Vincent Bugliosi Doubts Atheists & Theists

[slackadaisical]

Straw man arguments

I heard Mr. Bugliosi on the radio the other day and was appalled at how he described atheists and atheism. He took some of the dumber arguments against the existence of gods, then represented them as what all atheists use as justification for not believing. He then proceeded to point out the dumbness of the dumb arguments.

Actually, though, there is no argument against atheism, other than proof of the existence of at least one god. I like to explain it like this: Atheism is NOT "Athe" - "ism", it is "A" - "theism". It is not a set of beliefs, as the "ism" implies. There are smart and stupid atheists, liberal and conservative atheists, moral (from a christian viewpoint) and immoral atheists. Some are generous, others are selfish; in other words, atheists are humans, with nearly every category of humanity represented.

Being an atheist means you do not accept the existence of gods. It is not up to the atheist to prove or explain his position; it is up to the believer in gods to prove his. Carl Sagan once said something like, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The existence of invisible spirit beings residing in the sky and controlling or affecting our lives and the very forces of nature is the extraordinary claim, not the non-belief of their existence.

If, in some improbable future, someone were to prove the existence of one or more gods, then atheists would no longer be "God deniers," they would be idiots. As far as I am concerned, that future is highly unlikely.

 

[Shrike]

I heard Mr. Bugliosi on the radio the other day and was appalled at how he described atheists and atheism. He took some of the dumber arguments against the existence of gods, then represented them as what all atheists use as justification for not believing. He then proceeded to point out the dumbness of the dumb arguments.

Actually, though, there is no argument against atheism, other than proof of the existence of at least one god. I like to explain it like this: Atheism is NOT "Athe" - "ism", it is "A" - "theism". It is not a set of beliefs, as the "ism" implies. There are smart and stupid atheists, liberal and conservative atheists, moral (from a christian viewpoint) and immoral atheists. Some are generous, others are selfish; in other words, atheists are humans, with nearly every category of humanity represented.

Being an atheist means you do not accept the existence of gods. It is not up to the atheist to prove or explain his position; it is up to the believer in gods to prove his. Carl Sagan once said something like, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The existence of invisible spirit beings residing in the sky and controlling or affecting our lives and the very forces of nature is the extraordinary claim, not the non-belief of their existence.

Well said. Welcome to the forum!

If, in some improbable future, someone were to prove the existence of one or more gods, then atheists would no longer be "God deniers," they would be idiots. As far as I am concerned, that future is highly unlikely.

Atheists would be idiots in your hypothetical when they kept insisting there is no god(s), despite the prove.
If somebody could prove their god(s) to me, I'd no longer be an atheist.

 

[Resume]

Kind of agree, but he also thinks a bit too highly of himself.

He's like William Lane Craig in this regard; they both seem to consider their arguments superior to those of the "new" atheists. They might be overselling themselves.

 

[12AX7]

I heard Mr. Bugliosi on the radio the other day and was appalled at how he described atheists and atheism. He took some of the dumber arguments against the existence of gods, then represented them as what all atheists use as justification for not believing. He then proceeded to point out the dumbness of the dumb arguments.

Actually, though, there is no argument against atheism, other than proof of the existence of at least one god. I like to explain it like this: Atheism is NOT "Athe" - "ism", it is "A" - "theism". It is not a set of beliefs, as the "ism" implies. There are smart and stupid atheists, liberal and conservative atheists, moral (from a christian viewpoint) and immoral atheists. Some are generous, others are selfish; in other words, atheists are humans, with nearly every category of humanity represented.

Being an atheist means you do not accept the existence of gods. It is not up to the atheist to prove or explain his position; it is up to the believer in gods to prove his. Carl Sagan once said something like, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The existence of invisible spirit beings residing in the sky and controlling or affecting our lives and the very forces of nature is the extraordinary claim, not the non-belief of their existence.

If, in some improbable future, someone were to prove the existence of one or more gods, then atheists would no longer be "God deniers," they would be idiots. As far as I am concerned, that future is highly unlikely.

Good post!

 

[MuDPhuD]

Vincent Bugliosi wrote an article recently for the Huffington Post.

Here's what caught my attention:




I could be wrong, doesn't it seem like Bugliosi is misrepresenting atheists here?

"Certain of evolution (that bacteria actually evolved into a Mozart)..."
He appears to be an evolution denier, as well as misrepresenting atheism.

 

[hgc]

"Certain of evolution (that bacteria actually evolved into a Mozart)..."
He appears to be an evolution denier, as well as misrepresenting atheism.

Yeah, big red flag. Bugliosi is a proven smart guy, but he seems befuddled by the topic of atheism. I think one of those phony atheists, like S.E. Cupp, has put a bug in his ear about those mean and nasty "new" atheists, and he rushed off this article without seriously looking into it.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, big red flag. Bugliosi is a proven smart guy, but he seems befuddled by the topic of atheism. I think one of those phony atheists, like S.E. Cupp, has put a bug in his ear about those mean and nasty "new" atheists, and he rushed off this article without seriously looking into it.

I've been an admirer of Bugliosi for many, many years. Within his domain, he's a highly competent critical thinker and handles himself very well. He serves as a very good example of a methodical intellectual who has his own serious blind-spots beyond his domain of application. This certainly goes for many, if not all self-ascribed skeptics here, even though I happen to find Vincent's own bias in this context to be notably dumb.

 

[Jono]

If Mr. Bugliosi would bother to read through some of the threads on this forum he'd witness a more mature and well-thought-out process. (at least, in some...)

I'm going to ask him to join.