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

[bilby]

People who don't believe in gods, but not having very good reasons for it. They're basically the amateur atheists.

I find that very hard to belieive since there are no good reasons to believe in gods.

But there are bad reasons to not believe, as Wiploc points out above.

Reaching a true conclusion via faulty reasoning does not render the reasoning less faulty.

 

[Juma]

I find that very hard to belieive since there are no good reasons to believe in gods.

But there are bad reasons to not believe, as Wiploc points out above.

Reaching a true conclusion via faulty reasoning does not render the reasoning less faulty.

Of course it is theoretically possible. But really? And that there should be plenty of them?

 

[Wiploc]

Consider babies. I don't mind if you label them "amateur atheists," but it would be hard to claim that their position is rational.

 

[bilby]

But there are bad reasons to not believe, as Wiploc points out above.

Reaching a true conclusion via faulty reasoning does not render the reasoning less faulty.

Of course it is theoretically possible. But really? And that there should be plenty of them?

There are infinitely more ways to be wrong than there are ways to be right.

If you do not think that there are plenty of people out there who manage to live successful lives, reaching any number of correct conclusions by completely fortuitous means, and convinced that their illogic is both valid and sound, despite a total failure to use any reason at all, in almost any part of their existence, then I am envious; And I think that perhaps you haven't used the Internet very much.

 

[Juma]

Of course it is theoretically possible. But really? And that there should be plenty of them?

There are infinitely more ways to be wrong than there are ways to be right.

If you do not think that there are plenty of people out there who manage to live successful lives, reaching any number of correct conclusions by completely fortuitous means, and convinced that their illogic is both valid and sound, despite a total failure to use any reason at all, in almost any part of their existence, then I am envious; And I think that perhaps you haven't used the Internet very much.

Stay with the subject please: We are talking about how many that are atheists of "the wrong reason".

 

[bilby]

There are infinitely more ways to be wrong than there are ways to be right.

If you do not think that there are plenty of people out there who manage to live successful lives, reaching any number of correct conclusions by completely fortuitous means, and convinced that their illogic is both valid and sound, despite a total failure to use any reason at all, in almost any part of their existence, then I am envious; And I think that perhaps you haven't used the Internet very much.

Stay with the subject please: We are talking about how many that are atheists of "the wrong reason".

They are a subset of the group I am talking about; and there are good reasons to believe that there are plenty of them.

 

[Juma]

Stay with the subject please: We are talking about how many that are atheists of "the wrong reason".

They are a subset of the group I am talking about; and there are good reasons to believe that there are plenty of them.

Again: really? Are the ones not believing in invisible skyscrapers also not "believing it by the right reason"?
Gods are a lot more ridiculous concept than invisible skyscrapers. It is totally reasonable to dismiss that thought directly.

 

[bilby]

They are a subset of the group I am talking about; and there are good reasons to believe that there are plenty of them.

Again: really? Are the ones not believing in invisible skyscrapers also not "believing it by the right reason"?
Gods are a lot more ridiculous concept than invisible skyscrapers. It is totally reasonable to dismiss that thought directly.

More ridiculous, certainly. More commonly encountered, not so much.

Almost nobody grows up with people they trust telling them that there are invisible skyscrapers.

Huge numbers of people grow up with people they trust telling them all about a god (or gods). Some of those people then reject the idea of gods. Of those who reject any idea, some do so because reason leads them to reject it as false; and many do so due to unreasonable motives - because they want to be 'different', or because they respect or wish to emulate people who they know have rejected the idea.

I am prepared to bet that there are plenty of people who declare themselves to be atheists for no other reason than because they find Ricky Gervais funny, and/or like the fact that he makes people in authority feel uncomfortable. An appeal to authority fallacy as the basis for a correct conclusion is still a fallacy.

Plenty of atheists are atheists because they have chosen to follow a leader. They would be just as convinced of Roman Catholicism or Sunni Islam had they chosen a different champion to follow.

 

[untermensche]

The idea of absolute knowledge is a religious concept.

To say one knows for certain some thing does not exist is an expression of faith.

All a rational person can say is that the odds are strongly against it.

 

[Jarhyn]

It strikes me as dishonest, and needlessly hasty to be a strong atheist, to say as a statement of certain fact that there is no god. However, while it is a needlessly hasty assertion, if there is a god, he is either evil or he doesn't care that they deny his existence. In short, it doesn't matter or at least doesn't matter much if someone is a strong atheist.

The thing is, 'there is no god' is only rational if there is no rational intent by which a good god would hide his existence.

But a simple answer which satisfies such a situation is that God is like us, a person with his own problems and with a need for more perspectives into those problems. In such a setting, it would be most beneficial for people to be atheists, for there to be no proof of his existence or even evidence of any kind, otherwise people would know there was a god and be unable to be self motivated atheists, and incapable of being good to each other for the sake of us rather than some presumed eternal reward. It would poison the game which is best served by being good people.

So there may be a god, but even if there is, I'm fairly certain that he'd want us to not know he was there. Strong atheism says that if there were a god there would be evidence, or at least a simple reason for no evidence. But in the end strong atheism is only slightly less correct than weak atheism, so in the end it isn't worth arguing much about.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But in the end strong atheism is only slightly less correct than weak atheism, so in the end it isn't worth arguing much about.

Maybe, but it doesn't seem so to me.

In order to hold that gods are possibly real one must suspend belief and trust in the totality of one's knowledge, experience and observation. Someone could claim they have six invisible heads, or that they have a dragon in their garage, or a trillion dollars in gold bars in their basement. Unbelievable as are such claims they are less unbelievable than that there are gods. What would motivate a person to be a weak disbeliever about such ludicrous claims? The answer is simple actually. It's why kids believe in Santa, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny quite frankly. It is not because these things are possibly real.

 

[Wiploc]

The idea of absolute knowledge is a religious concept.

To say one knows for certain some thing does not exist is an expression of faith.

All a rational person can say is that the odds are strongly against it.

So, in your opinion, there may be a god who can do anything but can't defeat iron chariots? There may be a god who can be seen but can't be seen? One who is all-loving but tortures people forever in Hellfire?

We can't rule any of those out?

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

People-on-the-street, not philosophers, decide what words really mean. Philosophy does itself no favors when it erects a barrier between itself and the normal usage of plain language. Something so universally human as belief and disbelief is not the province of philosophers to redefine. In fact, philosophers are usually delighted when their particular interpretation gels with the common parlance or intuition.

So, the fact that an ordinary person would say "of course I don't believe in fairies" and be totally justified in her disbelief is a fact that needs no special appeal to the philosophy of science, because fairies aren't real and neither are gods. Magical beings are a package deal. Reject them all or be agnostic about them all. I still think that deep down, you may actually think fairies don't exist, but if not, you're one of the only people I have come across that is consistent about it, though, so props for that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The idea of absolute knowledge is a religious concept.

To say one knows for certain some thing does not exist is an expression of faith.

All a rational person can say is that the odds are strongly against it.

So, in your opinion, there may be a god who can do anything but can't defeat iron chariots? There may be a god who can be seen but can't be seen? One who is all-loving but tortures people forever in Hellfire?

We can't rule any of those out?

I watched one of those History channel documentaries about the bible. In this show the claim was all about ancient aliens. The ancient aliens were responsible - in this episode - for supplying the wandering Israelites with a manna machine so they would have food while lost in the desert for all those years. And how magnanimous and compassionate of those interstellar aliens to be so moved by the plight of these poor people.

But youda thought they could have told Moses, "Hey, follow me. Good land and water is a three day trek in this direction. Sorry, but there just isn't room enough for everyone in our transporter rooms." But no, let them wander for decades instead. How fabulously unbelievably believable! Our gods are all made of tales like these.

 

[bilby]

It strikes me as dishonest, and needlessly hasty to be a strong atheist, to say as a statement of certain fact that there is no god. However, while it is a needlessly hasty assertion, if there is a god, he is either evil or he doesn't care that they deny his existence. In short, it doesn't matter or at least doesn't matter much if someone is a strong atheist.

The thing is, 'there is no god' is only rational if there is no rational intent by which a good god would hide his existence.

But a simple answer which satisfies such a situation is that God is like us, a person with his own problems and with a need for more perspectives into those problems. In such a setting, it would be most beneficial for people to be atheists, for there to be no proof of his existence or even evidence of any kind, otherwise people would know there was a god and be unable to be self motivated atheists, and incapable of being good to each other for the sake of us rather than some presumed eternal reward. It would poison the game which is best served by being good people.

So there may be a god, but even if there is, I'm fairly certain that he'd want us to not know he was there. Strong atheism says that if there were a god there would be evidence, or at least a simple reason for no evidence. But in the end strong atheism is only slightly less correct than weak atheism, so in the end it isn't worth arguing much about.

I am sorry, but your argument only stands up if you use an incorrect definition of a god.

If the word 'god' has any meaning at all, it has to refer to a being that either created everything, or has a supernatural effect on human lives, or both.

Entities that don't fit this criterion simply are not gods.

Gods are BIG. Even small gods are big, in the same way that even baby elephants are big.

If there is an elephant in your house, you don't need to look particularly hard to find it. Ruling out an elephant in your house is easy - it is not relevant to call upon the concept of falsifiability, nor is it necessary to lift up the cushions on the settee and check underneath.

If God can't be found after a thorough search, then he is not here.

We looked. He isn't here.

The only God not ruled out by this is the creator god who pressed 'Go', and then buggered off. That god is not impossible; just valueless, pointless, and indestinguishable from a natural event or events.

Strong atheism may be untenable if we limit ourselves to pure logic; But logic plus observation makes the position perfectly tenable for any god that fits the definition.

Of course, there might be an elephant hiding in my house, if we are allowed to include mice as elephants. But we are not allowed to do that - it is stupid, dishonest and/or insane.

Any god small enough to exist is too small to qualify for the job.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Of course, there might be an elephant hiding in my house, if we are allowed to include mice as elephants.

What if it is an invisible, intangible elephant who affects your life by slightly moving small objects in your house or occasionally hiding your car keys?

 

[bilby]

Of course, there might be an elephant hiding in my house, if we are allowed to include mice as elephants.

What if it is an invisible, intangible elephant who affects your life by slightly moving small objects in your house or occasionally hiding your car keys?

Would such a thing qualify as a god? Sounds more like the behaviour attributed to ghosts than to gods, IMO. A ghost is no more a god than a mouse is an elephant. If some entity wants me to bow down and praise it, it is going to have to do a lot more than that to get my attention.

The thing is, that the word 'god' is poorly defined even by those who claim to know god; but they don't get to claim that god is unfalsifiable just by failing to provide any definition, and then claiming that all unknown causes are 'god'. Insofar as the word 'god' means anything at all, it doesn't mean 'entity that affects your life by slightly moving small objects in your house or occasionally hiding your car keys'. To describe such an entity as a god is to misuse the word; and every time I have seen the word misused in this way, it has been part of a bait-and-switch strategy.

1) Define 'god' as so powerless and ineffective as to be unfalsifiable
2) Get agreement that such a god cannot be ruled out as existing
3) Claim that therefore a powerful and influential God exists and should be worshipped (and don't forget to add folding money to the collection plate).

I am not buying it. If it is not powerful and influential, it's not a god.

 

[Jarhyn]

It strikes me as dishonest, and needlessly hasty to be a strong atheist, to say as a statement of certain fact that there is no god. However, while it is a needlessly hasty assertion, if there is a god, he is either evil or he doesn't care that they deny his existence. In short, it doesn't matter or at least doesn't matter much if someone is a strong atheist.

The thing is, 'there is no god' is only rational if there is no rational intent by which a good god would hide his existence.

But a simple answer which satisfies such a situation is that God is like us, a person with his own problems and with a need for more perspectives into those problems. In such a setting, it would be most beneficial for people to be atheists, for there to be no proof of his existence or even evidence of any kind, otherwise people would know there was a god and be unable to be self motivated atheists, and incapable of being good to each other for the sake of us rather than some presumed eternal reward. It would poison the game which is best served by being good people.

So there may be a god, but even if there is, I'm fairly certain that he'd want us to not know he was there. Strong atheism says that if there were a god there would be evidence, or at least a simple reason for no evidence. But in the end strong atheism is only slightly less correct than weak atheism, so in the end it isn't worth arguing much about.

I am sorry, but your argument only stands up if you use an incorrect definition of a god.

If the word 'god' has any meaning at all, it has to refer to a being that either created everything, or has a supernatural effect on human lives, or both.

Entities that don't fit this criterion simply are not gods.

Gods are BIG. Even small gods are big, in the same way that even baby elephants are big.

If there is an elephant in your house, you don't need to look particularly hard to find it. Ruling out an elephant in your house is easy - it is not relevant to call upon the concept of falsifiability, nor is it necessary to lift up the cushions on the settee and check underneath.

If God can't be found after a thorough search, then he is not here.

We looked. He isn't here.

The only God not ruled out by this is the creator god who pressed 'Go', and then buggered off. That god is not impossible; just valueless, pointless, and indestinguishable from a natural event or events.

Strong atheism may be untenable if we limit ourselves to pure logic; But logic plus observation makes the position perfectly tenable for any god that fits the definition.

Of course, there might be an elephant hiding in my house, if we are allowed to include mice as elephants. But we are not allowed to do that - it is stupid, dishonest and/or insane.

Any god small enough to exist is too small to qualify for the job.

No. Your logic is a no-true-scotsman. You can't relationally reject the idea just because such a god is too "small" to attack. There stands every reason within the logic of possible reasons for a good god to create for the atheist loving god, and every logical necessity for 'hands off' within the scenario. It wouldn't change the obligation to be an atheist in any way, and in fact does have a real implication that we have a duty to be weak atheists, or at least act like it regardless.

Just because life is hard and shitty and short and we have to work for all the nice things doesn't mean that there isn't a god. All it means is that we shouldn't state negatives with certainty. That's called faith.

It still stands that there is out there a really good reason why a god that has a reason for creating wouldn't act upon the creation. It also means that IF there is a non-evil god, he wants you to be an atheist. I see no problem with this position. I could be friends with such an entity. I never claimed gods must be powerful or useful. I never claimed that they should be worshipped. I am a weak atheist, and I am one because that is the only logical course of action whether or not there is a god behind the existence of the universe. As I said, it is not a particularly important distinction between the ethical implications of either position. Both mean the game has the same rules. It is just that strong atheism requires faith, and assumes the negative where such an assumption isn't necessary.

 

[DBT]

Just because life is hard and shitty and short and we have to work for all the nice things doesn't mean that there isn't a god. All it means is that we shouldn't state negatives with certainty. That's called faith.

Not necessarily. If evidence for a proposition is not found where it is supposed to be found, or claimed to be, that is evidence against the validity or truth of that proposition.

I say that that there is a carton of milk in the fridge, for example, but upon opening the fridge and doing a thorough search you find there is no carton of milk to be found in the fridge.

The absence of evidence, where it should be found (a carton labelled ''milk'') is evidence for the absence (or non existence) of the article in question.

 

[bilby]

I am sorry, but your argument only stands up if you use an incorrect definition of a god.

If the word 'god' has any meaning at all, it has to refer to a being that either created everything, or has a supernatural effect on human lives, or both.

Entities that don't fit this criterion simply are not gods.

Gods are BIG. Even small gods are big, in the same way that even baby elephants are big.

If there is an elephant in your house, you don't need to look particularly hard to find it. Ruling out an elephant in your house is easy - it is not relevant to call upon the concept of falsifiability, nor is it necessary to lift up the cushions on the settee and check underneath.

If God can't be found after a thorough search, then he is not here.

We looked. He isn't here.

The only God not ruled out by this is the creator god who pressed 'Go', and then buggered off. That god is not impossible; just valueless, pointless, and indestinguishable from a natural event or events.

Strong atheism may be untenable if we limit ourselves to pure logic; But logic plus observation makes the position perfectly tenable for any god that fits the definition.

Of course, there might be an elephant hiding in my house, if we are allowed to include mice as elephants. But we are not allowed to do that - it is stupid, dishonest and/or insane.

Any god small enough to exist is too small to qualify for the job.

No. Your logic is a no-true-scotsman. You can't relationally reject the idea just because such a god is too "small" to attack. There stands every reason within the logic of possible reasons for a good god to create for the atheist loving god, and every logical necessity for 'hands off' within the scenario. It wouldn't change the obligation to be an atheist in any way, and in fact does have a real implication that we have a duty to be weak atheists, or at least act like it regardless.

Just because life is hard and shitty and short and we have to work for all the nice things doesn't mean that there isn't a god. All it means is that we shouldn't state negatives with certainty. That's called faith.

It still stands that there is out there a really good reason why a god that has a reason for creating wouldn't act upon the creation. It also means that IF there is a non-evil god, he wants you to be an atheist. I see no problem with this position. I could be friends with such an entity. I never claimed gods must be powerful or useful. I never claimed that they should be worshipped. I am a weak atheist, and I am one because that is the only logical course of action whether or not there is a god behind the existence of the universe. As I said, it is not a particularly important distinction between the ethical implications of either position. Both mean the game has the same rules. It is just that strong atheism requires faith, and assumes the negative where such an assumption isn't necessary.

Somebody who has never been to Scotland, and who has no relatives living there, is not a Scotsman.

Words have meanings; The word 'god' means something. You can define everything as real, if you allow words to mean whatever is necessary to make the thing they describe match something real; Sure, you can re-define 'god' until it refers to a real entity, but that's just silly word games.

God
Pronunciation: /ɡɒd/
Definition of God in English:
noun
1 (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu

2.1 An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god: wooden gods from the Congo

2.2 Used as a conventional personification of fate: he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

3 (god) A greatly admired or influential person: he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god

3.1 A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god: don’t make money your god

4 (the gods) informal The gallery in a theatre: they sat in the gods

(source)

Atheism (and indeed theism) is concerned with definitions 1, 2 and (perhaps) 2.2; definition 2.1 is obviously a reference to a real object, but accepting the existence of such an object is not theism; 3, 3.1 and 4 likewise refer to real entities that are not relevant to this topic.

Definition 1 is simply a special case of definition 2, and reflects the bias of the Oxford Dictionary compilers towards monotheism and Christianity; and definition 2.2 can be taken as either purely metaphorical, or as a description of the action of a god as defined by definition 2.

We have sufficient evidence, in the 21st century, to rule out the existence of any entity that meets the criteria 'ruler of the universe' implying 'power over nature or human fortunes'; there is, quite simply, no mechanism by which such an entity could act that has not been ruled out; If it were there, it would be detectable. If an entity exists that has, and uses, power to change reality in ways not explained by science, then we would have detected it. We have not.

There is no logical difference between an undetectable entity and a non-entity.

YOU may never have claimed that gods must be powerful or useful; And YOU may never have claimed that they should be worshipped. But all the theists in history have made exactly those claims. By suggesting a god that does not qualify in those terms, it is you who is committing a fallacy - you are expanding the definition of that which you seek to prove, to make it encompass concepts to which it never previously referred.

There is no such thing as a married bachelor; unless we expand the definition of marriage to encompass people who have never had a partner. But as that is not what the word marriage means, we are not allowed to do so.

A god that has no influence on reality could potentially exist; but that is not what the word god means.