There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[2PhiloVoid]

IMO, a common theme with many in philosophy, is they try too hard and think they are smarter than they actually are.

...I'm pretty sure I'm not all that smart, all things considered. If I was I'd probably be publishing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

At least it is actual knowledge instead of a product of philosophy. Perhaps people would pay more attention to the esoteric stuff coming from philosophy if people defending it didn't pretend that an approach working was some sort of pejorative.

Out of the following four fields, which one does not belong to Philosophy:

Epistemology, Metaphysics, Ethics/Values (Axiology), or Logic?​

And in doing science, which ones of the four mentioned above do you think you use?

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Silmarien]

Or... now stay with me here... it could be the intellectually honest position to take when you don't have evidence that X is true, and you don't have evidence that X isn't true...

Indeed, I am very sympathetic to the agnostic position. I do not see what is intellectually honest about pretending that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing.

I also do not know why I have to justify the theistic part of my agnostic theism, and yet an agnostic atheist gets to conflate the two positions.

Personally, what I find dishonest is the insistence on shoehorning someone into a definition they wouldn't agree with for the sole purpose of avoiding the burden of proof.

In that case, perhaps you should educate your fellow atheists. I have been accused around here of having an overly ephereal concept of God simply to avoid making verifiable claims, so shoehorning is certainly not one sided. I get tired of having to coddle atheists' sensibilities when they have no real interest of returning the favor.

Yes, I lack belief. I don't believe any god propositions that have been proposed to me, perhaps barring volcano gods or some such. But I am not saying that I believe no gods exist, unless someone wants to posit a god that's a married bachelor. That god, I will go on record saying, does not exist.

You are agnostic towards volcano gods? That is certainly an interesting twist.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Indeed, I am very sympathetic to the agnostic position. I do not see what is intellectually honest about pretending that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing.

I don't know any atheists that equate the two. My view follows the graphic in my signature. Most, if not all, the atheists I see here seemingly follow it as well.

I also do not know why I have to justify the theistic part of my agnostic theism, and yet an agnostic atheist gets to conflate the two positions.

You mean as in "Why do you believe in a god?" Seems like a legitimate question, especially in this particular forum.

The only difference is that the answer to "Why do you believe in a god?" seems like it could have a multitude of answers, while "Why do you not believe in a god?" usually ends up being "Because I haven't been convinced by any theistic propositions."

In that case, perhaps you should educate your fellow atheists. I have been accused around here of having an overly ephereal concept of God simply to avoid making verifiable claims, so shoehorning is certainly not one sided. I get tired of having to coddle atheists' sensibilities when they have no real interest of returning the favor.

Ok, all you atheists stop picking on Silmarien.

You are agnostic towards volcano gods? That is certainly an interesting twist.

No, I'm gnostic towards volcano gods. Because if someone points to a volcano and says "That volcano is my god", then I have evidence that it exists. Now, if that god has other properties...

 

[Silmarien]

You mean as in "Why do you believe in a god?" Seems like a legitimate question, especially in this particular forum.

The only difference is that the answer to "Why do you believe in a god?" seems like it could have a multitude of answers, while "Why do you not believe in a god?" usually ends up being "Because I haven't been convinced by any theistic propositions."

So it is appropriate to ask why someone might accept theism but inappropriate to ask why they might not? There are actually some interesting arguments for atheism out there--Schellenberg's divine hiddenness, for one, so I think you do atheism a disservice by insisting that it all amounts to the same thing and has nothing of any real interest to say. You're dipping straight into obscurantism with this sort of reasoning.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So it is appropriate to ask why someone might accept theism but inappropriate to ask why they might not?

Of course it's appropriate, but like I said, the answer should always amount to "I'm not convinced by any theistic argument".

There are actually some interesting arguments for atheism out there--Schellenberg's divine hiddenness, for one, so I think you do atheism a disservice by insisting that it all amounts to the same thing and has nothing of any real interest to say. You're dipping straight into obscurantism with this sort of reasoning.

Are you still under the assumption that atheism means "believes no gods exist" even after I've mentioned that I don't work under that definition? You still seem to want to insist I take that position even though I don't (see the graphic in my signature for what I'm working under). If so, it seems to me that you're the one being intellectually dishonest.

As for having nothing of real interest to say... we're in the Christian Apologetics forum. The interesting things should be coming from those that claim a god exists. If you're looking for interesting things from people who believe no gods exist, then perhaps there should be a "Gnostic Atheist" forum. Although I don't know anyone who would be posting there...

 

[Silmarien]

Of course it's appropriate, but like I said, the answer should always amount to "I'm not convinced by any theistic argument".

I suppose that's fair. I am unconvinced by atheistic arguments, after all.

Are you still under the assumption that atheism means "believes no gods exist" even after I've mentioned that I don't work under that definition? You still seem to want to insist I take that position even though I don't (see the graphic in my signature for what I'm working under). If so, it seems to me that you're the one being intellectually dishonest.

I didn't even define atheism in my post, so I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that I'm operating under a different definition and being intellectually dishonest. Or why you think I want you to take any position at all--I was specifically talking about what other atheists have to say. If you are not interested in contributing to the debate between theism and atheism, that is certainly your choice.

Your graphic illustrates the distinction between beliefs and knowledge claims--a distinction I most certainly make as well. It doesn't really define atheism, unless you somehow think that "does not believe any god exists" is not the logical equivalent of "believes that no god exists." This is Logic 101 and has nothing to do with knowledge claims: ~(P v Q) = ~P ^ ~Q

As for having nothing of real interest to say... we're in the Christian Apologetics forum. The interesting things should be coming from those that claim a god exists. If you're looking for interesting things from people who believe no gods exist, then perhaps there should be a "Gnostic Atheist" forum. Although I don't know anyone who would be posting there...

That isn't what gnostic atheism is. Gnostic atheism incorporates an epistemological claim to knowing (or at least having strong reasons to claim) that God does not exist; stating outright that you do not believe in the existence of God does not by itself make you a gnostic atheist. Nor does explaining your reasoning. It just makes you an atheist.

Though I have, for the record, come across a genuine gnostic atheist here at least once. It was pretty wild.

 

[quatona]

I really do not understand this idea that atheism is a "lack of belief."

I don´t find it hard to understand that someone just lacks belief in something. That the word "atheism" in its most common usage denotes just that (a lack of belief in deities) shouldn´t be any problem.
The question is: Do you want to address the person you are talking to, or would you prefer to talk to someone who isn´t there but matches your definition of "atheisT"?

It seems like an intellectually dishonest attempt to win a debate by refusing to engage at all.

On behalf of my atheism, I wouldn´t even begin a debate, lest expect to win it. So if you seek a debate you would have to look for someone who makes a positive claim.

I have always thought it best to distinguish between atheism and non-theism as positions for the sake of clarity--by watering down the definition of "atheism," you're really just making the conversation more difficult.

In my use of terms, "non-theist" and "atheist" are synonyms. So if you have this problem with the term "atheist", feel free to think of me as a non-theist. Problem solved.

And making atheists look too uninformed to have any opinion at all, frankly.

Being an atheist doesn´t keep me from having a lot of opinions on a lot of things, thank you.

 

[Silmarien]

I don´t find it hard to understand that someone just lacks belief in something. That the word "atheism" in its most common usage denotes just that (a lack of belief in deities) shouldn´t be any problem.

That's not the common or historical usage of the word "atheism," though. It is really quite a new definition. I would find it very hard to understand how someone who has heard of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny simply lacks a belief that such entities exist; usually you only lack a belief about things you haven't yet considered.

The question is: Do you want to address the person you are talking to, or would you prefer to talk to someone who isn´t there but matches your definition of "atheisT"?

In all honesty, no, I have no desire whatsoever to discuss religion with people who define atheism as a lack of belief.

 

[quatona]

That's not the common or historical usage of the word "atheism," though. It is really quite a new definition.

It´s the definition most of those who you are talking to use. So you can pick your choices: Either address the stances of the persons you are talking to, or have a semantics discussions in order to avoid doing so.

I would find it very hard to understand how someone who has heard of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny simply lacks a belief that such entities exist;

Ok, you find it hard to understand. Which part do you need explained?

In all honesty, no, I have no desire to discuss religion with people who define atheism as a lack of belief. There is really no point.

Well, this is the Christian Apologetics forum. It´s for Christians to make a case for their beliefs. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to make a case for your belief other than by attacking a hypothetical competing positive claim tells volums.

Whatever. If you need someone claiming "gods do not exist" in order to be able to defend your faith, you will have a hard time finding one. It´s quite interesting, though, that your apologetics lose their power when you stand in front of someone who just lacks belief in gods. One would expect that the power of arguments for something do not depend on the person you are talking to.

Imo, you can tackle atheism (in whatever definition you prefer) until the cows come home - that makes no case whatsoever for the Christian beliefs.

 

[Silmarien]

It´s the definition most of those who you are talking to use. So you can pick your choices: Either address the stances of the persons you are talking to, or have a semantics discussions in order to avoid doing so.

Given that the very definition is a matter of slippery semantics, I'm quite happy discussing that fact rather than letting people redefine atheism as agnosticism for rhetorical value, thank you.

Ok, you find it hard to understand. Which part do you need explained?

The part where anyone would even think to describe their stance in such terms.

Well, this is the Christian Apologetics forum. It´s for Christians to make a case for their beliefs. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to make a case for your belief other than by attacking a hypothetical competing positive claim tells volums.

Whatever. If you need someone claiming "gods do not exist" in order to be able to defend your faith, you will have a hard time finding one. It´s quite interesting, though, that your apologetics lose their power when you stand in front of someone who just lacks belief in gods. One would expect that the power of arguments for something do not depend on the person you are talking to.

Imo, you can tackle atheism (in whatever definition you prefer) until the cows come home - that makes no case whatsoever for the Christian beliefs.

I'm a strong agnostic, though a mystically inclined one who finds the case for theism much better than the case against it. I don't speak as an apologist here, but as an agnostic who is tired of seeing that position coopted and erased by atheists.

 

[Dirk1540]

I would find it very hard to understand how someone who has heard of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny simply lacks a belief that such entities exist; usually you only lack a belief about things you haven't yet considered.

Great point. And when a child becomes too old to 'Believe' in Santa Claus it runs hand in hand with 'Knowledge' claims...the more mature knowledge that it is ridiculous that in 1 night Santa would have time to enter billions of houses and spread out presents, the knowledge that nobody they know has ever seen him, even friends who deceitfully stay up late, etc. So they have knowledge based reasons to dump their belief. And I also remain fuzzy on the desire to want to avoid the word agnostic as if it's Kryptonite?? I know some proud agnostics.

It´s the definition most of those who you are talking to use. So you can pick your choices: Either address the stances of the persons you are talking to, or have a semantics discussions in order to avoid doing so.

Are you still under the assumption that atheism means "believes no gods exist" even after I've mentioned that I don't work under that definition?

Ok as an admitted rookie to this battle between the semantics of 'Atheism', from me just reading in here let me ask this...it seems that it has been pointed out several times now that this modified definition of 'Atheism' originated by Anthony Flew in the 1970s, and that THIS was in fact the beginning of the 'Semantics Trickery.' So let me simply ask this, do atheists in here dispute that? Do atheists in here claim that their current definition was held by people in 1965?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I suppose that's fair. I am unconvinced by atheistic arguments, after all.

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...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ok as an admitted rookie to this battle between the semantics of 'Atheism', from me just reading in here let me ask this...it seems that it has been pointed out several times now that this modified definition of 'Atheism' originated by Anthony Flew in the 1970s, and that THIS was in fact the beginning of the 'Semantics Trickery.'

The only "semantics trickery" I see resides in many apologetic arguments I come across. Atheism is just a rejection of theistic claims. What trickery is involved in that?

So let me simply ask this, do atheists in here dispute that? Do atheists in here claim that their current definition was held by people in 1965?

1. Why should I care how people used language in 1965?
2. Do you believe all words must retain the meanings they had in 1965?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The more I study Philosophy, the more I'm annoyed by most of its practitioners. They're like people who fancy themselves experts in music theory, and then when they pick up an instrument are absolutely horrible at it.

Philosophy can be a very powerful tool in helping to navigate your life, but at the point at which you can't see the forest for the trees, well...

...but why is it that whenever I converse with an atheist, I feel like I'm told I have to hit a moving target while blindfolded?

 

[Dirk1540]

1. Why should I care how people used language in 1965?
2. Do you believe all words must retain the meanings they had in 1965?

I said that the claim is that Anthony Flew reinvented the word in the 1970s. So I asked if the word did indeed have a different meaning in 1965. I would say that it's pretty straight forward where I'm going with this.

And I would actually assume that when I'm told a story from 1965 that the words I don't think that's true meant the same thing, and that the words I think that's true meant the same thing, and that the words I don't know either way meant the same thing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I said that the claim is that Anthony Flew reinvented the word in the 1970s. So I asked if the word did indeed have a different meaning in 1965. I would say that it's pretty straight forward where I'm going with this.

Again, why should I or anyone else care what atheism meant in 1965? Unless you believe that words should never change meaning, then the only thing that matters is how the word is used now.

And I would actually assume that when I'm told a story from 1965 that the words I don't think that's true meant the same thing, and that the words I think that's true meant the same thing, and that the words I don't know either way meant the same thing.

The point is, again, who cares? If you have an issue with the way the word is used now, let’s have it.

 

[quatona]

Given that the very definition is a matter of slippery semantics, I'm quite happy discussing that fact rather than letting people redefine atheism as agnosticism for rhetorical value, thank you.

So you are interested in discussing labels rather than the position of the person you are talking to. Ok.

The part where anyone would even think to describe their stance in such terms.

Well, people try their best to explain it to you.

I'm a strong agnostic, though a mystically inclined one who finds the case for theism much better than the case against it. I don't speak as an apologist here, but as an agnostic who is tired of seeing that position coopted and erased by atheists.

My agnosticism and my lack of belief in gods can coexist quite fine. So nothing´s being coopted or erased.

 

[quatona]

Ok as an admitted rookie to this battle between the semantics of 'Atheism', from me just reading in here let me ask this...it seems that it has been pointed out several times now that this modified definition of 'Atheism' originated by Anthony Flew in the 1970s, and that THIS was in fact the beginning of the 'Semantics Trickery.' So let me simply ask this, do atheists in here dispute that? Do atheists in here claim that their current definition was held by people in 1965?

Words change their meaning all the time.
Since we aren´t talking in 1965, the meaning of the word in 1965 is irrelevant. Couple of hundreds of years the term "atheist" had yet another meaning.

Since everyone is open here about the way they use the word, and about their actual positions, there is no trickery involved. Again, you can pick your choices: You either address the positions of the people you are talking to, or you can start discussing semantics in order to avoid addressing the positions people hold.

As far as I am concerned, I have no emotional inclination to the label "atheist". "Non-theist" would be fine with me, too. It almost seems like you think changing the label would change my stance. Even if you called it "banana milkshake", it would still remain the same.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I really do not understand this idea that atheism is a "lack of belief."

You really do, as you "lack belief" in all kinds of things, which you can't actually disprove.
And the reason for your "lack of belief", is simply that you have no rational, verifiable, evidence in support of those claims - so you don't believe them.

Here are some examples: bigfoot, alien abductions, reptilian aliens, Lord Xenu the intergalactic emperor, the matrix,...

You can't disprove any of these things. You can't show any of them to not be real. Because of this, you can't actualy make the factual claim that they are NOT real - since you can't properly support that assertion either. But you most definatly will not accept the claims that they ARE real, right?

You see? You "lack belief" in LOADS of things that you can't actually show to be false or non-existant.

I lack belief in your particular religion for the exact same reason and in the exact same way.

It seems like an intellectually dishonest attempt to win a debate by refusing to engage at all

Nope.

There's nothing intellectually dishonest at pointing out that someone who makes a claim has failed to meet his burden of proof for that particular claim.

Why would you accept such a claim?

I have always thought it best to distinguish between atheism and non-theism as positions for the sake of clarity--by watering down the definition of "atheism," you're really just making the conversation more difficult.

I'ld say it becomes simpler.
You are either a theist or an atheist.
ie, you either believe a god exists or you do not.

As an atheist, I do not. What could be more simpler?

There's really nothing wrong with saying you don't believe!

I agree, but then why are you complaining about the concept of "not believing"?