Justifying atheism, is the absence of evidence sufficient.

[Marisa]

I agree my statements bear the burden of proof too, but I don't care to provide proof, because any proof will simply be rejected automatically if it doesn't serve the needs of the ideologues. So I declare surrender, and that it's irrational of me to bother with any of this. Atheism wins again!!

Maybe I missed it, but what's an atheist ideologue, in your opinion?

 

[LuisDantas]

The burden lies on ANYBODY making a claim. It's the simplest thing, but impossible to explain to atheist ideologues.

You may explain whatever you want. You just should not expect to convince people of a burden of proof that they do not have.

At the end of the day, there is no reasonable way of denying that unbelievers have the right not to believe, until and unless presented with adequate evidence.

If that bothers you, my sympathies. I hope your acceptance grows.

 

[LuisDantas]

I agree my statements bear the burden of proof too, but I don't care to provide proof, because any proof will simply be rejected automatically if it doesn't serve the needs of the ideologues. So I declare surrender, and that it's irrational of me to bother with any of this. Atheism wins again!!

So you are calling "ideologues" those who refuse to submit to your expectations?

Best of luck.

 

[leibowde84]

Reading through recent threads on atheism, it seems that the question of justifying atheism as a logical position is contentious.
To my mind my disbelief in deities is legitimised by the absence of evidence for God and the incoherence of descriptions and definitions of God. I see atheism as simply the absence of a belief in a God, and believe that the absence of evidence alone is sufficient to inform a disbelief.

So please share what you feel is sufficient justification for atheism, and if you see the absence of evidence as sufficient justification.

As I see it, there can be no burden of proof in this case - so ask that we speak to sufficiency rather than proof. If you do believe there is a burden of proof however please feel free to participate and share your ideas.

All I can say is that I think that is a completely reasonable and well-substantiated view to hold.

 

[Gambit]

As I see it, atheists are obligated to argue for materialism. If they are willing to do that, then their "atheism" is suspect.

 

[jonathan180iq]

As I see it, atheists are obligated to argue for materialism. If they are willing to do that, then their "atheism" is suspect.

How so?

The issue of a purely materialist existence is independent of faith in deities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I see it, atheists are obligated to argue for materialism. If they are willing to do that, then their "atheism" is suspect.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "materialism", so how do you expect me to argue for it?

 

[MD]

How so?

The issue of a purely materialist existence is independent of faith in deities.

A purely materialist existence also implies that noone is truly conscious except the person experiencing it.

Would most atheists accept that position, that under a purely empirical and rational perspective, no human is conscious aside from themselves.
If not, would that make atheists hypocrites?

(I'm speaking of the materialist atheists, atheists who are idealists or dualists don't count)

 

[Curious George]

You may explain whatever you want. You just should not expect to convince people of a burden of proof that they do not have.

At the end of the day, there is no reasonable way of denying that unbelievers have the right not to believe, until and unless presented with adequate evidence.

If that bothers you, my sympathies. I hope your acceptance grows.

You do not think religion has tried to show atheists evidence? I agree it is inadequate, but this assertion means we need to be able to articulate why it is inadequate

 

[jonathan180iq]

A purely materialist existence also implies that noone is truly conscious except the person experiencing it.

Again, why is this so? How does it imply that no one is truly conscious except for me? To assume my own consciousness, and to support my belief in my own consciousness through the evidence of other conscious beings, I have to accept that there are other conscious being besides myself...

Would most atheists accept that position, that under a purely empirical and rational perspective, no human is conscious aside from themselves.
If not, would that make atheists hypocrites?

No. I don't think anyone on the planet outside of the loons thinks that they are the only conscious beings in existence.
Do you run around thinking your entire existence is just a figment of your imagination? Of course not.

Does disbelief in Poseidon make you a hypocrite?
Nope.

(I'm speaking of the materialist atheists, atheists who are idealists or dualists don't count)

What about pagan idealists or pagan dualists?
I'm assuming you're referring to naturalist monists such as myself. It still doesn't change anything about my above arguments.

 

[Gambit]

How so?

The issue of a purely materialist existence is independent of faith in deities.

It has been my experience that any atheist who is unwilling to argue for materialism has a lurking God-belief, namely, a pantheistic belief.

 

[Gambit]

I'm not even sure what you mean by "materialism", so how do you expect me to argue for it?

Then your "atheism" is suspect.

 

[Willamena]

As I see it, atheists are obligated to argue for materialism. If they are willing to do that, then their "atheism" is suspect.

I'm an atheist but not a materialist. I'd be hard pressed to argue for it.

 

[Laika]

A purely materialist existence also implies that noone is truly conscious except the person experiencing it.

Would most atheists accept that position, that under a purely empirical and rational perspective, no human is conscious aside from themselves.
If not, would that make atheists hypocrites?

(I'm speaking of the materialist atheists, atheists who are idealists or dualists don't count)

The problem with materialism is a very specific kind of materialism known as "eliminative materialism" which tries to eliminate consciousness and by implication the supernatural, which is essentially a form of consciousness believed to exist seperately of the brain. As a materialist and an atheist, this is an extremely crude and primitive position which is ultimately nihilistic as in rejecting consciousness it also causes serious problems for the concept of truth and ethics.
In dialectical materialism (the marxist variety) consciousness is a property of matter, and matter is primary. The idea that consciousness can exist independently of the brain is the basis for religious belief and is dismissed as an illusion. This is why materialism and religion belief are opposed as they assert different causes for pheneomena; idealism argues it is the mind, idea, spirit, god, etc, whereas materialism says it is independent of the mind. Marxism does not catagorically say that religion is false, but that by an error of abstract thinking we have misattributed the cause of pheneomena to god, etc.
If consciousness is a property of matter and a result of the activity of the brain, we can establish that it does exist without needing to rely on our own internal sensation of thought. So I do not accept the idea that we can only be aware of our own consciousness.

 

[Gambit]

I'm an atheist but not a materialist. I'd be hard pressed to argue for it.

You clearly have a pantheistic belief.

 

[MD]

I'm an atheist but not a materialist. I'd be hard pressed to argue for it.

This

 

[Willamena]

It has been my experience that any atheist who is unwilling to argue for materialism has a lurking God-belief, namely, a pantheistic belief.

I have many god-beliefs that aren't lurking, but I don't let them detract from my no-god belief.

 

[MD]

The problem with materialism is a very specific kind of materialism known as "eliminative materialism" which tries to eliminate consciousness and by implication the supernatural, which is essentially a form of consciousness believed to exist seperately of the brain. As a materialist and an atheist, this is an extremely crude and primitive position which is ultimately nihilistic as in rejecting consciousness it also causes serious problems for the concept of truth and ethics.
In dialectical materialism (the marxist variety) consciousness is a property of matter, and matter is primary. The idea that consciousness can exist independently of the brain is the basis for religious belief and is dismissed as an illusion. This is why materialism and religion belief are opposed as they assert different causes for pheneomena; idealism argues it is the mind, idea, spirit, god, etc, whereas materialism says it is independent of the mind. Marxism does not catagorically say that religion is false, but that by an error of abstract thinking we have misattributed the cause of pheneomena to god, etc.
If consciousness is a property of matter and a result of the activity of the brain, we can establish that it does exist without needing to rely on our own internal sensation of thought. So I do not accept the idea that we can only be aware of our own consciousness.

Agreed eliminative materialism is completely wrong from a philosophical perspective.

But if consciousness is a property of matter there is no way we can ever experience or know that others have consciousness through an empirical lens. The claim also that consciousness is a property of matter is a faith claim, and it is actually property dualism. My argument is not that consciousness is a property of matter or not, my argument simply is that as an atheist if your main argument is that there is no evidence for gods/God then by that same token there is no evidence for consciousness either in anyone else aside from yourself.

Now you can say that you can infer that since you have consciousness and a brain, others may have it too. Which is reasonable. But by that same token anyone who is a non materialist can claim that if consciousness is a property of matter, and all matter has mind then the universe itself might be conscious. And those beliefs are held by many in Eastern faiths and matches the concept of Brahman or Ahura Mazda.

It is dualistic to claim that consciousness is something different which arises from the arrangement of matter but cannot be observed. There is 0 evidence for it from an empirical perspective.

 

[jonathan180iq]

It has been my experience that any atheist who is unwilling to argue for materialism has a lurking God-belief, namely, a pantheistic belief.

I think that's probably a fair assumption, now that I understand what you mean by strict materialism.

I call it monism, seeing only 1 aspect to existence, which encompasses everything.
The Pantheistic belief, I feel, is simply a literary explanation for something which we can't accurately put into written or vocalized expression. What I call the Universe someone can call god or whatever other name they want to use. There is still, ultimately, only 1 existence. It doesn't matter how we interpret it or what we name it. It's all just existence.

That said, the pantheistic and deistic concept god is very different from the Monotheistic and Judeo-Christian concept of god, isn't it?
Richard Dawkins, for example, admits that he is open to the plausibility of being convinced of a Pantheistic or Deistic style entity. But what does that matter in relation to his atheism in general? He isn't claiming that those beings exist, just that he could at least hear arguments for them. It doesn't change the fact that he's an atheist (who calls himself agnostic)

 

[MD]

Again, why is this so? How does it imply that no one is truly conscious except for me? To assume my own consciousness, and to support my belief in my own consciousness through the evidence of other conscious beings, I have to accept that there are other conscious being besides myself...

You're making assumptions, none of this is backed up by hard evidence. As such you are going against your very own beliefs.

No. I don't think anyone on the planet outside of the loons thinks that they are the only conscious beings in existence.
Do you run around thinking your entire existence is just a figment of your imagination? Of course not.

Does disbelief in Poseidon make you a hypocrite?
Nope.

You are dodging the argument completely.

What about pagan idealists or pagan dualists?
I'm assuming you're referring to naturalist monists such as myself. It still doesn't change anything about my above arguments.

Paganism is a religious belief, idealism, dualism and materialism are philosophies. There is a difference imo.