Justification for strong atheism

[bpesta22]

This is probably preaching to the choir / too sophmoric for this group, but I keep getting into arguments over how atheism is a religion, and that strong atheism is totally irrational, because there's no way to know with certainty that no god, any god, exists.

So, here's my blog thingy: If it's too long for you to bother with, please just check out the 2 scenarios I created below.

***

For people who claim atheism is a religion, or that (strong) atheism requires just as much faith as theism:

I'm a strong atheist. I claim no gods exist. Do I know this with certainty? No. But certainty is an impossible and unecessary burden for belief (or non belief) to be rational.

Unless you can show me god is logical via reason, or verfiable via either my senses, or the scientific method, the default mode HAS TO BE that no gods exist. This has to be the deafult mode.

Since I cannot sense any gods, nor have I seen any compelling logical arguments for a god's existence, my strong atheism is perfectly rational.

***

You must follow the rules of logic when you debate. If you don't you automatically lose. If you reject reason as the basis for deciding whether or not to believe in something, then you are not worth debating. That doesn't mean your position is wrong. It does mean, though, that further conversations with you would be pointless (as if you spoke a language I didn't).

Theists demand the illogical when they ask atheists to prove with certainty that gods don't exist (usually asked smugly knowing that since this is impossible, they can then claim-- incorrectly-- that atheism is just as faith-based as their belief)

"Prove that x doesn't exist, and do it with certainty." Impossible and unnecessary.

We don't require that level of proof for any other thing we could potentially believe in. Why do we require it for (pick your) god?

There are two rules:

1) If I can verify x with logic, my senses or the scientific method, then it is rational to believe in x.

2) If I can't perceive x, and if x has no logical support, and if x can't be verified with the scientific method, then game over. It is rational to not believe in x.

Moreover, when (2) applies the burden (not with certainty of course!) rests squarely with the person asserting that this unseen x exists, despite no logical reason for it needing to exist, and despite no evidence via the scientific method suggesting that it might exist.

Consider these two scenarios, to really beat this to death:

****

Scenario 1:

Atheist: Hey, look at this tree.

Theist: I don't believe you.

Atheist: No, really, look here.

Theist: Well, i see something that my eyes tell me looks like a tree, but that depends on me having faith that my senses are accuracte.

Atheist: Ok, so you admit your senses are telling you this thing might be a tree. You say all you have is faith, though, not proof, as your senses might not be accurate.

I'm going to also demonstrate with logic that the tree exists. Bend over please.

Theist: but why? (assuming position).

Atheist: Do you feel the tree limb thrust squarely up your arse? Doesn't it feel like tree bark scractching your insides? Can you feel the leaves that sheer off the tree and gently caress your back? Doesn't your screaming in agony suggest that this tree actually exists, and that it's limb is in your bum?

In other words: something you were not sure about (whether this thing was indeed a tree) has been verified inductively, becuase it has effects on your body quite similar to what a philosopher would predict were a tree in a forrest to fall in your arse. That this tree had physical effects on your person suggests at some level it exists.

Theist: Hmmm, ok, you've proved this is a tree. Hey, can we try that again!


****

Scenario 2:

Theist: Hey, jesus exists.

Atheist: Ok, show me him.

Theist: You can't perceive him through your senses, or the scientific method, you just gotta have faith.

Atheist: Ok provide some logical argument for why something I can't verify with my senses or science, nonetheless exists.

Theist: Well, I can't do that either. All I gots is the argument from design, and perhaps pascal's wager, but you clever heathens have already exposed the invalidity of those arguments.

Again, if you just had faith that jesus exists, you would know in your heart that jesus exists.

Atheist: But faith is belief in the absence of reason. It is irrational-- in fact, it is the opposite of reason.

Theist. Yeah, but it's all I got. And my belief IS based only on faith, which IS irrational. You've convinced me!

Hey, can we try that tree demonstration again!

 

[Kopji]

Humm. Let's borrow a little from Pascal...

True or false, atheism does not require enormous resources of lives and finances to keep it going.

Faith though, requires trillions of dollars and the dedication of entire lifetimes to keep it going. This compels it to actually be based on something true, rather than a complex lie that makes us feel good. (Sheesh there are probably much more economical ways to make people happy than sending them to church.) It makes sense from an investment of time and resources, for an atheist to require evidence - ANY evidence - that it is true.

And if the argument for faith is helping people, Salvation Army is a top religious charity and their website says 83 cents of every dollar goes to aid. For the Red Cross, it is 92 cents of every dollar. I would hazard a guess that the SA represents a top notch religious charity.

 

[Beleth]

Why does the default mode have to be that no gods exist? Why can't it be that we must resign ourselves to the fact that we'll never know?

Using your three criteria - logical via reason, verifiable via my senses, and verifiable via the scientific method - I put it to you that I have no reason to think that Tokyo exists. Is the default mode, then, that Tokyo does not exist?

 

[DarkMagician]

For the Red Cross, it is 92 cents of every dollar. I would hazard a guess that the SA represents a top notch religious charity.

And we really friggin' stretch those 92 cents.

 

[ceo_esq]

And if the argument for faith is helping people, Salvation Army is a top religious charity and their website says 83 cents of every dollar goes to aid. For the Red Cross, it is 92 cents of every dollar. I would hazard a guess that the SA represents a top notch religious charity.

Yet Forbes, in its latest annual review, ranks a number of religious charities higher than the American Red Cross in terms of "charitable commitment" (charitable services as percentage of total expenses), including:

• Christian Aid Ministries (99%)
• Operation Blessing (99%)
• Catholic Medical Mission Board (96%)
• National Christian Charitable Foundation (95%)
• Catholic Relief Services (94%)

I don't think we can conclude, without more information, that religious charities tend to be less efficient than non-religious ones.

 

[Oleron]

Why does the default mode have to be that no gods exist? Why can't it be that we must resign ourselves to the fact that we'll never know?

Using your three criteria - logical via reason, verifiable via my senses, and verifiable via the scientific method - I put it to you that I have no reason to think that Tokyo exists. Is the default mode, then, that Tokyo does not exist?

I would define the 'default mode' as being someone who just had their memory wiped clean and had to learn everything from scratch by the 3 criteria. In other words this fictional person knows nothing of the world and has to build his knowledge of it. At this point the person would not believe Tokyo exists because he knows nothing of it.

In this scenario the person would quickly see ample evidence for the existence of Tokyo, even if he never actually saw Tokyo.

I have never seen Tokyo, nor Alpha Centauri for that matter, but there is plenty of hard, testable evidence for the existence of both. The same could not be said of god.

A 'default mode' person would see plenty of people claiming that god exists but who can offer no verifiable evidence for this. Depending on who he spoke to, he would be offered a range of gods to believe in - many of them mutually exclusive of each other. He might well conlude that the believers in these gods are equally fervent in their belief and so the logical conclusion is that, since they can't all be true, none are true.

 

[geni]

This is probably preaching to the choir / too sophmoric for this group, but I keep getting into arguments over how atheism is a religion, and that strong atheism is totally irrational, because there's no way to know with certainty that no god, any god, exists.

So, here's my blog thingy: If it's too long for you to bother with, please just check out the 2 scenarios I created below.

***

For people who claim atheism is a religion, or that (strong) atheism requires just as much faith as theism:

I'm a strong atheist. I claim no gods exist. Do I know this with certainty? No. But certainty is an impossible and unecessary burden for belief (or non belief) to be rational.

Why?

Unless you can show me god is logical via reason, or verfiable via either my senses, or the scientific method, the default mode HAS TO BE that no gods exist. This has to be the deafult mode.

How are you useing the term logical here? There is plently of G space that contains no internal contradictions and is therefor logical.

Since I cannot sense any gods, nor have I seen any compelling logical arguments for a god's existence, my strong atheism is perfectly rational.

Absence of evidence is now evidence for absence? Since there is plently of g space that allows for no evidence existing you have no case.

Theists demand the illogical when they ask atheists to prove with certainty that gods don't exist (usually asked smugly knowing that since this is impossible, they can then claim-- incorrectly-- that atheism is just as faith-based as their belief)

Um no they ask for the very logical since you are makeing the claim that no gods exist.

"Prove that x doesn't exist, and do it with certainty." Impossible and unnecessary.

Very necessary if you are going to claim that x doesn't exist and you don't claim to base it on faith.

We don't require that level of proof for any other thing we could potentially believe in. Why do we require it for (pick your) god?

We don't? News to me.

 

[El Greco]

The default mode was that "Gods exist" or that "we don't know", for hundreds of thousands of years. Then evolution and critical thinking happened.

 

[Beady]

Since I cannot sense any gods, nor have I seen any compelling logical arguments for a god's existence, my strong atheism is perfectly rational.

I have never sensed the Great Wall of China. True, I have seen what purport to be visual representations of the Great Wall, but we all know what Photoshop is capable of.

Nor have I seen any compelling logical arguments for the Great Wall's existence. True, there are plenty of people who claim to have visited it, and there's a mythology about its genesis, but this is only anecdotal evidence and is possibly caused by mass delusion.

A judicious application of Occam's Razor demonstrates the logical validity of my hypothesis: I submit that imagining a Great Wall is infinitely easier than building one. If you postulate illusion or delusion as the cause for all these accounts and physical representations, then there is no logical reason to postulate all the physical effort and suffering and all the economic displacement that would have been necessary to build and maintain such an artifact. Therefore, delusion is the simpler of the two hypothesis and is to be preferred over a belief in the Wall's actual existance.

Therefore, my strong disbelief in the existence of the Great Wall is perfectly rational.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Roboramma]

A judicious application of Occam's Razor demonstrates the logical validity of my hypothesis: I submit that imagining a Great Wall is infinitely easier than building one. If you postulate illusion or delusion as the cause for all these accounts and physical representations, then there is no logical reason to postulate all the physical effort and suffering and all the economic displacement that would have been necessary to build and maintain such an artifact. Therefore, delusion is the simpler of the two hypothesis and is to be preferred over a belief in the Wall's actual existance.

Therefore, my strong disbelief in the existence of the Great Wall is perfectly rational.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Hmm. What's more likely, that the great wall was built and exists by means that are completely explicable by historical motivations and capabilities of it's purported builders, or that there is a massive delusion that has no evidence supporting it? That all the TV images I've seen are faked, that the friends I have who've been there and told me about it and showed me pictures of it are lying and have been creating fake images, that the historians who study it's building and history are all part of a massive conspiracy, despite commiting large portions of their lives to it's study, or they too are hallucinating seeing the wall, and all the artifacts they use to determine it's history.
Hmm. Yes, occam's razor seems to show that the great wall probably doesn't exist...

I think I know the point you're trying to make, but what is it that makes you treat the great wall as real? Evidence, from various sources that suggests that the hypothesis that the great wall exists is much stronger than the one that it doesn't. There are few things that are provable, but many of those that aren't provable we view as so likey that we treat them as true.

bpesta's argument for atheism is just that we have as much reason to disbelieve in the existance of god as we do to believe in the existance of the great wall. Or hell, even that restaurant down the street that you eat lunch in most afternoons. Who knows if it's really there, of if you just remember it's being there? Or if you just hallucinated it's being there?

When someone says, "I'm sure the great wall exists." No one bats an eye, but when someone else says, "I'm sure god doesn't exist." Suddenly there's the reply, "You can't know that." Well, okay, true enough, but in as much as we can know anything, with as much assurity as that the great wal exists, we can know that god doesn't. We could talk about the reasons to hold the belief in the non-existance of god, and how strong that actually is, but that's another post.

 

[geni]

When someone says, "I'm sure the great wall exists." No one bats an eye, but when someone else says, "I'm sure god doesn't exist." Suddenly there's the reply, "You can't know that." Well, okay, true enough, but in as much as we can know anything, with as much assurity as that the great wal exists, we can know that god doesn't. We could talk about the reasons to hold the belief in the non-existance of god, and how strong that actually is, but that's another post.

The difference is that the lack of evidence for a god means nothing since there is plently of G space in which no evidence for a god would be expected to exist.

 

[Roboramma]

Why does the default mode have to be that no gods exist? Why can't it be that we must resign ourselves to the fact that we'll never know?

Of course we'll never know for certain but we can determine which is the best hypothesis given the evidence we've got.
And it seems to me that the default for anything is that it doesn't exist until we see a reason to believe that it does. What's a more parsimonious view of the world, given the evidence that we have:
1. Every third friday of the month Elvis, Bob the singing tiger, R2D2, and Ganesha get together on mars to enjoy a tea party.
2. They don't.
Homeopathy could work by some magical means that we've never even imagined, somehow tricking any scientific tests done on it (it knows when you're testing it and stops working). Maybe I can read minds, I just don't like the pressure of people testing me. But if someone asked you if I could, you'd probably say, "No, of course he can't." Because there's no evidence to support the idea, and plenty of reasons to believe that I can't.
The same goes for god. Of course saying, "God doesn't exist." Is provisional on new evidence, but for the time being it basically means, "I'm so certain that there is no god that I will live my life under that assumption."
Just like I'm so certain the world will not explode on January 5th, 2006 that I'll live my life under that assumption as well. And if anyone asked me, "Will the world explode..." I'd say, "No."
No need, in normal conversatoin, to put any caveats on that.

Using your three criteria - logical via reason, verifiable via my senses, and verifiable via the scientific method - I put it to you that I have no reason to think that Tokyo exists. Is the default mode, then, that Tokyo does not exist?

Nevertheless there is much more reason to believe that tokyo exists than that god does. I have plenty of evidence that tokyo does exist, and in fact, if Tokyo didn't exist there would be a lot of things that would need explaining, like the fact that I've seen movies set in Tokyo, met people who've been there, leafed through guidebooks, heard many second hand accounts of it. And never once seen it suggested by anyone that it doesn't. Surprising, given how many people travel there, that no one has ever come back and, when asked about their trip said, "Actually, I found out it doesn't exist, so I went to thailand instead."

But God's not like that. The existence of Tokyo explains all those observations. The existance of God explains nothing. And thus is extraneous to our understanding of the universe. Thus the assumption (until further evidence) has to be non-existence.

 

[Roboramma]

The difference is that the lack of evidence for a god means nothing since there is plently of G space in which no evidence for a god would be expected to exist.

But there are plenty of things that we wouldn't expect any evidence for, yet that we would laugh at anyone who suggested them.
For instance, I would not expect any evidence for the FSM, yet if anyone asked me, "Do you think there's a giant spagetthi monster that created the world and likes pirates?" I'd laugh at them, "Of course there isn't, don't be an idiot."
And I think most theists would too. Most people who believe in God think they "know" that the FSM doesn't exist. But there is no more reason to beleive in God than the FSM. Maybe it doesn't make sense to say FSM doesn't exist, but if it does, it makes as much sense to say God doesn't exist.

 

[El Greco]

Basically the only thing that differentiates the God hypothesis from other absurd and ridiculous speculations is that a lot of people believe in it. Ad Populum in all its sickening glory.

 

[geni]

But there are plenty of things that we wouldn't expect any evidence for, yet that we would laugh at anyone who suggested them.
For instance, I would not expect any evidence for the FSM, yet if anyone asked me, "Do you think there's a giant spagetthi monster that created the world and likes pirates?" I'd laugh at them, "Of course there isn't, don't be an idiot."
And I think most theists would too. Most people who believe in God think they "know" that the FSM doesn't exist. But there is no more reason to beleive in God than the FSM. Maybe it doesn't make sense to say FSM doesn't exist, but if it does, it makes as much sense to say God doesn't exist.

Except that the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism relgion makes a testerble claim: "Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in numbers of pirates since the 1800s."

Pirate attacks tripled between 1993 and 2003. The first half of 2003 was the worst 6-month period on record, with 234 pirate attacks.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Professor Treebumlover,

Just stick to babysitting kindergarteners, OK?

AS

 

[Thomas]

Pirate attacks tripled between 1993 and 2003. The first half of 2003 was the worst 6-month period on record, with 234 pirate attacks.

Yes, but that's because you read "pirates" literally, remember that not all FSM followers find that solution to be the best one at hand. Another solution is that it is figurative language, because otherwise it doesn't fit too well with reality, now does it?
I guess you are familiar with the saying: "Time came like a thief in the night". And a pirate is a thief yes? So if "pirates" actually means "time spend" in this context, then the paragraph in question would read:

Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the time spend since the 1800s.

I think that even a bright young fellow like yourself will find it hard to argue with such an obvious solution. I advice you to read the 16 volume Encyclopedia entitled "Why the FSM Church never has done anything wrong and always is just and right, part 1" by Nobel prize winner; Dr. Phullof Biaz Andbulshiet, if you should still be in doubt. QED.

 

[jjramsey]

Unless you can show me god is logical via reason, or verfiable via either my senses, or the scientific method, the default mode HAS TO BE that no gods exist. This has to be the deafult mode.

Since I cannot sense any gods, nor have I seen any compelling logical arguments for a god's existence, my strong atheism is perfectly rational.

I think this is more an argument for weak atheism than strong atheism. Basically, you are arguing that since the evidence for God is not compelling, then there is no reason to believe that God exists--which is weak atheism in a nutshell.

AFAIK, strong atheism implies that there is not only an absence of good evidence of God's existence, but either positive evidence that indicates that God doesn't exist, or logical argument that shows that God cannot exist.

 

[ReFLeX]

I think this is more an argument for weak atheism than strong atheism. Basically, you are arguing that since the evidence for God is not compelling, then there is no reason to believe that God exists--which is weak atheism in a nutshell.

AFAIK, strong atheism implies that there is not only an absence of good evidence of God's existence, but either positive evidence that indicates that God doesn't exist, or logical argument that shows that God cannot exist.

There are plenty of logical arguments to show that specific gods don't exist (infinite ones, omnipotent ones, all-just ones) but there are too many gods to disprove for that to be conclusive.

 

[Beerina]

Humm. Let's borrow a little from Pascal...

True or false, atheism does not require enormous resources of lives and finances to keep it going.

Faith though, requires trillions of dollars and the dedication of entire lifetimes to keep it going. This compels it to actually be based on something true, rather than a complex lie that makes us feel good.

Of which gigantic, complex conflicting lie^H^H^Henterprise requiring the dedication of fortunes and entire lifetimes to keep it going, does he speak? They conflict at the large scale, and in small divisions between them within each general category (Christians vs. Muslims vs. Jews, Catholics vs. Protestants, Southern North Carolina Baptist Convention of 1872 vs. Southern North Carolina Baptist Convention of 1908) branching and branching, much like the limb thrust up your close friend's @$$.

If they conflict, then, as Carl Sagan used to say, "one must be false. But if one, why not both?"

That religion might be a collosal, life-wasting waste of time, and that the concept of this is outrageous, does not logically imply that relgioin must be true.