Philosophy Now Forum

I.C.,

Perhaps I missed it, but it seems that with your last paragraph, you've not considered the atheist who arrives at his/her position through argumentation. That is to say, they hold to whatever would be the reverses of the various arguments for theism (for example, a Reverse Ontological Argument). Certainly, those arguments are not convincing for the theist (and for good reason), but they might prove sufficiently convincing for the atheist. There seems to me to be at least some warrant to be found in a sort of "logical atheism." Or at the very least, the viewpoint doesn't strike me as "stupid," in the same way that the 14th-century belief that the Sun revolves around the Earth doesn't strike me as "stupid," just wrong. I'm sure many an intelligent person held to that belief. They even had good warrant to do so.

As for the bulk of your post, I think you're quite right.


As an aside, thedoc, I think you've made a mistake to refer to atheist as "claiming a non-belief." Unless I've just misunderstood, the atheist is actually claiming a belief, and the belief is that God does not exist. Perhaps this is the nit-picking of which you spoke, but it seems to me that this is quite an important detail, especially in the face of claims made by the New Atheists that they simply have "no belief." If they're right, then dogs are atheists, as are worms, trees, rocks, etc, etc, etc.

the atheist who arrives at his/her position through argumentation. That is to say, they hold to whatever would be the reverses of the various arguments for theism (for example, a Reverse Ontological Argument).

In other words, "the Theists haven't convinced me," is what they're saying? But then the warranted position is not Atheism but Agnosticism: for unless the Argument-Based Atheist could know there were no arguments even *possible,* then a state of guarded uncertainty is the right epistemic posture...certainly not a cavalier dismissal.

"The Theists haven't convinced me, but if they had better arguments maybe they could..." is intellectually tenable. "I'm no longer interested in evidence" is not intellectually tenable.

But now I'm interested: spell out for me what you think a "Reverse Ontological Argument" would look like.

I'm commenting on IC's most recent post regarding the atheistic position. His argument is weak because it's really like a strawman for the theist position as well regarding God's existence as theists have no evidence, nothing beyond their subjective beliefs for God's existence and I would suggest to Immanuel that he find a better argument against the atheistic position.

PhilX

Posted in error.

I've been often talking to atheists, mostly Italian atheists (who are terrible), my supposition is that atheism can not exist, as if you deny the existence of God, you must have the concept of God, otherwise you could not deny anything. As for the argument of Anselmo d'Aosta, if you have the idea of God, then God exists; now, I don't want to claim this one or any other assumption regarding the notion of atheism, but according to the argument, being God... God, He\She\It could never lack of anything, neither of the existence. Otherwise He\She\It could not be God, that is the absolute Perfection. Being God absolutely perfect, could not lack of anything. Neither as a concept. In fact the concept of God does exist. If you state the not existence of God, you could not state the not existence of a concept you are denying. This concept is that of a being of which you could never think something greater. In any way, you can deny the physical existence of something, not its idea. That's impossible. And the idea, is something real in everyone's mind, in some way, it is.
I find more convincing the assumption of agnosticism, which suspends any judgment. Logically, its strongest than atheistics' assumption. Finally, I've always thought that real not-believers are only agnostics.
(Italian atheists usually chew out me... poor
I only face them my logical point of view )

ReliStuPhD wrote: As an aside, thedoc, I think you've made a mistake to refer to atheist as "claiming a non-belief." Unless I've just misunderstood, the atheist is actually claiming a belief, and the belief is that God does not exist. Perhaps this is the nit-picking of which you spoke, but it seems to me that this is quite an important detail, especially in the face of claims made by the New Atheists that they simply have "no belief." If they're right, then dogs are atheists, as are worms, trees, rocks, etc, etc, etc.

That comment was in response to a previous post that included the idea that an Atheist claimed non-belief in God. I understand that all atheists are not cut from the same cloth just as not all Christians, or those of any religion, are not all cut from the same cloth. I was only addressing that one point, which I do a lot, and often it is mistaken as my only position on the subject. I have a much wider variety of beliefs and opinions, I just don't express them all.

PhilX:

theists have no evidence,

Do you expect such an evidently untrue statement to stand unquestioned? Why? There are plenty of Evidentiary Theists...that you do not like their evidence, or that having examined it you remain unconvinced may be true, but it's a secondary question. The fact that they use evidence certainly falsifies your statement.

I would suggest to Immanuel that he find a better argument against the atheistic position.

I don't need one. The Atheist position is all I need, for it is self-refuting. It's as stupid as saying, "I'm a ham sandwich." You can no more be an "Evidentiary Atheist" than you can be a ham sandwich.

As a matter of fact, I don't even have to prove the Theist case to show that the Atheist could not possibly have possession of the evidence he claims to have, and so his Atheism is pure wishful thinking. An Agnostic can be so on a basis that is rational; an Atheist, never.

Even Dawkins knows this: why don't you?

As a detour to "What should religion be based on?", it occurs to me to ask "How many base their religion on music or art?", and in art I will include movies based on religious themes. A specific point, how many think that Cecil B Demille directed the definitive versions of the Bible stories, and how many people think that popular songs express their religion.

thedoc:

But will the stupidity of the superstitious excuse the stupidity of the Atheist? It's hard to see how. Stupidity is stupidity, isn't it? For there are irrational Skeptics, and there are thoughtful ones; and there are irrational Theists and thoughtful ones. Let us not trouble ourselves much with the latter, and occupy ourselves with the former.

But Evidentiary Atheists belong all to the latter. So let us speak instead of thoughtful Agnosticism.

thedoc wrote:That comment was in response to a previous post that included the idea that an Atheist claimed non-belief in God. I understand that all atheists are not cut from the same cloth just as not all Christians, or those of any religion, are not all cut from the same cloth. I was only addressing that one point, which I do a lot, and often it is mistaken as my only position on the subject. I have a much wider variety of beliefs and opinions, I just don't express them all.

Fair enough.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I'm commenting on IC's most recent post regarding the atheistic position. His argument is weak because it's really like a strawman for the theist position as well regarding God's existence as theists have no evidence, nothing beyond their subjective beliefs for God's existence

There's a key difference between theistic evidence and atheistic evidence: the latter must be all-encompassing. Atheists are trying to prove the negative which is, as we all know, an exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, thing to do. It is the atheist who is making the stronger claim. To state "X does not exist" is taking upon oneself a tremendous burden. "Extra-terrestrial life does not exist" is much harder to prove than "Extra-terrestrial life does exist." This is why evidence-based arguments for atheists fall short: there is no conclusive evidence for the absence of a metaphysical God. There may be logical proofs (which is what I was arguing), but I fail to see how an atheist could ever offer evidence that God does not exist since one could simply point to the places where the atheist has not looked (and those are innumerable).

Immanuel Can wrote:In other words, "the Theists haven't convinced me," is what they're saying? But then the warranted position is not Atheism but Agnosticism: for unless the Argument-Based Atheist could know there were no arguments even *possible,* then a state of guarded uncertainty is the right epistemic posture...certainly not a cavalier dismissal.

"The Theists haven't convinced me, but if they had better arguments maybe they could..." is intellectually tenable. "I'm no longer interested in evidence" is not intellectually tenable.

No, this was not the position I was arguing (or at least I hope it wasn't), but I agree with your appraisal of that argument.

Immanuel Can wrote:But now I'm interested: spell out for me what you think a "Reverse Ontological Argument" would look like.

Basically, "It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist" and then proceed from there using the usual premises.
(nb I am not saying I find this argument convincing, but I can nevertheless understand how someone could, in which case I would no more call their belief stupid than I would someone who held to a proper Ontological Argument.)

Basically, "It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist" and then proceed from there using the usual premises.

But that doesn't really work, does it?

After all, if it's only "possible" the maximally great Being does not exist, then it's possible He does; and then again, only Agnosticism is warranted. I don't see that from that we can get to any kind of rational Atheism. The Atheist really needs a categorical statement, not a hypothetical one.

Immanuel Can wrote:

The fact is that "GOD" is not a single coherent proposition.

Oh, so you DO know what the word means? Because if you didn't, you could not be so sure it wasn't a coherent idea...but you seem so certain...

God could mean anything.

Oh, so you DON'T know?...for something that "means anything" also means no particular thing.
delete

Oh dear. A return to that old black and white thinking.

I take it you have no argument for God, else you would have had the balls to actually answer rather then respond with your usual childish obfuscation.

Immanuel Can wrote:PhilX:

theists have no evidence,

Do you expect such an evidently untrue statement to stand unquestioned? Why? There are plenty of Evidentiary Theists...that you do not like their evidence, or that having examined it you remain unconvinced may be true, but it's a secondary question. The fact that they use evidence certainly falsifies your statement.

I would suggest to Immanuel that he find a better argument against the atheistic position.

I don't need one. The Atheist position is all I need, for it is self-refuting. It's as stupid as saying, "I'm a ham sandwich." You can no more be an "Evidentiary Atheist" than you can be a ham sandwich.

As a matter of fact, I don't even have to prove the Theist case to show that the Atheist could not possibly have possession of the evidence he claims to have, and so his Atheism is pure wishful thinking. An Agnostic can be so on a basis that is rational; an Atheist, never.

Even Dawkins knows this: why don't you?

I'm beginning to think that you are more than confused. You seem to have a profound cognitive problem.
Atheism does not require evidence; theism does.

I'm beginning to think that you are more than confused. You seem to have a profound cognitive problem.
Atheism does not require evidence; theism does.

No, you're just confused again. I can help.

Atheism contains one positive claim: namely, "There IS NO God." In other words, it claims to KNOW a NEGATIVE. Now, unless it "knows" it only by way of wishful thinking, it owes its adherents to say what evidence it has to support its fundamental claim.

Problem is, it has none. It could not possibly "know" what it claims. So you're simply wrong when you say "Atheism does not require evidence." You're being fooled by the fact that it is negative in its statement. But negatives, if they are asserted as the product of certain knowledge, still require evidentiary proof.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I'm beginning to think that you are more than confused. You seem to have a profound cognitive problem.
Atheism does not require evidence; theism does.

No, you're just confused again. I can help.

Atheism contains one positive claim: namely, "There IS NO God." .

No. It might contain that claim, though need not.

Like I said before and you ignored, making a positive claim about a negative is absurd; hence my position.

To state that you believe there is no god, would entail nominating a version, or versions of god, and so validating the thing you want to refute.
But atheism is broader than that. Atheism is as applicable to a Buddhist, or any other person who for whatever reason, did not have a god in their lives.
What you seem to want to describe is an anti-theist.

THis is the heart of your confusion.
And please don't repeat for a third time to idiotic claim that this means I believe in god because I view atheism as contentless.

So back to your statement.
You say atheism entails a claim there is no "GOD", but you have not stated what you mean by "god". So like theists since the beginning of human history you are imposing your own definitions on others. To Catholics, Protestants were atheists. So stop oppressing me with your delusion please.