Justification for strong atheism

[Huh-What?]

...Most weak and strong atheists are also agnostic, although there might be some exceptions where a strong atheist would claim that it is impossible for any god to exist...

-Bri

I beleive, as I consider myself a strong atheist, that it would be impossible to be both agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic claims that one can not know for certain. As an atheist I say the beleif in god is just a superstition. It may be a popular superstition, but humans have had a history of beleiving in many superstitions and this is just the latest.

 

[Thomas]

Humm, nice people go away when I treat them poorly, and are then replaced by nasty people who follow me around and correct my spelling and grammar.

Don't confuse a gentleman with a righteous man.

There is no such word as 'chronical', you probably meant 'chronic'.
See?

Do that in Danish, then I'm more impressed.

When I get angry or emotional my posts usually come out as sort of a freeform prose instead of the nasty and abrasive effect I'm looking for. I try to use that to good effect though.


Pat Robertson spoke
We listened but heard no sense
Dogs barked with meaning

Are you judging the dog on his fur?

 

[Bri]

duplicate post

 

[Bri]

I beleive, as I consider myself a strong atheist, that it would be impossible to be both agnostic and an atheist.

Most atheism references including this one would disagree with you.

Gnosticism/agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, theism/atheism is a statement of belief.

An agnostic is simply someone who holds that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not there are gods.

It is possible to hold that we cannot know for certain whether or not gods exist and still believe that there are probably no gods (an agnostic strong atheist). It is also possible to hold that we cannot know for certain whether or not gods exist and to therefore not have a belief one way or the other as to the existance of gods (an agnostic weak atheist).

So an atheist can be and usually is an agnostic (James Randi is one example). The alternative would be to hold that you know for certain that no gods exist, a position that few atheists hold. Do you disagree?

-Bri

 

[Huh-What?]

I prefer this definition of atheism as do the atheist I know;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods..."

So it is not that I believe there is no god, I know there is no god.

There is no evidence and there has been a couple thousand years to state a case. So given that amount of time to build a case for god and coming up with nothing then I can say I know instead of I believe.

An agnostic is simply someone who holds that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not there are gods.

So it would be impossible for me to be both.

Are there any atheist that feel different?

 

[ReFLeX]

I prefer this definition of atheism as do the atheist I know;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods..."

So it is not that I believe there is no god, I know there is no god.

There is no evidence and there has been a couple thousand years to state a case. So given that amount of time to build a case for god and coming up with nothing then I can say I know instead of I believe.

Actually I feel in a couple thousand years there have been a few laudable efforts to prove a god's existence. We may not find the arguments compelling, but if we assume there isn't a god then consider how good they have to be to convince anyone at all. Of course most people "convinced" were probably already sympathetic to theism but I still think reverence for theists like Descartes and Leibniz is not misplaced. I don't think you can say they have come up with "nothing".

Quote:
An agnostic is simply someone who holds that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not there are gods.

So it would be impossible for me to be both.

Are there any atheist that feel different?

Literally:

A-theism = Without god belief
A-gnostic = Without knowledge

I disagree an agnostic says it is impossible. I hold that an agnostic simply doesn't know; is without knowledge.

...I also happen to prefer "agnostic atheist" to "weak atheist" because the word 'weak' has obvious negative connotations.

 

[Bri]

I prefer this definition of atheism as do the atheist I know;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods..."

That source is also a good one, and completely compatible with the idea that an atheist can be an agnostic (see here for a link into the article you cited where it talks about agnostic atheism).

The definition you gave simply indicates that the atheist doesn't hold a belief that there are gods, which is in no way incompatible with agnosticism (that it is impossible to know for certain whether there are gods). Both a weak atheist and a strong atheist can be agnostic.

So it is not that I believe there is no god, I know there is no god.

Someone was asking me on another thread if there were gnostic atheists, and now I know that there are. Your position is very difficult to defend, and since you have made a positive claim of fact (that you know that there are no gods) the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence.

There is no evidence and there has been a couple thousand years to state a case. So given that amount of time to build a case for god and coming up with nothing then I can say I know instead of I believe.

Unfortunately, lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of your position (if it was, then your lack of evidence that there are no gods would be evidence that there are gods). Furthermore, there is no reason to think that there would be any scientific evidence of a God who is supernatural and therefore exists outside of nature. To prove that there are no gods (as you have claimed) you have to show evidence to support that it would be impossible for any god to exist.

Are there any atheist that feel different?

Yes, most atheists (including James Randi) are agnostic because they cannot provide any evidence that there are no gods. Nearly all weak atheists are agnostic because it would be somewhat contradictory to claim that it is possible to know whether there are gods but to not have a belief as to whether there are gods.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I disagree an agnostic says it is impossible. I hold that an agnostic simply doesn't know; is without knowledge.

According to most sources, an agnostic holds that the existance or nonexistance of deities is unknown. Furthermore, some (but not all) agnostics hold that the existance or nonexistance of deities is unknowable (this is called "strong agnosticism").

Agnosticism is usually more than just saying "I don't currently know" which is simply a statement of ignorance. It is actually a statement that nobody knows (weak agnosticism) and that nobody can ever know (strong agnosticism).

-Bri

 

[Leif Roar]

For instance, I would not expect any evidence for the FSM, yet if anyone asked me, "Do you think there's a giant spagetthi monster that created the world and likes pirates?" I'd laugh at them, "Of course there isn't, don't be an idiot."

This is not a logical argument against FSM, however. In fact, "Nobody believes in the FSM" it is a form of argumentum ad populum, and so is "Theism is equivalent to FSM, which nobody believes in."

That theism is unsupported by evidence just as is FSM might be true, but that says nothing about the actual veracity of neither theism nor FSM.

The FSM might serve as a rethorical counter to an ad populum argument in favour of theism, but it doesn't serve as a logical argument against theism.

Imagine a game-show where the host throws a die, hidden from the audience and then asks the audience to guess what value the dice landed on. By freak chance, a full 90% of the audience believes that it landed on 6, and the remaining 10% guesses at values from 2 through 5. One of the studio crew gets annoyed with the sixians and calls out "Believing that the die landed on six is no different from believing that it landed on one; and nobody believes that!"

The crew member is of course completely correct, but his argument is also completely without relevance to what the value of the die actually is and there's no logical reason for any of the sixians to change their mind.

 

[Huh-What?]

...Your position is very difficult to defend, and since you have made a positive claim of fact (that you know that there are no gods) the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence.

Unfortunately, lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence of your position...

-Bri

I would disagree. The burden of proof is on the existence of god. If, as I said, no evidence can be produced and enough time has elapsed can I not come to a conclusion? Why must it be debated still if those that believe can not produce any evidence?

I would say the same for alien abduction, ESP, witchcraft, voodoo, loch ness monster, bigfoot, remote healing, fortune telling, past lives, reincarnation, or any other superstition.

Would you say that alien abduction, ESP, witchcraft, voodoo, loch ness monster, bigfoot, remote healing, fortune telling, past lives, or reincarnation can not be known to be false regardless of the lack evidence presented? Since none of these things have merit can I not say “I know there is no such thing as alien abduction, ESP, witchcraft, voodoo, loch ness monster, bigfoot, remote healing, fortune telling, past lives, or reincarnation?” Or at least until some credible evidence has surfaced?

I feel I am justified in saying “I know” in these cases. So why not hold the existence of god to the same conclusion if there is no evidence?

 

[Bri]

I would disagree. The burden of proof is on the existence of god.

I respectfully disagree. The burden of proof is on any positive statement of fact. This includes both the statement "God exists" and the statement "no gods exist."

If, as I said, no evidence can be produced and enough time has elapsed can I not come to a conclusion? Why must it be debated still if those that believe can not produce any evidence?

So, after thousands of years nobody has been able to provide evidence that no gods exist. Does that mean that gods must exist? I don't think so, and neither do you. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that there would be any evidence for the existance of God.

Would you say that alien abduction, ESP, witchcraft, voodoo, loch ness monster, bigfoot, remote healing, fortune telling, past lives, or reincarnation can not be known to be false regardless of the lack evidence presented?

Specific claims can be tested and disproved, but it would be very difficult to disprove ESP, witchcraft, voodoo, loch ness monster, bigfoot, remote healing, fortune telling, past lives, or reincarnation beyond a shadow of a doubt. A skeptic can believe that those things don't exist because of a lack of evidence where evidence would be expected, but even a skeptic must admit that there is a possibility (however slight) that those things exist. The skeptic simply places the burden of proof where it belongs, and invites those whose claim it as a fact to provide the evidence. One could say "without evidence, there is no reason to believe that God exists" or even "without evidence, there is no reason to believe that no gods can possibly exist." This is a classic agnostic approach.

Since none of these things have merit can I not say “I know there is no such thing as alien abduction, ESP, witchcraft, voodoo, loch ness monster, bigfoot, remote healing, fortune telling, past lives, or reincarnation?”

No. But you can say "I believe there is no such thing..."

Or at least until some credible evidence has surfaced?

Closer. You can accurately say that you don't believe that they exist until some credible evidence has surfaced. But to claim for a fact that they don't exist (or even to claim that it's possible to know for a fact that they don't exist) would simply be a claim for which you cannot provide evidence.

I feel I am justified in saying “I know” in these cases. So why not hold the existence of god to the same conclusion if there is no evidence?

But you don't know it at all. To make a claim that you know something is a statement of fact that requires evidence which you cannot provide in the case of God, and which you would be hard-pressed to provide in other cases.

-Bri

 

[bpesta22]

Ok, so is it rational to say/believe: No gods exist.

If it's not, is it rational to say/believe: No pink unicorns exist.

Is it rational to say / believe: ESP does not exist?

And for all three beliefs, if new evidence would emerge that suggests otherwise, then one's nonbelief would appropriately be re-examined.

It just seems to me like when it's god that you claim not to believe in, all the sudden you need some absurd prove-it-with-certainty-type "evidence" or your beliefs are "religious".

However, if it's anything else that we don't believe in (for which we have no evidence, etc), people take a pass on requiring the "with certainty" part.

 

[Beleth]

So it is not that I believe there is no god, I know there is no god.

There is no evidence and there has been a couple thousand years to state a case.

What would evidence of God look like?

Put another way, what would convince you that there was a God?

 

[Beleth]

Ok, so is it rational to say/believe: No gods exist.

If it's not, is it rational to say/believe: No pink unicorns exist.

Is it rational to say / believe: ESP does not exist?

And for all three beliefs, if new evidence would emerge that suggests otherwise, then one's nonbelief would appropriately be re-examined.

To expand on what I just posted in response to Huh-What:

All three of those statements are the end state of a logical process. What we need to do is go back and figure out the root cause of those statements.

Let's pick on the "no pink unicorns" one.
I believe no pink unicorns exist.
Why do I believe that? Because I have never been exposed to any evidence that they exist.
What would constitute evidence of a pink unicorn? For me, it would be visual and tactile sensory input corresponding to the characteristics of a pink unicorn: a four-legged mammal, between the size of a small goat and a large horse, with naturally pink fur and a single straight horn growing naturally out of its forehead.

I have very clear, concise, objective expectations when it comes to evidence confirming contact with a pink unicorn.

Same with ESP. To me, evidence of ESP would be someone passing a carefully designed test, probably involving a safe deposit box.

But what about God?
What constitutes evidence of God?

Most people balk at this question, or they come back with an answer that they can be easily talked out of. "But a magician could do that" or "but that could happen by random chance" are good counterarguments to a lot of things that people consider evidence.

It's a hard question to answer.
But without coming up with an answer to it, I would say no, it is not rational to say / believe "no gods exist".

 

[bpesta22]

Beleth.

What if the pink unicorn were invisible, or not one to be bothered with skeptical humans who demand he make an appearance. How then would you discount his existence?

The standard I have re god is: Show me evidence of anything non material, or show me that god can influence things (like by answering prayers or controlling the weather).

Failing that, show me that god is needed logically to explain anything (our existence or morality or boobies).

If there is a god and he has absolutely no discernable effect on existence, what good is he?

Why posit a god that you have to so strip of specific properties (because there's no evidence for the property, or because properties self contradict; like all knowing and all loving and all powerful) that the god becomes totally empty as a viable explanation for anything. I apologize for the crappy writing in the last paragraph, but hopefully if you parse it a bit, it will make sense.

B

 

[Leif Roar]

The standard I have re god is: Show me evidence of anything non material, or show me that god can influence things (like by answering prayers or controlling the weather).

Failing that, show me that god is needed logically to explain anything (our existence or morality or boobies).

What's important here is that this is your standard. There's nothing wrong with starting with the assumption there is no god, and demanding evidence to the contrary before you'll forego that assumption. However, the opposite view -- starting with the assumption there is a god, and demanding evidence to the contrary before one will forego that assumption -- is no less correct or rational.

I'm sure you'll agree that logic forms a necessary componet of any rational or reasonable system of thought. As any logical system must ultimately be based on a set of axioms that can not be deduced by logic, it follows that any rational system of thought must be based on a set of underlying premises that are not themselves found through rational thinking.

In other words: That a theist's worldview is based on unproveable assumptions does not make that worldview irrational or unreasonable. All worldviews are based on unproveable assumptions.

(This is not saying that no worldview is irrational. A worldview will still be irrational if it is internally inconsistent, or is inconsistent with observed reality[*].

[*] Ignoring solipsism for the sake of brevity and mental health.)

(Edited to fix tags.)

 

[Bri]

Ok, so is it rational to say/believe: No gods exist.

Yes, it is rational to state a belief that no gods exist, assuming you aren't stating that belief as a fact. Same with pink unicorns and ESP.

The crux of the matter is whether you state your belief as a fact or an opinion. Opinions don't require proof (only valid reasons). In fact, the very definition of an opinion implies a belief for which there is no definitive proof.

Any statement of fact (i.e. a belief that is not simply an opinion) requires evidence to support it. Stating a belief that there are no gods as a fact is particularly problematic because we wouldn't necessarily expect there to be evidence if a god exists, therefore lack of evidence for a god isn't evidence against all gods.

-Bri

 

[bpesta22]

thanks for everyone's help so far.

Just curious then-- who here is a strong atheist. In other words, who here believes gods don't exist, and thinks that belief is perfectly rational (i.e., does not rest on faith).

 

[Bri]

thanks for everyone's help so far.

Just curious then-- who here is a strong atheist. In other words, who here believes gods don't exist, and thinks that belief is perfectly rational (i.e., does not rest on faith).

You're making an assumption that belief in something based on faith is irrational. It's not. There is very little we know for certain. The rest we believe based on varying degrees of faith. These beliefs are sometimes called "opinions" and they are not always irrational. An opinion is only irrational if we have irrational reasons (or no reasons) for believing it.

-Bri

 

[bpesta22]

Bri, I think beliefs can be based on probability and the rules of explanation via the scientific method. To me, faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It's is not the same type of faith that one has in, say, the scientific method (at least imo).

Don't want to mischaracterize you, but you seem to think belief must be "with certainty" for it to be rational only / not faith based?

Still, I'd argue there are qualitative, important differences between the faith a scientist has in his method versus the faith a theist has in his god.