There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[KCfromNC]

...sure they are. A fast food worker has to decide if he will abide by the embedded ethics of his food-handler permit...and not spit in your salad or rub the patty between his buns before delivering that tasty, flame-broiled "Super Duper Burger."

He's also doing a bit of minor epistemology in "knowing" if the meat really is 'cooked' thoroughly, or if that mayonaise really has been sitting out too long to serve to customers ...

He's also doing a bit of metaphysics in knowing what the ideal "Super Burger" really is so that when he makes your order, you're really getting one that looks just like it does in the picture advertised. (Funny...it never does, does it?)

He's also doing a bit of logic and math when he figures that those two hours he just put in while sweating over your french fries is worth $15.00.

If everyone is doing this kind of stuff all the time, is there a word which separates it from what has traditionally been called philosophy? If not, I'd propose naming the latter "Philosophy". Radical idea, I know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed.
So what are the unclear purposes of religion?
What is the applicable criterium - since it isn´t "it works"?
What would be an epistemological approach for matters of religion that doesn´t put the cart before the horse?

...one of the purposes of Christianity has already been, I think, laid out quite well by Galileo in that famous little quip he made. Unfortunately, the church hasn't always been equitable to scientists with faith.

Personally, I'd say that epistemology for Christianity is partially objective in the sense that the Church identifies God's prophets and apostles as being in some sense authoritative in provided the initial substance of the religion. The other portion of epistemology, however ironic it may sound, ends up being subjective and existentially particular to each human individual who decides or feels that Jesus Christ is somehow very, very appealing, resulting in an axiological response of faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's certainly one opinion. Any reason to think it accurately represents reality?

...what does your pronoun "it" refer to specifically?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If everyone is doing this kind of stuff all the time, is there a word which separates it from what has traditionally been called philosophy? If not, I'd propose naming the latter "Philosophy". Radical idea, I know.

Here's another radical idea--paying attention to 'context.'

 

[Silmarien]

I'll give it a stab.......

Let's consider the claim of alien abductions.
There are hundreds, thousands even, of people alive today that you can go and talk to, who will claim to have been abducted by aliens and they really believe it. They believe it so much, they even pass lie detector tests.

However, I don't for a second believe their claims. And you probably don't either.
But.... can you disprove it? Can you demonstrate that aliens are NOT abducting humans and performing weird sex experiments on them?

Off course you can not. So you can not rationally make the opposite positive claim which says "there are no aliens to abduct people".

Either aliens abduct people or they don't. It's one or the other. But 2 claims are possible:
- aliens abduct people
- aliens do NOT abduct people

Now here's the kicker.... only the first claim is addressed.
Those thousands of claimed alien abductees are the ones making the claims. Those are the claims that are being discussed.
The one who disbelieves these claims, is only expressing a stance on that claim of the alien abductees. A position on a claim, is not a claim by itself.

Did that make sense to you?

Not particularly, no.

If you do not believe in alien abductions, then you do not believe in alien abductions. You do not simply "lack a belief" about alien abductions. You have even said in this post that you disbelieve, not that you lack belief. You do not have to be able to disprove the existence of aliens to say you do not believe in them. You are making statements about your beliefs, not about reality as it objectively is.

I am actually agnostic about alien abductions. I'm intrigued by the alternative theory that alien abductions are just the modern update of fairy abductions, and that there really is something going on there, filtered through a cultural context. I find it unreasonable to either accept or reject this possibility, but again, that is agnosticism. It isn't a lack of belief.

If you can be an agnostic theist, then why can't I be an agnostic atheist?

You can. But agnostic atheism is disbelief in God coupled with the admission that you do not know. It's not a lack of belief in God. You can't use arguments from agnosticism to defend atheism, as if it is somehow the default stance for an agnostic. And you can't heap abuse upon real agnostics for fence sitting, as atheists tend to do, and then turn around and start championing agnosticism whenever it's convenient for you.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, I was going to respond until I saw from your response to Quatona that you had "no desire whatsoever to discuss religion with people who define atheism as a lack of belief".

Atheism is commonly defined as a lack of belief, despite your assertion to the contrary. It's easy to find a dictionary that lists that usage. It's had this usage at least since the late 1980's when I got my undergraduate degree in Philosophy. So the idea that it's a recent development is laughable.

Because there's no good reason not to discuss religion with those who legitimately define atheism as its commonly used, I'm seriously beginning to think that your position is based on a desire to define the non theists into a corner so they have to have a burden of proof that they don't actually have. Like I've said before, it seems very intellectually dishonest...

The 1980s is extremely recent.

Given that this this shift in definition happened specifically because atheists wanted to shift the burden of proof in the first place, yes, I think it is quite legitimate to question whether the new definition is appropriate or coherent at all or is itself a matter of intellectually dishonest semantics. You've turned atheism into a property--something that people can have or fail to have--rather than the proposition it used to be. If atheism is the lack of belief and theism is the presence of belief, then there's really nothing to discuss except statistics on who believes or fails to believe religious claims.

 

[quatona]

Here's another radical idea--paying attention to 'context.'

Yeah, good call. So what was your point in shifting the context, out of a sudden?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not particularly, no.

If you do not believe in alien abductions, then you do not believe in alien abductions. You do not simply "lack a belief" about alien abductions.

False.

"not believe", "disbelief", "lack of belief" = all the exact same thing.
And "i don't believe x" is NOT THE SAME as saying "I believe 'not' X".

You have even said in this post that you disbelieve, not that you lack belief.

It's the same thing. The "dis-" part, means "not" or "without".

You do not have to be able to disprove the existence of aliens to say you do not believe in them.

Exactly. But you DO need to be able to disprove there existence to say that you believe that they do not exist!

Do you understand the difference between these 2 statements:
"I do not believe alien abductions are true"
and
"I believe that alien abductions are false"

Because they are not the same!

You are making statements about your beliefs, not about reality as it objectively is.

Nope. I'm making statements about my disbeliefs.
Stating what I do NOT believe, is not the same as stating what I DO believe.

I am actually agnostic about alien abductions.

Me to. Why? Because you can't prove either way if they happen or not.
But, I don't believe the claim that they in fact happen.
Neither do you, I bet. Right?

As in: when somebody asks you "do you believe that alien abductions take place?" then you can not honestly answer "yes" to that question, can you?

Which means that no, you do not believe such claims. That is to say, you do not accept those claims as correct / accurate. So you disbelieve them. You lack belief.

Which, again, does not mean that you'll believe the opposite claim!

I'm intrigued by the alternative theory that alien abductions are just the modern update of fairy abductions, and that there really is something going on there, filtered through a cultural context. I find it unreasonable to either accept or reject this possibility, but again, that is agnosticism. It isn't a lack of belief.

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not to belief.
You DO have a lack of belief, since you find it unreasonable to accept it. So you don't consider the claim accurate / correct. So you don't believe the claim.

And since you have no demonstrable knowledge either way, I qualify that disbelieving position with "agnosticism".

Just like I qualify my atheism with the same. I'm an agnostic atheist.
I'm agnostic about any and all things that are unfalsifiable, unsupportable, etc.

You can. But agnostic atheism is disbelief in God coupled with the admission that you do not know.

Have you been reading what atheists on this side have been writing for endless threads?
Because that is exactly how atheists tend to define their atheism.

I don't know a SINGLE atheist who claims to be able to know that no gods exist.
And if I would meet one, I'ld call him out on it. Because it is by definition impossible to disprove unfalsifiable claims. On count of being unfalsifiable.

It's not a lack of belief in God.

It is. Either you have belief or you lack belief.
I can't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe in god". So I don't have a positive belief in the claims of theism.

If I don't have a certain thing, then I lack that certain thing.

You can't use arguments from agnosticism to defend atheism, as if it is somehow the default stance for an agnostic.

I never said it was the default stance of an agnostic.
If anything, I'm saying that "agnosticism" is not some "third postion" on the theist/atheist issue. It is, instead, a qualifier of both.

You can be an agnostic atheist and you can be an agnostic theist.
(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge and (a)theism pertains to beliefs.

And you can't heap abuse upon real agnostics for fence sitting, as atheists tend to do, and then turn around and start championing agnosticism whenever it's convenient for you.

Again, I don't see "agnosticism" and "atheism" as 2 seperate positions. One is a qualifier of the other. They are different answers, to different questions.

(a)gnosticism is an answer to the question of knowledge.
(a)theism is an answer to the question of belief.

And they aren't mutually exclusive. Instead, they complement/qualify eachother.




And again this deteriorated into semantic babble about a label. It's getting annoying... what use does this have? Why can't you people just accept what we atheists tell you about what we believe and how we define our atheism? Why must you insist that we are "wrong" about "what we believe and claim"?

When someone tells you "here is what I believe and don't believe and here is what I claim and don't claim", the only thing you can do is accept it. It makes no sense to come around and tell that person that he's wrong and "here's what you really believe and claim".

I mean, seriously.....

I think I know better what I believe, don't believe, claim and don't claim, then all you folks put together.

 

[Silmarien]

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not to belief.
You DO have a lack of belief, since you find it unreasonable to accept it. So you don't consider the claim accurate / correct. So you don't believe the claim.

No, actually, I don't have a "lack of belief", whatever that might be, nor do I disbelieve. I find it unreasonable to reject these stories as well, as there is one possible explanation for these events that seems quite plausible to me. I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim. I am actually quite neutral.

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, sure, but in its purest form, it is also the refusal to make a statement of belief one way or the other.

This was a good example, though, as it is a situation where I am genuinely, purely agnostic. I'm really quite bemused that you would complain when theists challenge your claims about what you actually believe, and then turn around and insist that someone else use your definitions to describe their own beliefs. It is really quite hypocritical, so congratulations.

I'm agnostic about any and all things that are unfalsifiable, unsupportable, etc.

Falsifiability is an aspect of the philosophy of science, and one that has actually been criticized. Unless you are agnostic about everything that falls outside of the natural sciences, which would include the rationale behind the scientific method itself, that is a very problematic stance.

Have you been reading what atheists on this side have been writing for endless threads?
Because that is exactly how atheists tend to define their atheism.

I am fine with defining it as disbelief. I am not fine with conflating disbelief and lack of belief. The former is a proposition, the latter is a property. They are not the same thing.

Again, I don't see "agnosticism" and "atheism" as 2 seperate positions. One is a qualifier of the other. They are different answers, to different questions.

Agnosticism can be a separate position. Strong agnosticism is not the claim that you personally do not know, but that such knowledge is actually impossible. There are certainly people out there who do not think it reasonable to either believe or disbelieve, and they are agnostics. They are not agnostic atheists.

But by all means, continue telling agnostics what they do and don't believe. Just don't turn around and cry foul when theists do the same thing to you.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The 1980s is extremely recent.

In terms of the age of the universe? Sure. In terms of language and how quickly it changes? Not even remotely recent. I've defined "atheism" like I do my entire adult life. Sometimes words change from year to year.

Given that this this shift in definition happened specifically because atheists wanted to shift the burden of proof in the first place, yes, I think it is quite legitimate to question whether the new definition is appropriate or coherent at all or is itself a matter of intellectually dishonest semantics.

Having an issue with how atheism is now defined because you don't like the motives behind it is the same fallacious thinking as being against abortion simply because Margaret Sanger wasn't the best possible person.

The origin of the change absolutely does not matter. The only thing that matters is understanding how the term is commonly, and more importantly - legitimately, used today by people who feel the definition fits their religious stance. Having been a Christian, and having recently listened to Christian radio, I can see where you might have been taught to demonize non theists because we "threaten" your worldview by questioning it, but let me say that the idea of a conspiracy on the part of non theists to "trick" theists via semantics is nothing more than paranoia. You've been told by multiple people on this thread that there's no malevolence involved in the choosing of the term that fits their views, and yet you persist in bringing up the idea that there is, without any evidence at all.

The only intellectual dishonesty I see is among theists who can't abide that my position doesn't have burden of proof, and insists that I adopt a moniker that somehow magically forces me to take one.

You've turned atheism into a property--something that people can have or fail to have--rather than the proposition it used to be.

I didn't "turn" atheism into anything. I merely use the label, as it's commonly used today, to identify my position. I, and other self professed atheists here, are happy to discuss how we define the label. They've told you as much.

If atheism is the lack of belief and theism is the presence of belief, then there's really nothing to discuss except statistics on who believes or fails to believe religious claims.

I find plenty to discuss with theists. If you don't think you have anything to discuss with atheists, then don't reply to us...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In terms of the age of the universe? Sure. In terms of language and how quickly it changes? Not even remotely recent. I've defined "atheism" like I do my entire adult life. Sometimes words change from year to year.

So, would you say that every atheist can have his/her own definition of 'atheism'? Just wondering...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, would you say that every atheist can have his/her own definition of 'atheism'? Just wondering...

Of course. In order for communication to happen, terms have to be understood by all parties in the conversation. Which is why I, and seemingly all the other atheists I come across here, are more than willing to explain our positions beyond the labels we put on them. Which, I have to say, is seemingly more honest than the "You wouldn't understand the definition of god" line that I've gotten from theists on this site when I'm asking them what they mean by "god"...

 

[quatona]

So, would you say that every atheist can have his/her own definition of 'atheism'? Just wondering...

I say: If you want to discuss the views of the person you are talking with, it´s a good idea to adress what they describe to be their views, no matter what label they or you put on it. If you adress that which you understand the label to mean (despite the fact that they have described their views), you are deliberately talking past them. But maybe that´s the purpose?

That´s why I ask "God? What do you mean??" first...

 

[Silmarien]

Having been a Christian, and having recently listened to Christian radio, I can see where you might have been taught to demonize non theists because we "threaten" your worldview by questioning it, but let me say that the idea of a conspiracy on the part of non theists to "trick" theists via semantics is nothing more than paranoia.

I'm a strong agnostic and, more recently, a Christian existentialist. I've identified as agnostic multiple times here, so I am not sure why you would ever assume that my frustration with this definition comes from being taught to demonize atheists. I've spent plenty of time in the non-theist community, so I can assure you that the problems I have with it were caused by dogmatic atheists, not by Christian radio. Plenty of atheists erase agnostics and ridicule naturalistic pantheists, and I am not happy about it.

The only intellectual dishonesty I see is among theists who can't abide that my position doesn't have burden of proof, and insists that I adopt a moniker that somehow magically forces me to take one.

Again, I speak as a strong agnostic here, so yes, I absolutely think that atheism has a burden of proof. It is my position that perhaps does not, though I am happy to support it regardless. Mind you, the question of the existence of God is specifically a philosophical one, so I certainly don't expect atheists to provide scientific evidence or anything so ridiculous. But I would rather they not pretend that they're not saying anything either. I'm certainly saying something with my own position.

I didn't "turn" atheism into anything. I merely use the label, as it's commonly used today, to identify my position. I, and other self professed atheists here, are happy to discuss how we define the label. They've told you as much.

And I am happy to tell you that the label makes you sound like a bunch of five year olds who have never had the occasion to think deeply enough about the question of the existence of God to have an opinion one way or the other.

If you want me to think that atheists have the mentality of children, I mean, sure. I guess that's your choice.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm a strong agnostic and, more recently, a Christian existentialist. I've identified as agnostic multiple times here, so I am not sure why you would ever assume that my frustration with this definition comes from being taught to demonize atheists. I've spent plenty of time in the non-theist community, so I can assure you that the problems I have with it were caused by dogmatic atheists, not by Christian radio. Plenty of atheists erase agnostics and ridicule naturalistic pantheists, and I am not happy about it.



Again, I speak as a strong agnostic here, so yes, I absolutely think that atheism has a burden of proof. It is my position that perhaps does not, though I am happy to support it regardless. Mind you, the question of the existence of God is specifically a philosophical one, so I certainly don't expect atheists to provide scientific evidence or anything so ridiculous. But I would rather they not pretend that they're not saying anything either. I'm certainly saying something with my own position.



And I am happy to tell you that the label makes you sound like a bunch of five year olds who have never had the occasion to think deeply enough about the question of the existence of God to have an opinion one way or the other.

If you want me to think that atheists have the mentality of children, I mean, sure. I guess that's your choice.

Here is my burden of proof to be atheist in regards to the christian god, you know, the one who loves all his creation, is all powerful and one must believe in (or else), according to most forms of christianity. When i look at these claims and analyze the NT with from a scholarly and historical critical eye, i can not reconcile this particular god existing, without partaking in psychological gymnastics. Now, if you tell me about a god who really doesnt care all that much about what happens in the universe, and didnt magically rise from the dead, then i would be agnostic towards that god.

 

[Silmarien]

Here is my burden of proof to be atheist in regards to the christian god, you know, the one who loves all his creation, is all powerful and one must believe in (or else), according to most forms of christianity. When i look at these claims and analyze the NT with from a scholarly and historical critical eye, i can not reconcile this particular god existing, without partaking in psychological gymnastics. Now, if you tell me about a god who really doesnt care all that much about what happens in the universe, and didnt magically rise from the dead, then i would be agnostic towards that god.

My sympathies lie most strongly with the silver thread of universalism running through Eastern Orthodox theology (though I am not permitted to discuss it here, go figure), so we are probably on the same page more often than not. I think there are pretty strong grounds for rejecting omnibenevolence, though I don't think any of them are defeaters.

I don't have a problem with your atheism, though, except that if you're agnostic in regards to theism more generally, it seems odd to identify as an atheist instead! Theism is much bigger than Christianity!

 

[bhsmte]

My sympathies lie most strongly with the silver thread of universalism running through Eastern Orthodox theology (though I am not permitted to discuss it here, go figure), so we are probably on the same page more often than not. I think there are pretty strong grounds for rejecting omnibenevolence, though I don't think any of them are defeaters.

I don't have a problem with your atheism, though, except that if you're agnostic in regards to theism more generally, it seems odd to identify as an atheist instead! Theism is much bigger than Christianity!

As i have said countless times, i am atheist towards specific descriptions of gods who claim to interact, or care about humans. This is a christian site, so labeling myself an atheist towards the general description of this god, seems appropriate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I say: If you want to discuss the views of the person you are talking with, it´s a good idea to adress what they describe to be their views, no matter what label they or you put on it. If you adress that which you understand the label to mean (despite the fact that they have described their views), you are deliberately talking past them. But maybe that´s the purpose?

That´s why I ask "God? What do you mean??" first...

...the problem is that not all atheist are like you, quatona. Some have little to no intention of opening themselves up and explaining 'how' they've constructed their own personal view of atheism ("no matter what label they or I put on it"), or much of anything else for that matter. No, a good number of them are simply presenting themselves to Christians, whether her on CF, or anywhere else ... to raise Cain and push to eradicate Christianity like the pesky idiocy they deem it to be.

Besides, my question to Todd still stands ..................................................

 

[Silmarien]

As i have said countless times, i am atheist towards specific descriptions of gods who claim to interact, or care about humans. This is a christian site, so labeling myself an atheist towards the general description of this god, seems appropriate.

Oh, I do not think I'd ever seen you say that you identified as an atheist here specifically because it's a Christian site. That does make sense, yes. I mean, it complicates things for Aristotelian quasi-deistic pseudo-Christians like me, but it makes sense.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm a strong agnostic and, more recently, a Christian existentialist. I've identified as agnostic multiple times here, so I am not sure why you would ever assume that my frustration with this definition comes from being taught to demonize atheists. I've spent plenty of time in the non-theist community, so I can assure you that the problems I have with it were caused by dogmatic atheists, not by Christian radio. Plenty of atheists erase agnostics and ridicule naturalistic pantheists, and I am not happy about it.

No one has the power to "erase" agnosticism, however you define it. That's nonsense. If you feel like the definition of atheism in common use now interferes with your definition of agnosticism, then when speaking to an atheist, agree on positions first without the use of labels. It's that simple.

And I don't see how the discussion of the definition of the term "atheist" has anything to do with discussing Pantheism. It makes it sounds like you just have a knee-jerk grudge against atheists in general.

Again, I speak as a strong agnostic here, so yes, I absolutely think that atheism has a burden of proof.

So my lack of belief in (nearly) all god claims I've been presented has a burden of proof? It seems ridiculous to me, but perhaps you have a more thorough explanation that will make it clearer.

It is my position that perhaps does not, though I am happy to support it regardless. Mind you, the question of the existence of God is specifically a philosophical one, so I certainly don't expect atheists to provide scientific evidence or anything so ridiculous.

Depending on the definition of "god", the question of said being's existence may not be a purely philosophical question.

But I would rather they not pretend that they're not saying anything either. I'm certainly saying something with my own position.

My atheistic position actually does say something. It says (and I'm surprised I have to keep repeating myself):

I have a lack of belief in (nearly) all god claims I've been presented.

And I am happy to tell you that the label makes you sound like a bunch of five year olds who have never had the occasion to think deeply enough about the question of the existence of God to have an opinion one way or the other.

If you want me to think that atheists have the mentality of children, I mean, sure. I guess that's your choice.

Resorting to childish retorts calling others childish?

Oh the irony...