arguments for atheism

[Wiploc]

As I said, I was talking about "atheists who say that they are atheists because they simply lack belief."

That's what atheism is.

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 wonder if you're confused. I'm not aware of such people.

But I am aware that theists like to bait us by pretending not to understand what we mean by the word "atheist," and by then misconstruing what we say, so that we have to explain terminology over and over.

The result is that we frequently see people saying both that atheism is lack of belief and nothing more, and that theism is wrong. But that doesn't mean that atheism is the belief that theism is wrong.

If you actually have examples of people who make the contradictory claims you speak of, I'm happy to look at them. But my suspicion is that either people have been unclear while trying to make two separate points in one conversation, or that you have misunderstood.

That's one definition, not THE definition.

Stipulated.

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.

Okay. I don't agree, but to each his own.

Those who claim to only lack belief with no positive disbelief would more meaningfully be called agnostics.

Now I flatly disagree. If we use oldsys, then "agnostic" refers both to those who don't believe either way and to those who don't know. This leads to endless confusion. It can hardly be more meaningful.

Someone who is unsure, who thinks they need more evidence to decide one way or the other, shouldn't be called an atheist.

They are atheists, according to dictionaries and common usage. You are right to point out that there's another common usage -- also supported by dictionaries and common usage -- but it is not correct to say that they shouldn't be called atheists.

Agnosticism is a coherent position, there's nothing wrong with it.

And which type of agnosticism are you talking about now? [/snark]

But agnostics shouldn't be included under the same term as those who do claim to know or believe there is no god.

A lot of us like to have a word that includes all non-theists. We use "atheist" for that. There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly clearer than having two conflicting meanings of "agnostic."

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

Do we have some of these people here? If so, point me at them. I'd like to see if they're real, or if this is a misunderstanding.

 

[Elixir]

Is a deity something - anything - that a person worships as such, imaginary or otherwise, or does it need to have so-called objective existence?
I'd submit that it doesn't matter. Deities DO exist; they're what people worship. What's the big deal about whether or not they "exist"?
What difference would it make if they did?
No difference at all if their current behavior continues.
What would be the difference if they didn't? None, again.

The fact on the ground is that many people "believe in" various deities to various extents. If they want to keep doing that, there's no way to alter their course.
In fact that is a large attractive component of strong theism - the ultimately unassailable nature of their of belief is often "the one thing" they can control. You can ask them and they'll usually admit it, though they externalize it as a deity's fault. But "you can't take my devotion" is the ultimate power trip for them.
The degree to which such people are compromised in real life simply depends on their ability to compartmentalize their beliefs.
I am a weak atheist because I am not sure that nobody worships anything that I am sure exists.
There are those Gaia worshipers, for instance. I'm not so sure it behaves as those people believe, but I am pretty sure the earth exists.
Furthermore I strongly suspect that what we know or will ever know or experience is a negligibly small fraction of what is, so I am not going to rule anything out.

Oh, wait - yes I am: the gods of all the religions that I have heard of.


</$0.02>

 

[Lion IRC]

Christopher Hitchens often noted that the ontological existence of God, gods, heaven, hell, etc was something atheist counter-apologetics couldn't touch.

He was even willing to concede that the ontological reality such things was sufficiently 'real' as to get a hall pass. Meaning, Hitchens didnt/wouldn't even try to rebut these in ontological terms. He rightly understood that the best atheist proselytisers could do was focus on epistemic verificationism.

 

[DBT]

Atheist proselytisers?

 

[Elixir]

Atheist proselytisers?

Screw your epistemic verificationism*!
.
.
.
.
* reality

 

[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.

OK, I have to revise that after listening to blastula and looking into what "Philosophy" has to say about the definitions. So I proceeded to the source. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

1. Definitions of “Atheism”
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

The article goes on to give a rationale behind the word agnostic and why it is properly considered to be the psychological state of the lack of a belief. Also that agnosticism is not an appropriate term since -isms typically concern systems of belief.

This pretty much comports with the use of agnostic as I previously understood it until several years ago when I was convinced that weak and strong atheists are useful concepts and were commonly viewed as such on this forum. And today I find out that weak, strong, and now "apathetic" agnostics can try to make sense of each other during a discussion. I've always used the word agnostic as a way to describe my view on any number of subjects, and it's always been the strong interpretation. A weak agnostic is basically the same thing as a weak atheist under that paradigm. It makes more sense to consider all three terms using their strong interpretation and adding qualifiers to specify the context. So I hereby admit that I'm not and have never been an atheist. On the subject of the existence of an actual god or gods I'm agnostic, i.e.; an agnostic. Not an apathetic agnostic. But maybe a weak apathetic agnostic.

ETA - As it turns out that makes it a bit awkward when asked to describe one's worldview. I went to edit my profile and ended up with "agnostic on theism/atheism". One word just doesn't do it anymore.

 

[DBT]

''Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".

 

[Wiploc]

''Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]

The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)".

Cite: From the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

A couple of points:

First, if I read that a few more times, I might understand it. But that's a perfectly worthless definition for casual conversation with strangers. If I can't understand it myself, how can I hope to convey the meaning to others. That definition, or at least the rationale behind the definition, does not facilitate communication.

Second, the entry also says, "The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism and, more importantly, to each other. This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. Settling this issue, at least for the purposes of this entry..."

In other words, that is not the definition used in philosophy. It is merely the definition used on that web page.

 

[DBT]

To describe my position I would say that being presented with the claim that a God exists - the bible and its followers, for instance - but not seeing sufficient evidence to support the existence of God, I am not convinced that God exists. I have no conviction in the existence of God.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheist proselytisers?

Did you see the thread title?
The Op?
"...attacking non-atheism"
"...assuming atheism"
"...argument for atheism"

Don't be coy DBT
Nobody writes books about NOT collecting stamps.
Atheists don't hold conventions to discuss the color baldness.
You can't have a semi-weak, or a moderate or a strong absence of belief.

If you can, then I have a super, super, strong absence of belief that atheism is true.

 

[DBT]

Atheist proselytisers?

Did you see the thread title?
The Op?
"...attacking non-atheism"
"...assuming atheism"
"...argument for atheism"

Don't be coy DBT
Nobody writes books about NOT collecting stamps.
Atheists don't hold conventions to discuss the color baldness.
You can't have a semi-weak, or a moderate or a strong absence of belief.

If you can, then I have a super, super, strong absence of belief that atheism is true.

We are presented with claims that God exists. Muslims make claims related to their theology. Jews have their version, as do Christians, Hindus, etc.

We examine these claims to see what supports them, the evidence. Seeing no evidence, only sets of claims in 'holy books,' some of are are not convinced.

We need evidence to be convinced.

Being presented with believers who hold a belief in the existence of a God, those who are not convinced by these claims point out the reasons why they are not convinced.

This is called discussion.

Without claims for the existence of this or that version of god, there would be no discussion or argument.

In the moment that there are no claims for the existence of God or gods, there is no argument or discussion over the issue.

This is a forum where god claims are made, argued and discussed.

 

[bilby]

 

[Treedbear]

...
Second, the entry also says, "The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism and, more importantly, to each other. This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. Settling this issue, at least for the purposes of this entry..."

In other words, that is not the definition used in philosophy. It is merely the definition used on that web page.

All I can say is that the argument I quoted convinced me. The article admits that there are many conflicting views among philosophers. That's obvious enough. There are those who want to limit it to the weak version:

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

Where's the utility in that? It is logically incoherent that atheism can represent a proposition in one case and a psychological state in another. This only invites epistemic inconsistencies, which is pretty evident in this and many other threads on the subject.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

To describe my position I would say that being presented with the claim that a God exists - the bible and its followers, for instance - but not seeing sufficient evidence to support the existence of God, I am not convinced that God exists. I have no conviction in the existence of God.

The use of the word conviction is helpful. Using this word we simply refer to persons lacking conviction in the existence of a god or gods. Of course an atheist can still be religious and strictly speaking an atheist can still believe in a god or gods. A person who lacks conviction in religious necessity is simply a rationalist. Is there a better word to describe a person lacking in religious behavior?

 

[Rhea]

Atheist proselytisers?

Did you see the thread title?
The Op?
"...attacking non-atheism"
"...assuming atheism"
"...argument for atheism"

Don't be coy DBT
Nobody writes books about NOT collecting stamps.
Atheists don't hold conventions to discuss the color baldness.
You can't have a semi-weak, or a moderate or a strong absence of belief.

If you can, then I have a super, super, strong absence of belief that atheism is true.

WFT? These quotes that you took out of the OP IN NO WAY suggest atheist proselyzation. Go back and read it. Blue bold is what you should notice. Red bold is your frothy quote mine.
You have tried to create a slur against atheists that is utterly fabricated.

This idea is now open for general discussion in its own thread, as it was not elaborated on (and thus didn't derail) the other thread.

If you think the universe seems too haphazard to have been intended, then can you reason to "God didn't make it"? And thereby "reason one's way into atheism a posteriori, rather than just by attacking non-atheism and assuming atheism as the last cosmology standing"?

Are there arguments *for* atheism? Need there be?

Can we expect the universe to look like it looks (ie, not evidently designed with intention) and say "no god did this" with a reasonable amount of certainty?

My argument for atheism is the indisputable stance that I'm not convinced of theism and therefore, to date, I "lack belief" (ie, have not invested in the belief) in any variety of god.

Whereas the stance of naturalism is that no appeals need be made to the supernatural to explain nature.


If anyone would like to argue *for* atheism, have at it.

That is the least faithful quote mine I have seen all week. I would expect a god would file that under "false witness".

 

[Elixir]

Argument for atheism?
Nah, just a funny, playing on the infantile superstitions of (some) theists.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Argument for atheism?
Nah, just a funny, playing on the infantile superstitions of (some) theists.

View attachment 31094

I daydreamed about a pastor who has a complete brainblast and sees Christianity as a delusion. He decides to stay on as pastor for a year, as he plans his getaway, but he is irresistibly drawn to sermonizing on ridiculous Bible texts like Balaam's ass, while drawing orthodox messages out of them. Week after week he reads the most inane, or twisted, or cruel, or nauseating Bible texts to the flock. He covers the flood; the ten plagues; the slavery teachings; the list of tribes to be exterminated; people executed by man or God for complaining about the manna, collecting firewood, touching the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from falling, being unable to prove their virginity, or sassing their parents. He quotes God disputing kinds of dung with Ezekiel. Each sermon ends with the proper homilies and prayers, but the weekly scripture is always primitive. After a few weeks of this, his most educated parishioners are doing more than frowning during service. They ask him as they leave why he chose that particular passage. They stop attending. He's working through the IQ levels and emotional IQs in his church, ejecting the blood lines until he has a strong contingent with Tennessee and West Virginia ties. On his retirement sermon, he tells them of his own deconversion, challenges them to justify their belief in the crazy texts he's been feeding them, turns to the organist and says, "Cancel hymn 230, Gladys." He then goes Jimi Hendrix on the giant pastor's Bible, squirting lighter fluid on it and torching it. The flock sits still, staring, mouths open. Pastor: And the smoke shall ascend to heaven, and it shall please the Lord thy God.
He slips off his pastor's robes, revealing a camo hoodie underneath, strides out of the church and rides off on a Harley.

 

[Rhea]

I daydreamed about a pastor who has a complete brainblast and sees Christianity as a delusion. He decides to stay on as pastor for a year, as he plans his getaway, but he is irresistibly drawn to sermonizing on ridiculous Bible texts like Balaam's ass, while drawing orthodox messages out of them. Week after week he reads the most inane, or twisted, or cruel, or nauseating Bible texts to the flock. He covers the flood; the ten plagues; the slavery teachings; the list of tribes to be exterminated; people executed by man or God for complaining about the manna, collecting firewood, touching the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from falling, being unable to prove their virginity, or sassing their parents. He quotes God disputing kinds of dung with Ezekiel. Each sermon ends with the proper homilies and prayers, but the weekly scripture is always primitive. After a few weeks of this, his most educated parishioners are doing more than frowning during service. They ask him as they leave why he chose that particular passage. They stop attending. He's working through the IQ levels and emotional IQs in his church, ejecting the blood lines until he has a strong contingent with Tennessee and West Virginia ties. On his retirement sermon, he tells them of his own deconversion, challenges them to justify their belief in the crazy texts he's been feeding them, turns to the organist and says, "Cancel hymn 230, Gladys." He then goes Jimi Hendrix on the giant pastor's Bible, squirting lighter fluid on it and torching it. The flock sits still, staring, mouths open. Pastor: And the smoke shall ascend to heaven, and it shall please the Lord thy God.
He slips off his pastor's robes, revealing a camo hoodie underneath, strides out of the church and rides off on a Harley.

LOL Ready for the screenplay!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

LOL Ready for the screenplay!

Lots of preachers make a comfortable living talking through their ass.

 

[Tharmas]

... he is irresistibly drawn to sermonizing on ridiculous Bible texts like Balaam's ass, while drawing orthodox messages out of them. ...

I first heard this sermon as an adolescent. Perhaps it shaped my intellectual growth.

[youtube]UOsYN---eGk[/youtube]