The Truth or Falsity of Atheism

[theleftone]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

[realthinker]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

Presently to conclude God's existence or non existence are both illogical.

You learn this game from twobitsmedia? You gotta come up with more than that. What makes you think that what you've wrote has any merit? Put some work in to this.

[Pi]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

Presently to conclude God's existence or non existence are both illogical.

That depends on the god who's existence is being questioned.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument proving the existence of any Diety. An argument that does not 'beg the question' and assume the Diety's existence.

[bernee51]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

Presently to conclude God's existence or non existence are both illogical.

That depends on the god who's existence is being questioned.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument proving the existence of any Diety. An argument that does not 'beg the question' and assume the Diety's existence.

Sorry - that is something I cannot supply. There are no such beings.

However there are coherent logical arguments against the existence of a creator deity - assuming this deity has created 'all' and is therefore 'all-powerful'. And as an all powerful being outside of creation has a characteristic of being eternally unchanging.

[Pi]

That depends on the god who's existence is being questioned.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument proving the existence of any Diety. An argument that does not 'beg the question' and assume the Diety's existence.

Sorry - that is something I cannot supply. There are no such beings. [/quote]

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument to support your position that there are no such beings (Dieties, that is).
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

[Pi]

However there are coherent logical arguments against the existence of a creator deity - assuming this deity has created 'all' and is therefore 'all-powerful'. And as an all powerful being outside of creation has a characteristic of being eternally unchanging.

This is part 2 ... part 1 is directly above this post....

There may be logical arguments but they are based upon premises supplied by the debater (is that a word?) and only disprove the debater's conceptions of God.

The notion of God as being 'eternally unchanging' is silly (opinion).
These are human descriptions (constructs) which are fun for logical analysis but prove nothing beyond providing conclusions based upon manufactured premises.


The logical conclusion of the existence or non existence of God, Gods or dieties is always illogical... Because IF God is everything then God too is paradox.

[bernee51]

That depends on the god who's existence is being questioned.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument proving the existence of any Diety. An argument that does not 'beg the question' and assume the Diety's existence.

Sorry - that is something I cannot supply. There are no such beings.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument to support your position that there are no such beings (Dieties, that is).
How did you arrive at that conclusion?[/quote]
The conclusion depends on the god concept being described. As particular god's come with certain characteristics they can only be treated on a case by case basis.

For example an 'all powerful god' created the universe. Either he did not want to create it and it came about of its own will. Or he did want to create it and is therefore subject to his wants. Either way he loses omnipotence.

An eternal creator must have unchanging characteristics however he was, before creation 'the god who had not created' and after creation "the god who had created" Ergo not unchanging.

Even the deist idea of a god who, for example, set the whole process of universal evolution in progress and self destroyed in the so doing can logically be shown to be nothing other than a concept by arguing the eternal nature of the universe.

[bernee51]

The notion of God as being 'eternally unchanging' is silly (opinion).
These are human descriptions (constructs) which are fun for logical analysis but prove nothing beyond providing conclusions based upon manufactured premises.

The god idea is a human construct.

[Pi]

That depends on the god who's existence is being questioned.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument proving the existence of any Diety. An argument that does not 'beg the question' and assume the Diety's existence.

Sorry - that is something I cannot supply. There are no such beings.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument to support your position that there are no such beings (Dieties, that is).
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

The conclusion depends on the god concept being described. As particular god's come with certain characteristics they can only be treated on a case by case basis.

*agreed!

For example an 'all powerful god' created the universe. Either he did not want to create it and it came about of its own will. Or he did want to create it and is therefore subject to his wants. Either way he loses omnipotence.

*How about manifesting something (e.g. 'a creation) and then merging with it to have, over time, vast and multifarious experiences.... like being a human being who temporarily forgets that he/she is, in fact, God.

An eternal creator must have unchanging characteristics however he was, before creation 'the god who had not created' and after creation "the god who had created" Ergo not unchanging.

* I disagree, an eternal creator need not have 'unchanging characteristics'. He/she, whatever, need only to 'intend' to 'wake up' once in a while and get back to basics.
Too many of these descriptions of God are full of pathos and severity.

Even the deist idea of a god who, for example, set the whole process of universal evolution in progress and self destroyed in so doing can logically be shown to be nothing other than a concept by arguing the eternal nature of the universe.

* I disagree, can you provide an example? It seems that the argument is corrupted by the Christian cosmology of the bachelor God as somewhat divorced from the material creation.... e.g.. this is God and this is not... blah, blah.....
Why not just conclude that God is a dork and frequently makes boo boos?

My bottom line (personal cosmology) is that consciousness is not a product of biology but inhabits biological organisms and transcends them. When "God" gets in a jam (divine amnesia) the result is a temporal 'crucifixion' meaning the conscious spirit getting entangled (contained in) in a material context that perpetuates itself unless the consciousness is redirected to a non material context. In other words, the consciousness 'becomes' the created and forgets that it is the creator and becomes trapped (temporarily) in a sense based context. Kind of like Houdini having himself chained in a tank of water.
So, the solution to get free of the dilemma is to 'think' its way out of it.. considering that thought is creative and/or managerial.
Christianity's Christ provides an example (filled with Pathos, of course) deeply veiled in metaphor.... where the human ego must be 'consumed' (tempered/reduced) by the indwelling spirit/consciousness so that its true power can be 'resurrected'.

Like getting your jeep in the mud and then getting it out, with some difficulty. The jeep isn't the 'mud'... like the consciousness isn't (really) the form that it occupies but can experience the illusion that it is.... along with any appropriate dumbing down of divine powers. A grand game! [/quote]

[Pi]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

Presently to conclude God's existence or non existence are both illogical.

You learn this game from twobitsmedia? You gotta come up with more than that. What makes you think that what you've wrote has any merit? Put some work in to this.

It is really quite simple.... One cannot logically conclude either the existence or non existence of God. "Absence of proof is not proof of absence". For a person to conclude (a logical process) either God's existence or non existence contains an inherent bias (a personal preference) that is, invariably, illogical or incomplete.
No syllogism can be created regarding God that is immune from logical challenges because any definition or description of 'God' is a limitation.

The best logical conclusion that one can arrive at is "insufficient data' to formulate a certainty as to existence or non existence of God. Perhaps the only logical conclusion is that if God exists then God is a paradox.

Example:
*There is no proof that God exists
*I believe that God exists
Therefore: ??? what?

It does not follow logically that God does not exist. Only that there is no proof.

It all comes down to personal bias and not logic. We can argue the contradictions in spiritual literature, etc.... and point out inconsistencies but that does not prove or disprove God's existence.

Try to create a logical posture and you will not be able to make a definitive logical conclusion.

[bernee51]

That depends on the god who's existence is being questioned.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument proving the existence of any Diety. An argument that does not 'beg the question' and assume the Diety's existence.

Sorry - that is something I cannot supply. There are no such beings.

Perhaps you can supply a logical argument to support your position that there are no such beings (Dieties, that is).
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

The conclusion depends on the god concept being described. As particular god's come with certain characteristics they can only be treated on a case by case basis.

*agreed!

Off to a good start then

For example an 'all powerful god' created the universe. Either he did not want to create it and it came about of its own will. Or he did want to create it and is therefore subject to his wants. Either way he loses omnipotence.

*How about manifesting something (e.g. 'a creation) and then merging with it to have, over time, vast and multifarious experiences.... like being a human being who temporarily forgets that he/she is, in fact, God.

A panenthiest god leaves no trace...it might as well not exist

An eternal creator must have unchanging characteristics however he was, before creation 'the god who had not created' and after creation "the god who had created" Ergo not unchanging.

* I disagree, an eternal creator need not have 'unchanging characteristics'. He/she, whatever, need only to 'intend' to 'wake up' once in a while and get back to basics.

A prerequisite of eternal, as I understand it, is an unchanging nature.

Too many of these descriptions of God are full of pathos and severity.

Indeed - god comes with baggage. Those who base their initial belief on, for example, "a creator is required because everything has a cause" try to ignore the baggage.

Even the deist idea of a god who, for example, set the whole process of universal evolution in progress and self destroyed in so doing can logically be shown to be nothing other than a concept by arguing the eternal nature of the universe.

* I disagree, can you provide an example?

The universe is emergent. All that really exists is 'now'. How long is a 'now'? 'Now' like infinity is 'outside of time'. (Time being a human construct to put meat on the bones of 'now'). Anything that is outside of time is eternal. The universe, in some shape or form, being emergent in the 'now' is eternal. Anything that always has been does not require creation or a creator.

.
Why not just conclude that God is a dork and frequently makes boo boos?

Why not just conclude there is no such entity?

.
My bottom line (personal cosmology) is that consciousness is not a product of biology but inhabits biological organisms and transcends them.

My bottom line is that we are born and we die - everything in between is opinion.

Consciousness is a biological process that is a product of and evolving from a nervous system. it is not a static state that has been achieved by or somehow imbued in homo sapiens. It is a continuum. From the irritable cells that cause a single cell organism to move away from an irritant, through the reptilian brain, limbic system etc to to the complex neo-cortex peculiar to our species.

.
When "God" gets in a jam (divine amnesia) the result is a temporal 'crucifixion' meaning the conscious spirit getting entangled (contained in) in a material context that perpetuates itself unless the consciousness is redirected to a non material context.

Which I read as - the development of the sense of a separate self raises a veil of ignorance over the true nature of our being. This creates a delusion which we spend our lives trying to satisfy. This trying, this grasping is the source of entanglement (attachment) which, in turn, leads to suffering as the delusion can never be satisfied.

.
In other words, the consciousness 'becomes' the created and forgets that it is the creator and becomes trapped (temporarily) in a sense based context.

Exactly.

.
So, the solution to get free of the dilemma is to 'think' its way out of it.. considering that thought is creative and/or managerial.
Christianity's Christ provides an example (filled with Pathos, of course) deeply veiled in metaphor.... where the human ego must be 'consumed' (tempered/reduced) by the indwelling spirit/consciousness so that its true power can be 'resurrected'.

I have a similar view of the Christ metaphor. The same metaphor is reflected in the four noble truths of Buddhism.

Thanks for an engaging exchange.

May you be happy, kind. loving and peaceful