What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[bernee51]

You have to have some kind of demarcation in any belief. Without that demarcation, you can call everything anything you like.

Exactly so Harvey. (Ain't it wondeful what a good nights sleep will do after a long day.)

After thought, reflection and meditation Harvey I have concluded that, at a philosophical level, I agree with you - I am an agnostic.

This conclusion is only based on a definition whereby theism is a belief in the existence or possible existence of all or any god(s). I cannot possibly know that a god does not exist somewhere inside or outside the universe in some form or another.

That said, quoting Russell, "If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists."

The key words here are, of course, "...for practical purposes,...".

As much as some philosophers would love to think the world is totally defined by philosophy (is one sense they are correct) we live in a practical world. When I am dicussing god with a christian the reasonable assumption is that we are talking about good ol' JCI god. I believe in this circumstance I am justified and correct in terming myself an atheist. By his own words does JCI condemn himself. He is a logical impossibility. Like a married bachelor. I know he does not exist...unless he comes along and chooses to re-define himself.

So you are right about demarcation. The dividing line here is practicality.

BTW have you read any of Wilber's work?

[harvey1]

You have to have some kind of demarcation in any belief. Without that demarcation, you can call everything anything you like.

Exactly so Harvey. (Ain't it wondeful what a good nights sleep will do after a long day.) After thought, reflection and meditation Harvey I have concluded that, at a philosophical level, I agree with you - I am an agnostic. This conclusion is only based on a definition whereby theism is a belief in the existence or possible existence of all or any god(s). I cannot possibly know that a god does not exist somewhere inside or outside the universe in some form or another. That said, quoting Russell, "If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists." The key words here are, of course, "...for practical purposes,...". As much as some philosophers would love to think the world is totally defined by philosophy (is one sense they are correct) we live in a practical world. When I am dicussing god with a christian the reasonable assumption is that we are talking about good ol' JCI god. I believe in this circumstance I am justified and correct in terming myself an atheist.

Does it matter if you are justified or not? If you want to call yourself Abraham Lincoln, then you can do so. The point though, is that if you want others to really understand what you believe, then you are better off sticking to your true beliefs, which you say are agnostic. I really don't care what people call themselves, I care mainly about understanding their beliefs and hopefully help preserve the meaning of these terms because language barriers are difficult enough without further confusion caused by incorrect terminology.

By his own words does JCI condemn himself. He is a logical impossibility. Like a married bachelor. I know he does not exist...unless he comes along and chooses to re-define himself. So you are right about demarcation. The dividing line here is practicality.

I don't see the logical impossibility that you are referring to. Can you be more specific?

BTW have you read any of Wilber's work?

I'm not familiar with it. Are you talking about Ken Wilber? Isn't it psychobabble? I'm not sure, it just didn't appear academic... What is it about it that might interest me?

[bernee51]

Does it matter if you are justified or not?

Not at all

The point though, is that if you want others to really understand what you believe, then you are better off sticking to your true beliefs, which you say are agnostic.

I guess i see it as a matter of context. In your case, you would appear to have a broader understanding ot res philosophica than average. For you, with god as nothing more than a philosphical construct I ma happy to ba agnostic.

For a christian whose sole understanding of god is what is contained in their book of myth, atheism best describes my position.

I care mainly about understanding their beliefs and hopefully help preserve the meaning of these terms because language barriers are difficult enough without further confusion caused by incorrect terminology.

I agree entirely Harvey...one can only communicate effectively within the others experience. As (or if) their experience expands (or they appear willing and able to expand) I would communicate in a broader fashion. I don't see the terminilogy as so much incorrect but limited to aid understanding.

By his own words does JCI condemn himself. He is a logical impossibility. Like a married bachelor.

I don't see the logical impossibility that you are referring to. Can you be more specific?

The Argument from Non Belief, the Argument from Evil, and the Prayer conundrum - for starters

BTW have you read any of Wilber's work?

I'm not familiar with it. Are you talking about Ken Wilber? Isn't it psychobabble? I'm not sure, it just didn't appear academic... What is it about it that might interest me?

That is the guy. I guess some of it could be considered 'psychobabble", one man's psychobabble could be another's blinding insight.

Everyone has something to say.

As to what of it may interest you - I couldn't guess. I found some of his ideas on the evolution of spirituality and conciousness to be interesting

[mrmufin]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Consider the following propositions:

1) My mother loves me;
2) I believe my mother loves me;
3) I am not sure if my mother loves me;
4) I can not know if my mother loves me;
5) I do not believe my mother loves me;
6) My mother doesn't love me.

Proposition 6 can only stand if proposition 1 can be stated in some falsifiable manner. To accomplish that, rigorous definitions of my mother, love, and me are necessary. Like the gods, a mother's love is something that varies from person to person. Even though my mother and I can both be sufficiently defined, a reliable and impartial loveometer has yet to be introduced. I personally regard proposition 2 as the most plausible conclusion with respect to all observational data. My confidence is such that, for all practical purposes, proposition 1 seems to be true. In fact, the only thing that precludes the first (and/or sixth) propositions is a wholly consistent definition of love.

If observational data of my mother, or more specifically, our interaction, is strictly limited (or entirely unavailable) then proposition 2 starts to look dubious and propositions 3 thru 5 all appear to be plausible conclusions.

Tersely expressed, don't ask for proof of a negative without a falsifiable affirmative.



Regards,
mrmufin

[ST88]

I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

Why is it necessary to provide support against an assertion? Isn't it the burden of those who assert a positive statement to provide the proof?

I realize you've been trying to make a distinction between agnosticism & atheism in this regard, but as bernee51 says, for all practical purposes we generally operate in the same way, as if there is no God.

As I define it, the nonbelief in God is not exactly an opposing assertion to the proposal that God exists. Instead it is more of a recognition that the world is as we see it and that there is no divine presence behind it. On top of this, the idea of God is overlaid by Christians afterward, making it a positive assertion over and above the initial naturalist explanation, which has been satisfactory.

The rejection of the idea of God is not due to some opposing force of will, it is the rejection of the assertion of His existence.

[nikolayevich]

Atheism doesn't need arguments. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that I don't have an invisible friend, or that I was not abducted by aliens.

Well, that's one way to avoid the question

I don't think atheism is so passive as to be all about observing only what is known. Atheists are generally the most anti-god, not just disbelieving. Why so anti-god, if there is no need for a position?

Edit: For some reason I didn't notice there were posts past this one by Quarkhead- apologies if my response seems like a digression

[dangerdan]

Hey all, happy new year if I haven’t already wished it!

What a cracking debate! Hope no one minds if I jump right in.

Atheism doesn't need arguments. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that I don't have an invisible friend, or that I was not abducted by aliens.

Well, that's one way to avoid the question

Hmmm, no, I think this is a vital point, not a question dodge. Atheism is, I feel, a default setting. Surely you must admit one is not born with an instinctive theological understanding of God or gods. It is learned, as a theory to understand the world around us. The concept of God is introduced, wouldn’t you say?

I don't think atheism is so passive as to be all about observing only what is known. Atheists are generally the most anti-god, not just disbelieving. Why so anti-god, if there is no need for a position?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by "anti-god", but I shall, for the sake of the argument, assume that you mean positively assert that “anything that is fit to be called God does not exist (for all practical usages of the term “exist”)”

Ok, if we are to rationally analyze the points, then Nik I truly admire your bravery and honesty, so lets jump right in. Here’s a little point to kick things off -

The term God has a reasonably strict definition, it’s not fitting for the label “God” to be given to a vague life-force-spiritual-thing that doesn’t interact with our world. Now, if a God type character is to exist, it naturally flows that there should be an abundance of empirical data from when she has interacted in our terrestrial world. There currently is, to the best of my knowledge, no such evidence. So this doesn’t look good guys.

[nikolayevich]

Hey all, happy new year if I haven’t already wished it!

Happy new year!

Atheism doesn't need arguments. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that I don't have an invisible friend, or that I was not abducted by aliens.

Well, that's one way to avoid the question

Hmmm, no, I think this is a vital point, not a question dodge. Atheism is, I feel, a default setting.

It's certainly suggested every now and again but I'm not so sure it can be. The term "Atheism" implies an affirmation of the non-existence of God. Try to understand what I mean. Theos is in its root after all. To call oneself an atheist is to label oneself in relation to the concept of God. How can one do so without a knowledge of the same? (speaking of the knowledge of the concept, rather than a knowledge of God)

Surely you must admit one is not born with an instinctive theological understanding of God or gods. It is learned, as a theory to understand the world around us. The concept of God is introduced, wouldn’t you say?

Theological understanding at birth, no. I have to agree with you on this point. Theology implies a depth of understanding of God. We aren't born with a knowledge of the nature of our parents either, but they still exist and nurture us so it doesn't really say much about a default.

A lack of known proof is not proof against. As harvey1 has rightly pointed out, at most it is support for agnosticism, which is different and not a part of atheism.

Since atheist definitions have been relatively vague at this point:

a·the·ism
n.
1. a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

or

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness ] [ant: theism ] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
-Dictionaries @ dictionary.com

One cannot believe "that there is no God" as a default.

[nikolayevich]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Since no one has provided a complete argument in support of atheism, nor believes it necessary, allow me to present an example of one by C.S. Lewis. It will not only show that it is possible, but that there is far more to atheism than defaults. If there weren't, it would not be falsifiable:

"Not many years ago when I was an atheist, if anyone had asked me, 'Why do you not believe in God?' my reply would have run something like this: 'Look at the universe we live in. By far the greatest part of it consists of empty space, completely dark and unimaginably cold. The bodies which move in this space are so few and so small in comparison with the space itself that even if every one of them were known to be crowded as full as it could hold with perfectly happy creatures, it would still be difficult to believe that life and happiness were more than a by-product to the power that made the universe. As it is, however, the scientists think it likely that very few of the suns of space--perhaps none of them except our own--have any planets; and in our own system it is improbable that any planet except the Earth sustains life. And Earth herself existed without life for millions of years and may exist for millions more when life has left her. And what is it like while it lasts? It is so arranged that all the forms of it can live only by preying upon one another. In the lower forms this process entails only death, but in the higher there appears a new quality called consciousness which enables it to be attended with pain. The creatures cause pain by being born, and live by inflicting pain, and in pain they mostly die. In the most complex of all the creatures, Man, yet another quality appears, which we call reason, whereby he is enabled to foresee his own pain which henceforth is preceded with acute mental suffering, and to foresee his own death while keenly desiring permanence. It also enables men by a hundred ingenious contrivances to inflict a great deal more pain than they otherwise could have done on one another and on the irrational creatures. This power they have exploited to the full. Their history is largely a record of crime, war, disease, and terror, with just sufficient happiness interposed to give them, while it lasts, an agonised apprehension of losing it, and, when it is lost, the poignant misery of remembering. Every now and then they improve their condition a little and what we call a civilisation appears. But all civilisations pass away and, even while they remain, inflict peculiar sufferings of their own probably sufficient to outweigh what alleviations they may have brought to the normal pains of man. That our own civilisation has done so, no one will dispute; that it will pass away like all its predecessors is surely probable. Even if it should not, what then? The race is doomed. Every race that comes into being in any part of the universe is doomed; for the universe, they tell us, is running down, and will sometime be a uniform infinity of homogeneous matter at a low temperature. All stories will come to nothing: all life will turn out in the end to have been a transitory and senseless contortion upon the idiotic face of infinite matter. If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit."
C.S. Lewis, "The Problem of Pain"

I imagine this is closer to answering the initial question.

Now of course, Lewis goes on to explain inherent problems with his atheism... but he had positive reasons for his atheism when he was in that frame of mind, reasons to dis-believe in God.

[mrmufin]

Since no one has provided a complete argument in support of atheism, nor believes it necessary,

Because the person making the affirmative claim bears the principal burden of demonstrating the integrity of the claim to those who doubt it. In fact, every time that a theist is pressed for some testable, falsifiable way to demonstrate the integrity of the proposition "God exists," the shell game starts.

Consider the following propositions:

1) God exists;
2) I believe God exists;
3) I am not sure if God exists;
4) I can not know if God exists;
5) I do not believe God exists;
6) God doesn't exist.

Proposition 6 can only stand if proposition 1 can be stated in some falsifiable manner. To accomplish that, rigorous definitions of God and existence are necessary. Like motherly love, the concept of God's existence is something that varies from person to person. A reliable and impartial theometer has yet to be introduced. I personally regard proposition 5 as the most plausible conclusion with respect to all observational data. My confidence is such that, for all practical purposes, proposition 6 seems to be true. In fact, the only thing that precludes the sixth (and/or first) propositions are wholly consistent definitions of God and existence.

If observational data of God is strictly limited (or entirely unavailable) then proposition 2 starts to look dubious and propositions 3 thru 5 all appear to be plausible conclusions. Since proposition 2 is a statement describing belief, rather than a statement about reality, it eludes falsification. The same is true for proposition 5.

allow me to present an example of one by C.S. Lewis. It will not only show that it is possible, but that there is far more to atheism than defaults. If there weren't, it would not be falsifiable:

The verification or falsification of the existence of any god concept represent two sides of the same coin.

The race is doomed. Every race that comes into being in any part of the universe is doomed; for the universe, they tell us, is running down, and will sometime be a uniform infinity of homogeneous matter at a low temperature.

Why should ths bother me if I have no way to affect the outcome and that outcome is billions of years away?

All stories will come to nothing: all life will turn out in the end to have been a transitory and senseless contortion upon the idiotic face of infinite matter.

Senseless and idiotic are assessments, not inherent properties. While a dismal outcome billions of years down the road and beyond my control may be predicted, somehow I don't feel precluded from making sense of my existence. I am quite capable of enjoyment, meaning, sense, understanding, regardless of the ultimate outcome of the universe. My outcome and the outcome of the universe don't appear to be interdependent.

If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that you have to demonstrate the existence of the spirit before its properties can be discerned.

Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit."

How could we establish the integrity of any of those possibilities?

Now of course, Lewis goes on to explain inherent problems with his atheism... but he had positive reasons for his atheism when he was in that frame of mind, reasons to dis-believe in God.

And I have my reasons for not believing in the existence of the gods, and right up there at the top of the list is their conspicuous unobservability. If that is unreasonable, why?

Regards,
mrmufin