quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Why would I argue for the default position? The definition of atheism is the rejection of belief in theism. Why would you expect me to argue the case for refusing to believe in something that is unprovable?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I've recently been introduced to the notion that atheists don't have to make a positive case for atheism, they simply have to refute the supernatural claim ...

---

quote:

---

...made by theism through the tools of reason, rationality, critical thinking and the scientific method.

---

quote:

---

QB]Even if it was demonstrated that Christianity was false - perhaps by unearthing the body of Jesus or some such - there are simply too many supernatural beliefs out there to debunk.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

But I think there is a deeper problem. What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?

---

quote:

---

It never really occurred to me that there where people out there (and it seems quite a few of them) who hold to the belief that because atheism is the default belief they don't have to argue for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Squibs:
I've recently been introduced to the notion that atheists don't have to make a positive case for atheism, they simply have to refute the supernatural claim ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view?

---

I think it is exactly right, but not limited to atheism. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to argue for their world view (or Muslims, or Hindus, or what-have-you.) Why on earth would you believe that you need to have a good argument for what is important to you? The real point is that you know what is important to you. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster? Is there a reason for treating the two hypotheses differently? Shouldn't we automatically believe both under the standard of "belief is required until absolute proof of non-existence is offered" being promoted in this thread?

---

All sounds a bit confused to me mate, but you might be writing in a hurry. Here's a link to some research about the naturalness of intuitive theism . Basic idea, is that theism is a natural conclusion that the human mind normally draws from experience and observation.

Question then is, what kind of being does theism lead us to believe in. For any answer to that you need to have a look at how people who have started with the premise that there is a god, get to the conclusion that that god looks like Zues or whoever. As a basic principle, I'd say it's OK to accept your initial worldview until something comes along to convince you it needs to change. Zues might sound like a credible answer to your question 'what is god like' until some one convinces you either that you don't need a god to make sense of your world after all, or that Christ makes the most sense of both your world as you experience it, and your inclination to believe in a supernatural being.

Come back and chat some more Mr C.
 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 
....and can anyone apart from my spellchecker tell me who this Zues character is....?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster?

---

But Zeus is not God, if 'God' is defined as "the eternal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe". We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.

---

quote:

---

An "intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the entire universe" is about the most non-trivial idea imaginable, from which flow numerous concepts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?

---

Atheism is only blindingly obvious to someone who is already (consciously or subconsciously) committed to strong or naive empiricism: namely, that "all knowledge comes to us via sense perception, therefore we have to assume that only that which we can perceive empirically can be real". This, of course, is a philosophical (more specifically epistemological) position, and a 'positive' view of reality, on which there is a burden of proof.

Furthermore, the assumption that atheism does not imply any particular view of reality, and therefore does not bear a burden of proof, presupposes that 'God' is an entirely trivial concept, on a par with Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This, of course, is nonsense. An "intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the entire universe" is about the most non-trivial idea imaginable, from which flow numerous concepts. Therefore the denial of this idea also automatically commits the denier to a whole raft of other concepts (such as the need to find some other explanation for the origin and development of life which obviates the need for the involvement of an external intelligence. This, of course, has far-reaching implications).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster?

---

But Zeus is not God, if 'God' is defined as "the eternal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe". We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.

So God and Zeus are not in the same epistemic category at all. The only thing they have in common is the vague notion of supernaturalism and the sequence of phonemes g-o-d or equivalent in other languages. But conceptually there is no - or very little - equivalence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.

---

You are both wrong. It is overly simplistic to say a child is wired to believe in god(s), therefore inevitably will. The hardware might be present, but the software still needs to be installed. Religion, even the concept of gods, appears to have developed over time.
The default position of humans is wonder. From this develops everything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.

---

Sorry, but this is very anthrocentric and implies an inability of animals to reason and be creative, or infact believe in something other than the material of themselves and the environment around them (if they can even believe in that) which ignores a fair chunk of scientific theory and experiementation/observation.

Whilst I doubt any scientist can realistically hope to prove either for or against, we have to wonder at certain things (such as funeral rituals, the chimpanzee's waterfall dance, for example you can read Goodall here for something of a romanticised look at the latter and the examples could go on and on and on) within other animals and consider whether they are indicative of at least a spiritual/philosophical if not also possibly indicative of a potential to believe in a 'God'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Why can't we infer Zeus? Haven't you ever seen lightning? Heck, we've even got video footage of Zeus smiting the temple of a rival God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.

---

I missed this at first. What utter tripe.
Animism makes more innate sense than "God." Deism makes far more sense than Christianity. I would also posit that the Greek gods make more sense as they are random bastards, which more fits how the world appears to work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Now now Susan, you're being naughty again. Evensong's already told you off in Hell for repeating false dichotomies.

---

Oooops!

quote:

---

You can only have atheism where they are people to disbelieve in gods. Default position? Dream on Mrs D. Atheism is a minority world view and always has been.

---

Okay, I have to agree with that, but that's no reason to say that it always will be.

quote:

---

Read some scientific literature (which has been quoted to you on these threads) and there's a good case for saying that kid's natural mental architecture makes it more natural for them to believe in God than not.

---

quote:

---

It's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby
You either know a lot of strange atheists or you've created them out of a metric fucktonne of straw.

---

quote:

---

They're not stating as a fact that there is no god, but critiquing the evidence offered, while giving some reasons why they consider theist beliefs to be implausible in general.

---

quote:

---

They're sceptical of the possibility, but would engage with genuine evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes of course, I think we are so lucky to have as much information as we do about the behaviours and rituals of animals,
which we humans can interpret as having the possibility of philosophical thought, but since these have apparently not evolved, or only extremely marginally so, during the time
these species have survived, I think it is far too big a step to suggest any kind of god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, the assumption that atheism does not imply any particular view of reality, and therefore does not bear a burden of proof, presupposes that 'God' is an entirely trivial concept, on a par with Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.

---

You are both wrong. It is overly simplistic to say a child is wired to believe in god(s), therefore inevitably will. The hardware might be present, but the software still needs to be installed. Religion, even the concept of gods, appears to have developed over time.
The default position of humans is wonder. From this develops everything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes of course, I think we are so lucky to have as much information as we do about the behaviours and rituals of animals,
which we humans can interpret as having the possibility of philosophical thought, but since these have apparently not evolved, or only extremely marginally so, during the time
these species have survived, I think it is far too big a step to suggest any kind of god.

---

You are adding an extra layer of evidence needed which is illogical, ...

---

quote:

---

....and pretty damn difficult to mesure even if it did occur, since few non-human animals write or draw pretty pictures, or certianly haven't produced any that have survived since the dawn of that particular species development.

---

quote:

---

since when did ideas, or anything really, have to evolve past a point of perfection?)

---

quote:

---

further you also incorrectly (and somewhat contradictoraly) rule out the step that you have stated that humans make in their belief in God - that we are able to ask questions (which animals show evidence of doing) and therfore we created superstitions and then God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
How is it possible to criticise another viewpoint if you don't have some kind of (positive) epistemological basis from which to do so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QUOTE]It sounds to me like such people have a view of reality - or at least subscribe to an epistemological theory - which acts as the framework through which they assess the claims of theism.

Sounds very 'positive' to me. And on this positive view there is a burden of proof.

---

quote:

---

because atheism is the default belief

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
I find it odd to discuss "default belief". It seems to me that to collect data on "default belief", you would have to raise a number of children from birth with absolutely no mention of any kind of religion, including any mention of atheism or agnosticism (which implies ignorance of a great deal of history, literature, etymologies, etc. as well) and then observe what beliefs such children had as adults. I suspect most of them would end up with idiosyncratic collections of superstitions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
I find it odd to discuss "default belief". It seems to me that to collect data on "default belief", you would have to raise a number of children from birth with absolutely no mention of any kind of religion, including any mention of atheism or agnosticism (which implies ignorance of a great deal of history, literature, etymologies, etc. as well) and then observe what beliefs such children had as adults. I suspect most of them would end up with idiosyncratic collections of superstitions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Because atheism isn't a positive worldview, it's an aspect of many distinct and very different positive worldviews.

So the negative half of the argument (the argument against theism) is atheism.

The positive half of the argument could be secular humanism, Marxism, Nietzschean some kind of neo-Aristotelian or neo-Kantian moral theory, moral sentimentalism, utilitarianism... or any non-academic theory, although I suspect most people's common-sense views fall into one of those moral categories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I think the default position would have to be some sort of agnosticism. How can someone be a atheist if they don't know there is a belief in a deity to not hold?

Because atheism is an absence of belief in a god or gods it is inevitable that someone who has never imagined a god or gods and has never been appraised of the possibility of a god or gods MUST be an atheist – though they wouldn’t know it of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
You can only have atheism where they are people to disbelieve in gods.

Wrong – but to have atheism you must have people to unbelieve in gods

Default position? Dream on Mrs D. Atheism is a minority world view and always has been. Read some scientific literature (which has been quoted to you on these threads) and there's a good case for saying that kid's natural mental architecture makes it more natural for them to believe in God than not. It's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that children’s brains are evolutionarily disposed to believe what they are told by what they see as authority figures. That category probably originally meant parents who warned against dangers, those children who obeyed were more likely to reproduce. Now our society is much more complex – in addition to parents we have print and visual media, teachers, priests etc - and don’t minimise the effect of peer pressure on five year olds struggling to come to grips with new relationships at school. I’ve read people (not all I’m sure) who try to make out that kids are hardwired for deism – all they’ve done, IMO, is demonstrate that youngsters are hardwired to be receptive, and if encouraged may receive religion (it may be relevant that it is commonly stated that 80% of those who claim a specific religion follow the same beliefs as their parents).

Now if you're a naturalist, you have to explain why evolution builds us a mental architecture that looks for supernatural explanations and transcendence when the objects of those beliefs is non-existent.

Evolution builds us a mental architecture that looks for explanations (starting with looking for and recognising faces – a skill which which becomes "Jesus-in-a-slice-of-toast). Young children don’t imagine supernatural explanations – that comes later and presumably as a result of influences which they have developed to be able to incorporate in their thinking. Mister Rogers cardigan

So in answer to Mr Squibbs' OP - yep, an atheist needs to give an explanation for their worldview and not just make the lazy argument that it's someone else's job to convince them they're wrong.

My worldview is simple – show me real evidence for supernature and I’ll accept it exists – until then I’ll use my time, efforts and money in ways I think are worthwhile based on the natural world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.

---

You are both wrong. It is overly simplistic to say a child is wired to believe in god(s), therefore inevitably will. The hardware might be present, but the software still needs to be installed. Religion, even the concept of gods, appears to have developed over time.
The default position of humans is wonder. From this develops everything else.

Probably a better way of saying what I tried to get across above

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
(And, I must remind you that the application of intelligence is the opposite of magic. After all, my car does not work on 'magic' because it was designed and manufactured by intelligent beings. It certainly would be a magical vehicle if it had self-assembled through the action of wind blowing through a scrap yard! And the argument is even stronger the more complex the mechanisms in question. Clearly I am not the one who believes in magic. So, yes, we can infer the existence of an "external ordering influence on matter").

A rather silly and thoroughly discredited argument tornado-junkyard-747 first used by Fred Hoyle (who was a lifelong atheist) to support his idea of Panspermia

Your body is a complex organism – it incorporates a host of "disorders" which most four year old children would not “order”. Your “external influence” is demonstrably incompetent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
(And, I must remind you that the application of intelligence is the opposite of magic. After all, my car does not work on 'magic' because it was designed and manufactured by intelligent beings. It certainly would be a magical vehicle if it had self-assembled through the action of wind blowing through a scrap yard! And the argument is even stronger the more complex the mechanisms in question. Clearly I am not the one who believes in magic. So, yes, we can infer the existence of an "external ordering influence on matter").

---

A rather silly and thoroughly discredited argument tornado-junkyard-747 first used by Fred Hoyle (who was a lifelong atheist) to support his idea of Panspermia

Your body is a complex organism – it incorporates a host of "disorders" which most four year old children would not “order”. Your “external influence” is demonstrably incompetent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What a load of rubbish! As I've said before, scientismists will say that anything they don't like has been discredited or disproved.

Just because natural bodies don't work quite like cars doesn't mean they weren't designed (or "willed") to be that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The trouble of course is what do we mean by "God"? If we mean, "Gods" in terms of creatures that are immortal, that are merely Super-sized versions of us, then yes, atheism is very persuasive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The reason why I believe in God, is simply I believe that that the human capacity to love, to commune, and to adore, does not ultimately originate with human beings alone. The human capacity to love springs first and foremost in my mind, with God's love within Godself, in the Holy Trinity, and secondly, with God's love towards creation, which is the raison d'etre of its existence. St John puts it best, "We love because God first loved us."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HCH:
I find it odd to discuss "default belief". It seems to me that to collect data on "default belief", you would have to raise a number of children from birth with absolutely no mention of any kind of religion, including any mention of atheism or agnosticism (which implies ignorance of a great deal of history, literature, etymologies, etc. as well) and then observe what beliefs such children had as adults. I suspect most of them would end up with idiosyncratic collections of superstitions.

---

East Asia is pretty secular in terms of world population. Western religions are distinctly minorities in China and Japan, and traditional eastern religions are only practiced in terms of their cultural aspects. My uncle did say to me, that the result was that many young East Asians are horribly materialistic, they might not believe in God, but they might not believe in anything beyond their latest gadget or fashion either...

Though u can make the same charge about young people everywhere.

---

I very much like HCH's concise summing-up of the question. Very interesting indeed, too, about the young East Asians. Being entirely materialistic doesn't have to mean that they do not have strong emotional attachment to friends and families, does it? There will always be some people who appear to be very selfish, but they don't make up a huge majority, do they, as societies, especially very crowded ones, could not function if that were so. The young with access to material things also have access to, and, one hopes, really appreciate and are much closer to, all the latest scientific research and work.
I ceased to believe in any God/god/s or superstitions long ago although I still smile at the fun that could be had from having one's horoscope cast or future told, and the more I know, the less I am likely to return to any such beliefs! But I think that makes me a stronger person.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
You reckon? One the articles (one that I haven't read) asks the question whether a child would come to believe in God if stranded on a desert Island with no other human input. Would a real Mowgli have become a theist. Have a gander and see what you reckon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would also posit that the Greek gods make more sense as they are random bastards, which more fits how the world appears to work.

---

Isn't randomness just illusion in your worldview? Or am I mixing you with someone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can one exactly say "I don't believe in a Ground of being" or "I don't believe in an Ultimate Concern."

Most arguments made by atheists always seem to be an argument against a particular type of literal theism which sees God as a "Person." The sneaky and sophisticated theist will always insist that whenever we talk about God, we are always using metaphors. Even the notion that God is a Person, so essential to Western theism, in itself is metaphorical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
.
I ceased to believe in any God/god/s or superstitions long ago although I still smile at the fun that could be had from having one's horoscope cast or future told, and the more I know, the less I am likely to return to any such beliefs! But I think that makes me a stronger person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Funny that, my belief in God means that I no longer hold any superstitions, while you connect horoscopes with belief in God? I find it interesting that some atheists do follow horoscopes seriously, or knock on wood, or consult fortune-tellers.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by tclune
I think it is exactly right, but not limited to atheism. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to argue for their world view (or Muslims, or Hindus, or what-have-you.) Why on earth would you believe that you need to have a good argument for what is important to you? The real point is that you know what is important to you. Or so ISTM. --Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Why should there be arguments between atheists and religionists? Discussion, yes; but trying to persuade or force a belief on others is not something I want to do or have done to me. i agree with tclune

quote:

---

originally posted by tclune
I think it is exactly right, but not limited to atheism. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to argue for their world view (or Muslims, or Hindus, or what-have-you.) Why on earth would you believe that you need to have a good argument for what is important to you? The real point is that you know what is important to you. Or so ISTM. --Tom Clune

---

Isn't the test of a good belief system in how your life is lived, productively and morally?

---

Yes absolutely - and consistency is important too. In theory, I can see where you and Tom Clune are coming from - and it all seems so obvious. But somehow, in practice... well maybe it has to do with human nature... fallen human nature!

Anyway, things would be very quiet and boring around here if we could all be that reasonable - so be careful what you wish for.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Do I need to demonstrate that I don't collect stamps, or I don't believe in pixies? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view?

---

I think it is exactly right, but not limited to atheism. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to argue for their world view (or Muslims, or Hindus, or what-have-you.) Why on earth would you believe that you need to have a good argument for what is important to you? The real point is that you know what is important to you. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Do I need to demonstrate that I don't collect stamps, or I don't believe in pixies? No.

---

So presumably you believe that 'God' - the eternal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe - is as trivial and as implication-free a concept as stamps and pixies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
.
I ceased to believe in any God/god/s or superstitions long ago although I still smile at the fun that could be had from having one's horoscope cast or future told, and the more I know, the less I am likely to return to any such beliefs! But I think that makes me a stronger person.

---

Funny that, my belief in God means that I no longer hold any superstitions, while you connect horoscopes with belief in God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Do I need to demonstrate that I don't collect stamps, or I don't believe in pixies? No.

---

So presumably you believe that 'God' - the eternal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe - is as trivial and as implication-free a concept as stamps and pixies?

---

That misses the point, which is that many negatives don't need to be demonstrated. In fact, they cannot be demonstrated. I cannot demonstrate that there are no pixies, but I can simply not believe in them. Ditto God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Well, OK, it's a view that the world is without God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But to go back to negative statements - for many of them, they cannot be demonstrated, as with 'there are no black swans', (but might be falsified). Oh no, let's not start on that one again.

Incidentally, atheism need not involve any 'view of the world' at all. Well, OK, it's a view that the world is without God, but that's all. It could be made of pudding rice, or could be dreamed up by a Venusian jellyfish. All irrelevant to atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
But you don't have that option here mate, since your on a community full of theists giving intelligent arguments about why the world is how it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But it often seems as if the atheist must demonstrate his particular world view, whether materialism or dualism, or whatever. But this is a separate issue, I think, since atheism involves no particular world view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But then in actual debates, the burden of proof can be decided by the participants. So you could have the claim, 'there are no gods', being defended. I think that would be a dumb atheist who did that, since he simply has to reverse the burden of proof, as many atheists do, since it is impossible to demonstrate that there are no gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've often felt that atheists need to move beyond simply outlining what they see as religious error and awfulness if atheism is to become a meaningful alternative to religion.

I accept that atheism itself simply represents an absence of belief in God rather than some kind of positivity switch that's flicked on as soon as someone leaves religion behind; but giving up Christianity for what looks like the neutral vacuum of atheism doesn't seem like much of an exchange to me, even though Christianity is challenging. You may say that atheism is 'better' simply because it's 'true'; but since truth is so hard to establish and agree on it seems to me that atheism has to be 'better' in other more immediate ways if it's going to trump religion.

If atheism is merely a vacuum that's always going to be overlaid with other ideologies, be they communism, humanism, etc., then it might be more useful and creative to explore how atheism is 'better' than religion by presenting it in combination with values that are widely appreciated in our culture. (This might be a challenge in such a pluralistic and individualistic culture, though. Do we really agree on all that much nowadays, or is modern society highly polarised?)

---

quote:

---

Atheism is better than religion in the same way that walking on your own two legs is better than walking with crutches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...Now surely there is a burden of proof on the position of non-belief in such an influence, because the rejection of such a mechanism implies that the laws of physics and chemistry alone can bring organisms into being? That is a definite positive claim, which can be investigated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that an atheist could turn up here, and shoot down arguments for theism. Is he required to argue for 'I don't believe in God'? I don't see why, if he continues to demonstrate (as he sees it) why theistic arguments are bull-shit.

And of course, as Tom Clune argued, he need do neither.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The discussion has to be framed in more specific conceptual terms. Let's take the following claim: "there is - external to nature - an ordering influence on matter, which directs the laws of physics and chemistry in order to bring living organisms into being". Now surely there is a burden of proof on the position of non-belief in such an influence, because the rejection of such a mechanism implies that the laws of physics and chemistry alone can bring organisms into being? That is a definite positive claim, which can be investigated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
Your latest point - it's about context. If your an atheist on SoF, you've chosen to come here. If you're crying "bovine extrement" about theistic ideas, then you should expect to be challenged on your own views. There are common questions both theists and atheists are faced with (I gave a few). If the question is more about "who's got the best explanation for these" then we're all in the same territory of explaining why we see the world as we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
So let's give every child a set of crutches to use from birth, lest their legs should ever fail. Then they'd never have to learn to walk properly on their own two feet. And makers of crutches would thrive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick
Atheism is better than religion in the same way that walking on your own two legs is better than walking with crutches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The Christian perspective is usually that in a life without Jesus, even an apparently wonderful life, something is missing. This is where the analogy with crutches (chosen by Yorick, not myself) falls short, because not everyone will need crutches. Christianity assumes that all lives produce failure, and that following Jesus will help us to meet those challenges when they arrive, because he unites us with God, who is the source of life.

On the other hand, Jesus also said that only the sick, not the healthy, need a doctor (Mark 2: 17). This may mean that victorious people have no need of his help. The trouble is, when we're born we don't yet know whether or not we're likely to fall into the victorious category; Jesus met both rich and poor people who were in need.

So the argument may be that yes - the 'crutches' should be provided early in life. But for the child or adult who finds he has absolutely no need of them (i.e. of Jesus) at any time, they can be shed without much bother. And plenty of people do toss Jesus away without much bother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...On the other hand, Jesus also said that only the sick, not the healthy, need a doctor (Mark 2: 17). This may mean that victorious people have no need of his help. The trouble is, when we're born we don't yet know whether or not we're likely to fall into the victorious category; Jesus met both rich and poor people who were in need.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you mean a more philosophical world-view, I'm not sure even more, since they are all guesses. (Remembering also that science is not a world-view in this sense).

---

quote:

---

Surely anyone who recognised the value of Christ would never want to throw away what they had. I wonder whether what is rejected are false images of God, and those who don't go on to try to discover God for themselves remain atheists, who perhaps believe that theists believe in the same false God that they rejected. Perhaps some do.

I dislike the 'crutch' analogy, as it's used by some to imply an inadequacy in believers.

---

quote:

---

Atheism is better than religion in the same way that walking on your own two legs is better than walking with crutches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Anyway, it strikes me that 'I don't believe in God' requires no back-up. People might want some reasoned argument to support it, but wanting and requiring are distinct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It is often claimed by atheists that unlike their religious compatriots, that they are moral on their own without reference to anything transcendent. My view is that no one, neither religious or atheist, is good simply because he or she has decided to be good in an individualist, rationalist fashion. Everyone is influenced in one way or the other by convention and society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

So the proud, smug Atheist who thinks he understands everything will never look for Christ, because he thinks there is no power greater than that of the evolved human mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've often felt that atheists need to move beyond simply outlining what they see as religious error and awfulness if atheism is to become a meaningful alternative to religion.

I accept that atheism itself simply represents an absence of belief in God rather than some kind of positivity switch that's flicked on as soon as someone leaves religion behind; but giving up Christianity for what looks like the neutral vacuum of atheism doesn't seem like much of an exchange to me, even though Christianity is challenging. You may say that atheism is 'better' simply because it's 'true'; but since truth is so hard to establish and agree on it seems to me that atheism has to be 'better' in other more immediate ways if it's going to trump religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And as Mark Betts points out, if we're all sick - i.e. inadequate?...

---

That will do.
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Squibs

I suspect the atheists you have in mind in your OP are applying the scientific concept of the null hypothesis to the question of God.

To illustrate, take the bunch of physicists who reckon that the Standard Model predicts a sub atomic particle that would explain why some other sub atomic particles have mass. The null hypothesis in this case is that this particle, the Higgs Boson, does not exist. No amount of theorising and argumentation will change the status of that null hypothesis, which is why they had to go to the trouble and expense of building the Large Hadron Collider. And note that in order to say the null hypothesis still holds, we do not need an alternative positive hypothesis. But if and when sufficient evidence is acquired the null hypothesis will be rejected and the Higgs Boson will take its place in the Standard Model.

There are atheists who will say that the null hypothesis regarding God cannot be rejected. Of course, theists can maintain that the null hypothesis is that God exists, but as as been noted, that leaves the field wide open for claiming any number of fanciful null hypotheses.

I'll leave it to Mark Betts to give the other theistic response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
It's not either/or - there is no choice. We are atheists because all religions are clearly human concoctions. And more and more people are realising this.

S-E

---

Except, of course, that you could be wrong.
 

---

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quetzalcoatl
Even though you were brought up amongst atheists, I suppose you had a general idea of God and churches?
You say, 'atheism need not involve any view of the world at all'. I like that - I'm always slightly puzzled about the question of what is my world view.
I watched parts of a debate taking place in Davos recently in which Lawrence Kraus was saying that education, about proof of how the world and the universe is, is the best way to change minds. Not all minds of course, that will never happen, but perhaps, one day, a majority?!
Is Religion Outdated in the 21st century? Lawrence Krauss et al /

Raptor Eye
You say

quote:

---

Surely anyone who recognised the value of Christ would never want to throw away what they had.

---

quote:

---

I wonder whether what is rejected are false images of God,..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:

It never really occurred to me that there where people out there (and it seems quite a few of them) who hold to the belief that because atheism is the default belief they don't have to argue for it.

---

quote:

---

The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1]

For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God.

This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
But what if the atheist in question is evangelical in their belief? While some might define their atheism as "lacking the belief in God", others are making the stronger claim that "God (almost certainly) does not exist".

---

quote:

---

Given that this argument is often taken to theists, I would have thought that promoting atheism based on a refutation of a particular religion (mostly Christianity) is inadequate.

---

quote:

---

But I suppose that we aren't really comparing like with like. Atheists are generally found to be attacking a particular theistic belief and not theism itself. Does this mean that a self described theist (who makes no claim other then "God exists") does not have to defend their position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:

But I suppose that we aren't really comparing like with like. Atheists are generally found to be attacking a particular theistic belief and not theism itself. Does this mean that a self described theist (who makes no claim other then "God exists") does not have to defend their position?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The spiritual default state of humanity is superstition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I was thinking of commenting on Mark Betts'a 'arrogant atheist who thinks he knows everything', but decided not to!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...Now surely there is a burden of proof on the position of non-belief in such an influence, because the rejection of such a mechanism implies that the laws of physics and chemistry alone can bring organisms into being? That is a definite positive claim, which can be investigated.

---

The trouble is, EtymologicalEvangelical, that they think scientists have already proved this with their "empirical evidence." We may think it's a load of rubbish, but try telling them that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[With the greatest of respect SusanDoris, perhaps that's just as well - because you've mis-quoted me!

---

quote:

---

Purely from a social engineering perspective, what atheists should want is something that shapes superstitious sentiment into a form that atheists can live with. Such somethings of course exist. They are called religions. And the Christian one is - at least in its current form - just about as easy to live with for an atheist as one could wish for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
*can't find a 'red face' smiley.

---

 

---

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :
 
@ Mark Betts

quote:

---

You've lost me man

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


If you strip away all presuppositions and work only with the evidence, which side do you think is more likely to be believed?

---

quote:

---

THE ORIGIN OF MODERN SCIENCE

Indeed, John Lennox insists: “At the heart of all science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly” (p. 20). There is a rational dimension to all that is. Historically, this belief developed within Hebraic monotheism, holding that One God rules the world. In Him and according to His will all things cohere. As Werner Jaeger insisted, “‘the Logos in the Hebrew account of creation’” provides “‘a substantialization of an intellectual property or power of God the Creator, who is stationed outside the world and brings the world into existence by his own personal fiat’” (p. 50).

Without this religious or metaphysical conviction science simply could not exist. “C.S. Lewis’ succinct formulation of [Alfred North] Whitehead’s view is worth recording: ‘Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver’” (p. 21).

---

In actual fact, quantum physics seems rather disordered and empiricism is very 17th century.

Perhaps we're learning more about the nature of God in nature

[ 25. February 2013, 10:47: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
Evensong to the rescue again!

Thanks for that.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Is that a personal view, or is it one you have garnered from another source?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]]Since atheism/humanism has a very strong case to present, is there a reason why they should not present and promote it as often and as well as they can?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:

It never really occurred to me that there where people out there (and it seems quite a few of them) who hold to the belief that because atheism is the default belief they don't have to argue for it.

---

Atheism is certainly not the default belief IMO. That's why references to Russell's teapot are so inane. There is no reason why it should be.

The University of Cambridge has a website dedicated to investigating atheism and has a page on a definition.

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, says this:

quote:

---

The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1]

For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God.

This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

---

- source

---

quote:

---

atheists tend to favour this definition because it treats atheism as the 'null hypothesis', and seems to clearly put the burden of proof on the believer. Martin is clear that defence of negative atheism merely requires refutations of theistic argument, while defence of positive atheism requires reasons for disbelief to be given.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As to modern science - quite possibly comes from the presupposition of an ordered universe; given by an ordered law giver.

---

Except we don't presuppose we live in an ordered universe, we observe that the universe we live in is ordered. This was even apparent before modern science existed as such. Our very early ancestors were able to note that those tiny points of light in the night sky almost all arrange themselves in the same patterns, and which bits of the pattern we can see every night changes slightly but always cycles back to where it's been before. They noted that the weather and the flooding of rivers followed the same seasonal patterns year after year. And they noticed that the stars and the sun seemed to cycle on the same period of ~365¼ days (it took a while to nail down the exact figure) as the seasons. Even more importantly, contrary to TOOMS or Jæger or Whitehead or Lewis, most people noticed this order before they'd ever heard of the peculiar god of the Hebrews. In fact, given the relative scientific acuity of the ancient Israelites compared with the ancient Hellenes (to make the obvious historical comparison) it would seem as if having a single divine lawgiver is actually disadvantageous to scientific thinking when compared with having a diverse, squabbling, and somewhat contradictory pantheon.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Perhaps the Israelites appreciated Newtonian physics and the Hellenes quantum physics?

I don't know enough about the relationship between the two but I do find it interesting.

As for observing as opposed to presupposing: you observe and then you presuppose on that basis when you create further hypotheses for investigation etc ad naseum.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

How can you tell if it's a 'false image'?!

---

quote:

---

Since atheism/humanism has a very strong case to present, is there a reason why they should not present and promote it as often and as well as they can? ------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]]Since atheism/humanism has a very strong case to present, is there a reason why they should not present and promote it as often and as well as they can?

---

But that's the point, Susan. I think atheism should be promoted on the same playing field as any other world-view. It's a comment on the nature of reality. However I've encountered atheists who insist that all they have to "promote" their atheism is show that theism is wrong. ...

---

quote:

---

...and they do this by picking holes theistic beliefs.

---

quote:

---

So you should actually be asking these atheists why they don't feel the need to directly present and promote their (non-)belief in both a negative and positive fashion.

---

quote:

---

Again, I suppose it's because they think that atheism is so obviously axiomatic that they don't feel any compunction to establish it as being true. The problem is that they are often talking to people who don't agree. It's in some way analogous to a Christian arguing from Scripture to a person who utterly rejects the idea that Scripture has any basis in truth.

I hope that makes clear why I started this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As for observing as opposed to presupposing: you observe and then you presuppose on that basis when you create further hypotheses for investigation etc ad naseum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As for observing as opposed to presupposing: you observe and then you presuppose on that basis when you create further hypotheses for investigation etc ad naseum.

---

Except if it comes after observations it's not really presupposing, is it? Just ordinary supposing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
But that's the point, Susan. I think atheism should be promoted on the same playing field as any other world-view. . . . It's in some way analogous to a Christian arguing from Scripture to a person who utterly rejects the idea that Scripture has any basis in truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
Is that a personal view, or is it one you have garnered from another source?

---

It's a personal view.

---

Superstition eh? Interesting idea.

Curious also that I was revisiting the 39 Articles today (as you do on a Monday morning) and the words "vain superstition" came up rather alot in reference to pre-reformation Catholic ideas.
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I have heard screen reader say, 'hot and hormonal' but I've never been quite able to see the face so wasn't quite sure whether to use it!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
What would you consider would be a step in the direction of discovering whether any other species has, or could have, a concept of god?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

since when did ideas, or anything really, have to evolve past a point of perfection?)

---

Well, since no-one can ever be a judge of what perfection is, then the answer to that is never.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

quote:

---

further you also incorrectly (and somewhat contradictoraly) rule out the step that you have stated that humans make in their belief in God - that we are able to ask questions (which animals show evidence of doing) and therfore we created superstitions and then God.

---

I don't know the answer to that, but it sounds as if a vital element here is language which can express abstract thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
But that's the point, Susan. I think atheism should be promoted on the same playing field as any other world-view. . . . It's in some way analogous to a Christian arguing from Scripture to a person who utterly rejects the idea that Scripture has any basis in truth.

---

So why is it the burden of the person who rejects scripture to justify that rejection rather than the Christian's burden to provide reasons that the scripture-rejector should change her mind and accept his particular scripture as valid?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
It may be a load of rubbish, but it's a load of rubbish that's got far more evidence to support it than your load of rubbish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Please feel free to post your evidence for it there. I would be most interested to see how there is more evidence for the mechanism of non-intelligence than for the mechanism of intelligence as concerns the construction of exceedingly complex living organisms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie
How about morality then?

If the design is intelligent, is it also moral?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I would be most interested to see how there is more evidence for the mechanism of non-intelligence than for the mechanism of intelligence as concerns the construction of exceedingly complex living organisms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
If you were an intelligent, moral creator (who loves humans) would you really design the human bot fly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fuck that, an intelligent, moral creator (who loves humans) wouldn't create humans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
The point wasn't "there is/isn't sufficient evidence to believe in Zeus (or whoever)" but rather "the existence of Zeus (or whoever) should be automatically accepted as a default position, and only rejected if proof positive* of the non-existence of Zeus (or whoever) can be found".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The interesting thing is that some negative claims probably can be proved (well, demonstrated), e.g. 'the earth is not flat'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But the atheistic view is also not a default position, because its rejection of the non-trivial and implication-rich idea of 'God' necessarily involves adherence to a set of concepts, which are not closed to analysis and criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
As to modern science - quite possibly comes from the presupposition of an ordered universe; given by an ordered law giver.

---

Except we don't presuppose we live in an ordered universe, we observe that the universe we live in is ordered. This was even apparent before modern science existed as such. Our very early ancestors were able to note that those tiny points of light in the night sky almost all arrange themselves in the same patterns, and which bits of the pattern we can see every night changes slightly but always cycles back to where it's been before. They noted that the weather and the flooding of rivers followed the same seasonal patterns year after year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But the atheistic view is also not a default position, because its rejection of the non-trivial and implication-rich idea of 'God' necessarily involves adherence to a set of concepts, which are not closed to analysis and criticism.

---

Appealing to consequences is still a fallacy, even when applied in support of your pet concepts. Personally finding certain implications pleasant or unpleasant is not an argument.

"If my spouse were cheating on me I would have to get a divorce. I don't want to get a divorce, therefore my spouse is not cheating on me. Q.E.D."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Appealing to consequences is still a fallacy...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Appealing to consequences is still a fallacy...

---

Your objection is itself a fallacy, because my argument is not an appeal to consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Last time I checked, there was a thread in DH on the subject of abiogenesis.

Please feel free to post your evidence for it there. I would be most interested to see how there is more evidence for the mechanism of non-intelligence than for the mechanism of intelligence as concerns the construction of exceedingly complex living organisms.

---

Here's how it works, EtymologicalEvangelical:

They will have plenty of "evidence", and it will be perfectly satisfactory to them. You will look at it and think that it is totally inadequate, basically nothing more than wishful thinking on their part.

And so it goes on... and on.... and on... and on... zzzzzzzzzzzz..........
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
we desperately need a mirror smiley

Atheists need not prove anything. All they need is to not believe in god(s).
It would be nice if you stopped conflating science with atheism.
Science neither proves or disproves god. Really "proving" isn't the point. Discovering the processes by which things occur is science.

I am not anti-theism. I do wish theists would stop placing religion on the same plane as science. They are different beasts.
If you want to go there, here is the bottom line:
Science has evidence, theories and proofs.
Religion has a vague, internal feeling that it claims is not really indigestion.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Religion has a vague, internal feeling that it claims is not really indigestion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
we desperately need a mirror smiley

Atheists need not prove anything. All they need is to not believe in god(s).
It would be nice if you stopped conflating science with atheism.
Science neither proves or disproves god. Really "proving" isn't the point. Discovering the processes by which things occur is science.

I am not anti-theism. I do wish theists would stop placing religion on the same plane as science. They are different beasts.
If you want to go there, here is the bottom line:
Science has evidence, theories and proofs.
Religion has a vague, internal feeling that it claims is not really indigestion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And science does not aim to describe reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

How can you tell if it's a 'false image'?!

---

There are many common false images, e.g. the superhero or the 'man in the sky'. These are readily disproved by experience of life in relationship with God.

---

quote:

---

Humanism in its wider sense isn't exclusive to atheism. In fact, as a belief concerned with human needs, it has a strong Christian connection. A case presented for it would not be in conflict with Christian religious views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Religion has a vague, internal feeling that it claims is not really indigestion.

---

How do you know what other people's internal feelings are like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science makes observations about appearances. It does not claim that these are reality, for that would be a philosophical claim. Off-topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Science makes observations about appearances. It does not claim that these are reality, for that would be a philosophical claim. Off-topic.

---

That's one interpretation in philosophy of science. I suspect that it's not the leading interpretation among practicing scientists. Especially not if you catch them off guard talking about their work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheists need not prove anything. All they need is to not believe in god(s).
It would be nice if you stopped conflating science with atheism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Religion has a vague, internal feeling that it claims is not really indigestion.

---

How do you know what other people's internal feelings are like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would say rather that some theists are at war with science and some atheists use science to battle religion.
And I say once again, these are fools errands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
If you're not appealing to consequences then why does it matter if an idea is "implication-rich" or if rejecting it "involves adherence to a set of concepts"? That's no good indicator of the truth or falsity of a proposition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, if they're physicists, ask them if they think atoms really exist, and if that is a scientific claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The lack of belief in the existence of this body of water has huge implications, on which there is clearly a burden of proof.

---

quote:

---

If asked directly, that's immediately putting them on guard. The question is what would happen if you led the talk round in that direction without flagging why you're doing it.

---

quote:

---

Yorick

Atheism is better than religion in the same way that walking on your own two legs is better than walking with crutches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:

---

If asked directly, that's immediately putting them on guard. The question is what would happen if you led the talk round in that direction without flagging why you're doing it.

---

It might be the question to you in this "Aha, gotcha!" world of internet wibbling that we so enjoy, but to the body of knowledge known as science it is a complete and utter irrelevance. Nobody gives a shit what a particular scientist thinks in unguarded moments, it's the body of published work, subject to scrutiny by peers that matters.

---

quote:

---

And the claims therein are understood to be provisional pending better understanding, more evidence and more predictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim. I don't think anyone questions that it's a reasonable claim to make, but I would question that it's a scientific one.

If it's a scientific claim, what is the evidence for it? One of the usual arguments for it is that science is reliable, but surely that is an argument from within the philosophy of science?

To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grokesx:
It might be the question to you in this "Aha, gotcha!" world of internet wibbling that we so enjoy, but to the body of knowledge known as science it is a complete and utter irrelevance. Nobody gives a shit what a particular scientist thinks in unguarded moments, it's the body of published work, subject to scrutiny by peers that matters. And the claims therein are understood to be provisional pending better understanding, more evidence and more predictions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.

---

I think it's that it seems to work. Rockets get to Mars, computers compute, nuclear reactors react etc. etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim.

---

It may not be a scientific claim. But it might be a scientific presupposition or assumption. Indeed, if the philosophical claim is that science describes reality, one of the supporting arguments would surely be that the activity of science presupposes it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.

---

I think it's that it seems to work. Rockets get to Mars, computers compute, nuclear reactors react etc. etc.

---

It's true that the ability of science to get results that have practical applications has been a key art of its justification since the seventeenth century. But still I think most or many researchers would say that it is also valuable as producing knowledge for its own sake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
So what? The fact that there are "huge implications" to a body of water existing (or not existing) has no effect on whether it actually exists (or not). Nor should it effect the distribution of the burden of proof. That burden may be met more easily for something with huge implications but that doesn't in any way shift that burden from the affirming party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But if the existence of something has huge implications, then it follows that the denial of that thing also has huge implications. And all those implications - whether flowing from the affirmation or denial of that thing - constitute a 'positive' viewpoint, on which there is, therefore, a burden of proof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Are you saying that any given worldview has to be able to answer every single possible question about the nature of reality, and if they cannot you will consider their whole worldview false?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

Yes, fair enough; but Humanism doesn't need the extra element of god.

---

quote:

---

I suppose the follow-up question is, which is the true image in your opinion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about whether 'science describes reality' is a scientific claim. I would say that it's a philosophical claim.

---

It may not be a scientific claim. But it might be a scientific presupposition or assumption. Indeed, if the philosophical claim is that science describes reality, one of the supporting arguments would surely be that the activity of science presupposes it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To rephrase this: there is obviously a connection between science and reality, but science cannot discern it.

---

I think it's that it seems to work. Rockets get to Mars, computers compute, nuclear reactors react etc. etc.

---

It's true that the ability of science to get results that have practical applications has been a key art of its justification since the seventeenth century. But still I think most or many researchers would say that it is also valuable as producing knowledge for its own sake.

---

You misunderstand me. My point was the fact that it works is good evidence that there's a strong link between scientifically derived models and reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But if the existence of something has huge implications, then it follows that the denial of that thing also has huge implications. And all those implications - whether flowing from the affirmation or denial of that thing - constitute a 'positive' viewpoint, on which there is, therefore, a burden of proof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps my example of the Atlantic Ocean wasn't a very good one, because, of course, we have direct empirical evidence that that body of water exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let me give another example: the Big Bang.

We do not have direct empirical evidence of the Big Bang, in the sense of actually observing this event taking place. The event of the Big Bang is believed on the basis of inference from various observed phenomena, which are interpreted in a certain way according to certain assumptions. Now suppose someone should come along and say: "I don't believe in the Big Bang. I am an 'A-Big-Bang-ist'. I do not need to defend or explain my Abigbangism, because it is just non-belief in the Big Bang, which, after all, is something for which we have no direct empirical evidence."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think it would be absurd for someone to say this. Clearly, in scientific circles, if someone were to deny the Big Bang, it would be taken for granted that that person would need to justify that claim, by coming up with some other cosmological theory that would obviate the need for such an event. And the reason for this is the fact that the event of the Big Bang has conceptual implications.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or perhaps a better rephrasement would be: reality is much more than just physical reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.

---

So the burden of proof is on every worldview. How is that different to what I said in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
No. As pointed out before, this is a pretty pure example of the argument from consequences. "I like/dislike the implications of X existing" is not proof that X exists/doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Let's say that I am doing a Sudoku puzzle, and the information that is already printed in the puzzle has the implication that a particular blank square should contain the number '2'. How is that number '2' in that particular square a 'consequence' in the sense that you are using the word? It makes not a scrap of difference whether I personally like or dislike the number '2' being in that particular square. Logic tells me that it has to go there! What has that got to do with my personal feelings about the matter?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am talking about are conceptual implications. Let me give you an example from nature: the Atlantic Ocean exists. Are there any implications to the existence of the Atlantic Ocean? Well of course there are. Anyone wanting to travel west from Europe to America cannot do so by car, because there is a huge body of water preventing them from doing so. Someone wishing to make the journey in a boat will, of course, be able to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Yes, because reaching a conclusion based on evidence is not affected by exterior implications.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What do you mean by "exterior implications"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Perhaps my example of the Atlantic Ocean wasn't a very good one, because, of course, we have direct empirical evidence that that body of water exists.

---

No, it's a pretty good example. The ease with which the burden of proof may be met in no way shifts where the burden of proof lies. For instance, an ocean between New York and Los Angeles would have just as many implications as an ocean between New York and London. That doesn't mean we're required to believe that the Niobrara Sea still exists on the grounds that the Atlantic Ocean exists. After all, if the fact that the Atlantic Ocean would have "huge implications" proves it must exist, the Niobrara Sea must exist for the same reason.

---

quote:

---

At any rate, no one believes in the Big Bang because it's a big important idea and therefore must be true. The Big Bang is believed because it has met the burden of proof.

---

quote:

---

True but not what is being talked about. What is being talked about is whether science describes reality

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
Is there, I wonder, a difference between needing to defend one's beliefs, and needing to explain them. We all have a view of life from which we rationalise our experiences. We describe random events as fair or unfair, ourselves as lucky or unlucky. It is, I think, one thing to have come to a view about the nature of life which makes sense to ourselves, and another to feel we must be able both to articulate it and defend it against objection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Assuming that the Big Bang has actually met its burden of proof, then it follows, according to your reasoning, that the claim for the existence of God has also met its burden of proof. I say this, because the method of reasoning is exactly the same: inference rather than direct empirical evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
And it's unsurprising to see that the person railing against strawman "scientismists" is at the very least a believer in so-called intelligent design, and possibly an out-and-out creationist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Indeed, if the philosophical claim is that science describes reality, one of the supporting arguments would surely be that the activity of science presupposes it.

---

This is definitely where we start entering into the area of "Scientism." So when Scientists start making philosophical claims, which is not their remit, it is not "scientific" but "scientismic."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
On the other hand arguing with a polytheist is a whole different ball game. I can argue about Eostre until the cows come home - but that has no impact on the existance of Odin, Loki, Dionysius, Lugh, or anyone else except Eostre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Assuming that the Big Bang has actually met its burden of proof, then it follows, according to your reasoning, that the claim for the existence of God has also met its burden of proof. I say this, because the method of reasoning is exactly the same: inference rather than direct empirical evidence.

---

Sure, and the same applies to the inference that Zeus causes lightning. That's an inference from the direct evidence as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Concerning Zeus and lightning compared to God and creation: these two explanations sit in different categories,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Therefore both sides have to present their case (ignoring the obvious fact that there is direct empirical evidence that the Atlantic Ocean exists, hence my reason for admitting that it was not a good analogy).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the Niobrara Sea: I am glad you brought that up, because this is in the same category as the Big Bang (and therefore is a better analogy). It's a putative historical sea whose existence is inferred, but not directly observed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Assuming that the Big Bang has actually met its burden of proof, then it follows, according to your reasoning, that the claim for the existence of God has also met its burden of proof. I say this, because the method of reasoning is exactly the same: inference rather than direct empirical evidence.

You cannot have it both ways!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Concerning Zeus and lightning compared to God and creation: these two explanations sit in different categories, and therefore to conflate the two is a category error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Or perhaps a better rephrasement would be: reality is much more than just physical reality.

---

Maybe it is, but (a) science isn't interested in that, and (b) we weren't talking about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Why would you present a case that deliberately ignores facts?

---

quote:

---

If the fact that something has "implications" is proof that it exists, then the Niobrara must still exists because it would have just as many "implications" as the Atlantic.

---

quote:

---

And here we get to the root of your problem. Using the same method (using evidence to draw conclusions) does not guarantee you will always get the same result (my claim is verified).

---

quote:

---

"The normal rules of evidence and argument don't apply to my favorite cases" is pretty much the definition of special pleading.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It would only be a valid inference if the presuppositions by which the inference is made were also valid.

---

quote:

---

Concerning Zeus and lightning compared to God and creation: these two explanations sit in different categories, and therefore to conflate the two is a category error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
How sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?

---

quote:

---

The only difference between Zeus creating lightning and God creating life is that we now know how lightning is caused by purely natural means. To the Ancient Greeks they'd have been in very much the same category. You're staking your entire worldview on the presupposition that science has already discovered everything there is to know about molecular biology and organic chemistry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
How sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?

---

Logic.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The only difference between Zeus creating lightning and God creating life is that we now know how lightning is caused by purely natural means. To the Ancient Greeks they'd have been in very much the same category. You're staking your entire worldview on the presupposition that science has already discovered everything there is to know about molecular biology and organic chemistry.

---

So you think that science is all about discovering non-intelligence as the basis of reality?

---

quote:

---

As for "staking my entire worldview..." - Errm, nope. I do not base my entire view of reality on the progress - or otherwise - of molecular biology and organic chemistry! Another very loud, brash and meaningless 'mind reading' pronouncement about the beliefs of a theist, that can only go down as wishful thinking.

---

quote:

---

Also you may like to explain what you mean by "purely natural means".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
No, you can't argue about Eostre. The existence or non-existence of her is a matter of contingent empirical fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You make it sound like the intelligent design of complex systems is a disease. It's ironic, considering that practical science - especially the science involved in inventions - is 'creationist', in the sense that intelligent beings create useful, complex and sophisticated objects.

---

quote:

---

An atheist once insinuated that my belief in God was akin to the belief that little invisible men drove the workings of my car (a similar idea to Zeus sending lightning bolts). I pointed out to him that the lack of little men under the bonnet did not imply that the car had assembled itself by natural processes alone. My car was intelligently designed by engineers and manufactured in an ordered and sophisticated factory (a similar idea to God creating the universe). It is precisely because my car was intelligently designed that it can run by itself without the need for little men under the bonnet to keep the mechanisms functioning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Scientism may be an assertion of an unlimited privilege of people speaking in the name of science to pronounce on other subject matters without right of reply; but rejecting that does not mean that philosophers have an unlimited privilege in the other direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
That's not an answer to the question I asked.

---

quote:

---

Do I take it from your editing of my post that you agree that "Intelligent Design" and "Magic" are the same thing in as much as they both posit a God that creates by Divine Fiat?

---

quote:

---

Your entire worldview seems to be premised on the notion that life cannot come into existence spontaneously, therefore God. All it would take to disprove that notion is one example of the spontaneous creation of life - if one little petri dish containing amino and nucleic acids gets hit by a big spark that causes those molecules to start reacting and replicating, the whole premise falls.

---

quote:

---

How confident are you that that will never happen?

---

quote:

---

"Requiring no supernatural intervention". Or, to put it another way, "a miracle occurs" is not part of the process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
That's not an answer to the question I asked.

---

What do you want me to say? That I don't accept the validity of certain presuppositions because of logic, but because of something else? Am I not allowed to answer for myself? Are you requiring me to give the answer that you have already prescribed for me?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do I take it from your editing of my post that you agree that "Intelligent Design" and "Magic" are the same thing in as much as they both posit a God that creates by Divine Fiat?

---

No, they are not the same thing at all. Since when has 'intelligence' been equated with 'magic'? They are opposites! For example... I assume that when you wrote your last post, you used your intelligence. You didn't just attempt to cast a spell over your computer to get it to create the post by magic, did you? If you wrote it using intelligence, and the proper laws associated with intelligent ordering (such as actually physically interacting with your keyboard), then no one in their right mind could possibly say that the post appeared 'by magic'. So again I restate my position: intelligence and magic are opposites.

---

quote:

---

Complex systems just arising without intelligence is more akin to magic than to non-magic.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, my belief and faith in God is not dependent merely on questions relating to first life. There is rather a lot more to it than that!

---

quote:

---

Secondly, your hypothetical experiment would not disprove anything.

---

quote:

---

It may indeed be possible to reconstruct certain chemical or biochemical reactions in the laboratory (usually involving a great deal of experimenter interaction), but that proves nothing. There is a lot more to the construction and development of life than that.

---

quote:

---

Also, 'proving' that something could have happened in the distant - and therefore unobserved past - does not, in any way, prove that it did actually happen.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

How confident are you that that will never happen?

---

Despite not paying much attention to arguments from silence - or 'gaps arguments' - I am exceedingly confident that that will never happen, especially considering that scientific research appears to be making abiogenesis more implausible, given the ongoing discoveries of the immense complexity and intricacy of life at the most basic level.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Requiring no supernatural intervention". Or, to put it another way, "a miracle occurs" is not part of the process.

---

That, of course, is a philosophical position, because you would need to define what you mean by 'nature' and 'supernature'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Sergius -Melli
I have a couple of hours left before my computer has to be packed up! [snip]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

And here we get to the root of your problem. Using the same method (using evidence to draw conclusions) does not guarantee you will always get the same result (my claim is verified).

---

Exactly! It depends on the presuppositions which guide the method of inference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So we are in the area of epistemology, which is a 'positive' discussion, which involves 'burden of proof'. Which is what I have been saying all along. Certain atheists seem to think that when they infer from the evidence, they are somehow using a kind of default method which is outside the range of critical analysis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the Zeus comment: you seem to have overlooked that I actually explained my position concerning the comparison between Zeus and the intelligent creator God. But you have ignored it, for some reason (let me guess...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So it really amuses me when people equate the intelligent God with the magical Zeus. They really could not be more wrong!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Do I take it from your editing of my post that you agree that "Intelligent Design" and "Magic" are the same thing in as much as they both posit a God that creates by Divine Fiat?

---

No, they are not the same thing at all. Since when has 'intelligence' been equated with 'magic'? They are opposites!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Complex systems just arising without intelligence is more akin to magic than to non-magic. Intelligent Design is therefore the most unmagical theory possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
No. It depends on the evidence available.

---

quote:

---

Actually most atheists are inferring from the lack of evidence.

---

quote:

---

Claiming that your position is so important you don't need to justify it is not an explanation.

---

quote:

---

Under your definition, since Zeus is an intelligent agent deciding whom to smite with lightning, he's not magical. For that matter, nothing depicted in the Harry Potter novels describes "magic", since all the spells and conjurations are the result of the intelligent actions of witches, wizards, and other entities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
No. It depends on the evidence available.

---

Which needs to be interpreted, especially if the empirical evidence is indirect, and therefore inference is required. But you seem to assume that it's a foregone conclusion that the philosophy of naturalism is true, and therefore any indirect evidence must be interpreted accordingly. It's called "special pleading".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Actually most atheists are inferring from the lack of evidence.

---

Actually, from the lack of what they interpret to be valid evidence, according to their a priori presuppositions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Scientism may be an assertion of an unlimited privilege of people speaking in the name of science to pronounce on other subject matters without right of reply; but rejecting that does not mean that philosophers have an unlimited privilege in the other direction.

---

In which case scientism is just an appeal to irrelevant authority. I know of no group of people with an area of expertise that doesn't do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
No, you can't argue about Eostre. The existence or non-existence of her is a matter of contingent empirical fact.

---

The historicity of Eostre is a matter of contingent empirical fact. The existance is another matter; if there are people that genuinely worship a God is that enough to prove existance of that God? The existance of Eostre is every bit as much a philosophical question as that of a monotheistic God who hasn't manifested in a long time. And this isn't just an argument about the nature of words, it's one about the nature of divinity and theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hughetc
You've mentioned this money business before. Have to say mate, you're intellectual objections to Christianity, and the evidence you quote, is usually pretty lame. Makes me wonder if your atheism is an attempt at an intellectual justification of an emotional experience. Nothing wrong in that - plenty of people come to faith on the back of an experience then sort out the intellectual side afterwards.

So what came first - the conceptual doubts or the nagging doubt you were getting fleeced?
It isn’t necessary to be intellectually complex to realise that the absence of evidence for something is a pretty good reason for not believing in it; and devoting resources to something I don't believe in seems daft to me (as does Pascal's wager).
When something simple fails the test of reality making it more intellectually complex just means it becomes a complicated fail rather than a simple fail.

As to the money – I finished with Christianity at 15/16 years old, well before I had any income other than a rather small amount of pocket money supplied by my father. The irony is that I grew up benefitting from the proceeds of irrational belief since my father’s income came from the pockets of those, including him, who were being “fleeced”.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The spiritual default state of humanity is superstition . No – there is experimental evidence which suggests that thinking supernaturally doesn’t develop until age seven or so – and that prior to that it is absent – which suggests the ability to think supernaturally is learnt rather than default. It is, of course, clear that we are evolutionarily predisposed to believe whatever authority figures (including parents, preachers, priests, peers and teachers) tell us, which explains why we learn to accept silly ways of thinking and then to copy them.

And this is precisely why atheists attacking theism are such fools , socially speaking, quite irrespective of whether there actually is a God or not. The more atheism manages to beat down theism, the more it will have to control superstition on its own. So bugger what is right – let’s kid the masses that religion is true so that we immoral pragmatists can have an easy life. The hope would be, unlikely though it is, that humanity would learn to live without all supernatural concepts – not just one.

A smart Western atheist should be a supporter of modern (perhaps: modern European) Christianity. Most atheists however, as the bible correctly points out, are fools . Don’t need smart to be an atheist – just logic. BTW - do you really prefer the words of a repetitive psalmist to those of your boss or does the danger of hell fire trouble you as little as it does me? (Matt 5: 22) my unbolds on “fools”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Atheists need not prove anything. All they need is to not believe in god(s). That’s not acceptable to some for reasons which may include some or all of

A – it doesn’t allow them to promote someone else’s arguments refuting the strawman that the else wanted to knock down

B – it’s too simple and simple is clear and clear is painful – cognitive dissonance can be dulled by making something simple and obviously iffy into something highly complex, labyrinthily convoluted and obfuscatorialy esoteric. Ends up as “God moves in mysterious ways” and I’m too inadequate to understand them – but I know He’s right

C – Comfort zones

But keep trying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.

---

So the burden of proof is on every worldview. How is that different to what I said in the first place?

---

If I might chime in at this point, the claim that I've encountered is that this isn't the case because atheism gets a free pass.

Except that atheism is not a worldview. It’s an absence of belief in a specific superstition and superstitions are supernatural and the world is natural - therefore atheism is a view of a supernatural concept and is a not-a-worldview. And because atheism is a not-a-worldview it doesn't get a pass from something that applies to worldviews anymore than a bald man gets a pass from having to explain his hairstyle - there's nothing to get a pass from

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
Except that atheism is not a worldview.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of ignored questions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But you seem to assume that it's a foregone conclusion that the philosophy of naturalism is true, and therefore any indirect evidence must be interpreted accordingly. It's called "special pleading".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...the rejection of 'God' also involves the rejection of those concepts - and necessitates their replacement with another set of concepts, which constitute a view of reality!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So if atheism is not a worldview - and therefore implies nothing beyond the bare assertion that "God does not exist" - then I suppose it must be possible for an 'atheist' to believe that there is an intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the whole universe, and that life was created by this person, as long as he doesn't call this creator 'God'!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And if you should protest that one of the definitions of 'God' is an "eternal, intelligent, personal creator and first cause of the universe", then you are admitting that the word 'God' is replete with far reaching concepts and implications, and therefore the rejection of 'God' also involves the rejection of those concepts - and necessitates their replacement with another set of concepts, which constitute a view of reality!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Speaking of ignored questions, I'm still not clear on why you're weaseling around with this distinction between direct and indirect evidence. You seem to place the current existence of the Atlantic Ocean in the first category and the current non-existence of the Niobrara Sea in the latter. And you don't seem to make any distinction between individuals who have personally seen (part of) the Atlantic Ocean and those who have only seen satellite photos or read about it in books.

---

quote:

---

And how exactly would you provide supernatural evidence of the Atlantic Ocean's existence if natural means (like observation) are not valid?

---

quote:

---

You mean evidence along the lines of Atlantic Ocean, therefore Jesus? Yeah, I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb in rejecting that one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't understand how you're distinguishing between historicity and existence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So if atheism is not a worldview - and therefore implies nothing beyond the bare assertion that "God does not exist" - then I suppose it must be possible for an 'atheist' to believe that there is an intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the whole universe, and that life was created by this person, as long as he doesn't call this creator 'God'!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos

Actually most atheists are inferring from the lack of evidence.

---

Actually, from the lack of what they interpret to be valid evidence, according to their a priori presuppositions.

---

quote:

---

for someone who adopts this stance [empirical, natural evidence only], what would count as evidence of the supernatural or of God? And if it turns out there is not any sort of event, fact, datum, or combination of facts that would count as evidence of the supernatural or of God, then how is this stance distinguishable from a priori atheism, rather than a result of a survey of the pertinent evidence? And if it is indistinguishable from a priori atheism, why countenance the objection seriously at all?

If 'science' is that certain sort of investigation of natural phenomena via a particular systematic method of observation and experiment, then immediately one must ask why this criterion for knowledge should be adopted to answer a question necessarily outside its purview i.e. the question of the existence of the supernatural. Could the supernatural theoretically exist and never be isolated and observed in material phenomena, with conditions necessary for repeatable, controlled lab experiments? Not only could this be the case, but if anything supernatural did exist, then this would necessarily be the case: science as traditionally understood and practiced, could not be performed on said phenomena. So we are left with no sensible, justifiable reason to think that the scientific criterion for knowledge is capable of addressing the question of whether anything supernatural exists. Anyone who demands 'scientific evidence of the unscientific (or a-scientific)' makes a nonsensical demand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
But this doesn't in any sense mean Marvin and I aren't atheists

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is an obvious distinction between direct and indirect empirical evidence. I would have thought it was incontestably obvious that there is a difference between witnessing a murderer in the act of murder, and having to infer the identity of the murderer from the evidence of the body of a victim, who looks like he has been violently killed by another person.

I'm amazed that anyone can't see this distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is all going round in circles. It seems clear to me that atheists need have no view about reality at all. They might be animists or Buddhists, and I'm not really sure what their view of reality is - probably, that it's an illusion!

Some theists really want atheism to equal naturalism, or materialism, but it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
...the position that atheism is a world-view, or entails one, is an irrational one, and hence, not susceptible to argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot
A rose by any other name...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
There is no requirement for someone who rejects one concept to replace it with another. None whatsoever.

---

You're absolutely right. There is no requirement on anyone to have to think. Most people don't.


 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Speaking of ignored questions, I'm still not clear on why you're weaseling around with this distinction between direct and indirect evidence. You seem to place the current existence of the Atlantic Ocean in the first category and the current non-existence of the Niobrara Sea in the latter. And you don't seem to make any distinction between individuals who have personally seen (part of) the Atlantic Ocean and those who have only seen satellite photos or read about it in books.

---

Weaseling around?

Hardly! There is an obvious distinction between direct and indirect empirical evidence. I would have thought it was incontestably obvious that there is a difference between witnessing a murderer in the act of murder, and having to infer the identity of the murderer from the evidence of the body of a victim, who looks like he has been violently killed by another person.

I'm amazed that anyone can't see this distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

And how exactly would you provide supernatural evidence of the Atlantic Ocean's existence if natural means (like observation) are not valid?

---

You obviously do not understand the meaning of the word 'analogy'. Or are you just here to score cheap points? If so, then consider yourself to have "won the internet"! Well done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
There is no requirement for someone who rejects one concept to replace it with another. None whatsoever.

---

You're absolutely right. There is no requirement on anyone to have to think. Most people don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sigh. Rejecting a concept does not require one to insert another concept in its place. You're still acting as if we need to be able to answer every single possible question in order for you to consider our worldview valid. Why are you so afraid of "we don't know"?

---

quote:

---

That X-Files analogy also highlights another underlying problem with Miracles. If you’re not familiar with Chris Carter’s wonderful 1990s TV show, it follows the adventures of two FBI agents who are tasked with investigating unexplained phenomena. Agent Scully, played by Gillian Anderson, is the one who believes in UFOs.

Many people get that backwards. Since Scully is the skeptical scientist and Mulder the idealistic true believer, they mistakenly think Mulder believes in UFOs. He doesn’t. Mulder can’t abide allowing flying objects to remain unidentified. He doesn’t believe in UFOs, he believes in alien spacecraft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
A pop culture analogy from Fred Clark:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

Interesting that I gave my reasons for making my claim about atheism, none of which have been refuted. I would have thought that the judgment of irrationality should have come after debunking someone's arguments, not before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
Except that atheism is not a worldview.

---

So if atheism is not a worldview - and therefore implies nothing beyond the bare assertion that "God does not exist" - then I suppose it must be possible for an 'atheist' to believe that there is an intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the whole universe, and that life was created by this person, as long as he doesn't call this creator 'God'!

After all, if atheism is not a worldview, and implies nothing conceptual and metaphysical, then it must be possible for an atheist to believe in intelligent design by an uncreated designer, intelligent first cause and to affirm all the moral, epistemological and ontological concepts normally associated with, say, monotheism, as long as the word 'God' (or equivalents in other languages) is never used!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Sigh. Rejecting a concept does not require one to insert another concept in its place. You're still acting as if we need to be able to answer every single possible question in order for you to consider our worldview valid.

---

quote:

---

Why are you so afraid of "we don't know"?

---

quote:

---

And I notice that you've given up on the whole ridiculous "when my God creates something it's intelligence, but when any other God does it it's magic" line of argumentation. Probably for the best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
That is likely the wonkiest bit of reasoning you have used on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot
A rose by any other name...

---

Very telling that you ignored the third paragraph of my post, which anticipated your objection!

---

quote:

---

In my case It would be replacing "God did it" with "I currently don't know why the universe exists".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Rejecting a concept does not require one to insert another concept in its place. You're still acting as if we need to be able to answer every single possible question in order for you to consider our worldview valid. Why are you so afraid of "we don't know"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha
To put it as simply as I am able:

The value A is "not B"

You say A is actually ("not B" + C) and if you subtract out the C, A = B. As long as you relabel B as fruit bat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The practice of science or scientific rationality is held by many people as a kind of spiritual ideal. As an example, if you look back at old Doctor Who, in general when the Doctor meets a scientist that scientist will be the most reasonable person around, unless they are outright mad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
...the position that atheism is a world-view, or entails one, is an irrational one, and hence, not susceptible to argument.

---

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, be it irrational or otherwise!

Interesting that I gave my reasons for making my claim about atheism, none of which have been refuted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The practice of science or scientific rationality is held by many people as a kind of spiritual ideal. As an example, if you look back at old Doctor Who, in general when the Doctor meets a scientist that scientist will be the most reasonable person around, unless they are outright mad.

---

And here I'm simply going to say that you are twenty or thirty years older than I am. Note the "If you look back at old Doctor Who" - that's a lot less true than in nuWho where the scientists are more than likely to be either (a) villains trying unethical experiments, (b) messing with things they shouldn't in a "Once the rockets are up who cares where zey come down" manner or (c) deluded and trying to find mundane explanations for aliens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of that need be "moral" or "ethical."
Practicality takes care of most things, even local charity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quetzalcoatl

Interesting post.

I have to say that atheism would be more interesting to me if it wasn't always being reduced to New Atheism - this Anglophone, intellectual thing that goes on about science and logic, and being utterly rationalistic about everything. Oh - then there's that constant refrain about how evil religion is, which doesn't make much sense if the argument is that religion only evolved because it was useful to mankind!

(Well, maybe something can be both evil and useful. Still, that changes the anti-religion argument a bit...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. It doesn't matter how good or bad the logic is, if the presuppositions are wrong the conclusion will be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I did say that there had been a change. And I thought that the change wasn't so much that the ideal had gone away as that it had been pushed out of place by anti-scientific ideals. Roughly speaking, I'd say that the ideal of scientist as hero - call it technocratic - became sufficiently establishment to be worth reacting against. Fancifully I would correlate the change with a right-wing politician with scientific training taking power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. It doesn't matter how good or bad the logic is, if the presuppositions are wrong the conclusion will be wrong.

---

I thought I'd expand still further.

Under formal logic
If C(I) -> M and M is false then so is C(I). The -> symbol is the material conditional. Therefore when EE says that C(I) -> M and M turns out to be not true, so is C(I).

---

quote:

---

Also we're talking about C(I) -> M because we've already disproved C(I) -> A, C(I) -> B, C(I) -> C, and so on. In the words of Tim Minchin, "Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." As of the two dozen supposed direct consequences of C(I), twenty of them have been shown to be out and out wrong and none of them have shown to be right, why should we believe C(I) this time? It's a hypothesis with a 0% hit rate so far, and has been offered for just about everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I did say that there had been a change. And I thought that the change wasn't so much that the ideal had gone away as that it had been pushed out of place by anti-scientific ideals. Roughly speaking, I'd say that the ideal of scientist as hero - call it technocratic - became sufficiently establishment to be worth reacting against. Fancifully I would correlate the change with a right-wing politician with scientific training taking power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
he's talking about starting with bad premises, which is outside the scope of formal logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
he's talking about starting with bad premises, which is outside the scope of formal logic.

---

Don't say that to EE - he seems to think that "logic" is a valid answer to the question "how sure are you that your presuppositions are valid?".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
None of that need be "moral" or "ethical."
Practicality takes care of most things, even local charity.

---

In so far as practicality is something that people ought to be and often aren't, I'd include it under ethical.
Even the ideal of practicality is questionable. Should one go for long-lasting material satisfactions: house, family, status, self-respect; or short-term intense hedonistic satisfactions, with a different kind of self-respect or self-forgetfulness. (And if you enjoy the present moment, do you let it happen or seek out intensity of experience?)
I'd say more about the underlying metaphysics and picture of human existence. But put this in a strong form. From a Buddhist perspective, the ideal of practicality is an illusion anyway, yes? It's confusion chasing after suffering. From the perspective of economic rationality, practicality is common sense and any deviation from it is a positive ideal that has to be proved (or assimilated). But from a Buddhist perspective, practicality is the thing that's an unjustifiable positive ideal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian
Your "reasons" are too trivial to be worth bothering with. I'm going to give an example of how silly they look.

There is an invisible pink elephant who lives in my house and steals my socks at night. Which is why I so often can only find odd socks. So you don't believe there's an invisible pink elephant - but this in no way rules out you believing in an invisible pink thing with a long trunk and flapping ears that weighs a quarter of a tonne and saying that you're a-invisiblepinkelephantist.

See how silly that argument is? It's exactly the argument you're putting forward. Well, that, and as I mentioned before and your attempt to add complexity by playing with the tools of symbolic logic, you've rediscovered Palley's Watchmaker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because 'God' is not a trivial concept, then it follows that the denial of 'God' is also non-trivial. Profound implications flow from both 'God' and 'not-God'. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that atheism does not imply a definite view of reality (at a basic level - root and trunk, rather than branches and twigs), and wrong to say that a lack of belief in God is in the same epistemic category as lack of belief in the invisible pink elephant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for William Paley's analogy: it's only wrong in the minds of those who want it to be wrong. Just loudly and persistently claiming that something is fallacious, does not necessarily make it so. It is perfectly sound to infer the intelligent causation of a complex and intricate functioning system, especially as we have no empirical knowledge of the staggeringly improbable (and more likely impossible) alternative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
But from a Buddhist perspective, practicality is the thing that's an unjustifiable positive ideal.

---

Wasn't speaking from a Buddhist perspective, as this thread is about atheism.

---

quote:

---

I was speaking mostly about laws and general societal interaction. Human social interaction can be seen as based upon practical considerations. Murder, theft, trespass, etc. Whilst there have been morality-based laws, those can be dispensed without destroying the fabric of society.

---

quote:

---

BTW, ethical=moral. Or at least, ethical~moral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, my argument is not silly at all, and my reasons are certainly not trivial.

Your example of an invisible pink elephant is a straw man argument when applied to the argument concerning the existence of God.
...
An invisible pink elephant is an entirely trivial and inconsequential idea, unlike the idea of the intelligent creator of the universe. Not believing in the theory of the existence of the invisible pink elephant has no implications whatsoever

---

quote:

---

However, when we look at reality, and the systems and structures that make up the universe, we could say that they were ultimately the work of an intelligent agent.

---

quote:

---

That was the point I was trying to make concerning my analogy of the statue in the rock. Your idea that it could be an optical illusion is completely irrelevant. I could just as easily have given the example of the very real sculptures on Mount Rushmore.

---

quote:

---

There are really only two theories: either an intelligent agent created them (a human sculptor), or they were the incredibly fortuitous result of natural erosion. Either the cause is intelligence or it is non-intelligence, the latter meaning natural causes alone.

---

quote:

---

If intelligence is the ultimate creator, then we are talking about an absolute intelligence, which is pretty much a definition of God. If the idea of God (absolute intelligence) is rejected, then, by a process of elimination, reality must have been 'created' by non-intelligent factors. And this last theory is a definite and positive position, which constitutes a worldview at a basic level.

---

quote:

---

Because 'God' is not a trivial concept,

---

quote:

---

Profound implications flow from both 'God' and 'not-God'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
If they were proximately the work of an intelligent agent (with a twisted sense of humour) then we can check the handiwork.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake [/QB]

---

Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?

 

---

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake

---

Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?
[/QB]

---

 

---

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake

---

Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?

---

[/QB]

---

indeed.

But it's not really an effective challenge to Hugh's stated view that supernatural belief is learned rather than inherent. Parents are only the primary authority figures in a child's life. Wider society soon kicks in - TV, teachers, peers, etc. A child learns all manner of things from them.

And anyway, the link-cited Mr Barrett concludes,

quote:

---

...children have naturally-developing receptivity to many core religious beliefs...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

Biggest problem with your view is kids of atheist parents who develop supernaturalist views that their parents can't then shake

---

Yes, it's like the children of parents who refuse to have toy guns in the house. Who would expect the kids to want to pretend they're shooting at things?

---

---

indeed.

But it's not really an effective challenge to Hugh's stated view that supernatural belief is learned rather than inherent. Parents are only the primary authority figures in a child's life. Wider society soon kicks in - TV, teachers, peers, etc. A child learns all manner of things from them.

And anyway, the link-cited Mr Barrett concludes,

quote:

---

...children have naturally-developing receptivity to many core religious beliefs...

---

(My italics)
The only quibble would be over the age at which that begins to manifest. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The narration ponts to the children who are holding their arms up like wings and running around and points out that these are the first children ever to do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
No before then they flapped their arms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Returning to the OP - "Arguing for the non-existence of God by arguing against the existence of God" doesn't sound that ridiculous, if a tad tautological.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
No before then they flapped their arms.

---

Not when they were gliding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What I am saying is that if the existence of something has major implications concerning the nature of reality, then it follows that the denial of the existence of that thing also has major implications. Therefore both positions necessarily involve positive claims about reality. And so if there is a burden of proof on one of those positions, there must also be a burden of proof on the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:


Ignorance

This is what distinguishes atheism - we're not afraid to simply say: "We don't know".
We do not need an answer to many of the questions raised here as much as some obviously do.


S-E

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0