(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[9-10ths_Penguin]

for many other different gods, one can only be agnostically atheist, because a god that is unmeasurable in any way may or may not be there; there is no way of knowing.

I disagree.

IMO, the only common feature of all definitions of "god" that I've been able to find is that a god is an object of worship by human beings.

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.

The term "god" depends on there being a relationship between humanity and the thing, so if there's no relationship, the thing is not a god... even if we would decide to worship the thing if we knew about it.

And semantics aside, we can still say that any claim that a thing that's "unmeasurable in every way" exists are necessarily unfounded and unjustified.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can't be proven that there are no gods. It's possible that they exist, but their effect on nature is either negligible, all-pervasive(such as through they are nature's laws) or having an effect we can't measure.

Then gods don't exist. An irrelevant god is not a god.

Certain terms carry implications with them. For instance, if we were talking about "X, the staple food of country Y", if we went to country Y and found that the vast majority of people don't eat food X, then we could conclude that food X - as we've defined it - doesn't exist, because it isn't the country's staple food. The term "god" works in a similar way.

 

[Typist]

And even when it comes to strong atheism, the burden of proof is still on the theists. Here's why:

This is the simplest thing, and it's not possible to create a perspective out of reason unless we are willing and able to grasp it.

Anybody....

Who makes...

Any claim...

Bears the burden....

For THEIR claim.

Many atheists wish to propose reason as an alternative to religion, which I think is a worthy contribution, a good option to put on the table. But in order for that to work, we have to know what reason is, and we have to actually use it.

Creating yet another faith based ideology to confront theism is pointless, because theists have been doing ideology for thousands of years, they are masters at it, as their very long survival proves. If we try to beat theism with ideology, especially faith based ideology, we are playing the game on their home court.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But how can disbelief in something unevidenced need to be proven?

Exactly. There is no evidence whatsoever in the first place that even remotely suggests a creator or creators involvement in what we know and observe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is the simplest thing, and it's not possible to create a perspective out of reason unless we are willing and able to grasp it.

Anybody....

Who makes...

Any claim...

Bears the burden....

For THEIR claim.

Is a god who is so irrelevant and insignificant that we can't conclusively say that he even exists the sort of god that you believe in? Because that's the only god that we have room for until theists meet their burden of proof.

Making the leap from "only irrelevant gods might exist" to "no gods exist" only needs one premise, based on the definition of terms being used: an irrelevant god is not a god (just as, say, a four-sided triangle is not a triangle). I'm guessing that this premise is one you agree with, too. Is it? Or are you open to the idea of an irrelevant god?

 

[Laika]

Many atheists wish to propose reason as an alternative to religion, which I think is a worthy contribution, a good option to put on the table. But in order for that to work, we have to know what reason is, and we have to actually use it.

As this thread is going on, increasingly I'm beginning to think the reason that proof is necessary is dependent on the function of atheism. For someone to believe as an individual that there is no god, it is not necessary for it to be objectively true and hence weak atheism is appropriate. For a society to believe that there is no god and to formulate political, legal and moral systems on that premise that man is the highest authority and there is none higher, there must necessarily be proof that this is a sound basis for a future society. The need for proof is related to confidence in the ability of mankind to formulate such systems for themselves according to their needs.

 

[Typist]

I consider faith in human reasoning, even if not explicit, as a prerequesite for any meaningful discussion, and I would think that this is something most will develop faith in through their individual experience. I think it is difficult for me to argue in favour of reason without some reasoning, and that could perhaps be called circular logic.

I agree that human reason is very useful, for this inquiry included. Which is why I'm attempting to reason here with my fellow members.

It is however entirely reason-able to use human reason to explore the limits of human reason. Is is possible to fall in love using only reason? Nope. A limit of reason discovered, using reason. Not in the least complicated, esoteric or bizarre etc.

I certainly can not prove the rules of human reason are not binding on all of reality, and it's not even my desire to do so. It is however easy to demonstrate that such a thing has not been proven, and thus can be reasonably declined until further notice. It's also easy to make a case that a species as small and young and nutty as ourselves is unlikely to have uncovered the rule book for all of reality, the HUGE realm which is the scope of god claims.

Using only reason, we should be able to see that the theist vs. atheist debate is reasonably labeled a merry-go-round to nowhere. Thousands of years, and still no resolution, or hope of one. For me, the point of challenging atheism is not to sell theism (the usual motivation) but to reveal the entire debate is a hopelessly flawed dead end.

The purpose of selling that proposition is to open our minds to trying something else, which will most likely have to be something fundamentally different than the usual routine.

Theism and atheism share the assumption that the point of the inquiry should be to find The Answer, to create a knowing, a conceptual object which accurately represents reality.

If you believe in evidence, please consider this evidence developed over thousands of years. That assumption is NOT WORKING. No answer has been found which can not be successfully challenged in a handful of keystrokes.

The rational thing to do when some process fails repeatedly over thousands of years is to..... try something else. But what?

Stick with the inquiry if it interests us, but abandon that which has been proven not to work. Abandon the search for The Answer.

And new doors may open up. But we won't see those new doors or walk through them so long as we are addicted to riding the merry-go-round to nowhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree that human reason is very useful, for this inquiry included. Which is why I'm attempting to reason here with my fellow members.

It is however entirely reason-able to use human reason to explore the limits of human reason. Is is possible to fall in love using only reason? Nope. A limit of reason discovered, using reason. Not in the least complicated, esoteric or bizarre etc.

I certainly can not prove the rules of human reason are not binding on all of reality, and it's not even my desire to do so. It is however easy to demonstrate that such a thing has not been proven, and thus can be reasonably declined until further notice. It's also easy to make a case that a species as small and young and nutty as ourselves is unlikely to have uncovered the rule book for all of reality, the HUGE realm which is the scope of god claims.

Using only reason, we should be able to see that the theist vs. atheist debate is reasonably labeled a merry-go-round to nowhere. Thousands of years, and still no resolution, or hope of one. For me, the point of challenging atheism is not to sell theism (the usual motivation) but to reveal the entire debate is a hopelessly flawed dead end.

The purpose of selling that proposition is to open our minds to trying something else, which will most likely have to be something fundamentally different than the usual routine.

Theism and atheism share the assumption that the point of the inquiry should be to find The Answer, to create a knowing, a conceptual object which accurately represents reality.

If you believe in evidence, please consider this evidence developed over thousands of years. That assumption is NOT WORKING. No answer has been found which can not be successfully challenged in a handful of keystrokes.

The rational thing to do when some process fails repeatedly over thousands of years is to..... try something else. But what?

Stick with the inquiry if it interests us, but abandon that which has been proven not to work. Abandon the search for The Answer.

And new doors may open up. But we won't see those new doors or walk through them so long as we are addicted to riding the merry-go-round to nowhere.

If you're suggesting that the question of God's existence should be approached as an aesthetic preference and not as a factual matter, then it seems to me that you're conceding that God doesn't literally exist.

If you're re-framing the question as something more like "is God a useful metaphor?", then you're talking about something else entirely.

 

[Typist]

Quick note to the original poster. Is any of what we're discussing relevant to your opening post, or have we, um, uh, entirely hijacked your thread? Grab the reigns and get us back on track if needed, agreeable here.

 

[Vishvavajra]

IMO, the only common feature of all definitions of "god" that I've been able to find is that a god is an object of worship by human beings.

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.

The term "god" depends on there being a relationship between humanity and the thing, so if there's no relationship, the thing is not a god... even if we would decide to worship the thing if we knew about it.

That is indeed the only definition of "god" that holds up over the millennia, across all the different traditions. It seems to be more or less how the ancient Greeks understood the word theos (ditto the Latin deus). Attempts to define God in a more restrictive, essentialist way seem to come out of the later Judaic tradition, especially in the form of Christianity. As I often say, "god" is not a being but a relationship.

In the traditional usage there's no argument over the existence of a god, since there are obviously countless gods. Even a mortal human can be a god, as we see with ruler cult, which was popular in antiquity.

And semantics aside, we can still say that any claim that a thing that's "unmeasurable in every way" exists are necessarily unfounded and unjustified.

Yeah, grandiose claims of ineffability pretty much disqualify something from all conventional definitions of "existence," meaning that in practical terms it can be said not to exist. And that's not even getting into whether hit even makes sense on the conceptual level.

 

[Laika]

Quick note to the original poster. Is any of what we're discussing relevant to your opening post, or have we, um, uh, entirely hijacked your thread? Grab the reigns and get us back on track if needed, agreeable here.

No probs. go with it. I just want to see how this plays out. I'm surprised so few atheists agree with me that proof is necessary and I'm learning stuff from this.

 

[Typist]

As this thread is going on, increasingly I'm beginning to think the reason that proof is necessary is dependent on the function of atheism.

Good point, and glad we haven't lost you.

For someone to believe as an individual that there is no god, it is not necessary for it to be objectively true and hence weak atheism is appropriate.

Ok, but....

For a society to believe that there is no god and to formulate political, legal and moral systems on that premise that man is the highest authority and there is none higher, there must necessarily be proof that this is a sound basis for a future society.

Yes, the proof issue is part of the process of participating in the public square. Whether we arguing for or against god and similar claims, if we are doing do publicly we are part of the process by which a society formulates the political, legal and moral systems you reference.

A gray area perhaps are those who are simply reporting their situation. Unless they start reporting it every day.

 

[Typist]

No probs. go with it. I just want to see how this plays out. I'm surprised so few atheists agree with me that proof is necessary and I'm learning stuff from this.

Ok, cool. Yes, I'm afraid a great many forum atheists (not the same as all atheists) are only interested in reason when it can be used to reject religion, which isn't reason at all, but ideology. To be fair, much the same going on over on the theist side too. Reason concerns itself with truth, ideology concerns itself with victory.

 

[illykitty]

As this thread is going on, increasingly I'm beginning to think the reason that proof is necessary is dependent on the function of atheism. For someone to believe as an individual that there is no god, it is not necessary for it to be objectively true and hence weak atheism is appropriate. For a society to believe that there is no god and to formulate political, legal and moral systems on that premise that man is the highest authority and there is none higher, there must necessarily be proof that this is a sound basis for a future society. The need for proof is related to confidence in the ability of mankind to formulate such systems for themselves according to their needs.

I'll ask you a question in return referring mostly to your few last lines, say that we never prove or disprove gods existing, then what should we base authority on? What would be the basis of society? What else do we have? Sorry if you already mentioned it, I read the whole thread but might have missed something.

 

[Laika]

I'll ask you a question in return referring mostly to your few last lines, say that we never prove or disprove gods existing, then what should we base authority on? What would be the basis of society? What else do we have? Sorry if you already mentioned it, I read the whole thread but might have missed something.

No probs. it's a long thread. I think we'd end up still using God because we haven't figured out an alternative authority. 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.

 

[illykitty]

No probs. it's a long thread. I think we'd end up still using God because we haven't figured out an alternative authority. 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.

I'm not sure I follow. And there's many gods... So are you saying each country would base their morality on their own god(s)?

Lots of countries are secular... And being a theist (though a little different from mainstream flavours), I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not saying we humans are perfect, but just the fact that there are many gods, it makes no sense to base morality on that. Which would it be? Why chose X god? Because of the majority? What if a country is by majority atheistic? What's so wrong about basing our morality on the lessons we learn through time? Better than something irrelevant that was set in stone thousands of years ago, from people who understood reality in a very different way.

I have a bit of trouble understanding your conclusion, to be honest.

 

[Laika]

I'm not sure I follow. And there's many gods... So are you saying each country would base their morality on their own god(s)?

Lots of countries are secular... And being a theist (though a little different from mainstream flavours), I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm not saying we humans are perfect, but just the fact that there are many gods, it makes no sense to base morality on that. Which would it be? Why chose X god? Because of the majority? What if a country is by majority atheistic? What's so wrong about basing our morality on the lessons we learn through time? Better than something irrelevant that was set in stone thousands of years ago, from people who understood reality in a very different way.

I have a bit of trouble understanding your conclusion, to be honest.

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.

 

[Jumi]

Then gods don't exist. An irrelevant god is not a god.

If we use the common theistic definition then we are agreed.

Certain terms carry implications with them. For instance, if we were talking about "X, the staple food of country Y", if we went to country Y and found that the vast majority of people don't eat food X, then we could conclude that food X - as we've defined it - doesn't exist, because it isn't the country's staple food. The term "god" works in a similar way.

If the common (Christian) definition of gods in west is obviously non-existent, it doesn't mean there can't be gods that are outside of that. Of course there is no reason for us to assume they do exist.

 

[Jumi]

ethically, liberalism is derivative of judeo-christian ethics. We think of human rights as a product of human nature.

I would think we got those from before Christianity existed. It's because Greek philosophy became more widely available that these thoughts gained momentum.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Certainly, strong atheists are less irrational than believers with detailed dogma.....tis one unproven belief vs numerous unproven beliefs.

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

You had your chance.....& failed each time.
Booowhahahahahahahahahah, etc!