Is there an argument For atheism

[PairTheBoard]

This is from the Wikipedia entry for Atheism, which interestingly is locked to editing due to some controversy about the entry.

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism. However, others define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities, thereby designating all agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[

[/ QUOTE ]

Also,

[ QUOTE ]
Disagreement continues to arise over whether atheism can be fairly applied to those who do not make the positive assertion that no gods exist; over whether it can be applied to those who have not consciously rejected belief in gods; over whether it denotes a belief, or merely the absence of a belief; and over what supernatural entities atheism specifically denotes disbelief in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all news to me. I had always thought that an Atheist was someone who believed there is no God, an Agnostic one who has no belief one way or the other, and a Theist one who does believe in God. It looks like acceptance has grown in the last few decades for calling someone who has no belief in god an Atheist. That's a long Wikipedia entry. It covers just about all the points that have been floating around here. Evidently there's a lot of controversy about all of it.

If you want an argument for Atheism I think you need to decide whether you're talking about positive disbelief or negative unbelief.

PairTheBoard

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want an argument for Atheism I think you need to decide whether you're talking about positive disbelief or negative unbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Positive disbelief based on the definition of god as intelligent and benevolent.

If not, then the definition of god match my own of simply, what I don't know, but nothing worthy of worship or pandering too, and not worth arguing.. let say we use different words to describe the same phenomena.

PS Am I the only one saying the emperor has no clothes on? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps one way of clarifying what I meant is to point out that your examples all involve things which dont exist. If you and I both believe that there is no moon, for instance, does it still seem to you that we dont have some position in common? It seems to me that we are both deluded regarding the moon's existence (or both wrong, or whatever). Denying something which actually exists seems like a real position to me.

To you, the gold ring around the moon and god are analagous. To a theist the moon and god are. (Again, a theist presumes that it is possible to know god without objective evidence. Of course, I dont think anyone has successfully made a case that this, in itself, is irrational.)

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps one way of clarifying what I meant is to point out that your examples all involve things which dont exist. If you and I both believe that there is no moon, for instance, does it still seem to you that we dont have some position in common? It seems to me that we are both deluded regarding the moon's existence (or both wrong, or whatever). Denying something which actually exists seems like a real position to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first part raises a good point that my examples could have be more tangible, it would still have made my point though. For the most part though, you're focusing on the 'truth' of it and the methods of arriving at it, which aren't relevant.

(1) I have a red cup on my desk. - Do you believe that?
(2) I have a red cup that runs into the kitchen and gets coffee for me. - do you believe that?
(3) I have a...

There's an infinity of claims that can be made. On all but a very small number of them most people would be A-x'ers on them. They haven't 'chosen' to be A-x'ers, that's simple the state of affairs we are innately in until evidence of some type, hard facts, wet dreams, whatever, get us to an 'aha' moment and now we believe X is true.

You were an A-redcupper on both 1 and 2 above before I raised the issue, do you really think of having anything meaningful in common with all the other A-redcuppers that are in the world right now?

Say you pop by and see my red cup and become a believer. Would it be valid to call the other 6 billion 'deluded' for not taking our word for it. Hortense drops over, looks around my den, and you ask him in the hallway, "is there a red cup on luckyme's desk?" He says, "I just looked in there and I didn't notice one. I don't believe there is." Perhaps it was behind a book ( almost everything is :-) or sunlight glancing off it made it look orange or ..
Is he 'deluded'?
Should he, (can he?) believe in it until proven otherwise?

That's still not the scope of what I'm probing, but I'd like to hear your critique of it before I dig deeper.

thanks, luckyme

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The athiest says, "I definitely believe there is no God".

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

you are describing "strong atheism"...I'm sure that most atheists on this board take the "weak atheist" position...weak atheism is typically the position that we see no sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a god or gods.

this position may be technically agnostic..but pretty much all reasonable positions are technically agnostic..absolute certainlty is pretty unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I am unreasonable because I am a 'strong atheist'. However, are you saying anyone who absolutely believes in God is unreasonable as well?

[HighStakesPro]

in Aquinas' view, in order to belief in God you have to have faith, which is pretty much the opposite of reason, so yes I would say that belief in God is a position of faith and not a a reasonable position.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) I have a red cup on my desk. - Do you believe that?
(2) I have a red cup that runs into the kitchen and gets coffee for me. - do you believe that?
(3) I have a...

There's an infinity of claims that can be made. On all but a very small number of them most people would be A-x'ers on them. They haven't 'chosen' to be A-x'ers, that's simple the state of affairs we are innately in until evidence of some type, hard facts, wet dreams, whatever, get us to an 'aha' moment and now we believe X is true.

You were an A-redcupper on both 1 and 2 above before I raised the issue, do you really think of having anything meaningful in common with all the other A-redcuppers that are in the world right now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Here it is perhaps just our differing views on the world. I think there is conceivably a person who has opposing views to me on every issue other than the existence of the red cup. I acknowledge we dont have much in common, but our disbelief in the red cup is something we share.

Given that I have an opinion on the matter, I dont distinguish between "I believe in not-A" and "I dont believe in A". If what you are saying is that there are times when we have no opinion (because you havent yet mentioned the red cup, or whatever) and that this is the atheist position then I can understand your point, but I dont accept that that is atheism, more theism-indifference.

So when people make reference to "an argument for atheism" I think they are implicitly talking about atheism as an adopted position, rather than the broader atheism you are referring to (which seems to be equivalent to a lack-of-belief in God).

Mindful that this post is waffly (work and uni are getting in the way of late...I cant mull things over the way I like [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]) Let me return to your a-redcupper example. It seems to me there are two classes (at least) of a-redcupper:

1) People who have considered the possibility and decided there isnt a red cup on your desk (with varying levels of evidence ranging from hortense to someone who knows by divine inspiration)

2) People who have never even thought about it as a possibility.

I dont think there is any "argument" for the 2 position (which seems to be the analogous position to how you see atheism). However, I think people in the 1) class can make various cases.

Does that mean anything?

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
lack-of...

[/ QUOTE ]
a-
[ QUOTE ]
...-belief in God

[/ QUOTE ]
theism
= atheism

Its simply the indetectable-orbiting-china-teapot analogy and a matter of pragmatism.

Are you a-teapotist, and would you suggest that the tiny possibilty its real is enough to shift you to an agnostic, with all the other scientific implications this would have?

E.g. would you be agnostic on whether YOU could survive a swim in a volcano, since you will never try, you won't have certain evidence against that: But you must let sense dictate you are a-lava-swim-survivalist. Seriously, can you say you don't know/couldn't be sure to that?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
in Aquinas' view, in order to belief in God you have to have faith, which is pretty much the opposite of reason, so yes I would say that belief in God is a position of faith and not a a reasonable position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure nobody defends belief in God as a reasonable position. And rightfully so, as they should devote all their apologetic time to arguing that it's so much as a meaningful position.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me there are two classes (at least) of a-redcupper:

1) People who have considered the possibility and decided there isnt a red cup on your desk (with varying levels of evidence ranging from hortense to someone who knows by divine inspiration)

2) People who have never even thought about it as a possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if we back up one step it'll refocus.
I don't think that your suggested framing works well.
Hortense wakes up one morning having never heard of Luckyme or Redcups, you place him in #2 A-rcupper.
You tell him, "I know a guy named luckyme, do you believe he has a rc on his desk (hharcohd)?"
Hortense, "no, I don't believe he has a red cup on his desk".
You, "I thought I saw one there once. Do you believe hharcohd?"
Hortense, "no, I don't believe hharcohd."
You, "I just called him and he says he has a cup on his desk".
Hortense, "I don't believe hharcohd."
You, "let's go look."
Hortense pokes his head in, doesn't see one, "I don't believe hharcohd."
Etc.

Question. At which stage in this did Hortense decide he doesn't believe hharcohd?
My position is that from the day he was born Hortense didn't believe hharcohd and that remains his position until enough evidence piles up to convince him to believe there is one there. We don't decide 'not to believe', it's the inescapable default.

You seem to be saying that there is some moment when he decides not to believe, but what was he doing just before that moment? I understand your "never even considered it" split, but I'm struggling to see where this arbitrary boundary is and what's special about it that we can say, "oh, that's it, he's decided not to believe."

Is there any clarification you can add?

thanks, luckyme