3rd

To me atheism does not make sense. What it tells me is, atheists don't believe in something that never existed in the first place. It's a circular argument. — L'éléphant

What about the denial of Bigfoot, ghosts, or aliens? Can one logically deny those?

Well, it was good of you to have a look at the article anyway.
Your response to it marries with your views on theism and you already know my views on theism.
ABSOLUTELY no bad feelings EugeneW, I very much enjoy our exchanges!

He at least could have answered some thing.. — EugeneW

I agree and I hope you do get a response, eventually.
Perhaps he is still reading through other emails, who knows what his workload is?
As I said before, I got responses from Joe Atwill and Dan Dennett but not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins.

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists. — Gregory A

I don't follow. If atheism is valid wouldn't they be able to talk with mouths wide open and loud words? It are the theists who should be silent.

The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right. — Gregory A

This is confusing. The invalidity of atheism seems equivalent to the validity of theism. Is naturalism compatible with theism?

Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc — Gregory A

I'm not sure atheists believe in mermaids and unicorns. They can be found in principle while gods live in a world outside of the universe. But then again, maybe mermaids and unicorns live along with the gods.

Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left). — Gregory A

That depends on the atheist and the power they possess. I'm a theist and an anarchist.

What is your definition of a god? — DingoJones

Creatures with the power of creation.

Creatures with the power of creation. — EugeneW

I see. What kind of creation do you mean? Like spontaneous creation out of nothing or would a human being creating a song or painting or a baby in their wombs count?
Do you believe in multiple gods then?

I'd chosen mermaids to avoid the 'out' that tooth fairies allow by being super-natural. Your atheism says nothing about mermaids, unicorns, etc, so we need to believe you accept these as real as you do not protest their unlikely existence (up until now that is)? — Gregory A

People can be bound together in shared values, goals, and norms with fictions (institutional facts) and societies are built on them. They're an indispensable part of human social life. Money, property, marriage, governments, etc etc, are observer-dependent and not brut facts. Is Biden the president of the United States? Some believe that Trump is the actual president, despite the lack of evidence to support that belief.

I point this out to show that we all accept fictions of some kind. Some fictions carry more power than others. Religious fictions carry a lot of power and that's why they are met with a lot of skepticism in modernity.

So the issue isn’t about believer/non-believer, it’s about which leaders we choose to follow and why we follow them.

I see. What kind of creation do you mean? Like spontaneous creation out of nothing or would a human being creating a song or painting or a baby in their wombs count?
Do you believe in multiple gods then? — DingoJones

Creation out of nothing, indeed. But no spontaneously. Well, in a way it was...l I believe in multiple gods. Details will be revealed in a short story. I saw this forum offers the possibility to present them. Tom Storm gave me inspiration. Await my friend. The so eagerly looked for truth will be revealed once and for all.

A god hypothesis would require atheism to be invalid. — Gregory A

Saying that "atheism is invalid" makes no sense. It connects two things that are incompatible with each other:
The word "invalid", in a philosophical context, means that an argument, statement or theory is not true because it is based on erroneous information or unsound reasoning.
The term "atheism" has nothing to do with any of the above. It refers to the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God.

So you most probably mean then that the arguments and/or theory supporting atheism are invalid.

In that case, I more than agree. I believe it is quite evident, if one thinks simply this: How can someone who does not believe that something exists, can prove that it doesn't exist?
If, as an atheist, I try to make any argument about the inexistence of God, I will immediately fall on my face. It would be trying to prove the inexistence of something I don't believe it exists!

So, my reply to the subject is that atheists actually have no arguments at all, valid or invalid.

***

(What follows is my position on trying to prove the existence of God.)

The belief in God (theism) is not a subject to argue about. If we try to prove God's existence based on reasoning, we will have to make arbitrary assumptions --I have proved that elsewhere in TPF-- and the construction will fall apart before even it is completed, because it will be based on wrong or no foundations.

The belief in God can only be discussed on grounds of personal experience, i.e. having an experience of God. If I say "I feel the presence of God", this is not arguable. You can't say, "This is incorrect", "This is a lie", "Prove it!", etc. If nothing else, God most probably means a different thing and has a different form from what you yourself believe. This alone, excludes the subject from argumentation.

This, as far as "theism" is concerned. In "atheism" --literally "a-" (=without) + "theism"-- things are more simple. If I have no experience of God, that's all. It doesn't exist for me. End of story. I should better not try to make any argument about that. I explained why in the beginning ...

How can someone who does not believe that something exists, can prove that it doesn't exist? — Alkis Piskas

Your confusion lies with conflating the second-order meta claim of atheism (theism is not true) with the first-order object claim of theism (there is at least one god). Evidence against theism? Theists' conspicuous failures for millennia to soundly demonstrate that "there is at least one god" is true (especially given the extraordinary scope of what's canonically-liturgically attributed to "god" whereby evidences, direct or not, should be ubiquitous and yet are completely absent). This only "proves" that theism is just as unwarranted as interpreting fairytales or poems literally. Only imaginary things, after all, require "faith" (i.e. suspension of disbelief). :pray: :roll:

Whether aware of it or not atheists attempt to silence theists. — Gregory A

Sounds like you've got something of a persecution complex. Incel maybe?

Agreed, there's also a bias for being or existing things at least epistemologically.
If we deny quantum mechanics then we epistemologically never deny/negate physics entirely (we could be extreme general relativists or string theorists) however if we assert quantum mechanics, then that entails mechanics (at least epistemologically).
If atheism is defined as the negation of theism then I'm not sure how one ever gets to that position even given infinite negations of physical theories.
Now physics can be shown to be an issue by attacking the premise of it (that the material universe is fundamentally matter and energy) but this doesn't seem to imply that physics has no validity or doesn't exist in this world (can't be talked about) or that we have the means to justify that we have exhaustive means to show it doesn't exist.

I think atheism ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater and theism, and even atheism, should be assumed that they are real but in terms of what they are like social constructs etc.

Which will not only conspire to deprive males of their lives, females of their freedoms but along with that (all) faiths not worshiping God the Mother.
— Gregory A

You must have had some pretty bad experiences! Do they make you worship the Mother God? Praised is her name. — EugeneW

As a bearer of the 'Y' Chromosome, I'm not allowed to worship the Mother God. We are as excluded from that right as transgender males are from acceptance by feminism.

Evidence against theism? Theist's conspicuous failure for millennia to soundly demonstrate that "there is at least one god" is true — 180 Proof

You have a preconceived notion of soundly demonstrating. If science has no way to demonstrate how the universe came into being, there is one possible explanation left. We theists might add that the stupidity of the laws of physics is sound secondary proof.

So, two independent proofs of the existence of gods. What proof science has that they don't exist? Zeronada, nonenienteziltch... :sparkle:

There seems to be no way to verify that atheism is true. There is no way to ever get to theism being false without asserting theism as a verifiable proposition but if theism is verifiable at all (can be true or false) then atheism is contradicted (after all, it would inherent the truth aptness of theism if it's a second order claim as you say).

If science has no way to demonstrate how the universe came into being, there is one possible explanation left. — EugeneW

From this, why doesn't this follow:

If theism has no way of proving how the universe came into being, there is one possible explanation left.

You changed demonstrate for proof. I don't know if that was to side-step an empirical requirement (depending on your definition of demonstrate) or if you are making an asymmetrical analogy.
In any case there are proofs of creation from God in cosmological arguments, contingency of creation arguments, ontological. Aristotle required a prime mover and Plato required a form of good. I'm not sure if those overlap with your statement.

I have a spoiler alert guys for those who missed Philosophy 101, no proof for the existence of God succeeds, including this one, which appears to suggest that God's existence arises from the pure force of logic in that God is supposedly logicaly impossible to negate.

Wherever the nonsense arises from that one can't negate that which they don't believe, I don't know, but nonsense it is. Bigfoot isn't forced into existence by logical entailment because I'm unable to deny his existence because I don't believe in him.

any case there are proofs of creation from God in cosmological arguments, contingency of creation arguments, ontological. Aristotle required a prime mover and Plato required a form of good. I'm not sure if those overlap with your statement. — Shwah

Those aren't proofs. Those are fallacious arguments. If they were proofs, the matter would be concluded.

A fallacious argument can still be a proposition and even a valid proof even if unsound.
In any case Godel's ontological argument has been automated and verified in other languages or terms and as itself. That would be a proof. Even the sep, among many papers that sought to automate it, has said so.

fallacious argument can still be a proposition and even a valid proof even if unsound. — Shwah

No proof for this existence of God is valid.

Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties, and granted the acceptability of the underlying modal logic, the listed theorems do follow from the axioms. (This point was argued in detail by Dana Scott, in lecture notes which circulated for many years and which were transcribed in Sobel 1987 and published in Sobel 2004. It is also made by Sobel, Anderson, and Adams.)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#GodOntArg

I will say this (correct me if I am wrong), you do not believe in God but you continue to ask for proof of God. What to you is proof of God?
— chiknsld

As an atheist, I hold the position that I have seen no reason to be convinced there is god/s - let alone people knowing what god/s want. So I am asking for theist's evidence. That should seem reasonable, surely?

The main role for an atheist in these conversations is to ask theists - 'why do you say that?'

I don't know what would be counted as 'proof', but I do know that nothing I have heard or seen so far works for me.

It's important because governments all around the world have harmful religious agendas, from killing gay people in Saudi, to working to overturn Roe versus Wade in the USA. We know religious nationalism is a huge problem all around the world (Putin anyone?) and all of these are folk who not only believe in god/s, but think they know what god/s wants.

So why do you make the claims you do? — Tom Storm

That's an expectedly nice picture you paint of your 'team'. But the reality is atheists demand evidence of God and then demand theists shut up if that is not supplied. Killing openly 'gay people', those promoting homosexuality? Roe v Wade is a very politically contentious piece of legislation, one that is open to challenge. Once again atheism trying to shove its leftist agenda down people's throats. You have no understanding of what free-speech is. The Left emotionalists. What soothes your bleeding heart is right.

Await my friend. The so eagerly looked for truth will be revealed once and for all. — EugeneW

<smile>

If science has no way to demonstrate how the universe came into being, there is one possible explanation left. — EugeneW

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

We theists might add that the stupidity of the laws of physics is sound secondary proof.

Apologetic gibberish. Assertion without argument can be dismissed without argument (Hitchen's Razor).

What proof science has that they don't exist? 

Science concerns discomfirming evidence and not "proofs", lil D-Ker. The truth-claims of theism have been repeatedly falsified by counter-evidences (e.g. historical, hermeneutical and empirical) and everyday human experience as well as having been shown to be logically unsound and conceptually incoherent. You're preachments, lil D-Ker, are typical examples of the vapid vacuity of deity-worship. :sweat:

A problem with your Göd above, neglecting the question machinery with which he it is lowered upon the world state, is its abominable blankness and blandness. I could be wrong, but I assume the goal is a benevolent bloke with his hands on the controls who'll make exceptions for the righteous, give 'em a tit for a tat, a pet for a this or that. Derive if thou canst from then hair a god worth the conjuring.

It would imply that if the universe came into being (entailed) and it was epistemologically graspable, and that a scientific explanation couldn't explain it, that something else can. In any case this would rid science of the burden of dismissing theist claims.

I'm not sure what you're saying. You're saying God must be all positive properties? That's in definition D1. If you're saying a particular conception of God then the proof is a God-like being which is valid in most mainstream religions such as christianity etc. It wouldn't be those conceptions exactly but it would be valid for them which is just to place it on the table.

I'm saying that most folks want a personal god who cares about them and that the gods cooked up by logicians and metaphysicians tend to be uselessly abstract, scratching only a metaphysical itch which is rare in the first place. The alternative to this, which is maybe more common, is that believers in Jehova or Allah or Jesu ( the personal god in some ancient story ) try to drag in abstract logic chopping and ignore that, at best, this gets them only an indeterminate deity and not the avatar of their sweaty and pugnacious tribe.

Once one enters the realm of reason and logic, the game is already lost perhaps (or beginning to be won), for reason is essentially universal, and a god subject to logic is already the slave of man or his self-flattering pocketmirror.

As an atheist, I hold the position that I have seen no reason to be convinced there is god/s - let alone people knowing what god/s want.
— Tom Storm
If it is not immediately evident to you that there is something going on, whilst living and breathing in a gigantic universe...then it's a safe assumption that you will probably never believe in God. It's kinda just one of those things. In all my incredible wisdom, I can say at least that much.

The main role for an atheist in these conversations is to ask theists - 'why do you say that?'
— Tom Storm
Wouldn't it be so easy for you if everything was all natural? I mean, then you wouldn't even have to ask a theist why they believe in God right? Or for proof? But wait (here comes the justification)...

It's important because governments all around the world have harmful religious agendas, from killing gay people in Saudi, to working to overturn Roe versus Wade in the USA. We know religious nationalism is a huge problem all around the world (Putin anyone?) with all of these are folk who not only believe in god/s, but think they know what god/s wants.
— Tom Storm
You've got to be kidding me. Haughtily asking for proof of God in the guise of sincere and genuine civic duty? Vladimir Putin? Gays in Saudi Arabia? You're making a mockery of atheism.

Religion does not have a monopoly on psychopathy, not to mention the fact that you are trying to veer the conversation towards the term "religion" rather than the far more neutral term "God".

The only reason I mention the word "theist" is out of respect for the thread (which is about atheism). Plenty of non-religious practicing people still believe in God. Nice try though. — chiknsld

The worst bloodlettings in history have been carried out by atheist regimes, Stalin's communists (9M+), Hitler's National Socialists (10M+), Mao's Red Army Communists (40M+), Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge Communists (1.5M+)

I'm not entirely sure how to mince that as those conceptions of God you mentioned were all universalist (they allow membership of all) and against tribalism.
In any case, the validity is in a God-like being and that's the baseline here. Anything after that is tangential to this point.

In any case, the validity is in a God-like being and that's the baseline here. — Shwah

So, putting it bluntly, do you go from Gödel's 'proof' to a religion with specific content? Does your God prohibit incest ? (Asking for a friend.) If so, what's the trail from proof to prohibition? Do you need only to get your foot on the first rung? Is logic a disposable ladder?