Is strong atheism "faithy," dishonest, awkward, or hard to defend?

[Mageth]

There is a reason I used the word creator. As I noted before, to exclude god, renders our existence somehow very unusual. If there is a god, that renders its own existence very unusual.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain this to me. What renders our existence unusual? Unusual compared to what?

Strong atheism, in my opinion, concludes that origins are naturally occurring. If it doesn't conclude that, then I'm mistaken. But without a god, origins can only be natural. And honestly, to me, origins make no sense either way. Personally, I'm an ashamed strong atheist

You seem to be struggling with the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question. The answer is simple, at least to me: there has always been something. There are no origins, only transitions. Neither a "creation" nor a "creator" are necessary to explain existence. Or, to put it another way, "something" (or existence) is the natural state of things.

 

[Bomb#20]

There are lots of creators. Chris Carter is the creator of The X-Files. Everybody on TFT is the creator of at least one post. That doesn't make us all gods. But you mean that to say outrightly that there is no creator of the universe seems about as bad as saying there is one. Well, that depends. What does "universe" mean? Dictionaries disagree with one another.

"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated" -- Merriam-Webster

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole" -- OED

So what do you mean by "universe" when you argue that to say outrightly that there is no creator of the universe seems about as bad as saying there is one?

If you agree with Merriam-Webster's definition, then your argument is plainly wrong. Of course there is no creator of the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. To postulate such a creator is to postulate a thing that created itself, which is self-contradictory. Strong atheism about that sort of god is perfectly defensible; it's the only defensible position.

If you agree with the OED's definition, then perhaps it's true that it's indefensible to say outrightly that there is no creator of all existing matter and space considered as a whole. But strong atheism is saying outrightly that there's no god.

The universe is all things... within whatever the heck it is we are in.

That doesn't really narrow it down. We're in a lot of things -- the solar system, the Milky Way, the Virgo Supercluster, etc. The Milky Way is an example of what astronomers used to call an "island universe".

We know jack about what is "outside" the boundaries of the universe, if anything... if it is even legit to say outside of the boundaries.

Well, that is the question. By the OED definition, it is legit; by the MW definition, it isn't.

So when you argue that strong atheism is indefensible, what additional criterion do you mean for a creator of some arbitrary extension of reality to have to satisfy, in order to qualify for the title "a god"?

Strong atheism, in my opinion, concludes that origins are naturally occurring. If it doesn't conclude that, then I'm mistaken. But without a god, origins can only be natural.

So what do you mean by "natural"? The opposite of "supernatural", or the opposite of "artificial"?

Some years ago I created my very own universe: a computer simulation of an artificial world containing simple robots that interacted with their environment, reproduced themselves, died of old age, starvation or predation, and evolved progressively greater complexity by Darwinian selection. Two questions:

(1) Does that make me a god?
(2) If the simulation had gone on long enough for the robots to evolve sentience, and if they had decided their universe was created by a god, would they have been correct?

And honestly, to me, origins make no sense either way. Personally, I'm an ashamed strong atheist.

And I'm an unashamed one. Join us!

 

[Kharakov]

I'm strongly atheistic about any and all gods that I've ever had described to me in any detail. The more you define a god, the harder it becomes to support the assertion that it actually exists.

"Does this consciousness that these theist brain cells claim we are creating actually exist, or are they just using it to gain control over us?"

Wouldn't it suck if you had aMageth brain cells?

 

[Perspicuo]

Atheism is impossible to defend philosophically.

That's why atheists I admire (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris) are actually empiricists requiring evidence, and suspend any belief in the deity (i.e. any of the myriad deities available on the beliefs market) until then. And good luck with the evidence since the other obstacle is the self-contradicting theologies and the mounting evidence on the lack of effective power of the deity or any of their promises (actual no-kidding-yourself miracles promissed to followers).

I'm a proud agnostic = weak atheist = empiricist.

Note: I know that Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge or a lack of knowledge, while Atheism is a statement about belief or lack of this, but for all practical purposes they're the same.

The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that it can easily be applied to any number of things that I am happy to say do not exist. I suspect you are too. For example, even though quantum mechanics does not make sense, I know that its strange effects are not caused by a magical being tinkering behind the scenes. In just the same way, although the universe's existence remains a mystery, I know it was not created by a magical being with infinite power. I can almost hear you cringe as you read the second one, but you probably didn't cringe at the first one. I think that's a social conditioning phenomenon, not a philosophical problem for atheism.

You're thinking like man-on-the-street, not like a philosopher.

You may not like it, it may sound stupid, but that doesn't mean it does not exist. Fairies may very well exist, but not phlogiston. The difference between phlogiston and fairies is that fairies are said to exist independent of any particular phenomenon, whereas phlogiston was an explanans for a particular physical phenomenon. So, having debunked the phlogiston theory adequately by means of basic modern chemistry, we can say agnosticism towards phlogiston is unwarranted.

Applying this to the "God" concept, I can say, and do say, that the Biblical God is satisfactorily falsified, but not God in general. On the other hand, I will not devote my life to a being who has not evidence or theoretical plausibility going for it. For all practical purposes, God (in general) is a pointless concept.

 

[dystopian]

I'm strongly atheistic about any and all gods that I've ever had described to me in any detail. The more you define a god, the harder it becomes to support the assertion that it actually exists.

"Does this consciousness that these theist brain cells claim we are creating actually exist, or are they just using it to gain control over us?"

Wouldn't it suck if you had aMageth brain cells?

 

[Clivedurdle]

May I propose a definition of gods?

That they are supernatural?

Aliens with children with Lego Universe creating kits are not gods - a natural thread can be tracked, with equations.

If it is agreed gods are supernatural I can show the idea of the supernatural was invented. Gods are a similar process - they are like a and b in algebra - placeholders, entities asserted to explain something - goddidit, god loves you, god punishes you for eternity ....

How did people of the medieval period explain physical phenomena, such as eclipses or the distribution of land and water on the globe? What creatures did they think they might encounter: angels, devils, witches, dogheaded people? This fascinating book explores the ways in which medieval people categorized the world, concentrating on the division between the natural and the supernatural and showing how the idea of the supernatural came to be invented in the Middle Ages. Robert Bartlett examines how theologians and others sought to draw lines between the natural, the miraculous, the marvelous and the monstrous, and the many conceptual problems they encountered as they did so. The final chapter explores the extraordinary thought-world of Roger Bacon as a case study exemplifying these issues. By recovering the mentalities of medieval writers and thinkers the book raises the critical question of how we deal with beliefs we no longer share.

Fascinating study of the invention of the supernatural in the Middle Ages
By one of Europe's leading medieval historians
Essential reading for scholars and students of medieval history and medieval studies

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academi...000-1450/natural-and-supernatural-middle-ages

OK - gods exist - they are human inventions or biological artefacts like nuclear power stations.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Applying this to the "God" concept, I can say, and do say, that the Biblical God is satisfactorily falsified, but not God in general. On the other hand, I will not devote my life to a being who has not evidence or theoretical plausibility going for it. For all practical purposes, God (in general) is a pointless concept.

But what do you mean by "God in general"? From what I've seen, to get to a point that a strong atheistic position would not apply, you need to get to a god concept which pretty much lacks definition altogether. Then, the only reason it wouldn't be said to be a strong atheist position is because you're unable to say exactly what it is that you're not believing in. As soon as anyone gives their god characteristics, those characteristics don't hold up.

 

[Kharakov]

"Does this consciousness that these theist brain cells claim we are creating actually exist, or are they just using it to gain control over us?"

Wouldn't it suck if you had aMageth brain cells?

RD Jr. having a mini-stroke due to aRD BCs.... nice image.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ability to control space and time or gloab and hgisn as they are called in the god universe.

Well, take the alien argument further, then.

Say that there exists an alien race which gets more and more advanced until its science is enough to allow them to control space and time. They can even create their own infinitely sized pocket universes where they can control everything within them. Would their scientific advancements have turned them into gods or would they still just be super advanced aliens?

This would be the paradox of being able to tell the difference between a massively advanced race verses an actual god.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Strong atheism, in my opinion, concludes that origins are naturally occurring. If it doesn't conclude that, then I'm mistaken. But without a god, origins can only be natural.

So what do you mean by "natural"? The opposite of "supernatural", or the opposite of "artificial"?

As in occurring without tinkering.

Some years ago I created my very own universe: a computer simulation of an artificial world containing simple robots that interacted with their environment, reproduced themselves, died of old age, starvation or predation, and evolved progressively greater complexity by Darwinian selection. Two questions:

(1) Does that make me a god?
(2) If the simulation had gone on long enough for the robots to evolve sentience, and if they had decided their universe was created by a god, would they have been correct?

You are recalling an episode of Futurama.

And honestly, to me, origins make no sense either way. Personally, I'm an ashamed strong atheist.

And I'm an unashamed one. Join us!

I know when I'm licked by indeterminacy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, take the alien argument further, then.

Say that there exists an alien race which gets more and more advanced until its science is enough to allow them to control space and time. They can even create their own infinitely sized pocket universes where they can control everything within them. Would their scientific advancements have turned them into gods or would they still just be super advanced aliens?

This would be the paradox of being able to tell the difference between a massively advanced race verses an actual god.

Well, it's not so much a paradox as it is a question of definitions. Even if we couldn't tell the difference if we were to meet such a being, we could at least delineate what the differences would theoretically be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain this to me. What renders our existence unusual? Unusual compared to what?

Touche. Of course, are you satisfied with the concept that existence is naturally occurring? How or of what is existence coming from? Thermodynamics indicates that given time, everything turns to shit. This implies that existence is subject to decay.

Strong atheism, in my opinion, concludes that origins are naturally occurring. If it doesn't conclude that, then I'm mistaken. But without a god, origins can only be natural. And honestly, to me, origins make no sense either way. Personally, I'm an ashamed strong atheist

You seem to be struggling with the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question.

I'm at least glad that is coming across.

The answer is simple, at least to me: there has always been something. There are no origins, only transitions. Neither a "creation" nor a "creator" are necessary to explain existence. Or, to put it another way, "something" (or existence) is the natural state of things.

But because things decay, that implies an end of sorts. This could imply a reboot (leading to the eternal existence of something). But how can something reboot? What is rebooting?

- - - Updated - - -

This would be the paradox of being able to tell the difference between a massively advanced race verses an actual god.

Well, it's not so much a paradox as it is a question of definitions. Even if we couldn't tell the difference if we were to meet such a being, we could at least delineate what the differences would theoretically be.

No we couldn't. It could be said that it may be theoretically possible to be advanced enough to be god-like. Create wormholes, your own universe, control the stars. We can't discount it.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Well, take the alien argument further, then.

Say that there exists an alien race which gets more and more advanced until its science is enough to allow them to control space and time. They can even create their own infinitely sized pocket universes where they can control everything within them. Would their scientific advancements have turned them into gods or would they still just be super advanced aliens?

This would be the paradox of being able to tell the difference between a massively advanced race verses an actual god.

There is no paradox - the alien race can be shown to have existence in line with the workings of the universe - it could even be that Star trek interdimensional species.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Species 8472 is the Borg designation for the Sra’xa’diin (“A Link to the Past” [TFF]), an immensely
powerful alien species native to an extra-dimensional realm known as fluidic space. They were first
encountered in the Milky Way by the Borg in the year 2373. (“Scorpion, parts I and II” [VGR]).

http://www.sttff.net/xeno/species8472.html

Q was not actually a god.

Is Q from Star Trek god, or a god? (self.DebateReligion)

He has omniscience , omnipotence, and possibly has omnipresence, three major characteristics given to go in the Abrahamic religions.


Neither. He's a highly evolved being that lives in a parallel like dimension with other highly evolved beings. So he's no "the" god, but I guess you could argue that his "race" are god like

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/16ujrf/is_q_from_star_trek_god_or_a_god/

 

[Mageth]

I'm strongly atheistic about any and all gods that I've ever had described to me in any detail. The more you define a god, the harder it becomes to support the assertion that it actually exists.

"Does this consciousness that these theist brain cells claim we are creating actually exist, or are they just using it to gain control over us?"

Wouldn't it suck if you had aMageth brain cells?

Meh

 

[Keith&Co.]

I guess that's the answer.
If atheism was a religion, someone, somewhere, would have a definition of it, and individuals could choose to join it or not.
Not spend hours upon days arguing the definitions for what is and isn't the 'religion.'

 

[Unbeatable]

My thesis is that strong atheism is easy and fun to defend, and perfectly honest.

Isn't that a matter of personal preference? I don't find it "fun" to be under scrutiny, period. Merely explaining what I believe about any given philosophical matter tends to be a sufficiently tedious chore. Having to explain it to a hostile/critical/bad faith audience, as is likely if I'm trying to explain atheism to non-atheists, is worse. I find it really baffling that "fun" is one of the words you decided to include here. I wonder what type of person it takes to find that sort of activity fun.

Faithy

Not inherently. But the thing about faith is that it can lead a person to any conclusion.

dishonest

Not inherently, and certainly not in the typical sense of the term. I don't think there are many people claiming strong atheism when they know full well that they don't believe it. I don't think attempts to deceive others on this matter are rampant. But self deception? It's extremely difficult to be free from self-deception. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find a strong atheist whose position is based more upon emotion than reason. I myself have vacillated between strong and weak atheism based not on any changes in the strength of the case against gods, but rather upon my social context and feeling of certainty. Eventually, I ended up favoring a sort of ignosticism wherein I shrug off not just the burden of proof, but also the burden of definition. "God" for me is just "a word I hear lots of people use, each of them seemingly referring to something slightly different when they use it".

awkward

i.e. requiring caution; somewhat hazardous: Yes, depending upon one's social context. Having an unpopular view is definitely hazardous.
i.e. hard to deal with; difficult; requiring skill, tact, or the like: Yes. See below.

hard to defend

Of course. Being on the defensive is inherently harder than being on the offensive, unless your "defense" is to shrug off the burden of proof. If one actually accepts the burden of proof, though, that puts one at the mercy of one's attackers. Being prepared to defend one's views against any challenge they might bring may require a great deal of knowledge and skill.

 

[Perspicuo]

Applying this to the "God" concept, I can say, and do say, that the Biblical God is satisfactorily falsified, but not God in general. On the other hand, I will not devote my life to a being who has not evidence or theoretical plausibility going for it. For all practical purposes, God (in general) is a pointless concept.

But what do you mean by "God in general"? From what I've seen, to get to a point that a strong atheistic position would not apply, you need to get to a god concept which pretty much lacks definition altogether. Then, the only reason it wouldn't be said to be a strong atheist position is because you're unable to say exactly what it is that you're not believing in. As soon as anyone gives their god characteristics, those characteristics don't hold up.

It's the same difference between a gray fox and a fox in general. Gods are not unproven, just ludicrous.

 

[bilby]

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain this to me. What renders our existence unusual? Unusual compared to what?

Strong atheism, in my opinion, concludes that origins are naturally occurring. If it doesn't conclude that, then I'm mistaken. But without a god, origins can only be natural. And honestly, to me, origins make no sense either way. Personally, I'm an ashamed strong atheist

You seem to be struggling with the "Why is there something rather than nothing?" question. The answer is simple, at least to me: there has always been something. There are no origins, only transitions. Neither a "creation" nor a "creator" are necessary to explain existence. Or, to put it another way, "something" (or existence) is the natural state of things.

Creators simply don't help with the 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' question.

1) Either something spontaneously arose; or 2) something has always existed.

3) If 2, no creator is needed.

4) If 1, either 5) Something arose from nothing - and no creator is needed; or 6) Something arose due to the action of a creator.

7) A creator is either something, in which case we are back at 1, or nothing, in which case there is no creator.

All of the possible conditions are covered by this logic; the only possible answers to 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' are "because there has always been something", or "because something spontaneously arose from nothing".

No creator is required; positing a creator adds nothing to the answer that is not exactly as useful as positing a blancmange.

TL; DR: If God created everything, what created God?

 

[DBT]

You may be misunderstanding what is meant by strong and weak Atheism, in this context.

Strong Atheism is the assertion that enough evidence has been gathered to be assured that no possible gods exist. it is an assertion that carries some burden of proof.
Weak Atheism is the position that all arguments made to date have failed to support the existence claim of any gods.. The position does not carry burden of proof.

I didn't come down in the last shower, I know what the various definitions of atheism are. My comment was related to an absence of evidence. Namely, an absence of evidence to support the proposition that something exists, where evidence should exist, and should be found, is itself a form of evidence against the existence of that article.