Strong Atheism doesn't exist

[Bunyip]

No two believers have the same conception of god, and every theist's conception very quickly adapts to dodge any form of criticism regardless of where they begin.

I have been at this for a long time. Ask any two theists, even from the same sect of the same religion, to describe God. REALLY describe him or her. Once you get past the rote recitation of scripture and the trite bumper stickers and get them expressing their own unique thoughts on the subject in their own words, you'll be amazed by all the differences you find.

Adding a conception of your own into the mix only adds to the confusion. And even if you luck out and nail the exact same god they happen to believe in fair and square, that's only one down, seven billion to go.


Aw shucks. :flirt:

Well all of that seems like a great argument for why we must specify. Sure, we all have different conceptions - and the only way to eliminate the confusion is to be specific.

 

[Alceste]

Well all of that seems like a great argument for why we must specify. Sure, we all have different conceptions - and the only way to eliminate the confusion is to be specific.

I think the argument that theism of every kind is a bug in human psychology is pretty darn specific, personally. And also much more elegant a rationale for atheism than tackling and disproving seven billion individual deity concepts one at a time.

OTOH, I do understand the temptation to focus on one particular conception that is popular at home in the present day. When religious groups are using their gods to abdicate their personal responsibility for their own poor behaviour, I think the exercise of undermining that particular god concept is both useful and necessary. But also tedious.

 

[Bunyip]

I think the argument that theism of every kind is a bug in human psychology is pretty darn specific, personally. And also much more elegant a rationale for atheism than tackling and disproving seven billion individual deity concepts one at a time.

No offence, but I don't get your objection. Why would you ever need to disprove seven billion deities one at a time? If you specify, then you only need to address one.

Again, what you are saying seems to be an argument for specifying - rather than against it.

Could you perhaps explain why in a debate about Yahweh (for example) you would be obliged to disprove seven billion gods, rather than just one?

OTOH, I do understand the temptation to focus on one particular conception that is popular at home in the present day. When religious groups are using their gods to abdicate their personal responsibility for their own poor behaviour, I think the exercise of undermining that particular god concept is both useful and necessary. But also tedious.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the argument that theism of every kind is a bug in human psychology is pretty darn specific, personally. And also much more elegant a rationale for atheism than tackling and disproving seven billion individual deity concepts one at a time.

OTOH, I do understand the temptation to focus on one particular conception that is popular at home in the present day. When religious groups are using their gods to abdicate their personal responsibility for their own poor behaviour, I think the exercise of undermining that particular god concept is both useful and necessary. But also tedious.

There's goes my next 7 billion ideas for threads in the Religious Debates area, then...

It's funny, actually...when talking about a religion, argument tends towards very specific items. Inconsistencies of religious texts, unethical actions of some believers, etc.
But ultimately my reasoning behind being an atheist would pretty much fit into what Alceste is saying.

It would take extraordinary proof of God(s) to convince me to become theistic since the presence of God(s) falls so far outside what my experience of the world, and also my thoughts on human nature tell me.

Meanwhile, Bunyip could pretty easily convince me he was Aboriginal, Caucasian or Asian, since those concepts fit very comfortably with my existing view of the world. He could probably convince me in a week that he'd tricked me, and he was actually a woman if he really tried, since that doesn't seem outside my experience of human nature.

 

[Alceste]

No offence, but I don't get your objection. Why would you ever need to disprove seven billion deities one at a time? If you specify, then you only need to address one.

Again, what you are saying seems to be an argument for specifying - rather than against it.

Could you perhaps explain why in a debate about Yahweh (for example) you would be obliged to disprove seven billion gods, rather than just one?

To tackle Yahweh, even at the sect level as opposed to the individual level, would still require that you individually debunk thousands of very different god concepts. Some vengeful, some omnibenevolent, some disinterested, some interventionist, some with corporeal form, some without... Every sect and spinoff of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. IS, the WBC, the haredi, the Sikhs... I wouldn't even know where to start. Heck, the Catholics spend more time praying to Mary than Yahweh. Which one should we not believe in first?

 

[Bunyip]

To tackle Yahweh, even at the sect level as opposed to the individual level, would still require that you individually debunk thousands of very different god concepts. Some vengeful, some omnibenevolent, some disinterested, some interventionist, some with corporeal form, some without... Every sect and spinoff of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. IS, the WBC, the haredi, the Sikhs... I wouldn't even know where to start. Heck, the Catholics spend more time praying to Mary than Yahweh. Which one should we not believe in first?

Not if you specify. Specify and you have just one.

If you specify then there is just a single clearly defined concept to discuss, again the objection you raise seems more an argument for specifying.

 

[Alceste]

Not if you specify. Specify and you have just one.

If you specify then there is just a single clearly defined concept to discuss, again the objection you raise seems more an argument for specifying.

Which one though? How do you choose? You can't assume anything about somebody else's idea of god based solely on their religious affiliation, so do you first have to get them to define and describe the fictional being they believe in every time before explaining why it does not exist?

 

[Bunyip]

Which one though? How do you choose?

You don't choose - you ask your opponant to specify and address the entity that they are positing.

You can't assume anything about somebody else's idea of god based solely on their religious affiliation, so do you first have to get them to define and describe the fictional being they believe in every time before explaining why it does not exist?

Yes of course. If you don't you will probably be wasting your time explaining why something does not exist that they do not believe in anyway,

 

[Alceste]

You don't choose - you ask your opponant to specify and address the entity that they are positing.

Yes of course. If you don't you will probably be wasting your time explaining why something does not exist that they do not believe in anyway,

If you frame belief in things that don't exist as a psychological bug, you can argue the non-existence of their god without them defining it. Saves a step.

 

[Bunyip]

If you frame belief in things that don't exist as a psychological bug, you can argue the non-existence of their god without them defining it. Saves a step.

But you would not know what you were arguing for the non existence of - it would be a meaningless conversation.

The BELIEF in god exists, the concept of god exists. In order to argue for the non existence of an entity, you must first identify it.

 

[Alceste]

But you would not know what you were arguing for the non existence of - it would be a meaningless conversation.

The BELIEF in god exists, the concept of god exists. In order to argue for the non existence of an entity, you must first identify it.

Not if the belief itself is a bug. Let's say you're seeing things, and your doctor diagnoses you with a psychotic episode. Does the doctor need to know exactly what you've seen to draw that conclusion, or to be certain the things you're seeing aren't really there?

On a similar note, if I tell you I've seen some crazy **** while off my face on shrooms (in a country where consumption is legal, thanks mods), how specific do I need to be about the details for you to conclude I must have been tripping balls? We both know I didn't really find myself squatting for a pee in a field of human skulls. You don't need to know anything about the quantity and quality of the skulls I saw or where I saw them (Brazil, thanks mods) to know it never occurred.

 

[Bunyip]

Not if the belief itself is a bug. Let's say you're seeing things, and your doctor diagnoses you with a psychotic episode. Does the doctor need to know exactly what you've seen to draw that conclusion, or to be certain the things you're seeing aren't really there?

It would be the first question he/she asks. The psych would explore in even greater detail.

On a similar note, if I tell you I've seen some crazy **** while off my face on shrooms (in a country where consumption is legal, thanks mods), how specific do I need to be about the details for you to conclude I must have been tripping balls? We both know I didn't really find myself squatting for a pee in a field of human skulls. You don't need to know anything about the quantity and quality of the skulls I saw or where I saw them (Brazil, thanks mods) to know it never occurred.

You are now talking about debating the existence of a concept, as opposed to an entity.

Were not getting anywhere here, thanks for the chat have a lovely day.

 

[s2a]

I feel I have more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude all deities are fabrications of human psychology. Here are some examples.

Lack of continuity. We've been around for about 200,000 years, operating with the same basic biological equipment, but none of our modern deities were believed in prior to the last few thousand years. Our distant ancestors had their own, many of whom are long forgotten.

Lack of cohesion. I often say there are more "gods" than believers. Many gods are no longer believed in and many believers lay claim to more than one. Also, among communities that claim to believe in only one, every believer gives a radically different description of him when pressed for details. This is not a pattern we would expect to see if the object of belief actually existed. Ask anyone on earth to describe an elephant and you basically get an elephant. Ask them to describe their god/s and it could quite literally be anything at all.

Geographic distribution. Like pockets of evolution, God concepts predictably cluster in "islands" and spread only along human migration routes. We have never seen the exact same god story crop up in two geographically isolated human populations who have no contact with one another. This is insurmountable evidence that belief is passed from human to human rather than by direct revelation from god/s.

Absence of positive evidence. Like everything we've dreamed up that doesn't exist - sea monsters, unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus, big foot, alien lizard people, etc. - Not one scrap of evidence has ever been produced that could be interpreted to affirm the existence of God/s unless you count things like seeing a bearded face on your toast, which I don't.

Positive evidence that claims of God's accomplishments are untrue. Studies have found, for example, that intercessionary prayer has no effect on medical outcomes. I don't want to get too narrow here in my definition of gods, but that outcome persists no matter what religious or supernatural claim we attempt to investigate. We're not talking "inconclusive" here, we're talking "falsified". The only exception I'm aware of is that meditation truly does change your brain chemistry, so the Buddhists are onto something. But I digress, since that has nothing to do with gods.

Human stupidity. Despite our narcissism vis a vis our unusually large mammalian prefrontal lobe, humans throughout history have been wrong about nearly everything nearly all of the time. If our only evidence for the existence of gods is the testimony of other humans, I don't find it even the slightest bit persuasive. In fact, I'm inclined to assume it's nonsense, and am rarely disappointed.

I think that about covers my thoughts on the subject.

You didn't ask, and any any ovations at this point are likely most unwelcome (perhaps unwarranted)...but if I wasn't already married for 25 years ongoing, loved my wife, and possessed a strange bond with all our resident animals "persons" lo these many years, I'd ask you on a date, or share a coffee, or at least engage some utterly profane (profound?) texting.

I note with exception that you are both better spoken and far more articulate than myself, but I like that about you (despite my obvious infirmities).

I am pleased that you are here, and do keep that secret atheist handshake a secret.

I encourage you to add more observations when you feel so inspired by other commentaries that will inevitably follow.

Just so you can rest assured...that bearded man that will eventually appear in your next morning's toast just might be me (kinda sorta), and I promise...pinky swear...that I am not anyone's "god" excepting a cat or such

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The BELIEF in god exists, the concept of god exists. In order to argue for the non existence of an entity, you must first identify it.

Not necessarily. The objection can be towards irrational belief in general.

 

[Morfinyon]

I'm a fairly strong atheist because I think that the probability of a (especially personal) god existing is vanishingly low.
So I'm a strong atheist in the same sense as I am a strong a-matrixist

 

[Jumi]

I consider myself a gnostic atheist. I believe that anything proposed by humans should be something that can be proven or is false.

If proposed gods existed, instead of just being fantasy creatures, we should have means of communicating with them or a way of perceiving them available. So far I have yet to see a method of contacting gods or somehow having proof of their powers that doesn't involve self-deception or at least very generous interpretation in favor of them.

Same as with alien or spirit believers, I think that If gods exist they must be very bad at communicating with their followers or don't have access to any information useful to us that isn't already available in the public domain or a reflection of the culture and the people where it was received in.

 

[Aupmanyav]

2) Strong atheism involves claiming the ability to disprove God
3) Strong atheism is a theoretical position only, not one held by actual people.

1. Strong atheism also is a belief. I do not have to prove it to people who have their own belief in theism. However, I see no reason to accept existence of God/Gods/Goddesses.
3. Many people are strong atheists (I too am one). Of course, if any God appears in the sky I will change my view.

 

[Deidre]

Atheism is merely a position of belief or lack thereof. It's not a position of knowledge. To claim to know with certainty that a supernatural realm doesn't exist, seems arrogant to a degree. Simply saying 'I don't believe it exists,' should suffice.

But, it sometimes bugs me that culturally ....all over the world...there is this supposition that religion should be relevant, and that atheism is combative, and in resistance to religion. No one needs religion to survive. No one needs religion to lead a productive and happy life. I was under an illusion since childhood that I needed it, but ...having been through the process of deconversion, and looking at life through a different lens...I think that most of what we need, we can find right within ourselves.

That is atheism.

 

[KnightOwl]

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my take on the OP...

I self-define as a strong atheist and avoid the term agnostic atheist in general when talking with new acquaintances.

The reason for this is strongly related to how most people interpret 'agnostic.' They usually believe it means that I haven't made up my mind. In fact, I certainly HAVE made up my mind for all intents and purposes. Ah, but the evangelist sees me saying, "for all intents and purposes" and sees an in. They believe they will have something to say that will change my mind. I'm only slightly less certain they do not, than I am certain there is no theistic entity aka god.

I do have other things to do in life than to convince each and every believer that their efforts to convert me are moot, so I leave out the term agnostic.

To be clear, the only reason I consider myself an agnostic atheist vs. just atheist is because based on pure logic, it seems to me that we can never be absolutely 100% certain of anything. I'm okay with that.
I am not thrown into a state of uncertainty because I don't know for sure gravity, electricity or the moon are real.
I don't live in fear of fire breathing dragons, the wrath of Thor, or eternal damnation.
I don't need the comfort of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or heaven to live life in a way that is positive for me or those around me.

I do think that to be any more of a strong atheist than me, one must have a break between reality and logic, and what one believes.

Note that this strong atheism does not keep me from overlooking the illogical (to me) beliefs of those I socialize with. That is to say, being a strong atheist does not mean being an angry or anti-social atheist, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Marisa]

I imagine I'm about as strong an atheist as one can get without having proof of the nonexistence of gods. Tim Minchin says "throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic". I think there will never be irrefutable proof there are no gods, but at some point we look at how much that's attributed to gods and is better explained by natural means and reach a conclusion.

I just consider myself an atheist. I think it's kind of a "duh" thing to say no, I can't prove it". LOL

I really mostly read science and the occasional nonfiction.