Perhaps I'm simply uninformed here, but it's my understanding that atheism in no way mandates reliance on scientific evidence. If you were talking about adherents of scientism I would agree, but atheists are not necessary guilty of scientism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arguing Against Atheism is Silly
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Perhaps I'm simply uninformed here, but it's my understanding that atheism in no way mandates reliance on scientific evidence. If you were talking about adherents of scientism I would agree, but atheists are not necessary guilty of scientism.
Cobol
Code Jockey
What is the origin of the first cause?
Modern physics has shown that some things are uncaused. According to quantum mechanics, subatomic particles like electrons, photons, and positrons come into and go out of existence randomly.
You're the expert in straw men, so you would know.
All the arguments for theism that I've seen have been poor. I don't claim to have seen every argument for theism.
If you have an argument for theism that you think is decent, start a thread and we'll discuss it.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I don't know if I like the term "weak"I'm thinking more unbiased. A strong atheist I'd probably call an anti-theist.
I think I agree, actually...but 'strong' and 'weak' are the...sort of...official terms.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
The problem here is that an 'argument against atheism' is an attempt to prove a negative. That simply cannot be done, either formally (as in logic) or practically.
All one can do is argue FOR a positive claim; one can argue for a deity--which is in and of itself an argument against atheism (after all, if there IS a god, then atheism is a false concept, right?)
A "strong" atheist, who out and out makes a positive statement 'there is no god...' has very neatly solved the problem. One does not have to 'argue against' atheism with him. One simply has to say 'prove it.'
Works either way. As for me, I don't bother.
Well, that's not quite true. I used to be a missionary and was in England for a bit. I was going door to door, getting tired and thirsty. It was a hot day (as hot as it ever gets in England, which is...not very...) and at one house a woman leaned out her bedroom window and yelled 'I'm an atheist. Go away!" So I backed up and yelled back "I'm a fanatic. Wanna talk about it?"
She laughed, let us in, gave us lemon squash and we had a lovely fifteen minutes of correcting some inaccurate information about Mormons. We left her still an atheist, and she waved us off, still fanatics. I still think of her fondly. I hope she has, if she thinks of us at all, pleasant memories of us, too.
I think you're crossing your streams a little here.
You can prove a negative is false.
If someone claims that black swans don't exist, you can point to a black swan, thereby proving their "negative" belief wrong.
Furthermore, "arguing against atheism" isn't an attempt to prove a negative. It's an attempt to convince someone that their belief, or lack thereof, is incorrect.
If I lack belief that macro evolution occurs, can you not argue against my current position? Obviously, you are, by extension, also arguing for macro-evolution. But how is it incorrect to say you are arguing against my position of non-belief?
True, but it's really a statement of my opinion based on my position. I can't really speak for every atheist of every persuasion. My original post was a bit of hyperbole for the sake of humor. At the time I didn't imagine it was going to be addressed quite as seriously.
I think I agree, actually...but 'strong' and 'weak' are the...sort of...official terms.
Sure, just some personal reservations about being call a "weak" atheist.
Sounds interesting, hopefully I'll come across some of them.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
No...you can only prove that something else is true...something that contradicts the negative position. As well, the one claiming that 'black swans don't exist' is making a positive claim. you CAN, of course, show a black swan as a refutation of that claim, or you can simply say 'prove that no black swans exist.' In neither case is one 'arguing against' the idea that there are no black swans, but rather you are arguing FOR the existence of a black swan, or making no argument at all by simply requiring the claimant to prove his claim.
Which of course he can't.
what I am saying is that it is not possible to argue against atheism. It's not even possible, logically, to argue FOR atheism, even for (or perhaps especially for) those strong atheists who vehemently claim that there is no possibility of the existence of deity.
All we can do is argue for, or against, a specific idea of deity. The problem is that if one specific idea of deity is disproved, that doesn't disprove any of the competing ideas of deity. Frustrating, I know, but there it is.
Because, even if the result of arguing FOR macro-evolution is that you come to believe in it, arguing for something isn't the same as arguing against disbelief in that something. It might seem the same, but it's not. Quite.
Just ask any participant in a discussion between an evangelical Christian and anything that evangelical Christian thinks of as a 'cult.' It can get pretty hairy, but the difference in approaches becomes clearer. For instance, a fairly recent exchange went this way:
EVAN: (evangelical Christian) You are STUPID not to believe in the Trinity! Only heretics and unregenerates don't believe!
Heri (heretic) Actually, I don't think it's stupid not to believe; I don't see the biblical evidence for it, and the whole idea is a 4th century mashup...
EVAN: Only cultists and devil worshipers don't believe!
Heri: (sigh)
See the difference? The Evangelical in question is arguing against a lack of belief in an important concept to him, but there is nothing in there to show that he is arguing FOR that concept, is there?
However, his friend, who may trot out a bunch of biblical references and reasons why he believes in the Trinity, isn't arguing against disbelief, but FOR a specific belief. It is possible...not probable, mind you, but possible (well, I COULD be struck by lightening while being eaten by a shark on a sunny day, in Kansas) that the first approach could cause Heri to cease to disbelieve, but the odds of approach #2 are greater....and do not at all depend upon what Heri actually thinks or believes. Doesn't matter whether Heri is an atheist, or a Muslim or a Mormon; arguments 'for' are arguments 'for,' and not arguments 'against.'
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I see. It is, however, not about YOU being 'weak.' It's more like magnetism; the stronger the magnet, the less likely any persuasion or force can move it. A 'weak' magnet, however, can be moved by the proper leverage. So 'weak' atheism is simply atheism that is willing to look at....and perhaps accept...persuasive enough evidence to move it. "Strong' atheism isn't, because it has become welded to its own position and nothing will change it.
Shoot, I talked to a few atheists recently who flat out told me that if God Himself came down to tell them He existed, they would not believe; there is no possible way for such an event NOT to be hallucinatory or a trick, because of course there is no God.
THAT is 'strong' atheism.
You've never seen the first cause argument?
I'm arguing against the claim that there are no black swans by proving that black swans exist. I do not see the distinction you are trying to make.
Presenting arguments for the existence of gods is the exact same thing as arguing against atheism.
Other methods you did not consider:
Presenting arguments as to why theism is more rational than atheism.
Arguing that atheism is an irrational position to hold.
Arguing that gods not existing is less likely than gods existing.
And to follow up on one other thing:
If it's not possible to logically argue for atheism, then atheism is not a logical position to hold.
No, it's literally the same thing.
Arguments for a belief are inherently also against the opposite belief. Reasons given for Belief X are reasons to reject belief Y (where Y equals "opposite of X").
I think the main problem is that you are confusing the idea that you cannot prove that something doesn't exist (which is true) with the idea that you cannot disprove that something does not exist (which is false.)
Edit:
To make that last paragraph clearer:
You can not prove non-existence.
You can disprove non-existence.
Last edited:
Probably but I haven't engaged in one. I didn't before see it as relevant to my views since I don't see a first cause as necessary. I could be wrong though and your comment made me think I might want to investigate it.
I see. It is, however, not about YOU being 'weak.' It's more like magnetism; the stronger the magnet, the less likely any persuasion or force can move it. A 'weak' magnet, however, can be moved by the proper leverage. So 'weak' atheism is simply atheism that is willing to look at....and perhaps accept...persuasive enough evidence to move it. "Strong' atheism isn't, because it has become welded to its own position and nothing will change it.
Shoot, I talked to a few atheists recently who flat out told me that if God Himself came down to tell them He existed, they would not believe; there is no possible way for such an event NOT to be hallucinatory or a trick, because of course there is no God.
THAT is 'strong' atheism.
You know I kind of have that view. I've gotten involved in a number of different religious beliefs and had numerous spiritual experiences. Ones that I felt were convincing enough at the time to support that religious belief. As I've learn more and more how the brain operates I've come to question these subjective experiences.
So these experiences other folks have had, I've similar experiences. Wiccan, Scientologist, Druid, Christian of course. I followed a Guru from India for a few years. Looked into Buddhism and Zen. There is something to be experienced from all these religions in a almost tangible but subjective way.
Scientifically however I've found reason to not trust these subjective experiences. It is kind of a defense against subjectivity for me to not have a belief regarding any god's existence at this point. Requiring scientific evidence before making a decision will I hope safeguard me from that kind of subjectivity.
Nonsense. That would be GNOSTIC atheism. Please learn the difference between STRONG atheism and GNOSTIC atheism.
Augustus
…
If you can comprehend the statement "god exists" you hold a belief regarding gods existence. It is cognitively impossible not to hold a belief about a proposition we have been exposed to and can comprehend.
See for example You Can't Not Believe Everything You Read
So if one person says to me "gods exist" I must believe that and if a second person says "gods don't exist" a minute later I must believe that too? At the same time?