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]

That's what I'm asking. If a being can be said to exist, why is it that people greet any attempt to establish this being's existence empirically with ridicule? You yourself said you could never prove a single god or set of gods. And why is that? Because the meme has developed a type of protective philosophical armor that allows it to be whatever believers say it is, as well as to avoid being whatever believers say it's not. That's why it's such a futile shell game.

Um, right. But you at least admit that there's the possibility you could be shown the mutant raccoon in action, upon which you'd accept its existence. That's not what you're saying about God: you claim there's no way you could be demonstrated that such a thing exists. And unless we're just defining God as something you can never prove exists, I don't see why we couldn't establish what it is we're looking for and how we'd know if we found it.

Sure, there could be a mutant raccoon; but for pragmatic sake, I'll assume that there's no mutant, super raccoon.



And you're not paying close enough attention:

I said there can be no proof of God.
I said there's no reason to assume there's a God without evidence.

Two separate parts; the raccoon analogy was for the idea that we should assume without proof; that had nothing to do with God's falsifiability.

[Pista Gyerek]

And you're not paying close enough attention:

I said there can be no proof of God.

Answer me why this claim should be accepted. WHY can there be NO PROOF of God?

I promise I'll pay attention.

[ShadowRishi]

Answer me why this claim should be accepted. WHY can there be NO PROOF of God?

I promise I'll pay attention.

Very well; I'll answer (Forgive the lack of brevity):


There is an old Christian adage:

"What is faith in God? Faith in God is like faith in a chair; when you sit, you have faith that the chair will hold your weight. Just as you must have faith in a chair, you must have faith in God."

This is, of course, foolishness. I have tested the chair; I have, for all my life, sat in chairs and every time (or nearly every time) it has held my weight. I have analyzed the chairs; if the chair is rickety, I refuse to sit on it because it fails what I've observed. I can tell you properties, by directly analyzing the chair --it's color, texture, temperature, et cetera.

Can we do this for God?

In fact, I can only analyze things around me (And since I'm not God, obviously God is an external claim) by testing them. But, how am I actually able to say this?

What if today a man walked out to you today and said: "There exists a pink bunny in Earth's Core who has taken care of you since you were a child."

What would you say? "Prove it", no?

What type of proof would you demand for such a claim? Physical, no?


There is no unequivocal, physical evidence for God. That is to say, there's nothing in our universe --after detailed observation of the past 400 years-- that suggests there must be a God. Is there any finger print? Any DNA?

[Pista Gyerek]

There is no unequivocal, physical evidence for God. That is to say, there's nothing in our universe --after detailed observation of the past 400 years-- that suggests there must be a God. Is there any finger print? Any DNA?

Now it's you who aren't paying attention. What I asked you to clarify is your statement There can be no proof of God.

This is a different claim than There is no proof of God, with which I wholeheartedly agree. And even if you had said (as I have many times) that some particular definition of God is as nonsensical as a square circle, then I would agree that there can be no proof of such an absurd concept.

But if we're just talking about the concept of a Big Magic Guy, I don't see why evidence of such a being is impossible (even though no evidence currently exists of such a being). If miracles happened every day, if the innocent did not suffer, and if prophecies could be presented and then subsequently fulfilled, that would be persuasive evidence that a powerful being may exist who cares about what happens on Earth.

Like I said, I'm an atheist, and I don't believe evidence exists to support the belief in God. But if we're talking about atheism being just as unfalsifiable as belief in God, that's just absolutely wrong.

[ShadowRishi]

There is no unequivocal, physical evidence for God. That is to say, there's nothing in our universe --after detailed observation of the past 400 years-- that suggests there must be a God. Is there any finger print? Any DNA?

Now it's you who aren't paying attention. What I asked you to clarify is your statement There can be no proof of God.

This is a different claim than There is no proof of God, with which I wholeheartedly agree. And even if you had said (as I have many times) that some particular definition of God is as nonsensical as a square circle, then I would agree that there can be no proof of such an absurd concept.

But if we're just talking about the concept of a Big Magic Guy, I don't see why evidence of such a being is impossible (even though no evidence currently exists of such a being). If miracles happened every day, if the innocent did not suffer, and if prophecies could be presented and then subsequently fulfilled, that would be persuasive evidence that a powerful being may exist who cares about what happens on Earth.

Like I said, I'm an atheist, and I don't believe evidence exists to support the belief in God. But if we're talking about atheism being just as unfalsifiable as belief in God, that's just absolutely wrong.

Let's rephrase this, because the concept will be easier.


What would it take to make you believe in god(s)? What sort of evidence would it require? And even still, how would that evidence be unequivocal?

[Pista Gyerek]

What would it take to make you believe in god(s)? What sort of evidence would it require? And even still, how would that evidence be unequivocal?

This is just the sort of thing that theists point to so they can accuse atheists of being irredeemably closed-minded. Are we to assume that no amount of evidence would suffice to make you believe a god exists? Way to be objective.

I've already said, amigo, that if a powerful being disclosed his intentions to humanity in a coherent scripture, if he made prophecies that were subsequently fulfilled, and if he caused the suffering of the innocent to cease, I'd consider it persuasive evidence indicating the existence of a powerful being who cared about humanity.

I don't consider any of this evidence unequivocal, because I'm always open to the possibility of undirected natural causes being mistaken for intentional activity. But I'd consider it a worthwhile basis for further research. Would you?

[ShadowRishi]

What would it take to make you believe in god(s)? What sort of evidence would it require? And even still, how would that evidence be unequivocal?

This is just the sort of thing that theists point to so they can accuse atheists of being irredeemably closed-minded. Are we to assume that no amount of evidence would suffice to make you believe a god exists? Way to be objective.

God, I'm sorry I'm being too atheistic...

Mind moving on?


No, what evidence, when you get rid of emotion (which you aren't doing), can you say: "HOLY CRAP, THERE'S GOD!"

Clouds in the sky making up the words: "God exists"?

That could be a random fluctuation in weather pattern; unlikely as hell, but possible that it's just chance.


What can be unequivocal evidence of God?

I've already said, amigo, that if a powerful being disclosed his intentions to humanity in a coherent scripture, if he made prophecies that were subsequently fulfilled, and if he caused the suffering of the innocent to cease, I'd consider it persuasive evidence indicating the existence of a powerful being who cared about humanity.

I don't consider any of this evidence unequivocal, because I'm always open to the possibility of undirected natural causes being mistaken for intentional activity. But I'd consider it a worthwhile basis for further research. Would you?

It has been looked at, and proved to be pretty much... crap. Numerous tests have been done on people feeling "god's presence."


Either way, what would it take to get you to believe in god(s)? Wouldn't he have to explain all the bad prior actions?

[Pista Gyerek]

God, I'm sorry I'm being too atheistic...

Mind moving on?

All I'm asking is that you be objective. And hey, try being a little more civil while you're at it.

No, what evidence, when you get rid of emotion (which you aren't doing), can you say: "HOLY CRAP, THERE'S GOD!"

Clouds in the sky making up the words: "God exists"?

Once again, you're absolutely right, it's a tall order to fill. A LOT would have to change, and many extremely miraculous things would have to be presented as evidence. It wouldn't just depend on us feeling 'God's presence,' which is admittedly a lame rationale for asserting the existence of the Big Magic Guy. Since we're dealing with something so literally extraordinary, it's to be expected that the falsification of atheism would necessitate extraordinary evidence.

But let's be honest, the same can be said for the theory of evolution by natural selection. No single data point is responsible for our belief that species have evolved via natural selection, it's the totality of all the evidence from different lines of inquiry. Just because Darwin's theory intellectually fulfills us, that doesn't in and of itself make it true. And the TOE isn't unfalsifiable either, though it would take momentous and unprecedented evidence to falsify it.

The fact remains that atheism is not an unfalsifiable position. If the very reasons I assert that some sort of magic being does not exist were reversed, of course I would entertain the notion that God exists: if the innocent did not suffer, if miracles were performed by his followers, if prophecies were made and later fulfilled, etc.

We're really just talking about a powerful sky being, right? If we heard a booming voice declaring I'm God, bitch, accompanied by demonstrations of his power like earthquakes, lightning bolts, knows your thoughts, punishes the wicked, the whole shebang, you wouldn't suspect there's a very powerful being somewhere up there?

[ShadowRishi]

All I'm asking is that you be objective. And hey, try being a little more civil while you're at it.

A. I'm not being terrible distasteful right now; I find it more uncivil for you to be nitpicking on things not relevant to the debate.

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

Once again, you're absolutely right, it's a tall order to fill. A LOT would have to change, and many extremely miraculous things would have to be presented as evidence. It wouldn't just depend on us feeling 'God's presence,' which is admittedly a lame rationale for asserting the existence of the Big Magic Guy. Since we're dealing with something so literally extraordinary, it's to be expected that the falsification of atheism would necessitate extraordinary evidence.

Agreed.

But let's be honest, the same can be said for the theory of evolution by natural selection. No single data point is responsible for our belief that species have evolved via natural selection, it's the totality of all the evidence from different lines of inquiry. Just because Darwin's theory intellectually fulfills us, that doesn't in and of itself make it true. And the TOE isn't unfalsifiable either, though it would take momentous and unprecedented evidence to falsify it.

The problem is that it is not the same. 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?

The fact remains that atheism is not an unfalsifiable position. If the very reasons I assert that some sort of magic being does not exist were reversed, of course I would entertain the notion that God exists: if the innocent did not suffer, if miracles were performed by his followers, if prophecies were made and later fulfilled, etc.

The problem is, that still doesn't make a god.

Magicians have played with chemistry and used optical illusions to generate "miracles"... How would you know that what you were seeing was genuine or not?

We're really just talking about a powerful sky being, right? If we heard a booming voice declaring I'm God, bitch, accompanied by demonstrations of his power like earthquakes, lightning bolts, knows your thoughts, punishes the wicked, the whole shebang, you wouldn't suspect there's a very powerful being somewhere up there?

I tend to think that if some being created the universe it wouldn't like to have it's named tied to a layer of gaseous systems, a concept created from early homo sapien ignorance of what the sky was.

[Pista Gyerek]

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.

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.