Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What ought atheists to do?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Sue Lord

unread,
Oct 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/15/00
to
As in many aspects of life, there is a time for demolition and a time for
reconstruction.
There are endless and sometimes fascinating discussions of existence or not
of god etc. but they sometimes seem to become obsessive and are persued to
the exclusion of other equally important aspects of non-belief.
Once this discussion has gone so far it is futile to keep it going and
diverts our attention from other aspects of religion and its evils.
So, What ought atheists do?
I think we ought to:-
a) Continue to engage those who are interested to help them if they are
having difficulty in shaking off their religious conditioning at a personal
level. Reasoned debate is an on-going need for all of us to clarify and
develop our ideas. But we need to know when to 'save our powder', and
b) Start adding 'Secularist' to our self-chosen labels and expose and
challenge the many ways that at every level, (personal, local, national and
international) religion affects every one of us in one way or another.
Religion and the church has over the centuries, embedded itself into our
political structures and culture to such an extent that many people do not
seem to regognise it, let alone the damage it can cause.
S.L.

William Barwell

unread,
Oct 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/15/00
to
In article <8qv2cs$jhu$2...@news.abdn.ac.uk>,
<j.g.o...@sysa.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
>In alt.atheism, talk.origins, and elsewhere, there is
>endless discussion, or rather reasoned argument by atheists
>against the irrational rantings of theists of various
>flavours. Has anybody ever been converted by these
>arguments, in either direction, from atheism, or to atheism?
>I doubt it. To advance the cause of atheism, we need to
>follow the example of religions and influence the education
>of children.

I have seen any number of people on newsgroups admit
they did change from believers to Atheism due to
arguments and from reading the bible itself and seeing the
irrelevancies and contradictions.

So it happens. But not all at once.
I am sure that good sound arguments do have effect in
many people, but slowly, over time. It may take years.

Many people never get a real honest argument
on the fundamental questions, here in America,
many small cities are pretty much hotbeds of
religous fanaticism where it is hard to be an
atheist. Here, well into the WWII era, one could
be arrested and harrassed for selling Atheist books
by mail.

But the net is changing things slowly.

Other changes are occuring too. Archeology has
all but debunked the Bible. The idea that
the Bible is history, that moses existed, that the
exodus happened, that Moses and Joshua battled
their way across Canaan is now conceded by archeologists
and historians to be myth, none of it happened.
And of course, all the theological doctrines that hang
off of these pseudohistories, Moses and god on the Mountain,
the laws of Moses having come from the hand of god, also fall
with these claims.

This will be the next big problem for Christianity and Judaism, the
realization by the public that these things have been debunked,
they are no more real than the tales of Hercules or the myth
of Romulus and Remus.

This means in this coming century, religion will begin to change too.

Too what, nobody will be able to tell.

We have already seem the Jesus Project attacking cherished
myths, a decade ago in America, we could not have imagined
that such scholarly debunkings of the gospels more obvious
errors and claims would be publicly aired on TV. Yet it is happening.

Britain had a more sustained skeptical streak and the great shock
of WWI and WWII fed disbelief. We over here have a ways to
go to catch up with you.

So people do change their minds. I suspect that Christianity
as we know it is in the beginnings of its death throes.
It will be as outmoded in another two centuries as Roman
and Greek mythology became by 400 CE.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!


William Barwell

unread,
Oct 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/16/00
to
In article <RhWA5.12541$td5.2...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>,
SongbirdB <Sn...@mynest.com> wrote:
>Yeah, "???" sums it up pretty nicely...
>
>
>Screw religion in schools... let's focus on societal morality if we have to
>(which we should) teach something. I personally don't care which religion
>parents choose to teach, as long as the child is impressed with an
>understanding of 'right' and 'wrong'. (You can translate this to be
>"socially acceptable" and "unacceptable" if you'd like). Education is about
>opening a child's mind, not about bombarding it with as many opposing views
>as possible, hence the separation of church and state. And besides, when do
>you expect to find time for math and history if we bombard them with even
>just the "popular" religions??

Not allowable.

About two deacdes ago here in Texas, there was an effort to
teach simple day to day type morality in Texas schools.
This was because not all children had any sort of moral
teaching by their parents and it was a problem.
This project, which became known by the name "Values Clarification"
was designed to teach the basics. Don't hit, don't steal,
don't call people names. Don't do to other people what you yourself
do not like.

The Christian far right went ballistic. Valuse clarification was labelled
as a Atheist plot, a communist plot, as a humanist trick,
obvious Satan was behind this. They howled and organized, and
wrote letters, and sent delegations of right winged preachers
to rant at legislators until it was killed.

Why? Why the real reaction to this?

Because. What it it worked? What if simple morality taught to children
worked ansd became a basis for more comprehensive ethical
teaching later? Without the need for religion or Christian
mythology? The far right religous types realized instinctively
that their claims that only religion can be a basis for
morality would be challenged by such a program if it succeeeded.
So it had to be ended to keep Religion in Texas as the sole
foundation of ethics and morality. One of the basic bedrock
propaganda claims of American evangelical Christianity.

One reason we have had such a wave of crime and
bad behavior here in Texas, and thus lead America
in executions.

The little buggers weren't learning morals at home, or in church,
and the Christians sure weren't going to let them be taught
that in schools without a big dose of religion and mythical tales
that are loudly proclaimed to be the one true fount of morality.
Which of course by law the Christians are not allowed to do.

It will take another 50 years I am afraid before we can
divorce basic moralty from religous claptap and teach it in schools.
The Christians, over here at least, will fight you tooth and nail.

They have a lot to lose.

Netcom jimhumph

unread,
Oct 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/22/00
to

William Barwell wrote:
j.g.o...@sysa.abdn.ac.uk wrote:

> >In alt.atheism, talk.origins, and elsewhere, there is
> >endless discussion, or rather reasoned argument by atheists
> >against the irrational rantings of theists of various
> >flavours.
> >

Talk.origins has many posts which address Creationist
arguments, but not, by and large I think,
, arguments which oppose non-Creationist religious
beliefs. A quick look at
alt.atheism will show that 'reasoned arguments'
there are decidedly thin on the ground.
The claim that theism is irrational BTW seems to
me to be unsustainable-would you care to present
an argument in support of it rather than just assert it?

> I have seen any number of people on newsgroups admit

> they did change from believers to Atheism ....
> (s)o it happens. But not all at once.


> I am sure that good sound arguments do have effect in
> many people, but slowly, over time. It may take years.
>

Which sound argument can you cite which shows that
atheism is true?

> Many people never get a real honest argument
> on the fundamental questions, here in America,
> many small cities are pretty much hotbeds of
> religous fanaticism where it is hard to be an
> atheist.
>

Which cities are those? In what way is
it hard to be an atheist?

> ...this will be the next big problem for Christianity and Judaism, the


> realization by the public that these things have been debunked,
> they are no more real than the tales of Hercules or the myth
> of Romulus and Remus.
>

I think that such 'debunking' as there has been is damaging to
literalist interpretations of the Bible- not to non-
fundamentalist ones.

jh


Donald McCaskey

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8svki2$evq$3...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...

>
> William Barwell wrote:
> j.g.o...@sysa.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> > I have seen any number of people on newsgroups admit
> > they did change from believers to Atheism ....
> > (s)o it happens. But not all at once.
> > I am sure that good sound arguments do have effect in
> > many people, but slowly, over time. It may take years.
> >
> Which sound argument can you cite which shows that
> atheism is true?

The general definition of atheism is the non-belief in God(s). Since many
people claim not to believe in God(s), atheism does exist.

Don

--
"The Vulcan Neck Pinch is not half as powerful as the Vulcan
Groin Kick, but it is more politically correct."


Netcom jimhumph

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to

Donald McCaskey wrote:

> > > I have seen any number of people on newsgroups admit
> > > they did change from believers to Atheism ....
> > > (s)o it happens. But not all at once.
> > > I am sure that good sound arguments do have effect in
> > > many people, but slowly, over time. It may take years.
> > >
> > Which sound argument can you cite which shows that
> > atheism is true?
>
> The general definition of atheism is the non-belief in God(s).
>

In fact there are *many* different definitions of atheism.

>Since many
> people claim not to believe in God(s), atheism does exist.
>

You haven't answered my question: which sound
argument can you present to show that atheism is true?

jh


Bryan K

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote

> You haven't answered my question: which sound
> argument can you present to show that atheism is true?

What sound argument can you present to show that the universe as I know it
actually exists and not, for example, that I am just hooked up to a virtual
reality machine in some beings' laboratory? I personally don't give a
monkeys what anyone else believes or not, I just want the right to believe
what I want, not be badgered for it and not be forced into acting against my
beliefs by the state and society as a whole. All this argument about who is
right and who is wrong is futile - can we move on and talk about something
productive for a change?

Jim - if you are not an atheist, why are you here?

--
Bryan Kennerley mailto:bry...@btinternet.com
Wales Index - The Web Directory for Wales
http://www.northwalesindex.co.uk (1825 links and rising)
http://www.midwalesindex.co.uk (956 links and rising)

Netcom jimhumph

unread,
Oct 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/24/00
to

Bryan K <bry...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8t4kn0$97k$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> "Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote

> > You haven't answered my question: which sound
> > argument can you present to show that atheism is true?
>
> What sound argument can you present to show that the universe as I know it
> actually exists and not, for example, that I am just hooked up to a
virtual
> reality machine in some beings' laboratory?
>

Translation: I cannot demonstrate that atheism is true.

> I personally don't give a
> monkeys what anyone else believes or not, I just want the right to believe
> what I want, not be badgered for it and not be forced into acting against
my
> beliefs by the state and society as a whole. All this argument about who
is
> right and who is wrong is futile - can we move on and talk about something
> productive for a change?
> Jim - if you are not an atheist, why are you here?
>

Why would I have to be an atheist to be here?

jh


Bryan K

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote

> Translation: I cannot demonstrate that atheism is true.

I cannot demonstrate that pigs can't fly without artificial propulsion. I
would have to try every possible way to coax them to do it and only if all
methods failed would I be reasonably certain. Even then there may be a
secret word I hadn't thought of that I could whisper in their ear that would
send them skyward. It's up to someone to prove that they can, not to prove
that they can't.

The existence of god is an absurd notion and I'm not going to devote any of
my life searching for proof any more than I would for flying pigs.

Netcom jimhumph

unread,
Oct 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/25/00
to

Bryan K wrote:

> The existence of god is an absurd notion and I'm not going to devote any
of
> my life searching for proof any more than I would for flying pigs.
>

Yours is just a subjective comment- another individual might maintain
that God is a meaningful notion. You are presenting no argument
which establishes that your opinion is to be preferred.

jh


Donald McCaskey

unread,
Oct 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/26/00
to
"Netcom jimhumph" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8t3lss$rg$1...@taliesin2.netcom.net.uk...

>
> Donald McCaskey wrote:
>
> > > > I have seen any number of people on newsgroups admit
> > > > they did change from believers to Atheism ....
> > > > (s)o it happens. But not all at once.
> > > > I am sure that good sound arguments do have effect in
> > > > many people, but slowly, over time. It may take years.
> > > >
> > > Which sound argument can you cite which shows that
> > > atheism is true?
> >
> > The general definition of atheism is the non-belief in God(s).
> >
> In fact there are *many* different definitions of atheism.

There may be but, and note the word *general* in my statement, Mr. Pedantic,
the fact remains that the general definition of atheism is the non-belief in
God(s) (Check a dictionary and you'll probably see those exact words).


>
> >Since many
> > people claim not to believe in God(s), atheism does exist.
> >

> You haven't answered my question: which sound
> argument can you present to show that atheism is true?
>

> jh
>

Right, since you missed the point, I'll explain. The word "atheism" is a
noun, i.e. the name of a person, an idea or a thing.. To ask if atheism is
true is like asking if "tree" is true or "desk" is true or "sky" is true.

Paul M. Davis

unread,
Nov 8, 2000, 9:33:37 PM11/8/00
to
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 22:57:50 -0000, "Philip G. Boys"
<pgb...@btinternet.com> was seen to type in uk.philosophy.atheism:

>Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
>
>> However, this "looking at the weight of evidence" is for a large
>> majority of humanity quite irrelevant when it comes to accepting or
>> rejecting a particular religion.
>
>you mean theists get to make a choice? :]
>
>seriously, most theists seem to adopt their parents religion and / or
>that of their community (depending on how multicultural) - there
>doesn't seem to much objective comparison and analysis beforehand.

Similar to the fuel blockaders several weeks ago. One of them
proclaimed "We're democratic, if most people want us to go home then
we'll go home".

Ho ho ho. I wasn't aware that democracy included the right to perform
the act and then ask is it alright after, but rather the other way
around.

>> PMD

Jesus spent 40 days and nights in the wilderness and met God and the Devil.
I didn't eat for three days and saw a doctor.

A.Shaw

unread,
Nov 24, 2000, 2:46:27 PM11/24/00
to
It is not encumbent for atheists to prove that an entity called 'god
exists'.
Apart from anything else it is not possible to prove a negative.
It is up to those who believe to prove their belief.

Shaw


Tony Neville

unread,
Nov 24, 2000, 4:54:27 PM11/24/00
to

"A.Shaw" <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:2HyT5.2073$Vj3.5...@nnrp3.clara.net...

Quite right. But I have reservations about the second statement.
Why can't we compare what the god people claim to be true against
knowledge gathered through reasoning from empirical evidence and
justly pronounce the claim proven false when it contradicts that
knowledge?

Cheers,
Tony

Goldhammer

unread,
Dec 10, 2000, 11:35:36 PM12/10/00
to
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:27 -0000, A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:


>It is not encumbent for atheists to prove that an entity called 'god
>exists'.


Neither is it encumbent on theists.


>Apart from anything else it is not possible to prove a negative.


That's quite silly. What sort of justification do you have in mind
for this broad statement?

--
Don't think you are. Know you are.

William Barwell

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 12:22:32 AM12/11/00
to
In article <sQYY5.97411$3u1.26...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,

Goldhammer <goldh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:27 -0000, A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It is not encumbent for atheists to prove that an entity called 'god
>>exists'.
>
>
>Neither is it encumbent on theists.

It is if you want to prove YOUR god exists.
Rather than another god.


>>Apart from anything else it is not possible to prove a negative.
>
>
>That's quite silly. What sort of justification do you have in mind
>for this broad statement?

You often can prove a negative.

The god of the grand theologies, judeo-Christianity and Islam,
claims a god with certain attributes. Infinite being, will,
sentient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, ect.

The problem is, these attributes often collide to create
puzzles and contradictions. Omnibenevolence and
omnipotence give you the unsolvable problem of evil, omniscience
destroys man's free will, which is a demand of most
grand theologies, especially those that use free will as a (failed)
way to get around the problem of evil by trying to shuffle
that off onto man's shoulders.
Omnipotence is a rather special case, it is a claim
that turns out to be incoherent.
Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it, can god
create a square circle, do the impossible?
When faces with such puzzles omnipotence fades into utter
incoherence.
Supernatural is a term only defineable by contrasting
it to natural which in itself is a word that grand theology
cannot define.

The whole claim soon collapses into a useless mess.
This claim that a grand theological god exists collapses
becuse of its reliance on incoherent words, and
its own built in contradictions.

Grand theology this collapses like Logical Positivism
did. And so does the grand god of grand theology.


Strong Atheism wins this one.

Jeffrey Goldberg

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 9:06:36 AM12/11/00
to

Indeed. I would like A Shaw to explain to me what is wrong with Euclid's
proof that there is no largest prime number.

-j

--
Jeffrey Goldberg
I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
From line IS valid, but use reply-to.

David Cantrell

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 6:34:39 AM12/11/00
to
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 04:35:36 GMT, goldh...@my-deja.com (Goldhammer)
said:

>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:27 -0000, A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>It is not encumbent for atheists to prove that an entity called 'god
>>exists'.
>
>Neither is it encumbent on theists.

Theists are making a positive claim. Therefore it *is* their job to
prove it. See
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/religion/existential-negativism.html
for the full argument.

>>Apart from anything else it is not possible to prove a negative.
>
>That's quite silly. What sort of justification do you have in mind
>for this broad statement?

Because to prove a negative, you have to perform an exhaustive search
of the entire universe, which is not possible.

--
David Cantrell | Nuke...@ThePentagon.com | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

This message sent using Linux despite what the headers say

Peter H.M. Brooks

unread,
Dec 11, 2000, 1:05:26 PM12/11/00
to

Jeffrey Goldberg <${news$}@goldmark.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.30.001211...@lehel.goldmark.private...

> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Goldhammer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:27 -0000, A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > >Apart from anything else it is not possible to prove a negative.
> >
> > That's quite silly. What sort of justification do you have in mind
> > for this broad statement?
>
> Indeed. I would like A Shaw to explain to me what is wrong with
Euclid's
> proof that there is no largest prime number.
>
One could claim that this is not a proof of a negative because, in fact,
the proof is that there is a bigger one, not that there isn't a biggest
one.


--
Lovers, said she, are the weakest people
in the world; and people of punctilio the
most un-punctilious. Richardson 'Grandison'


Goldhammer

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 2:23:48 AM12/12/00
to
On 10 Dec 2000 23:22:32 -0600,
William Barwell <wbar...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>In article <sQYY5.97411$3u1.26...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>,
>Goldhammer <goldh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:27 -0000, A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It is not encumbent for atheists to prove that an entity called 'god
>>>exists'.
>>
>>
>>Neither is it encumbent on theists.
>
>It is if you want to prove YOUR god exists.
>Rather than another god.


It is a trivial matter to note that 'if a person wishes to
establish P to his peers, then he should try to establish
P to his peers.' But from what I understand, theism is
is a condition whereby a person harbors a specific belief.
There is nothing in this per se which makes it encumbent on the
theist to justify this belief to others. To see this more
clearly, consider an analogy: we all harbor beliefs concerning
the nature of truth, beauty, the meaning of life, etc. It
is quite possible (and indeed common) to harbor beliefs on these
issues without discussing or even revealing them to others, much
less trying to justify them with arguments. That someone chooses
not to justify his inner beliefs about, say, 'beauty', does
not suddenly invalidate those beliefs. After all, do you see
many men discussing their beliefs about 'ideal female beauty'
with their wives? There's no compelling reason why any such
discussion or justification must be encumbent on the belief-holder.


>Omnipotence is a rather special case, it is a claim
>that turns out to be incoherent.
>Can god create a rock so big he cannot lift it,


Why do you find this so puzzling?


>can god create a square circle, do the impossible?


What sort of theologies propose that omnipotence
implies being able to do what is necessarily impossible?


>When faces with such puzzles omnipotence fades into utter
>incoherence.


Such puzzles concerning omnipotence are often alluded to,
but they have yet to be demonstrated.

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 3:49:32 AM12/12/00
to
David Cantrell <Nuke...@ThePentagon.com> writes:

> Because to prove a negative, you have to perform an exhaustive search
> of the entire universe, which is not possible.

I don't need to search the entire universe to observe that there is
no big fat check in my wallet.

A.Shaw

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 8:03:18 AM12/12/00
to

"Goldhammer" <goldh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:sQYY5.97411$3u1.26...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:27 -0000, A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >It is not encumbent for atheists to prove that an entity called 'god'
exists.

> Neither is it encumbent on theists.

If you propose a theory it us up to you to produce the evidence.

If this were not true, I would be called upon to prove the non-existence of
the products of anyone's imaginings however absurd.

> >Apart from anything else it is not possible to prove a negative.

> That's quite silly. What sort of justification do you have in
>mind for this broad statement?

Think about it. Give yourself a few exercises & try to disprove prove *any*
superstitious belief.

> Don't think you are. Know you are.

My thinking is part of who and what I am.

This exchange illustrates the futility of trying to counter superstitious
belief, with science or reason.

Shaw


Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 7:37:26 AM12/12/00
to
"A.Shaw" <sh...@freeuk.com> writes:

> If you propose a theory it us up to you to produce the evidence.
>
> If this were not true, I would be called upon to prove the non-existence of
> the products of anyone's imaginings however absurd.

Not at all. It is in no way incumbent on you to prove the
non-existence of this or that than it is incumbent on those who assert
the existence of this or that to prove anything.

> Think about it. Give yourself a few exercises & try to disprove prove *any*
> superstitious belief.

I can easily disprove the superstitious belief that there is a rhino in
the room with me.

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 7:57:27 AM12/12/00
to

I'm sure you can do better than that!

What David most surely meant to say was that you can not prove a
*universal* negative; and not that you can not prove a particular
negative.(i.e. You can prove that there is no Santa in your pocket, but
you can not prove that "there is no Santa")

-F

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 8:30:18 AM12/12/00
to
Torkel Franzen wrote:
>
> "A.Shaw" <sh...@freeuk.com> writes:
>
> > If you propose a theory it us up to you to produce the evidence.
> >
> > If this were not true, I would be called upon to prove the non-existence of
> > the products of anyone's imaginings however absurd.
>
> Not at all. It is in no way incumbent on you to prove the
> non-existence of this or that than it is incumbent on those who assert
> the existence of this or that to prove anything.

Well, it is in no way incumbent on us to discuss anything at all.
But *if* we want to establish the truth of a statement, then the person
who makes the positive existential claim has to justify him/herself
since that is the only person who *can* actually prove anything.
(Positive existential claims (whether particular or universal) *are*
verifiable, whereas the negative of a universal existential statement is
not verifiable.)



>
> > Think about it. Give yourself a few exercises & try to disprove prove *any*
> > superstitious belief.
>
> I can easily disprove the superstitious belief that there is a rhino in
> the room with me.

Again, all you proved is the negation of a *particular* existential
claim.
I dare you to prove the negation of any universal existential claim.
(As I said in another e-mail: You can disprove the particular
existential claim "Santa is not in the place X at time Y" but you can
not disprove the universal existential claim "Santa exists")


-F

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 8:58:36 AM12/12/00
to
Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:

> What David most surely meant to say was that you can not prove a
> *universal* negative; and not that you can not prove a particular
> negative.(i.e. You can prove that there is no Santa in your pocket, but
> you can not prove that "there is no Santa")

There is no such thing as a "universal negative" or a "particular
negative" in either logic or grammar, so we need a definition. If the
thesis is that you cannot prove a universal negative, how is
"universal negative" defined?

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 9:02:06 AM12/12/00
to
Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:

> But *if* we want to establish the truth of a statement, then the person
> who makes the positive existential claim has to justify him/herself
> since that is the only person who *can* actually prove anything.

Why should people who believe in gods want to "establish" the truth
of the statements they believe in? Most of them aren't missionaries at
all, and there is absolutely no reason why they should be. Even those
who feel called upon to try to persuade other people to share their
beliefs practically never claim to be able to "prove" anything.
The persuasion proceeds by other means.

Burgerman, John Williamson

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 9:34:17 AM12/12/00
to

"Flaviu I Iepure" <fla...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3A36286A...@mit.edu...

Santa IS real.
I have a photograph and several books with details of his life.


--

Visit my personal website for movies, pics (of my nurse!) , miniature jet
engines, DDA act, VR6 MPV Disabled converted van, Bikes, V8 powered Ford
Sierra with Nitrous!, Tuned Powerchairs and more!
http://www.dynopower.freeserve.co.uk/homepages/


Goldhammer

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 2:31:17 AM12/13/00
to
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:03:18 -0000,
A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>"Goldhammer" <goldh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:sQYY5.97411$3u1.26...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:27 -0000, A.Shaw <sh...@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> >It is not encumbent for atheists to prove that an entity called 'god'
>exists.
>
>> Neither is it encumbent on theists.
>
>If you propose a theory it us up to you to produce the evidence.


Theism, as it is commonly described, is the possession of a
particular belief. It has nothing to do with proposing theories
to others. Granted, there are theists who propose theories and
try to justify them to an audience. But this is because they are
the kind of people who feel a need to propose theories and
justify them to an audience, not because they are theists.
I suspect there are millions of theists who quietly go about
believing whatever they believe without ever feeling compelled
to attend a detailed audit of their beliefs before a stern audience
of learned atheists.


>If this were not true, I would be called upon to prove the non-existence of
>the products of anyone's imaginings however absurd.


None of us are under any such obligation.


>> >Apart from anything else it is not possible to prove a negative.
>
>> That's quite silly. What sort of justification do you have in
>>mind for this broad statement?
>
>Think about it. Give yourself a few exercises & try to disprove prove *any*
>superstitious belief.


I don't think it would be too hard to dispense with the notion that
there exists a race of alien fairy-mathematicians who can square the
circle with a straightedge and compass. As to dispelling belief
in this, that is a different story altogether. People can and
do persist in believing whatever notions strike their fancy,
regardless of what sort of logical argumentation is brought to
bear on the matter.


--

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 6:13:09 AM12/13/00
to


We were in the context of existential claims.

A "universal positive existential claim" is a positive existential claim
which metions no context (eg. "X exists") and existential claims
mentioning a context can be called "particular existential claims" ("X
exists in the context Y"). A "universal negative" will be thus the
negation of a "universal positive existential claim."

(You have to agree that "universal negative" is quite convenient
compared to "the negation of a non-contextual positive existential
claim" in an informal usenet discussion)

So I maintain that you can not prove the negation of a universal (or
"non-contextual") positive existential claim.
In fact, even the negation of some "particular positive existential
claim" can not be proved if the specified context is not restrictive
enough. For instance, your claim that you can prove the statement "There
is no fat check in my wallet" is false without the --implicit, of
course-- assumption that the context was
"in my wallet, NOW."

There may be a fat check in your wallet at some time in the future.

-F

P.S. I do not consider "A is B" to be an existential claim. "A's which
are B exist" however, is an existential claim. If a claim states the
existence or nonexistence of something, then it is an existential claim,
if not, not.
I hope this will make things clearer.

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 6:13:11 AM12/13/00
to
Torkel Franzen wrote:
>
> Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:
>
> > But *if* we want to establish the truth of a statement, then the person
> > who makes the positive existential claim has to justify him/herself
> > since that is the only person who *can* actually prove anything.
>
> Why should people who believe in gods want to "establish" the truth
> of the statements they believe in?

Oh, I'm sure they want it!

Even Kierkegaard, who was big for "faith" as *opposed* to knowledge,
sins here.
He says in one of his journals (paraphrase): 'all the contradictions
in the Bible, all the inconsistencies are there because God wanted from
us pure faith and not rationalizations.'

Well, how merciful of God that He left him at least *that*
rationalization !
God is love indeed !

Anyway, my remark about the burden of proof stands if the theme of
discussion is proving the truth or falsity of an existential claim.

> Most of them aren't missionaries at
> all, and there is absolutely no reason why they should be. Even those
> who feel called upon to try to persuade other people to share their
> beliefs practically never claim to be able to "prove" anything.
> The persuasion proceeds by other means.

I completely agree that theists have no epistemological ground for
their beliefs (non-pantheistic theists at least).
But you will be surprised at how, after you explain to a believer that
for a good 'spiritual' organization one needs no gods, that some
self-knowledge and some principles to be strongly abided suffice for
achieving the same if not greater 'spiritual fulfilment' --being as it
is that the atheists have the advantage of being able to be *honest*
with themselves--, you will be surprised then, at how quickly some
theist shift the discussion again to epistemological questions:
"But how can you proooove that there is no God ?"

-F

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 6:56:45 AM12/13/00
to
Goldhammer wrote:
>
[snip material on which I leave others to comment]

> >
> >Think about it. Give yourself a few exercises & try to disprove prove *any*
> >superstitious belief.
>
> I don't think it would be too hard to dispense with the notion that
> there exists a race of alien fairy-mathematicians who can square the
> circle with a straightedge and compass.
>

It is however very hard to disprove that in a certain box, a cat is
both alive and death at the same time until we look at it.
In fact, certain learned minds sustained that under certain conditions
that is exactly what happens!

So at the risk of sounding like a theist, I must say that logical
impossibility does not imply lack of existence.

Your "fairy-mathematicians" example fails anyway. If the
fairy-mathematicians are able to set their straightedges to sqrt(pi)*R
then they can square the circle.

-F

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 7:25:18 AM12/13/00
to
Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:

> A "universal positive existential claim" is a positive existential claim
> which metions no context (eg. "X exists") and existential claims
> mentioning a context can be called "particular existential claims" ("X
> exists in the context Y"). A "universal negative" will be thus the
> negation of a "universal positive existential claim."

It's very easy to disprove any number of positive extenstential
claims that mention no context, e.g. "Potfnog exists". Why is this
easy? Because "Potfnog" is explained as "the elephant that ate the
Eiffel tower". Now, if you wish to exclude this sort of thing you will
need to be much more explicit in your definition - using a vague and
completely elastic expression like "mentions no context" only serves
to deprive the claim that "you can't prove a negative" itself of
all content.

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 7:28:55 AM12/13/00
to
Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:

> Oh, I'm sure they want it!

On the contrary, the vast majority of Christians or Muslims or
members of other religions give no sign of wanting to establish
anything at all regarding their religion.

> I completely agree that theists have no epistemological ground for
> their beliefs (non-pantheistic theists at least).

I don't know why you say "agree" here - I wouldn't claim that
theists have no epistemological ground for their beliefs.

> "But how can you proooove that there is no God ?"

Yes, this is a very silly question that you see on the net all the
time, where atheists and theists keep talking about "proof". Most
people simply don't care about "proof" one way or the other, and
rightly so.

Goldhammer

unread,
Dec 14, 2000, 2:42:56 AM12/14/00
to
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 06:56:45 -0500, Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> wrote:
>Goldhammer wrote:


>> I don't think it would be too hard to dispense with the notion that
>> there exists a race of alien fairy-mathematicians who can square the
>> circle with a straightedge and compass.
>>
>
> It is however very hard to disprove that in a certain box, a cat is
>both alive and death at the same time until we look at it.
> In fact, certain learned minds sustained that under certain conditions
>that is exactly what happens!


Learned minds tend to restrict their assertions to the superposition
of states of the decaying atoms. Less learned minds go off on long,
speculative, mostly irrelevant tangents about the Cat -- witness the
the immense proliferation of nonsense written on the topic in recent
decades.


> So at the risk of sounding like a theist, I must say that logical
>impossibility does not imply lack of existence.


Superposition of states is not a logical impossibility.


> Your "fairy-mathematicians" example fails anyway. If the
>fairy-mathematicians are able to set their straightedges to sqrt(pi)*R
>then they can square the circle.


When we speak of "squaring the circle with a straightedge and
compass", it is generally understood that the straightedge is
used as a straightedge, not as a measuring-rod.

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 15, 2000, 2:39:47 AM12/15/00
to
Torkel Franzen wrote:
>
> Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:
>
> > A "universal positive existential claim" is a positive existential claim
> > which metions no context (eg. "X exists") and existential claims
> > mentioning a context can be called "particular existential claims" ("X
> > exists in the context Y"). A "universal negative" will be thus the
> > negation of a "universal positive existential claim."
>
> It's very easy to disprove any number of positive extenstential
> claims that mention no context, e.g. "Potfnog exists". Why is this
> easy? Because "Potfnog" is explained as "the elephant that ate the
> Eiffel tower".

It may be common sense that "there are no iron-eating elephants" or
that "no one can rebuild the Eiffel tower so fast as to make its
disappearance unnoticeable" but these are assumptions you need to make.
If I can make common sense assumptions like that, then I can disprove
that Santa exists or disprove that an able-to-revive-himself Jesus
existed.
So it's only fair *not* to consider "proved" statements which are only
"inductively proved" (whatever that may mean in an empirical context).

One more thing.
My discussion was centred on statements with empirical content.
The claim "you can't prove a negative" in a purely formal logical
context, is false since any proposition can be put in the form of a
negation of a series of implications (or also as a negation of a
negation).
Statements which you can disprove only by formal logical manipulations
are devoid of all empirical content however, and therefore fall out of
our discussion.

(Your claim "Potfnog exists" *has* empirical content. But also you can't
disprove it without using inductively "proved" assertions.)


> Now, if you wish to exclude this sort of thing you will
> need to be much more explicit in your definition

I only needed to eliminate empirically vacuous assertions.

>- using a vague and
> completely elastic expression like "mentions no context"

Yet, you understood only too well what I meant by "mentions no context."

At any rate, if you must have concrete definitions of "context" I can
speak of space-time as the context, but that would not be fair to the
"G-d exists outside time" assertion.
I think that my definition stands well as it is.

> only serves
> to deprive the claim that "you can't prove a negative" itself of
> all content.

See above.
You can't disprove "The Pink Unicorn Exists" so my statement is far from
vacuous.

-F

P.S. You have the habit of deleting *a lot* from the message of previous
posters. So please do not delete at least the first two paragraphs from
this post, since I think that they contain relevant material.

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 15, 2000, 2:39:49 AM12/15/00
to
Torkel Franzen wrote:
>
> Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:
>
> > Oh, I'm sure they want it!
>
> On the contrary, the vast majority of Christians or Muslims or
> members of other religions give no sign of wanting to establish
> anything at all regarding their religion.

That may be just apathy on the part of the vast majority. A good sign.
Anyway, I still think that a passionate Christian --for instance-- would
very much want the truth of his religion "established."


>
> > I completely agree that theists have no epistemological ground for
> > their beliefs (non-pantheistic theists at least).
>
> I don't know why you say "agree" here - I wouldn't claim that
> theists have no epistemological ground for their beliefs.

I all boils down to what you mean by "having no epistemological
ground", I guess. You can neither prove nor disprove G-d, and all the
events we observed so far need no "personal God" for their explanation.
That's what I was thinking of.

>
> > "But how can you proooove that there is no God ?"
>
> Yes, this is a very silly question that you see on the net all the
> time, where atheists and theists keep talking about "proof". Most
> people simply don't care about "proof" one way or the other, and
> rightly so.

They may not care about "proof" but they sure care about the truth of
their statements. For some, caring about the later thing leads to caring
about the former.

-F

Flaviu I Iepure

unread,
Dec 15, 2000, 2:39:51 AM12/15/00
to
Goldhammer wrote:

[some rather sarcastic stuff deleted]

>
> > So at the risk of sounding like a theist, I must say that logical
> >impossibility does not imply lack of existence.
>
> Superposition of states is not a logical impossibility.
>

Whatever the set of experiments available, we can *always* make a theory
which is not logically contradictory, and agrees with these experiments
(whether that theory has other merits, that is a different matter).

My point was that "logical impossibility" of an event (or entity), may
mean logical inconsistencies or false assumptions in our theories and
not necessarily the lack of existence of that event (or that entity).

> > Your "fairy-mathematicians" example fails anyway. If the
> >fairy-mathematicians are able to set their straightedges to sqrt(pi)*R
> >then they can square the circle.
>
> When we speak of "squaring the circle with a straightedge and
> compass", it is generally understood that the straightedge is
> used as a straightedge, not as a measuring-rod.
>

There is much in your example which is not at all "generally
understood."

Squaring the circle as it is "generally understood" should be composed
of mental operations. If the fairy-mathematicians are allowed to make
infinitely many mental operations equivalent to drawing circles and
straight lines --which they may be able to do in a finite amount of
time-- then they *can* square the circle.

If we replace the squaring of the circle example with "the existence
of fairy-mathematicians which, by using only the axioms of arithmetic,
can prove that 1+1=3" then yes, you can disprove this superstition.

More than that, those are the only kind of superstitions which you can
disprove: superstitions which are negations of tautologies. That is,
superstitions which are void of any empirical content.

Few superstitions satisfy this requirement.


-F

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 15, 2000, 3:19:43 AM12/15/00
to
Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:

>It may be common sense that "there are no iron-eating elephants" or
>that "no one can rebuild the Eiffel tower so fast as to make its
>disappearance unnoticeable" but these are assumptions you need to
>make.

So the statement "you can't prove a negative" then, on your
interpretation, has nothing in particular to do with negatives, but
rather means that you can't give proofs in any mathematical sense of
statements about the world. For of course it is equally true that
"you can't prove a positive" in this sense.

Torkel Franzen

unread,
Dec 15, 2000, 3:31:39 AM12/15/00
to
Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> writes:

> That may be just apathy on the part of the vast majority. A good sign.
> Anyway, I still think that a passionate Christian --for instance-- would
> very much want the truth of his religion "established."

The most passionate Christians I have known only smile at the idea
that the truth of Christianity could be "established" in the sense of
supported by conclusive argument.

William Barwell

unread,
Dec 16, 2000, 1:59:06 PM12/16/00
to
In article <3A3763FD...@mit.edu>,

Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> wrote:
>Goldhammer wrote:
>>
>[snip material on which I leave others to comment]
>> >
>> >Think about it. Give yourself a few exercises & try to disprove prove *any*
>> >superstitious belief.
>>
>> I don't think it would be too hard to dispense with the notion that
>> there exists a race of alien fairy-mathematicians who can square the
>> circle with a straightedge and compass.
>>
>
> It is however very hard to disprove that in a certain box, a cat is
>both alive and death at the same time until we look at it.
> In fact, certain learned minds sustained that under certain conditions
>that is exactly what happens!

Errrrrr, no. This cat gedanken experiment was meant as
a reductio absurdum of the proposition that it is meaningful
to speak of the wave function of an object such as a cat.
Wave functions are properties of particles.
The arguments about this still are not settled in the
world of physics.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!

>

Goldhammer

unread,
Dec 17, 2000, 4:35:00 AM12/17/00
to
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:39:51 +0000,
Flaviu I Iepure <fla...@mit.edu> wrote:


> Squaring the circle as it is "generally understood" should be composed
>of mental operations. If the fairy-mathematicians are allowed to make
>infinitely many mental operations equivalent to drawing circles and
>straight lines --which they may be able to do in a finite amount of
>time-- then they *can* square the circle.


Seeing as how you have a number of very odd notions on what
"squaring the circle with a straightedge and compass" entails,
it would be wise to discontinue chatting about this, and move
on to your 1+1=3 example.


> If we replace the squaring of the circle example with "the existence
>of fairy-mathematicians which, by using only the axioms of arithmetic,
>can prove that 1+1=3" then yes, you can disprove this superstition.
>
> More than that, those are the only kind of superstitions which you can
>disprove: superstitions which are negations of tautologies. That is,
>superstitions which are void of any empirical content.


Then, by "void of empirical content", you mean superstitions that can
be disproved by logical reasoning. Presumably, you are going to discount
these in order to preserve your principle that "universal negative claims"
cannot be proved, no?


>Few superstitions satisfy this requirement.


But many atheists expend a good bit of effort disproving, through logical
reasoning, certain superstitions voiced by theists. Your principle has no
relevance to these very common cases. In fact, I'm quite convinced that it
has no relevance anywhere at all.

0 new messages