1. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    19 May '05 22:585 edits
    Nemesio asks: Why does God not reveal Himself at every moment so that you can
    shut up the atheists here once and for all?


    Weak Atheism holds that there is not sufficient evidence to believe that God exists. Suppose that God reveals himself with sufficient evidence to convince the Weak Atheists of his existence. According to them, they would at that point cease being Weak Atheists.

    Now, what about the children, grandchildren and future descendants of these once Weak Atheists. Is it reasonable for them to be Weak Atheists, or must they accept the same evidence that was sufficient to convince their Weak ancestors?

    Finally, compare this to the situation of modern Weak Atheists rejecting the Bible, which many generations ago, when it was written, was believed to be recording evidence revealed by God himself of his existence. Suppose that Moses had been a Weak Atheist until encountering the voice of God, and then became a theist. Should the modern Weak Atheist take this into account?

    In short, this thread is intended to address the "once and for all" clause of Nemesio's idea. Is one revelation sufficient, or must God reveal himself directly to each generation of Weak Atheists?
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    06 Nov '02
    Moves
    13484
    19 May '05 23:03
    Can someone please explain how Christianity grew so quickly after Christ was killed IF HE DID NOT REAPPEAR?? Why would followers and believers die for and risk their lives for someone who had lied to them while he was alive? Skeptics, Atheists, and Jews, Answer me! If he didn't reappear the movement would have died out!
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    19 May '05 23:04
    Originally posted by Chessmonkey
    Can someone please explain how Christianity grew so quickly after Christ was killed IF HE DID NOT REAPPEAR?? Why would followers and believers die for and risk their lives for someone who had lied to them while he was alive? Skeptics, Atheists, and Jews, Answer me! If he didn't reappear the movement would have died out!
    Can you explain how the Roman and Greek gods became so prevalently known if they weren't real? Or do you believe in those gods too, by virtue of them becoming popular?
  4. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    19 May '05 23:33
    Originally posted by Chessmonkey
    Can someone please explain how Christianity grew so quickly after Christ was killed IF HE DID NOT REAPPEAR?? Why would followers and believers die for and risk their lives for someone who had lied to them while he was alive? Skeptics, Atheists, and Jews, Answer me! If he didn't reappear the movement would have died out!
    Can you explain the explosion of Muffy-belief that has taken place here in this forum over the last two weeks?

    At the rate we're going, every human will be a Muffin in about 3 years.
  5. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    19 May '05 23:38
    Originally posted by telerion
    Can you explain the explosion of Muffy-belief that has taken place here in this forum over the last two weeks?

    At the rate we're going, every human will be a Muffin in about 3 years.
    Well maybe all those that are'nt allergic to wheat germ. 😉
  6. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    19 May '05 23:51
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Nemesio asks: Why does God not reveal Himself at every moment so that you can
    shut up the atheists here [b]once and for all
    ?


    Weak Atheism holds that there is not sufficient evidence to believe that God exists. Suppose that God reveals himself with sufficient evidence to convince the Weak Atheists of his existence. According to them, they ...[text shortened]... revelation sufficient, or must God reveal himself directly to each generation of Weak Atheists?[/b]
    Nowadays the forms of documentation are different than at that time.

    All it's needed is for a God of an existing religion to come along that the ammount of believers would preserve definitive evidence for future generations.

    A mere one-time revelation could mean the "true religion" does not exist, therefore huge ammounts of evidence would be thrown away, even if the cult stays. That might not be sufficient.

    So I would say two revelations would be sufficient.
  7. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    19 May '05 23:58
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Nemesio asks: Why does God not reveal Himself at every moment so that you can
    shut up the atheists here [b]once and for all
    ?


    Weak Atheism holds that there is not sufficient evidence to believe that God exists. Suppose that God reveals himself with sufficient evidence to convince the Weak Atheists of his existence. According to them, they ...[text shortened]... revelation sufficient, or must God reveal himself directly to each generation of Weak Atheists?[/b]
    if god revealed himself to a strong atheist, what do you think would happen? would the strong atheist admit he was wrong and admit god exists, or would he hold fast to his belief and pass the revelation off as a figment of his imagination? i guess it would depend on how compelling the revelation is.

    i do not think that one revelation would suffice to convert all the generations (present and future) of weak atheists. your reference to the bible is fitting here -- the fact that there now exists many weak atheists supports the conclusion that one revelation -- or at least, one alleged revelation -- will not do it.

    lastly i do not think that the modern weak atheist has any obligation to consider 'past revelations' as having a bearing on his beliefs. i think that many weak atheists hold their position because they themselves have seen no viable proof for (or viable proof against) the existence of god. the fact that other people do say they have been shown viable proof does not change the fact that the weak atheist himself has seen no proof that he considers compelling.



  8. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '05 00:062 edits
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    if god revealed himself to a strong atheist, what do you think would happen? would the strong atheist admit he was wrong and admit god exists, or would he hold fast to his belief and pass the revelation off as a figment of his imagination?
    My understanding of Strong Atheism is that the strong atheist, by definition, declares God to be a strict impossibility, an impossibility that takes precedence over any empirical evidence that could ever arise. Thus, my understanding is that the Strong Atheist would never accept that God has revealed himself, and thus would never feel compelled to reject his belief for that reason. He might very well believe that he has gone delusional, but if he is a true Strong Atheist, a divine revelation is never something that he would entertain as a possibility.
  9. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    20 May '05 00:28
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    My understanding of Strong Atheism is that the strong atheist, by definition, declares God to be a strict impossibility, an impossibility that takes precedence over any empirical evidence that could ever arise. Thus, my understanding is that the Strong Atheist would never accept that God has revealed himself, and thus would never feel compelled to r ...[text shortened]... Strong Atheist, a divine revelation is never something that he would entertain as a possibility.
    that's very interesting...

    i am going to have to do some research on that to see if you're right (not that i think you aren't necessarily). if you are, then i didn't realize that the strong atheist's position was that strong.

    in particular, i thought that to be a strong atheist, it was sufficient to hold the belief that god does not exist (without the further stipulation that he believes god's existence to be a strict impossibility). in short, i didn't realize the strong atheist could never change his mind. if that's the case, then it's clear that no number of revelations could ever convert all atheists -- which makes sense to me now why you were just targeting the weak atheists in your initial post.

  10. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '05 01:152 edits
    Originally posted by LemonJello


    i am going to have to do some research on that to see if you're right (not that i think you aren't necessarily). if you are, then i didn't realize that the strong atheist's position was that strong.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

    "The strong atheist positively asserts, at least, that no God or gods exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible. For example, strong atheists commonly claim that the combination of attributes which the Christian God is asserted to have (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence, etc) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the existence of the Christian God is 'a priori' impossible."
  11. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    20 May '05 01:34
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

    "The strong atheist [b]positively asserts
    , at least, that no God or gods exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible. For example, strong atheists commonly claim that the combination of attributes which the Christian God is asserted to ha ...[text shortened]... surd, and therefore that the existence of the Christian God is 'a priori' impossible."[/b]
    What about Gods that are not omni_____'s Like the roman and greek, or celtic gods for example. Can a strong athiest believe that they may exist?
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    20 May '05 03:051 edit
    Originally posted by Nyxie
    What about Gods that are not omni_____'s Like the roman and greek, or celtic gods for example. Can a strong athiest believe that they may exist?
    hmmm....

    this is a dicey question i think. the defining feature of the strong atheist, as Scribs pointed out, is that he positively asserts that no god or gods exist. however, based on my interpretation, it is not contradictory for the strong atheist to also admit that it is logically possible for a god or gods to exist -- although the strong atheist will often (usually) state that it is logically impossible for certain gods (under certain definitions) to exist.

    so the question is this: if you admit that it is logically possible for a god or gods to exist, is that the same as saying such a god or gods 'may exist'? i don't think it is. i don't think it is inconsistent to say that it is logically possible for X to exist and then to say that X definitely does not exist. (where's Bbarr? -- he'll know the answer.)

    so the fact that the strong atheist positively asserts that no god or gods exist would make me conclude that the answer to your question is NO.

    i think that if the strong athiest admitted that such a god or gods may exist, then we would conclude that he wasn't sure if such a god or gods exist -- that would contradict the definition of a strong atheist.
  13. Standard membertelerion
    True X X Xian
    The Lord's Army
    Joined
    18 Jul '04
    Moves
    8353
    20 May '05 03:10
    Originally posted by Chessmonkey
    Can someone please explain how Christianity grew so quickly after Christ was killed IF HE DID NOT REAPPEAR?? Why would followers and believers die for and risk their lives for someone who had lied to them while he was alive? Skeptics, Atheists, and Jews, Answer me! If he didn't reappear the movement would have died out!
    Sometimes people are fanatic about the silliest things.

    For an example, look into your bathroom mirror.

    Sometimes people are so fanatic for a silly thing that they sacrifice their life for it. Happens all the time.

  14. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    20 May '05 04:013 edits
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    if you admit that it is logically possible for a god or gods to exist, is that the same as saying such a god or gods 'may exist'? i don't think it is. i don't think it is inconsistent to say that it is logically possible for X to e ...[text shortened]... tely does not exist. (where's Bbarr? -- he'll know the answer.)
    I believe this assessment is correct.

    Something's existence is logically possible if and only if its existence doesn't logically entail a contradiction. For example, it is logically possible for an equilateral triangle, with a side length of 10 miles, made from a chain of human ribs, to exist.

    But I can also say with complete confidence at the same time that that triangle doesn't exist.

    Now, it's your turn. Can a woman made of one rib logically exist? Has one ever existed?
  15. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    20 May '05 04:59
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I believe this assessment is correct.

    Something's existence is logically possible if and only if its existence doesn't logically entail a contradiction. For example, it is logically possible for an equilateral triangle, with a side length of 10 miles, made from a chain of human ribs, to exist.

    But I can also say with complete confidence a ...[text shortened]... t.

    Now, it's your turn. Can a woman made of one rib logically exist? Has one ever existed?
    So was that a yes or a no?

Back to Top