The Case For Atheism

Originally posted by epiphinehas
When that entity is called 'God' then the name for that default position is 'atheism'.

Atheism is a positive belief; i.e., it is belief in the proposition, "God doesn't exist,"—as such, someone (or something) that lacks belief that "God doesn't exist," cannot be deemed an atheist.

Notice that the 'rational creature' in question started wi ed, rather, from a belief (i.e., "God doesn't exist" ).

All rubbish. As an atheist I do NOT "believe" that god does not exist. I have absolutely no idea whether or not god exists. I do not think it is possible to know. But I see absolutely no reason to "believe" that a god does exist. As such, I will provisionally assume that god does not exist. I will live as though he did not exist, without ever claiming any knowledge in that regard.

The assumption that life originated without the aid of a god only rules out one explanation for its origins. That leaves every other possible explanation for life's origins open. You want to force the question into two alternatives: god or not god. "Not god" does not provide us with a cohesive system of belief. It leaves open every possible belief that is "not god."

Originally posted by rwingett
No thanks. It's been rehashed on this forum a million times already. Needless to say, though, I disagree with your assessment of the problem. if you think the problem of evil has been overcome then you simply don't understand it.

The problem of evil is not a threat to theism as a rational belief. If I were you, I wouldn't want to rehash it either.

Originally posted by rwingett
All rubbish. As an atheist I do NOT "believe" that god does not exist. I have absolutely no idea whether or not god exists. I do not think it is possible to know. But I see absolutely no reason to "believe" that a god does exist. As such, I will provisionally assume that god does not exist. I will live as though he did not exist, without ever claimin th a cohesive system of belief. It leaves open every possible belief that is "not god."

Atheism, strictly speaking, does not automatically entail the agnosticism you espouse here (though I admit they aren't mutually exclusive). That said, even a modified atheism (i.e., agnostic-atheism) cannot be considered the "default position". After all, both propositions, "I have absolutely no idea whether or not god exists" and "I see absolutely no reason to "believe" that god does exist", were arrived at by inference. It is possible that a completely different set of inferences could have been reached, given the evidence of our senses.

"Not god" does not provide us with a cohesive system of belief. It leaves open every possible belief that is "not god."

And how are any of those other possibilities inconsistent with materialism and naturalism?

Is there no one willing to step up and make the case for atheism? Again, it shouldn't be too difficult to justify the ridicule theists supposedly deserve for believing as they do, it being so plainly obvious that atheism is true.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Is there no one willing to step up and make the case for atheism? Again, it shouldn't be too difficult to justify the ridicule theists supposedly deserve for believing as they do, it being so plainly obvious that atheism is true.

You are repeating your original claim that someone said that theists deserve ridicule for believing as they do. It wasn't clear at all that that was said, as you did not provide a quote. No person here is responsible to answer that, other than the person who said whatever was said. Some of us do not want to ridicule theists for their beliefs, and do not want a response by us to be interpreted as meaning we do want to ridicule them. Moreover, all of the reasons for and against theism are well laid out in other sources, and you are a veteran of the issue. Moreover to that, it is impossible to make a case against X unless X is defined. It is not the job of the nonbeliever to define what is proposed to be real.

Originally posted by JS357
You are repeating your original claim that someone said that theists deserve ridicule for believing as they do. It wasn't clear at all that that was said, as you did not provide a quote. No person here is responsible to answer that, other than the person who said whatever was said. Some of us do not want to ridicule theists for their beliefs, and do not want a ...[text shortened]... nless X is defined. It is not the job of the nonbeliever to define what is proposed to be real.

You are repeating your original claim that someone said that theists deserve ridicule for believing as they do. It wasn't clear at all that that was said, as you did not provide a quote. No person here is responsible to answer that, other than the person who said whatever was said.

There's goes any justification I had for starting this thread. 😞

Some of us do not want to ridicule theists for their beliefs, and do not want a response by us to be interpreted as meaning we do want to ridicule them.

That makes sense.

Moreover to that, it is impossible to make a case against X unless X is defined. It is not the job of the nonbeliever to define what is proposed to be real.

I guess we'll pick this up elsewhere, on a case by case basis, in a different context.

Originally posted by JS357
Of course "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse," was written based on the understanding of the time about what was supposedly "made." Back then, the understanding of what had been made was quite unsci , its truth will be contingent forever, or at least until religion re-appropriates science.

I dont think its that important what 'understanding', was available to people back then, for the important aspect of Pauls words is that through an examination of the physical world we can draw inferences, much in the same way that something of significance can be drawn from examining a particular work of art, whether it tells us a little of the artists thoughts, methods, personality, many things can be inferred. This is of course is completely detached from what we actually understand in terms of how pigment was mixed, how it was applied etc. and is not really necessary for us in order to draw inferences from our observations.

If we, for example observe harmony within the physical world, does it really matter to what extent science has advanced? not really, for harmony would be evident to Paul as to us. Thus there is no conflict between science, what is understood and observing the physical world in order to draw inferences about God, indeed, the more science advances, the more inferences may be drawn, for we gain insights into countless new worlds and possibilities.

The only conflict that has arisen for some, is in the matter of specific details regarding Darwinian evolution, for it directly contradicts the scriptural account, which many hold to be inspired, but putting that aside for one moment, there is no necessity for religion to reassess science, for there is no conflict in the first instance and thus Pauls words are not dependent upon future findings, but on the observers perceptions of these amazing mechanisms.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont think its that important what 'understanding', was available to people back then, for the important aspect of Pauls words is that through an examination of the physical world we can draw inferences, much in the same way that something of significance can be drawn from examining a particular work of art, whether it tells us a little of the arti ...[text shortened]... dependent upon future findings, but on the observers perceptions of these amazing mechanisms.

It's hard to be concise here, but I will try. The conflict over evolution is not the only one that has arisen. I will only mention geocentrism and not go into it. But there have been skirmishes over such things as exorcism versus psychology, that are less well known. All has not been harmony. People have died over these issues, and more may.

The larger point is that science and religion were never going to be in harmony, unless they struck a deal represented by the Galileo incident. That deal was that science was allowed to apply the *methodology* of naturalism, but would not draw metaphysical conclusions or take metaphysical positions supporting naturalism as a truth about the world. That is to say, NO metaphysical position was to be assumed or inferred when doing science.

Of course, talking on this forum is not "doing science."

The tone of your last paragraph makes me think that a metaphysical position, basically something like intelligent design, is being assumed or inferred. There is nothing wrong with that, if it stays outside the pages of scientific publications and other scientific settings. Equally, to the degree that atheism represents a metaphysical position, it belongs outside science. I think so-called positive ("there is no deity"😉 atheism belongs outside science. Every conclusion of science could be true AND a deity of some sort could be behind everything at the same time -- although some formulations of deity are incompatible with science. But on these, science must be silent and let the issues be settled in other forums.

I think religions have a right and duty to assess science as needed to keep it from making metaphysical inferences that contradict -- OR AGREE WITH -- any particular metaphysical religious position. Of course, individual people who do science may hold beliefs that contradict or agree with the tenets of a religion, but it should not be evident in their scientific work.

How this relates to Paul, is that the passage in question had as its guiding assumption or commitment, Christian theism, as is mentioned in virtually the same breath. It took about 1500 years for this commitment to be separated from science, and there are people today who want to reinstate it, at least as science is taught in US public schools.

Originally posted by JS357
It's hard to be concise here, but I will try. The conflict over evolution is not the only one that has arisen. I will only mention geocentrism and not go into it. But there have been skirmishes over such things as exorcism versus psychology, that are less well known. All has not been harmony. People have died over these issues, and more may.

The larger poin ...[text shortened]... people today who want to reinstate it, at least as science is taught in US public schools.

Note: The smiley in my last post was accidental.

Originally posted by JS357
It's hard to be concise here, but I will try. The conflict over evolution is not the only one that has arisen. I will only mention geocentrism and not go into it. But there have been skirmishes over such things as exorcism versus psychology, that are less well known. All has not been harmony. People have died over these issues, and more may.

The larger poin ...[text shortened]... people today who want to reinstate it, at least as science is taught in US public schools.

Science should take an honest approach also, and when design is
found it should be acknowleged. But it seems okay, for some reason,
to assume or infer that evolution occurs. But to teach students about
the design is wrong simply because it might infer there is a designer,
which would support a religious idea, and it must br stopped at all costs.
Truth is not important in this case because this is thought to be teaching
religion, especially the Christian religion. This is unthinkable.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, I am an atheist. I am also a million and one other things. Being an atheist tells you nothing about me except that I don't believe in any gods. It tells you nothing about what my beliefs are.

So you agree with me, Atheism is a weak belief that requires a rejection of
another's belief, it has nothing on its own. There is no positive position within
Atheism only that which denies another's belief. Athiesm has nothing on its
own, it only stands against other's beliefs.

So as an Atheist you do not actually look at evidence in any way other than to
reject that which could lead to a belief in God by default, as long as you remain
true to your rejection of God within Atheism.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you agree with me, Atheism is a weak belief that requires a rejection of
another's belief, it has nothing on its own. There is no positive position within
Atheism only that which denies another's belief. Athiesm has nothing on its
own, it only stands against other's beliefs.

So as an Atheist you do not actually look at evidence in any way other tha ...[text shortened]... n God by default, as long as you remain
true to your rejection of God within Atheism.
Kelly

I fail to see how you would assume I do not look at the evidence. Looking at the available evidence is exactly how I found your position to be lacking and how I came to identify as an atheist. If you came up with a new argument for the existence of god, one that I hadn't heard before, then I would consider it. But you don't. You just rehash the same old arguments over and over. Arguments which I have previously examined and found to be lacking.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Is there no one willing to step up and make the case for atheism? Again, it shouldn't be too difficult to justify the ridicule theists supposedly deserve for believing as they do, it being so plainly obvious that atheism is true.

It is like your saying, make the case for the nonexistence of the entity X. Oh, and we aren't defining X. We'll tell you if your definition and assignments of attributes to entity X are what we have in mind, after you present your case.

Then you sit back and if the opponent presents an argument about some X which you then agree does not exist, then you say, but that isn't the X we had in mind. Try again. With no further information.

This may seem silly from within a religion, but the general issue is real. Define a deity, in complete, logically analyzable detail, and we can discuss it. I have never seen that happen in over 12 years on alt.atheism and then this forum.

Originally posted by JS357
It is like your saying, make the case for the nonexistence of the entity X. Oh, and we aren't defining X. We'll tell you if your definition and assignments of attributes to entity X are what we have in mind, after you present your case.

Then you sit back and if the opponent presents an argument about some X which you then agree does not exist, then you say, ...[text shortened]... iscuss it. I have never seen that happen in over 12 years on alt.atheism and then this forum.

God is defined in complete, logically analyzable detail in the Holy Bible as
well as a human has the capability to understand. Many theologians have
written books on the subject. Read the Holy Bible for a start then you
might be able to understand what others are talking about. You need an
adjustment in attitude.

Originally posted by rwingett
I fail to see how you would assume I do not look at the evidence. Looking at the available evidence is exactly how I found your position to be lacking and how I came to identify as an atheist. If you came up with a new argument for the existence of god, one that I hadn't heard before, then I would consider it. But you don't. You just rehash the same old arguments over and over. Arguments which I have previously examined and found to be lacking.

I'm sure you do as you do all evidence to remain what you claim you are,
you look at it and reject it.
Kelly