(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Kuzcotopia]

Oh, I agree that the theist position has lost ground owing to both of those things. It is one of the reasons I left organized religion in the first place. I would never wish to make anyone look a fool, so please, if I offended you, it's my turn to apologize. Wha I find unfair, I suppose, is categorizing people. This one is that or that one is this. It's silly, IMO. Not you, btw, just thinking we can all be grouped into neat little pockets. I welcome open communication and have always said I cannot prove my beliefs to anyone including myself. So I think we are really more on the same page than you realize. : )

I apologize as well. In hindsight, it was a cheap shot on my part.

 

[outhouse]

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?

Easily.

But it is not about proof, even though I find it is only a problem of ignorance and looking at the evidence with bias.


It is plain to see once studied how only man defined and redefined these concepts. The changes always mirror the culture doing the defining.

There is a clear picture of the plagiarizing of mythological concepts, and redefining the concept.

Proto Israelites plagiarized Canaanite mythology.
Israelites plagiarized that mythology.
Monotheistic Israelites plagiarized that mythology
Christians plagiarized Judaism
Islam plagiarized it all
John Smith Plagiarized it all
Amish plagiarized it all.


All claim a divine connection, and all contradict each other. Something or someone is not exactly divine here, or none are divine outside mens imagination.

 

[philbo]

Any thing/entity/whatever that is "unmeasurable in any way" is necessarily not an object of worship by human beings, because no humans know about it.

er, nope.

There are plenty of things worshipped by human beings that are unmeasurable in any way- just because they may not be real, doesn't mean no humans know about them.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Agreed.



Not agreed.



Ok, then I have failed to make myself clear, poor writing, my fault.

Consider the Bible. For many this is their chosen authority. And they choose it because they consider it's statements to be binding on all of reality. The Bible doesn't claim there is a God for this solar system only. The Bible claims infinite power, the ability to accurately describe the very foundation of all reality, which is labeled "God".

If we wish to debunk this claim, we must first prove that we have an authority which is binding upon the realm claims are being made about, all of reality. And then we must demonstrate that god claims violate the rules of this authority.

So for instance, if we knew for certain that all objects in reality can only be round, and somebody proposes a square god, we can dismiss that claim. But we can dismiss it ONLY if we can first demonstrate that our method of knowing objects can only be round is qualified, reliable, PROVEN.

It's the simplest thing. Just present the very same challenge you reasonably apply to the other fellow's chosen authority to your own chosen authority. Such a process is called intellectual honesty, reason.

A process whereby we challenge the other fellow's authority while declining to challenge our own is not reason. It's ideology.

The two are very commonly confused, as both can involve logical arguments. But logical arguments do not constitute reason. Reason is defined by surrender to the process. In that way, reason is remarkably similar to faith, both are built upon a willingness to surrender to some higher authority.

I do not define reason as surrendering to a process. We can say logically that there are no square circles, because we've defined squares and we've defined circles, and their definitions are contradictory.

Can I make that claim without surrendering to the process of making that claim?

Theists might take issue with the implication that they are unable to reason that there are no square circles.

Further, are you saying that the theist argument based on a scripture has a different system aside from reason that they surrender to? I think that the book's truth, and the claim of god, are just premises, but they still use the same logical system to draw conclusions, don't they?

Reason and Theism is not a dichotomy. Theism just accepts a few extra premises that I do not. They have their reasons, and I disagree with their claims.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

ethically, liberalism is derivative of judeo-christian ethics. We think of human rights as a product of human nature. If you go back far enough, human nature is roughly equivalent to the soul and human nature/soul comes from god and so therefore does our conception of rights and ethics. Take the US declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. That among these rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Secularism evolved out of religion. Consequently, if god didn't exist- our ethical system would be in serious trouble as the objective source of our ethics is not individual consciousness, but natural law and god. if ethics originated exclusively from the individual, you would end up with a relativistic and nihilistic set of ethics which would be a problem. So once you've taken god out of the equation as an atheist, there is a need to find a new objective source for ethics which originates from human society. Without this ability to produce a new 'system' of ethics, we would still end up using the old system derived from religion, regardless as to whether it is true or not.

That's an interesting conclusion, but if you accept materialism as a basis for making moral choices, why would those choices be necessarily universal?

A premise of many theist arguments is that moral authority is universal, but if you're a materialist, moral authority is relative. It should be relative.

Should peoples in the mountains of Chile have the same set of morals as those who live in the deserts of Northern Africa? Should a people living in a fertile flood plain be assumed to have the same needs as those living on a closed ecosystem of a Mars colony?

According to a theist, the same moral system should apply to all these situations. But for a materialist, different moral systems must necessarily emerge. As least I would think so. If the dialectic used in all cases is honest, then the conclusions would have to be different.

As a materialist, why would the peoples of the earth have a singular moral system? Why can't it be essentially regional? Of course, it brings it's own complications, doesn't it?

 

[Typist]

Until we can say god does not objectively exist and therefore morality is a product of man and not god, we are not in a position to consciously create our own morals and decide not just individually but as a society what is right and wrong.

This helps me get your point, I hope.

Are you saying, without a god, what do we build a moral consensus around?

I think this is right, you think that is right, a million others think a million other things. Each of us has our own morality, but as a group we have chaos?

Am I getting it?

 

[Typist]

Kuzcotopia, try focusing on this bit perhaps...

"Just present the very same challenge you reasonably apply to the other fellow's chosen authority to your own chosen authority. Such a process is called intellectual honesty, reason."

We reasonably challenge the asserted qualifications of holy books. No problem here, imho. I'm for this.

But do we also challenge the asserted qualifications of our own chosen authority, human reason? Do we challenge those qualifications, or merely assume them?

Do we challenge both authorities in an as even handed objective manner as possible, with no preferred outcome?

Imho, holy books can not survive the challenge. And neither can human reason, in regards to questions of this scale. I am rejecting the infinite power of both authorities, because such incredible ability has not been proven, in either case. Atheist principles, applied evenly across the board, without fear or favor.

Both holy books and human reason can be very useful on a more local scale, in daily life and so on, I'm not disputing or challenging that.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Kuzcotopia, try focusing on this bit perhaps...

"Just present the very same challenge you reasonably apply to the other fellow's chosen authority to your own chosen authority. Such a process is called intellectual honesty, reason."

We reasonably challenge the asserted qualifications of holy books. No problem here, imho. I'm for this.

But do we also challenge the asserted qualifications of our own chosen authority, human reason? Do we challenge those qualifications, or merely assume them?

Do we challenge both authorities in an as even handed objective manner as possible, with no preferred outcome?

Imho, holy books can not survive the challenge. And neither can human reason, in regards to questions of this scale. I am rejecting the infinite power of both authorities, because such incredible ability has not been proven, in either case. Atheist principles, applied evenly across the board, without fear or favor.

Both holy books and human reason can be very useful on a more local scale, in daily life and so on, I'm not disputing or challenging that.

I think I understand your argument.

Let's say we were using a telephone to have a conversation about the best way to get tomato plants to flourish. Party A suggests that we irrigate with two liters of water every four hours. They read somewhere that this is the best method. Party B does not like tomatoes and thinks they taste gross. Both have this conversation.

Party A is claiming an authority on how to make tomatoes grow, and a course of action based on that authority.

Party B is making no claims about how tomatoes grow.

But that doesn't seem to matter to you. Your argument, as I understand it, claims that Party A is claiming an authority based on what they read about tomatoes. Party B is claiming an authority based on the existence of the telephone. That makes no sense.

Do you understand my problem here?

 

[Willamena]

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?

i) A thing's non-existence is a nonsensical phrase: things exist, non-existence doesn't. First and foremost, a strong atheist has a strong epistemology, whether they realise it or not. They have organized the world in a particular way that allows for no non-existent things.

God may wind up being non-existent through any number of means: by allocating imaginary things to non-existence; by satisfying ones self with devices of logic; by acknowledging a process that is superior to consciousness; by accepting the reality of here and now. Just to name a few.

ii) I imagine that the theist would have to follow in the thought development of the atheist.

 

[Willamena]

ethically, liberalism is derivative of judeo-christian ethics. We think of human rights as a product of human nature. If you go back far enough, human nature is roughly equivalent to the soul and human nature/soul comes from god and so therefore does our conception of rights and ethics. Take the US declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. That among these rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Secularism evolved out of religion. Consequently, if god didn't exist- our ethical system would be in serious trouble as the objective source of our ethics is not individual consciousness, but natural law and god. if ethics originated exclusively from the individual, you would end up with a relativistic and nihilistic set of ethics which would be a problem. So once you've taken god out of the equation as an atheist, there is a need to find a new objective source for ethics which originates from human society. Without this ability to produce a new 'system' of ethics, we would still end up using the old system derived from religion, regardless as to whether it is true or not.

Why is it, then, that no atheists today understand the time when the individual was not differentiated from god?

 

[Typist]

Do you understand my problem here?

Yes, you think atheists are making no claim, which is very common and even understandable, but untrue.

1) Everybody making a claim bears the burden of proof.

2) Nobody (in this case) has met that burden.

3) Simple, no fancy logic required.

The simpleness of this is ruthless, it sweeps the entire theist/atheist debate off the table without mercy. All our favorite little rhetorical games, gone, over, done.

But that's just the beginning. The interesting bit is, how does one proceed if one comes to the conclusion I've stated above?

 

[Typist]

i) A thing's non-existence is a nonsensical phrase: things exist, non-existence doesn't.

Sorry to quibble, but it does. What is it that is in between the Earth and the moon? Non-existence!

Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too? | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Willamena]

Sorry to quibble, but it does. What is it that is in between the Earth and the moon? Non-existence!

Could God Exist, And Not Exist Too? | ReligiousForums.com

Um, no. By non-existence I refer to just that: no distance, no between, no measure, no substance, etc.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yes, you think atheists are making no claim, which is very common and even understandable, but untrue.

1) Everybody making a claim bears the burden of proof.

2) Nobody (in this case) has met that burden.

3) Simple, no fancy logic required.

The simpleness of this is ruthless, it sweeps the entire theist/atheist debate off the table without mercy. All our favorite little rhetorical games, gone, over, done.

But that's just the beginning. The interesting bit is, how does one proceed if one comes to the conclusion I've stated above?

You conclusion requires far more unsubstantiated claims. So no.

Let me repeat the important part of my last post:

Your argument, as I understand it, claims that Party A is claiming an authority based on what they read about tomatoes. Party B is claiming an authority based on the existence of the telephone. That makes no sense.

Please deal with what I am trying to get you to understand.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

That is only possible by agreeing on some conception of god in the first place.

And even then, in practice only with some of the most voiced conceptions of the God of Abraham, which are internally contradictory, particularly from a moral perspective.

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

He or she would have to have been raised in a particularly vulnerable conception of god (i.e. a very dogmatic variety of the God of Abraham) and then become aware of how difficult it is to reconcile that god with the reality of facts.

Otherwise, it can't really happen very often or very easily, IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, you think atheists are making no claim, which is very common and even understandable, but untrue.

1) Everybody making a claim bears the burden of proof.

2) Nobody (in this case) has met that burden.

3) Simple, no fancy logic required.

The simpleness of this is ruthless, it sweeps the entire theist/atheist debate off the table without mercy. All our favorite little rhetorical games, gone, over, done.

But that's just the beginning. The interesting bit is, how does one proceed if one comes to the conclusion I've stated above?

One proceeds by considering the theological implications of the fact that for millennia, theists have tried and failed to demonstrate the existence of their gods.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Disbelief is entirely justified when there is no evidence. On the other hand absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I could make the claim that aliens are among us, and nobody here could disprove that claim....though you might question my sanity.

I've always been puzzled by the notion that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and I say BS! Absence of any evidence whatsoever certainly is evidence of absence. To see this clearly one nearly needs to limit the scope of the scenario. If I walk into a given room and there is no evidence of any other person in that room, there certainly is evidence of absence. I may not be able to disprove that an invisible person is in the room. I may not be able to disprove that someone walked out very quickly before I could see them. I may not be able to disprove that my vision was for whatever so affected that I did not detect them. But absence of evidence is most certainly evidence of absence.

If I have a glass, and there is no water in it, then how can a reasonable person say I have no evidence of the absence of water in the glass?

 

[Laika]

That's an interesting conclusion, but if you accept materialism as a basis for making moral choices, why would those choices be necessarily universal?

A premise of many theist arguments is that moral authority is universal, but if you're a materialist, moral authority is relative. It should be relative.

Should peoples in the mountains of Chile have the same set of morals as those who live in the deserts of Northern Africa? Should a people living in a fertile flood plain be assumed to have the same needs as those living on a closed ecosystem of a Mars colony?

According to a theist, the same moral system should apply to all these situations. But for a materialist, different moral systems must necessarily emerge. As least I would think so. If the dialectic used in all cases is honest, then the conclusions would have to be different.

As a materialist, why would the peoples of the earth have a singular moral system? Why can't it be essentially regional? Of course, it brings it's own complications, doesn't it?

Good question

As a materialist, I would say morality is not the product of the mind or individual consciousness, but is the result of our social activity (particularly economic) which defines our relationship with nature and with each other. Our social organisation therefore necessitates a social consciousness and hence a common and shared conception of the rights/responsibilities of individuals in those social relationships. Our social organization is objective to the will of the individual and hence is a basis for an objective morality.

I'm not 100% sure such a morality could claim to be universal (as that would imply it is a product of human nature or the mind/essence of man), but the need to run society would mean that those who are members of it would necessarily have to abide by such a morality.

This helps me get your point, I hope.

Are you saying, without a god, what do we build a moral consensus around?

I think this is right, you think that is right, a million others think a million other things. Each of us has our own morality, but as a group we have chaos?

Am I getting it?

Yeah. we have capitalism- whilst individually we have our own morality, we compete against one another meaning that the only "constant" is the belief in the natural laws of capitalism itself. Competition acts as an objective law governing our behaviour and is codified in terms of individual rights; but within that it is anarchic.

Why is it, then, that no atheists today understand the time when the individual was not differentiated from god?

Because we still believe in free will and think that consciousness creates social relations (e.g. "government by consent" in which an invisible 'general will' of the people legitimizes a system of government). We believe ourselves to be quasi-gods not limited by our consciousness, not our physiological form, socio-economic relations and technological/scientific capacity to comprehend and change the world.

 

[Typist]

Please deal with what I am trying to get you to understand.

Apologies, no personal offense intended, but you don't know what reason is, and thus aren't qualified for this conversation.

 

[Typist]

Yeah. we have capitalism- whilst individually we have our own morality, we compete against one another meaning that the only "constant" is the belief in the natural laws of capitalism itself.

And that belief is built upon some other belief, which is built upon another, etc. Eventually the whole pile of beliefs can be traced back to belief in God, as is suggested by your example of the U.S. Constitution? Are you trying to understand what happens if we pull God out of the pile, thus shaking the foundation of the entire belief system?