soul might come to exist, from known principles of nature. And the soul seems like a very strange thing from a naturalistic standpoint: an invisible form of matter that does not displace the rest of the matter in our bodies at all, and which science has, thus far, found no positive evidence for.

Round Earth, would you say that dark matter/energy are natural or super-natural? While we are just on the edge of actually being able to measure it, it is still a strongly held scientific theory. The fact is, if dark matter/energy exist, then the probability is that there is dark matter/energy within our own bodies; but we can't readily measure it in any form or fashion. We cannot see it, even though we know the majority of the stuff in the universe is made from it.

Perhaps the spirit/soul is made from such stuff? Whether it is or not, the point is that just because we have not yet discovered something, does not mean it doesn't exist. You keep bringing up unicorns. Yes, there are no real unicorns. At least not in today's world, and not according to our current knowledge. But there's a difference in a claimed unicorn, with a physical body that can be seen (if it were real), and a spirit that is made of fine matter that has not yet been measured. We believe in infrared, even though that spectrum is beyond our ability to see it with our own eyes. We can only see it indirectly, using mechanical measuring devices. The same goes with atoms, subatomic particles, and dark energy.

Your claim that there is no spirit, simply because one has not been seen nor measured yet, is a theory - not proof. Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence.

Given we have many eye witnesses of God and angels in our own day - I mentioned several instances before, and "miraculous" events regarding the Book of Mormon, etc., we have evidence that something is going on here that is out of the ordinary, even if it is natural. When 15 separate men have testified of seeing the gold plates of the Book of Mormon, 4 of them seeing an angel in conjunction with it, we now have evidence.

When Joseph Smith sees Christ on several occasions, with others also seeing Christ with him (including Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon), then we have evidence.

When the Book of Mormon comes forth making lots of claims, and many of those claims are found to be true, that is evidence. That the Book of Mormon mentions a place named Nahom, which is a place of mourning and burial; and that place is only rediscovered in the 1990s and dates back to the time of Lehi in the Book of Mormon - that is evidence.

Round Earth, you will find that our view of God is fairly different than most other Christian churches. You will also find that we have evidence, physical evidence that Joseph Smith's claims were real. Mormons stand in a unique place among all other Christian faiths. We have ancient claims that can be shown to be true only from modern discoveries. Statistically, it is impossible that Joseph Smith guessed right on so many things. That is evidence.

And, all believing LDS will tell you of their personal witness, that evidence that comes to one person at a time. For the individual, that also is evidence.

[Guest]

Bravo Rame! Unfortunately, Roundearth has a very selective definition of what is considered acceptable evidence. Which is frustrating really because as Funky was trying to get to in minute steps (as was required to get Roundearth to expand his horizon and slowly remove his blinders) but then Traveler fast forwarded boldly and which, as expected, Roundearth completely just hot-steps through.

I don't have a problem with Roundearth's atheist position. I have a problem with his reasoning. He needs a lot more critical thinking learning... like Neytiri said in the movie Avatar... he is like a baby...

Where I stopped with the nonsense is when he stated for fact that because I believe in God, my freedom is somehow diminished and that I don't have self-esteem. Critical thinking has gone to the path of judgemental.

So, there's this car we want to drive right - but, because we decided to follow the rules of the road by reading the manual, studying it, following it closely, and taking the test, we are somehow deprived of our self-esteem. Stupid argument.

[FunkyTown]

This did seem to get out of control as he was attacked on all sides.

Ultimately, the people arguing this have no basis for speaking with one another. You have to have some common ground to discuss something. If you don't, then there can be no logical debate ever. I feel this thread is just becoming a flamefest.

Bravo Rame! Unfortunately, Roundearth has a very selective definition of what is considered acceptable evidence. Which is frustrating really because as Funky was trying to get to in minute steps (as was required to get Roundearth to expand his horizon and slowly remove his blinders) but then Traveler fast forwarded boldly and which, as expected, Roundearth completely just hot-steps through.

I don't have a problem with Roundearth's atheist position. I have a problem with his reasoning. He needs a lot more critical thinking learning... like Neytiri said in the movie Avatar... he is like a baby...

Where I stopped with the nonsense is when he stated for fact that because I believe in God, my freedom is somehow diminished and that I don't have self-esteem. Critical thinking has gone to the path of judgemental.

So, there's this car we want to drive right - but, because we decided to follow the rules of the road by reading the manual, studying it, following it closely, and taking the test, we are somehow deprived of our self-esteem. Stupid argument.

[Vanhin]

Yep, it's not fair to expect Roundearth to be able to keep up with every conversation, and effectively answer every post. That can be quite cumbersome. I've felt a similar disadvantage at times when participating at other forums where the participants were predominantly non-LDS, and each one presented their own arguments.

However, Roundearth had to have anticipated that he was going to have to have this conversation with multiple opponents. Good thing Godless joined him to help him out. :) I say we give him some time to catch up.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest]

I agree! I vote for Funky to carry the torch for now. Let Roundearth digest that conversation. Like in Olympics. When it becomes like their conversation is sounding like a broken record, then we'll tap somebody else to take up the baton. How's that?

[Vanhin]

I agree! I vote for Funky to carry the torch for now. Let Roundearth digest that conversation. Like in Olympics. When it becomes like their conversation is sounding like a broken record, then we'll tap somebody else to take up the baton. How's that?

Well, I think there were a few others in line before him. We'll let Roundearth just respond to who he wants to. He has a green-light to ignore any flaming.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Guest Godless]

Geez, looks like I have some catching up to do. I'll try to get on that when I get home from class tonight.

I've enjoyed this discussion despite the fact that it's been difficult to keep up with at times. I hope we can keep it going at a pace and tone that's comfortable for everyone. For now though, I have to get going.

[personne]

I have made du HS and I apologize for it.

[Blackmarch]

To roundearth: sorry for not responding yet. Browser just atte it, i'll try getting one up tomorrow.

[Traveler]

.....

And the soul seems like a very strange thing from a naturalistic standpoint: an invisible form of matter that does not displace the rest of the matter in our bodies at all, and which science has, thus far, found no positive evidence for.

Am I arguing my points for no reason but to argue? Well, as I said in the OP, I'm here partly to hone my critical thinking skills, but that's not the same as being here just to argue. It's obvious from my record, as others have noted, that I'm sincere.

Again it appears to me that your difination of a naturalist is steped in out of date thinking steming from the Dark Ages. Let us take this statement:

an invisible form of matter that does not displace the rest of the matter in our bodies at all, and which science has, thus far, found no positive evidence for.

To demonstrate the complete blindness to 21st Century science of the above statement I call to attention the scientific notion of "bosons" - sub atomic known and proven to exist which can occupy the same space as other matter and not alter or affect the other matter.

I would be very interested in helping anyone understand things but you are resisting every effort as though your very life was at stake. You say you are sincere but I see no such evidence.

All I see is old worn-out arguments and a complete resistance to join in any 20th century and avoiding discoveries that will take anyone interested beyond the limits of ignorance into the freedoms and liberties of knowledge.

The Traveler

Edited March 1, 2010 by Traveler

[HiJolly]

Thank you, Roundearth, for starting this thread.

Okay, I'm going to undercut that whole discussion by pointing back to my OP. If it's supernatural, it doesn't exist. If it exists, it's natural. By definition. And if you disagree with that, you may grapple with my philosophical arguments for that conclusion.

Bingo, just like that we're all the way back to Aristotle. Wow.

This approach is valid if and only iff the subject is limited to the known box of scientific inquiry. And if that was how Galileo, Copernicus or Plank thought, we'd be much worse off today than we actually are.

Being exclusively reliant on scientific method, or on secular humanism, is a dead end.

I'd just like to invite everyone to take a break and get this book: "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert A. Burton, M.D. and read it. It clearly explains through peer-reviewed scientific experiments and physiological experimentation, how we are not entirely rational, no matter how hard we try to be. It is impossible, even for the secular humanists and scientists.

HiJolly

[Snow]

You seem unwilling to seriously consider my points, which means that I won't get any value out of conversing with you. I'm not going to continue this discussion. I will happily pick it back up if you make a new response that is more polite and demonstrates an understanding of the positions I've expressed in this thread.

Let me just say that you haven't surprised me. When challenged to support your position and answer it's inconsistencies, you retreat and pretend that it is me, rather than your own lack of understanding that prevents you from answering.

Let's take one of your points and "seriously consider" it:

In response to my question of how I will be better off if I abandon my faith, you spouted some mumbo jumbo about polygamous wives (I am not one) and also said:

"Self esteem, the belief that you are valuable (self respect) and competent to cope with reality (self confidence), is one of the most important things for you. It is fundamental to all of your emotions, it has an enormous influence on your decisions and ambition, and it is the best predictor of happiness that we have. Self esteem follows from obeying your mind scrupulously, in all things. Acting against your mind, i.e. broaching your integrity, results in self-hatred, which is destructive to you. There are many forms of acting against your mind, including sacrificing your mind to your parents, your friends, or your emotions. Your life and happiness require that you never sacrifice your mind.

A Mormon, in my opinion, cannot completely live by his mind. He has to subordinate his mind to the Book of Mormon, which means to his emotions, and to the church on all issues where they conflict. From the nature of self esteem, this must damage his self esteem."

Frankly, that's meaningless drivel. I can just as easily say that being an atheist increases your chances of getting shingles. Oddly enough, the proof of that contention is equal to the proof of your contention.

You seem to equate you being able to make stuff up with proof or evidence.

Third request - and I know this is a pointless exercise because you CAN"T answer:

How will I be better off if I abandon my faith and why are you hypocritical in applying one standard (of proof) to other's beliefs and no such standard to your own.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Roundearth.

* Strong atheism is JUST the belief that there is no God.

* Strong atheism is not a moral position, and does not necessarily entail any particular moral belief.

* A strong atheist can have a moral foundation.

* Strong atheism does not necessarily entail a belief in determinism, evolution, abortion, materialism, or naturalism.

* Strong atheists do not hate God. We do not believe in God.

* Strong atheists do not worship Satan. We do not usually believe in Satan.

* Strong atheists are rarely nihilists.

* Strong atheism is not a religion.

* Strong atheists do, in fact, exist.

* Strong atheists are not repressing knowledge that God exists.

* Strong atheism is not impossible to defend in principle. In principle, it could be defended by finding that the concept of God contradicts itself, the laws of logic, or empirical evidence. You will be able to make up your mind about whether my case for strong atheism is successful after reading this post.

All points read, understood and accepted.

-----

I submit that theism does not meet the burden of proof principle... then this has them becoming a weak atheist - that is, an atheist who fails to affirm the existence of God. To get to strong atheism, however, we need the arguments that follow below.

Again, all points read, understood and accepted.

-----

My case for strong atheism rests on the law of identity... The law of identity has two corollaries: First, that everything acts in accordance with its nature. Second, that to exist is to be defined..

...Now, by definition, a supernatural being would have no regularities like this. It could not act in any regular way, for then we would say that it was a natural being. So it would have to be an undefined, amorphous, shifting thing with no identity - which is to say, it could not exist.

Here is where I think your argument fails.

You are accustomed to debating naturalistic topics, and you seem well-equipped to do so. However, when debating supernatural topics, the law of identity simply becomes a fancy way of substituting the word “existent” for the word “natural,” thereby using sleight of hand to make a semantic argument appear substantive. Here is my explanation:

What your argument shows is that supernatural beings do not fit the definition of “natural being.” Point read, understood and accepted.

However, you then state that failure to meet this criterion leads to the conclusion of “non-existence.”

Essentially, you have required “naturalness” as a pre-requisite for “existence.” However, from the perspective of the supernaturalist, this is a significant redefinition of the word “existence.”

Let’s agree that, in order to win this debate, you must demonstrate that God does not exist by a definition of “existence” that could feasibly include supernatural entities. Otherwise, all you are saying is that God is not a natural being, and that is, frankly, a boring and pathetic argument.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Bluejay
Added last sentence.

[Finrock]

Again it appears to me that your difination of a naturalist is steped in out of date thinking steming from the Dark Ages. Let us take this statement:

To demonstrate the complete blindness to 21st Century science of the above statement I call to attention the scientific notion of "bosons" - sub atomic known and proven to exist which can occupy the same space as other matter and not alter or affect the other matter.

I would be very interested in helping anyone understand things but you are resisting every effort as though your very life was at stake. You say you are sincere but I see no such evidence.

All I see is old worn-out arguments and a complete resistance to join in any 20th century and avoiding discoveries that will take anyone interested beyond the limits of ignorance into the freedoms and liberties of knowledge.

The Traveler

I asked Roundearth several pages ago since Higgs Bosons are "invisible matter" do they also fall in to the same category as the spirit? He never responded. I've tried to establish some common definitions by which to continue our conversation, but thus far it appears that any definition that is inconvenient to Roundearth's position he rejects.

I've also provided several links to articles that explain the LDS worldview. It seems Roundearth has even rejected our definition of God saying that the being we believe isn't God because it isn't supernatural. Again, another convenient way to sidestep having to address a serious flaw in his reasoning.

I'm not a scientist, but I understand at least enough to know that there are many things in our universe that we are unable to observe and measure yet we've inferred their existence from other phenomenon.

Regards,

Finrock

P.S.

I'm saying these things to you because thus far I've been unable to get Roundearth to respond to my points but I wanted to just reiterate that I've brought them up before.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Snow.

Why, for you, does my faith based ideology require proof but your faith based ideology does not?

By the rules of empirical epistemology, Roundearth is correct: the burden of proof is not on him; it’s on us. Roundearth’s position is a status quo argument: i.e. his argument is that current knowledge is all there is, and anything that current knowledge does not support should be treated as non-existent.

So, by the rules of empirical epistemology, his worldview does not require supporting evidence, but ours does. And, this is perfectly justified: his argument is just the null hypothesis, so it is upheld by default each time our argument fails to find supporting evidence. It may seem unfair that we have to do all the work, but this is fully consistent with the epistemology, and there is no double standard.

However, he errs in trying to claim the benefits of being the null hypothesis, while not accepting the consequences. If he argues that the burden of proof is yours, then he also accepts that the power of proof is yours. That is, your “hypothesis” can (in principle) be demonstrated; but his cannot.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I’m sure you’ve heard that before? Unfortunately for Roundearth, the only support for atheism that can be found (even in principle) is an absence of evidence for God. So, atheism can only be regarded as the tentative conclusion arising from the observation that no evidence for God has been found yet.

[Snow]

P.S.

I'm saying these things to you because thus far I've been unable to get Roundearth to respond to my points but I wanted to just reiterate that I've brought them up before.

Yes - there is a whole club of us now.

We meet every third Weds at 7:00pm in the Rotunda.

We've invited Roundearth but per usual, he won't RSVP.

[Dravin]

Yes - there is a whole club of us now.

We meet every third Weds at 7:00pm in the Rotunda.

We've invited Roundearth but per usual, he won't RSVP.

Are there refreshments?

[Snow]

Are there refreshments?

We order refreshments but nobody gets back to us or they bring us something we didn't order.

[Dravin]

We order refreshments but nobody gets back to us or they bring us something we didn't order.

I hope you left a penny tip.