What is so rational about... [MOD EDIT - moved from Freethinking Anonymous]
Offline Allow me to preface this post by stating that I am not religious, agnostic, nor aethiest. I do not consider myself a part of any system of beliefs, I simply adhere to logic. So, what I need for you to do is open up your mind. Think clearly, think logically.
Rational, reasonable, logical. I do not understand how you can call yourselves rational when aethism calls forth as much faith as any religion. Yes, faith. What is faith? Faith is a belief or statement of truth without proof. Consider this: if the existence of 'God' or 'gods' or what have you could actually be proven or disproven, no one in their right mind would not accept the truth. In order for something to be true or proven true, it has to be tested, and stand up to scrutiny. I'm sorry, but aethists can no more disprove the existence of divine beings than the devout can prove it. The point is, if either side could prove their belief to be true, there would be no such split as there is among people. You are believing (or in this case, disbelieving) based on conjecture and indirect evidence. Thus, aethists have faith. Faith that there is no divine.
All these stunts on Youtube and elsewhere are for attention and to stir the pot, get under the skin of the theists. If you were truly rational, you would admit that you do not know. I believe most religions revolve around the fear of death. Everyone, on some level, fears death. Fears disappearing, fears not existing. Thus, religions were created. Divine beings will grant you eternal life after death, but only if you follow a certain set of rules. Aethism is simply a form of rebellion. While not a religion itself, it has just as much faith as any of the others.
Now, I expect quite a bit of opposition here, just as I would anywhere I challenge someone's faith. However, I believe aethists are in fact one step closer to logic and reason than theists. All you need to do is cast aside your faith of aethism - it is meaningless and no more closer to the truth than any religion. If you are not comfortable with admitting you do not know, then you obviously need a bit of introspective thought. Either that or you need to cope with your pride.
It is unfortunate that I don't think I'd be able to convince the leadership to change the name from Rational Response Squad to something more fitting. Something more illogical.
Discussion is welcome, though I ask that we keep it mature and intelligent. Don't expect a reply from me otherwise.
Happy thinking!
- Login to post comments
okay...
Atheism is NOT A belief, atheism is a LACK of belief. I do not have faith in there not being a god, I LACK faith in a god and I LACK belief in a god.
Also
If you aren't religious, you're an atheist, thats all there is to it. And if you don't know, you're agnostic.
You're either theistic or atheistic, but you have to be one of them, you can't be kinda theistic, or kinda atheistic, you sort of don't believe in a god?
I disagree with your statement if your not religious you're automatically an atheist. There are non practicing Christians and people from all religions. If you do not believe in a god you are atheist, not whether you are religious about it or not.
Support our voice in politics by voting for the question "Is America unofficially a Theocracy?" at http://www.communitycounts.us/debates so it can be asked live at the CNN/YouTube debates!!
Hate to break it to you Gouda but you don't know what you are talking about. I know water is not made of three hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, I don't need faith that it's the case simply because I believe water is 2 hydrogen and one oxygen. If someone came up to me and said water was made up of four aluminum molecules I woudn't need to disprove them, I'd need them to prove their case.
Such is the way with theists. There are thousands of gods that have been promoted as real, it's not up to me to disprove them all. Being a fan of logic you know about the burden of proof. Perhaps you don't and that's why you had to characterize atheism in such a piss poor manner.
Of your OP, I have rarely come across in such great numbers, the negative proof fallacy and fallacy of equivocation and fallacy of argument from ignorance.
Being that you claim versing in logic, I trust you are versed in these? But considering that your argument was utterly riddled with such fallacies, I cannot imagine that you are, hence, for further reference, I would recommend you read this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/the_argument_from_ignorance_and_its_uses_and_abuses
And lastly, atheism per se is not a belief.
At least, the atheism to which you refer, is not a belief. There are no "theories" or "assumptions", unless you can correct me. You have not actually justified anything you have said henceforth. It is merely a negative claim regarding the existence of God, any other attached labels to the group as a whole are incoherent and false.
This is a foolish epistemic fallacy of negative proof. Why is it so frequently employed? The burden of proof does not rest on the negative claimant, rather the positive claimant. If your implication were true, a proposition could be defended solely on basis that it cannot be disproved! This is absurd. Do you believe in fairies merely because they cannot be disproved? Of course not.
Also, you are making a fundamental strawman regarding the atheist position.
A weak atheist makes a negative claim I do not believe that God exists. A weak atheist holds that there is no evidence for God and proofs of God (cosmology, design etc) are invalid, hence there is no reason to accept God without evidence. In this case, the weak atheist is making a valid negative claim. This is cogent but non-binding, meaning that the weak atheist does not know without doubt that God does not exist, they never claimed that, hence making your claim an invalid non sequitor (the claim that absolute knowledge is required to dismiss the concept of God). this is false because the weak atheist position is that were evidence to come along for God, they would either counter it or abdicate their position. I have neve, ever heard a weak atheist claim they know beyond doubt that God does not exist.
Being a logical proposition, the notion of transcendant intelligence should be testable and hence falsifiable. Having studied both the philosophical schools of rationality and empiricism for a long time, I have become convinced it is neither. Hence, any talk of it is meaningless. I tend to view religious proposition as noncognitivist, anyway, so it is irrelevant.
In epistemology, the burden of proof rests on the claimant at all times. Hence, unless evidence is presented for God, only the atheist is operating within their epistemic rights
As of yet, you have hitherto not justified your assertion that "atheism" is a belief, nor have you made reference to which philosophical stance you are referring to (weak atheism, otherwise known as agnostic atheism, or strong atheism, otherwise known as deductive atheism). Regarding the deductive atheist position, there are multiple deductive arguments against theistic propositions. I have written several myself. Like this one:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/all_a_posteriori_arguments_for_the_existence_of_god_are_intellectually_bankrupt
You will note that I said:
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Hi Gouda and welcome to the forums.
The question remains - do you believe in a supernatural entity of any kind or not? You don't have to be "religious" to believe in a god or gods.
If you are as logical and rational as you claim, please join into the discussions and debates. There are plenty going on in the Atheist vs Theist forum!
As an aside, might I suggest that your first post on a forum not be to bash your hosts?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
First off, my apologies for coming off how I did, I certainly could have lightened it up a bit (and the other thread, my bad).
I suppose I'll first address the concept of theism, atheism, and something else entirely. Perhaps is it simply a difference in semantics, but I view theism the belief that there is a higher power, and atheism as the belief that there is no higher power (as opposed to a simple disbelief). My point was, being that there is no proof for either of them, I do not feel comfortable stating either as fact. If I am asked, "Do you believe in a higher power?", my response is simply, "I have no faith, and I dislike stating that which I cannot prove as fact." The religious believe in a specific higher power, the agnostic believe in some higher power (though they don't know what it is), and the atheists believe that there is no higher power. I don't make any of those claims. What does that make me?
I find it somewhat interesting that "the burden of proof does not rest on the negative claimant, rather the positive claimant." I do recall this now, thank you. What I find puzzling is the reason for such a thing. I am most likely wrong in this case, but I suppose I haven't really differentiated between positive and negative claims. I suppose that I'm under the impression that all claims should be able to provide proof.
I also fail to understand why you are so convinced that the existence of a higher power is neither testable or falsifiable. Is it simply because we, as human beings, have not been able to do so? That hardly makes such a thing impossible. Go back in time 2000 years and start talking about electricity and see what happens. Unless you have the means and capability of building your proof of such a thing, not a soul will believe you, and they could easily say that it is not believable because it is neither testable or falsifiable. Does this mean I'm saying that we may one day be able to test the existence of a higher power? No, but being as I do not know what the future holds, I certainly won't rule it out.
I don't know, I guess I view making everyone else prove their claim simply because yours is the negative claim to be something of a cop out. If it is a claim, it should be able to be proven. Again, I'm sure I'm going against fundamental philosophy and rules of argument, but it's not something I feel I can just shake off.
"Go back in time 2000 years and start talking about electricity and see what happens. Unless you have the means and capability of building your proof of such a thing, not a soul will believe you, and they could easily say that it is not believable because it is neither testable or falsifiable."
Oh, so higher power you mean more technologically advanced. Yeah, we have a word for that, Japanese. Well, looks like you debunked Atheism because most people here believe that the Japanese exist.
Perhaps the word you were looking for was 'supernatural'.
The reason the burden of proof is on the positive rather than the negative claimant is that it is completely impossible to prove something does not exist (unless it's something internally contradictory like a married bachelor or the Christian God.) The classic by Bertrand Russel is can you prove there is not a teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
With the proper tools and time I don't see why you couldn't prove that there isn't a teacup orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter during a certain span of time. Obviously something like that could change. If there is a teacup there, it could be removed. And if there isn't one, it could be placed there. So a time span would be necessary, or a way to stop time.
Lacking the means with which to prove or disprove something does not prove nor disprove anything.
hi there!
you still seem not to understand where the burden of proof lies. the one who makes a claim has to prove its correctness or at least its plausability. its quite like in court, where you have to proof the guilt of a verdict before arresting the person.
if this wasn't so, I could accuse anybody of any crime I make up and this person would have to defend him/herself or go to jail. that's ridiculous. In the same way I could come up with any theory about a certain scientific topic and it would be true until someone proves me wrong. That's not the scientific method.
so a theist is a person who makes the claim that there is a god. so he has to prove this. an atheist is just a person who doesn't make such a claim and so has to prove nothing. sure, atheists can give arguments of why the existence of a god isn't plausible, but they don't have to disprove its existence.
and again: "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a god " are different statements
(sorry for any spelling mistakes, I'm german ^^ )
"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts."
Billy Joel, 1993
And God spoke: You can stand under my umberella -ella -ella -eh -eh -eh ...
Let me preface my response by saying your opening salvo is tragically uninspired. Please refrain from future posts focusing on and decontextualizing words like "rational" and "freethinking" as topics for refutation unto themselves. It's been done to death, and it misses the point.
The burden of proof is on the claimant. This is a basic premise of our the US justice system, science, and society in general. If you did not apply this, you would be overloaded by unsubstantiated propositions with no means to evaluate their relevance. Every person would be presumed guilty of every crime, and would require proof of an alibi, regardless of their likelihood as a suspect. It is ridiculous, but that is the reductio ad absurdum of what you propose.
Refer to my post on p3 of "new here, And I believe in God". Atheism is the absence of theism and covers both absence of belief and positive disbelief. I construct an argument to answer your point.
An atheist. Atheism covers the ground of both absence of belief in god, and positive disbelief. You just need to correct your personal dictionary. Are you afraid to label yourself 'atheist'?
"I've stood on the moon". Where's the burden of proof? What is plausible? Rationally reasonable? I suspect you'll understand that, to be taken seriously, I need to provide proof to be believed. "I've never stood on the moon". Repeat tests.
You're not obliged to make up your mind now and never change it. It's rational to form an opinion now, and revise it in light of any relevent developments.
Theists make a positive claim - that god exists; it's up to them to provide proof to support what is otherwise irrational supposition. Atheism is the term applied to those who do not share this irrational, unproven belief.
If Joe tells me that he has a pet unicorn, it is rational for me to disbelieve Joe until he proves its existence. I *cannot* prove the unicorn doesn't exist. Substitute 'god', 'leprechauns' or 'fairies' or whatever you like for 'unicorn'.
KingsleyFascinating points you all make.
No, I'm not afraid to label myself an atheist, and did for a while. However, for me it is making a claim I cannot prove, negative or otherwise, and I feel uncomfortable doing that. Therefore, I have decided to make no claim either way. I understand the argument that atheism is a lack of belief or disbelief. I also understand that technically I am an atheist because, despite the fact that I openly admit that I do not know either way, my simple lack of belief makes me an atheist. However, it just doesn't feel right. Perhaps it's the typical angry angsty atheist stereotype (which I know is simply that, a stereotype) that I'd rather not associate myself with, who knows.
It's somewhat humorous finding myself wishing there is some sort of higher power, most likely stemming from the fear of death. Yet I am completely unable to believe, have faith.
Right or wrong, I tend to take the burden of proof upon myself for claims I make. If I state that there is a god I would feel inclined to prove it. If I state there is no god I would feel inclined to prove it. So I've chosen to make no claim on this topic.
I've been horribly bored lately, so I enjoy this, despite the feathers I'm sure I've ruffled with a couple. :P
Why isn't it comfortable to call yourself an atheist? There just isn't evidence for deities. Oh well. It's not a positive claim, and the strictly scientific thing is to leave it open to new evidence. There just hasn't been any... in all recorded history. But it could show up... at some point.
You sound like me just before I embraced the word atheism. There are two things, perhaps, that are holding you back. One would be the relevance of the outspoken-atheist position, which is easily answerable just by pointing at religious influence in politics.
The other thing is that maybe you associate atheism with a nihilistic/hopeless world view. I assure you it is not. Atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in a supernatural god. The NATURAL universe doesn't stop existing when you reject the supernatural. You may notice my user name.
The natural universe is more wonderful than anything the supernatural religions can offer! All the good stuff that religion claims it has a monopoly on STILL EXISTS, it's just not supernatural.
We still have morality and beautiful art and love and happiness, and it's all natural. Atheism is one of the most mind-expanding positions you can hold.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
My dear Fromage, the claim you would be making is the theist's claims and supposed evidence is not sufficient to warrant a belief in the supernatural.
You've decided to make no claim either way? There is no way you could possibly prove that Thor does not exist. Are you comfortable positioning yourself on the fence, so-to-speak, about the existence of this God? Or perhaps you find it comfortable to neither affirm nor refute the existence of the invisible pink unicorn that I keep in my closet, which is also invisible and mysteriously coloured? It is unreasonable for you to simply have no opinion because it doesn't suite you to have an opinion when you must make a claim that you think you can't defend. I fear I'd get booted for expressing how truly ridiculous that is. It's been pointed out to you that there is no defence an atheist needs to offer, but there is good reason to choose the atheist position (or non-position as it may be). Perhaps a look at it this way will help: The atheist position is the disavowal of another position in the face of a good deal of evidence. There exists no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, but there is a great amount of evidence for the existence of the natural and there is no place in that for the supernatural, naturally. I may not have been succinct enough, but there it is. Or, in disbelieving you are simply making the logical move from a set of facts to a sufficiently probable notion (that the supernatural does not exist). In believing you are making an illogical move from no facts to an insufficiently probable notion (the supernatural does exist). In neither believing nor disbelieving (but necessarily disbelieving) you are holding yourself at the question and awaiting 100% assurance for one answer or the other and that will never come for either (it cannot for anything), but one clearly moves towards that so much so that it essentially negates the probability of the other.
I hope I've been clear; that I haven't muddled anything. I'm working just out of bed and my stomach is empty and that distracts me from being totally rational and coherent. Please, someone correct me if I've been incorrect.
Now, if your only problem with accepting being atheist has to do with a dislike for the term and the stereotype, create a term that makes you happy (though I disagree with that -a gay person doesn't say they're something other than gay just because they can't live with the stereotype people associate with the term; that invites the stereotype to continue and the gay-hate thus to flourish) or kindly put forth a non-stereotypical face with atheism. If you wish there could be a god because of your fear of death, perhaps a therapist can help or a personal rexemanination of the consequence of being alive and the natural conclusion thereof. I must insist that making no claim is an irresponsible position and intellectually thwarting.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Yet another stupid discussion about the meaning of the words we use. How I wish there was better terminology!
Weak atheist: Nobody has proven the existence of God.
Strong atheist: I believe God does not exist.
Gouda, you are a weak atheist. Yes, it is a stupid phrase, I don't like labeling myself as a "weak" anything, but this is how the terminology is currently used. Also:
Weak agnostic: We don't have knowledge of God.
Strong agnostic: We can't have knowledge of God.
You seem to be in the same category as myself, an agnostic atheist, which implies "weak" in both areas. That is for us who believe that faith either way is foolish and illogical, but allow for the possibility that something may be proven at some time in the future.
The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. The agnostic atheist makes no claims regarding the existence of God. The blasphemy challenge is simply a way to get people thinking and talking. Most of the people here don't actually believe they have knowledge of the non-existence of God.
-----
I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.
- Douglas Adams, Salmon of Doubt
"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it." ~ Carl Sagan
And if you want evidence of no god, consider these arguments I collected (ripped off) from other sites which provide logical support that, in respect to God, the lack of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ~ Abraham Lincoln