arguments for atheism

[Wiploc]

...strictly speaking an atheist can still believe in a god or gods.

Not if words have meaning.

 

[bilby]

... I would expect a god...

HA! Gotcha! Clearly you're really a theist!

 

[Wiploc]

... 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.

I don't see the problem.

Here's a proposition: "God exists."

Is that proposition a theist? No. People who believe the proposition are theists.

People who don't believe that proposition are atheists.

Here's a proposition associated with strong atheism: "Gods do not exist."

Is the proposition an atheist? No, but people who believe it are atheists (specifically, strong atheists).

I'm not saying that there's no problem. I'm just saying I don't see the problem.

If you still think there's a problem, I'd like you to explain it.

 

[abaddon]

These quotes that you took out of the OP IN NO WAY suggest atheist proselyzation. Go back and read it.

The questions in the OP were all inspired by the post I quoted in it. And those three phrases which Lion IRC liked are borrowed from that post. Which was by a 'theism-friendly' agnostic.

I'm not interested in deconverting theists but only interested in if they ever learn anything. This place would be more fun if they became more adept at criticizing atheism. But they keep refusing information and so they shoot at clouds and trees and their own feet. Shouting "hey! over HERE!" just gets a "you're not fooling me, you're just being evasive!" response.


My stance regarding my OP is I don't think there are arguments for atheism.

It's rather a semantic quibble, but I understand atheism as ONLY a psychological state. "I'm atheist" cannot be anything other than self-description, as I said in the OP. When I mentioned "whereas naturalism...", it was 'the hint' that THAT is what I'd be explaining if I argued for my "atheistic" beliefs or worldview.


Atheism might seem like the singular stance "there is no god" and atheists a bunch of dogmatic proselytizers for that stance because SOME atheists come to religion forums and argue about theism and religion.

Maybe it's a semantic quibble, but it matters. Theists and theist-friendly agnostics keep talking about atheism as a worldview. When I asked "arguments for atheism?" all the answers by atheists were arguments for one or more of these: empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, secularism, positivism. If this was visible to people, maybe they wouldn't commit the black swan fallacy and define a lot of atheists out of atheism by insisting it's a proposition that not all atheists make.

The justification for being atheist isn't a set of beliefs founded upon "there's no god"... Rather it's merely a side-effect of whatever combo of the aforementioned "isms". Atheism really is just a dumb technicality that happens by accident if the person hasn't taken up a belief in god because of those philosophies and methodologies that influence her or him.

So if any theists want to find the alleged 'blind faith' assumptions that inform atheism then this is information that can help:
If they exist, they lurk in other "isms". So NAME THEM truly and stop shooting at clouds.

 

[Politesse]

Atheism might seem like the singular stance "there is no god" and atheists a bunch of dogmatic proselytizers for that stance because SOME atheists come to religion forums and argue about theism and religion.

There is definitely a sharp difference between the atheists I meet in real life and those on the internet. Most of my professional colleagues in anthropology, which you'd think would be a field especially curious about religious life, are both atheists themselves and utterly uninterested in the subject, and most seem to consider me something of a harmless oddball for picking such an esoteric and outdated specialiation as Eurasian religion. Then I come on here and it's, like "ohmigod, the theists are going to destroy the world, and btw I am an expert on the Bible and every religious tradition". We all live in worlds partly of our own making.

Maybe it's a semantic quibble, but it matters. Theists and theist-friendly agnostics keep talking about atheism as a worldview. When I asked "arguments for atheism?" all the answers by atheists were arguments for one or more of these: empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, secularism, positivism. If this was visible to people, maybe they wouldn't commit the black swan fallacy and define a lot of atheists out of atheism by insisting it's a proposition that not all atheists make..

In fairness, a very strong case for materialism (were one to be produced) would also be a very strong case for atheism by logical implication. I don't think atheism is a worldview any more than theism is, but both are components of worldview, and have necessarily complicated interactions with the other components of your personal persepctive on metaphysical questions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's rather a semantic quibble, but I understand atheism as ONLY a psychological state. "I'm atheist" cannot be anything other than self-description, as I said in the OP. When I mentioned "whereas naturalism...", it was 'the hint' that THAT is what I'd be explaining if I argued for my "atheistic" beliefs or worldview.

That's a good point to remember in discussions, that it isn't atheism/theism, rather it's supernaturalism/naturalism. In order to be theistic one needs to already have embraced supernatural woo. One cannot be a theistic naturalist or a theistic rationalist.

 

[rousseau]

Atheism might seem like the singular stance "there is no god" and atheists a bunch of dogmatic proselytizers for that stance because SOME atheists come to religion forums and argue about theism and religion.

There is definitely a sharp difference between the atheists I meet in real life and those on the internet. Most of my professional colleagues in anthropology, which you'd think would be a field especially curious about religious life, are both atheists themselves and utterly uninterested in the subject, and most seem to consider me something of a harmless oddball for picking such an esoteric and outdated specialiation as Eurasian religion. Then I come on here and it's, like "ohmigod, the theists are going to destroy the world, and btw I am an expert on the Bible and every religious tradition". We all live in worlds partly of our own making.

There does seem to be something uniquely American about this (and maybe especially those in reddish states). When I cross into Michigan from Southwestern Ontario it's like entering a parallel universe / twilight zone of superstition. Where in most communities I've lived religion plays almost no part at all in daily life.

I think in many places across the U.S. there is very real religious conflict happening, which is why this stance is so common in your country. I just haven't seen the same type of militancy in any other 'Westernized' countries - it's pretty much don't ask, don't tell.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Atheism might seem like the singular stance "there is no god" and atheists a bunch of dogmatic proselytizers for that stance because SOME atheists come to religion forums and argue about theism and religion.

There is definitely a sharp difference between the atheists I meet in real life and those on the internet. Most of my professional colleagues in anthropology, which you'd think would be a field especially curious about religious life, are both atheists themselves and utterly uninterested in the subject, and most seem to consider me something of a harmless oddball for picking such an esoteric and outdated specialiation as Eurasian religion. Then I come on here and it's, like "ohmigod, the theists are going to destroy the world, and btw I am an expert on the Bible and every religious tradition". We all live in worlds partly of our own making.

There does seem to be something uniquely American about this (and maybe especially those in reddish states). When I cross into Michigan from Southwestern Ontario it's like entering a parallel universe / twilight zone of superstition. Where in most communities I've lived religion plays almost no part at all in daily life.

I think in many places across the U.S. there is very real religious conflict happening, which is why this stance is so common in your country. I just haven't seen the same type of militancy in any other 'Westernized' countries - it's pretty much don't ask, don't tell.

The U.S. is goofy with religious stupidity. It's assumed one is religious unless stated otherwise. Is that true with Canada?

 

[Rhea]

Most of my professional colleagues in anthropology, which you'd think would be a field especially curious about religious life, are both atheists themselves and utterly uninterested in the subject,

How nice for you that you live in a community where theists are not trying to harm you. I mean that sincerely. I hope it spreads. It will be a while before it spreads to here, but, I hope it does.

We all live in worlds partly of our own making.

With contributions from those around us. Let me know if you ever find yourself in a classroom and one of your students in the back stands up and points their finger at you and shouts, “YOU WILL ANSWER TO GOD FOR THIS!” * and the man next to her, that you know is carrying a gun, stands up next to her and glowers at you, and it’s followed up by a letter around town saying “I don’t exactly condone violence, but I can understand the feelings of the man who shot up his town hall last summer.”

Maybe the religionists won’t seem quite so uniformly benign in a wold of that making. Or maybe you’ll still be surprised that other people have different experiences with religionists than you do.

* where “this” was approving a building permit** for an organization that I did not check was not Muslim first, and stating that I would not ask them, because it was against the law to ask (or care). (And moreover I didn’t care)

** Where the building permit was for a drinking club for the Fraternal Order of the Eagles. Yeah, they thought it was going to be a Muslim drinking club. I am not making this up.

 

[abaddon]

In fairness, a very strong case for materialism (were one to be produced) would also be a very strong case for atheism by logical implication. I don't think atheism is a worldview any more than theism is, but both are components of worldview, and have necessarily complicated interactions with the other components of your personal perspective on metaphysical questions.

Yes. But like someone noted earlier in the thread, if you say "atheism" you get atheists defining atheism... As we've demonstrated is our habit in this thread.

To get past the religion-bashing and to the justifications for naturalism (or materialism or other), I think the A-word needs to treated as a side-effect instead of the heart of the matter. We touched on those philosophies throughout the thread, in saying "I'm atheist cuz lack of evidence for theism" and similar. Physicalism (the talk about quantum theory obviating the possibility of spirits) got elaborated in some detail and that was good. But generally there's not much depth because it diverts quickly back to AvT attack-mode.

---------

I'm not sure atheism is a distinctive component of naturalism/materialism, the way theism is in some religions. Theistic religions necessarily put divinity center-stage. That doesn't happen in naturalist philosophy, the non-presence of divinity isn't a foundational "presupposition".

 

[blastula]

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.

I'd say that's a minor definition, so not worried about it.

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

Hmm. Maybe not in those words.

Not in any other words, as the primary definition.

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.

I think you have this backwards as to clarity. Your newsys are using two terms for agnostics - weak atheists and agnostics. The oldsys only use one - agnostics. When oldsys say atheists, it's clearer what is meant.

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.

That's not a good comparison unless atheism had a similar misunderstanding in its philosophical usage and it doesn't.

 

[WAB]

Most of my professional colleagues in anthropology, which you'd think would be a field especially curious about religious life, are both atheists themselves and utterly uninterested in the subject,

How nice for you that you live in a community where theists are not trying to harm you. I mean that sincerely. I hope it spreads. It wil be a while before it spreads to here, but, I hope it does.

I've lived in a VERY conservative town for thirty-four years, and I've never had a theist try to harm me. I know I'm not exactly a social butterfly but I have worked in many places and I do get around, or at least I did when I could. Yes, I have had the occasional person knock on my door with little books in their hand, and one time a guy kept showing up in front my cart at K-Mart with questions about my beliefs, inviting me to some get together somewhere, a revival,or one of those tent thingies. Eventually I told him that if he did it again I would report him to management, so he stopped.

I was raised in New York, and most of my family on my father's side are devoutly religious, and while they occasionally made me feel bad when I was a kid because I didn't go to church (my father is the lone-wolf atheist), I never felt as if they wanted to harm me. I will admit that making a kid feel bad because he doesn't go to church is a kind of harm, but they were all actually very nice, very gentle, and did not preach at me. I felt bad as in embarrassed because I was a kid and thought that perhaps they were on to something and that perhaps I should have been going to church. More to the point, I felt poorer, because my dad made a lot less money than his brothers. Their houses in Long Island were big and impressive, their lives foreign and strange, and there was plastic on the furniture. I felt inferior, but I don't think that was their fault. Perhaps my parents should have asked my aunts and uncles and cousins not to press the oddball atheist's kids about church, but all in all it was okay, and the food was freakin' awesome!

I realize that it's just MY experience. I realize there are religious people who are threatening, and who are nasty, and who literally do harm other people. I have posts in the archive wherein I was a smokin' angry atheist. I've written poetry and essays from an atheist perspective. I don't consider myself an atheist anymore, and I've been all through that in my journey here with these fine people; but I'm not "religious" either.

There are plenty of ideas that are potentially harmful, and not all of them rattle around in the minds of theists (*ducks shoes, tomatoes, and the deafening hisses*).

I will stop there.

 

[blastula]

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.

That's why I'm an atheist too, that its a subset of awooism. Using the term though is important in a social context of heavy theism. And there are unfortunately professed atheists who subscribe to other wooey propositions.

 

[Bomb#20]

...strictly speaking an atheist can still believe in a god or gods.

Not if words have meaning.

Well, believing in kings doesn't make you a monarchist. "Atheos" originally meant "godless". You can be godless and believe in gods, provided none of them is yours.

 

[blastula]

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.

Sorry to hear that, we lost one of the good ones. But if that's where you are, it's better to have that clarity.

I do think atheism is the more defensible position though and while I don't know the basis for your position, I would recommend reading this piece on this issue of whether it can be known that there is no god.

I Know There Is No God. | Daniel Fincke*

*Just substitute "agnostics" every time he says "agnostic atheists."

 

[Bomb#20]

There does seem to be something uniquely American about this (and maybe especially those in reddish states).

It's the red states.

When I cross into Michigan from Southwestern Ontario it's like entering a parallel universe / twilight zone of superstition. Where in most communities I've lived religion plays almost no part at all in daily life.

When I flew into California from Toronto it was like escaping from a parallel universe / twilight zone of superstition, where in the communities I'd lived religion played a regularly recurring part in daily life. But that was back in 1980; maybe Ontario has become sane over the last 40 years.

The U.S. is goofy with religious stupidity. It's assumed one is religious unless stated otherwise. Is that true with Canada?

Sure as hell was when I lived there.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I realize that it's just MY experience. I realize there are religious people who are threatening, and who are nasty, and who literally do harm other people. I have posts in the archive wherein I was a smokin' angry atheist. I've written poetry and essays from an atheist perspective. I don't consider myself an atheist anymore, and I've been all through that in my journey here with these fine people; but I'm not "religious" either.

It used to be my habit to tell people I'm "not religious." But they would keep hinting around like I was not being honest. Then I came to find out that some devoutly religious christian types will say that they don't have a religion, that they have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Give me a break. I must have inadvertently stumbled upon their secret code. So I just started telling people that gods aren't real to me, that I'm atheist. That has always worked to clarify my religious position, no more questioning looks or confusion.

 

[skepticalbip]

There does seem to be something uniquely American about this (and maybe especially those in reddish states).

My experience is that, yes there are some areas in the U.S. where religion plays a large part is some of the population's daily life but they are by far in the minority in those areas. Most in those areas who identify as Christian never attend church (other than maybe occasionally on Easter or Christmas because of family pressure). Otherwise religion plays no part in their daily lives and yet they still identify as Christian if asked.

Now countries I've visited where religion does play a large role in peoples lives would be Mexico, Ireland, Poland, and Italy. I'm fairly sure that there are many more, like most of the South American countries.

 

[Coleman Smith]

My personal belief is that the burden of proof for the existence of any deity goes to the advocate.

If members of the National Academy of Science and the equivalent organizatons in Europe and Asia ever publish testable verified evidence i scientific journals and I will be willing to look at it.

The members of these organizations have never published any evidence of any kind supporting the existence of any deity and I believe they never will.

 

[rousseau]

It's the red states.


When I flew into California from Toronto it was like escaping from a parallel universe / twilight zone of superstition, where in the communities I'd lived religion played a regularly recurring part in daily life. But that was back in 1980; maybe Ontario has become sane over the last 40 years.

The U.S. is goofy with religious stupidity. It's assumed one is religious unless stated otherwise. Is that true with Canada?

Sure as hell was when I lived there.

I can't speak for Ontario in 1980, but we're likely more socially conservative than California. Our analogue to California is British Columbia, where many of our hippies migrate to.

In any non-rural community in 2020 Ontario religion isn't a topic-de-jour - Canada largely emphasizes a live and let live, multi-cultural attitude, nobody talks about it, and usually nobody has any idea what anybody else really believes. I couldn't speak for the prairies as I've never been there but I would guess they're not that dissimilar from the the American mid-west, more religious. Alberta may be a different story as people now migrate there from all over the country.

Quebec is really it's own country, but the impression I get is that it's also very socially liberal. The emphasis there is more on maintaining french culture.

I couldn't really say about our east coast, never been, don't know anybody from there.