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.

[ST88]

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)

This version of atheism is certainly an affirmation of the non-existence of God. But it is not independent of the assertion that God exists, it is a counter-assertion. In other words, this version of atheism listens to the proposition that God exists, with all that implies with regard to dogma, ritual, and behavior, and then rejects it. If that were all there was to it, and if the point stopped here, then you might be right. But the reason that atheism rejects the assertion is that the assertion has no weight. Whatever the reasons are for determining what has weight and what doesnt, the argument does not succeed.

This atheist can't say "God does not exist" without first having a theist say "God exists." Again, whatever the reasons behind either statement, the very fact that the statements happen in this order makes it necessary to accept that "God" is a proposition and that "No God" is not a proposition, but a reaction to the proposition. Why this reaction? Because the atheist was in a default state of "No God" before the assertion was made, was not even an atheist at this point because there was no theism to be against.

There is also the kind of atheism that states that no possible God that you could possibly explain could possibly exist. In my opinion, these two versions of atheism are separate; but both have behind them the idea that God, as a concept, must be justified and has not been.

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.

I don't see your point here. Parents can be proven. At some point in a child's life, the parents interact physically with the child. So, from the child's point of view, the nature of parents becomes apparent without it having been taught. Not so with God. If no one told you that there was a God and you had not been exposed to it for the first 12 years of your life, you would get a shock when you found out that people thought this way.

It is true that we are born with virtually no ideas about the world. We are atheist, aparental, agovernment, acalculus, etc. However, as these things are proven, as these default states are altered, these ideas fall by the wayside.

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.

Is it your position that atheism takes faith? If so, do you believe that it is necessary to have a scientific justification for that faith? Or does it only bother you that this version of atheism claims the scientific high ground while maintaining such beliefs?

[dangerdan]

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)

Yeah, I do understand your point. It’s like asking “Is it proper to say that Bob doesn’t believe in Socrates because Bob hadn’t heard of Socrates?” You are arguing that one must know at least about the concept before making a judgment on the subject, and you feel an atheist has made that judgment. Fair enough. I disagree, but I guess I am using a broader usage of the term “atheist” and you are using a stricter term. The point I am trying to convey is that all information about God is, I feel, learned. A person ignorant of any theological concept of God, at the risk of stating the obvious, doesn’t believe in God. I am calling this person an “atheist”, but perhaps we can settle on a different label for the sake of this debate. Maybe an ignorantist.

The rub is that it’s up to you guys to sway the ignorantist from her default setting. So all the justification the ignorantist needs to give is “bah, your arguments and evidence isn’t convincing enough to sway me”. At which point we should all agree to call this person effectively an atheist, can’t we?

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.

Yes yes, but there is ample evidence to sway the youngster that their parents exist. For example the baby might start to reason – “Hmmm, there seems to be these two creatures that feed me and change my dirty nappy, I seem to look like them, they always talk about how heavy I was when I was born, therefore I’ll theorize that they had me and they are my parents”

A lack of known proof is not proof against.

Ah hah, but it is if the existence of the creature dictates (by definition) that it must have left ample evidence interfering with this and that. God, by definition, must have interfered with our terrestrial world. We haven’t yet seen any evidence of this. Perhaps you may wish to go on to argue that God hasn’t yet interfered with the world and may start tomorrow, which may very well be the case, but at which point I would call into question if the label “God” is fitting.

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.

Ok, this is getting into the ignorantist / atheist argument. It’s immaterial what we wish to label it, the crucial point is that if one has not heard of God, then one defiantly doesn’t believe in God. Can we agree on this?

[spetey]

For what it's worth, here's my view:

1. Atheism, like any ("high-level") belief, does require reason for it to be epistemically responsible. Saying "I have to give no reason" is just as bad for the atheist as for the faith-appealing theist. It is the epistemic duty of those who disagree to attempt to reason with each other, especially if the belief has ramifications that affect the well-being of many.
2. I do not believe in God largely for the same reasons I don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, space monkeys, Vishnu, Zeus, and so on: namely, they do not form part of the best explanation for the phenomena I experience. (Quantum mysteries, by the way, provide no more reason to believe in God than in the IPU. For that matter, no mysteries I can think of provide more reason to believe in God than the IPU.)
3. Furthermore, as in the Lewis (devil's-advocate) quotation, belief in the traditional, Abrahamic God has an additional problem that belief in space monkeys etc. doesn't have: it's actually inconsistent with the obvious presence of evil. I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this problem. Without one, I actually think belief in Zeus (if not space monkeys) is more rational, since it does not involve believing a blatant contradiction. (I would say similar things about the Doctrine of the Trinity, when it comes to that; belief in this doctrine strikes me as straightforwardly self-contradictory.)

spetey

[harvey1]

For what it's worth, here's my view:

1. Atheism, like any ("high-level") belief, does require reason for it to be epistemically responsible. Saying "I have to give no reason" is just as bad for the atheist as for the faith-appealing theist. It is the epistemic duty of those who disagree to attempt to reason with each other, especially if the belief has ramifications that affect the well-being of many.

Good to hear you are stepping up to the plate. So many atheists fail to do so.

[*]I do not believe in God largely for...

Let's start with a definition of what you don't believe in. It sounds like if I'm hearing you correctly that you don't believe in the Christian God. Can I understand you correctly that you might be a pantheist or deist? How about process theology, does that float your boat? Since you like Quine, is a platonist God to your liking? How about an Einsteinian cosmic God? Or, Hawkingian mathematical God? These are the beliefs in God I would like to test your faith with. How do you come to the knowledge that such possible metaphysical realities do not exist?

the same reasons I don't believe in the url=http://en.wikipedia.org/Invisible_pink_unicorn]Invisible Pink Unicorn[/url], space monkeys, Vishnu, Zeus, and so on: namely, they do not form part of the best explanation for the phenomena I experience. (Quantum mysteries, by the way, provide no more reason to believe in God than in the IPU. For that matter, no mysteries I can think of provide more reason to believe in God than the IPU.)

So, how does this logic differ from that of an agnostic who simply uses this reasoning to withdraw from believing in a God? What makes this argument stronger than how an agnostic might use this form of reasoning?

[*]Furthermore, as in the Lewis (devil's-advocate) quotation, belief in the traditional, Abrahamic God has an additional problem that belief in space monkeys etc. doesn't have: it's actually inconsistent with the obvious presence of evil. I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this problem. Without one, I actually think belief in Zeus (if not space monkeys) is more rational, since it does not involve believing a blatant contradiction.

Is that then the argument for God's non-existence? It would seem for example that you would either believe in or be just an agnostic to an Einsteinian cosmic God, is that true...?

(I would say similar things about the Doctrine of the Trinity, when it comes to that; belief in this doctrine strikes me as straightforwardly self-contradictory.)

I'd love to discuss the Trinity with you, but I really want to focus on what makes you an atheist versus a card-carrying agnostic.

[spetey]

So, Harvey, we meet again! Yeah, I couldn't resist this bait, once I saw it. Mmn, tasty tasty bait.

Good to hear you are stepping up to the plate. So many atheists fail to do so.

I have to admit that's a fair charge. In my experience on these forums I'm frankly shocked at how few atheists think they need a reason for their belief. They're almost as bad--almost, mind you --as the faithful theists on that score.

Let's start with a definition of what you don't believe in. It sounds like if I'm hearing you correctly that you don't believe in the Christian God. Can I understand you correctly that you might be a pantheist or deist?

Nope.

How about process theology, does that float your boat?

Let me remind myself what process theology is. Hmn, nope.

Since you like Quine, is a platonist God to your liking? How about an Einsteinian cosmic God? Or, Hawkingian mathematical God? These are the beliefs in God I would like to test your faith with.

I don't know, but I would guess "nope" "nope" and "nope". Put it this way: if belief in that god asks me to violate naturalistic principles, then I don't believe in it. (Now I admit I'm not exactly sure what "naturalistic principles" are. An interesting question and one I'm working on. My guess is that it has to do with inference to the best explanation. But anyway, like art, I know what I like, and you're now asking me what I like.) Put it this way: a friend once defined God as "all the matter in the universe". Defined that way, I believe in God! Of course, I do not think that's what most people mean by 'God', and I think my friend was equivocating when he was saying that this God absolved him of his sins, and so on...

How do you come to the knowledge that such possible metaphysical realities do not exist?

I come to believe it, as I say, by process of inference to the best explanation. Whether it is knowledge or not is not up to me.

So, how does this logic differ from that of an agnostic who simply uses this reasoning to withdraw from believing in a God? What makes this argument stronger than how an agnostic might use this form of reasoning?

I differ from an agnostic in that I believe there is no God (of standard description). An agnostic, as you say, witholds belief on the matter. I believe there is no God for the reasons I've given--for the same reason I believe there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh). Do you believe there is no IPU, or are you genuinely torn on the matter?

Is that [the Problem of Evil] then the argument for God's non-existence? It would seem for example that you would either believe in or be just an agnostic to an Einsteinian cosmic God, is that true...?

No, that's not the only argument against believing in God, as I said. I think the fact that God does not fit into a good explanation is reason to believe God doesn't exist. If the Problem of Evil were the only reason not to believe in the Abrahamic God, and if meanwhile there were independent on-balance reasons to believe in Zeus or the Deist God or whatever, then I suppose I would believe in one of them. But as I say, I think the PoE is an additional reason not to believe in the Abrahamic God that's over and above the reasons I don't believe in Zeus, the IPU, space monkeys, and such. That's why I think it's more irrational to believe in that God.

I'd love to discuss the Trinity with you, but I really want to focus on what makes you an atheist versus a card-carrying agnostic.

Fair 'nuff. I just added it as another reason I believe God doesn't exist.


spetey

[harvey1]

Okay, Spetey, I'm glad that you clearly stated your position as one that forbids all the metaphysical stuff, that makes it much easier to discuss this issue.

Now, rather than getting into all the different ontologies that exist out there, let me just ask you a series of questions and you just have to answer the question. It takes more time, but I think in this way we can avoid another extensive discussion while at the same time having some fun...

Question 1: Do you believe it is unreasonable to be an atheist if you have strong reason to believe that a God (of any of the definitions which you refused) is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?

[spetey]

Okay, Spetey, I'm glad that you clearly stated your position as one that forbids all the metaphysical stuff, that makes it much easier to discuss this issue.

I don't forbid "all the metaphysical stuff". Though I guess I do "forbid" all the supernatural stuff (that is, I think I have good reason not to believe in it).

Question 1: Do you believe it is unreasonable to be an atheist if you have strong reason to believe that a God (of any of the definitions which you refused) is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?

So, let me make sure I have you right: first, suppose I had a "strong reason" to believe that a particular God (such as the Abrahamic one) was one of a few reasonable explanations of the existence of the universe. Would it then be unreasonable to be an atheist? I would have to say "yes". To the extent there are good reasons to believe in a God, then to that extent it would be unreasonable to be an atheist. I think this follows from what it is to be "reasonable".

Does that answer your question? If so, I'm ready for the next one.


spetey

[bernee51]

Question 1: Do you believe it is unreasonable to be an atheist if you have strong reason to believe that a God (of any of the definitions which you refused) is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?

Can I play too?

What if you have no strong reason to believe that a god is one of the few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist? But I see that is not what you are asking.

If I had a strong reason to believe such a thing I don't think I could honestly call myself an atheist. No my answer to your question - as you ask it would be 'yes'. If you are allowing for any possible definition of god I would have to call myself agnostic.

[harvey1]

Question 1: Do you believe it is unreasonable to be an atheist if you have strong reason to believe that a God (of any of the definitions which you refused) is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?

Can I play too? What if you have no strong reason to believe that a god is one of the few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist? But I see that is not what you are asking. If I had a strong reason to believe such a thing I don't think I could honestly call myself an atheist. No my answer to your question - as you ask it would be 'yes'. If you are allowing for any possible definition of god I would have to call myself agnostic.

Well, that was a quick game (that is, I'm assuming you accepted the possible definitions of God that Spetey *accepted*)!

[harvey1]

To the extent there are good reasons to believe in a God, then to that extent it would be unreasonable to be an atheist. I think this follows from what it is to be "reasonable". Does that answer your question? If so, I'm ready for the next one.

Good! Progress. Let's hope you change to an agnostic as fast as Bernee!

Question 2: How do you define "reasonable to believe" (as in "good reasons to believe") in the context of a metaphysical reality that is not itself given to physical examination? What criteria do you need to see present prior to saying that such and such metaphysical explanation "is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?"