The great atheist questionnaire....

[DannyM]

Okay. Thank you for your honesty. I agree that "logic" is being claimed by all sides, and it gets a little tiring, but the atheist is the one deceiving himself by claiming the logical ground. Hence the rather unedifying sight of the word logic being used by all and sundry.

Absolutely... I think this quote by Ankerberg sums it up well.

“When modern science assigns the origin of the universe and all life in it to pure random chance it does an incalculable disservice to science, because it "reduces scientific investigation not only to chaos but to sheer absurdity. Half of the scientific method is left impaled on the horns of chance. The classical scientific method consists of the marriage of induction and deduction, of the empirical and the rational. Attributing instrumental causal power to chance vitiates deduction and the rational. It is manifest irrationality, which is not only bad philosophy but horrible science as well. Perhaps the attributing of instrumental power to chance is the most serious error made in modern science and cosmology. ... If left unchallenged and uncorrected, it will lead science into nonsense.... Magic and logic are not compatible bedfellows. Once something is thought to come from nothing, something has to give. What gives is logic." - Darwin's leap of faith.

Nice. Very, very nice.

[Gman]

Nice. Very, very nice.

They often say that nothing is a problem for evolution because nothing comes from nothing...

[DannyM]

Nice. Very, very nice.

They often say that nothing is a problem for evolution because nothing comes from nothing...

Indeed. This prompted me to paste part of a post I submitted elsewhere to here...

Science has proven that time began to exist when the universe began to exist. Philosophically we can only really posit 'something' or 'nothing' as the cause of our universe coming into existence. Now, the idea that 'nothing' caused the universe to exist, while perhaps possible in theory, takes more faith than I, for one, can muster. If nothing caused the universe to exist, it would not exist. It is logical to say that, before the creation of the universe, nothing that we could define as 'natural' existed. There was not only no matter or energy, but probably no empty space or time, either. While this is somewhat difficult for us to grasp, the important point is that if we start with nothing, only nothing would logically arise from it. This is just sound reasoning. It seems to me that the atheist needs to explain himself if he truly believes that there is nothing behind our existence; the burden of proof is surely on those holding to this illogical assumption. Again, there is nothing philosophically wrong with positing a creator as the first uncaused cause in the creation of the universe.

[touchingcloth]

I'll preface this by saying that the word atheist has several different meanings. I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods - not in the sense that I believe that there is no god or gods. That might appear to be a subtle difference at first, but it's a very important one.

TC, I do wish you'd stop deceiving yourself like this. If you lack any positive belief then you are not an atheist and are agnostic. Answer this question with a yes/no/don't know:

Does a god/gods exist?

Give me your honest answer, your honest belief.

Agnosticism is a separate scale from theism. You can be an agnostic theist.

[DannyM]

I'll preface this by saying that the word atheist has several different meanings. I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not believe in a god or gods - not in the sense that I believe that there is no god or gods. That might appear to be a subtle difference at first, but it's a very important one.

TC, I do wish you'd stop deceiving yourself like this. If you lack any positive belief then you are not an atheist and are agnostic. Answer this question with a yes/no/don't know:

Does a god/gods exist?

Give me your honest answer, your honest belief.

Agnosticism is a separate scale from theism. You can be an agnostic theist.

No you can not be an agnostic atheist. But you did not answer my question...Does a god/gods exist? Yes, no, or unwilling to adjudicate?

[hatsoff]

Science has proven that time began to exist when the universe began to exist.

Science has "proven" no such thing. Physicists have developed math models of our universe which begin at particular points (most famously the singularity of the big bang), but this ought not be confused with a metaphysical rejection of hypothetical wider-ranging models.

Philosophically we can only really posit 'something' or 'nothing' as the cause of our universe coming into existence.

This of course assumes that, first, we can talk about causation outside the context of space and time, and second, that our universe indeed had a cause. I for one hold neither such assumption.

It seems to me that the atheist needs to explain himself if he truly believes that there is nothing behind our existence;

Most atheists (in my experience) do not reify nothingness in the way you have described, which is agreeably incoherent.

Again, there is nothing philosophically wrong with positing a creator as the first uncaused cause in the creation of the universe.

Sure there is: lack of warrant.

[hatsoff]

No you can not be an agnostic atheist.

I suggest you peruse the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

But you did not answer my question...Does a god/gods exist? Yes, no, or unwilling to adjudicate?

A very good question. I strongly suspect that most of those who ascribe to agnostic atheism do so despite the fact that they deny God's existence, but because they are unwilling or unable to defend that denial.

[Proinsias]

I suggest you peruse the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

I suggested that link a while back, Danny said it was drivel.

[hatsoff]

When modern science assigns the origin of the universe and all life in it to pure random chance it does an incalculable disservice to science, because it "reduces scientific investigation not only to chaos but to sheer absurdity.

I'm not sure what Ankerberg means when he talks about "pure random chance." Is he simply referring to scientists' current ignorance regarding the earliest conditions of our universe? If so, then his ensuing criticisms are entirely misplaced. If not, then what in the world is he talking about?

[hatsoff]

I suggested that link a while back, Danny said it was drivel.

Well, that's a shame.

By the way, his criticism is not entirely unfounded. Atheism is usually defined in academia as a denial of the existence of God, not merely a lack of belief in God. There are exceptions, of course, but why avoid expressing outright denial? Is it not true that you regard God's existence as unlikely? Do you not largely ignore the possibility that God exists, choosing instead to operate under the assumption that He is a man-made construct?

[Proinsias]

I agree it's not entirely unfounded, but it's not entirely drivel either.

I don't regard God's existence as unlikely, I find the existence of God more an issue of definition. Many human constructs around the notion of God or something similar, none perfect.

[touchingcloth]

No you can not be an agnostic atheist.

Yes, you can. You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic deist, an agnostic pantheist, an agnostic theist...the two concepts relate to different things.

But you did not answer my question...Does a god/gods exist? Yes, no, or unwilling to adjudicate?

I believe I was quite clear on my position in my preface and responses to derrick09's questions.

[DannyM]

No you can not be an agnostic atheist.

Yes, you can. You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic deist, an agnostic pantheist, an agnostic theist...the two concepts relate to different things.

But you did not answer my question...Does a god/gods exist? Yes, no, or unwilling to adjudicate?

I believe I was quite clear on my position in my preface and responses to derrick09's questions.

No you can not be an agnostic atheist. To try to argue for this nonsense is to take a baseball bat to the English language. I've explained this so many times before and yet it still does not get through.

But why will you not just answer the simple question, TC? You could have done it by now...

[DannyM]

I suggested that link a while back, Danny said it was drivel.

Well, that's a shame.

By the way, his criticism is not entirely unfounded. Atheism is usually defined in academia as a denial of the existence of God, not merely a lack of belief in God. There are exceptions, of course, but why avoid expressing outright denial? Is it not true that you regard God's existence as unlikely? Do you not largely ignore the possibility that God exists, choosing instead to operate under the assumption that He is a man-made construct?

Here we go with asserted claims with no rational basis. How "unlikely" is God's existence? On what do you base such a claim? Can you show me an empirical model from which you derive this claim?

[DannyM]

No you can not be an agnostic atheist.

I suggest you peruse the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

But you did not answer my question...Does a god/gods exist? Yes, no, or unwilling to adjudicate?

A very good question. I strongly suspect that most of those who ascribe to agnostic atheism do so despite the fact that they deny God's existence, but because they are unwilling or unable to defend that denial.

I've seen the link before and it is utter nonsense. Sorry. I can show you Oxford, which correctly defines atheism and correctly defines agnosticism. From these definitions - the correct definitions - it is impossible, in the perimeters of the English language, and thus our whole mother tongue, to be an agnostic atheist. You can tell yourself you are an agnostic atheist if you like, but please do not tell me this and expect me to accept such nonsense. It is made up, invented. Agnosticism is a passive position; it is almost meaningless by its very definition. Atheism is the positive belief that there is no god or gods. You cannot join the two - it is impossible within the accepted perimeters of our whole language. How can one be undecided yet decided all at once? I guess you can hop from one to the other, depending upon your current mood, but you simply cannot be both. And wikipedia telling you you can doesn't make it so.