arguments for atheism

[Tigers!]

What if I took a page out of a religious apologist's book and said the following?

"Not believing in God has made me happy and well-adjusted, so there's nothing you could say that will change my mind."

I would say "Congratulations on finding something that enables you to get out of bed every morning".

 

[bigfield]

If its not a faith/belief that God doesn't exist, then it must be a fact claim that God doesn't exist.

If the latter, then its a positive assertion with an obligatory burden of proof/evidence.

If the former, then its just another theistic position.

Does this mean you don't believe God's existence to be a fact? It's just a "theistic position"?

 

[bigfield]

Well, color me disapppointed.

Why disappointed?

Same old apologetics, nothing like what was suggested in the OP. I'm not really interested in "disproving" various religions. The question was more whether atheism could, absent critiques of various religoius positions et cetera, be discovered somehow in the nature of the universe. Whether, as James Madison claimed, the universe "looked" atheistic somehow. But what we've had here are the same tired critiques of conservative Christianity that we see in every thread.

Surely we discovered atheism in the universe the moment we figured out that we could explain it without God.

The planets move without the aid of angels. Humans evolved from primitive life, not from clay in Eden. Plagues happen because of germs instead of God's wrath, earthquakes happen because of plate tectonics instead of God's wrath, and in general, bad things happen to undeserving people because the universe does not seem to care one way or the other.

None of that requires us to consult anyone's village shaman or holy book or theorise the existence of a thing that in any way fits the description of a god.

How far does scientific inquiry need to pull back the tablecloth before you stop expecting to find a god under it?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Same old apologetics, nothing like what was suggested in the OP. I'm not really interested in "disproving" various religions. The question was more whether atheism could, absent critiques of various religoius positions et cetera, be discovered somehow in the nature of the universe. Whether, as James Madison claimed, the universe "looked" atheistic somehow. But what we've had here are the same tired critiques of conservative Christianity that we see in every thread.

Surely we discovered atheism in the universe the moment we figured out that we could explain it without God.

The planets move without the aid of angels. Humans evolved from primitive life, not from clay in Eden. Plagues happen because of germs instead of God's wrath, earthquakes happen because of plate tectonics instead of God's wrath, and in general, bad things happen to undeserving people because the universe does not seem to care one way or the other.

None of that requires us to consult anyone's village shaman or holy book or theorise the existence of a thing that in any way fits the description of a god.

How far does scientific inquiry need to pull back the tablecloth before you stop expecting to find a god under it?

It's not about "god." It's about magic and recognizing how superstitious we are as a species. It's about growing up, to include growing up emotionally. Sure, being superstitious and believing in magic has survival value because it places the individual within the relative safety of the group, even if it is a group of crazies. But tell them their ideas are crazy and you don't accept them? That gets you killed or cast out. That's the only reason magical thinking persists, that and human stupidity generally.

As entertainment value pretending in magic has it's place, and that place is as art or recreation, no different than having a good stiff drink to smooth things out. A good movie with a plot where the bad guys get theirs has restorative value. But it's important to recognize that it's all a bunch of pretending, and to not harm a person because they don't enjoy the same hobby as you, don't believe in acting out your crazy conspiracy thinking.

The universe doesn't contain magic. That crazed elf isn't out there, it's in here, in the brain. Stop killing people and harming people because you and some of your crazed pals are partial to the crazy holy elf conspiracy theory.

 

[Wiploc]

A case for atheism: The parable of the chains.

This is a true story. It is also probably my only
contribution to the debate, the only thing I contribute
that is my own. Some of you will have read the
story before, on this site or some of its predecessors.

I was a pawn broker. A man walked in and said,
"What will you give me for this fine gold chain?"

I believed then that (a) the man was a liar, (b) his
chain was fake, and (c) he knew it was fake. But
this was a lightly held belief, one for which I could
hardly articulate the basis, and one which I wouldn't
have expected other people to share. My prejudice --
and it was a prejudice -- had to do with his phrasing.
I'd never before heard anybody call their own jewelry
"fine gold." If I'd read that language in a jewelry
catalogue, it wouldn't have bothered me.

The customer reached into his right hand pocket,
and pulled out a necklace. It was fake.

I explained that manufacturers don't put cheap
clasps on real gold. But the customer insisted
it was real, so I brought out my acid and cut
into the chain with a file. I didn't even need to
use the acid; the core of the chain was brown,
not gold.

The customer dropped the chain into his left pocket,
and pulled another out of his right pocket. He said,
"This one's the real thing."

I explained that "14KEP" meant electroplate. The
chain was labeled as fake. It wasn't even pretending
to be gold.

But the customer insisted it was real, so I cut it
with my file and showed him the base metal core.

He dropped the chain in his left pocket, pulled
another chain out of his right pocket, and asserted
that this chain was the real thing.

I notched it and handed it back. He dropped it in
his left pocket, pulled another from his right pocket,
and told me it was real.

Do you see a pattern? I saw a pattern. At this
point I'd have been quite surprised if one of the
chains had turned out to be real.

The man produced seven or eight chains in this
way, each time claiming the chain was real.

Was I, when he gave me that last chain, justified
in my skepticism?

I believed that last chain was fake. I no longer
regarded my belief as mere prejudice. I thought
it was justified, warranted.

Remember, this is a true story. All of the chains
were fake up to the last one. I believed that last
one was fake too. Do you believe it was fake?

There's no twist ending here. The chain was fake.

I was willing to learn that the last chain was real.
If my file and acid had shown it to be real, I'd have
believed. But even if the last chain had turned out
to be real, I was justified in assuming that it was
fake up until such time as it tested real.

And so it is with theist apologetics.

A theist presents with, say, the first cause argument.
She affects perfect confidence in the argument's
persuasiveness. When I show her the base metal
at the core, she switches to another argument,
which she also insists is solid gold.

And so on and so on, with hundreds of theists
over the decades.

At this point I am justified in my belief that the
next theist argument will be fake. Usually it
will be fraudulent, but it will at the least be
wrong, fatally flawed. Patently worthless.

And the thing is, theists want to persuade us.
They want us to believe. So it stands to reason
that they are fielding their best arguments.

If they had any good arguments, they would use
them.

They've got nothing.

This is the logical conclusion we can draw from
the fact that theists rely exclusively on bad arguments.
If they had good arguments, they wouldn't use bad
ones.

They have no good arguments.

Even believers have no good arguments for belief.
So it stands to reason that we atheists are justified
in our lack of belief.

Atheism is justified by theist apologetics.

Atheism is the logical response to theists arguing
that gods exist.

 

[Wiploc]

A Case for Atheism: The Christian Stipulation

This one's a bit tongue in cheek, but I still enjoy it.

P1: Because the standard Christian god is shot thru
with contradictions, we know that it doesn't exist.

P2: Christians stipulate that no other gods exist.

C: Therefore, we conclude that no gods exist.

 

[Rhea]

A case for atheism: The parable of the chains.

This is an apt parable. It helps to provide a setting for why atheists are skeptical to the point of eye-rolling about the latest chain being pulled from the pocket. And the theist, with monumental lack of self-awareness, think they are the first to pull a chain, and they are hurt when you roll your eyes at their earnest claim that it is real.

Remember, this is a true story. All of the chains
were fake up to the last one. I believed that last
one was fake too. Do you believe it was fake?

There's no twist ending here. The chain was fake.

But they want you to “respect” their chain. Don’t make fun of their chain. Don’t decline to give your time to their chain.

And the thing is, theists want to persuade us.
They want us to believe. So it stands to reason
that they are fielding their best arguments.

If they had any good arguments, they would use
them.

They've got nothing.

I’ve wondered about this before. If this is their best argument, and if their god is real, why didn’t their god give them really good argments?
I think it’s interesting that they think these are really good arguments, though they would not buy this argument for any other religion, usually.

I’ve also asked them, give me one NEW argument. Something I haven’t heard before and already found lacking.
Give me a chain that doesn’t look like the others, so I can muster some interest or excitement in examining it.

Even believers have no good arguments for belief.
So it stands to reason that we atheists are justified
in our lack of belief.

Atheism is justified by theist apologetics.

Atheism is the logical response to theists arguing
that gods exist.

Yup.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If its not a faith/belief that God doesn't exist, then it must be a fact claim that God doesn't exist.

If the latter, then its a positive assertion with an obligatory burden of proof/evidence.

If the former, then its just another theistic position.

Does this mean you don't believe God's existence to be a fact? It's just a "theistic position"?

That's a lot of twisting to shift the burden of proof.
But no matter whether _I_ say "there are no gods" or "i don't believe in gods" or "i have not seen a reason to believe any of humanity's god candidates exist," Lion is still one of those people who believe in a particular skybeast's existence.
The 'burden of proof' is not a zero-sum game, though Lion really likes to pretend he can duck the burden of his claims by making others disprove one or more god-concepts.
Because, of course, he has no proofs that aren't equally good proofs for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, bless her ephemeral tints. So he has to cheat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What if I took a page out of a religious apologist's book and said the following?

"Not believing in God has made me happy and well-adjusted, so there's nothing you could say that will change my mind."

I would say "Congratulations on finding something that enables you to get out of bed every morning".

You....need a validation process to get up in the morning?

I just, you know, swear* at the alarm clock and get up.




*Scatology and vulgarity, usually, nothing profane.

 

[Rhea]

If its not a faith/belief that God doesn't exist, then it must be a fact claim that God doesn't exist.

If the latter, then its a positive assertion with an obligatory burden of proof/evidence.

If the former, then its just another theistic position.

This post claims that there are only two choices.
This is a typical “argument” used by Christians. You HAVE TO pick one or the other, they claim.
As if the rest of the universe does not exist.

I give you only two choices. They are comically clumsy. If you don’t pick the one that makes me look good, then I will claim you have picked the absurd one that I think is a fantastic argument against you,, but is actually a rather childish caricature of a choice.


Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

 

[southernhybrid]

If its not a faith/belief that God doesn't exist, then it must be a fact claim that God doesn't exist.

If the latter, then its a positive assertion with an obligatory burden of proof/evidence.

If the former, then its just another theistic position.

Is it a faith claim that fairies, Santa, elves, gargoyles, etc. don't exist? If not, then why should a lack of belief in gods be a faith claim? You don't need to have faith to not believe or stop believing in something that has no observable evidence. You need "faith" to believe in something simply because you have been told to believe it, or it makes you feel emotionally secure to believe it, or you think you've heard voices telling you to believe it. One doesn't need faith to be an atheist. One simply loses or never had faith in the invisible entity that theists seem to think is real.

Have you ever known or cared for someone who was seriously mentally ill? I have many times during my long nursing career. My favorite mentally ill patient was a woman who honestly believed she was a queen. She honestly believed that she had been married many times, including once to Elivs. She honestly believed that she was ultra wealthy and had what she called a "castle palace" in New York City. She honestly believed that she was 35 years old, although she was actually in her late 70s. She was also dirt poor and her actual husband had died when she was in her late 50s. Apparently, she needed her delusions to be happy, and happy she was, as long as we didn't try to convince her that she was delusional. I don't think you are mentally ill, but there is something in your neurons that allows you to accept things without physical evidence. That's what faith is about. Just because we don't understand everything about the universe or if there is any meaning to our lives, doesn't mean that god exists and it has a plan for us.

I'm not claiming that one must be mentally ill to believe that a god has spoken to them or that there are invisible entities, angels, a demon etc. that really exist in some supernatural element. But, those are still delusions that our brains have created. Some people apparently need them in order to be happy or feel as if they are righteous. So, I get why the queen needed her delusions and I somewhat understand why theists need and then have no problem with having faith in things unproven and unseen.

Being a skeptic or being unable to believe in such things, doesn't take any faith or any delusions. Believing that I'm not a queen who has been married to Elvis don't take any faith. My brain isn't perfect, but it's functioning better than the brain of my dear delusional queen. Not believing in supernatural entities requires no faith.

I see that we're no longer making arguments for atheism, so I'm now just posting my opinion. Let's just say that after leaving my faith behind, I am no longer able to believe things that have no evidence and appear to be nonsensical to me.

If I ever become brain damaged or develop dementia, it's possible that I'll start imagining things are real despite having no evidence. But for now, I'm not capable of accepting that fairies, elves, demons or gods are real, outside of our amazing imaginations.

 

[Lion IRC]

If atheism isn't a form of theistic belief - if it's merely non stamp collecting, color of baldness, neutral null non committal, indecision, etc etc...then atheism has no rational basis.

Otherwise, if you think God (probably) doesn't exist, then you are in contention with the alternative/opposite proposition that God (probably) does exist, and you bear a burden of proof proportional to your desire to persuade others.

If atheists feel they don't need to justify their belief or persuade others that atheism is warranted, that's fine by me.

 

[ruby sparks]

If atheists feel they don't need to justify their belief or persuade others that atheism is warranted, that's fine by me.

Ok. By the same token, if theists like you would stop giving unwarranted amounts of benefit of the doubt to, and apologising for, men who are, it seems, in all reasonable likelihood persistent and repeated woman-assaulters, just because the men happen to believe in the same giant elf as you do, that would be fine by me, because it's been one of the worst displays of bias I've seen on the forum for a very long time.

 

[Treedbear]

If atheism isn't a form of theistic belief - if it's merely non stamp collecting, color of baldness, neutral null non committal, indecision, etc etc...then atheism has no rational basis.

I'm not sure whether you mean atheism as a lack of belief or the belief in a lack. It certainly asserts a belief in one's own ability for rational thought and one's own intellectual integrity which culminates in a decision to not commit to a belief in a God.

Otherwise, if you think God (probably) doesn't exist, then you are in contention with the alternative/opposite proposition that God (probably) does exist, and you bear a burden of proof proportional to your desire to persuade others.

If atheists feel they don't need to justify their belief or persuade others that atheism is warranted, that's fine by me.

If you recognize that a God is not required in order that:

• order can emerge out of chaos.
• the Sun, Moon and wider solar system can presently maintain an environment on Earth suitable for life.
• a vast diversity of plants and animals can exist on earth in relative dynamic stability.
• human beings can exist as an intelligent species.
• systems of ethics, morality, and justice are necessary for sustaining human communities.
• there is meaning and purpose behind the concepts beauty, love, compassion, empathy, and creativity.
• good and evil convey meaning about what is constructive and destructive to human life.

And additionally that the questions about how:

• something rather than nothing exists.
• life first emerged from non-life.
• I/You can exist as a consciously aware being.

Are, respectively:

• forever possibly beyond the ability of intelligence to comprehend,
• obscured by our desire to simplify vastly complex relationships of cause and effect,
• simply explained by an as yet undiscovered paradigm of thought.

And therefore not admissible as evidence for a God that conceptually embodies those very attributes.

Then yes, I admit to the possibility that a God exists. But without any evidence there is no way to assign a probability.

 

[skepticalbip]

If atheism isn't a form of theistic belief - if it's merely non stamp collecting, color of baldness, neutral null non committal, indecision, etc etc...then atheism has no rational basis.

Otherwise, if you think God (probably) doesn't exist, then you are in contention with the alternative/opposite proposition that God (probably) does exist, and you bear a burden of proof proportional to your desire to persuade others.

If atheists feel they don't need to justify their belief or persuade others that atheism is warranted, that's fine by me.

You appear to have a non-existent sense of logic. Generally recognized by anyone familiar with rationalization, a negative can not be proven. You likely do not believe that the world's leaders are actually shape-shifting alien reptilians (but maybe you do) even though some people do. By your 'argument', you need to justify your disbelief that the world is ruled by alien shape-shifting aliens because your disbelief "has no rational basis".

So do you really think that those who do not believe that the world is ruled by reptilian shape-shifting aliens have a burden of proof to justify their disbelief as those who firmly do believe it and try to convince others it is true to justify their belief?

 

[abaddon]

If atheism isn't a form of theistic belief - if it's merely non stamp collecting, color of baldness, neutral null non committal, indecision, etc etc...then atheism has no rational basis.

Otherwise, if you think God (probably) doesn't exist, then you are in contention with the alternative/opposite proposition that God (probably) does exist, and you bear a burden of proof proportional to your desire to persuade others.

If atheists feel they don't need to justify their belief or persuade others that atheism is warranted, that's fine by me.

Here's the one and only way to take aim at atheism and actually hit the target: show your God exists. The "prove your disbelief in undemonstrated claims is well-reasoned" requests are nothing but stubborn believers-in-Belief with fingers stuck in their ears and going "la la la, you doubters are annoying, la la la".

 

[Lion IRC]

...you bear a burden of proof proportional to your desire to persuade others.
* That invisible pink unicorns do/dont exist
* That the moon landing was fake
* That there has never never ever in human history been any evidence whatsoever for the existence of Higher Being(s) or life after death or supernatural events.

 

[abaddon]

Why would I want to persuade anyone that the IPU doesn't exist?

I only want them to doubt themselves better. To not be credulous persons who take up a belief in Belief.

You have things backwards to take up beliefs (any beliefs) and look for the reasons against them afterwards (and then only to dismiss the reasons against them with bad logic).

 

[Lion IRC]

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.

That's a huge burden, a hurdle so high, that one can understand why so many atheists retreat to the intellectual 'safe harbour' of simply calling themselves non-stamp collectors who don't hold any belief about God, let alone certainty.

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. Atheism necessarily also entails the requisite belief that such a Higher Being has nowhere in space/time to exist. Yet modern multiverse cosmology makes the existence of such higher/parallel dimensions of existence increasingly plausible.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.
.

You still don't know the meaning of the word, 'atheism'?

Religious claims do not have to be 'debunked' for someone to be an atheist. To be an atheist only requires someone to not believe in gods.... even if Odin and Baal actually did exist someone can still not believe they do and would be an atheist.

But as an interesting fantasy exercise, either Odin or Baal could kick Jehovah's ass.

Maybe alien shape-shifting reptilians really do rule the world. I would give it slightly better odds (approaching zero) than Odin or Baal watching us puny humans.