Arguing Against Atheism is Silly

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Gods often have special powers that may include the ability to influence the thoughts of babies in a manner we cannot comprehend.

Unless one 100% rules out their existence then one cannot 100% rule out their sneaky baby mind tricks


Saying babies are atheists presupposes that there are no gods.

...or that babies are simply incapable of the abstract reasoning skills needed to consider concepts like the existence or non-existence of gods.

Remember: when we're talking about babies, we're talking about people who don't necessarily even realize that their limbs belong to them, or that don't realize that objects that aren't in their immediate field of view continue to exist somewhere else.

OTOH, a god could be capable of feeding us stimuli "brain-in-a-vat" style. That baby might not be an atheist because it doesn't exist at all!

They tend to express some form of philosophical doubt which precludes them from "believeing gods don't exist".

Said philosophical doubt should also apply to the beliefs of

Who is this "they" you're referring to?

 

[1137]

There's nothing to arguing against.

Except for the position that no gods are more likely than one or more. Then there's the issue that the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, so much so that the terms tend to go together, and naturalism sure makes a bunch of claims that can be debated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the spirit of compromise, would you agree that even though we are implicit atheists regarding gods we've never considered, we are also explicit atheists regarding the gods we have?

No, I can't agree to that. I've come across plenty of god-concepts that were explained to me so vaguely or incoherently that I couldn't evaluate them as true or false.

I've also run into many god-concepts that seem to be unfalsifiable by design. This means that anyone is utterly unjustified in believing them, but at the same time, it means I have no rational way to conclude that they necessarily don't exist.

Don't wanna derail from my main argument that weak (explicit) atheists have taken a position.

I'm not sure why you need to argue that. Practically, any conscious human being has taken plenty of positions.

An explicit weak atheist's position is "I'm not convinced"... but this a position about arguments for gods, not about the gods themselves.

The bottom line: it seems reasonable to me that when we're confronted with bad arguments, we should recognize that even correct conclusions can be argued for badly, and reserve judgement. The mere fact that someone has given me an irrational argument for their god doesn't necessarily mean that their god doesn't exist; it just means that we don't have reason to accept that their god exists until we get some other reason.

 

[Cobol]

It’s logic that wins arguments. The religious experience necessarily and inviolately remains an entirely subjective experience.

 

[Augustus]

So let me change the statement to say It silly to argue against atheism unless you can bring scientific evidence a god's existence to the table.

Whether it is silly or not depends on the atheist they are arguing with.

 

[Falvlun]

No, I can't agree to that. I've come across plenty of god-concepts that were explained to me so vaguely or incoherently that I couldn't evaluate them as true or false.

I don't think this really matters, unless you claim that you have never considered any god concept. Do you believe that you are not an explicit atheist (in regards to any god concept)? I think that would be a hard thing to argue.

I've also run into many god-concepts that seem to be unfalsifiable by design. This means that anyone is utterly unjustified in believing them, but at the same time, it means I have no rational way to conclude that they necessarily don't exist.

This has no bearing on whether your atheism is explicit or not. If you state that you lack belief in a god (for whatever reason), that makes your atheism explicit.

I'm not sure why you need to argue that. Practically, any conscious human being has taken plenty of positions.

Because at least 2 people in this thread claimed that their weak atheism was positionless, which I disagreed with.

An explicit weak atheist's position is "I'm not convinced"... but this a position about arguments for gods, not about the gods themselves.

That's the position I'm talking about.

The bottom line: it seems reasonable to me that when we're confronted with bad arguments, we should recognize that even correct conclusions can be argued for badly, and reserve judgement. The mere fact that someone has given me an irrational argument for their god doesn't necessarily mean that their god doesn't exist; it just means that we don't have reason to accept that their god exists until we get some other reason.

I agree. I am not arguing that the position is wrong or irrational; I am arguing that it is, in fact, a position.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Except for the position that no gods are more likely than one or more. Then there's the issue that the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, so much so that the terms tend to go together, and naturalism sure makes a bunch of claims that can be debated.

I've already talked in the other thread about likeliness not being a factor in my atheism, but I think if we want to get specific, the majority of atheists aren't naturalists when taking into consideration schools of Buddhism, Taoism, Scientology, and other souls-but-no-gods religions worldwide.
Here on this forum I'd agree though.

 

[Augustus]

OTOH, a god could be capable of feeding us stimuli "brain-in-a-vat" style. That baby might not be an atheist because it doesn't exist at all!

Atheism might be a result of a teenage god pressing X,X down, left, Y,A while holding RT. If you get the timing of pressing RT slightly wrong though the baby executes a spinning bird kick instead.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think this really matters, unless you claim that you have never considered any god concept. Do you believe that you are not an explicit atheist (in regards to any god concept)? I think that would be a hard thing to argue.

An atheist is an atheist with respect to all god-concepts, not just "any".

This has no bearing on whether your atheism is explicit or not. If you state that you lack belief in a god (for whatever reason), that makes your atheism explicit.

It has a bearing on whether an explicit atheist can be a weak atheist, which is what I thought you were arguing against.

Because at least 2 people in this thread claimed that their weak atheism was positionless, which I disagreed with.

Positionless with respect to the existence or non-existence of gods, not necessarily with respect to anything else.

That's the position I'm talking about.

What does taking a position about arguments for gods have to do with positions about the gods themselves?

I agree. I am not arguing that the position is wrong or irrational; I am arguing that it is, in fact, a position.

And I'm saying that your argument implies that a person can't be an explicit atheist without falsifying the unfalsifiable... IOW, you're implying that all explicit atheists are necessarily irrational.

 

[1137]

I know of plenty of arguments for theism (poor ones, but still arguments). Is that what you mean by arguments against atheism, or are you talking about something else?

We have to remember that not being convinced by an argument doesn't make it poor.

Not really, atheism is an inherently arrogant position in the first place. But. before someone gets upset, let me explain. The atheist no more knows there is no god any more than the average devotee knows there is. They're both simply guessing...

The atheist presumes that since they aren't aware of any spiritual being they will just pretend they're not there. The follow of faith doesn't know any better, but they're willing to pretend just in case they **** that guy off.

This absurdly reduces all believers to fearful sheep.

If someone lacked belief that murder was wrong, wouldn't you try to convince them that it is?

Not having a belief can have just as many consequences as having one.

This is a fantastic analogy! Definitely using it.

Well the only thing you could argue about would be god, and no god has been proven so, yes you can't argue with an atheist until you have evidence for god.

The problem here is that atheists tend to be naturalists, and so they refuse to accept anything but strict empirical evidence.

Can you really fault someone for being defensive after being told that they suck?

It's a catch 22. Atheists wouldn't be treated so poorly if people like Dawkins and hitchens hadn't started a religion of calling religious people retards.

Everybody are implicit atheists from conception. Positionless. Then you can become a theist, a weak explicit atheist who understands the two positions but consciously hasn't taken sides, or become a strong atheist.

Atheism is certainly a position, one based on both logical argumentation and empirical observation. It requires the consideration of and rejection of an abstract, logical potion, which at the very least requires abstract thinking, itself not developing until 7-12 years of age.

 

[Willamena]

An atheist is an atheist with respect to all god-concepts, not just "any".

Well, that makes us all theists, then. Who would deny that god-concepts exist?

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism is certainly a position, one based on both logical argumentation and empirical observation. It requires the consideration of and rejection of an abstract, logical potion, which at the very least requires abstract thinking, itself not developing until 7-12 years of age.

That would be STRONG atheism. Please learn the difference between STRONG atheism and WEAK atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have to remember that not being convinced by an argument doesn't make it poor.

I meant what I said, thanks.

 

[1137]

That would be STRONG atheism. Please learn the difference between STRONG atheism and WEAK atheism.

No, I said nothing about certainty that god does not exist, which is strong atheism.

I meant what I said, thanks.

Then you're a fideist, super shocker there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then you're a fideist, super shocker there.

People who think that poor arguments exist for theism are "fideists"? Either you've got a boatload of unjustified assumptions that you haven't mentioned yet, or you don't know what "fideism" means.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, that makes us all theists, then. Who would deny that god-concepts exist?

Agreed, god certainly exists in the minds of his/her/its believers. As a strong atheist I simply think they are misapprehending reality. No biggy.

 

[Falvlun]

An atheist is an atheist with respect to all god-concepts, not just "any".

Right. But I thought we were talking about the sub-categories of "implicit" and "explicit" atheism. You made an argument that people are implicit atheists in regards to gods they haven't heard of or that they don't make sense. I'm pointing out that these same people can also be considered explicit atheists, in regards to gods they have considered.

It has a bearing on whether an explicit atheist can be a weak atheist, which is what I thought you were arguing against.

No, not at all. Weak atheists can be implicit or explicit. (And, if we take your argument, they can be implicit in regard to some gods and explicit in regards to others.)

Positionless with respect to the existence or non-existence of gods, not necessarily with respect to anything else.

I don't think it's really separatable, in regards to explicit atheism. The explicit atheist claims they lack belief in the existence of gods. What does it mean to not believe something? It means you haven't been convinced that something is true. Why haven't you been convinced? Because you reject that the arguments and evidence provided are sufficient to convince you that something is true.

What does taking a position about arguments for gods have to do with positions about the gods themselves?

Because the argument is nearly universal among those who claim to be a weak atheist.

The OP states that arguing against atheism is silly because it is nothing. But if nearly every atheist has the same argument-- namely, that the evidence and arguments for believing in gods suck-- then that is precisely what is is being argued against.

So, what's the solution? Should people say "I'm not arguing against atheism. I'm arguing against your belief that arguments for theism suck." That's silly. Let's skip the games and use atheism as shorthand, since the position and the argument for the position is essentially the same.

And I'm saying that your argument implies that a person can't be an explicit atheist without falsifying the unfalsifiable... IOW, you're implying that all explicit atheists are necessarily irrational.

I offered you the compromise: people are only explicit atheists in regards to gods they have considered.

I am not an igtheist; I reject it as a practical belief. I do not think that terminology should necessarily conform to igtheist belief, as it is a subsection of atheists.

But I am not arguing against igtheism here. When I say that we all are explicit atheists, you can take that to mean "in regard to gods we have been able to consider."

 

[Nakosis]

Except for the position that no gods are more likely than one or more. Then there's the issue that the vast majority of atheists are naturalists, so much so that the terms tend to go together, and naturalism sure makes a bunch of claims that can be debated.

Until there is scientific evidence to support any position regarding any god's likely existence it is silly to try and argue with an atheist about it.

Isn't that like saying it makes it's silly to argue against someone who doesn't believe that the earth is round? You could lack belief in the earth being round but not claim to know it's shape. This might not be the best example but my point is by this reasoning it makes no sense to argue against a disbelief in anything because the disbelief isn't asserting anything. It's a flawed argument by itself. I think the argument is also complicated because it makes even less sense to argue *for* something with no evidence like atheism (which inherently has to be inference based), just as theism has no convincing evidence that stands up to higher standards of knowledge.

I did change the original statement. Basically saying it being silly to argue against atheism without having scientific evidence of a god's existence.

Not exactly in the same vein as the original intent of the statement. However because of the responses, hopefully correcting it sufficiently.

 

[1137]

People who think that poor arguments exist for theism are "fideists"? Either you've got a boatload of unjustified assumptions that you haven't mentioned yet, or you don't know what "fideism" means.

Straw man. Give me a break buddy, you very clearly suggested the only arguments for theism are poor ones.

 

[1137]

Until there is scientific evidence to support any position regarding any god's likely existence it is silly to try and argue with an atheist about it.

Which is why most decent arguments for theism are based on empirical evidence, like the first cause argument or argument for forms.