arguments for atheism

[blastula]

And, yes, I do take issue with atheists who flip flop between definitions - agnostic when it suits them but atheist at other times.

That is one thing I can agree with Lion about. I also take issue with atheists who say that they are atheists because they simply lack belief, the 'lacktheists," but who will at other times still make very strong claims against theism. You can't say you merely lack belief at one time and say god belief is just like belief in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny at another, unless you really aren't sure the Easter Bunny is not real. If you aren't sure, you have bigger problems than debating on god. I see this contradiction, or at least a tension there, too often from lacktheists.

I think the confusion/contradiction stems from two issues, the hesitance to take on burden of proof, and also the special pleading/misunderstanding that belief or knowledge entails absolute certainty, but only when it comes to the question of god. For no other question is as much certainty assumed to be required in claiming belief or knowledge, as lacktheists assume is required for belief against god.

About every other thing Lion has said in this thread is garbage though, especially the post above

 

[DBT]

Nonsense. You repeat fallacies despite any and every explanation that is given.

It is not faith to lack convinction in the absence of sufficient evidence to form a justified conviction of truth.

On the contrary, it is faith to believe in something in spite of lacking sufficient justification/evidence.

They are two different things.

 

[Lion IRC]

And, yes, I do take issue with atheists who flip flop between definitions - agnostic when it suits them but atheist at other times.

That is one thing I can agree with Lion about....

About every other thing Lion has said in this thread is garbage though, especially the post above

 

[Lion IRC]

Nonsense. You repeat fallacies despite any and every explanation that is given.

It is not faith to lack conviction in the absence of sufficient evidence to form a justified conviction of truth.

I don't have an issue with the lack of belief not being a belief/faith.

Its true. Non stamp collecting isn't a hobby. Bald is not a hair color.
Saying you don't know isnt a belief.

The mere "lack of conviction" places you at Defcon Four on Dawkins Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spe...y Richard Dawkins in,the existence of a deity.

On the contrary, it is faith to believe in something in spite of lacking sufficient justification/evidence.

I agree.
Faith fills that gap between certainty and ignorance - for atheists and theists alike.
This is not a matter of contrariwise epistemology where your belief about my belief is somehow more rational because my evidence isn't 'sufficient'. My evidence is sufficient for me and since you haven't 'sufficiently' refuted my evidence, I will maintain my position. Atheists don't own the default epistemic landscape. They don't get to say atheism is true until proven false (to the atheists own satisfaction.)

They are two different things.

Nope. Goose/Gander. Pot/Kettle. #TuQuoque
I don't have enough faith to believe atheism is true.

 

[Wiploc]

I also take issue with atheists who say that they are atheists because they simply lack belief, the 'lacktheists," but who will at other times still make very strong claims against theism.

Do you also take issue with people who say they are in the swimming pool but who at other times still make very strong claims that they are in the deep end of the pool?

Do you take issue with people who say they are people of color but who then reveal that they are black?

Do you take issue with people who say they aren't in North America but who later turn out to be in Japan?

Do you take issue with people who aren't tall but who are also short?

Many people who aren't tall are short.

Many who aren't in North America are in Japan.

Many people of color are black.

And many atheists are strong atheists.

An atheist is anyone who isn't a theist, even if that person believes that gods do not exist.

You can't say you merely lack belief at one time and say god belief is just like belief in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny at another, unless you really aren't sure the Easter Bunny is not real.

I don't merely lack belief; I actively believe that no gods exist. But that isn't the definition of "atheist." If you ask me what an atheist is, the answer is that it is the lack of belief in gods. If you ask why I am an atheist, the answer is that I lack belief in gods.

There is no conflict between (1) not being a theist and (2) believing that theism is stupid and perverse. There is no tension between (1) and (2). Many people in category (1) are also in category (2).

There is no reason to take issue with them.

If you aren't sure, you have bigger problems than debating on god. I see this contradiction, or at least a tension there, too often from lacktheists.

There is no contradiction there, no tension.

You see us harp on the definition of atheism (the mere lack of theism) every time some theist baits us by pretending not to understand. But our insistence on clarifying the definition of "atheist" is in no way a claim that we are not strong atheists.

Many atheists are strong atheists. All strong atheists are atheists. There is no contradiction or tension to take issue with.

I think the confusion/contradiction stems from two issues, the hesitance to take on burden of proof,

If you want us to take the burden of proof, ask us why we believe gods don't exist. You'll get plenty of responses.

But, if, instead, you pretend to think all atheists are strong atheists, then you'll get -- instead of a case against belief in gods -- a lecture about definitions.

-

Note: I scroll up, at this point, to see whose post I'm responding to. It's Blastula's post.

I do not intend to suggest that Blastula is confused about the definition of atheism, nor that he or she pretends to be confused, nor that he or she baits atheists by pretending to be confused. I've seen Blastula's name on occasion, but I don't know his or her positions.

I merely read Blastula's post, and used that to tee off, to make my point that some atheists are strong atheists.

I used the word "you," in my post, but I mean that as an impersonal you. I invite anyone who is confused by this to substitute the word "one."

 

[Rhea]

I don't have an issue with the lack of belief not being a belief/faith.

Its true. Non stamp collecting isn't a hobby. Bald is not a hair color.
Saying you don't know isnt a belief.

The mere "lack of conviction" places you at Defcon Four on Dawkins Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

The following quote is corrected to remove simplistic self-centered assumptions about god(dess)(es) as a singlular with male genitalia

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God(dess)(es). In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God(dess)(es) and live my life on the assumption that S/he/it/they is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God(dess)(es)."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God(dess)(es)'s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God(dess)(es) exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God(dess)(es) is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that S/he/it/they is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God(dess)(es), with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

No.
Lack of belief puts you at 6.

There is NOTHING that causes me to have even a flicker of belief. I lack belief. All attempts by believers to tell me something convincing have fallen flat. ALL of them. Utterly unable to create belief. Nothing that they present causes me to even slightly think they may have a good bit of evidence. I completely and utterly lack any smidgen of possible god belief.

I don’t “know” there is no god(dess)(es), but I do know that I have no reason to think here is.

That is neither “belief” nor “wishy washy.” I know that I have received not a single shred of evidence that causes any kind of belief.

 

[abaddon]

And, yes, I do take issue with atheists who flip flop between definitions - agnostic when it suits them but atheist at other times.

That is one thing I can agree with Lion about. I also take issue with atheists who say that they are atheists because they simply lack belief, the 'lacktheists," but who will at other times still make very strong claims against theism.

You and Lion IRC have both confused "lack of belief in gods" and "lack of belief about gods".

You can't say you merely lack belief at one time and say god belief is just like belief in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny at another, unless you really aren't sure the Easter Bunny is not real.

Yes I can. I can say I lack belief in gods at one time and say that I have beliefs about gods (that I'm very certain they exist nowhere outside the human imagination) at another.

There's no contradiction at all.

My dictionary says atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." And disbelief is "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real"... so the result being the same thing: lack of belief.

If the definition of atheism included more details about "atheist beliefs" then we've defined atheism in a way that leaves some atheists out. Just as "all swans are white" isn't true when exceptions (black swans) are found, then defining "all atheists are those who believe that god does not exist" isn't true when exceptions are found (agnostic atheists who don't believe "god does not exist").

----------------

I posted before seeing Wiploc's post, this ground was already covered.

 

[DBT]

I don't have an issue with the lack of belief not being a belief/faith.

Its true. Non stamp collecting isn't a hobby. Bald is not a hair color.
Saying you don't know isnt a belief.

The mere "lack of conviction" places you at Defcon Four on Dawkins Spectrum_of_theistic_probability

1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spe...y Richard Dawkins in,the existence of a deity.



I agree.
Faith fills that gap between certainty and ignorance - for atheists and theists alike.
This is not a matter of contrariwise epistemology where your belief about my belief is somehow more rational because my evidence isn't 'sufficient'. My evidence is sufficient for me and since you haven't 'sufficiently' refuted my evidence, I will maintain my position. Atheists don't own the default epistemic landscape. They don't get to say atheism is true until proven false (to the atheists own satisfaction.)

They are two different things.

Nope. Goose/Gander. Pot/Kettle. #TuQuoque
I don't have enough faith to believe atheism is true.

Ahem, the strong atheism claim of 'knowing' does not refute lack of conviction being justified on the basis of insufficient evidence to support a conviction.

The worst you can say is that strong atheism is a step too far.

Nor is everyone is a strong atheist. Most atheists are most probably rational, changing their views as new evidence comes to light.

To date, no evidence that supports the existence of a God or gods has come to light.....which means that a lack of conviction is justified and this is not a matter of faith.

 

[Wiploc]

Ahem, the strong atheism claim of 'knowing'

I met a guy like that once, in Texas, in the seventies. He was a gnostic strong atheist.

Theists believe that gods do exist.
Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

Strong atheists do not generally make a claim of knowing that gods don't exist.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Does it need to be repeated that orthodox Christians deny absolutely the existence of Jain gods, Shinto's kami, the many Hindu gods, Islam's god and heavenly beings, etc., etc. They are atheists hundreds of times over, but they come here to complain that we haven't done the spadework to deny the existence of their god. What's that saying about the gander?

 

[Bomb#20]

In order for atheism to be true, every single religion that has ever existed- every religious claim ever made - must all be 100% irrefutably debunked.

Where are you getting that? People have dreamed up all manner of goofy religions that don't claim there are gods. Astrology, Taoism, Communism, Traditional Chinese medicine, ...

Consider how much atheism depends on the belief/faith that there's no Higher Life form in this universe or any other, who possesses abilities which humans would consider supernatural/miraculous/incomprehensible.

Which humans did you have in mind?

There's no higher life form that I'd consider supernatural or miraculous. I don't need to inspect all your higher dimensions to check if it's hiding there; it suffices merely to inspect the definitions of "supernatural" and "miraculous" and observe that they're illogical; that disposes of the entire issue. The circumstance that other humans exist who would consider possible beings "supernatural" or "miraculous" is neither here nor there -- atheism does not depend on there being no illogical humans.

As for incomprehensible, why on earth would atheism depend on believing there's no higher life form with incomprehensible abilities? We already know there are higher life forms with incomprehensible abilities; at least, there used to be. Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, ... Their watch is ended; I suspect we shall never see their like again.

 

[OLDMAN]

Lion has equated having a reasonable alternative answer to how things came about and are the way they are, to atheism. Atheism is not about wither the big expansion happened, or if evolution is real. Atheism is simply not finding the evidence for the gods to be sufficient.

Now it does help to solidify one's beliefs if you find natural answers to the big questions outside of the realm of magic, but it is not a belief system. I don't believe in gravity, it is simply there and I accept it's properties and that what has been explained in the Theories of Gravity as being a reasonable explanation. If they say science had it all wrong tomorrow, then I simply revaluate my knowledge. I don't loose anything, I don't change my lifestyle or alter my beliefs. The system allows for this, without a mental crisis.
My worldview is the same, but with different information and maybe a different plausible explanation for things.
Think about how different this is from religions. Where your entire lifestyle and worldview is challenged by a new god or explanation of the cosmos.

 

[blastula]

Do you also take issue with people who say they are in the swimming pool but who at other times still make very strong claims that they are in the deep end of the pool?

As I said, I was talking about "atheists who say that they are atheists because they simply lack belief." To be more clear, I mean atheists who claim to not have any more certainty about it than that, that they ONLY lack belief and don't claim to believe or know anything stronger than that, AND who then also make statements about theism that imply much greater certainty against it than they explicitly admit to.

I don't merely lack belief; I actively believe that no gods exist. But that isn't the definition of "atheist." If you ask me what an atheist is, the answer is that it is the lack of belief in gods. If you ask why I am an atheist, the answer is that I lack belief in gods.

That's one definition, not THE definition. It is in common usage among a certain segment of atheists. I used to go along with that definition too, but I see it now as an unhelpfully broad definition. Those who claim to only lack belief with no positive disbelief would more meaningfully be called agnostics. Someone who is unsure, who thinks they need more evidence to decide one way or the other, shouldn't be called an atheist. Agnosticism is a coherent position, there's nothing wrong with it. But agnostics shouldn't be included under the same term as those who do claim to know or believe there is no god.

There is no conflict between (1) not being a theist and (2) believing that theism is stupid and perverse. There is no tension between (1) and (2). Many people in category (1) are also in category (2).

I don't see a conflict there either, it doesn't apply to my point.

If you aren't sure, you have bigger problems than debating on god. I see this contradiction, or at least a tension there, too often from lacktheists.

There is no contradiction there, no tension.

You see us harp on the definition of atheism (the mere lack of theism) every time some theist baits us by pretending not to understand. But our insistence on clarifying the definition of "atheist" is in no way a claim that we are not strong atheists.

But the people I am talking about will deny being strong atheists.

I think the confusion/contradiction stems from two issues, the hesitance to take on burden of proof,

If you want us to take the burden of proof, ask us why we believe gods don't exist. You'll get plenty of responses.

But, if, instead, you pretend to think all atheists are strong atheists, then you'll get -- instead of a case against belief in gods -- a lecture about definitions.

Okay except that replies that only say "I lack belief because theists haven't convinced me" is not the strong atheist position. The strong atheist (should be called just "atheist" ) believes that god doesn't exist, not merely that theists haven't made a good case.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't have an issue with the lack of belief not being a belief/faith.
...
I don't have enough faith to believe atheism is true.

Something has gone amiss between your alpha and omega.

 

[blastula]

You can't say you merely lack belief at one time and say god belief is just like belief in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny at another, unless you really aren't sure the Easter Bunny is not real.

Yes I can. I can say I lack belief in gods at one time and say that I have beliefs about gods (that I'm very certain they exist nowhere outside the human imagination) at another.

There's no contradiction at all.

See my reply above to help clarify my meaning.

My dictionary says atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." And disbelief is "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real"... so the result being the same thing: lack of belief.

A disbelief is a belief, a belief against some proposition. A lack of belief is a lack of opinion about it either way.

Other dictionaries don't include "lack of belief" as the primary definition, maybe even most of them.

If the definition of atheism included more details about "atheist beliefs" then we've defined atheism in a way that leaves some atheists out. Just as "all swans are white" isn't true when exceptions (black swans) are found, then defining "all atheists are those who believe that god does not exist" isn't true when exceptions are found (agnostic atheists who don't believe "god does not exist").

Sure, that's how it is under your usage of the word, but I don't think that's the best way to use it.

Another big point against that usage for our discussions in this forum is that "lack of belief" is not the definition used in academic philosophy. Philosophy uses the strong or positive meaning of "the position that that there is no god." And since the discussions here are (at least hopefully) attempting to seriously argue for or against theism in an academic sense, that's another reason the latter meaning should be preferred.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Another big point against that usage for our discussions in this forum is that "lack of belief" is not the definition used in academic philosophy. Philosophy uses the strong or positive meaning of "the position that that there is no god." And since the discussions here are (at least hopefully) attempting to seriously argue for or against theism in an academic sense, that's another reason the latter meaning should be preferred.

To make the discussion more than a little less clear, here's what Wikipedia has to say about agnosticism:

Types
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Apathetic agnosticism
The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exist or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."

 

[blastula]

That's true, Treedbear, but I'll let the agnostics fight it out if they have a problem with including all those types.

 

[Wiploc]

My dictionary says atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." And disbelief is "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real"... so the result being the same thing: lack of belief.

A disbelief is a belief, a belief against some proposition. A lack of belief is a lack of opinion about it either way.

You've pointed out that "atheism" defines in more than one way. I'll point out that "disbelief" does too. It can be either not-believing-X or believing-not-X.

As such, it's a good word to avoid in discussions of this type, unless, for instance, you're a dictionary trying to include all non-theists as atheists.

Other dictionaries don't include "lack of belief" as the primary definition, maybe even most of them.

Hmm. Maybe not in those words.

If the definition of atheism included more details about "atheist beliefs" then we've defined atheism in a way that leaves some atheists out. Just as "all swans are white" isn't true when exceptions (black swans) are found, then defining "all atheists are those who believe that god does not exist" isn't true when exceptions are found (agnostic atheists who don't believe "god does not exist").

Sure, that's how it is under your usage of the word, but I don't think that's the best way to use it.

Consider three categories:

A: Those who believe that gods do exist.
B: Those who believe that gods do not exist.
C: Those (everybody else) who don't believe either way.

Many use what I arbitrarily call the old system of lables (oldsys), thusly:

A: Theists
B: Atheists
C: Agnostics

Many also use the newsys labels:

A: Theists
B: Strong atheists
C: Weak atheists

Now consider these two additional categories:

X: Those who know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
Y: Those (everybody else) who don't know whether gods exist.

Both oldsys and newsys use "agnostic" as the label for category Y.

So oldsys uses the same label for categories Y and C. This is endlessly confusing.

By using different labels for different categories, newsys brings clarity. It brings the ability to communicate without confusion.

I think, therefore, that newsys is manifestly superior.

Another big point against that usage for our discussions in this forum is that "lack of belief" is not the definition used in academic philosophy. Philosophy uses the strong or positive meaning of "the position that that there is no god." And since the discussions here are (at least hopefully) attempting to seriously argue for or against theism in an academic sense, that's another reason the latter meaning should be preferred.

Academics used to refer to homosexuality as a disease, too. Things sometimes change for the better.

 

[Lion IRC]

Does it need to be repeated that orthodox Christians deny absolutely the existence of Jain gods, Shinto's kami, the many Hindu gods, Islam's god and heavenly beings, etc., etc. They are atheists hundreds of times over, but they come here to complain that we haven't done the spadework to deny the existence of their god. What's that saying about the gander?

I'm not an atheist WRT other religions. I don't deny other religions the existence of their god, its their description of divinity which I challenge.

If God/gods of any type or description exist in any way shape or form then atheism is false.

 

[bilby]

Atheism is an oddly specific term, given that what most atheists are is awooists or amagicists.

Sure, I don't believe that any gods are non-fictional. But I don't waste much time on gods at all; I also don't believe in leprechauns, the tooth fairy (or any kinds of fairy), Qi energy, chiropractic, astrology, the law of attraction, psychic mediums, life after death, trickle down economics, or compassionate conservatism.

You are not wrong if you describe me as an atheist, a strong atheist, or a gnostic atheist; But it's rather like describing a vegan as a non-eater of Big Macs. Sure, vegans don't eat Big Macs, but to define them as ahamburgerists would be to imply far more importance for hamburgers than actually exists in the life of a typical vegan.

Vegans don't care much about hamburgers, unless someone is insisting that they have to eat one. Their schtick is FAR broader than mere hamburgers. Nobody outside the hamburger industry would view veganism solely in terms of whether or not a person eats hamburgers; And nobody outside the religion industry really needs to classify rational people solely in terms of their rejection of gods.

Gods are one of many irrational fictions that idiots embrace as though they were real, and I reject the idea of gods being real not as a central part of my understanding of reality, but as a mere bit part player in a huge pantheon of irrational ideas that have been conclusively eliminated as possible by our improving understanding of science.

Gods are only possible if pretty much all of science is wrong. It's not; We checked.

God concepts are not under attack from atheism; Rationalists don't give two shits about those concepts. Rationalists do, however, constantly have to defend their societies from lunatics who want to enshrine their favourite fictions into law, have them taught as fact in schools, and have them funded by the public purse. And religious enthusiasts don't notice ratinalists fighting to keep homeopathy out of public health, and so characterise rational opposition to woo only in terms of opposition to their favourite fictional characters.

The very word 'atheist' suggests far more importance for theism than it's actually worth.