(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Laika]

This question is directed more specifically at strong atheists who make a positive assertion that god does not objectively exist rather than weak atheists who have grounds for not having a subjective belief in god. Realizing this is the case, I've actually decided to change my position to an agnostic as I cannot objectively prove Atheism is true (agnosticism and weak atheism are barely distinguishable).

I honestly, don't know how it would be done because it appears to involve radical changes in how we define the nature of objective reality and would appear to involve considerable amount of philosophy in addition to a scientific method to approach the question. I suspect it's closely related to philosophical materialism, but I'm not 100% sure. Given the breadth of the question I felt I needed to throw it out to everyone on RF and just see what comes up.

So I wanted to ask:

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

ii) what proof would be required for a believer to voluntarily give up their belief in god/gods?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

I don't see how the non-existence of something can be proved. What can be demonstrated is the lack of evidence, though absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

[Bunyip]

Which god?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me you are discussing atheism as a knowledge claim rather than as a belief statement. That's fine, but atheism can also be used to indicate something believed about diety rather than something known about deity. Thus, a person might describe themselves as an "agnostic atheist" -- meaning, they claim a lack of knowledge (agnostic), but a belief there are no gods (atheist). What you're doing is fine. I'm just trying to point out there is a way in which people use the word "atheist" that is overlooked in the OP.

 

[Typist]

Good thread, thanks. Much of value to discuss here, imho.

This question is directed more specifically at strong atheists who make a positive assertion that god does not objectively exist rather than weak atheists who have grounds for not having a subjective belief in god.

To quibble just a bit, we might wish to target this investigation at any atheist who attempts to sell their position. To me, that's where the burden of proof arises. If it's a private matter, or the atheist is simply reporting their situation, I'm not sure proof comes in to it at all. Just a thought...

Realizing this is the case, I've actually decided to change my position to an agnostic as I cannot objectively prove Atheism is true (agnosticism and weak atheism are barely distinguishable).

Your decision seems entirely consistent with reason and the principles of atheism.

I would add only that agnosticism can be much more than merely an inability to prove theism or atheism. Agnosticism can also decline the fundamental assumption shared by theism and atheism, the notion that the point of the inquiry should be to find The Answer, to create a knowing. Our ignorance, the mystery, can then be seen not as a failure, but as an asset to be embraced.

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

Ok, I'll take a shot.

1) First, we would have to understand the proposal we are attempting to debunk, a step many atheists seem to skip in their rush to rejection. God ideas are proposals about the most fundamental nature of all reality. Typically they assert the most fundamental nature of all reality is some form of hyper-intelligence.

2) Next, we would have to demonstrate that we can reference some authority which is qualified to deliver credible conclusions about the realm being addressed by god claims, all of reality. Typically atheists wish to use human reason as that authority, thus they bear the burden of proving that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality.

3) Finally, we would have to demonstrate that a god proposal violates the rules of human reason.

What almost always happens is that atheists skip over steps 1 and 2, and rush directly to step 3.

Here's an example which may be easier to swallow.

If a theist can't first prove that the rules of their holy book are binding upon the realm they are addressing, typically all of reality, then arguments such as...

"But it's in the Bible!"

... can be dismissed without being engaged.

Before one can build arguments that reference some authority, one has the burden of first demonstrating that one's chosen authority is indeed an authority in regards to the issues being examined.

 

[Typist]

ii) what proof would be required for a believer to voluntarily give up their belief in god/gods?

This assumes a believer, atheist or theist, is interested in proof, that is human reason. The problem here is that reason, just like faith, is a form of surrender. And most of us don't want to surrender to a process, we want to drive the bus to the location that appeals to us.

You'll likely see evidence of this here in this thread. You're likely starting a collection of atheists who can't prove their position, but will cling stubbornly and adamantly to it anyway, while demanding proof from others. Such a process is about emotion, self identity, not reason.

It's not logical to think we can edit views created with emotion with logic. Being illogical myself, I try it All THE TIME, and it never works. But because my interest is fueled by my own emotions, I don't seem to care, and keep beating my head against the wall anyway, as I am doing right now.

A sense of humor comes in handy! If being human isn't fun, it's likely to become rather dreadful.

 

[Bunyip]

This assumes a believer, atheist or theist, is interested in proof, that is human reason. The problem here is that reason, just like faith, is a form of surrender. And most of us don't want to surrender to a process, we want to drive the bus to the location that appeals to us.

You'll likely see evidence of this here in this thread. You're likely starting a collection of atheists who can't prove their position, but will cling stubbornly and adamantly to it anyway, while demanding proof from others. Such a process is about emotion, self identity, not reason.

It's not logical to think we can edit views created with emotion with logic. Being illogical myself, I try it All THE TIME, and it never works. But because my interest is fueled by my own emotions, I don't seem to care, and keep beating my head against the wall anyway, as I am doing right now.

A sense of humor comes in handy! If being human isn't fun, it's likely to become rather dreadful.

But how can disbelief in something unevidenced need to be proven?

 

[Typist]

But how can disbelief in something unevidenced need to be proven?

This is a very common and understandable question.

First, I don't think disbelief needs to be proven, unless one is trying to sell one's disbelief to others. The vast majority of atheists probably rarely give these matters much thought, let alone argue the case, so I see no reason to get in their face and demand proof.

Second, if one is selling one's disbelief it's reasonable for us to ask, what is the disbelief based on?

As example, if I were to state my disbelief is based on my ouija board, shouldn't ouija boards then be tested to see if they are capable of delivering credible answers on this topic? Surely you should not be required to accept my ouija board's qualifications on faith, right?

The reason this question so often comes up is because many atheists, particularly the more adamant ones, have a faith in the infinite power of human reason which is so deep, and so unexamined, that they sincerely take those qualifications to be an obvious given. This is entirely understandable, but also sloppy reasoning.

And then we face the problem that such adamant atheists often have a cherished personal identity of being laser sharp reasoners, so when a hole in their reasoning is uncovered, they may go hysterical, filling the thread with many ego distractions.

By the way, none of this will accomplish anything. But typing is fun so let's continue.

 

[Bunyip]

This is a very common and understandable question.

First, I don't think disbelief needs to be proven, unless one is trying to sell one's disbelief to others. The vast majority of atheists probably rarely give these matters much thought, let alone argue the case, so I see no reason to get in their face and demand proof.

Second, if one is selling one's disbelief it's reasonable for us to ask, what is the disbelief based on?

As example, if I were to state my disbelief is based on my ouija board, shouldn't ouija boards then be tested to see if they are capable of delivering credible answers on this topic? Surely you should not be required to accept my ouija board's qualifications on faith, right?

The reason this question so often comes up is because many atheists, particularly the more adamant ones, have a faith in the infinite power of human reason which is so deep, and so unexamined, that they sincerely take those qualifications to be an obvious given. This is entirely understandable, but also sloppy reasoning.

And then we face the problem that such adamant atheists often have a cherished personal identity of being laser sharp reasoners, so when a hole in their reasoning is uncovered, they may go hysterical, filling the thread with many ego distractions.

By the way, none of this will accomplish anything. But typing is fun so let's continue.

Well what if the atheist disbeleived simply for lack of evidence? Which god by the way?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But how can disbelief in something unevidenced need to be proven?

Disbelief is entirely justified when there is no evidence. On the other hand absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I could make the claim that aliens are among us, and nobody here could disprove that claim....though you might question my sanity.

 

[Bunyip]

Disbelief is entirely justified when there is no evidence. On the other hand absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I could make the claim that aliens are among us, and nobody here could disprove that claim....though you might question my sanity.

Sure. There needs to be a specific god and claimed evidence.

 

[Laika]

But how can disbelief in something unevidenced need to be proven?

To me, that's where the burden of proof arises. If it's a private matter, or the atheist is simply reporting their situation, I'm not sure proof comes in to it at all. Just a thought...

It is the statement that there is no god as an objective fact rather than a personal belief that needs evidence and has a burden of proof. Often this can over-ride the 'right' to free thought and so the atheist insists that religion is false and hence people need to give up the belief. The relationship between the 'truth' cliam of atheist acts as a weapon against the moral 'right' of a believer to hold that belief because why should someone be allowed to believe something that is false?

By the way, none of this will accomplish anything. But typing is fun so let's continue.

That doesn't really bother me honestly. I'm more interested to see where this discussion goes and what comes up because as an individual my view and knowledge on this is very limited and I wanted to see how other people address the problem.

Which god by the way?

As a materialist, I'd say any/all, but I think that is so broad it's an abuse of reason because it doesn't really relate to evidence in a recognizable sense. I really want to see how other people do it, even with a specific deity.

 

[Bunyip]

It is the statement that there is no god as an objective fact rather than a personal belief that needs evidence and has a burden of proof. Often this can over-ride the 'right' to free thought and so the atheist insists that religion is false and hence people need to give up the belief. The relationship between the 'truth' cliam of atheist acts as a weapon against the moral 'right' of a believer to hold that belief because why should someone be allowed to believe something that is false?



That doesn't really bother me honestly. I'm more interested to see where this discussion goes and what comes up because as an individual my view and knowledge on this is very limited and I wanted to see how other people address the problem.



As a materialist, I'd say any/all, but I think that is so broad it's an abuse of reason because it doesn't really relate to evidence in a recognizable sense. I really want to see how other people do it, even with a specific deity.

Sure. Cool.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It seems to me you are discussing atheism as a knowledge claim rather than as a belief statement. That's fine, but atheism can also be used to indicate something believed about diety rather than something known about deity. Thus, a person might describe themselves as an "agnostic atheist" -- meaning, they claim a lack of knowledge (agnostic), but a belief there are no gods (atheist). What you're doing is fine. I'm just trying to point out there is a way in which people use the word "atheist" that is overlooked in the OP.

Right.

For me, this is how I keep the difference between Atheism and Agnostic straight in my own head. Not sure how rigorous or accurate this is, but it's how I think about it. The conclusions of an Agnostic are based on an absence of knowledge. The conclusions of an Atheist are based on the absence of logic.

Agnostics (not me, so correct me please) have to accept the possibility that Gods exists, and claim their logical conclusions of Gods are impossible because they have imperfect knowledge. Both the Theist and the Agnostic use the same logic to draw conclusions, but arguments are about knowledge-based premises.

Atheists (at least me, so correct me please) believe that claiming the existence of Gods is logically unsound. Supernatural being/beings/entities capable of interaction with matter/energy in the universe doesn't make sense logically. My premises are reasonably true and my conclusion is valid. The burden of proof is clearly on the Theist, and their goal must be to disprove that the soundness of my argument is false, by either claiming my premises are wrong with direct evidence, or that the logic of my conclusions are inaccurate.

 

[JoStories]

This question is directed more specifically at strong atheists who make a positive assertion that god does not objectively exist rather than weak atheists who have grounds for not having a subjective belief in god. Realizing this is the case, I've actually decided to change my position to an agnostic as I cannot objectively prove Atheism is true (agnosticism and weak atheism are barely distinguishable).

I honestly, don't know how it would be done because it appears to involve radical changes in how we define the nature of objective reality and would appear to involve considerable amount of philosophy in addition to a scientific method to approach the question. I suspect it's closely related to philosophical materialism, but I'm not 100% sure. Given the breadth of the question I felt I needed to throw it out to everyone on RF and just see what comes up.

So I wanted to ask:

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

ii) what proof would be required for a believer to voluntarily give up their belief in god/gods?

Why does the atheist have to disprove God when there is no objective evidence of God in the first place. There is nothing for them to disprove. IMO, the question makes no sense. The burden of proof lies with those who believe, not the other way round.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why does the atheist have to disprove God when there is no objective evidence of God in the first place. There is nothing for them to disprove. IMO, the question makes no sense. The burden of proof lies with those who believe, not the other way round.

There is certainly no need to disprove the existence of something for which there is evidence.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Ok, I'll take a shot.

1) First, we would have to understand the proposal we are attempting to debunk, a step many atheists seem to skip in their rush to rejection. God ideas are proposals about the most fundamental nature of all reality. Typically they assert the most fundamental nature of all reality is some form of hyper-intelligence.

Are you saying that a God idea is an a priori claim? If that's the case, then the concept of this god idea would be universally the same across human history, rather than regionally accepted. If it is not an a priori, then it is not a premise, it is a conclusion based on your specific experiential evidence. To be an Atheist, one would have to disprove that all gods ever proposed are false, and that includes all the Gods of Smallpox across the history of the world, Cuthulu, and even Tiamat, the five-headed god of dragons. To be a Theist one would have to disprove all the god idea proposals they do not accept are false first. That's ridiculous.

It is not a priori, and a god concept is not a logical premise for anyone to make. Since I do not accept the premise of a god concept, and every human cannot agree on what that god concept is, then I can dismiss it as easily as I dismiss the possibility that Tiamat fights her eternal battle with Bahumut, the father of metallic dragons, on the slopes of the first layer of the Nine Hells.

2) Next, we would have to demonstrate that we can reference some authority which is qualified to deliver credible conclusions about the realm being addressed by god claims, all of reality. Typically atheists wish to use human reason as that authority, thus they bear the burden of proving that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality.

I am not sure they are, nor do I understand what you mean. Which rules of human reason are you referring? Why would they be binding upon all of reality? Since #1 is not a logical premise, it's irrelevant anyway.

Even if #1 was reasonable, a Theist cannot construct a valid argument either based on this same erroneous judgement of human reason. Or do you use nonhuman reasoning as your authority instead?

3) Finally, we would have to demonstrate that a god proposal violates the rules of human reason.

Done.

What almost always happens is that atheists skip over steps 1 and 2, and rush directly to step 3.

Didn't.

 

[idav]

For something to not exist there is not burden of proof and lack of evidence is objective reasoning to non-existence or something not happening.

I could believe everything that can happen happens right now somewhere in the universe. As long as I don't present evidence my belief can be dismissed from lack of evidence even if I am using sound logic.

 

[idav]

Looking infinitely for an answer to satisfy a theist who should have the answer but doesnt cause belief is faith, seems likes something is missing there. Atheists have no burden.

 

[Laika]

Why does the atheist have to disprove God when there is no objective evidence of God in the first place. There is nothing for them to disprove. IMO, the question makes no sense. The burden of proof lies with those who believe, not the other way round.

There is a rational basis for arguing for the existence of god and it is a dis-service to theists to think that it is necessarily based on 'blind' faith in the authority of scripture. For thousands of year, it was taken as self-evident that there was a god. It is only since the 18th/19th century that Atheism has had a adherents outside of the realm of philosophers. Most argue that a belief in god is not rational and crudely oversimplify the problem by assuming that the existence or non-existence of god is self-evident based on the truth. it isn't; it involves considerable philosophical and subjective elements about how we interpret the objective world and the evidence (often a conflict between idealism and materialism). What I can't figure out is how someone can 'prove' those philosophical propositions.

I've spent a long time familiarizing myself with Communist philosophy (which is atheist by default) but I am missing a piece of the puzzle; how they actually got to the point where atheism was accepted as an objectively true statement, was 'scientific' and the debate was therefore closed, to the point where they were violently anti-religious. That position would be considered absurd today because mainstream philosophy has been systematically re-written to erase the possibility of arriving at that conclusion. The objective non-existence of god always lays waste to traditional 'objective' ethics and is therefore closely related to communism/totalitarianism (when the state/man becomes the source of ethics and rights rather than god or nature); hence the issue has been buried under layers of agnosticism by turning it into an insoluble problem where it is 'unknowable' to avoid facing a re-occurrence of totalitarianism. i.e. if man cannot know the nature of god, man cannot play god.

What we think is "real" appears to be not wholly objective or self-evident but is value-laden. I'm wondering if anyone else can enlighten me on how Atheists overall have actually done this in the past as what currently passes for "atheism" now would have been agnosticism in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries because it is not expected to be an objective statement of fact subject to scientific investigation. The closest I've got to an answer is 'scientism' (when science is treated as an ideology) whereby people treat the methods of natural science as applicable to social science and religion. But that is a combination of philosophical and scientific arguments and is therefore not wholly objective. Communists say it is down to "class interest" and I want to hear other explanations.