(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Revoltingest]

There is a rational basis for arguing for the existence of god....

What would that be?

....it is a dis-service to theists to think that it is necessarily based on 'blind' faith in the authority of scripture. For thousands of year, it was taken as self-evident that there was a god. It is only since the 18th/19th century that Atheism has had a adherents outside of the realm of philosophers. Most argue that a belief in god is not rational and crudely oversimplify the problem by assuming that the existence or non-existence of god is self-evident based on the truth. it isn't; it involves considerable philosophical and subjective elements about how we interpret the objective world and the evidence (often a conflict between idealism and materialism). What I can't figure out is how someone can 'prove' those philosophical propositions.

Self-evidence is naught but the argument of obviousness.

I've spent a long time familiarizing myself with Communist philosophy (which is atheist by default) but I am missing a piece of the puzzle; how they actually got to the point where atheism was accepted as an objectively true statement, was 'scientific' and the debate was therefore closed, to the point where they were violently anti-religious.

I'm not surprised that commies (a rather irrational bunch) would state that atheism is objectively true (an irrational belief).

Strong atheists are rare creatures. For the vast majority of us, we disbelieve in gods (all of them) without proof as more of a speculative position.

 

[Typist]

Well what if the atheist disbeleived simply for lack of evidence? Which god by the way?

Answered above.

Any god.

 

[Typist]

The burden of proof lies with those who believe, not the other way round.

The burden of proof lies with ANYBODY making a claim.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not surprised that commies (a rather irrational bunch) would state that atheism is objectively true (an irrational belief).

Perhaps, but much less irrational than saying that theism is objectively true, given the absence of evidence.


( ...our time will come, comrade, just wait for the code words... )

 

[Kuzcotopia]

There is a rational basis for arguing for the existence of god and it is a dis-service to theists to think that it is necessarily based on 'blind' faith in the authority of scripture. For thousands of year, it was taken as self-evident that there was a god. It is only since the 18th/19th century that Atheism has had a adherents outside of the realm of philosophers. Most argue that a belief in god is not rational and crudely oversimplify the problem by assuming that the existence or non-existence of god is self-evident based on the truth.

Not sure I agree. I'm not going to draw any conclusions here, but I want to use this to build some perspective before we afford the tradition of theism too much credit.

One specific's country's data on Literacy, including the 18th/19th century:

Here is one timeline of communication history:

I've spent a long time familiarizing myself with Communist philosophy (which is atheist by default) but I am missing a piece of the puzzle; how they actually got to the point where atheism was accepted as an objectively true statement, was 'scientific' and the debate was therefore closed, to the point where they were violently anti-religious. That position would be considered absurd today because mainstream philosophy has been systematically re-written to erase the possibility of arriving at that conclusion. The objective non-existence of god always lays waste to traditional 'objective' ethics and is therefore closely related to communism/totalitarianism (when the state/man becomes the source of ethics and rights rather than god or nature); hence the issue has been buried under layers of agnosticism by turning it into an insoluble problem where it is 'unknowable' to avoid facing a re-occurrence of totalitarianism. i.e. if man cannot know the nature of god, man cannot play god.

What we think is "real" appears to be not wholly objective or self-evident but is value-laden. I'm wondering if anyone else can enlighten me on how Atheists overall have actually done this in the past as what currently passes for "atheism" now would have been agnosticism in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries because it is not expected to be an objective statement of fact subject to scientific investigation. The closest I've got to an answer is 'scientism' (when science is treated as an ideology) whereby people treat the methods of natural science as applicable to social science and religion. But that is a combination of philosophical and scientific arguments and is therefore not wholly objective. Communists say it is down to "class interest" and I want to hear other explanations.

Monarchs have used divine right to rule for centuries, and democratic systems the lip service is still necessary for the election to office. I would not be so hasty to try and reconcile the reasoning behind a system of beliefs to the use of belief as a political tool. They seem like two different questions to me.

 

[Bunyip]

Answered above.

Any god.

Well if you mean any god - how could that be proven? Why would anybody bear that burden?

 

[Typist]

Are you saying that a God idea is an a priori claim? If that's the case, then the concept of this god idea would be universally the same across human history, rather than regionally accepted. If it is not an a priori, then it is not a premise, it is a conclusion based on your specific experiential evidence.

Wait, wait, wait....

Before you jump right in to doing all this logic dancing, please prove that human reason is binding upon the realm addressed by god claims, all of reality. Until you prove that, no challenge of god claims using reason matters.

This is the very same test we reasonably require of theists. If they can not prove the their holy book is a qualified authority for the investigation at hand, then statements like, "But it's in the Bible!" are meaningless and can be swept aside with a casual wave of the hand.

Reason requires we surrender to a process which is applied in an even handed manner to all positions. If theists have to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority, atheists do too.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

one timeline of communication history:

Fascinating. I reckon it's all been downhill since e-mail though.

 

[Bunyip]

Wait, wait, wait....

Before you jump right in to doing all this logic dancing, please prove that human reason is binding upon the realm addressed by god claims, all of reality. Until you prove that, no challenge of god claims using reason matters.

This is the very same test we reasonably require of theists. If they can not prove the their holy book is a qualified authority for the investigation at hand, then statements like, "But it's in the Bible!" are meaningless and can be swept aside with a casual wave of the hand.

Reason requires we surrender to a process which is applied in an even handed manner to all positions. If theists have to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority, atheists do too.

Why? Why would atheism bear any burden of proof? There is no evidence to challenge.

 

[Typist]

On the other hand absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

My favorite example of this is that only 100 years ago, we didn't have evidence for 99% of the universe, all those billions of galaxies discovered by Hubble and others. If we can miss 99% of the universe, we can probably miss other things too.

 

[Typist]

Why? Why would atheism bear any burden of proof? There is no evidence to challenge.

Again, answered above.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Wait, wait, wait....

Before you jump right in to doing all this logic dancing, please prove that human reason is binding upon the realm addressed by god claims, all of reality. Until you prove that, no challenge of god claims using reason matters.

This is the very same test we reasonably require of theists. If they can not prove the their holy book is a qualified authority for the investigation at hand, then statements like, "But it's in the Bible!" are meaningless and can be swept aside with a casual wave of the hand.

Reason requires we surrender to a process which is applied in an even handed manner to all positions. If theists have to prove the qualifications of their chosen authority, atheists do too.

No, it's not the same.

The chosen authority is the initial premise that theists use to make a claim. Claiming a holy Book is true, for example, is a premise. But theists use that book as a premise to make a claim about the universe. This still requires a langauge of reason.

You are claiming that an Atheist authority is the langauge of reason? That doesn't make sense. Reason is a tool to communicate a premise and conclusion, not the premise and conclusion itself.

I am claiming that a thiestic premise requires evidence to be acceptable as a premise, or can be a priori reasoned out universally without evidence.

Otherwise it's dismissable.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Fascinating. I reckon it's all been downhill since e-mail though.

I almost feel bad for Theists. Open communication and literacy has not been their friend.

 

[Laika]

Why? Why would atheism bear any burden of proof? There is no evidence to challenge.

here's my reasoning:

Why do people believe something for which there is no evidence?

Does that mean religion is a mass delusion?

Would not such a claim require evidence as a burden of proof to disprove that belief because it conflicts with the objective world?

What would that be?

Thomas Aquina's Five Proofs?

Monarchs have used divine right to rule for centuries, and democratic systems the lip service is still necessary for the election to office. I would not be so hasty to try and reconcile the reasoning behind a system of beliefs to the use of belief as a political tool. They seem like two different questions to me.

I like you're post as you really added to this, so thanks. It has to do with the ultimate source of authority for ethics and therefore rights. If we claim that source if god, then a political and moral system is based on god. There is therefore a relationship between the "objective" existence of god and the "objectivity" of ethics. This relationship is obvious when your dealing with a theocratic and feudal system.

But it's less obvious in a Liberal one, in which the ethics and politics are based on the laws of nature. "Human rights" are derived from human nature and were also referred to as "natural rights" in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In a Communist system, ethics and politics are derived from man's ability to change the natural world. Communist systems of ethics are therefore extremely relativistic and near unrecognizable to liberal or theocratic eyes.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Brief: I am an atheist. I dont believe in deities. I do believe in spirits of humans.

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

1. I base it on psychology. The human need to believe something or someone greater or more pure than oneself. To compare between somethjng pure to level themselves with where they stand in th scheme of life.

The need and conditioning of needing authoritative figures...parent to child, boss to employee, coach to teammate. The need for aproval. The guilt of disaproval. The need to make amends . Also, the need like a child to have a friend especially if one feels they cannot trust others (aka saying humans are sinful, for ex). You kinda get the pattern?

2. History of revelation. A deity, say abrahamic since Im not familar with others, is supposed to stay the same for all time. Abrahamic beliefs should be based on their Creator not the Creator on their personal beliefs. (people in Torah, Quran, and Bible included). No multiple translations. One can write personal inspirations based on God; but a God is not defined by their experience since He is unknown.

Hence the need to find support from others such as deities, saints, etc. Whats weirdnis, humans today are inspired by God but no one takes their inspiration as the same as Moses, Muhammad, and Peter.

Also how one is raised seems to shape how one defines and sees the deity. If I am raised to see my Aunt claire as a bad person and she is on the other side of the world from me, she could be good and I wouldnt know.

I hate to say this guys, God is in the eyes of those who believe He exists. Time perios doesnt matter in this. People probably wasnt as skeptic back then excep for maby Plato and Sacrates.

ii) what proof would be required for a believer to voluntarily give up their belief in god/gods?

That they realize they can find the same answers in themselves. We shouldnt need to look to someone else to define who we are. Christianity, for example, just means live a full life, die to your bad deeds (elemenate rather) and emotions, so you can live happily and die with a smile and hope to live forever. Technically, the devil is our personified temptations to do things against our nature.

Probably realize all people have similar motives in faith. If they remove their bias they will see they are not the only ones who sre "right". A deep appreciation that their faith ks relative to them not objective to all.

If your asking for hard proof, maybe an MRI will show the brain changes when someone has a religion. It helps with depression whether normal or clinical.

Id have to think of more.

 

[Marisa]

Why does the atheist have to disprove God when there is no objective evidence of God in the first place. There is nothing for them to disprove. IMO, the question makes no sense. The burden of proof lies with those who believe, not the other way round.

Anyone making a positive assertion by default claims the burden of proof. Dawkins' scale places weak atheism and weak theism at directly opposing points. The difference is in saying "I don't believe in gods" versus "I know gods don't exist". The same exists for theism, "I believe my god exists" versus "I know my god exists". One is an opinion, one is an assertion of fact. Anytime a fact is asserted, the natural inclination is to ask for proof, while opinions can be dismissed as such.

 

[Typist]

Why do people believe something for which there is no evidence?

That's the useful question. A short answer can be that people of all types often wish to know what the rules of the game are, as that makes us feel more secure. Some people feel god is the rules of the game, others feel the laws of nature as discovered by science are the rules of the game, and some people cling to their rules very tightly.

But it's less obvious in a Liberal one, in which the ethics and politics are based on the laws of nature.

Only fascist regimes are based on the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, domination of the weak by the strong etc. Liberal regimes are based on Judeo-Christian ethics, a very new invention in comparison with the laws of nature.

In a Communist system, ethics and politics are derived from man's ability to change the natural world. Communist systems of ethics are therefore extremely relativistic and near unrecognizable to liberal or theocratic eyes.

A "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept may have roots in Judeo-Christian ethics, given it's populist nature. But of course it was never the proletariat who actually was dictating anything.

Hitler may have been among the most honest philosophers of the 20th century, even as he wove his web of lies. He was pretty damn explicit about following the laws of nature (he predator, we prey) and he stamped his name all over it, and put his own personal butt on the line for his philosophy. And when the German people and he turned out not to be the strongest predator, he remained consistent to his philosophy to the end by working to ensure both would therefore perish.

The communists seem rather less honest, proclaiming they are leading us to the utopia and so on.

 

[Laika]

Only fascist regimes are based on the laws of nature, survival of the fittest, domination of the weak by the strong etc. Liberal regimes are based on Judeo-Christian ethics, a very new invention in comparison with the laws of nature.

National Socialism was based on Social Darwinism, a series of biological and racial "objectively" existing laws from which their ethics were derived. Fascism is somewhat different and I'm unclear on exactly how. Liberalism is based on Judeo-Christian ethics and this is kind of where I'm going with it. These 'judeo-Christian' ethics are objective because of the objective existence of god; hence they are also considered "natural" laws and god is (debately) part of that conception of nature. The reason the question of god's objective non-existence is of interest is because once 'god' goes- it has a cascading effect on our understanding of ethics as the judeo-christian-liberal tradition unravels.

A "dictatorship of the proletariat" concept may have roots in Judeo-Christian ethics, given it's populist nature. But of course it was never the proletariat who actually was dictating anything.

There is a Christian Communist tradition, but overall Marxism contains very little Judeo-christian ethics because it was derived from Hegel's dialectic and to a greater or lesser extent Hegel's conception of the state as the collective source and embodiment of ethics and ideals, but with significant alterations by Marx and later thinkers.

Hitler may have been among the most honest philosophers of the 20th century, even as he wove his web of lies. He was pretty damn explicit about following the laws of nature (he predator, we prey) and he stamped his name all over it, and put his own personal butt on the line for his philosophy. And when the German people and he turned out not to be the strongest predator, he remained consistent to his philosophy to the end by working to ensure both would therefore perish.

The communists seem rather less honest, proclaiming they are leading us to the utopia and so on.

I'm not going to get drawn into this one, but Lenin and pretty much all the communists that followed were fairly explicit about the need for "class struggle" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat". Utopianism was a characteristic of liberalism and Christianity, whereas the Communists believed that what they were doing was "scientific" because it was based on Dialectical laws of nature and society (i.e. the class struggle) as they believed that logic/dialectics was a science. (much in the same way physicists think mathematics can be used to identify scientific laws of nature such as the orbits of the planets)

 

[Kuzcotopia]

In a Communist system, ethics and politics are derived from man's ability to change the natural world. Communist systems of ethics are therefore extremely relativistic and near unrecognizable to liberal or theocratic eyes.

Not too familiar with Marxism. But it seems to me that a materialist viewpoint is less relativistic than other moral systems because at least is limited by what is known in the natural world.

Is it relativistic because it is based on what is known about the natural world and that can change? Or are there just competing interpretations? Are there assumptions on how humans ideally interact with this world, or is it dependent on available resources?

Edit: just read your response to Typist after I wrote this.

 

[viole]

This question is directed more specifically at strong atheists who make a positive assertion that god does not objectively exist rather than weak atheists who have grounds for not having a subjective belief in god. Realizing this is the case, I've actually decided to change my position to an agnostic as I cannot objectively prove Atheism is true (agnosticism and weak atheism are barely distinguishable).

I honestly, don't know how it would be done because it appears to involve radical changes in how we define the nature of objective reality and would appear to involve considerable amount of philosophy in addition to a scientific method to approach the question. I suspect it's closely related to philosophical materialism, but I'm not 100% sure. Given the breadth of the question I felt I needed to throw it out to everyone on RF and just see what comes up.

So I wanted to ask:

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

ii) what proof would be required for a believer to voluntarily give up their belief in god/gods?

Consider the following two possible objects of belief:

1) God (choose your local flavor)
2) Blue fairies

Both have the same evidence of being objectively real.

Now, how would you react to someone telling you one of the following (with a straight face):

1) I am agnostic about the existence of God having created the Universe
2) I am agnostic about blue fairies populating my garden

Since blue fairies and gods have the same evidence (of creating Universes and populating gardens), and they cannot be proven false, both claims of agnosticism should be treated with the same form of respect.

Are they? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole