Atheism is a reasonable position to hold

[Atomist]

It seems that god is not necessary to explain anything that exists in this universe. That is to say there exist perfectly valid (and empirically backed) naturalistic explanations for said universe.

Here's the logical skeleton of this argument.

Premise 1: if the universe can be adequately explained through natural means, then god is unnecessary to explain the universe.
Premise 2: if god is unnecessary to explain the universe, then It is reasonable to have no belief in god (atheism)
Premise 3: The universe can be adequately explained through natural means
Conclusion: It is reasonable to be an atheist.

I will support premise 3 through this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/103124-god-necessary-explain-anything.html

Science has given us a meaningful answer these points:
1)"why we exists?" through big bang cosmology to evolutionary biology
2) personal revelation through simulacrum
3) efficacy of prayer through confirmation bias
3) holy books have no apparent divine inspiration but rather written from the perspective of men at the time
4) morality/logic being independent from god. 1) Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or 2) is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
Since if 2 is true god could command rape and genocide and it would become morally good by fiat making the term good meaningless morality has to be outside of god. And if god is outside of logic then god can meaningfully tell false truths and make square circles.

So given that god isn't necessary to understanding any of those things meaningfully as far as I know. Why is god necessary?

 

[Meow Mix]

All that it takes to justify atheism is to lack a reasonable justification for theism.

Suppose that theism is justified but a man lives on an island separate from society, who knows nothing of theism or its justifications. He's an implicit atheist, and justifiably so -- his lack of belief that theism is true is justified.

Now consider a person in modern society who lacks belief that theism is justified.

The question is: well, is it?

Theists are not forthcoming with rational justifications; and as the positive claimants the ball is in their court.

In lack of positive justifications for theism, any ol' person who knows a thing or two about rational thinking is utterly justified in lacking belief in theism since theists fail to justify it. Since lacking belief in theism = atheism, I'd say it's rather obvious that atheism is justified -- and more so, that theism is not justified/irrational.

This is further compounded by the fact that theists have had thousands of years with which to justify the concept and have pretty much failed in all relevant ontological and epistemic ways. It's a sad picture, really. Yet for some reason -- perhaps speaking about something deeply entrenched in human nature regarding our aptitude for superstition -- the belief continues. It sure boggles MY mind.

 

[Atomist]

I don't disagree with you Meow Mix, but... some theists find atheist an irrational position to hold... and the point of this is to show them that they're wrong. I think I presented a solid logical argument and will enjoy those that try to critique it since it seems very airtight from my perspective.

 

[Meow Mix]

I don't disagree with you Meow Mix, but... some theists find atheist an irrational position to hold... and the point of this is to show them that they're wrong. I think I presented a solid logical argument and will enjoy those that try to critique it since it seems very airtight from my perspective.

While I don't disagree with your attempt, I have to warn you that it only feeds into the theistic myth that the proverbial epistemic "ball" is in the atheistic "court." It's theists that have the onus of proof, not the skeptics. That being said, I've read a lot of your posts before and don't doubt for a second that you already know this though. Just reiterating.

It seems that god is not necessary to explain anything that exists in this universe. That is to say there exist perfectly valid (and empirically backed) naturalistic explanations for said universe.

Here's the logical skeleton of this argument.

Premise 1: if the universe can be adequately explained through natural means, then god is unnecessary to explain the universe.
Premise 2: if god is unnecessary to explain the universe, then It is reasonable to have no belief in god (atheism)
Premise 3: The universe can be adequately explained through natural means
Conclusion: It is reasonable to be an atheist.

I will support premise 3 through this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/103124-god-necessary-explain-anything.html

I'm actually privy to your argument because it isn't a proof of nonexistence -- which is difficult to do, a de facto dismissal -- but an epistemic case; a de jure argument that it isn't rational to believe in a creator.

As I've indicated in my last post, this is exactly the case... a lot of people don't know the difference between de facto and de jure arguments (and really, the terms themselves are stupid and elitist) but you're arguing the best here. I'm interested to see what theists say to this.

 

[Atomist]

While I don't disagree with your attempt, I have to warn you that it only feeds into the theistic myth that the proverbial epistemic "ball" is in the atheistic "court." It's theists that have the onus of proof, not the skeptics. That being said, I've read a lot of your posts before and don't doubt for a second that you already know this though. Just reiterating.

Honestly, they aren't worth any amount of discourse. They're obviously closed minded and care only about reinforcements of their beliefs. I'm more concerned about the theists that found those arguments convincing at the time but upon reading this argument at least understands a bit better the position that is held by atheists. I understand it's their burden of proof, but these arguments are also very fun to make because it really hurts the theistic (christian specifically) to think about this stance because of the beliefs that they are taught.

I'm actually privy to your argument because it isn't a proof of nonexistence -- which is difficult to do, a de facto dismissal -- but an epistemic case; a de jure argument that it isn't rational to believe in a creator.

As I've indicated in my last post, this is exactly the case... a lot of people don't know the difference between de facto and de jure arguments (and really, the terms themselves are stupid and elitist) but you're arguing the best here. I'm interested to see what theists say to this.

;-) That's why I made this argument. I mean denying any of the 3 premises seems absurd, but that's what we're left with. Unless they want to accept that atheism is a valid position to hold, which is even more fun.

I'm not even making the argument that "it isn't rational to believe in a creator" but an even weaker position that "it's reasonable to not believe in a creator" I mean it could be the case that both positions are reasonable.

 

[Skwim]

This is further compounded by the fact that theists have had thousands of years with which to justify the concept and have pretty much failed in all relevant ontological and epistemic ways. It's a sad picture, really. Yet for some reason -- perhaps speaking about something deeply entrenched in human nature regarding our aptitude for superstition -- the belief continues. It sure boggles MY mind.

It shouldn't when one considers that almost all theists operate from a far different platform than non-believers. Keeping in mind that theists are trying to hold onto their security blanket for dear life, and considering the flimsy fabric of that blanket, I would be surprised if their attempts at justification would be any stronger (end of metaphor ). Both compliment each other. It's almost: Poor reasons to believe → Poor arguments justifying that belief.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure it is reasonable to be atheist. But those who disagree don't do so out of lack of rational arguments for atheism, for those are both obvious and rock-solid. Their difficulty comes from social conditioning and, in some extreme cases, emotional issues.

In order to make their acceptance of atheism greater, one must work at the social and emotional levels, and only very rarely at the logical, rational level at all.

 

[The Barefoot Bum]

In any kind of extended argument, the "burden of proof" is going to switch between parties. It's really only important in response to certain kinds of arguments. For example, one argument that crops up a lot is: "Atheists cannot be certain that no god exists (a god might be hiding behind the couch), therefore atheism is irrational." This "argument" doesn't really put the ball in my court at all: a correct response is just to say, "You're right, I can't be certain, so what?"

Other than that, I'll happily allow the ball to be hit into my court: I have a lot of arrows in my quiver: the problem of evil, bad "design", institutional religious misbehavior, lies and gross negligence on matters of fact. When the ball is hit back (e.g. "You can't know what a god considers good") I can hit it back again: If we can't know anything about a god, I don't understand what you mean by "god" (and I suspect you yourself don't understand either); I'm entirely justified in having no opinion about a term I don't understand.

 

[NeoSeeker]

Hi guys I'm new! Last time I'll say that. Although I describe myself as agnostic, I think atheists who believe there is no God, are just as far out on a limb as theists.

Allow me to qualify that. If there is no evidence for the traditional God, I'd say that is a good enough reason not to follow the mainstream view or at least question it. I am open to the possibility of the spirit of living things, other dimensions and alternate realities. Note I said I'm open, not that I believe. There is too much we don't know, to confidently say our beliefs are infallible.

Life is like living in a room without windows or a door. Just because we can't see what is outside of that room, does not mean there is nothing there. Therefore, I could never conclude there is no God. I don't know what is outside the walls of our room or what awaits us after physical death. Yes the body dies and if that is good enough for you so be it, but that does not mean you are right. It is an option to believe in only what can be proven, but it is also limiting. Don't let belief stop you from considering other possibilities.

 

[jmvizanko]

Premise 3: The universe can be adequately explained through natural means
Conclusion: It is reasonable to be an atheist.

I will support premise 3 through this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/103124-god-necessary-explain-anything.html

Please give the argument for how big bang theology does not still equal something coming from nothing, or something eternal existing instead of nothing arbitrarily and without reason. Granted that I think Occam's razor still means that god and then the universe is a bit worse of an assumption. But either way something sef-exists, which is the ultimate mindf***.

 

[Erebus]

Atheism is a reasonable position to hold for anybody who has not experienced a deity for themselves (not arguing whether or not gods are real here). I see no reason to be a theist without having experienced a deity.

 

[jmvizanko]

Atheism is a reasonable position to hold for anybody who has not experienced a deity for themselves (not arguing whether or not gods are real here). I see no reason to be a theist without having experienced a deity.

Can you please tell me how one can even experience a deity?

 

[Erebus]

Can you please tell me how one can even experience a deity?

Well yes, but I can only do so according to my own experience, so naturally it will be subjective. I personally believe that a deity will communicate via prophetic dreams (dreams that come true) visions and "voices" and by altering a person's life in various other ways. The difficulty here of course is determining whether a deity has actually spoken or not and to be quite honest I don't think anybody can ever be 100% certain.
I won't go too much into my own experiences, but I was an atheist at the time and I was actually driven to seek psychiatric help. Long story short, I didn't fit into any known psychiatric disorder (with the exception of PTSD, but that's a different story) and no prescribed medication altered what I was experiencing.
Now it could be that I have some currently unknown form of schizophrenia or something similar, I can't say for certain. What I do know for certain is that when I ask my deities for help with something, I'll usually receive it one way or another.
Obviously I don't expect you to take my word for this and I realise I can't provide you with evidence, which is why I say you have no reason not to be an atheist without personal experience of a deity.
Hopefully this makes my position a little clearer? If not I'll try to explain a little better

 

[The Barefoot Bum]

Hi guys I'm new! Last time I'll say that. Although I describe myself as agnostic, I think atheists who believe there is no God, are just as far out on a limb as theists.

You're wrong.

Allow me to qualify that. If there is no evidence for the traditional God, I'd say that is a good enough reason not to follow the mainstream view or at least question it. I am open to the possibility of the spirit of living things, other dimensions and alternate realities. Note I said I'm open, not that I believe. There is too much we don't know, to confidently say our beliefs are infallible.

Are you implying that atheists aren't "open to" these possibilities? Are you implying that atheists say our beliefs are infallible? If so, would you care to let us know what precisely what you mean, and more importantly why you think so? Do you have actual sources for these positions or are you just repeating propaganda?

A common theme in skepticism and scientific investigation is that we can't know anything, at least not anything about reality, with certainty, only varying degrees of confidence. Do you then endorse epistemic nihilism: that if we can't know anything with certainty we can't know anything at all, that every statement is a pure matter of preference and opinion? If you don't endorse epistemic nihilism, are there separate standards for unfalsifiable claims?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hi guys I'm new! Last time I'll say that. Although I describe myself as agnostic, I think atheists who believe there is no God, are just as far out on a limb as theists.

Not quite. First, we heathens generally do not proffer the lack of gods as inerrant truth. Since it's unprovable, it would make no sense to be certain.
But for those who are certain, their dogma is a single belief, ie, no gods. But the faithful have dogma with thousands of absolutely true facts to
believe upon faith alone. Now, that's out on a limb!

 

[The Barefoot Bum]

I personally believe that a deity will communicate via prophetic dreams (dreams that come true)

Can you tell the difference between a dream that "comes true" because of a deity and a dream that "comes true" because you have a brain that capable of rationally predicting the future?

visions and "voices" and by altering a person's life in various other ways.

Can you tell the difference between visions and voices that come from a deity and those that are just prosaic hallucinations?

The difficulty here of course is determining whether a deity has actually spoken or not and to be quite honest I don't think anybody can ever be 100% certain.

There's a huge difference between not being 100% certain and having no clue at all one way or another. 0.0001% is a darn small gap for a deity to hide in.

I won't go too much into my own experiences, but I was an atheist at the time and I was actually driven to seek psychiatric help. Long story short, I didn't fit into any known psychiatric disorder (with the exception of PTSD, but that's a different story) and no prescribed medication altered what I was experiencing.

That's hardly remarkable: we really don't know very much about psychiatry and how the mind works. Most of our knowledge is purely "empirical": give people a lot of different drugs and observe which ones seem to ameliorate the symptoms.

Now it could be that I have some currently unknown form of schizophrenia or something similar, I can't say for certain.

Not only can you not say for certain, you really can't say with any confidence at all.

What I do know for certain is that when I ask my deities for help with something, I'll usually receive it one way or another.

Ah, the old "one way or another". No matter what actually happens, everything works out one way or another.

Obviously I don't expect you to take my word for this and I realise I can't provide you with evidence, which is why I say you have no reason not to be an atheist without personal experience of a deity.

Actually we can take your word for some things. You seem sincere and ordinarily honest: if you report the actual content of your experiences (rather than offering only vague conclusions drawn from those experiences), we have no real reason to believe you're lying.

I don't mean to be an a****** about it, but you really might be schizophrenic or delusional. If so, that would really suck for you, and I'm truly sorry.

 

[NeoSeeker]

You're wrong.



Are you implying that atheists aren't "open to" these possibilities? Are you implying that atheists say our beliefs are infallible? If so, would you care to let us know what precisely what you mean, and more importantly why you think so? Do you have actual sources for these positions or are you just repeating propaganda?

A common theme in skepticism and scientific investigation is that we can't know anything, at least not anything about reality, with certainty, only varying degrees of confidence. Do you then endorse epistemic nihilism: that if we can't know anything with certainty we can't know anything at all, that every statement is a pure matter of preference and opinion? If you don't endorse epistemic nihilism, are there separate standards for unfalsifiable claims?

Athiest: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Belief: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something.

Belief is a commitment. I'm saying there is reason to have confidence in the belief there is no God. There is no basis to believe pro or con.

Not quite. First, we heathens generally do not proffer the lack of gods as inerrant truth. Since it's unprovable, it would make no sense to be certain.
But for those who are certain, their dogma is a single belief, ie, no gods. But the faithful have dogma with thousands of absolutely true facts to
believe upon faith alone. Now, that's out on a limb!

I agree. That is one of the reasons I try real hard to avoid using the word "believe".

 

[Erebus]

I don't mean to be an a****** about it, but you really might be schizophrenic or delusional. If so, that would really suck for you, and I'm truly sorry.

Don't worry about it, I've been told far worse before now
Also, don't feel sorry for me, even if I am delusional, I'm not suffering for it.

I'm fairly pragmatic about my beliefs, not to the extent that I will claim that because they are useful they are true, rather i claim that since they are useful I have no reason not to hold them. I've enjoyed my life far more with my deities/delusions than i ever did without them and see no reason why I should give them up regardless of where they stem from.
I'm sure you'll understand why I'm not going to debate with you whether or not my deities are real or the result of a delusion for several reasons. Firstly, neither of us have any reason to believe the other's experiences and theories over our own, secondly I have no desire to make you believe in my deities, just as I would hope you have no desire to try and alter my beliefs. Finally and most importantly, I think we have both more or less made up our minds on this matter and I don't see much good coming from such a debate.

 

[logician]

"Atheism is a reasonable position to hold "

Was there some doubt?

 

[Skeptisch]

"Atheism is a reasonable position to hold "

Was there some doubt?

Never, because:
We all seem to be atheists when it comes to other faith's Gods.
A real atheist just goes one God further.