(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Laika]

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?

yeah. I'm trying to figure out what survives. In order to do that, you have to have a standard of right and wrong that exists independently of god.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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

Fair enough. I will say that you are "hanging up the telephone" on the only member of this thread who is willing to engage with you about your own ideas here, so that makes me wonder.

Could you at least help me with this:

Theist: uses authority from text, empirical evidence, and reason to make arguments and draw conclusions.

Atheist: Uses empirical evidence and reason to make arguments and draw conclusions .

Would you agree with this? Does the theist not still use reason? Why is the Atheist the only one to "surrender" to it? Are you not being fair to the Theist?

 

[philbo]

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

Why?

..because, as an atheist, it's a nonsensical phrase. Of course we cannot undersatnd a time when the individual was not differentiated from something that doesn't exist.. the difference is we don't have the misguided belief that there was such a time

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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.

If you want it to be universal, then would you have to agree what each person is entitled to, and build a system around providing that to everyone?

For example, should all humans have reasonable access to potable, safe drinking water? Currently, 1 in 9 humans lack such access. Getting full access to all humans would require a
great deal of social activity, and perhaps a total restructuring of production and supply distribution.

Would it be enough to determine universal needs, and have all economic activity be structured around those goals. Could that be the basis for all morality?

 

[Laika]

If you want it to be universal, then would you have to agree what each person is entitled to, and build a system around providing that to everyone?

For example, should all humans have reasonable access to potable, safe drinking water? Currently, 1 in 9 humans lack such access. Getting full access to all humans would require a
great deal of social activity, and perhaps a total restructuring of production and supply distribution.

Would it be enough to determine universal needs, and have all economic activity be structured around those goals. Could that be the basis for all morality?

If you try to replace 'god' as the objective source of morality, in trying to explain why we used god in the first place it is clear that our morals are not entirely in our control. Therefore we have to look for another objective source. In other words, it would not necessarily be the product of reason but would only be recognized in reason. The cause of that morality would still objectively exist and be independent of our control. Marxists would say that is our socio-economic organization.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

Sure, but we're not talking about a room, we're talking about an infinite and still poorly understood universe and beyond. It's really another way of expressing the God of the gaps argument, there are still enough gaps in our knowledge of the universe for God to be hiding somewhere.

Though as I also said before, there is no need to disprove the existence of something for which we have no evidence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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

No, it's space, and apparently not really empty space either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that belief 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?

God was never "in the pile" to begin with. At its best, all "God" ever was was something for people to hang their ideas of goodness on. It's those ideas, and not any actual god, that people use as the basis of morality.

Also, there is no "God" in the US Constitution. It's based on "we the people", not God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but we're not talking about a room, we're talking about an infinite and still poorly understood universe and beyond. It's really another way of expressing the God of the gaps argument, there are still enough gaps in our knowledge of the universe for God to be hiding somewhere.

But as I've touched on a few times now, if something warrants the label "god", it has to at least partially be outside the gap.

Yes, there are lots of hidden places for things to hide, but nothing in those places could possibly be a theist's god, because the theist doesn't know anything about those hidden places either.

Though as I also said before, there is no need to disprove the existence of something for which we have no evidence.

Right. The difference between "god-beliefs are baseless and unjustified" and "god-beliefs are false" is splitting hairs for most practical purposes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, there are lots of hidden places for things to hide, but nothing in those places could possibly be a theist's god, because the theist doesn't know anything about those hidden places either.

Though theists are fond of claiming special knowledge or access to those hidden places.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Though theists are fond of claiming special knowledge or access to those hidden places.

Different people could certainly have different spheres of knowledge, but normally, one person with knowledge can lay out the process by which other people can acquire their knowledge and come to the same conclusion.

I've run into some theists (e.g. mystics, gnostics) who claim that their particular process is off-limits to most people, but when I've questioned them about how we could conclude that it's a reliable pathway to knowledge, they've always failed.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I've run into some theists (e.g. mystics, gnostics) who claim that their particular process is off-limits to most people, but when I've questioned them about how we could conclude that it's a reliable pathway to knowledge, they've always failed.

Sure, the methodology should be communicable. What often happens is that people have "mystical" experiences and then make all sorts of assumptions which aren't warranted.

 

[Typist]

Fair enough. I will say that you are "hanging up the telephone" on the only member of this thread who is willing to engage with you about your own ideas here, so that makes me wonder.

My apologies, my problem. I've had these conversations many times, too many times perhaps. I truly mean no personal offense to anybody, I just get impatient with the pace of some conversations, a fact I would be better advised to keep to myself. Like I said, my problem.

Could you at least help me with this:

Theist: uses authority from text, empirical evidence, and reason to make arguments and draw conclusions.

Atheist: Uses empirical evidence and reason to make arguments and draw conclusions .

Would you agree with this? Does the theist not still use reason? Why is the Atheist the only one to "surrender" to it? Are you not being fair to the Theist?

The truth is, just a personal situation, I'm just not that interested in the eternal battle between theists and atheists. For a very simple reason that atheists should be able to relate to. There is no evidence that debate is going anywhere. Thousands of years, same old stuff, over and over again, always to same eternally inconclusive result. Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. That's what I see happening.

I'm not trying to pull the rug out from under either theism or atheism. I'm more evil than that. I'm trying to be the Ultimate Party Pooper, and pull the rug out from under the entire debate. But I'm not very good at it.

What interests me is what might happen after the entire theist vs. atheist comes crashing to the ground with a loud THUD! and we wake up the next day to discover we have nothing.

That's fresh ground in which something new might be planted.

Sorry to not directly engage your points, it appears I'm now too old to dance eternally around the mulberry bush.

 

[Typist]

If you try to replace 'god' as the objective source of morality, in trying to explain why we used god in the first place it is clear that our morals are not entirely in our control. Therefore we have to look for another objective source.

Does this mean something like the following?

Any moral system which has clearly been invented by us will not be credible enough to create the consensus and cohesion necessary for an ordered society?

Or am I just making up ****?

 

[Marisa]

Hmmm....
Leave it to mankind to make even a lack of belief, more complicated than it needs to be. lol

LOL I don't think it's that complicated. If you make a statement of fact, you're naturally going to be expected to be able to prove that fact.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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?

This is something i have always thought about strong athiests.

Ultimately, yes they do. Which is why i am a weak atheist.

And i think that the "problem of evil" suffices for the all loving, answering prayers, interventionist type of god. (The free will counter-argument is complete rubbish. I would love to have a one on one debate with someone who disagrees)

And any god that has made a testable statement which turns out to be false can be considered debunked as well.

Deistic gods are kind of hard to disprove.

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

I think the question should be "What proof SHOULD be required to......". Because their are some theists out there who freely admit that nothing could change their mind.

I think one of the proofs that SHOULD be required, is the testable statements one i mentioned earlier.

 

[Typist]

What often happens is that people have "mystical" experiences and then make all sorts of assumptions which aren't warranted.

Agreed.

Theists may pursue the mystical experiences, but then they make a mess of things by trying to pile of bunch of explanations on top. That is, they don't value the mystical experience for itself, they lack sufficient faith in the experience, and so they think the experience requires embellishment and improvement in the form of explanations, which they grab from pretty much anywhere they wish.

Atheists may be so very intent on discarding the explanations that in their panic to do so they confuse the explanations with the mystical experience, and thus toss the mystical baby out with the explanation bath water.

In both cases, both parties have chosen a recipe book over a nourishing plate of food, and then they wonder why they're still hungry.

A way to bring this epic pointless debate to a conclusion is remarkably simple. Discard all the explanations and anti-explanations. Just let them go. In the toilet bowl they are placed, flushing the handle now, watching them go round and round, and then they're gone. Bye bye!

Once the explanations and anti-explanations are gone, there's nothing left to do but pursue the experience, or not, as one prefers.

Some will move on to other topics where credible answers can be found. Others will want to continue with this ancient inquiry. Both of these are reasonable choices each of us are entitled to.

For those who wish to continue the inquiry, the only serious question is....

How do I have the experience?

This is not esoteric. It's no more complicated than the hungry guy who asks, "Where do I get a meal?" If we see a homeless person on the street asking for food, we know they are serious, and merit our response. If they are asking for money for a fancy cookbook, we know they aren't serious, so we tell them to get lost. Like that.

Once the explanations and anti-explanations are gone, the experience is no longer a religious experience or an atheist experience, but a human experience. Like eating food, or taking a nap, or having sex. We have a human need, so we meet that need. Simple. Nothing here to argue about.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Red Economist : does atheism need any proof, though? Isn't it just a stance?

It seems to me that it would only need proof if asserted as a fact, or if proselitizing.

 

[Deidre]

LOL I don't think it's that complicated. If you make a statement of fact, you're naturally going to be expected to be able to prove that fact.

Why should an atheist have to prove why he/she doesn’t believe that a god exists?

 

[Typist]

Why should an atheist have to prove why he/she doesn’t believe that a god exists?

Anybody who makes a claim takes on the burden for that claim. No claim, no burden.

A significant obstacle that keeps the "burden of proof" topic going round and round is that many atheists don't realize they are making a claim. Their faith in the infinite reach of human reason is so deep, and so unexamined, that they sincerely take those qualifications to be an obvious given.

We can see this in this thread, and pretty much any thread on the topic. Participants dive right in to slinging the reasoning about, without ever bothering to demonstrate reason is qualified for the job at hand.

This is the equivalent of discussions on theist forums where those posters all take it as an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God, and so they dive right in to debates about the meaning of Bible verses, on the assumption that whatever the verses mean is the final word on the topic.

In both cases, a logical structure, built upon a faith foundation.