Theism vs Atheism Part 2

[Whiskey1428]

Ok I would like to start anew because that last thread quickly got out of hand, and we all (including myself) got way off topic. Attacks on misquotings and even lashing out on simple grammatical errors were all prevalent. Let us concentrate on the topic at hand.


I understand atheism is simply a lack of belief. My argument is that it requires just as much faith as theism. The argument I like to use to prove this is a lack of the ability to prove the origins of everything. Of course, I understand the idea, "well we just don't know yet, and that is no reason to assert a god or gods into it." But see here is the inherent problem. We live in a universe where everything is understood by seeing particular interactions between things. And without those interactions (completely a general statement. Let us not delve into petty arguments about "well there could be different interactions which would result in different fundamental principles and such") then nothing would exist. We can go ahead and break it down, break it down again, and yet again, but we are still left with the ultimate question of how and why for the first occurrence (and again, don't get into my definition or interpretation of "occurrence. You understand what I am talking about) of anything. And science's attempt at the popular theory of the "singularity" still brings up the same question,
from where did this occur? For in a universe where everything, that at least we can understand, is understandable by the laws of science, how can one go ahead and assert a theory that brings up an unresolvable task? This question cannot be intrinsically answered by science because everything we can observe is withheld by the laws of science. How are we to explain something not within the laws of science with the laws of science? That is the same as defining a word using that word. Sure, we can explain everything after the first occurrence of itself, but not before. So you end up being stuck with a faith based belief in an "I don't know." And again, one can assert "yet." But still that means one believes something that is not proven. The same exact thing that theism promotes. Faith...


Josh

[BlackSheep]

I understand atheism is simply a lack of belief. My argument is that it requires just as much faith as theism. The argument I like to use to prove this is a lack of the ability to prove the origins of everything. Of course, I understand the idea, "well we just don't know yet, and that is no reason to assert a god or gods into it." But see here is the inherent problem. We live in a universe where everything is understood by seeing particular interactions between things. And without those interactions (completely a general statement. Let us not delve into petty arguments about "well there could be different interactions which would result in different fundamental principles and such") then nothing would exist. We can go ahead and break it down, break it down again, and yet again, but we are still left with the ultimate question of how and why for the first occurrence (and again, don't get into my definition or interpretation of "occurrence. You understand what I am talking about) of anything. And science's attempt at the popular theory of the "singularity" still brings up the same question.

It is still we don't know. It is possible our time-space was caused by something beyond our time-space. Even in this case I fail to see why it would need to be a god or gods. It could be a something akin to a drop hitting a pond of water there and we are the ripple created. The other factor is that when thing occur outside of time can you even have a cause. It is something truly alien to us.

From where did this occur? For in a universe where everything, that at least we can understand, is understandable by the laws of science, how can one go ahead and assert a theory that brings up an unresolvable task? This question cannot be intrinsically answered by science because everything we can observe is withheld by the laws of science. How are we to explain something not within the laws of science with the laws of science? That is the same as defining a word using that word. Sure, we can explain everything after the first occurrence of itself, but not before. So you end up being stuck with a faith based belief in an "I don't know." And again, one can assert "yet." But still that means one believes something that is not proven. The same exact thing that theism promotes. Faith...

Science is simply a methodology for learning about the universe. Are you talking about the theory of I don't know? The big bang theory explains what happened in the early universe not what caused it.

How is there faith in I don't know? What faith is required to say I don't know?

[Jack]

My argument is that it requires just as much faith as theism. The argument I like to use to prove this is a lack of the ability to prove the origins of everything.

As was brought up several times in the other thread, origins of anything have nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief. Your debate ought to be between faith and scientific inquiry. Atheism does not mandate an acceptance of science. It's improper to equate atheism with science. People who don't believe in gods do believe in a lot of things, science among them, but not all atheists accept science.

[ozzie666]

it (atheism) requires just as much faith as theism

so you think i have faith in the fact that there is logically no reason to believe there is such a thing as a god, according to the knowledge we've got so far? thats not called faith my friend. s more like a deduction of likely possibilities to land on a certain result.

The argument I like to use to prove this is a lack of the ability to prove the origins of everything... So you end up being stuck with a faith based belief in an "I don't know"....

so let me get this straight. basically your saying that although we don't know enough yet to prove the origins of the universe, atheism uses faith in the fact that it wasn't designed or created?

that's not faith either. its not like we just don't like the idea of a god, its just not rational or reasonable or logical. so saying "we dont know the cause of the existence of the universe yet, but we will eventually, and im pretty sure we can safely say that with the lack of obvious evidence that there is such a thing as supernaturalism, it can be deduced from the list of possible explanations" requires absolutely no faith.

How are we to explain something not within the laws of science with the laws of science?

its not outside the laws of science. the only reason you think so is cause someone has come along and randomly inserted the concept of the supernatural. you'd think that with all these miracles and mystic beings and power you read about in the bible, there'd be more of it in the world. but honestly how much hard evidence is there for the supernatural? why introduce it when there are other perfectly reasonable explanations? all of which just happen to be produced by science. but!...

not all atheists accept science

so dont get confused in thinking that the rejection of religious belief automatically make you accept all of what science has to say

[Meleagar]

Although atheists like to portray atheism as some kind of simple de facto "lack of a belief", it is of course nothing of the sort - at least not for the vast majority of atheists who constantly argue against theism of any sort. Agnosticism is a "lack of belief" in god; atheism as the term is used in modern times is the positive belief that there are no gods. This is why the term "agnosticism" was invented; because atheism by that time had come to mean a positive proposition - that there are no gods. Atheists use this diversionary tactic, IMO, so they can avoid being called to defend what they realize is an indefensible position - the positive claim that no gods exist.

While atheists often say that their view is "simply" a "lack of belief" that gods exist, they certainly do not argue as if what they hold is a simple, neutral "lack of belief". As I pointed out in another thread on this site, atheism (the view that no gods exist) is not a rationally tenable position for any person informed of the evidence and arguments for theism. Neutral agnosticism - being unconvinced by the evidence and arguments - is a tenable position. However, neutral agnostics would hardly bother ridiculing and attacking theists, or attempt to rebut and disprove any arguments and evidence; why devotedly argue with emotional prejudice against something one simply has a neutral lack of belief in? No, atheism is, as Merriam Webster defines:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

and, as it defines "disbelief":

mental rejection of something as untrue

So, atheism is definitionally (if not etymologically) the position that no gods exist, and claiming that atheism is simply a neutral lack of belief that proponents of which are not obligated to support is both shifting the burden and an attempt to avoid any obligation to support one's views. It's a semantic dodge, nothing more.

So, how would one go about supporting the positive, universal claim that no gods exist, without shifting the burden to others? It is an impossible claim to support, which is why atheists are so insistent that it is not really a worldview belief or a positive assertion - which it certainly is, and a major one at that. Atheism is an intrinsic, positive aspect of a larger worldview that would not be the same if one were theist or even agnostic. For many atheists (let's be honest), atheism is in fact the founding cornerstone of their entire worldview; it's not only, as they would characterize it, some minor belief they just don't happen to have, as if it were a lack of belief that George Washington ever chopped down a cherry tree and then owned up to it later.

But to the topic, what Whiskey refers to is part of a solid argument for the existence of an uncaused cause, which is a necessary first principle. To avoid logic-destroying (and science-destroying) premises of something causing itself, or something being caused by nothing, or infinite regress of cause, one must (as Aristotle noted) opt for the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause. In order for sufficient cause to be locally attributed, and attributed in a meaningful way, one must assume (whether they realize it or not) some kind of uncaused cause, an unmoved mover.

In a practical sense, we attribute "uncaused cause" only to deliberate agencies such as humans. It is the only kind of "uncaused cause" we generally acknowledge in our daily life, and the only practical, logical solution to the problem of infinite regress, unless one is willing to embrace absurdities and simply ignore their use of first cause and uncaused-cause premises in their life and arguments. Theism, as uncaused-cause, unmoved-mover and "first cause", is of course a logically sufficient and sound premise. Atheism has nothing to offer except logic- and science-destroying absurdities that they simply ignore while going about, in practical application, using the theist's causational premises, even while denying they are doing so.

[arX]

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

and, as it defines "disbelief":

mental rejection of something as untrue

If you were intellectually honest enough to quote the full definition, we'd find that it first defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving" and disbelieve as "to hold not worthy of belief" or "not believe".

[Meleagar]

If you were intellectually honest enough to quote the full definition, we'd find that it first defines disbelief as "the act of disbelieving" and disbelieve as "to hold not worthy of belief" or "not believe".

If atheists were intellectually honest, we wouldn't even be arguing this. Of course they believe no gods exist (why else argue about it so vociferously and ridicule and attack theists?); of course it's a positive assertion about the nature of existence, and of course it's an intrinsic, necessary part of their greater worldviews. Trying to pass it off as some kind of de facto, simple, isolated "lack of belief" is beyond intellectually dishonest - it's obviously deceitful and, IMO, cowardly.

[BlackSheep]

Although atheists like to portray atheism as some kind of simple de facto "lack of a belief", it is of course nothing of the sort - at least not for the vast majority of atheists who constantly argue against theism of any sort. Agnosticism is a "lack of belief" in god; atheism as the term is used in modern times is the positive belief that there are no gods. This is why the term "agnosticism" was invented; because atheism by that time had come to mean a positive proposition - that there are no gods. Atheists use this diversionary tactic, IMO, so they can avoid being called to defend what they realize is an indefensible position - the positive claim that no gods exist.

You really need to focus on your position and not ours. I am pretty sure we know our mind better than you.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is not a lack of belief, but rather a lack of knowledge.

Atheism is the simple lack of belief. Your statement about a diversionary tactic is itself a idea game. How does one prove anything doesn't exist? Before someone brought back the body of a gorilla they were considered imaginary like sasquatch is today. People who believe in the sasquatch claim there is evidence they do exist and that you can't prove they don't exist. This statement can be made about a million things that are generally not believed in. It is not expected in general that people do not prove things don't exist if there is no significant evidence. It is accepted that the person who makes a positive claim about somethings existence must prove it unless the evidence is convincing. Keep in mind in terms of gods, most people have doubts and it is clearly based on the lack of evidence. Theists believe largely on faith, just like people who believe in sasquatch.

While atheists often say that their view is "simply" a "lack of belief" that gods exist, they certainly do not argue as if what they hold is a simple, neutral "lack of belief". As I pointed out in another thread on this site, atheism (the view that no gods exist) is not a rationally tenable position for any person informed of the evidence and arguments for theism. Neutral agnosticism - being unconvinced by the evidence and arguments - is a tenable position. However, neutral agnostics would hardly bother ridiculing and attacking theists, or attempt to rebut and disprove any arguments and evidence; why devotedly argue with emotional prejudice against something one simply has a neutral lack of belief in? No, atheism is, as Merriam Webster defines:

These definitions were written largely if not exclusively by theists. As I mentioned above the only reason this issue is flogged over and over is because certain people want to claim atheists need to prove their claims. As mentioned above this is irrational. Essentially it means I must be in a state of possibly accepting almost everything anyone can imagine, because they are impossible to disprove.

I don't believe in gods. I don't know they don't exist, I just see not enough evidence for this extraordinary claim. It is no more an untenable position that claiming I don't beleve in sasquatch, fairies, sea monsters, alien abductions etc.

This whole issue is a red herring.

So, atheism is definitionally (if not etymologically) the position that no gods exist, and claiming that atheism is simply a neutral lack of belief that proponents of which are not obligated to support is both shifting the burden and an attempt to avoid any obligation to support one's views. It's a semantic dodge, nothing more.

As demonstrating above it is not. Trying to force others to negate your claim of god is.

So, how would one go about supporting the positive, universal claim that no gods exist, without shifting the burden to others? It is an impossible claim to support, which is why atheists are so insistent that it is not really a worldview belief or a positive assertion - which it certainly is, and a major one at that. Atheism is an intrinsic, positive aspect of a larger worldview that would not be the same if one were theist or even agnostic. For many atheists (let's be honest), atheism is in fact the founding cornerstone of their entire worldview; it's not only, as they would characterize it, some minor belief they just don't happen to have, as if it were a lack of belief that George Washington ever chopped down a cherry tree and then owned up to it later.

I would agree it is an important distinction in the worldview of athiest vs theiest. Theists beleive in higher powers and we don't.

But to the topic, what Whiskey refers to is part of a solid argument for the existence of an uncaused cause, which is a necessary first principle. To avoid logic-destroying (and science-destroying) premises of something causing itself, or something being caused by nothing, or infinite regress of cause, one must (as Aristotle noted) opt for the unmoved mover, the uncaused cause. In order for sufficient cause to be locally attributed, and attributed in a meaningful way, one must assume (whether they realize it or not) some kind of uncaused cause, an unmoved mover.

You are creating a strawman in your claim we say something came from nothing. There very well may be an uncaused cause, but it certainly would not need to be a god and one has to ponder the idea of a cause of time.

In a practical sense, we attribute "uncaused cause" only to deliberate agencies such as humans. It is the only kind of "uncaused cause" we generally acknowledge in our daily life, and the only practical, logical solution to the problem of infinite regress, unless one is willing to embrace absurdities and simply ignore their use of first cause and uncaused-cause premises in their life and arguments. Theism, as uncaused-cause, unmoved-mover and "first cause", is of course a logically sufficient and sound premise. Atheism has nothing to offer except logic- and science-destroying absurdities that they simply ignore while going about, in practical application, using the theist's causational premises, even while denying they are doing so.

Atheism don't try to offer anything in general, but unlike theist we don't tend to smply assume. There are many speculations about the origon of our space time and none have any real solid support. The best answer is to say I don't know.

To assume that the cause must be an intelligent agent is pure speculation and nothing more.

[Jack]

...atheism as the term is used in modern times is the positive belief that there are no gods.

That's a theist's definition of atheism. That's not the stated opinion of many atheists.

This is why the term "agnosticism" was invented...

Read this to learn why the term agnostic was coined, written by the man who defined it.

The reader who has had the patience to follow the enforced, but unwilling, egotism of this veritable history (especially if his studies have led him in the same direction), will now see why my mind steadily gravitated towards the conclusions of Hume and Kant, so well stated by the latter in a sentence, which I have quoted elsewhere.


"The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of pure reason is, after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an organon for the enlargement [of knowledge], but as a discipline for its delimitation; and, instead of discovering truth, has only the modest merit of preventing error."11


When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclu[238]sion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble...This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, long since deceased, but of green and pious memory, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there, and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled.


That is the history of the origin of the terms [240] "agnostic" and "agnosticism"; and it will be observed that it does not quite agree with the confident assertion of the reverend Principal of King's College, that "the adoption of the term agnostic is only an attempt to shift the issue, and that it involves a mere evasion" in relation to the Church and Christianity.12

...why else argue about it so vociferous and ridicule and attack theists?

For an agnostic Huxley had some pretty strong opinions on Christianity:

Whether it is so depends, I imagine, a good deal on whether the man was brought up in a Christian household or not. I do not see why it should be "unpleasant" for a Mahommedan or Buddhist to say so. But that "it ought to be" unpleasant for any man to say anything which he sincerely, and after due deliberation, believes, is, to my mind, a proposition of the most profoundly immoral character. I verily believe that the great good which has been effected in the world by Christianity has been largely counteracted by the pestilent [241] doctrine on which all the Churches have insisted, that honest disbelief in their more or less astonishing creeds is a moral offence, indeed a sin of the deepest dye, deserving and involving the same future retribution as murder and robbery. If we could only see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the slaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity, which have flowed from this source along the course of the history of Christian nations, our worst imaginations of Hell would pale beside the vision.


A thousand times, no! It ought not to be unpleasant to say that which one honestly believes or disbelieves. That it so constantly is painful to do so, is quite enough obstacle to the progress of mankind in that most valuable of all qualities, honesty of word or of deed, without erecting a sad concomitant of human weakness into something to be admired and cherished. The bravest of soldiers often, and very naturally, "feel it unpleasant" to go into action; but a court-martial which did its duty would make short work of the officer who promulgated the doctrine that his men ought to feel their duty unpleasant.


I am very well aware, as I suppose most thoughtful people are in these times, that the process of breaking away from old beliefs is extremely unpleasant; and I am much disposed to think that the encouragement, the consolation, and the peace afforded to earnest believers in even the [242] worst forms of Christianity are of great practical advantage to them. What deductions must be made from this gain on the score of the harm done to the citizen by the ascetic other-worldliness of logical Christianity; to the ruler, by the hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness of sectarian bigotry; to the legislator, by the spirit of exclusiveness and domination of those that count themselves pillars of orthodoxy; to the philosopher, by the restraints on the freedom of learning and teaching which every Church exercises, when it is strong enough; to the conscientious soul, by the introspective hunting after sins of the mint and cummin type, the fear of theological error, and the overpowering terror of possible damnation, which have accompanied the Churches like their shadow, I need not now consider; but they are assuredly not small. If agnostics lose heavily on the one side, they gain a good deal on the other. People who talk about the comforts of belief appear to forget its discomforts; they ignore the fact that the Christianity of the Churches is something more than faith in the ideal personality of Jesus, which they create for themselves, plus so much as can be carried into practice, without disorganising civil society, of the maxims of the Sermon on the Mount. Trip in morals or in doctrine (especially in doctrine), without due repentance or retractation, or fail to get properly baptized before you die, and a plébiscite of the Christians of Europe, if they [243] were true to their creeds, would affirm your everlasting damnation by an immense majority.

As I pointed out in another thread on this site, atheism (the view that no gods exist) is not a rationally tenable position for any person informed of the evidence and arguments for theism.

It doesn't take a rhetorical genius to show the weakness in "the positive, universal claim that no gods exist". But of course that's not the claim made by the majority of atheists I've read and talked to, nor does it fit into the dictionary definition you quoted. The disbelief in distinct gods, those worshiped and written about by humans throughout history can be logically defended.

So, atheism is definitionally (if not etymologically) the position that no gods exist, and claiming that atheism is simply a neutral lack of belief that proponents of which are not obligated to support is both shifting the burden and an attempt to avoid any obligation to support one's views. It's a semantic dodge, nothing more.

Odd you should assert this since etymologically "atheist" means nothing more or less than a- "without" + theos "a god", without a god, and atheism the state of being without a god.

[BlackSheep]

If atheists were intellectually honest, we wouldn't even be arguing this. Of course they believe no gods exist (why else argue about it so vociferous and ridicule and attack theists?); of course it's a positive assertion about the nature of existence, and of course it's an intrinsic, necessary part of their greater worldviews. Trying to pass it off as some kind of de facto, simple, isolated "lack of belief" is beyond intellectually dishonest - it's obviously deceitful and, IMO, cowardly.

I am very intelectualy honest.
I personaly feel their are no gods. I do so because there is not enough evidence to be even close to convincing. I can't prove there are no gods. If there were no gods there would be no way to prove it. As stated before athiests do argue this way because otherwise theists tend to say then prove it. You and I know there is no way to prove there are no gods even if there were none.

Now I am not suggesting there is anyway to prove gods exist, what I am suggesting is that you beleive without evidence that would be convincing in a court of law, using the scientific method or in our day to day existence. Lets use an example.

A man comes up to you and says he is the last living heir to a royal line of ancient kings and that assassins are after him. He produces dcumentation which is obviously not an origonal that claims he is. He shows you the scar of what he claims is the result of an assassination attempt. Would you beleive him? I suggest that very few would. If you told him of your disbelief and he suggested it is up to you to prove he is not what would you respond with?

[Meleagar]

That's a theist's definition of atheism.

No, that's a dictionary's definition. But, that aside, and more importantly, it is the view of many if not most atheists. They believe no gods exist, whether they will attempt to defend that belief honestly or not.

That's not the stated opinion of many atheists.

It is the stated opinion of many atheists. The stated opinion of many atheists is that no gods exist; when challenged to defend this belief, some of course retreat behind the dodge that they only "lack" belief ... and now, you add, only in certain gods.

Because atheism, which is the belief that no gods exist, is indefensible, and we all know it. It is an article of pure faith.

[Jack]

No, that's a dictionary's definition. But, that aside, and more importantly, it is the view of many if not most atheists. They believe no gods exist, whether they will attempt to defend that belief honestly or not.

It is the stated opinion of many atheists. The stated opinion of many atheists is that no gods exist; when challenged to defend this belief, some of course retreat behind the dodge that they only "lack" belief ... and now, you add, only in certain gods.

Because atheism, which is the belief that no gods exist, is indefensible, and we all know it. It is an article of pure faith.

Assertions made without even a hint of evidence can and should be dismissed as uninformed opinion.

There is a vast difference between asserting that the gods invented by humans and worshiped throughout history cannot be shown to exist and therefore disbelief is a logical though conditional position to hold regarding their existence and making "the positive, universal claim that no gods exist". Provide compelling evidence that can't be explained in any other way than by a particular god's existence and we may alter our position.