Important message: Vatting this post of mine will only prove one thing: that I am right (and you can't cope with that). So beware and think this over. I am eagerly awaiting your futile attempts at outwitting me.
Kharn said:
I thought you had made your last post in the thread a page back, by the way?
Common sense tells me that you obviously thought wrong. Maybe it would be appropriate to advice you not to believe everything you read from now on? Yes? Or is that a problem for someone who started studying languages and assumes he should show off his rather limited knowledge of linguistics and semantics? Your account on "evil" and "religion" comes to mind. Which also reminds me of this: the box of tricks you use in your meagre attempts to prove certain people wrong, is becoming less and less surprising. Again, may I give you a small advice? You should purchase a new box of tricks (maybe you can download one from the interweb) so you can regain your legendary status of "Screaming Führer". Now, though, I'd grant you the title of "little whining Annie". For a self-proclaimed student of Roshambo, you fail miserably and are in fact making him look ridiculous. Maybe you should stop sexing your own ego up. Your ego is big enough as it is, trust me. You don't want to look like a sumo wrestler trying to apply another layer of oil to his fat butt, do you? 'Cause it looks ridiculous and actually ruins the appetite of possible bystanders.
Another reason why I would want to post yet again in this holy thread after saying I wouldn't? It's a military tactic that has been around for many, many centuries: make the opponents think that you're retreating, let them think they can taste victory, let them celebrate their so-called victory in total disarray, and then: take a sharp bend and relaunch your attack. The Mongol archers fucked up "superior" armies that way. I'm appalled at having to find out that a child who is being academically trained would not be able to recognize such a tactic. One would think that a tactic that was able to overwhelm 13th century Europeans, would be obligatory material at whatever Western university. Ah well.
Now that that unpleasantness is out of the way, I will not try to outwit each and every naive mongrel that has been posting his brainfarts in this thread. Most of you are stupid teenagers anyway, so most of you are simply not worth a personal answer of me, nor a considerable amount of my time.
Instead of making offal of all of you seperately (which would be as easy as falling off a log, if you pardon the expression), I am going to address all of you as a collective, as a group: as a Confederacy of Dunces.
It has come to my attention that this whole thread is yet again about the eternal struggle of a bunch of religious zealots to defend their lunacy. Ha! That's good for me, you know. It means I will not even have to try very hard to confound you and, ultimately, outwit all of you.
Nevertheless, with annoying little mongrels like our "Little Whining Annie" and our legendary "Amateur" hanging around, I feel almost obliged to teach all of you the very basics of theism and atheism. Why? Because none of you seem to know what these things mean. And with a wrong set of definitions, how can we discuss and debate? (If you do not get this train of thought, you should not read any further, nor react to this post, because you will essentially make a fool out of yourself and, thus, only prove what I already knew.)
In this matter your fanaticism is identical to that of a religious fanatic. Its obvious from your posts, that you've had a very bad experience with religion and are taking it out on others.
I don't remember which mongrel wrote this crap (and crap it is), but it doesn't matter: he is a happy and overjoyed member of your Confederacy and will be treated hat way. Although not explicitly mentioned in this quote, a little close-reading (something you will learn to master eventually, Annie) tells me that the writer implies that, under certain conditions, theism and atheism look very alike. In fact, it has been uttered elsewhere that atheism resembles a religion, a belief, a faith. Educated people with a fair understanding of both concepts would never (NEVER!) make such a humongous mistake. The depth and breadth of such an error is so overwhelmingly big that one wonders if such statements can actually come from a sentient being.
By simply looking at the characteristics that best define what a religion is, even the biggest retard should discover how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.
Although I am aware that there are egotripping, narcistic, yet inconceivably stupid semanticists in the vicinity who will try to analyse the following data and try to prove me wrong, I will now list (shortly) the defining characteristics of a religion:
1. Belief in supernatural beings (usually yet not always including gods)
2. Distinction between sacred and profane objects/places/times
3. Rituals that focus on sacred objects/places/times
4. Moral code with supernatural origins (often the commands of the gods)
5. Experience of "religious feelings" (probably the vaguest characteristic)
6. Prayer and other forms of communication with supernatural beings
7. Worldview and organization of life based on religious concepts (religions are NEVER a collection of isolated, unrelated beliefs; they constitute entire worldviews which are followed by the sheep)
8. (Complex) social organization (some people follow their religion in an isolated way, most religions involve complex social networks of believers who join for prayer and so on)
Now, some of these characteristics are more important than others, but none is so important that it alone can make a religion. If atheism lacked two or three of these characteristics, then it would be a religion. However, atheism lacks every one of these characteristics. It does not explicitly exclude most of them, but then again: the same can be said for almost anything. In any case, it is not possible to call atheism a religion or to even compare it with one. They are completely different categories.
Now, why the fuck would anyone even try to compare atheism to religion? Are they daft maybe? Stupid? Coo-coo? Yes, of course they are, but they are also trying to make a feint. See, by claiming that atheism is simply another "faith", atheists' critiques of religious beliefs become hypocritical and can be ignored. However, I just explained to you dunces that the claim that atheism is a religion is based upon a misunderstanding of one or both concepts. Therefore, it must proceed from flawed premises. In fact, when theists claim that atheism is just another faith, these mongrels are actually undermining people's ability to understand religion itself. How can you expect me, good ol' wishy-washy alec, to SENSIBLY discuss matters like religion and all the evil it has done to societies and individuals if you bunch of retards can't even adequately define what religion is? (And no, there is no need to go all postmodern on my arse, Annie, I am well aware of Derrida and all those other fucktards who claim that definitions can not really exist in our realm, so spare yourself the trouble to show off yet again with your rather limited knowledge of the world around you.) Productive discussion requires clear thinking about concepts and premises, but clear and coherent thinking are obviously undermined by the misrepresentations that you sorry bunch of dunces seem to hold dearly.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way: what is atheism?
Why, it's simple really. Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. It is not the denial of the existence of gods (as most theists would like to believe), but the absence of it. An atheist is quite simply a person who is not a theist. Sometimes, though, a distinction is made between weak (or implicit) atheism (=absence) and strong (or explicit) atheism (=denial). Strong atheists explicitly deny the existence of any gods. I am a strong atheist, but does that mean that I "had a very bad experience with religion and [am] taking it out on others"? No. This is yet another common mistake theists make: they argue that people choose to be atheists and, hence, will be held accountable for such a (sinful) choice. Is atheism chosen? No, in quite the same way that belief is not an action and can not be attained by command. Once a theist realizes what he/she must believe beyond all doubt, what other steps does he/she take in order to have that belief? None, because there is simply nothing left to do. There is no extra, identifiable step which we can label the act of "choosin". The same thing holds true for atheists. It is not a choice one makes.
Then why did I become an atheist? Who will tell? My journey to atheism was personal and individual, based on the specific circumstances of my life, my experiences, my attitudes. Although I undoubtedly share characteristics with other atheists, it is important to remember that these characteristics are not necessarily common to all atheists.
Why am I a strong atheist with a temper? Because, quite simply, I have experienced ongoing discrimination because of my disbelief in gods (school, work, family). Theists are easily offended by my views, but seem to lack the necessary braincells to figure out that their views are equally offending for me. Do you think I enjoy looking at your so-called holy places? Do you think I appreciate your symbols in my life? Do you think I should just accept your statements and try to live happily together with 7 billion people of which 90% believe in something that I do not believe in? Oh, I should at least try, you say? Then you should try living in a world where 90% of the people claim to believe in supernatural beings even though they have insufficient empirical evidence to support such an absurd claim. It pisses me off. It's like looking at a blue sky and everyone else is claiming it's pink. Who are you trying to fool, fools?
Nevertheless, I rarely do what theists do constantly: I do not spread the word like a veneral disease. I do not spread "the word of atheism" because there is no word of atheism to spread, at least not in any sense that is analogous to spreading "the word of God" or what have you. I simply explain what atheism is, what it is not, and whilst I'm at it, I try to refute as many myths and misconceptions as possible. I explored and explore the nature of religion, theism and other types of beliefs. And if I can be said to spread anything at all, it would be a healthy dose of scepticism and critical thinking from an atheistic point of view. I want people to think more sceptically and critically in general. And if I am flaming you sorry bunch of dunces, it is simply because I want you to stop being so gullible and to use your own mind to think about these kind of things.
Oh and now I feel some of you breathing down my neck, ready to bite my arteries and suck my sinful blood. I hear Amateur approaching, I hear Annie roar, they know how to shut good ol' wishy-washy up, they reckon. So they combine their forces and fling this remark at me: "Oh, you poor old sod, everything you've said so far holds true, but do tell me this: why do you go through so much trouble if ultimately you cannot prove that god does not exist?" And then they laugh out loud, they've outwitted me, good ol' wishy-washy alec! They've got me right where they wanted me, in a corner, shaking like a kitten in a drunken stupor, oh boy, they are going to enjoy gutting me this time, especially after calling them all those horrible names over and over again. Justice will prevail! God will spit on me and my loved ones.
Heh. That's always the last argument, isn't it? "Tee-hee, you cannot prove that god does not exist, and therefore atheism must be based on faith as well! Tee-hee!"
Yeah, well think again you sorry bunch of dressed primates: not only did I already explained to you that atheism cannot be compared to any religion or faith, I've got yet another surprise for you: I CAN prove that god does not exist! That's right: I'm that clever.
They do it often, don't they? Theists try to place theism and atheism on the same plane by arguing that while theists can not prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. They then often use this as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable since neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. They claim that the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's "faith" (there are actually brilliant examples of that kind of behaviour in this thread, thank you very much).
HOWEVER (and trust me: this is one of the best 'howevers' I've ever written) such a claim relies upon the FALSE assumption that all propositions are created equal and since some cannot be proven conclusively, then therefore none can be disproven conclusively. So, they say, the proposition 'God exists' can not be disproven.
Wake up, mongrels! Not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven (if I say that a purple horse exists, it would require you to examine every spot in the universe to make sure that such a horse does not exist, which is impossible), but other propositions can in fact be disproven IN A CONCLUSIVE WAY.
[Takes a deep breath... Although enjoying making offal out of all of you, which is something you deserve after all the crap and bullshit you have been spreading in this thread, it's still a lot of work and I'm only going to do this once, so you better print it out and tape it to the wall of your bedroom, so that you might one day discover the truth about life, the universe and everything, okay?]
How to disprove a proposition 101 (especially for Annie and Amateur - this might be useful once you grow up and stop believing in fairy tales, yes?)
Listen up, children: there are two ways to disprove a proposition. The first way was introduced by Parmenides (more than 2500 years ago, by the way, which makes it even harder for me to accept that you mongrels do not know this). It's quite simple really: Parmenides realized that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. That means that there are no married bachelors, no square ovals and no largest number. Why? Because these things are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic (the LAW of contradiction) which clearly states that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. Pointing out such a logical contradiction is the same as disproving the proposition (this is stuff that you should have been taught at the age of 12 and preferably sooner, by the way).
The second way of disproving a proposition is a bit more complicated. I'll try explaining it by giving you two examples of propositions:
1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar sytem has a tenth planet with mass A and orbit B.
Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference in disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no tenth planet. This is, however, still beyond our technological abilities and would (practically) not be disprovable.
The second proposition is - with our current technology - easily disprovable: the claim can be tested, we have the mass and the orbit, if our tests repeatedly fail, we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist and, thus, the proposition is disproven. It would not mean that no tenth planet exists, no, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and orbit, does not exist.
[Phew... This is taking longer than I expected. I always think I can just get away with stupid short posts, just like you people, but when the going gets tough and my pride is in danger, no effort is to big for good ol' wishy-washy alec...]
Now, let's get back to your god. If you were to define this god of yours adequately to me, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look for the expected effects on nature and humanity which such a god might have, for instance, and if we would fail to find these effects, then a god with such characteristics would not exist. Some other god with different characteristics could still exist, but the existence of the aforementioned one would be conclusively disproven.
Anyway, let's return to the first one, the "Our solar system has a tenth planet". If I were to claim that I can prove that our solar system lacks a tenth planet, that claim of mine would be called an "unrestricted negative" - an unrestricted negative being a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting - if it's true, it's false.
What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven. See: one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Now, traditional theism defines God as a supreme being - a being than which none greater can be conceived. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Well, get this: many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number. Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary: that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.
Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God. By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. Say, Annie: remember Plato? Why, wasn't he the one who stated that "to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation"? Or does anyone know of this litlle anecdote: when the French physicist Pierre Simon de Laplace explained his theory of the universe to Napoleon, Napoleon is said to have asked, "Where does God fit into your theory?" to which Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions).
Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they do not meet the criteria of adequacy as well. For example, they are usually less simple because they assume the existence of at least one additional type of entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them. The realization that the traditional God of theism is not needed to explain anything (that there is nothing for him to do) has even led a number of theologians to call for the rejection of this notion of god: for instance Michael Donald Goulder and the Reverend Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of New Jersey. Both agree with Stephen J. Gould that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world. One can only imagine the strength these people must have needed to take such a decision.
OH, now I hear thee ask: what if there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena? Would that justify the claim that god caused it? No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine (of all people, dawgunnit) realized: "Apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature."
Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found. And that, I believe, is an unrestricted negative that no theist will ever be able to prove. However, I dare all of you mongrels to give it a try and surprise good ol' wishy-washy alec. I have a whole bunch of other atheistic thoughts and views which will blow you away.
Sincerely yours,
alec
: