Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[ArtieE]

The definition on #2 comes with its own set of problems.
Why does a strong atheist need to believe that ghosts ( the #2 definition applies to ghosts ) don't exist ?

He doesn't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Exactly why atheism and agnosticism differ!

Who is saying otherwise?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does your atheist believe all gods don't exist? Then he's a strong atheist. If your atheist is simply not a theist then he's a weak atheist. If he's neither please feel free to make up any label you want for him. You are the one who made him up.

So you aren't trying to make "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" as a dichotomy... i.e. any atheist is either one or the other?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope, that's exactly what the original gumball and box arguments do,

No, they don't.

they purposely conflate atheism with uncertainty,

No, they don't.

in other words they pretend atheism is what we call agnosticism, and that agnosticism is not a third position of great importance.

Atheism: lack of belief in gods.

Agnosticism: the belief that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable.

Agnosticism isn't just uncertainty, and agnosticism and atheism overlap.

 

[Koldo]

He doesn't.

Your definition includes 'ghosts'.

 

[1137]

I've never understood that avenue of pursuit. Why do you bother? An atheist could concede every point you make to you and have lost nothing. What is in it for us to conceal beliefs? I could hold or not hold any belief except a belief in a god or gods and not only still tell you that I don't accept any god claims, but also remain an atheist on as firm a foundation as I do. I could tell you that atheism is a robust set of beliefs - an ideology even - and carry on as before.

Once an atheist admits their belief they have to defend their position, rather than simply hide behind non belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay, but do you still think 'what' is more probable, even when currently untestable? Is there anything other than personal preference that leads you to this calculation of higher probability?

A multiverse generating multiple or infinite numbers of universes of every type possible is more likely than a god, for the reason you alluded to earlier - Occam's Razor. Each hypothesis can account for what appears to be a finely tuned universe, but the multiverse hypothesis is more parsimonious since it doesn't require a conscious agent. If both a potentially mindless, amorphous substance and a god, which at a minimum has the complexity necessary to have thoughts and volition (agency), are each capable of forming a universe like this one, the simpler one is the preferred hypothesis.

Positing a god solves no problems that a multiverse doesn't solve just as well, and actually adds a few. What gives a god structural integrity so that it can have thoughts and not dissipate like vapor?

The multiverse hypothesis also makes the consciousness problem more tractable. With that one, consciousness can be conceived as an emergent phenomenon of the brain. It's still a very thorny problem, but the god hypothesis gives a god consciousness without that god having to create it. A creator must be conscious to be a an active agent. How are

But in the end, we're still left with 3 x 2 = 6 logical possibilities, unless you can modify the list and add to it or rule out an entry:

[1] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that came into existence uncaused.

[2] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that came into existence uncaused.

[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe came into being uncaused.

[6] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

The interesting thing is that they all seem impossible because they all require that something has existed infinitely far back in time and somehow worked its way up to this moment, or that something came into being uncaused and was the first thing to exist.

I think that I may be on shaky ground trying to apply strict logic here. Rules that apply to the domain in which we exist, (likely) evolved, and are familiar with might not apply to universes or beyond, especially considering that logic seems to be telling us that since something rather than nothing existing compels us to choose something deeply counterintuitive.

I think most theists choose option [1] and drop the rest of these options off the list without cause or justification. Some then proceed to mock the other options for seeming ludicrous, but what makes the god option less so? After all, if a god is being invoked because a living cell seems to complex to exist undesigned, how does introducing a god help? What is the least likely thing you can imagine to exist undesigned? I'd say a god. The multiverse has the merit of relative simplicity.

Any objections or criticism?

 

[Magic Man]

I don't know what you mean by "theistic gods." To me, the term is redundant.

It means the typical concept of god, the anthropomorphized being who intervenes in the universe.

"In popular parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of god(s) that is found in the monotheistic and polytheistic religions" from here.

Or "belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" from here.

 

[Magic Man]

Once an atheist admits their belief they have to defend their position, rather than simply hide behind non belief.

Which belief, that a theistic god does not exist? Sure, and the defense of that position is that there is as much evidence for such a being as there is for leprechauns, but we probably all agree that leprechauns don't exist.

However, a similar way of looking at it (that is very common among atheists), is that that lack of evidence just means they don't believe in such a god. For a lot of atheists, this just means they don't believe in a god, but they won't say gods don't exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It means the typical concept of god, the anthropomorphized being who intervenes in the universe.

There's a "typical concept of god"?

"In popular parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of god(s) that is found in the monotheistic and polytheistic religions" from here.

Or "belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" from here.

Ah. It sounds like you're using the term "theism" to describe what I would call "classical monotheism."

Deism is a subset of theism... as I understand the terms.

... but if I understand what you're saying, it seems like you're implying that deists are atheists. Is this really what you're trying to suggest? Because I flat-out reject that idea.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1137, here's the deal.

There would be a whole lot less confusion if people would simply agree to use three separate labels for the three separate positions outlined in Penguin's post:

"I believe that gods exist. " --> Theist

"I believe that gods don't exist." --> Atheist

"I do not believe that gods exist and I do not believe that gods don't exist." (Or, more colloquially, "I don't know.") --> Agnostic

However, language doesn't always evolve towards the most efficient solution. Whether we like it or not, atheism has come to include the third option, the one we'd like to label "Agnostic".

Now, we can definitely argue whether it should or not, whether this is ultimately a good definition. Though, from experience, I can tell you it is a rather disheartening and futile fight.

But what we can't do is deny that this definition of atheism does in fact exist and that many people use it, honestly, to apply to themselves.

I hope this helps, and best of luck!

Why fight? We've told you how we use the words and what they mean to us. It's a reasonable and internally consistent approach, and captures our thoughts better than your usage. There's no way to describe my point of view using your schema. You want to force me to choose between options that both apply to me. Why?

All you need to do is understand, not agree or conform. If I told you that I am a person that neither accepts any god claims nor claims to have any knowledge of gods, then unless I'm lying, that's what I am. If I tell you that I call that an agnostic atheist, I'm not asking you to agree or disagree. It's just a phrase. I could have called it being a "zork," and as long as I have been clear what a word means, when I use it, you know what I mean.

We feel this constant undertow of people telling us what we believe or how we should use language. Sorry, but we make those choices to suit ourselves and are not compelled to submit to any such pressures.

Do you know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive lexicography? You cannot confine how people choose to use language. If they are understanding one another, they are doing it well.

 

[Magic Man]

There's a "typical concept of god"?

Yeah, the one used by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and many other religions, the one I gave in that quote.

Ah. It sounds like you're using the term "theism" to describe what I would call "classical monotheism."

Deism is a subset of theism... as I understand the terms.

... but if I understand what you're saying, it seems like you're implying that deists are atheists. Is this really what you're trying to suggest? Because I flat-out reject that idea.

Theism, like atheism, is a bit complicated. In its broadest sense, it just means belief in a god or gods. But it is also commonly used to more specifically refer to the typical concept of god mentioned above. Under the broad umbrella of theism, deism is a subset, but using the secondary meaning of theism, they are separate things. Technically that would make deists atheists, but that just doesn't sound right. I chalk this up to poor language to deal with this subject (as with the subject of gods in general).

I use the phrase "theistic gods" to be more precise, since most "strong atheists" who do believe God doesn't exist don't usually include a deistic or pantheistic god in that claim. It's usually only about Yahweh and other such gods. For instance, I won't argue against the vague deistic god because there's not much to argue against or reason to argue it. Same with pantheism. But I will argue against Yahweh.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am a little surprised that no one has yet addressed the misconceptions in this post.

Knowledge is a form of belief. Specifically, it is "justified, true belief", that is, belief that has sound reasons to support it, and accurately explains reality.

Note that while all knowledge is belief, all belief is not knowledge.

Furthermore, for knowledge to be knowledge, it must be certain to be true. Certainty is the defining characteristic of knowledge.

So to recap, yes, if something is knowledge it is also a belief, and it is a belief that you are certain is true based upon substantial justification.

Once again, that's not the way I would describe that area. Being certain doesn't make anything true.

And certitude has a nuanced meaning to the philosophically inclined since Descartes. The philosopher understands the difference between philosophical and psychological doubt. He understands the first but feels the second. The latter gives him the feeling of uncertainty, the former does not. Descates famously wrote that although he feels no doubt that there is a world outside of his mind, he had no method for proving that his conscious experience wasn't a deception. You may have heard of the brain in a vat and Last Thursdayism.

The philosopher's beliefs are always at least a little tentative. All knowledge is therefore partial. Descartes would say that he having a conscious experience was certain, but that he wasn't certain what it was that he was conscious of apart from himself residing in the theater of his own mind apprehending the dance of conscious phenomena, whatever they represented.

 

[Thumper]

Ok, I'm new to this site and have not read back through all 17 pages of discussion on this subject. But I am an atheist and think I have something to say about all of this.

The first thing I've noticed is that the discussion is all over the board on even defining what atheism is. As it happens, I see this a lot.

Atheism literally is "not theism" (a-theism). But that itself tends to confuse people. I saw one statement that this would make atheism a "negative" position, but that is not a fair assessment (I'll get back to this).

So, if atheism is "not theism" then what is theism. Theism is a belief in one or more deities. That's it. This of course means that theism includes Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as the 3 most prominent 1-god religions. And it would include Hinduism as a multi-god religion. What people sometimes miss is that the category of theism would also include Satanism as a belief in Satan (this does not include the "Church of Satanism" in the U.S. as this is a parody religion that in practice worships no gods).

So, if a-theism includes everybody who is not specifically covered by theism, this would include Buddhism, Jainism, Humanism, etc. Which makes it impossible to put everybody who is an atheist in one mindset. Admittedly Buddhists don't always see themselves as atheist, but that would be a proper breakdown of the categories. (I am a Humanist, BTW)

Now, to get back to the idea that atheism is a "negative" position. The real mindset of almost every atheists that I've ever known is not that gods don't exist. The position is that gods have never been proven to exist, so belief seems unreasonable. I also don't believe in faeries, garden gnomes, or invisible fire-breathing dragons. I can't prove they don't exist, but I don't see the point in spending any time considering their existence without verifiable evidence.

Does my "not-belief" in faeries make me a "negative" person.

One other note in my initial posting here is that most people who know me don't know I'm an atheist. And this is because it is in fact dangerous for me to let people know I'm an atheist, even though Humanism is a very positive outlook on community and life in general, that part of me is generally ignored. It is this concern for the negative stereotype of atheism that compels me to speak out in forums like this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then you're agnostic, problem solved.

I am an agnostic. I also have no god beliefs.

Do you believe the universe is empty of gods, unicorns, and vampires?

I believe that if there are gods, I don't and can't know about it, and have no reason to believe that they exist. I live as if no god exists. No god is accessible to me, have no reason to believe that one has visited the earth, has left a holy book, reads my mind, answers prayers, performs miracles, needs my devotion, or has expressed commandments or even expectations of me. So I live without a god belief and religion, and I call that state atheism

Couldn't I say an analogus thing about vampires? Wouldn't you, or do you have a method for ruling out vampires? If not, you cannot justify saying you have, although you would be have no reason to live as if any other thing was true. There is no reason for either of us to carry garlic or silver stakes, and no reason for me to pray or go to church.

If you can understand my position on vampires, and I think you can, you can understand my position on gods.

Wasn't it you that called himself an a-fairyist? Whoever it was, I am one as well,

Are you also an avampirist? I also that.

And, I'm an atheist by the same reckoning - an agnostic one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ok, I confess I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this.

I understand that saying "I don't know" does not imply a 50/50 probability estimation.

For instance, I don't know whether aliens exist, but I believe that their existence is slightly more likely than their non-existence. Not 50/50.

The probability, therefore, does not come from the "I don't know" statement, but from my subsequent belief.

But, and correct me if I'm mistaken, you deny any belief regarding the existence of gods.

Without any belief acting upon the "I don't know" statement, how does the probability shift from the 50/50 default?

If you say "I don't know" and have zero other beliefs regarding the question, then necessarily, that results in a perfect balance of possibilities: 1 is just as likely as 0.

What, besides belief, acts upon the default probability of 50/50?

This is a difficult area for many.

Have you ever heard of the Monty Hall problem? It's based on a long running American game show called Let's Make A Deal. At the end of the show, somebody gets a chance to pick any of three doors, each concealing a prize behind, one a great prize, and the other two much less. The show's host, Monty Hall for years, knows which door has the grand prize, and which two have the joke prizes.

After you choose, the host will open of the two doors that you didn't choose with the joke prize and ask you if you want to trade your original choice for the only other unopened door that you haven't chosen. Should you? What are the odds of doing better by swapping?

Most people would say 50/50 - it's a toss-up or crap shoot, but they'd be wrong. Your chances of choosing the big prize double if you trade.

Why? Because there was 1 chance in 3 that you chose correctly originally, and 2 chances in 3 that you didn't. That can never change whatever the host shows you as long as he knows where the big prize is. He is always in a position to open at least one door and show you a joke prize. Doing that doesn't change your odds of having guessed correctly originally. It's still 2:1 against you having guessed correctly, so trade.

An awful lot of people cannot grasp that, and you needn't feel embarrassed if you are one of them. The key to the problem is that whatever else happens after your original door selection, the odds are that you chose wrong, and you can double your chances by trading. It is NOT a 50/50 proposition.

I'm new to this site and don't know how a YouTube link will render. If you can and want to, spend just under 6 minutes seeing this explained more graphically

 

[Thumper]

I am an agnostic. I also have no god beliefs.

I believe that if there are gods, I don't and can't know about it, and have no reason to believe that they exist. I live as if no god exists. No god is accessible to me, have no reason to believe that one has visited the earth, has left a holy book, reads my mind, answers prayers, performs miracles, needs my devotion, or has expressed commandments or even expectations of me. So I live without a god belief and religion, and I call that state atheism

Couldn't I say an analogus thing about vampires? Wouldn't you, or do you have a method for ruling out vampires? If not, you cannot justify saying you have, although you would be have no reason to live as if any other thing was true. There is no reason for either of us to carry garlic or silver stakes, and no reason for me to pray or go to church.

If you can understand my position on vampires, and I think you can, you can understand my position on gods.

Wasn't it you that called himself an a-fairyist? Whoever it was, I am one as well,

Are you also an avampirist? I also that.

And, I'm an atheist by the same reckoning - an agnostic one.

Almost every atheists I've ever known is an "agnostic atheist". In fact the only "gnostic atheists" I've known were on a forum where they could hide behind an avatar.

As Isaac Asimov said -- "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you find it more likely that 0 gods exist, or that 1+ gods exists?

I think you're asking the wrong question. I have no way to answer that one except with a the idea that I don't see evidence for a god, nor a need for one.

But I understand that that does not rule the idea out.

Why do you want me to guess? Let's guess first one way, then the other, and you can answer both to demonstrate why these questions are meaningful

[1] First, I'll take the position that god's probably don't exist. Now what?

[2] Now, let me change hats and say that gods are likely to exist like extraterrestrials, but we as yet cannot and do not know anything about their natures.

A better question is whether it is a mistake to be an atheist, or to live my life outside of any or all theistic belief structures. I say no.

Haha everyone does, the burden of proof is nonsense. I think what annoys me most is that atheism is totally supportable with reason and evidence. You can make the arguments, and in many cases like Christianity easily win the debate. But for some reason you don't, you want us to think of you as these baby-like entities with no reason or evidence to support your decision. It makes no sense to me.

Atheism is not just supportable by reason and evidence (or more properly, the lack thereof), it is the only possible position for a rational skeptic not convinced of the likelihood of gods. What more are you looking for to justify atheism?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Been seeing this one a lot.
We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it.

Cool.

Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

Who said that to you? Theism is a broad term. Just like atheism. Trying to say what theism says is about as useless an exercise as trying to describe 'atheist philosophy'. If someone's been spouting this on this site, feel free to point me to the site so I can argue the toss with them.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty.

Speaking for myself, if I heard the box meow, I'd believe there was probably a cat in there, but in the lack of any evidence to the contrary, I'll not believe anything about the contents. How the hell would I know? I find this particular analogy useless, but if I run with it, for the sake of argument, I'd suggest that some atheists have picked up and shaken the box in their search for hints at the contents. Others used to be sure there was something in the box. Perhaps you could equate it to a cat being in the box. But after realising no-one was feeding the cat, they started to assume there was no cat. And if there was no cat, perhaps there was nothing. There is no evidence FOR atheism. There's a lack of evidence AGAINST it. I know you think this is avoidance, but I don't care, to be honest. That's my position. Retag it as whatever you like. If you'd like to think of it as agnosticism, be my guest, although I have no idea why you would care about the label. Suffice to say, I would call myself as agnostic atheist, and readily admit (as you yourself said) we don't know what's in the box.

For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature.

Sure, there is SOMETHING in the box. But is that something supernatural? You accuse atheists of playing word games, but suggest that not knowing what is in a box is admittance that some sort of God is in the box?

Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Perhaps the jar doesn't feel heavy, or clink when they shake it? It's possible, of course, that a single coin (a specific god belief) is taped to the side, but we're thinking it's more likely an empty jar.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

Yeah, so your problems with atheism, and atheists in general, seem based on some pretty interesting generalizations and extrapolations. This whole thread comes off as a rant without evidence or cause. Ironically. But if there are atheists commonly making the claims you're stating, you should quote a few. You'll find I'm quite ready to denounce 'atheistic arguments' if they deserve denouncing.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Wasn't it you that called himself an a-fairyist? Whoever it was, I am one as well,

Are you also an avampirist? I also that.

And, I'm an atheist by the same reckoning - an agnostic one.

That was me. I bust that one out every now and then, usually to point out calling ones self an atheist is actually a sort of apologetic for theism rather than in opposition to it.(surprise!)

Why, you ask?

If god-belief is just one point in a nearly infinite spectrum of possible bald assertions that can be made about the universe (as I believe it to be), then why should THAT one get such a level of special consideration that I define myself by not believing it? Why not a-fairiyist or a-leprechaunist?