Justify Atheism

[Stella Blue]

IMO sometimes atheists and be just as bad as people of faith in pushing their views on others. I don't care what people believe or don't believe just as long as they have the tolerance to leave others to their views and keep their own to themselves and not try and convert someone else to their way of thinking. There is nothing wrong with discussion and debate but it becomes annoying when people on both sides of the argument begin to have an arrogance to their beliefs. I find it terribly bothersome when someone of faith tries to preach religion to me and what I ought to believe, I'm sure it works the same way from the other end.

[Nero]

Hi Seras. Just a reminder that this is the forum for atheists to discuss issues pertaining to their beliefs or lack thereof. Nobody of any belief (or lack thereof in this case) is called upon to justify their position here at Susans. Discussion and polite inquiries are fine, but please avoid the confrontational tone. Spirituality is a very personal thing and all forms are respected here. Thank you.

[Silver]

I don't believe there is a god of any sort. Usually, actions are justified but this is a lack of a belief/religion so it's a non-action. The only reason I'd be an oddity is if everyone was supposed to have a religion. Why? I was not born with a religion, I just don't have one. I don't go around trying to convince people there is no god (pointless and obnoxious.) I'm just respectful and not convinced.

[Kay]

Hi Seras,
.
I'm not particularly fond of dogmatic theists or athiests either...or dogmatic agnostics or dogmatic philosophers for that matter.
.
Personally, I'm agnostic...but I'll try my hand at arguing the athiestic viewpoint here:
.
- - - - - - -
The true scientific and philosophical opinion on this ought be agnosticism.
.
First:  Science and philosophy are two very different disciplines.
.
Philosophy: (definitions per Webster)
"all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical art"
"a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means."
.
Science:
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"
Scientific method:
"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
.
Essentially, in the day-to-day life of individuals, science is about being practical.  This is what we know, and this is how we know it.
.
It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.
.
I don't believe in the Jabberwocky. Though I'm sure Mr. Carroll doeth protest while he sits under the Tumtum tree with his vorpal blade.  Fairy godmothers?  We'll have to confer with the knowledgeable brothers Grimm about that one.  Zeus?  Let's ask the ancient Greeks.  Baal?  The Canaanites.  Chalmecatecuchtlz?  The Aztecs.  The christian god?  A priest.
.
The imagination is a wonderful thing.  It can come up with countless things that do not exist.  Your assertion is that we should implicitly trust philosophy for all knowledge.  This means believing nothing...nor ruling out anything ever.  As such, it is a state of no knowledge...nothing is ever certain.
.
Uncertainty does not lead to action.  It leads to sitting on a chair just coming up with more thoughts.  If Chalmecatecuchtlz exists...then we risk his wrath by not sacrificing people to him.  If he does not exist, then he can be safely ignored.  By not taking action, you are taking a side...that of believing there is no risk (or not enough risk).  You're hedging your bets on non-existence, even if you tell yourself that you can't know with 100% certainty.  It's far easier to dismiss the long forgotten god of a dead society than the current incarnation of our own society.  If all things are equal in your premise, to a philosopher such should not be so.  Though...what benefit is there to endless debate about the existence of hundreds of dead gods and goddesses?  It fills time...but to what end?
.
Further...if philosophy ran science, what would we have today?
Phrenology? Alchemists still attempting to turn lead to gold?  Barbers bleeding patients because some patients do get better after they rebalance their humours? Music of the spheres?  Earth as the center of the universe because it was thought that it said so in 'The Book'?  Nothing is certain...so everything is acceptable...unless you can prove 100% that it's not true...or never works.
.
Science is there to give us guideposts...a raft...in the murky sea of reality.  Sure...the true reality is that nothing can be known 100%.  Dogmatic athiests  don't trifle with the "well...Chalmecatecuchtlz could exist...he really could."  It wastes time.  There is not even so much as a grain of proof.  It wastes thought.  It's not worth contemplating.  The burden of evidence is upon the believers to provide...it's not the athiest's obligation to waste their time with every figment of the imagination that others come up with.  It's basic scientific method.  There's no definitive empirical evidence to even begin from.
.
As far as god is concerned...if the past is any indication of the future...one day our society will be no more, and their god will cease to serve as anything but Homeric literature for future generations.
.
- - - -
Ok...that's my best shot at the athiestic point of view.  You seem to be a philosophy major looking for a little philosophical scuffle...so I hope that's what you were looking for. 

[Pica Pica]

It is on the back of anyone who makes any claim to show it to be true.

As an atheist your making the claim "God does not exist".
There is the same onus here as claiming "God does exist".

Thanks for the interesting replies I will look them over later when I got some spare time

I would say you are working from a false precept - it takes a lot more to argue that something does exist than to argue that something does not exist - I would also say that most atheists don't think about 'does god exist' or 'does god not exist'. I think they would be saying that whether god exists or not is not a valid question

[spacial]

Atheists do not accept anything but science as proof of the existence of god. So when a theist claims "God exists!" merely having faith is sufficient evidence and they do not need to defend themselves further, nor should they have to. The athiesm vs. god argument is invalid in my opinion because each side is basing their arguments on two seperate and different definitions from the start. (Their own)

This is an excellent perspective. I wish I'd thought of it.

But I've just remembered something, that there are two types of athiests. Those that don't accept a god, in much the same way that few accept the tooth fairy. They don't think about it except when the matter comes to the fore. It's not relevant to their daily lives.

The second group actively seek to propound their belief. Strangely, this group actually need a god. 

Richard Dawkins belongs to this second group. But he seeks to justify it by claiming that religion is responsible for so much suffering, doing away with it would make the world a better place.

There are so many flaws in his reasoning.

[lisagurl]

Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God"

[glendagladwitch]

Nice save
So technically your agnostic like me, I am just very much on the fence whereas you think he is a leprachaun. However you ought not claim your an atheist unless you actively disbelieve in God.

Basically, there are two types of atheists, strong atehists and weak atheists.  Strong atheists think it is possible to prove that there is no god.  Weak atheists think that it is not possible to prove that there is no god.  Then there are those who do not know whether it is possible to prove there is no god.  Any of these atheists who are not strong atheists are "agnostic atheists."   Agnostic atheists outnumber strong atheists about a zillion to one, and most of us view strong athiests as irrational.

The fact that you were confused about the meaning of "atheists" does not make it inaccurate for agnostic atheists to call themselves atheists.  They are different from those who simply call themselves "agnostics" typically in that they are not "searching" for god.  "Agnostics," in contrast, typically think there is probably a god, but they don't know which god is the the right one.  Agnostic atheists find the poposisition that there is a god rather laughable and irrational, but not disprovable.  So there's your difference.

[LordKAT]

In a lecture I went to way back when, atheist may believe there is a god but don't believe in god. Agnostics don't believe there is a god.

[lisagurl]

"Agnostics," in contrast, typically think there is probably a god, but they don't know which god is the the right one.

That is not true. An agnostic does not believe . They seek nothing, they only want to be exposed to  factual evidence and not gods. They do not want probabilities they want only facts. They understand there are things we do not know. Different than an atheist who knows without facts that there is no God.

[spacial]

Basically, there are two types of atheists, strong atehists and weak atheists.  Strong atheists think it is possible to prove that there is no god.  Weak atheists think that it is not possible to prove that there is no god.  Then there are those who do not know whether it is possible to prove there is no god.  Any of these atheists who are not strong atheists are "agnostic atheists."   Agnostic atheists outnumber strong atheists about a zillion to one, and most of us view strong athiests as irrational.

The fact that you were confused about the meaning of "atheists" does not make it inaccurate for agnostic atheists to call themselves atheists.  They are different from those who simply call themselves "agnostics" typically in that they are not "searching" for god.  "Agnostics," in contrast, typically think there is probably a god, but they don't know which god is the the right one.  Agnostic atheists find the poposisition that there is a god rather laughable and irrational, but not disprovable.  So there's your difference.

No, with respect, both of those hold a belief. That is no real distinction at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

[Dana Lane]

I don't need to.
You see, the people who believe in Gods have made a claim that something exists.
Therefore the burden of proof is upon them to show that it exists.
Until they prove that it exists, I have no need to disprove its existence or justify my lack of belief in its existence.

For example, you could claim that there is an invisible 7 foot tall green chicken standing beside you.
It is then up to you to prove that the invisible 7 foot tall green chicken is actually standing beside you.
I did not make the assertion that something exists - you did.
The burden of proof is on you.

well put!

[Arch]

I don't need to.
You see, the people who believe in Gods have made a claim that something exists.
Therefore the burden of proof is upon them to show that it exists.
Until they prove that it exists, I have no need to disprove its existence or justify my lack of belief in its existence.

For example, you could claim that there is an invisible 7 foot tall green chicken standing beside you.
It is then up to you to prove that the invisible 7 foot tall green chicken is actually standing beside you.
I did not make the assertion that something exists - you did.
The burden of proof is on you.

Beat me to it...only I was going to use a purple swan of average proportions instead of a seven-foot-tall green chicken. Is there something inherently colorful and avian about this topic?

[LordKAT]

Purple swans are prettier? Green giant is larger?

[Katelyn-W]

For example, you could claim that there is an invisible 7 foot tall green chicken standing beside you.
It is then up to you to prove that the invisible 7 foot tall green chicken is actually standing beside you.
I did not make the assertion that something exists - you did.
The burden of proof is on you.

I'm glad you didn't say an invisible 6 foot tall rabbit, Harvey would be quite upset.

[Seras]

Note:

I am not saying you must justify yourself to me. I am not intending this confrontational attitude that the word commonly concocts. However I assume that were all rational people here and in my opinion that means we must have reasoning behind our beliefs. My question should you choose to answer it was, what is the reasoning behind your belief that God/s do not exist? You do not have to answer, you do not have to posess justified beliefs, but if you do I am interested to hear them

This is what I mean, for any further clarification:

To provide an acceptable explanation for; To be a good, acceptable reason for.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justify

---

Vexing, but couldn't something exist and yet not have any evidence to show that it does? After all the universe is a large place, I am sure there are a great many things that exist yet we have no proof of them. If so then how is the belief that something does not exist because there is no proof, justified? I should imagine there are a great many things in this galaxy, let alone universe, that exist without any proof.

So I imagine you may see how the claim that something does not exist for such reasons, in this case God/s may not be so justified as you think. Then of course you have the idea of God being a metaphysical being which begs the question would we even be able to have proof even if s/he/it/they did exist.

Of course you could claim materialism and that only the physical exists, denying the metaphysical along with anything else. I dislike that however, it feels bleak. Also remember I am no believer, there is no burden on me to show anything, except perhaps that any type of claim about the existence or non-existence of anything should be shown to be rational. I would say the same thing to religious people too, however on this occasion I decided to pick on the atheists 

---

PS GlendaGladWitch, yep I mentioned the strong/weak divide earlier. I also commented how I consider "atheism proper" to be "strong atheism", referring to my original post and my request to justify your belief in the non-existence of God. That is, strong atheism. There is not much to prove concerning weak atheism, it definitely does not have the same implications.

[glendagladwitch]

No, with respect, both of those hold a belief. That is no real distinction at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

So you don't think there is such a thing as a nihilist?  Someone who holds no belifes?  If there is such a thing as a nihilist, is that person an agnostic or an atheist?

[Arch]

Purple swans are prettier? Green giant is larger?

At the back of my mind was the black swan fallacy. I changed the bird to purple, and--Presto!--realized that Vexing was much quicker to post than I was.
Post Merge: June 06, 2010, 06:18:29 PM

Vexing, but couldn't something exist and yet not have any evidence to show that it does?

If there is no evidence that something exists, then I have no basis for believing that it does exist.

Philosophical proofs differ from scientific evidence.

I'm not sure, but I also think you might be conflating "belief" with "faith." My own atheism springs from reasoned beliefs, not unsupported faith. Faith always "works," regardless of whether it's supported by evidence. Science doesn't work that way.

[Dryad]

Me; I don't believe there is no god, I simply don't believe in gods.
A lack of belief. Nothing spiritual or religious about it.
The burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim.
Since I do not claim that there is no god, the one who claims there ís a god should deliver the proof if they want to convince me. The absence of something simply cannot be proven, since there's nothing to prove. The presence of something, however, can be proven. Since it's there. It's that simple.

Me; I don't care whether or not there is a god. Or more. I just don't believe in them. I'm not agnostic, because it's not like 'Meh; I don't know.. It could be that..' Instead, I'm an atheist: 'I don't believe in them. That is all.'

I love religions of all sorts to bits. They tell us so much about human psychology, symbolism, mysticism.. The ways of the mind. History, culture, social structuring.. Love it. I don't need to believe in a deity to love a religion, though. I don't need to follow a religion in order to admire it's many facets, either. As an atheist, I see myself as an observer instead of a participant, when it comes to religion. In some cases, when religion is (ab)used to cause harm or grant power, I will be judgemental. Of course. In the most common cases, I won't.

People who go all out against religion are not real atheists, in my book. Because as an atheist, you have nothing to prove. You don't need to prove anything. And that is not about who's wrong and who's right. It's just simply impossible to prove that something does not exist. After all; if it does exist, it can be proven to exist. If it does not exist, then there is simply no evidence whatsoever.
Atheists who try to prove deities don't exist are as bad as people who are one-hundred percent certain that deities do exist. Nobody can be one-hundred percent certain, anyway, since there are far more factors involved. Psychology, physics, plausibility and more.

The only moment I should have to justify myself as an atheist would be if a deity came at my door, and asked me: So; why don't you believe in me? And the answer I'd give would be: Because there was never a good reason to. Everything that has happened so far could have happened with or without a deity, and since 'without' is a simpler answer than 'with,' which only complicates things further, I went for 'without.'
There you have it.

[Hikari]

My "Justification" is simple. I don't want to believe in god therefore I don't. While I think the logical aspects of atheism are good and all, I personally feel as if I am more of an emotional atheist.

The thought that some sort of intelligent god, created me flaws and all, and allows the suffering I have seen is rather repugnant to me. I don't want to believe in fate, or god or anything else that takes control or responsibility away from my life.

I don't want to knock those who are theists, and I understand that for many people religion serves them in various ways. I have seen several pastors who really did ease the pain and suffering from their community, so I certainly wouldn't proselytize to the theistic community. I think a 'live and let live' attitude is far less stressful...