Is there an argument For atheism

[Duke]

There are an infinity of ideas out there, and not all of them can be proven wrong. When they begin as ideas with an untestable basis, well, you get the idea.

I think that the word 'atheist' gets thrown around because the term 'agnostic' leads some to incorrectly believe that the nonbeliever in question grants some possibility to the existence of one of the specific gods popularly worshiped. If that's what the person in question thinks of me if I say I'm agnostic, then it's much easier to just say that I'm an atheist.

There needs to be a widely understood word that means: "Yes, there very well could be some sort of 'higher power,' but I associate a zero probability with the potential validity of the Judeo-Christian god, Jesus' divinity, Mohammed's rise into heaven, heaven at all, hell at all, Ra, Thor, Odin, Zeus, and so on."

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
An argument for atheism is basically the same as an argument against the existence of God. Atheism is a default position of someone who does not actively believe in a God or Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize those two statements are referring to totally different situations???
The last statement is in the neighborhood of what seems obvious to me, although I don't understand the 'actively' part. If you don't believe the argument for a god's existence is proved you are an atheist, but you don't have to ( can't?) argue it, you're just THERE...
everybody has to stand somewhere.

I'd be interested to hear the 'argument FOR atheism' you mention in your first statement. I don't see what atheism has to do with a proof of god's non-existence. If you don't find a theistic argument holds you are simply plunked down where you are ... in your natural home-square of a-X, there isn't even a choice to be made on your part, iow, you don't even have to argue with yourself.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking for more solid footing, and a bit concerned because it does seem obvious to me which sends up warning flares. Yet, I don't see a choice for anybody.

On any topic we are in that nul home-square until some evidence/argument gets us to take a new pro-stance. I can't see an argument for being in this non-belief-in-X state, it'll simply where we are left, where we live, until persuaded otherwise. Where else could we be?

again, it's the obviousness of it, and yet the reaction it gets that made me want to probe it.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think atheism is only "the null point" if you accept that one should only believe something if there is evidence supporting it.

I dont think that is necessarily true (it clearly isnt the way theists form beliefs). If there are other valid ways of forming beliefs (although I doubt that there are) then it does not follow that atheism is the default position.

[HighStakesPro]

I don't totally understand your post, but I'll try to rephrase what I said. I think we are pretty much in agreement.

If you definitely believe there is no God, you obviously an atheist
If you definitely do not believe that there is a God, you are still an Atheist. That is what I meant when I said that atheism is a default position. A lack of belief in God makes you an atheist; in other words, we are born atheists, just like you said in your subsequent post (which I should probably have read before making mine.)

Now, I don't think you can really argue for atheism directly, but if you can make a successful argument against the existence of God, then you simultaneously endorse the atheist position.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think atheism is only "the null point" if you accept that one should only believe something if there is evidence supporting it.

I dont think that is necessarily true (it clearly isnt the way theists form beliefs). If there are other valid ways of forming beliefs (although I doubt that there are) then it does not follow that atheism is the default position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tried to avoid restricting the argument to a rational one, but maybe it's implied or expected and it's mostly how I referred to it. That's why I started off with a ' we are born atheists' ... something has to move us off that. It can be things that go bump in the night, but until we get moved off the homesquare of a-X we remain a-x'ers.

When NR stirred this in me it was his 'atheism is presumptively true' and it struck me that atheism isn't about a truth claim at all. and here I am .. seeking input/clarification. I hope you have some for me :-))

luckyme

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm looking for more solid footing, and a bit concerned because it does seem obvious to me which sends up warning flares. Yet, I don't see a choice for anybody.

On any topic we are in that nul home-square until some evidence/argument gets us to take a new pro-stance. I can't see an argument for being in this non-belief-in-X state, it'll simply where we are left, where we live, until persuaded otherwise. Where else could we be?

again, it's the obviousness of it, and yet the reaction it gets that made me want to probe it.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

"In the beginning, all bets were even money."
-Some guy whose last initials are "JC"

Possibilities:
A) One or more divine, supernatural beings exist.
B) No divine, supernatural beings exist.

Now, some random guy (doesn't matter who) says, "I know that a divine supernatural being exists." The probability that A is true and B is false has increased. Unless you have reason to estimate his truthiness as sub-50%*, you either need a reason to disbelieve, or you have to estimate the chances of one or more divine, supernatural beings existing at better than even money.

*And there may be several, but I think the default position is that when people make statements of fact, they are either telling the truth or are incorrect but believe they are telling the truth.

[HighStakesPro]

Agnosticism is a conscious uncertainty or admission of ignorance as to whether God exists or not. It basically admits that God might exist and might not exist. Atheism dodges the question of certainty and merely states the conclusion, which is "I definitely do not believe in a God." Now if someone said "I definitely believe there is no God," that would be strong atheism because the certainty of God's existence or lack thereof has been addressed. If you say "I definitely do not believe in God" you leave open the possibility that you think God MIGHT exist, but probably not. I guess you could call that agnostic, but to me agnosticism involves conscious uncertainty at whether God exists and whether to believe in God or not. Kind of a fine line I know but that's the way I see it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't totally understand your post, but I'll try to rephrase what I said. I think we are pretty much in agreement.

If you definitely believe there is no God, you obviously an atheist
If you definitely do not believe that there is a God, you are still an Atheist. That is what I meant when I said that atheism is a default position. A lack of belief in God makes you an atheist; in other words, we are born atheists, just like you said in your subsequent post (which I should probably have read before making mine.)

Now, I don't think you can really argue for atheism directly, but if you can make a successful argument against the existence of God, then you simultaneously endorse the atheist position.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the clarification.
I'm on a probe in this thread, and your last statement hits on part of it. Mildly, Is atheism, as 'I do not believe in X', an actual position, it really doesn't have anything attached to it. If you and I both don't believe there is a gold ring around the moon, what do we really have in common as a 'position'. It seems lacking something.
More strongly, is it a 'truth' statement or more some form of truth safety zone or limbo. It's not something you argue yourself into, you are there until pulled out, whether by a logical argument or bunny's revelation.


luckyme

[HighStakesPro]

I think what makes the question of Atheism complex is that there are many different views on God. If you believe that there is no God, you'd have to be able to argue against every conceivable variation of God that someone could ever believe in. This is an impossible task. On the other hand, it is much more manageable to argue against the Judeo-Christian God, but if you say "I definitely believe that there is no Judeo-Christian God," someone will just say "Oh yeah? What about this God?" and it this will go on infinitely. Therefore it is much more practical to just say that you do not believe in any God, rather than to list all of the Gods that you definitely believe do not exist [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think what you're describing is agnosticism. "I don't know therefore I can't believe one way or the other". The athiest says, "I definitely believe there is no God".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I definitely do not believe there is a god.
2) I definitely believe there is no god.

are two different statements.
Both are atheistic statements, although 2 is a tough position to defend.

It's possible to be a (1) because of agnosticism of various forms or through normals 'lack of evidence' channels.

That aside, I'm trying to test my view that there isn't a meaningful argument 'for' atheism. Atheism is a defense of the nul position, the default, any arguments made are merely counters to pro-theism ones.
For there to be an atheist argument, then we could prove 2, which seems unlikely, but that's why I posted.

If I tell you, "there is a gold ring around the moon a foot thick that is undetectable" your response should be an a-ringist one..."prove it".
Your position is "I don't believe there is an undetectable gold ring."
You'd be pretty hard pressed to prove youl a-ringist stance .. it's undetectable remember.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is lovely, until you consider that there aren't 4 billion people who are ringists.

[/ QUOTE ]

just b/c a lot of people think something doesnt make it true.
everyone thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.