Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[SkepticX]

I know. People of "Flatland" would probably think we were Gods.

That's beside the point. I want you to show me how your belief is not the argument from ignorance. That's all you have to do, but you haven't. All you've done is point out the flaws in my argument. That does not justify the flaw in your's.

I think this absolute standard is special pleading. We skeptics are big on the fact that all scientific (reasonable) conclusions are at least theoretically tentative--amendable according to new evidence. So it is with the reasonable conclusion that there is no god.

First, most gods are incoherently defined. Those alleged gods don't even really rank as false because they never get out of the gate to warrant being considered in the first place. Most gods are also defined as supernatural, so they inherently have to be made up. We have no means by which to perceive the alleged supernatural and know that we are, so if we can't derive our "understanding" of gods from perception or experience, the gods people talk about are entirely conceptual--imaginary--products of the human mind. Pretty much all of the remaining definitions of gods I've ever thought of or been presented with are merely re-definitions of things we already have perfectly functional terms for--nature, humanity, the cosmos, love ... So simply deciding one of these things is "God," it seems to me, is just trying to artificially infuse some kind of special meaning into the genuine article, as if "god" is the magic word and the meaning can't be derived from what it's ... well, from what it's obviously really already being derived.

Gods are merely attempts to clear the blind spots in peoples' perception of meaning. But find me evidence of a real god and, as with all my other conclusions about reality, I'll revise accordingly ... after applying careful, proper scrutiny of course.

So, I think this hyperskepticism that's so often aimed at positive atheism is very much the same form of skepticism that believers aim at skepticism of their beliefs (whatever kind of believer we may be talking about, including things like auras and holistic medicine and alien abductions and the like that nearly no one would argue over in the same way this argument is waged over godisms). It's sacred cow thinking, and it's how we're very heavily socialized (indoctrinated) to think regarding gods ... rather, it's how we're socialized to think regarding the god of our home culture. It's certainly how I was socialized to think about Jesus and Yaweh and the Holy Poultrygeist.

I think that's usually what's behind the "a-leprechaunist" (etc) points (maybe sans the Poultrygeist thing).

Byron

 

[rojse]

Thanks for replying. I started a thread to ask this question to a wider audience, so that I could get a wider reply, and so that I would not derail this thread from it's initial subject.

 

[logician]

"First, most gods are incoherently defined"

Amen to that. Saying "god exists" really means nothing out of the context of a concrete definition of that one thinks "god" is. If the definition is nebulous and thus unfalsifiable it really means nothing except to the person who believes it.

That's why I hate the words "in god we trust" on coins, license plates, etc. Whose god? What god concept? Why do we trust it?

 

[lamplighter]

I always found the "In God We Trust" stuff extremely questionable, along with swearing on a christian bible to tell the truth in an U.S. court thats legally binding, the president being sworn in on a bible into office and, several lyrics in national songs pertaining to god especially the pledge of allegiance all to be a bit much for a country that's supposedly secularist and has a constitutional law of separation of church and state. I remember in high school all the atheists and myself would refuse to take a moment of prayer or repeat the pledge of allegiance because of the religious implications.

 

[rojse]

I wonder if this "God in which we trust" could include the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Prometheus]

has a constitutional law of separation of church and state.

There is no such law in the constitution.

 

[rojse]

There is no such law in the constitution.

I beg your pardon, but I do believe that there is a separation between the Church and the state.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I believe that this is quite concise and clear.

 

[Prometheus]

I beg your pardon, but I do believe that there is a separation between the Church and the state.

Separation of church and state in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I believe that this is quite concise and clear.

There's nothing here I disagree with. I completely agree. I only meant that the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the constitution. I didn't articulate that thought very well at all.

Moreover, what lamplighter, you and I have said doesn't have anything to do with the thread topic and I should not have encouraged it off track.

 

[logician]

There's nothing here I disagree with. I completely agree. I only meant that the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the constitution. I didn't articulate that thought very well at all.

Moreover, what lamplighter, you and I have said doesn't have anything to do with the thread topic and I should not have encouraged it off track.

The principle of separation of church and state is in there, why banter about the exact wording?

 

[rojse]

There's nothing here I disagree with. I completely agree. I only meant that the words "separation of church and state" don't appear in the constitution. I didn't articulate that thought very well at all.

Moreover, what lamplighter, you and I have said doesn't have anything to do with the thread topic and I should not have encouraged it off track.

The words "right to a fair trial" do not appear in the constitution in that exact wording, but nevertheless, you are entitled to it.

The separation of church and state is not expressed in that exact phrasing, but it sets up the conditions for such a separation, just like the right to a fair trial is set up through the conditions for a legal court within the Bill of Rights.

 

[lamplighter]

Isn't strong atheism dogmatic?

 

[Prometheus]

Isn't strong atheism dogmatic?

Not until it goes out of the way to convert other people. Before that it's just illogical and harmless.

 

[Tiberius]

Not until it goes out of the way to convert other people. Before that it's just illogical and harmless.

Illogical why? It's illogical to hold the position that a thing for which there is no testable evidence doesn't exist?

If it's illogical to claim that the belief that God doesn't exist, it is also illogical to conclude that leprechauns don't exist.

 

[SkepticX]

Isn't strong atheism dogmatic?

Only when it's held to the arbitrarily extremely rigid standards that the religion-friendly aspect of our socialization encourages. We don't consider those who "believe in" the germ theory of disease or gravity to be dogmatic even though we haven't solved every aspect of germs' effects on our bodies, and we really don't even understand exactly what gravity is, but suddenly we expect those who don't "believe in" gods, or who believe there aren't any, to be absolutely 100% certain in order to accept it as a valid conclusion.

All conclusions are tentative in science (and just in sound critical thinking), at least in theory. We can reach an effective or functional level of certainty, but if we run into evidence or some other sufficient, sound reason to question or change our current conclusions, we do so (Newtonian Mechanics, for example). It's no different for strong atheism. Such is the nature of genuine interest in understanding reality rather than maintaining and/or affirming dogma.

We've just been so heavily socialized to buy into the god schtick that it seems perfectly reasonable to dramatically shift our normal standards of evidence and epistemology in a theistically friendly direction. That's what we're used to--the norm. That doesn't mean it's valid or reasonable.

Byron

 

[lamplighter]

Well distorting observations to make it appear that there is some kind of evidence for a higher power certainly isn't acceptable and, all these supposed miracles like virgin Mary appearing in someones grilled cheese is ridiculous. I don't see any evidence of a higher power, at least in this corner of the universe so even if strong atheism is dogmatic how is it illogical based on current evidence? There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible so it would seem strong atheism is the more logical choice.

 

[Prometheus]

Illogical why? It's illogical to hold the position that a thing for which there is no testable evidence doesn't exist?

If it's illogical to claim that the belief that God doesn't exist, it is also illogical to conclude that leprechauns don't exist.

There is noting illogical about belief. It's illogical when people claim knowledge instead of belief.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't see any evidence of a higher power, at least in this corner of the universe so even if strong atheism is dogmatic how is it illogical based on current evidence? There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible so it would seem strong atheism is the more logical choice.

I've already brought up why this is a logical fallacy.

 

[SkepticX]

I've already brought up why this is a logical fallacy.

On which page of this ... what, 15 page thread thus far?

I'm curious, because without seeing your arguments on the matter I disagree with your allegation that it's a logical fallacy. In fact in most cases I think the allegation that it's a fallacy is special pleading.

Byron

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible so it would seem strong atheism is the more logical choice.

I've already brought up why this is a logical fallacy.

... I disagree with your allegation that it's a logical fallacy. In fact in most cases I think the allegation that it's a fallacy is special pleading.

It is, indeed, a fallacy to argue

• there certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible, therefore
• strong atheism is the more logical choice.

It is called argument from fallacy, i.e.:

The argument from fallacy, also known as argumentum ad logicam or fallacy fallacy, is a logical fallacy which assumes that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.

It has the general argument form:

If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.​

A somewhat humorous example involves the person who claims that ...

16/64 = 1/4​

offering as evidence the process of "cancelling sixes". That the argument is worthless in no way invalidates the conclusion.

 

[Prometheus]

Though Jay rightly pointed out a fallacy, I was referring to the appeal to ignorance fallacy which, to better illustrate the fallacy of Strong-atheism, goes like this.

A has yet to be proved true or there is no evidence that A is true.
Therefore, A is false.

Consider that A is the proposition "God exists."