Exactly! But how can you say it doesn't exist when nothing has has been put forth. It's not even a concept it's just a word without meaning in many instances.
The simple reason why "God" is meaningless is because nobody labeling themselves "theist" can give you any reason to believe that they themselves can imagine anything which they would label "God". Thus all they have is the sound "God", or the row of three alphabet letters beginning with a capital "G", with an "o" in the middle, and a "d"' on the right end. "God" is simply like "Fod" in that it has no existent or imaginary referent.
-C could exist, doesn't mean He's impossible. Unlike God, men aren't omniscient. It's possible that there are things beyond our comprehensive ability, therefore it's possible that God could exist.
You first have to make definition of god that reveals proper ontology of that deity. You can not say that "it" exists until you define what "it" is first. Unless you can prove that in our daily lives we believe in something before we can define or understand what it is first.
I would give the traditional definition of God. Omniscient, omnipotent, all benevolent ect.
Granted such a concept is, or nearly is beyond human comprehension and may seem to be impossible or contradictory and it certainly can't be made into a math formula, but that doesn't disprove God's existence.
People can believe in things they can't define or understand and in fact they do so on a regular biases. Take gravity for example, scientist know it exists and can use mathematics-c-
to calculate it's effects and consequences, but there isn't any definition of what gravity really is. No one can point and say "there's gravity. This is what it looks like and what it's made of." It holds the universe together and is a law that much of science hangs on, but there's no definition of what it is.
The same is true of light. Sometimes it's defined as particles, sometimes waves. No one really understands what light is, but we'd laugh at someone, who claimed not to believe in light.
Yet both gravity and light can defined and observed. But with god you can only give secondary(god is father, god is creator), negative(god is supernatural, god is spirit), and contradictory (god is all-powerful and all-knowing). Yet god is not observe and not defined in a reasonable manor. Yet I should still be open to the concept that contradicts it-self? and vague?
It is impossible for a god to exist, just like it is impossible for squares to be circle.
A god has all the criteria for non-existence. You cannot smell, taste, touch, see, feel, detect with infrared, nightvision, radio frequency, etc. Nothing you can ever do will detect a force known as a god, ever, that's what a god is by definition.
Personally, I find strong atheism very arrogant. Take a look at your argument.
+I can not understand/conceive of the concept of God.
+Anything that's impossible for me to understand must not be possible.
----
=Therefore God is not possible
Understanding has limits. Babies can not understand higher mathematics. Dogs could not conceive of the idea of color. But that doesn't mean the truths of calculous are impossible, or that color can't exist.
Actually I find your argument hypocritical. You do the same thing all the time. You reject the existence of anything that has contradictory traits. Such as square-circles. In truth, If you do not understand what you believe in then you do not believe in it PER SE but believing in belief it-self and not the actual concept.
God cannot be found in a concept. God can not be defined. God is a direct experience when all concepts of this world are released and you relax the mind. These words can not be understood conceptually, they are just a tool pointing towards a direct experience. It is a relaxation of the need to understand anything and being present with what IS RIGHT NOW. Take a look at some youtube videos by Eckhart Tolle.
Logical positivism is based upon the verification principle, which states that for a statement to be meaningful, it has to be either true by definition or verifiable by one or more of the five senses. This means that all discussion about God should be considered meaningless. However, the verification principle itself fails its own test, since it cannot be verified by any of the five senses. It is a self-refuting principle, and, therefore, logically flawed.
More like methological naturalism, which has brought us science. Which has done untold number of things for us. Compared to "God did it." Which has only been in the way of progress and has brought no knew knoweledge.... I think still with the latter.
You kinda ignored what I said "METHOLOGICAL NATURALISM" Not logical positiivism. At some point you must believe in a unprovable assumption. Believing that you are real and life is not a illusion is an uprovable assumption. Only when the assumption pays off (like science has done for us and the lack of success of religious ideal) do you know you on the right track.
How do you know it payed off?, what's the meaning in life and what is there after death?. So because God cannot be expressed by materialistic means then that means he's meaningless and should be disbelieved in as long as religion didn't give us anything useful?
Religion never has given anthing usefull. It has aways been in the way of progress and a vechical of oppression for everyone. Why should I have "faith" in something that has such a horrable track record? "How do you know it payed off?" Are you serious? Are you really questioning the pay off of science/metholical naturalism?
Jainism is extremely non-violent. I challenge you to give me one Jainist religious war, it made many people overcome their violence. Horrible track record?, nuclear bombs have a bad record, they were used in WW2. And Mao&Stalin may have killed as many as 100 million people, mostly their own people, doesn't mean atheism is wrong. Yes I am questioning, once science taught the geocentric model as fact, now we know it's wrong, science said that atoms can't be divided, it was wrong again.
Jaisnism says that a woman can not be enlightened unlit they recarnate as a man. The same for Buddism,and Hinduism. Their sexism shows their ignorance. And your Mao/Stalin arugment only shows your ignorance of atheism. It is not loggically possible to have anyone represent atheism because it is about being a inividual and not a group beliefe. Atoms cann't be divided? Gee, I wonder how that was found out? Oh yeah, SCIENCE! Science is self correcting. It doesn't make infalable pronoucements.
Wrong, all atheists share one thing. They don't believe in a God, thus they are a group. Of course they can be diverse individuals, some might be anti-theistic, some not. But then again some Christians can be anti-semitic(Hitler) some not(Oskar schindler), so that doesn't prove much
So what, when science is wrong then you just correct it?, that of course assumes we'll find out that it was wrong. How do you knmw the same thing won't happen with evolution, it's ridiculous, facts can't change.
You and Hitler share something in common, you both believe the sky is blue! YOUR EVIL! Wait, is that enough to make have the same STANDARDIZED system of values? I guess not. So why is sharing a lack of faith when it comes to gods, a STANDARDIZED system of values when it doesn't even deal with values, just faith?
I forgot to mention, you've converted me! Now I can call myself a strong atheist! =)
Oh well, who am I kidding, you just changed the term slightly, I'm still a skeptic. A couple of years ago I had thought about a part of what you say here, but didn't go too far with it. Nice job!
By the way, I don't know why you call it a ramble, I know it sounded like one, but it was all perfectly reasoned. Like you say, rationality is the path to righteousness!
I got plenty of friends. My question is how do you manage to make any? You don't make friends by insulting people as soon as you meet them. Thats just a hint.
I describe my position as such: I'm convinced that there is no god and there is no reason to waste any more time looking for him. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if any evidence ever surfaces. But if one does exist, I still don't think I'd "worship" it.
I understand many ppl get caught up on the terms used by theists to define their concept of God. Simply put, a better way to define God to some would be to say He is most-powerful. Your definition of all-powerful and how it operates I would say is different than the way most theists use it.
I think that if a god were to exist, it would have to exist outside of the physical universe and outside of time - something we cannot even imagine. That being the case, and considering I live in the physical universe, I don't see any reason to postulate the existence of a being outside the universe as we know it.
I'm strong atheist towards specific gods like Yahweh, but I am agnostic by default to a general case. I just don't think "God" as a word is well defined enough to apply logic or reason.
Weak atheism has a nice bonus that the majority of theist arguments against you are straw men ;)
Brilliantly argued. I agree, God makes no sence. But I'm slightly confused to why theists won't acknowledge the fact that their God is nonsensical when it comes to simple logic. I've always believed that faith CAN lead to arrogance and ignorance. And it is because that's what faith teaches you. To ignore and to arrogantly proclaim you're right.
Exactly! But how can you say it doesn't exist when nothing has has been put forth. It's not even a concept it's just a word without meaning in many instances.
OpenAirAtheist 7 months ago
The simple reason why "God" is meaningless is because nobody labeling themselves "theist" can give you any reason to believe that they themselves can imagine anything which they would label "God". Thus all they have is the sound "God", or the row of three alphabet letters beginning with a capital "G", with an "o" in the middle, and a "d"' on the right end. "God" is simply like "Fod" in that it has no existent or imaginary referent.
EdwinMcCravy1 8 months ago
-C could exist, doesn't mean He's impossible. Unlike God, men aren't omniscient. It's possible that there are things beyond our comprehensive ability, therefore it's possible that God could exist.
0StarGirl5000 3 years ago
You first have to make definition of god that reveals proper ontology of that deity. You can not say that "it" exists until you define what "it" is first. Unless you can prove that in our daily lives we believe in something before we can define or understand what it is first.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
I would give the traditional definition of God. Omniscient, omnipotent, all benevolent ect.
Granted such a concept is, or nearly is beyond human comprehension and may seem to be impossible or contradictory and it certainly can't be made into a math formula, but that doesn't disprove God's existence.
People can believe in things they can't define or understand and in fact they do so on a regular biases. Take gravity for example, scientist know it exists and can use mathematics-c-
0StarGirl5000 3 years ago
to calculate it's effects and consequences, but there isn't any definition of what gravity really is. No one can point and say "there's gravity. This is what it looks like and what it's made of." It holds the universe together and is a law that much of science hangs on, but there's no definition of what it is.
The same is true of light. Sometimes it's defined as particles, sometimes waves. No one really understands what light is, but we'd laugh at someone, who claimed not to believe in light.
0StarGirl5000 3 years ago
Yet both gravity and light can defined and observed. But with god you can only give secondary(god is father, god is creator), negative(god is supernatural, god is spirit), and contradictory (god is all-powerful and all-knowing). Yet god is not observe and not defined in a reasonable manor. Yet I should still be open to the concept that contradicts it-self? and vague?
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
It is impossible for a god to exist, just like it is impossible for squares to be circle.
A god has all the criteria for non-existence. You cannot smell, taste, touch, see, feel, detect with infrared, nightvision, radio frequency, etc. Nothing you can ever do will detect a force known as a god, ever, that's what a god is by definition.
You're essentially saying "Non-existence... exists"
It's as logical as saying "that is a square circle"
It's mutual contradiction.
A god is impossible.
TheJacolyte 3 years ago
Also, regarding gravity, you're right, it's not really a tangible thing. It's a result of a tangible thing, a material thing.
You must have material to have gravity.
Therefor, consciousness (i.e. a god) cannot have consciousness without material. You need a brain to have consciousness.
TheJacolyte 3 years ago
Personally, I find strong atheism very arrogant. Take a look at your argument.
+I can not understand/conceive of the concept of God.
+Anything that's impossible for me to understand must not be possible.
----
=Therefore God is not possible
Understanding has limits. Babies can not understand higher mathematics. Dogs could not conceive of the idea of color. But that doesn't mean the truths of calculous are impossible, or that color can't exist.
Just because you don't understand how God -C
0StarGirl5000 3 years ago
Actually I find your argument hypocritical. You do the same thing all the time. You reject the existence of anything that has contradictory traits. Such as square-circles. In truth, If you do not understand what you believe in then you do not believe in it PER SE but believing in belief it-self and not the actual concept.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
God cannot be found in a concept. God can not be defined. God is a direct experience when all concepts of this world are released and you relax the mind. These words can not be understood conceptually, they are just a tool pointing towards a direct experience. It is a relaxation of the need to understand anything and being present with what IS RIGHT NOW. Take a look at some youtube videos by Eckhart Tolle.
decapbeats 3 years ago
Life is life, God is there. No matter what you say, God, is God.
jazon345 3 years ago
Define god without contradiction and I will believe in simply on that.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
ReasonablySpeaking 3 years ago
there is no such thing as strong atheism or weak atheism you either believe in god or you don't
benalissa284632 3 years ago
Logical positivism is based upon the verification principle, which states that for a statement to be meaningful, it has to be either true by definition or verifiable by one or more of the five senses. This means that all discussion about God should be considered meaningless. However, the verification principle itself fails its own test, since it cannot be verified by any of the five senses. It is a self-refuting principle, and, therefore, logically flawed.
wjilbert 4 years ago
More like methological naturalism, which has brought us science. Which has done untold number of things for us. Compared to "God did it." Which has only been in the way of progress and has brought no knew knoweledge.... I think still with the latter.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 years ago
You kinda ignored what I said " it cannot be verified by any of the five senses. It is a self-refuting principle, and, therefore, logically flawed."
Lastly let me remind you that science taught the geocentric model(with ptolmey), well, it was wrong
wjilbert 4 years ago
You kinda ignored what I said "METHOLOGICAL NATURALISM" Not logical positiivism. At some point you must believe in a unprovable assumption. Believing that you are real and life is not a illusion is an uprovable assumption. Only when the assumption pays off (like science has done for us and the lack of success of religious ideal) do you know you on the right track.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
How do you know it payed off?, what's the meaning in life and what is there after death?. So because God cannot be expressed by materialistic means then that means he's meaningless and should be disbelieved in as long as religion didn't give us anything useful?
wjilbert 3 years ago
Religion never has given anthing usefull. It has aways been in the way of progress and a vechical of oppression for everyone. Why should I have "faith" in something that has such a horrable track record? "How do you know it payed off?" Are you serious? Are you really questioning the pay off of science/metholical naturalism?
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Jainism is extremely non-violent. I challenge you to give me one Jainist religious war, it made many people overcome their violence. Horrible track record?, nuclear bombs have a bad record, they were used in WW2. And Mao&Stalin may have killed as many as 100 million people, mostly their own people, doesn't mean atheism is wrong. Yes I am questioning, once science taught the geocentric model as fact, now we know it's wrong, science said that atoms can't be divided, it was wrong again.
wjilbert 3 years ago
Jaisnism says that a woman can not be enlightened unlit they recarnate as a man. The same for Buddism,and Hinduism. Their sexism shows their ignorance. And your Mao/Stalin arugment only shows your ignorance of atheism. It is not loggically possible to have anyone represent atheism because it is about being a inividual and not a group beliefe. Atoms cann't be divided? Gee, I wonder how that was found out? Oh yeah, SCIENCE! Science is self correcting. It doesn't make infalable pronoucements.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Wrong, all atheists share one thing. They don't believe in a God, thus they are a group. Of course they can be diverse individuals, some might be anti-theistic, some not. But then again some Christians can be anti-semitic(Hitler) some not(Oskar schindler), so that doesn't prove much
So what, when science is wrong then you just correct it?, that of course assumes we'll find out that it was wrong. How do you knmw the same thing won't happen with evolution, it's ridiculous, facts can't change.
wjilbert 3 years ago
You and Hitler share something in common, you both believe the sky is blue! YOUR EVIL! Wait, is that enough to make have the same STANDARDIZED system of values? I guess not. So why is sharing a lack of faith when it comes to gods, a STANDARDIZED system of values when it doesn't even deal with values, just faith?
TheAtheistPaladin 3 years ago
Philippians Chapter 2
verses 10 - 11
God speaks on atheist
(not from bible but)IF there was no god ther will be no atheist
bc006 4 years ago
My god that's genious
Thank god I'm an atheist!
assblaster17 3 years ago
?????
bc006 3 years ago
If your "winning" then why the bad mood?
TheAtheistPaladin 4 years ago
I have always been a strong atheist its nothing special it just means that you didn't believe in santa from a young age.
Dejaiin 4 years ago
thank you for strawmaning all agnostics and all theists and deists in the first 2 minutes of this video ):
bwhahrhr 4 years ago
I forgot to mention, you've converted me! Now I can call myself a strong atheist! =)
Oh well, who am I kidding, you just changed the term slightly, I'm still a skeptic. A couple of years ago I had thought about a part of what you say here, but didn't go too far with it. Nice job!
NoCryingNowYes 4 years ago
Great thoughts! Keep 'em coming!
By the way, I don't know why you call it a ramble, I know it sounded like one, but it was all perfectly reasoned. Like you say, rationality is the path to righteousness!
NoCryingNowYes 4 years ago
I'll bet that you are an unhappy and unlikeable person to be around. Do you have any friends?
gitchigoomi 4 years ago
I got plenty of friends. My question is how do you manage to make any? You don't make friends by insulting people as soon as you meet them. Thats just a hint.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 years ago
I am his friend, asshole. Where are yours?
GypsyWytch 4 years ago 4
Put your brain toward something constructive. You could start by building a tie rack.
gitchigoomi 4 years ago
Oh wow, you told me! [/sarcasm]
TheAtheistPaladin 4 years ago
Something that is aphysical and atemporal is indistinguishable from what we would otherwise call "nothing".
"theological noncognitivism"
Welcome to strong atheism!
mwilliams0 4 years ago 3
GOOD STUFF GOOD STUFF!
I describe my position as such: I'm convinced that there is no god and there is no reason to waste any more time looking for him. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if any evidence ever surfaces. But if one does exist, I still don't think I'd "worship" it.
KingHeathen 4 years ago 2
I understand many ppl get caught up on the terms used by theists to define their concept of God. Simply put, a better way to define God to some would be to say He is most-powerful. Your definition of all-powerful and how it operates I would say is different than the way most theists use it.
TogetherForPeace 4 years ago
So would you say there are some things that god can not do?
TheAtheistPaladin 4 years ago
I have been a strong atheist for a very long time. I dug into research so deeply that I couldn't imagine any other course.
Rhonda9 4 years ago
I am a mormongod and I can create a rock so big that I cannot lift it.....and I can lift it.
mormongod 4 years ago
Could a God create multiple copies of himself? LOL Those type of questions always make me laugh. Good vid.
Brainmold 4 years ago
I think that if a god were to exist, it would have to exist outside of the physical universe and outside of time - something we cannot even imagine. That being the case, and considering I live in the physical universe, I don't see any reason to postulate the existence of a being outside the universe as we know it.
Muaguana 4 years ago
I like the phrase Radical Atheist. A little nod to Douglas Adams and all.
nadiaTeeze 4 years ago
I'm strong atheist towards specific gods like Yahweh, but I am agnostic by default to a general case. I just don't think "God" as a word is well defined enough to apply logic or reason.
Weak atheism has a nice bonus that the majority of theist arguments against you are straw men ;)
ProudToBeAgnostic 4 years ago
Brilliantly argued. I agree, God makes no sence. But I'm slightly confused to why theists won't acknowledge the fact that their God is nonsensical when it comes to simple logic. I've always believed that faith CAN lead to arrogance and ignorance. And it is because that's what faith teaches you. To ignore and to arrogantly proclaim you're right.
TheRationalOracle 4 years ago
Right on man, Kudos.
TheAtheistPaladin 4 years ago