Happy Atheist Forum

OK, I've taken most of my shots at some of the religious thinkers in the past and their circular arguments. I don't generally have much to argue about with atheists, but a few things do bug me.

For one, the "burden of proof". I think it's unfair in many cases to hide behind this, depending on the degree of atheism. For an atheist who tends towards the agnostic end ("I don't believe in a god/gods, but I don't really know.") I think it's acceptable to demand proof, but for a hard atheist ("I believe that there is NOT a god/gods"), I believe the "burden of proof" is on them as well since believing in something's non-existence would imply that you have some sort of proof.
Case in point, there is a closed door; one person believes there is a person behind the door, the other believes that there isn't. Is the "burden of proof" on the person who believes that there IS a person behind the door even if neither person has any way of knowing? To place the "burden of proof" on someone else you must have some knowledge that acceptably debunks the existence of a "higher being".

Which brings me to my next point: Please be aware that I don't direct this at every atheist, but I have read a lot of explanations for "non-belief" like:
- "The corruption in organized religion turned me off "--- That's human error, and has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of a god/gods
- "I thought about the complexities of [the Cosmos, DNA, etc] and just didn't see the "need" for a god/gods" ---- That's a fairly simplified version of various explanations I've heard and read, but even still, I've never understood what exactly people are "seeing"; since I beleive that if there is a god/gods, it/they would probably be incompehensible to our human minds, I have to wonder what the context is for basing a non-belief on anything that we observe
- "Religion has resulted in many/most of the problems/unethical behavior in human history." ---- Once again, human flaws; blame evolution, not religion, since evolution game rise TO religion
- "When I hear a baby's laugh...." ---- Kidding.

So, while I've never tried to sit on high horse because of my agnosticisim (in fact, it's contrary to what I beleive agnosticism stands for: I would rather sit on a moderately sized horse  , I've seen enough arguments between atheists and theists in which each side, in so many words and methods, tried to, in a sense, claim superiority. It just seems so Sisyphean, at least when it goes beyond the typical arguments about inconsistencies in the Bible (of course, arguing things like that with a theist are just as Sisyphean in their own way). But forget about traditional religious thought, pretend none of the ancient texts and scientifically innacurate beliefs exist. Now, what EXACTLY disproves the existence of a god/gods? If our universe is a simulation of some sort (or perhaps a simulation within a simulation, ad infinitum), then wouldn't the original "programmers" be "gods"? Or what if solipsisim is true, and you're god, and nobody else actually exists (or another way I've interpreted this philosophy is "a dream within a dream".

I thought that as I became older I would actually ending up taking a side, but I actually just become more agnostic, if that's possible. I question how much people know, or at least think they know. I think that at least some atheists choose their beliefs becasue they are too smart to believe in something that can't be proven, but also don't want to think they don't actually know what the hell is going on. I can relate, being in a state of perpetual "unknowing" gets more and more uncomfortable, like a mystery novel that never ends and just keeps getting more confusing. But even still, I feel like it would be a cop-out, a choice of convenience, to just say "Well, whatever, I don't believe in anything that scientific study doesn't tell me is true." I respect science and choose it over religion and spiritual thought, but because of this, I can't make INTO a religion.

So, and this is only for the hard atheists, the ones who believe that there ISN'T a god/gods (or some sort of conceptual equivalent): What makes you so sure?
And if you're not sure, then why aren't you an agnostic (and yes, I've heard the argument that everyone is technically an agnostic [or alternatively that all agnostics are technically atheists], what I want to know is why don't you label yourself an agnostic if you admit that you don't actually know?)

For the record, i've also seen arguments on both sides about theism/atheism being a better overall philosophy for the human race, and I have to say that agnosticism would actually be the best. If everyone just admitted that they don't actually know, we wouldn't even have to argue and we would ALL be right. Plus, imagine the progress we could make scientifically, socially, and philosophically if we just went forward without a bias for either belief system.

Well as you pointed out, atheism and agnosticism are by no means mutually exclusive, and indeed most "moderate" atheists like myself will quite readily accept agnosticism as one (although by no means the only one of) of the foundations of their worldview....  

but aside from quibbling over terminology...

Firstly, the burden of proof- I find this a convincing line of argument, because of the principle as stated by I can't remember who: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." When someone who considers themselves a strong atheist states this, I doubt they are using this to justify their strong atheism- just to justify their atheism. To justify the strong, or "gnostic" part of their belief, they will attempt some sort of informal "reductio ad absurdum," e.g. using various scriptural contradiction.

Quote"The corruption in organized religion turned me off "

An explanation as to what turned a person away from religion- not really anything to argue, it is just someones personal reason for seeking a satisfying non-religious worldview.

Quote- "I thought about the complexities of [the Cosmos, DNA, etc] and just didn't see the "need" for a god/gods" ---- That's a fairly simplified version of various explanations I've heard and read, but even still, I've never understood what exactly people are "seeing"; since I beleive that if there is a god/gods, it/they would probably be incompehensible to our human minds, I have to wonder what the context is for basing a non-belief on anything that we observe

Hmm, this is going back into the weak/strong atheist arguments I think. This is an argument for agnosticism/agnostic atheism. Basically "God doesn't need to exist." I see nothing wrong with this- it isn't a comprehensive explanation, it is a brief justification or account. Once we reach that point, we keep reading, watching, listening, until we can more fully argue our case.

Quote- "Religion has resulted in many/most of the problems/unethical behavior in human history." ---- Once again, human flaws; blame evolution, not religion, since evolution game rise TO religion

As for your second point, I think this is simply a matter of pointing out that religous people by no means have a monopoly on morality, as they will try to claim. When someone uses religion to claim the moral high ground on anything, we cannot allow that to go unchallenged...

For the generic and vague "god", one really is forced to be agnostic, because one can not make a statement of knowledge about a word with such a vague definition.

For specific definitions for gods, however, one can be gnostic. When a definition of something is internally inconsistent or outright contradictory, or has facets that are impossible (like omniscience), or has facets that are meaningless (like being supernatural/metaphysical), then one can say with certainty that that something does not exist. You'll note just about every definition for a god or gods falls into this category.

For instance, I know the Abrahamic god does not exist because he is, by definition, impossible.

For gods like Zeus, where the definition is clear, one can be gnostic when what that definition predicts fails to be. For instance, try as one might, you'll never locate him on Olympus. If you do find him, then you can be gnostic about his existence.

[strike:1utgfrfn]_______________________________________[/strike:1utgfrfn]

Atheism is not a belief system. If anything, it would be one single belief (assuming gnosis, for agnostic atheists, it's not even that). The "argument" over whether or not it is superior to religion as a "world view" is thus actually about one thing: If there are no gods, then religion is at best a comforting fiction that excuses one from living a full life, and at worst a dogma that both slows social and scientific advances as well as makes for a broad excuse to hate someone with a differing opinion about what the big imaginary friend wants. It is often better to face an unhappy truth than to deny reality and be caught unawares later, which condemns religion.

Any alternate world view to religion in general would have to come from something other than atheism, because it's a null hypotheses.

This is a great post. Thanks, Miss Anthrope :)

Hmmm... good topic.

I'd agree that if the definition of a god makes it logically impossible, it's possible to be gnostic about that definition.

Part of the problem lies in the definition itself.  It's not like any major world religion has a consistent definition of god.  There are splinter groups, discrepencies in holy texts, disagreements on interpretation, etc.  Then you add in some infinites (power, knowledge, etc), and it gets kind hairy for us apeish beings.

If it were as simple as Zeus, where eveyone agrees he lives on Mt. Olympus and hurls lightning bolts, being 100% gnostic would be a snap.

As for probability, yes, it's important... but you also have to take into account the magnitude of the occurance.  For example, it's very unlikely that during my lifetime the earth would be struck by an asteroid.  However, the consequences are large enough that it might be worth my time to look into it a bit deeper.  Make sense?  After all, if god did reveal him/her/itself, that would be a pretty big deal, yes/no?

BTW, I walk thru walls all the time - I call it a "door"  
JoeActor

In answer to the question "does/do God/deities exist?", having established how that/those God/deities are defined, these are the possibilities I know of:

1) Has truth value and is true - monotheist / polytheist position
2) Has truth value and is false - strong atheist position
3) Has truth value but is not known - agnostic position
  3a) but false seems more likely - agnostic atheist position
  3b) but true seems more likely - agnostic theist position
4) Has truth value but is not knowable - ?
5) Does not have truth value / meaningless question - ignostic position

I think in cases 1, 2, and 4 it is reasonable to request justification.

Quote from: "joeactor"Hmmm... good topic.

I'd agree that if the definition of a god makes it logically impossible, it's possible to be gnostic about that definition.

Part of the problem lies in the definition itself.  It's not like any major world religion has a consistent definition of god.  There are splinter groups, discrepencies in holy texts, disagreements on interpretation, etc.  Then you add in some infinites (power, knowledge, etc), and it gets kind hairy for us apeish beings.

If it were as simple as Zeus, where eveyone agrees he lives on Mt. Olympus and hurls lightning bolts, being 100% gnostic would be a snap.

As for probability, yes, it's important... but you also have to take into account the magnitude of the occurance.  For example, it's very unlikely that during my lifetime the earth would be struck by an asteroid.  However, the consequences are large enough that it might be worth my time to look into it a bit deeper.  Make sense?  After all, if god did reveal him/her/itself, that would be a pretty big deal, yes/no?

BTW, I walk thru walls all the time - I call it a "door"  ;)

I wouldn't call an asteroid impact a statistical impossibility. I'd say it was statistically probable, seeing as it seems to have happened several times in the past. I guess, if you use the time frame of one human lifetime, then yes, the chance must be small (hopefully really really small). If god did reveal itself, i'd eat my hats (i have several) but because i'm a human who has no issue with being wrong, and have been rather a lot over my lifetime, i'm willing to accept that it may be a possibility, even if it is statistically improbable.  lol

Hey everyone, thanks for your great input and sorry I haven't been able to reply, things have been really hectic for me and I didn't want to continue these discussions while I'm exhausted or distracted.

I'll be back with replies ASAP  

Hey everyone, sorry for the long delay, I just haven't been up to the task of thinking as my brain has been overloaded. I've re-read all of your replies, and though on one hand I want to reply directly to each of you, there isn't really a need because I mostly agree with everything that was said. I'm simultaneously relieved that everyone understood what I wrote and also a little disappointed that no die-hard atheists tried to flame me. This thread was essentially inpsied by times I've been hassled by atheists simply for being open to the idea of "something else" (oddly enough, one of the people I know who's most guilty of this also tried to argue that organisms like ants might possess minds comparable to humans, despite her belief that mind is the product of the host brain; my point for bringing this up is that I've noticed over the years that people who are nearly completely closed-minded, often on the basis that they're "scientifically minded", tend to have very unscientific beliefs in other areas.)

So, yeah, I don't really have anything to argue about with anyone here, as I find myself fairly alligned with what has been written. Also, I think I might revise some of my positions, as I find my writing a bit rough now having given further thought to the topics.

In the meantime, has anyone here heard of David Eagleman? I think his expalanation for his religious stance ("Possibilian") is closer to what I'd consider myself than "agnostic". http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... -eagleman/ (http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/stray-questions-for-david-eagleman/)

"...our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true."

Personally, though, my agnosticism has nothing to do with questioning whether a "man with a beard on a cloud" lords over us; based on that, I'd technically be considered an atheist.