Apatheism - the only logical position

If they express that willingness to change, or openness to do so, then really they are not atheists.

I think most theists are quite apathetic about the whole concept, but then they usually dont debate or defend what beliefs they have left.

 

Correct to a degree - just because the idea of God is bs doesnt mean it cant be true. To say it is false with out knowing is as illogical as saying it is true without knowing. In this sense theists and atheists are the same.

No, someone who rejects theism, is simply a non-theist. But an atheist is one who says 'they're isnt, or probably isnt, a God.'

Why is it absurd?

Why?

 

No, since you are a nontheist or not being a theist, however you become an atheist when go the next step and say there is 'probably no God at all.'

Fair enough.

They have particularly meanings, ie the words we are using. In that sense you should determine what they mean, so as to determine which believe is valid when in debate.

I disagree, as I stated in my OP. It is illogical to say God doesnt exist without knowing it.

If you take a moral relativist view, sure, but I am not a moral relativist.

 

Sonofodin touched on this, but I just wanted to elaborate...

While it is not possible to prove or disprove the concept of a generic god, it is entirely possible to logically disprove specific gods based on how they are defined within their respective accompanying religions/beliefs.

 

It's not mocking at all.

It is simply using a purposefully improbable and slightly silly analogy to point out the illogicality of the comparative religious belief.

Atheists do find those religious beliefs to be illogical and silly. It may not be "PC" to spell that out, but I certainly would not consider it mocking - just an honest description of our views.

 

No, "atheist" literally means "non-theist". The two are identical.

Those two, "there isn't" and "there probably isn't", are not synonymous. One is an absolute while the other is a probability. Not many atheists claim definitively that "there isn't" a god (generic). They are, of course, completely entitled to that belief, but it is just as logically dishonest as the theist. Based on our current knowledge and evidence (or lack of, depending on how you want to look at it), claiming "there probably isn't" a god is an entirely logical conclusion.

 

Really? You don't consider comparing an omnipotent and omniscient creator to a horse... mocking or an insult to one's God?

How about this, would you find it mocking or insulting towards your founding fathers if I compared them to, say, rabbits? And, not due to any of the noble qualities of rabbits, but because of their ability to breed with any and every other rabbit? (Jefferson, I'm looking at you).

 

Nope, I become an atheist when I do not hold beliefs that are theistic. Theistic - atheistic.

I am with 100% certainty without theistic beliefs.

Just like I am with 100% certainty without a stamp collection. Not that anyone cares about that, though.

I only replied to the "should do so without a resort to an attack" part. Logic has no bearing on whether or not opposing a conception is taken as an attack.

I'm pretty sure that something that literally spells out "morality OF religion" (whatever that may be) is dependent upon religion. Regardless of moral relativism, numbers of cows in the UK or anything else.

 

No, I don't take it personally.

If you're so sensitive of your God or Gods, then maybe you should reevaluate the conviction of your beliefs.

 

It's not that I'm sensitive, it's that it entirely misses the point.

 

I don't think so. Analogies and metaphors can be used in regards to anything. If you find those offensive, then you're the one missing the point.

 

Ok then, relay to me how disproving unicorns disproves the existence of God(s).

 

You can't disprove unicorns. That's not the point, though.


The point is that you can't disprove unicorns for the same reasons that you can't disprove God.

 

Yes, but you miss the point that a Unicorn is a supposedly physical being. God or gods are incorporeal.

That's the thing, theists don't believe God or gods exist purely because we can imagine them, and therefore they must be true. We can imagine Unicorns, yet we realise that they are fable, but God or gods can't be compared in that same category because then you are comparing something that is possible with something that is necessary.

 

Unicorns traditionally represent a handful of supernatural properties attributed to a physical manifestation. That is what makes it impossible to disprove for the same reasons that deities can't be disproven.

Once you find a horse with a horn growing from its forehead and reveal its nature, yet a new species will be added to the tree of life, but you're left where you started with regard to the unicorn; in continued search for the unicorn.

I can imagine gods and yet realize that they are fables. Where does that leave us?

This is nothing but technicalities, Kazikli Bey. There are no contemporary religions centered around unicorns or angels or hobgoblins as creator deities. Therefore you can refer to a creator deity in an existing religion and say that it is nothing like unicorns, angels or hobgoblins because it is a creator deity and they are not. But while all those entities may play different roles in different mythologies, they are made from the exact same fabric.

 

Yes, they do represent having supernatural properties, but they are still a corporeal being and, considering we have yet to find the fossil of a horse with a horn on its head, we can safely assume that neither Unicorns from myth nor their non-supernatural counterparts exist, however, when we're dealing with a corporeal being, we're not searching for physical remains but the marks that they left on the world itself. For different people, that's different things, which is why there is such diversity in the belief, or lack thereof, of God or gods.

And what, you don't realise that you've now likened things that played 'different roles in different mythologies' to the actually driving force behind the mythology? You can't compare the actors with the playwright.

 

There is a diversity of beliefs because in the absence of preferences, it is pretty much arbitrary which pictures our minds project whenever we engage in imagining unknown beings.

By the way, as far as the supernatural of incorporeal beings versus the supernatural of corporeal beings is concerned, it doesn't matter if the supernatural is given a physical manifestation or not.

Trying to infer that physical manifestations matter in determination of supernatural attributes can be illustrated by an experiment of thought: Try look for Jesus by searching for a man. Upon finding a man you can ask him, "Are you Jesus?". If he says no, you can continue your search. If he says yes, you can reveal his nature as a natural being and then continue your search. Either way, searching for the supernatural by corporeal manifestations will engage you in a game of infinite regression. Years of fun, I'm sure, but utterly pointless.

Or, said in another way, there are no physical marks of your god that are not the marks of the god of that guy over there. Or of the gods of that guy over there. Or of aliens. Or of unicorns. Etc.

To the best of my knowledge, I have not likened mythological entities to humans.

Though it would be a breeze.

 

Swing and a miss. When I was comparing the evidence of God/gods to Unicorns, I was pointing out that, whilst Unicorns can have supernatural properties, they are still corporeal beings. We've never found the remains of either a non-supernatural or supernatural unicorn, and it's supernaturality would be irrelevant since it has form, it is a provable being by our own standards of reality. God/gods are incorporeal, they leave no physical remains or manifestation.

That then lead to me saying that we can only view their effects on our world, but what has lead us to diversity in belief is our own perception of reality. Your perception of reality is no better than mine, or anyone else's. What is evidence for one person to the existence of a God/gods may not be evidence for another person, which is perfectly acceptable because incorporeal beings are neither provable or unprovable anyway.

Now, when you say that I tried to 'infer that physical manifestations matter in determination of supernatural attributes', that's incorrect. I didn't care about the supernatural abilities of the unicorn, merely the existence of fossilised remains of any animal bareing resemblence to a unicorn. Since none has ever been found, I deducted from that that Unicorns never existed. I can do that because, even though a unicorn has supernatural properties, it still is flesh and blood and therefore still follows the rules that any other creature comprised of flesh and blood does.

Please re-read what I wrote. You said that regardless of whether or not we're talking about Unicorns (something that played a role in the mythology) or God/gods themselves (the driving force behind the mythology) is irrelevant, because you disprove them the same way. I countered by saying that you're comparing the actors (Unicorns) to the playwright (God/gods). That's my point, they are two separate and clearly distinct things which have no comparison when proving or disproving their existence.

 

The driving force of mythology is always man. Gods and unicorns are what mythologies consist of. There is no distinction between gods and unicorns except for the roles they happen to play in existing mythologies. Should a mythology arise with the unicorn as the creator deity then that's the role that unicorn will play in that mythology.

 

I don't understand this. If there is evidence of a being then how can it be neither provable nor unprovable?

Yes, a unicorn of flesh and blood is just that, a flesh and blood creature. If there is evidence of it, you can safely claim its existence or, if not, negotiate the absence of evidence to be sufficient grounds for rejecting claims of its existence. Just like Popper's green swans. No problem.

A unicorn with supernatural properties, however, is a supernatural creature. It doesn't matter if you find a flesh and blood creature that resembles a unicorn, it is NOT evidence of the supernatural creature that is the unicorn. The supernatural creature will persist in the same category as any other supernatural being ever conceived.

Physical manifestations of the supernatural has no bearing on the ability to provide evidence of its existence.

 

No. You are focusing on the wrong aspect, and in essence, completely missing the point of an analogy. The "horse" is irrelevant - replace it with a powerful wizard (a human), it doesn't matter.

 

God is only "necessary" within your pre-existing belief because your belief depends on it. But in all logical actuality, he is not.

 

By the way, I thought it'd be interesting to point out that we have a case similar to this discussion in Yosh Shmenge's thread about ghosts. Interesting because it's the reversed situation where instead of attributing supernatural properties to a physical entity, physical properties are attributed to a supernatural entity, but the result is exactly the same.

Whatever container we use for magical powers, be it a physical (corporeal) object or an imagined (incorporeal) entity, those magical powers persist as long as we imagine them.
When the readings on a ghost-detector are revealed as being electromagnetic disturbances from 110V outlet sockets that the ghost-hunter unwittingly passed by or the footsteps in the attic is revealed as ferrets nesting in a protected place, ghosts will persist as the physical manifestations of magical powers.

It is no harder or easier to dismiss a ghost as it is a unicorn or as it is a god. The container is irrelevant.

 

Because you use the same argument for both:

You're telling me I can't disprove God, and I'm saying that logic is faulty. If you're saying the reason God exists is that I can't "disprove him" (which I don't have to do anyways, there must be evidence for me to first disprove) then unicorns must exist because you can't disprove their existence.