The Truth or Falsity of Atheism

[theleftone]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

[ShadowRishi]

If you feel I'm not being objective: please, clarify.

Well, Rishi, you're expecting us to gear the rules of evidential inquiry to suit your tastes. That is, just because you're a real smart kid who has strong opinions, we're supposed to forget that new evidence changes our assumptions. No, this isn't a matter of opinion, Rishi, this is called inductive reasoning.

Do you come from the last forum I was on?


Pista, either keep this argument on what we are talking or I will put you on my ignore list. I have no time for pissing matches. No time.

I don't care if you think I'm the stupidest, smartest, angriest, sadest, happiest, or most pacifist person you've ever met. I don't care. If you have something relevant to the argument: say it. Keep your analysis of me, opinions, and insults to me to yourself. No one cares what you think of them; and if they do, then they aren't debating. I am here to debate. What are you here for?

Case in point:

I understand that creatures mutate and over time can turn into other creatures; I do not see there being any large need for God (except as a creator God, but the jury is still out on that).

Otherwise, I see no logical reason to assert that there's a god. And even after we assert that claim, it's pointless to make further claims about god --because who can really say?

This string of non sequiturs demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the notion of falsification. Maybe you could talk to one of your professors about the concept.

The TOE is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable: as unlikely as we feel such falsifying evidence would be, we have to accept that it could conceivably exist. The same can be said of atheism. It's rational to say that insufficient evidence exists for us to affirm the existence of God, but it's also rational to accept that such evidence could conceivably exist.

Atheism is falsifiable, Rishi, whether or not you accept the fact. Atheism is rational because evidence of God could conceivably exist, but to the best of our knowledge it doesn't.

1. I've read your arm-chair philosopher Poppler (I hate Post-Modernism) and he was about as well versed in science as Jerry Falwell. I prefer Thomas J. Kuhn's model of scientific progress. Can we quite this pissing match already?

2. You have stated many times that atheism and theism are falsifiable positions. Please, verify this claim with logic and reasoning. I think, that given there is no evidence that is unequivocal (Meaning all evidence is equivocal, and thus interpreting it comes from already assumed positions on how to view the evidence; I noted the cloud spelling out God's name, for example), that the belief is axiomatic. Start there.

[Pista Gyerek]

You're a great listener, Rish. Best of luck in your studies.

[ShadowRishi]

I'm sorry you dislike me. Best of luck in whatever you do.

[Pista Gyerek]

Wrong again. Perfect record.

[realthinker]

I'm late to the discussion, but I'll have my whack at it.

No matter how you define atheism, if you do not attribute any truth to the idea of any god, you are in general going to be living without the influence of religion in your life. That leaves you as an individual to deal with all of those things that religious people rely upon their faith and their religious community to handle in whatever fashion you may devise. That is, you will have to satisfy your spiritual needs without the guidance and support of a religious authority. What's more, you will, as a parent, be responsible for fulfilling the spiritual needs of your children without that help as well. And the needs are real. Your four year old will ask, "Daddy, what happens when you die?" Your nine year old will ask, "Why is the universe here? What made it?" and "Why are we alive?" Those questions are natural, and they're spiritual, and without religion you have to do a lot of thinking to come up with a satisfactory answer that factors into a cohesive depiction of truth for your children. Religion has built that up over thousands of years.

So, from my perspective, to judge the validity of atheism or religion you should probably extend beyond the notion of whether the position regarding the existence of a supreme being to include some evaluation of whether it's a viable way to live, for you and your family.

And for what it's worth, I am atheist, a recovered Catholic.

[byofrcs]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

If you look at the difference between a monotheist and an atheist then the monotheist does not believe in many gods except for one specific god as described by specific texts. Both the god and canonical texts that document their belief is based on a mix of the society and culture they are brought up in and their family circumstances.

In a different culture, different time or different family the monotheist will have a different god and canonical texts that they refer to.

The best person to answer the question, "Can atheism be true or false ?" to a reasonable degree is therefore the monotheist. If the monotheist is able to claim that they do not believe in many gods then the atheistic position of not believing in or having no belief in any gods is at least as valid a stance. So atheism is true just as monotheism is true and the proof lies within each monotheist.

Polytheists obviously ask the same true or false question about monotheists.

[theleftone]

The best person to answer the question, "Can atheism be true or false ?" to a reasonable degree is therefore the monotheist. If the monotheist is able to claim that they do not believe in many gods then the atheistic position of not believing in or having no belief in any gods is at least as valid a stance. So atheism is true just as monotheism is true and the proof lies within each monotheist.

The typical monotheist, based on your correctly stated cultural points, maintains a belief in a deity. They rarely reject or actively lack a belief in other deities. Any lacking of belief would likely be passive, as it would be derived from ignorance -- not knowledge or logical deduction.

The atheist rejects or actively lacks belief in all deities.

[byofrcs]

The best person to answer the question, "Can atheism be true or false ?" to a reasonable degree is therefore the monotheist. If the monotheist is able to claim that they do not believe in many gods then the atheistic position of not believing in or having no belief in any gods is at least as valid a stance. So atheism is true just as monotheism is true and the proof lies (within each monotheist.

The typical monotheist, based on your correctly stated cultural points, maintains a belief in a deity. They rarely reject or actively lack a belief in other deities. Any lacking of belief would likely be passive, as it would be derived from ignorance -- not knowledge or logical deduction.

The atheist rejects or actively lacks belief in all deities.

This makes little sense at all and I'll refer to 1st Commandment; Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (KJV) and the Islamic Shahadah in which part of it (translated) is, "... there is no god (ilah) but God (Allah), ..."

I propose that you are very much on your own if you think monotheists "rarely reject or actively lack a belief in other deities" as the two main monotheistic faiths have very clear guidelines on worship of other gods.

This to me reads that many monotheists have an active disregard of other gods.

Once again I state that the monotheist is the one who can answer the question posed "Can atheism be true or false ?".

The atheist rejects all deities for many reasons; lack of evidence being the biggy. I don't see how you can have "actively lack(s)" of belief in all deities. You either actively reject (the strong atheist position) or have no belief in (the weak atheist position).

Monotheists who follow the 1st commandment or Shahadah are the same as strong atheists when it comes to rejecting 'x' for a reason. The difference is that atheists should base this rejection on a methodology from naturalism whereas monotheists could base this on religious dogma.

Is naturalism true or false ? It is a methodology. It makes no sense to label it true or false.

On the other hand, religious dogma is derived from religious texts. Now it does make sense to label particular religious texts as true or false. Religions are only too willing to do this and label such texts "heretical" or simply false.

Atheism thus cannot be considered true or false but the aspects of monotheism related to the numbers of gods (the mono- in the monotheism) can be labelled true or false when it is derived from something that can be shown to be true or false. So which is it for monotheism ? The atheist stance obviously proposes "false" whereas the monotheist says "true" on the basis of the texts. The key to this is thus how much we can trust these texts if this particular set of rules is used (the proviso is that the 1st commandment and Shahadah are mission critical to these monotheistic faiths).

I'm using the "texts" as that is something that is falsifiable. In essence I'm proposing that the number of gods is falsifiable based on the accuracy of the texts that monotheists use to justify them discarding the other gods that humanity has documented.

Both the Quran and the Bible have some problems in that both were not compiled contemporaneous to the events they document. This makes them untrustworthy by modern standards given the poor level of content/copyright control and attribution.

On the other hand I can show you stone idols of gods cut in stone set in buildings that we know how old they are which are testament to gods that the monotheist actively disregards. We need not ask the polytheist who believes in all documented gods why they do this without laboriously having to go through huge amounts of texts nor ask the atheist, who has no regard for any texts and is simply waiting for evidence of god.

No, it is thus left simply to the monotheist to justify their stance when it is derived from their texts. This is why only they can answer that question on "true" or "false".

[Pi]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

Presently to conclude God's existence or non existence are both illogical.

[bernee51]

I was pondering my favorite definition of atheism. That is, atheism as a lack of belief in any deities. It got me to thinking. Can atheism be true? Can atheism be false? If we merely define it as a 'lack of belief,' it would seem it can be either. In fact, it would seem to be meaningless to claim atheism as either true or false. It's akin to saying a car is true or a car is false.

So, what do you all say? Can atheism be true or false? If neither, is does such a statement make no sense?

Presently to conclude God's existence or non existence are both illogical.

That depends on the god who's existence is being questioned.