Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?

Pish and drivel

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?

Look - squirrel.

So have you actually read the article Vlad?

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?

In what respect? Surely it is perfectly reasonable to point out that someone trained as a chemical engineer (and with some reasonable papers in that filed that his academic colleagues have cited) might not actually have any credibility as an islamic theological scholar, let alone as a philosopher.

And his article (which I have read) is riddled with inaccuracies, schoolboy errors in misunderstanding between knowledge (which agnosticism relates to) and believe (which theism and atheism relate to). He tries to argue that being a agnostic in relation to knowledge of the existence of god or gods is incompatible with holding a believe about the existence of god or gods.

His language - regularly using the words 'denial' and 'reject' is woefully non-neutral blowing apart his academic credibility and objectively.

The most interesting part of the article, to my mind, is the description of local atheism (a lack of belief in some but not all gods) and global atheism (a lack of belief in all gods). This renders pretty well everyone (including you Vlad) as, at least, local atheists. However he goes and spoils is by arguing that local atheism is much more tenable than global atheism, when the reverse is the case. To be a local atheist you have to suspend the approach that leads you not to belief in some gods to the god you believe in - as there is no more evidence for the one you believe in than the ones you don't. To be a local atheist requires you to tie yourself up in logic knots. A global atheist is consistent in their approach - their evidence (or lack thereof) test is applied equally and consistently to each and every god purported to exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

How on earth has the The Royal Institute of Philosophy got itself involved in this drivel? I actually feel a bit sorry for the author – he (presumably) has a hard-won reputation as an engineer yet he’s made himself look a complete plum by straying so cluelessly into (supposed) philosophy. Perhaps if he didn’t assume his premise a priori by trying to argue that “atheism should be better used as the propositional denial of God” and rather started with atheism actually being the refutation of the arguments attempted for “god(s)” he’d at least be on firmer opening ground. As the old Irish joke has it: (motorist stops to ask a local for directions) – “Excuse me, how do I get to Limerick please?”; “Well sir, I wouldn’t start from here if I was you…”.   

[ProfessorDavey]

How on earth has the The Royal Institute of Philosophy got itself involved in this drivel? I actually feel a bit sorry for the author – he (presumably) has a hard-won reputation as an engineer yet he’s made himself look a complete plum by straying so cluelessly into (supposed) philosophy. Perhaps if he didn’t assume his premise a priori by trying to argue that “atheism should be better used as the propositional denial of God” and rather started with atheism actually being the refutation of the arguments attempted for “god(s)” he’d at least be on firmer opening ground. As the old Irish joke has it: (motorist stops to ask a local for directions) – “Excuse me, how do I get to Limerick please?”; “Well sir, I wouldn’t start from here if I was you…”.

This is the bit from the article I like the best:

In his concluding paragraph he makes the following assertion:

'Nonetheless, all the major dictionaries quoted above have used ‘atheism’ to mean the denial of God’s existence.' (my emphasis).

Helpfully in an appendix he quotes the dictionary definitions he has used in his article (actually only three) which are as follows (direct words from his appendix).

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (MWD)
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God

Cambridge Dictionary (CD)
someone who believes that God does not exist

So only one of the three uses the word 'denies', and even then in an either/or context - yet according to the ex chemical engineer - 'all the major dictionaries quoted above have used ‘atheism’ to mean the denial of God’s existence'.

[flower girl]

Now ekim is right that you need to define what you actually mean by god as there are as many definitions as you can shake a stick at.

Yes, I so agree with you both.  I realize I can never use what I've put out there as some way to prove God, much less prove whichever the heck one he (she? It?) is.  On a personal note, my interest has more to do with what I am experiencing and there being a possible, quantum explanation as to why what I'm experiencing is at least not limited to proof from the Newtonian standard (which is the only one we perceive as real, and our perception is challenged by the quantum physics explanation of this very same existence.)  But, you are both right. There is no measure by which I can prove what I believe. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.
Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.
Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.

Would you like to answer the question I asked yesterday in relation to the article you linked to:

Vlad - have you actually read the whole article, or just the abstract?

[Stranger]

Science does not do God and so any antitheistic argument proceeds from philosophy and not science.
Antitheists borrow arguments to explain the existence of the universe that they would normally dismiss namely the eternality of the universe, spontaneous appearance etc, infinity etc.

*sigh*

Nobody needs an argument against a god, it's up to theists to provide a definition of their god(s) and a reason to take their ideas seriously.

Nobody needs to explain the existence of the universe in order to dismiss incoherent or unsupported god-concepts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Are we sure that this "ex-chemical engineer" is not yet another one of Vlad'd innumerable alter egos?

From your post it certainly seems a possibility.

The article contains some pretty basic errors of logic and is pretty incoherent in its argument. But doesn't contain Vlad-esque levels of non-sense.

[Stranger]

And his article (which I have read)...

You made it all the way through? I have to admit, I got about half way before I thought I'd got better things to do with my time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

*sigh*

Nobody needs an argument against a god, it's up to theists to provide a definition of their god(s) and a reason to take their ideas seriously.

And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.

[ProfessorDavey]

And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.

Have you read the article Vlad - at least two of us here have.

[Nearly Sane]

And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.

Pointless drivel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you read the article Vlad - at least two of us here have.

I'm not talking about the article. I'm writing in response to never talk to strangers.

I haven't read the article I just found the abstract intriguing particularly the part about atheism extending it's range. In my time on MB's I have seen Atheists co opt Deism, agnosticism, even panentheism, Sagan, Darwin, Science etc.

[Stranger]

And that is an argument which proceeds from empiricism and rather proves my point.

Drivel. Why should I take anybody's ideas seriously unless they can both define them properly and provide some reason to take them seriously?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not talking about the article. I'm writing in response to never talk to strangers.

I haven't read the article I just found the abstract intriguing particularly the part about atheism extending it's range. In my time on MB's I have seen Atheists co opt Deism, agnosticism, even panentheism, Sagan, Darwin, Science etc.

Ignorant drivel

[ProfessorDavey]

I haven't read the article ...

So you post a link to an article that you haven't read and claim it to be interesting. You realise how pathetic that is.

The article is interesting in so far as how poorly argued it is and in its logical incoherence. Frankly most of the points he makes are ones that we've discussion on this MB for ages and have been batted away routinely by the non-theists around here as easily as Ben Stokes hitting a 6 off a club bowler.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. Why should I take anybody's ideas seriously unless they can both define them properly and provide some reason to take them seriously?

You do not take other peoples ideas seriously because you feel safer where you are and that is deeply into empiricist and naturalistic philosophy. To me there are 3 possible reasons for the universe personal creator, infinite universe, spontaneous appearance. To dismiss( an act in itself) the first can only be achieved by mental contortion.

[ProfessorDavey]

... I just found the abstract intriguing particularly the part about atheism extending it's range.

But it is never the atheists who attempt to extend the range of atheism - it is always the theists trying to make claims about atheists that are unsubstantiated.

For me atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods - that's it - nothing more, end of. And I suspect that's true for most of the other atheists on this board.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you post a link to an article that you haven't read and claim it to be interesting. You realise how pathetic that is.

No I only mentioned the abstract.

[ProfessorDavey]

You do not take other peoples ideas seriously ...

At least he bothers to engage in other people's ideas - for example actually reading the article you linked to. You on the other hand haven't even bothered to do that.

[Nearly Sane]

You do not take other peoples ideas seriously because you feel safer where you are and that is deeply into empiricist and naturalistic philosophy. To me there are 3 possible reasons for the universe personal creator, infinite universe, spontaneous appearance. To dismiss( an act in itself) the first can only be achieved by mental contortion.

  Witless drivel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it is never the atheists who attempt to extend the range of atheism

That's bollocks. Atheists extend there range, make naturalistic arguments, frequently mention science, coopt deism and when they feel they are about to be found out resort to the atheism is just a lack of belief schtick.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I only mentioned the abstract.

The abstract tells you nothing about the actual arguments presented. It's a bit like saying 'I found the back cover notes on a book interesting but never bothered to actually read the book'.