Darwin,Atheism and Religion

1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evoltutionary Theory and vice versa?

2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?

3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evoltutionary Theory and vice versa?

2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?

3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?

---

1 - Theological theories that afirms something contrary to it is canceled by Darwin Natural Selection Theory. No theology can really cancel his theory however and some do not even care about it.

2 - Atheism predates Darwin.

3 - No, Darwin was never very religious. He had friends who worked with evolutin before him and even his greatfather. Also, his family had a genetic disease due to the marriage among cousins and this affect and killed one of his daughters. Trying to understand it was a big impulse for his research.

I think I agree with JCamillo's answers. Atheism comes long before Darwin and the sort of materialistic atheism that I'm opposed to probably had its high point around 1800 when it most agreed with deterministic scientific theories.

I don't see why evolution should be a problem for religion except for those that insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I think we have all been around the block many times incarnated as many different species. Evolution fits in nicely with that.

I see.
Would say however that the three are somehow linked?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

1 - Theological theories that afirms something contrary to it is canceled by Darwin Natural Selection Theory. No theology can really cancel his theory however and some do not even care about it.

2 - Atheism predates Darwin.

3 - No, Darwin was never very religious. He had friends who worked with evolutin before him and even his greatfather. Also, his family had a genetic disease due to the marriage among cousins and this affect and killed one of his daughters. Trying to understand it was a big impulse for his research.

---

Thank you for that.
About Darwin and Religion.
I meant it the other way like this.
Wasn't Darwin out to prove that Religion/or the concept of God did not exist hence his theory on Evolution.

No, the concept of evolution does proof or disproof God and has roots even in some religious stories. And evolution was a well accepted fact before Darwin, he just went to investigate it. His theory (natural selection) only showed that there was natural cause behind the living organisms variety and it was not a product of a designer.

Darwin became atheist more as result of his research and pain due the loss of a daughter, as he saw less and less of God's actions in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

No, the concept of evolution does proof or disproof God and has roots even in some religious stories. And evolution was a well accepted fact before Darwin, he just went to investigate it. His theory (natural selection) only showed that there was natural cause behind the living organisms variety and it was not a product of a designer.

Darwin became atheist more as result of his research and pain due the loss of a daughter, as he saw less and less of God's actions in the world.

---

It does suprise me that Darwin blamed god for a genetic mismatch.
He of all people should have understood that same blood mixing is bound to fail eventually.
I thought he was a scientist where does he get off blaming God.
That does not make senseto me.
Youwould have thought he would have devoted his time trying to work genes and why they fail betwneen humans rather trying to prove some kind of evolution that does not help or improve the state of humans genes and their progress.
It is just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evolutionary Theory and vice versa?

2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?

3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?

---

As for (1), theism and evolution are obviously compatible. Of course, certain particular theologies - southern fundamentalist baptism, for instance - are not compatible with evolution. Too bad for them.

About (2), both atheism and evolutionary theory antedate Darwin.

Your last question (3) is debatable - if I understand what you're asking. Nobody's completely unpartisan. And Darwin's theories may have had ulterior anti-theistic motives - but this in no way alters the truth or falsity thereof. At any rate, Darwin was (or became) anti-theistic. He wrote such things as: "I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity . . . produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs."

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-9105

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

It does suprise me that Darwin blamed god for a genetic mismatch.
He of all people should have understood that same blood mixing is bound to fail eventually.
I thought he was a scientist where does he get off blaming God.
That does not make senseto me.
Youwould have thought he would have devoted his time trying to work genes and why they fail betwneen humans rather trying to prove some kind of evolution that does not help or improve the state of humans genes and their progress.
It is just a thought.

---

He didnt blame God and I didnt said he did. He just saw his wife praying every night and nothing happening and considered that maybe it was because there was nobody hearing. Even so, there is no reason to believe that Darwin became atheist due a single motive in his life.

And he obviously knew that same blood mixing was a problem, after all, it is much thanks to him that we have this notion. Because after all, he dedicated all his life to study the mechanims that explained the transmition of traits between living beings and what could cause to failures an this became much of his theory. You know, the very theory he was famous for?

I would have been atheist without Darwinism. It doesn't make sense to base belief on something that was said to have happened in an illiterate culture in a desert, especially when the Chinese were already well established and had a rich, documented history and written language that said nothing of Christianity. That doesn't mean I would be a Buddhist either. I don't know. No one has presented sufficient evidence for such fantastical claims for ANY theology. Darwin is one scientist in a long line of people documenting, exploring, and questioning science. If he hadn't made certain advances, someone else would have.

Atheists who remain atheists don't retain anger at a god. That's nonsensical. My motivating factor for not swallowing theism is that it sounds cultish, judgmental, and absurd. It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

My motivating factor for not swallowing theism is that it sounds cultish, judgmental, and absurd.

---

How does theism sound cultish, judgemental, and absurd? I can understand some religions sounding this way. But theism? There are many species in the genus, and some are areligious, some purely philosophical, and so on.

Quote:

---

It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.

---

You're generalising again. No doubt, some religions are irrational, in whole or in part. But philosophical theism is not irrational - or if it is, it has never been demonstrated to be. That doesn't mean it's true. But it's not irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

How does theism sound cultish, judgemental, and absurd? I can understand some religions sounding this way. But theism? There are many species in the genus, and some are areligious, some purely philosophical, and so on.

You're generalising again. No doubt, some religions are irrational, in whole or in part. But philosophical theism is not irrational - or if it is, it has never been demonstrated to be. That doesn't mean it's true. But it's not irrational.

---

I did not specifically say it was irrational. Of course people can rationalize it. Some of those rationalizations are sick and breed hatred and judgement of others. I said theism is unREASONable in our physical reality. There is fact, as we know it, and there is not fact. There is a god, or there is no god.

"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Hitchens again.

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.

---

The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." If we re-define atheism as merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc.

A person can exist without knowledge of a god. It's still atheism. It certainly isn't theism. Let's not be silly.

There is theism or atheism. It's pretty cut and dry at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I did not specifically say it was irrational. Of course people can rationalize it. Some of those rationalizations are sick and breed hatred and judgement of others. I said theism is unREASONable in our physical reality. There is fact, as we know it, and there is not fact. There is a god, or there is no god.

"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Hitchens again.

---

Unreasonable, irrational, illogical, incoherent, whatever. But you still haven't shown how plain old theism, in the broad philosophical sense, is any of those things. You'll find it's no easy task. Again, maybe it is one of those things. But no one's managed to prove as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

A person can exist without knowledge of a god. It's still atheism. It certainly isn't theism. Let's not be silly.

---

No, it's neither theism nor atheism. The theist says "God exists." The atheist says "God doesn't exist." Both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something. And, yes, they are contraries - that is, they cannot both be true, neither can they both be false. (I gave you an ad absurdum argument against your position which you did not refute - you said is was "silly," and that's the point of an ad absurdum argument, it leads to an absurdity.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

Unreasonable, irrational, illogical, incoherent, whatever. But you still haven't shown how plain old theism, in the broad philosophical sense, is any of those things. You'll find it's no easy task. Again, maybe it is one of those things. But no one's managed to prove as much.

---

Positing the existence of an all-powerful being in spite of the total lack of evidence, there being not a trace of His activity, is indeed all of those things.

Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Atheists don't just say the gods that men have concocted do not exist, most atheists will tell you we have no way of knowing, so we couldn't possibly allow ourselves to believe in something so far fetched and dangerous.

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists) is the physical world. No god or afterlife in sight. No legs to stand on. If a person has picked a single guess and made that guess their reality based on nothing reasonable, they're likely dead in the water. Atheists understand that there are endless possibilities. It's a lot healthier for the imagination than clinging to a single fantasy fetish. Theism is masochistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Positing the existence of an all-powerful being in spite of the total lack of evidence, there being not a trace of His activity, is indeed all of those things.

---

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Again, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence. Atheists don't just say the gods that men have concocted do not exist, most atheists will tell you we have no way of knowing, so we couldn't possibly allow ourselves to believe in something so far fetched and dangerous.

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists) is the physical world. No god or afterlife in sight. No legs to stand on. If a person has picked a single guess and made that guess their reality based on nothing reasonable, they're likely dead in the water. Atheists understand that there are endless possibilities. It's a lot healthier for the imagination than clinging to a single fantasy fetish. Theism is masochistic.

---

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?

Quote:

---

The evidence for atheism (preposterous demand from theists)

---

All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist. So the proposition "Married bachelors don't exist" is true.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

---

It's not anti-intellectualism to fight against cults pushing singular ideals on the masses that cause division, derision, and suffering. I think you're confusing atheists with nihilists at times. I don't say there is no god. I say there is no evidence of one, so one cannot be pushed as a creator of reality, because there are infinite possibilities. How can an atheist be less open to possibilities than a theist who has chosen their lot? Your argument is in defense of narrow mindedness, single-mindedness. It's unjustifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

He didnt blame God and I didnt said he did. He just saw his wife praying every night and nothing happening and considered that maybe it was because there was nobody hearing. Even so, there is no reason to believe that Darwin became atheist due a single motive in his life.

And he obviously knew that same blood mixing was a problem, after all, it is much thanks to him that we have this notion. Because after all, he dedicated all his life to study the mechanims that explained the transmition of traits between living beings and what could cause to failures an this became much of his theory. You know, the very theory he was famous for?

---

what the evolution theory?
between you and me, and I am not being rude, I would have worked it out myself is not a good idea.
I would not have needed Darwin to point it out for me.
It is obvious that inbreeding is unhealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.

---

Quote:

---

there weren't any.

---

That is not atheism.
That is just that nothing.
Atheism is a negation to something like God/deity/a belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?


All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

---

I'll not respond to your attack on my communication skills other than to say please read with great attention and be careful of infractions.

Agnosticism is more to do with confusion and avoidance of choice. People are free to say they aren't atheists. That's fine. I'm an atheist. Out of the infinite possibilities, I think the idea of a singular god watching and meddling in our every movement is ridiculous. If it's true, I will be mighty surprised. Physically, it does not make sense and is not supported by anything factual. Other ideas and theories are more likely, but it's obvious that man, in all of his clumsiness and limited abilities, has not stumbled upon the answer that must be pushed forth against all others. A person can not believe in "god" and still attempt to seek answers to the big questions. Check out Hitchhiker's Guide if you don't want to take my word for it. Some would argue that many agnostics are also atheists. If you don't drink the kool-aid, you don't drink the kool-aid.

Personally, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an anti-theist and a free thinker. I will fight against theism gaining ground until I'm dead. It's servitude and it's vicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

I'll not respond to your attack on my communication skills other than to say please read with great attention and be careful of infractions.

---

I didn't mean any ill-will, Varenne, really. I was serious. Do you have any arguments, logically-valid arguments? Three things are necessary for a sound argument: (1) clear and unambiguous terms (to avoid fallacies of equivocation), (2) plausible premises (if not obviously true), and (3) valid reasoning. Have you ever studied logic formally? (Again, not a pejorative question - most people nowadays haven't.)

Quote:

---

Personally, I'm not just an atheist, I'm an anti-theist . . .

---

Yes, I figured that out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

No, it's neither theism nor atheism. The theist says "God exists." The atheist says "God doesn't exist." Both are truth-claims. Both claim to know something. And, yes, they are contraries - that is, they cannot both be true, neither can they both be false. (I gave you an ad absurdum argument against your position which you did not refute - you said is was "silly," and that's the point of an ad absurdum argument, it leads to an absurdity.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." If we re-define atheism as merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc.

---

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something. (I don't see us coming up with physical evidence for such pre-historic people, but it isn't completely random and goofy to suggest that there might have been some. Not crazy to point to religion being around in pretty much every culture too, though.) Anyhow, "lack of belief in god(s)" is a VERY popular position among atheists today.

It's true, though, that these kinds of atheists today end up, when the rubber hits the road, often resorting to out-of-nowhere-but-very-very-low percentage probabilities that God might exist (because they can't be sure he doesn't), and maybe call themselves agnostic-atheists after pointing to negative atheism, and so on. Because, in the end, they are in a discussion with people who believe in God, and are taking the opposite position (they don't have such beliefs...). But the fact that they see no reason to hold such beliefs (in god(s)) is something that would simply be the case, if there weren't people walking around saying that there is a god.

Could theists simply "get on with things" and abandon their theism (their belief) once it was no longer necessary to deal with any "atheists" still running around? Because atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists. Even though they (apart from the occasional John Lennons) wouldn't imagine it happening any time soon, I think this is the sort of thing they're shooting for, this is I think the stance they're trying to take. And this is the possibility the hypothetical pre-historic pre-theism human example is meant to illuminate. Nothing about trees and rocks.

It might seem beside the point, since there are theists all over the place, and atheists are, indeed, aware of the concept of a God, and they are often arguing against people who are believers in the existence of God. But it isn't beside the point, and not allowing them this common (these days) definition of themselves sets them up for traps that rightly seem unfair to them, enmeshing them in discussion of doubt, certainty, and faith about something that in itself they aren't really too interested in (except when others' belief in it is affecting their governments and schools, say).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something. (I don't see us coming up with physical evidence for such pre-historic people, but it isn't completely random and goofy to suggest that there might have been some. Not crazy to point to religion being around in pretty much every culture too, though.) Anyhow, "lack of belief in god(s)" is a VERY popular position among atheists today.

It's true, though, that these kinds of atheists today end up, when the rubber hits the road, often resorting to out-of-nowhere-but-very-very-low percentage probabilities that God might exist (because they can't be sure he doesn't), and maybe call themselves agnostic-atheists, and so on. Because, in the end, they are in a discussion with people who believe in God, and are taking the opposite position (they don't have such beliefs...). But the fact that they see no reason to hold such beliefs (in god(s)) is something that would simply be the case, if there weren't people walking around saying that there is a god.

Could theists simply "get on with things" and abandon their theism (their belief) once it was no longer necessary to deal with any "atheists" still running around? Because atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists. Even though they (apart from the occasional John Lennons) wouldn't imagine it happening any time soon, I think this is the sort of thing they're shooting for, this is I think the stance they're trying to take. And this is the possibility the hypothetical pre-historic pre-theism human example is meant to illuminate. Nothing about trees and rocks.

It might seem beside the point, since there are theists all over the place, and atheists are, indeed, aware of the concept of a God, and they are often arguing against people who are believers in the existence of God. But it isn't beside the point, and not allowing them this common (these days) definition of themselves sets them up for traps that rightly seem unfair to them, enmeshing them in discussion of doubt, certainty, and faith about something that in itself they aren't really too interested in (except when others' belief in it is affecting their governments and schools, say).

---

Thank you, Billl. I love you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Thank you, Billl. I love you.

---

This is maybe a little embarrassing, but I actually edited that a bit after you quoted it. No big deal, heh-heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

But this is question-begging. And even if it were true, it wouldn't refute theism. "There is no empirical evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a non sequitur. Moreover, it's self-referentially incoherent. For there's no empirical evidence for those propositions either (!). In any event, there's both good philosophical evidence for and against the existence of God. If you don't think so, you need to read up on contemporary philosophy of theism.

To refute theism, broad philosophical theism, you need to find an internal contradiction. (If the very idea of God is contradictory, then he cannot exist.) Philosophers have been trying to do so for centuries. But no one has, yet, been successful. It's tough going. But at least they're trying. It's better than the sort of lazy anti-intellectualism that is so prevalent among both theists and atheists today.

---

It is incredibly unlikely that an all-powerful being would be passive and undetectable. The onus of proof is on the theists. It is philosophically indefensible to believe something without evidence or reason. I don't have to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory. Nothing contradictory about unicorns but belief in them is unreasonable.

And you simply can't refute theism. Nothing is impossible with God. Try debating a Christian and you'll see what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

what the evolution theory?
between you and me, and I am not being rude, I would have worked it out myself is not a good idea.
I would not have needed Darwin to point it out for me.
It is obvious that inbreeding is unhealthy.

---

All right, I also find very easy all that I discovered and that by accident, was just like what others knew.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

OK. But can you give me a sound argument - you know, with clear terms, plausible premises, and valid reasoning?


All truth-claims require some warrant or evidence or justification. "God does not exist" is a truth-claim. And it certainly isn't a preposterous demand. Again, to refute theism one need only find an internal contradiction. For that which is contradictory cannot exist. Married bachelors, for instance, cannot exist. So the proposition "Married bachelors don't exist" is true.

Moreover, you seem to be confusing atheists - those who say "God doesn't exist" - with agnostics - those who say "God may or may not exist; I don't know."

---

Most atheists are those who find no reason to believe in God. When they argue against theists its not so much that they are saying "God cannot possibly exist," but more like "you have no good reason to believe that He exists."

Again, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns. Is it therefore reasonable to believe in them? It seems that you think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

I didn't mean any ill-will, Varenne, really. I was serious. Do you have any arguments, logically-valid arguments? Three things are necessary for a sound argument: (1) clear and unambiguous terms (to avoid fallacies of equivocation), (2) plausible premises (if not obviously true), and (3) valid reasoning. Have you ever studied logic formally? (Again, not a pejorative question - most people nowadays haven't.)


Yes, I figured that out.

---

You are welcome to reread my comments. I don't speak vaguely.

I will give you a new argument to pick apart, since you did not find the previous one to your liking. I can live and love without dogmas. As long as theists try to belittle or hinder love and kindness that happens without dogmas, I will defend free life and love. As long as people are divided I will hope for unity, and oppose clubs that support servitude to "higher" beings and individuals at the expense of club members and non-members.

Now, what is your argument? What is your motivation? Do you understand mine? If not, I will move on to talking to people who don't find such difficulty in parsing through my sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I'm pretty sure "atheist" has always been meant to refer to a type of person. By using it to refer to rocks and plants, you would be expanding it to include things that don't have the capacity for belief. Therefore, etc. = What?

---

I was using a logical formula called modus ponens: if p then q; p, therefore q. I left the final "q" for the reader to draw. But it looks like I should've spelt it all out. And you've missed the point of the ad absurdum argument. The whole idea is that it's absurd to call inanimate things atheists. But given that definition, we would have to. Therefore, that definition is false.

Quote:

---

The point made that any people who were around before belief systems including God came about would be atheists stands, and would be evidence that "lack of belief" needn't be the result of the rejection of something.

---

No, the point doesn't stand. An atheist is someone who makes the following knowledge-claim: "God doesn't exist." However, I'm happy to concede your point for conversation's sake. If we want to re-defing atheism for conversation's sake, I'll go along with that. :)

Quote:

---

(because they can't be sure he doesn't)

---

Of course they can.

Quote:

---

. . . atheists could pretty much drop the topic altogether if there weren't any more theists.

---

Maybe, maybe not. We're dealing with counterfactuals. New generations would be the problem. Some philosophers think theism is what they call "properly basic." And some evolutionary psychologists think that theism is "wired" into us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

It is incredibly unlikely that an all-powerful being would be passive and undetectable.

---

That's a premise not an argument.

Quote:

---

It is philosophically indefensible to believe something without evidence or reason.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

I don't have to demonstrate that the idea of God is contradictory.

---

Well, that would be the way to refute theism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

This is maybe a little embarrassing, but I actually edited that a bit after you quoted it. No big deal, heh-heh.

---

It happens to me all the time, Billl. Haha. Before and after edits, I liked what you said. I finally felt well represented and I appreciate it so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

And you simply can't refute theism. Nothing is impossible with God. Try debating a Christian and you'll see what I mean.

---

Yes, Darcy, you can. Prove it to be as incoherent as a four-sided triangle and you'll have done just that. Granted you'll never conquer someone who says that God can even do logically impossible things. But those people are loonies, anyway. And, yes, I've debated Christians before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Most atheists are those who find no reason to believe in God. When they argue against theists its not so much that they are saying "God cannot possibly exist," but more like "you have no good reason to believe that He exists."

Again, you can't disprove the existence of unicorns. Is it therefore reasonable to believe in them? It seems that you think it is.

---

I'll grant you all of this. Unicorns certainly are logically possible. But the analogy you're drawing is false, a category error. Moreover, not only are there no good arguments for unicorns, there are good arguments against unicorns. (For instance, we know that their supposed horns were narwhal tusks, etc.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Climacus

I'll grant you all of this. Unicorns certainly are logically possible. But the analogy you're drawing is false, a category error. Moreover, not only are there no good arguments for unicorns, there are good arguments against unicorns. (For instance, we know that their supposed horns were narwhal tusks, etc.)

---

A flying soda can is not logically contradictory. I'd say a flying soda can is no less likely than an all-powerful passive and undetectable being.

Its not about logic. Its about what is reasonable. Make absolute certainty the standard which all assertions must satisfy and we enter into a world where almost anything is possible. Possible does not equal likely and likelihood ought to be a condition for belief.