Atheism Revisited

That’s better. Somewhat confusing with “Russell’s teapot” and the argument about proving a negative, but I’m with you in that I BELIEVE that there is no deity and that it is my “spirit” of belief that leads me to many conclusions in life and therefore fits your definition. However, I don’t THINK that there are mole-people on Pluto, but I would not admit to a BELIEF in the absence of mole-people on Pluto. Anyone want to join my church of the Lack of Mole-People on Pluto? Atheism doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a deity. An atheist can simply be an atheist because they admit only to what they can see and touch and experience. The lack of God would simply be a by-product of that state.

Just one thing, don’t talk as if your arguments are scientific knowledge. To contribute to scientific knowledge your arguments should be able to be falsifiable and anything related to beliefs isn’t in any way falsifiable; so any arguments about god, or spiritual, existence is just as valid as poetry.

It would be very different if the arguments were about the effects of religion, spiritualism or atheism. It’s easy to argument that religious people are more prone to mental illnesses or cognitive disorders than none religious people, and it could be a very interesting research.

Cheers!

Oh my! You certainly have gone to a lot of effort to write this thing.

Let me pose this question: Is there any such thing as an atheist?

This may seem like a shocking question, but hear me out.

The ancient Greeks used to identify almost all non-Greeks as Barbari. (barbarians) Jews see others as Gentiles. Muslims see infidels. The Civilized see savages. If you don’t agree with Senator Joseph McCarthy you are a communist. Prove you are not one. It’s a futile exercise.

You get the idea… Some have classified themselves as THEISTS (which they have every right to do) Then they have invented the label “atheist” which simply means anyone who doesn’t fit into the first category.

Too many people have fallen prey to this type of argument. They have accepted the label and argued on the Theists terms… Why bother?

You can believe in Zeus, or Vishnu, the Thunderbird, or Faeries. People who do not share these beliefs do not have to defend themselves for believing otherwise.

In fact those who share Theistic beliefs don’t have anything to prove either… unless they cross the line.

What is that line? You would have to prove the existence of your particular deity if you use it to justify any limits to my freedom.

Remember: They that define the terms win the argument…

Cheers

Earl of S

You missed the point. And it has everything to do with it.

The initial statements: the sky is blue, the sky is not blue are equally valid. Now, once evidence is presented one way or the other one claim can be ‘proved’ false. However this claim: there is a deity, there is a not deity, has no evidence either way. Therefore the initial statement is still valid.

Further, when you went off about:
“If you claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity with an interest in prolonged hospital stays, SATs, sporting events, and other personal matters” you were on about something that I wasn’t arguing.

There is ample evidence that a personal, intervening deity does not exist. There are tests that could be done to see if such a deity exists. However, to argue that there is no deity, for which there is neither positive nor negative evidence, would be much harder and equally as valid as those who argue for a deity.

David,

That was part of my initial point, but that got people all up in arms. You are right in that atheism was initially used by Deists and Theists to ridicule those that did not believe in a deity. I argued (poorly) that really there are only two camps, the religious and those who are not (spiritualists). Well, that got everyone all up in arms. That’s why I wrote this article and it looks like I’m going to have to write a few more.

Mike Crowl

Atheism and theism each are based on an unprovable assertion (belief) that there is a god, not a god, that god is irrelevant or that god is a strictly human creation. This, in and of itself, is not dangerous to anyone. If you were to believe that when you turn on the light switch little fairies are released and go light the light bulb, that is your business. It doesn’t harm anyone.

Now, religion goes several steps further than this. First, it demands that whichever one it is (especially the two great monotheistic religions Islam and Christianity) is the only one that can or should be. It demands absolute obedience to the idea that only one ‘faith’ should exist on the Earth and it is willing to impose that by whatever means necessary. Second, religion retards science and social growth. And on and on and on. Atheism does none of these things. Hence to my mind atheism is more valid than religion. I mistitled my first article as I explained in the first couple of paragraphs of this one.

Thank you.

RE: Peter Canadian.

Firstly, I disagree that a minority must justify itself to the majority. A majority of people believing something does not make it more valid nor more correct.

Also, modern Western societies are secular societies that apply civil law not religious law (though that is somewhat at risk in the United States)Individual rights to believe as you wish are preserved but we do not live in religious societies. Secularists are the majority. I am a secularist and live in a secular society called Canada. I am part of the majority.

If this sky is, indeed, the color that we all agree is called “blue,” then to say the sky is not blue is NOT equally valid. Initially, finally or at any point in between.

Your argument leaves the door open for lunatics – religious or otherwise – to make any outrageous claim they want and place the burden of proof on anyone who questions their statement.

If I say there is a hat on my head, and you are standing directly across from me and can clearly see that there is no hat, you might be inclined to say, “No, there is no hat on your head, sir.”

Following your logic, I could reply, “Prove that there is no hat on my head.” To which you could say, “I’m looking at your friggin’ head, and there is no hat.”

I tell you that it is invisible. You quickly swipe your hand over my head and say, “See, I would have knocked the hat off your head if it were there.”

Unfazed, I reply, “This is a very special hat. No normal human hand can touch it.” Playing devil’s advocate, you ask me, “How do you take it off when you sleep at night.” And I say, “Why I use my invisible, all-powerful third arm which extends from my left knee cap.”

You look at me oddly, and I say, “Prove that I don’t.”

My claim of an invisible hat and/or third arm has no validity. You would not be obligated to prove that I have neither, to know that what I am saying has no basis in reality.

Just because someone can dream up a scenario, does not make that scenario as valid as the real world and it certainly does not place the burden on any sane person to disprove the scenario.

That said, humans are limited in their understanding of the natural world by the evolutionary process that got us to this point. If we are lucky, we have our five senses and a consciousness. Everything we understand, even scientifically, should be qualified with the humble proviso, “to the best of our knowledge.”

This does not however, lend equal footing, to any claims of deities, souls or the so-called supernatural. Just because there are gaps in knowledge, does not mean you fill them with unverifiable fairy tales.

David Jones –

Either you are being purposely obtuse or there is a basic breakdown in communication somewhere.

I am postulating that there are two camps. There may not be. Maybe there are a hundred or five hundred or just one camp, I don’t know for sure, but I think that there are just two.

Further, you have no idea what I really believe. In both of these last two articles I have tried very hard to not espouse (except for my definition of spiritual) any position.

I am NOT a theist. I am NOT a deist. If someone must put a label on me then I suppose one would call me an atheist. But, you’re apparently too bored by the conversation and so certain that you know what is being said that you won’t take the time to actually consider the point.

Have a wonderful rest of the day.

Earl –

I’m at least partially convinced that you don’t understand simple English.

It is a logical fallacy to say that something exists when there is no proof for that existence. It is also a logical fallacy to say that something does not exist because there is no proof of its existence.

It just is. I don’t know where you get the idea that the agreed upon standard is that the burden of proof is with the person making the claim, but if you want to do it that way:

“There is no god.” “There is a god.” Both claims. Both extraordinary. Right?

Just because you don’t want there to be a god doesn’t mean there isn’t one. By the way, I would be considered an atheist as I do not believe in ‘god’. You have fun now.

Earl –

You are so polite and learned it is difficult for me to know where to start.

As there is no evidence either way it IS an extraordinary claim to say that there is no deity. But, whether or not it is extraordinary hardly matters. It is a claim and it can not proved nor disproved, thus both are logically valid and to say that no evidence is evidence is simply ludicrous and logically fallacious.

What reason? What logic? What FACTS? Name ONE fact that disproves the existence of a deity. Just one.

Thank you especially for your concern about the possibility of reproduction. It means so much to me coming from such an amazing person as yourself.

Typos are not relevant, especially in this context.

Here is some suggested reading for you:

argument from inconsistent revelations
the problem of evil
the argument from poor design
argument from nonbelief
the omnipotence paradox
the argument of simultaneous omniscience and omnipotence
the argument from free will
the Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God
the counter-argument against the Cosmological argument
theological noncognitivism
the atheist-existentialist argument
the “no reason” (or “no desire”) argument

As far as the politeness of our dialogue is concerned, you set the tone for our correspondence. Actually, look at your response to anyone who called you on the illogic of your arguments. Very defensive.

As a professional writer, here’s a suggestion for you: research. Nobody cares about your opinion, unless you have the knowledge to back it up. Do your homework. Know your subject.

Have fun in your senior year! Remember: high school only happens once.

I assume it’s you, Earl. Where is your evidence? I’ve read all of that and as a historian, I’ll bet you anything you want that my research techniques are equal to your own. Also, most of it doesn’t have anything to do with the existence of a deity. The existence of a SPECIFIC deity, yes. A deity in general? No.

Further, if you think I set the tone in a poor way, I would like you to show where I called you a name or did anything that might be construed as being a ‘poor sport’. I apologize if you think that I did.

People have called me on the ‘illogic’ of my arguments, if I appear defensive, it’s because I’ve been ‘called’ on the illogic of most of my arguments despite the fact they are founded on a clear understanding (and education) of logic.

Don’t be such a clown. I would be much more willing to listen to what you had to say if you weren’t such a —–.

You’re a professional writer? Really? What have you written? I’d love to read some of it.

And yet you have yet to name one piece that you have written. I do not have a fragile skin, but I refuse to accept criticism from those who have no concept of what I am trying to say.

David did not respond to me, as you have seen, but you continue to respond in a goofy way.

If you do not choose to read my articles that is fine by me. I’m not a theist in any way, but you choose to characterize me as such. That is your issue not mine.

Your ‘criticism’ is pointless and useless. It offers nothing except to show your own arrogance.

Thank you so much for commenting and have a great day!

Oh, don’t worry Earl, I’ll be posting our conversation as well. We’ll let the world decide which one of us is loony.

Your criticism (as you call it) is off base because you don’t understand the first point. You’re arguing about blue for heaven’s sake and that isn’t the argument at all. Light at 440-490nm is called ‘blue’ by everyone because that is how we perceive it and we’ve (the human species) agrees that is blue. Now, we don’t all call it that, but that’s a different issue. Blue isn’t the argument. The argument is being held by two people who have never seen the sky. One says it is blue the other not blue. At this point either person has an equally valid argument. Full stop. I suggest that you contact your local university and chat with a professor of logic if you think that I’m wrong. I’m sure your vaunted research capabilities are up to the task.

As for my response to your specific criticism shall we recap:

“No. No. No. No. Your “sky is blue” argument has absolutely nothing at all to do with the “proving a negative” or “argument from ignorance,” ahem, arguments.

If you make the extraordinary claim, you bear the burden of proof. If you claim the sky is not blue, which the rest of the color-seeing, English-speaking world has agreed to call the color, the burden of proof is in your court.

If you claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity with an interest in prolonged hospital stays, SATs, sporting events, and other personal matters, you are making the extraordinary claim. The burden of proof rests with you.

If I claim that an omnipresent, invisible, three-humped celestial camel controls the weather and slot machines, the burden of proof lies with me, and my detractors can sleep well knowing that I’m wrong. Knowing, not assuming or hoping.

The extraordinary claim is NOT as equally valid as the refusal to accept the lunacy.”

That was your initial post. Here is my response.

“Earl of S

You missed the point. And it has everything to do with it.

The initial statements: the sky is blue, the sky is not blue are equally valid. Now, once evidence is presented one way or the other one claim can be ‘proved’ false. However this claim: there is a deity, there is a not deity, has no evidence either way. Therefore the initial statement is still valid.

Further, when you went off about:
“If you claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity with an interest in prolonged hospital stays, SATs, sporting events, and other personal matters” you were on about something that I wasn’t arguing.

There is ample evidence that a personal, intervening deity does not exist. There are tests that could be done to see if such a deity exists. However, to argue that there is no deity, for which there is neither positive nor negative evidence, would be much harder and equally as valid as those who argue for a deity.”

Now, our conversation did go down hill from there, but to say I was ’smarmy’ in the beginning is ludicrous.

So, you post away. Have a nice little chuckle at my expense if it makes you feel superior. But, you’re still an intellectual coward. Why don’t you pony up with something you’ve written? Fear? How about this evidence that you have that irrefutably proves the non-existence of a deity? Where’s that?

Have a great day.

You used the wrong word for your unsubstantiated claims, so now you’re going to try to fudge the word to fit your inappropriate use. Just give it up.

Brandon – I really enjoyed reading this essay. There seems little point in trying to shift certain fanatics from their self-appointed moral high ground. I have read on this website that sex outside marriage being wrong is not an opinion – it is a fact! Ye Gods how’s that for fundamentalism? I see nothing wrong with communism other than the fact that humans tried it out. I’m not an atheist per se, but I do believe there’s room for doubt especially as the laws laid down in the various religious texts were written by men. You’re not going to persuade me that God picked up his pen one day and decided on a career in law-writing. Beliefs are based on assumptions not facts.