Have you ever seen those motivational posters that have a nice, serene or inspiring picture, and a word-message beneath it? For example, it might show a rock climber pulling himself over the summit of a mountain. And the word will be “achievement,” followed by some inspirational line about achievement. I hate those posters! I much prefer the ones created by Despair, Inc. One of my favorites is “Incompetence: When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there’s no end to what you can’t do.”
I would like to make a polemical “demotivational” poster of my own on the topic of “Atheism,” and I would like your help in determining the caption and picture. Here are the captions I have come up with:
- Atheism: The best way to become your own boss is to pretend your boss doesn’t exist
- Atheism: Because God didn’t qualify for the job
- Atheism: There is no God, and I hate him.
- Atheism: An elite club for those with enough faith to believe everything came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing, Amen.
- Atheism: Because nobody tells me what to do.
Which is your favorite? Can you think of some alternatives? Paint for me a picture to go along with the caption you selected. For example, for the first caption I envision a big corporate conference room with a man sitting in the CEO’s chair on his lap, acting as if the CEO is not there.
Thinking to Believe 
February 13, 2009 at 8:42 am
You’ve covered about every strawman and stereotype with one post. I applaud you for that.
Here’s mine.
Atheism: Because no religious claims have any good evidence to back them up.
Not very catchy. But accurate.
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 12:41 pm
morsec0de,
It’s obviously supposed to be a caricature. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be funny.
As for your suggestion, I can’t but help to conclude that you haven’t read any philosophers of religion who defend theism (there is an abundance of rational and even empirical evidence for theism). Apparently, you haven’t read many of my other posts either, where I make such arguments. If you care to take exception with my assessment of your studies, then please produce for me just two arguments for theism, and why they are mistaken. My guess is that you won’t be able to produce any, or you’ll produce sophomoric arguments presented by lay Christians, or you’ll present a straw-man version of good arguments. Because if you read anyone of intellectual substance who disagreed with you, even if you ultimtely didn’t find their arguments persuasive, you would recognize that there are good arguments to be made for theism.
I would also like to hear your evidence for God’s non-existence. Why believe God cannot, or does not exist?
Jason
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Philosophers don’t deal in evidence. They deal in arguments. An argument does not equal evidence.
I can argue with you, quite persuasively, that I am in fact the Pope. I have no evidence to back it up, but that doesn’t mean the arguments don’t work.
Arguments are fine. But they mean nothing unless backed up or built on evidence.
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 12:57 pm
As for ‘evidence of god’s non-existence’, it doesn’t work that way. The burden of proof is on the believer.
Unless you would like to give me evidence for the non-existence of leprechauns…while keeping in mind they’re magical and can be invisible and intangible whenever they like.
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Are you serious? If I claim to have a square circle in my glove compartment, it is not evidence against my view to point out that a square circle cannot exist in any possible world because the very notion is self-contradictory? Of course it is. Philosophy does deal with evidence: rational evidence. Science, on the other hand, deals with empirical evidence. You’ve been brainwashed by scientism to think that if it cannot be proven empirically, that it cannot be known at all. Not true. After all, that truth (the truth that all truth is empirical) cannot itself be verified empirically. It is self-refuting, then, to claim that only empirical evidence is valid evidence, and can give us true knowledge.
If you think claiming you are the pope is an exercise in philosophy, you are quite mistaken. Given your analogy, I’m not even sure I can assume you know what philosophy is, and how it works.
Jason
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 5:28 pm
As for the burden of proof, you are only half right. The burden of proof rests not with any one position (theism or atheism), but with any person making a claim to knowledge. If I claim God exists, then the burden of proof rests with me to support that with evidence. If you claim God does not exist, then the burden of proof lies on you to support that claim. That is difficult for atheists because it is impossible to prove a universal negative, unless it is self-referentially contradictory (like a square circle). But there is nothing about the notion of a divine transcendent being that is internally incoherent or self-contradictory. So you are only left with giving reasons to think a divine being probably doesn’t exist.
I would highly recommend you read my short article here (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/presumptionatheism.htm), debunking this popular idea of a “presumption of atheism.” As I wrote in the article, atheism is a worldview. As such, it has the burden of explaining reality, both as it is, and as we experience it, without reference to God:
“Atheism must stand on its own merits. It must be judged by its internal coherence, explanatory scope, and explanatory superiority over other worldviews. It must be judged by how well it explains reality and human experience. If atheists expect anyone to take their worldview seriously, they need to do more than argue that theistic worldviews lack sufficient warrant. They must show how atheism can explain the existence of the universe, free will, rationality, consciousness, and the like without reference to God. Indeed, they must show that an atheist explanation is superior to, and more likely than other alternatives. If nothing else, then, in the presence of competing worldviews atheists have the burden of proof to show why their worldview is superior to the next. That requires some level of justification for the notion that God does not exist.”
So we both have a burden of proof. The reason I am convinced of theism is because I think it meets its burden much better than does atheism.
Jason
LikeLike
February 13, 2009 at 5:30 pm
morsec0de,
I apologize for saying you have been “brainwashed.” That was uncalled for. I should have said “improperly let to believe.”
Jason
LikeLike
February 14, 2009 at 1:00 am
Atheism: There is no God, and I hate him.
^ This one takes the cake.
Off topic: Just wanna’ say I enjoy reading your blog. I check it every few days. It’s good stuff. (b’.’)b
LikeLike
February 14, 2009 at 10:50 am
random lurker,
Thanks for your input. What kind of picture do you suggest to go along with that phrase? Remember, it should be funny.
I’m glad you visit the blog regularly. Thanks for your support, and thanks for making your presence known by posting a comment. Spread the word about Theosophical Ruminations!
Jason
LikeLike
February 14, 2009 at 10:55 am
My favorite is the one that’s true
“Atheism: Because God didn’t qualify for the job”
LikeLike
February 16, 2009 at 8:52 am
More proof for atheism. There are billions of earth-like planets just in our galaxy.
“Not only are they probably habitable but they probably are also going to be inhabited,” Dr Boss told BBC News. “But I think that most likely the nearby ‘Earths’ are going to be inhabited with things which are perhaps more common to what Earth was like three or four billion years ago.” That means bacterial lifeforms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm
LikeLike
February 16, 2009 at 9:15 am
I agree with “random lurker”–“Atheism: There is no God, and I hate him” is priceless. As for an accompanying picture, how about someone looking crazed and tearing into a blank canvas with a knife? Just a thought.
Yvelyn: Dr. Boss suggests that there could be as many as 100 billion earth-like planets in our galaxy, based on actual observation of about 300 planets–none of which are earth-like. You call that “proof”? Seems more like wild speculation to me; some would call it faith.
LikeLike
February 16, 2009 at 9:28 am
Or how about someone throwing darts at a blank wall or an empty picture frame? Maybe just show a wall covered with multiple framed portraits of atheist philosophers, and an empty frame in the middle with a bunch of darts already stuck in it. You get the idea.
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 8:25 am
“Atheism: There is no God, and I hate him.”
Blahhaaahahaaaa LOL! Now that one was hilarious to me. I see that mentality put into practice by so many people – not just with atheism, but with different topics. ha. Anyhow, I like the visuals that aletheist came up with, especially “someone looking crazed and tearing into a blank canvas with a knife” – lol!
For that same caption, what about a man looking absolutely exhausted yet still trying to fight, throwing a punch in a boxing ring with no opponent – with a bubble comment rising from his head (to show his thoughts) which says, “I hate you!” In his corner of the ring, let there be dynamite, grenades, missiles, books and articles that say Anti – God, etc.
Lol…*shrugs*….
As for another caption — hmmm —-
“Atheism: Because I never believe in things I can’t see!”
Then show someone dressed in a white lab coat, sitting in their office at their desk, with a BIG smile on their face, eyes closed (from smiling so hard), and their hands folded on top of his desk. Then at the front of their desk, have a identification plate (whatever they call it) which has their name on it (you know how you see those at people’s desks) and then under their name is their occupation which reads: ‘Toxic GAS Specialist’– followed by the company motto which says “though you can’t see it, it’s there. Beware!”
😉
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 9:00 am
Just to see if you’re good at taking a joke. 😉
Christianity: Because reading just one book is good enough for a lifetime.
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 11:36 am
morsec0de,
I was hoping you would respond to my challenge, as well as my comments about the burden of proof.
As for line about Christianity, it made me chuckle.
Jason
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 11:38 am
These are some good suggestions. Keep ’em coming!
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 11:38 am
I’ve been away, so I may have missed your post. Sorry. I’ll respond tonight if I have anything worth saying.
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 4:42 pm
“You’ve been brainwashed by scientism to think that if it cannot be proven empirically, that it cannot be known at all.”
Wrong.
Number one, it saddens me that you miss the irony in this statement.
Secondly, there is no such word as ‘scientism’.
Third, we’re not talking about ideas or concepts. We’re talking about things and facts. If you want to argue that your god exists as a concept, fine, no argument. But until or unless there is good empirical evidence for it, then it isn’t a real thing. It’s just a concept or idea.
“but with any person making a claim to knowledge.”
Exactly.
You are making a claim. I am not.
You are saying ‘God exists, and this is what he’s like…’
I’m saying ‘I don’t believe you.’
“But there is nothing about the notion of a divine transcendent being that is internally incoherent or self-contradictory.”
So? There is nothing about the notion of a young man who has magical powers and attends a school in Great Britain that is internally incoherent or self-contradictory. That doesn’t mean that Harry Potter is real.
“As I wrote in the article, atheism is a worldview.”
No, it’s not. It’s part of my worldview, certainly, but it isn’t a worldview.
Atheism is a position on one thing. It is the lack of belief in a god or gods.
You need significantly more to make a worldview. You, and countless other apologists, calling it a worldview doesn’t make it so.
“They must show how atheism can explain the existence of the universe, free will, rationality, consciousness, and the like without reference to God.”
Just for fun, in order:
It always existed, in one form or another.
We don’t have it. Not really, anyway.
We invented it as a tool to help explain reality.
A product of the evolution of our brains.
None of that requires anything supernatural.
But again. I get all that from science. Not atheism.
“So we both have a burden of proof. ”
As I said earlier, wrong.
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Moresec0de
Scientism is a word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientism. It is the belief that science is the sole source of knowledge and truth.
Who said anything about ideas/concepts? The first time those words appear is in your post, not mine. I said philosophy deals with rational evidence. If philosophy supports the existence of God, it would do so by providing rational evidence for thinking God is a concrete reality, not just some abstract idea.
As for who is making a claim, truth be told, neither of us made any claims here. The post we are commenting on does not claim God exists, or that atheism is false. It just seeks to come up with a funny demotivator for atheism. I could be an atheist and write the same post. And you never explicitly claimed God does not exist either. But we both know that I am a theist, and you are an atheist, and thus both of us have a burden of proof to bear. I’m happy to shoulder my burden, as I have done in many posts on this blog. But atheists never like shouldering their own. I think the reason is because they have so little to go on. The evidence is not on their side.
I wrote, “But there is nothing about the notion of a divine transcendent being that is internally incoherent or self-contradictory” to which you responded, “So? There is nothing about the notion of a young man who has magical powers and attends a school in Great Britain that is internally incoherent or self-contradictory. That doesn’t mean that Harry Potter is real.” You either didn’t read the context, or are purposely taking my statement out of context to build a straw-man. Your response makes it seem as though I was presenting an argument for God’s existence. If I had been, your response would be dead-on: just because something is not logically incoherent does not mean it exists. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that universal negatives (such as God’s non-existence) cannot be proven, unless the universal negative is self-referentially contradictory/incoherent. Since there is nothing about the notion of a divine transcendent being that is self-referentially contradictory, it follows that it is impossible to prove God’s non-existence. One can only provide reasons to think God’s existence is unlikely.
We’re haggling over minutiae when you say atheism is not a worldview, but part of one. In one sense, I would agree with you, but this is missing the forest for the trees. The point is that everyone views the world in a particular way. Those who view the world as including a divine being need to justify that worldview; i.e. give reasons why anyone should think that worldview accurately reflects reality. Those who view the world as being void of a divine being need to justify that worldview, and show its explanatory superiority over other worldviews. For example, atheists need to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, morality, free will, etc, without reference to God. That is their burden. If they can’t meet it, then that is good reason to think a worldview that does not include a divine being may not accurately reflect the real world.
You claim to get your information from science, and yet you claim the universe always existed? Science has been saying just the opposite for 100 years. Thinking the universe to be eternal puts you at odds with the best science. As for free will, if you don’t really have it, then you don’t choose to believe there is no God. You are forced to believe it by prior physical causes, making your position irrational, and rationally indefensible. “We invented rationality”? That would require free will agents who can decide to do so, the very thing we don’t have. Besides, if rationality was a social invention, then it does nothing to help us discover the truth. So why are we even talking about these matters? What’s the point? As for consciousness, how does matter evolve a first-person perspective? Cognitive scientists haven’t even come close to figuring out how that is possible.
Jason
LikeLike
February 17, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Atheism: The best way to become your own boss is to pretend your boss doesn’t exist
LikeLike
February 18, 2009 at 10:16 am
Atheism: The best way to become your own boss is to pretend your boss doesn’t exist
Show a conference room with employees sitting in chairs around the long square conference room table. Have two individuals up giving a presentation with powerpoint. Both have red light pointers, trying to give the same presentation. For clarity, let’s call one Jenny and the other Dave. Show Jenny with a normal facial expression as she talks, even a happy one, showing no hestiation or caution, just talking away as normal. Then show Dave looking at Jenny with total disbelief and bewilderment, with a bubble caption to show his thoughts which reads, “why is she acting like I’m not the boss and I’m right here?!” Then show bubble question marks over the head of each employee in the room, to emphasize that they don’t know WHAT is going on with Jenny.
*snickering*…
LikeLike
February 18, 2009 at 6:57 pm
I always thought the play on words between Atheist and Hatetheist was interesting (and it also outraged a group of very mean atheists)
But not all atheists “hate” so…
Atheist: When you care enough to hate the Very Best
But I like your first one the best. By far.
“Atheism: The best way to become your own boss is to pretend your boss doesn’t exist.”
Excellent.
Image for that caption? Heh…
something like this
or this
(similar to Rosie’s)
LikeLike
February 18, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Show a conference room with employees sitting in chairs around the long square conference room table. Have two individuals up giving a presentation with powerpoint. Both have red light pointers, trying to give the same presentation. For clarity, let’s call one Jenny and the other Dave. Show Jenny with a normal facial expression as she talks, even a happy one, showing no hestiation or caution, just talking away as normal. Then show Dave looking at Jenny with total disbelief and bewilderment, with a bubble caption to show his thoughts which reads, “why is she acting like I’m not the boss and I’m right here?!” Then show bubble question marks over the head of each employee in the room, to emphasize that they don’t know WHAT is going on with Jenny.
*snickering*…
oh THAT was really good! Except the question marks over the head of each employee wouldn’t be necessary, just watching how Jenny just took over the conversation while the “boss” sat there wondering “why is she acting like I’m not the boss” is self evident.
*huge grin*
of course, once he realized this he would have to fire her…
but she survived, found a place where she was appreciated so it’s all good. 🙂
LikeLike
February 19, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Shewalksaway,
I kind of like the Atheist-Hatetheist combo. You are right that not all atheists hate, but I think you are referring to people-directed hate. I’d agree. But theologically speaking, all of them hate God. Not only is this the Biblical teaching, but it is evident in most of their lives. I’ve always found it so odd how vitriolic most atheists are against the idea of God, when according to them God does not exist. Do you see people expressing the same vitriol toward Bigfoot? No, because He doesn’t exist. Or do you see Christians expressing vitriol against Shiva? No, because we believe that is a false god, and thus there is no reason to be outraged at him, or by the concept of him.
Jason
LikeLike
February 19, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“Do you see people expressing the same vitriol toward Bigfoot?”
If his believers tried to teach Bigfootism as science in public schools, you bet I would.
I save my vitriol for the believers who I think are harming people. I have none for the god you believe in.
“Scientism is a word”
I stand corrected.
“it would do so by providing rational evidence for thinking God is a concrete reality, not just some abstract idea.”
Abstract or not, the only philosophical arguments I have come across are, essentially, people who attempt to define their god into existence.
“And you never explicitly claimed God does not exist either.”
And I never will. Some sort of god may very well exist. To be intellectually honest, I admit that.
But I see no evidence for any claims made by the religious, and so I don’t believe those claims.
“Since there is nothing about the notion of a divine transcendent being that is self-referentially contradictory, it follows that it is impossible to prove God’s non-existence.”
Which, really, makes it not worth thinking about. Things that cannot be falsified are not scientific (not saying that you said it was), and cannot be looked at in any rational way.
As long as a god claim is in the same category as other unfalsifiable claims, like leprechauns for example, I just can’t take it seriously.
“For example, atheists need to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, morality, free will, etc, without reference to God.”
Certainly we do. But the worldview we use to explain that is not ‘atheism’.
My worldview, for example, is Secular Humanism. It includes atheism, of course. But it isn’t just atheism.
My friend is an atheist, but his worldview is Buddhism. Not atheism.
“Science has been saying just the opposite for 100 years.”
Incorrect. Science shows that the big bang happened. Before that, we cannot tell. If the second law of thermodynamics holds true, then matter can’t be destroyed or created, only changed. Which means the big bang was a change, not a beginning, and the universe existed in some form before it.
“You are forced to believe it by prior physical causes, making your position irrational, and rationally indefensible.”
By this definition, of course, EVERY position would be irrational.
So, on equal footing, and thus we can look at them for their rationality despite our lack of free will.
I’m heading out, but I’ll be glad to explain more about my thoughts on free will in the future. If you’re interested.
LikeLike
February 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Moresc0de,
You said a lot, and I need to say a lot more. So I apologize in advance, but I’ll be bombarding you in my response. These are important matters that you bring up, and I take them seriously. They deserve more than sloganisque responses. Take your time in responding.
The emotions atheists express toward the idea of God’s existence has nothing to do with whether divine creationism is taught in schools. This is a red herring.
_____
What philosophical arguments try to define a particular God into existence? The success of theistic philosophical arguments depend on the veracity of their premises, which do not require religious presuppositions (even if the conclusion of those premises supports a particular religious view over others). Let’s take the following premises of the kalam cosmological argument:
(1) anything that begins to exist requires a cause
(2) the universe began to exist.
Neither premise is religious in nature, and neither fits one religion vs. another, but both are more plausible than their contradictories (which is what is required of successful premises). The first premise is a metaphysical intuition that few would deny (being only comes from being), and even fewer would claim is less plausible than its contradictory.
The second premise has amazing amounts of empirical support (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, etc.). But it would follow from these religiously-neutral premises that the universe requires a cause. So what was the cause? That’s where science has to bow out (because the cause of physical stuff cannot be physical, and science is restricted to an examination of the physical), and philosophy steps in.
Philosophy helps us figure out what kind of cause is sufficient for the effect (the universe). It cannot be material, spatial, or temporal, because the origin of those things is what we are seeking to explain. So the cause must be something transcendent to the universe, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial, as well as intelligent and powerful to create something out of nothing in an ordered manner. That sounds a wee-bit like the God of theism. But this conclusion follows from an exercise of rationality, not religious premises or religious authorities like the Bible. And you can’t just dismiss this. You either have to show that one of the premises are false, or you have to show that the rationality/logic employed to deduce the nature of this efficient cause is mistaken at some point (or could be identified as something other than a divine, personal being).
To be continued…
LikeLike
February 19, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Continued…
I can appreciate the fact that you will not go beyond the evidence to claim that God does not exist. That makes you an agnostic by definition, not an atheist. But it seems clear to me that as a matter of practice, you are an atheist; i.e. you think there probably is no God, and live as if there was no God. While you acknowledge the possibility of God’s existence, you don’t think His existence is likely. Why? According to you it is because you don’t see any evidence. I beg to differ. I think there is quite a bit of evidence. God is the best explanation of many facets of reality: the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the origin of life, the ontological source of moral values/duties, free-will, the universality of rational intuitions, mathematics, etc. Naturalism/atheism either has no explanation for these matters, denies their reality (which doesn’t bode well for atheism, because the purpose of a worldview is to explain reality as we experience it, not to deny the reality of our experience), or banks on unreasonable explanations/odds.
_____
How does it follow that because something cannot be proven to not exist, that it is not worth thinking about, or worth exploring? Imagine if Carl Anderson had your outlook on such issues. He would have never investigated Paul Dirac’s seemingly bizarre proposal in 1928 that every particle has an antiparticle, and thus would have never discovered positrons (the electron’s antiparticle) in 1932. After all, when Dirac proposed the idea there was no evidence for it, and no way to falsify it. The reason it is important to think about the existence of things that cannot be falsified is because they very well may exist, and may help us to better understand our world, and ourselves.
BTW, not all philosophers of science agree that falsifiability is essential to science (many do not recognize that there is no universally recognized definition of what constitutes science). If it is a sine qua non of science, then the multiverse hypothesis must be excluded as non-scientific (I’ll admit that some scientists think it should be excluded, but many, such as Leonard Susskind, disagree.).
To be continued…
LikeLike
February 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Continued…
You wrote, “As long as a god claim is in the same category as other unfalsifiable claims, like leprechauns for example, I just can’t take it seriously.” There is a difference between something that is unfalsifiable, and something that is unfalsifiable but has evidential support in its favor. Leprechauns fit the former category, while the existence of God fits the latter. So long as there are good reasons to believe something exists, it matters little whether the idea is unfalsifiable. So long as it is verifiable, that is all we need to determine if it is true.
_____
I wrote, “Atheists need to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life, morality, free will, etc, without reference to God.” You agreed, but went back to making a valid, but unimportant distinction between atheism as worldview, and atheism as part of a worldview. The fact remains that those whose worldview includes atheism, have to explain all these things in purely natural terms, whether they are humanists or Buddhists. And based on my studies, I am persuaded that none of those worldviews do as good of job explaining these phenomena as does theism.
To be continued….
LikeLike
February 19, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Continued…
You misunderstand the Standard Model. It does not just predict the beginning of our universe, but the absolute origin of matter, space, and time from absolutely nothing. In other words, on Big Bang Cosmology there is no “before” the Big Bang. It is the beginning of existence—not just of our universe, but of reality. One can surely argue that this view is mistaken, but do not try to make the Standard Model out to be something it is not. What you are describing are alternative models such as the oscillating model, or ekpyrotic model.
As for energy-matter not being created or destroyed, that is the 1st law of thermodynamics, not the 2nd. The 2nd law says usable energy will be used up in a closed system. Together, these laws rule out an eternal universe. If our universe was past eternal, then we should have run out of usable energy an infinite time ago. But we haven’t, which proves that our universe is not eternal (the same would be true even if it were oscillating, as in the old oscillating model or the more recent ekpyrotic model).
But maybe there have been an eternal number of universes prior to ours (such as in chaotic inflationary models, which even as Andre Linde later admitted, cannot avoid an initial singularity). Each prior universe would use up energy, so when it spawns a new universe, the new universe will only have a fraction of the energy of its “parent” universe. If this process was going on infinitely throughout the past, then all of the usable energy should be gone and we should be observing a “child” universe that has no usable energy. And yet we don’t, which again proves that the universe(s) is not past eternal. The universe began to exist.
To be continued….
LikeLike
February 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Continued….
I pointed out that if we have no free will, then you do not choose to be an atheist. Ultimately, your position would be irrational, because physics determines your beliefs, not a process of freely weighing the evidence and freely coming to a conclusion. You respond by pointing out that every belief would be irrational. Exactly! But how does this help your case? The point is that if we don’t have free will, then knowledge becomes impossible (because knowledge is justified true belief, and yet no belief could ever be justified without reason, and reason is not possible without free will) and reason is reduced to a fiction.
So why do you even bother to debate people on the topic? My belief in theism is just as determined by prior physical processes as is your atheism. And yet you try to use this fiction we call reason to try to get me to use the illusion we call free will to experience the illusion that I changed my mind. Worse yet, if there is no free will, one could never know it to be true. They would either be determined to believe it (in which case the belief is not properly justified, and thus not knowledge), or determined not to believe it. The claim that there is no free will is thus self-contradictory, because it undermines any reason for thinking it is true.
You wrote, “So, on equal footing, and thus we can look at them for their rationality despite our lack of free will.” But you don’t believe rationality is anything other than a human construct. As such, why think it can put us in contact with truth? Besides, if our will is not free, we cannot freely use rationality to discover truth. Whatever we come to believe, we come to believe because of prior physical causes acting on our material brain.
I would encourage you to read an article I wrote on this topic titled “You Can’t Know Atheism is True Unless God Exists
available at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/knowrequiresgod.htm
Jason
LikeLike
February 20, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“Those who view the world as including a divine being need to justify that worldview; i.e. give reasons why anyone should think that worldview accurately reflects reality. Those who view the world as being void of a divine being need to justify that worldview, and show its explanatory superiority over other worldviews.”
Excellent.
I know why I believe in God. I think everyone that truly believes in God have their reasons and testify of Him.
But trying to prove there is no God is like trying to prove there is no water. All you can try to do is “prove” it with abstract philosophies.
Moresc0de, in all sincerity, why do atheists work so hard at it?
LikeLike
February 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm
okay this is my best “demotivational poster”
Atheism: Leaving God alone at the altar.
With a picture something like this:
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 10:23 am
Jason,
I’m going to be brutally honest.
I don’t have the desire, energy, or interest to go through all that you wrote. I sometimes think this is a tactic of apologists…throw so much at your opponent that it would tire them to take the time to respond. Particularly if you’ve answered the same issues before, as a cursory glance at your points tells me I have done for many.
I would ask you to go one at a time if you want to deal with arguments for god or anything else, and I would kindly do the same. If you want.
If you think that I’m just running away, well, I can’t stop you from thinking that. But I’m not.
shewalksaway:
“But trying to prove there is no God is like trying to prove there is no water. All you can try to do is “prove” it with abstract philosophies.
Moresc0de, in all sincerity, why do atheists work so hard at it?”
I don’t work hard at all.
I say “show me the evidence. The good evidence.” And I get nothing.
That doesn’t take a bit of effort.
If you believe you’ve had some sort of personal revelation from a divine being, by all means, pray to that god to give every nonbeliever a similar one. Because I’ve seen/heard/felt not a thing from any sort of supernatural thing.
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 10:48 am
Morsec0de, His word says that He reveals Himself to those that love and obey Him. Nobody can show you Him, even when Jesus performed miracles, people walked away.
You say you want evidence, and I understand that. We see so much evidence in both subtle and phenomenal ways, but all I can offer you is my testimonies. Nothing is going to mean much to you, I don’t think, until you see Him yourself. Don’t you want to know the Father that created you? That loves you so much that He sings over you, cares about you so much that He even knows when an eyelash falls from your face?
I try to imagine how it must be for someone that has little faith, or even none. How it would feel if someone told me about someOne that I didn’t know and said just love and obey Him.
Morse, I know for a fact His love for you is real. I can’t believe the things He has had me do to share that with people and how He has blessed it and used it and done it Himself. KNOW that His love for you is more real than the chair you are sitting in, than this physical world…it’s beyond this physical world. The God of this universe focuses on you all the time, Morse. Just try to drink that in, because I don’t think anyone can not love Someone who has done so much for us as Christ has. And then try obeying Him. He doesn’t expect perfection when you first come, but you will know what it is He wants you to repent from, and I am convinced that whatever that is…Morse, you KNOW whatever that something is has cost you. God takes away those things that harm us. He knows.
I think if you do that, if you take a few steps in faith, even ones you don’t have but recognize the huge love He has for you, and offer up whatever it is that He brings to mind, I think Morse, your life will change dramatically.
You ask for evidence, a sign, the sign is what Christ did on the cross and the relationship we can have with Him because of it. You have to know that for yourself, I can show you mine but, until you taste and see that it is good, well I’ll just look like a fruitcake to you. 🙂
Heh, I look like a fruitcake to many anyway 😉
http://www.blessedcause.org/TOC/Personal%20Stories,%20Encounters%20and%20Miracles.htm
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 10:52 am
“And then try obeying Him”
You assume I have not.
I was a Christian for most of my life.
“You ask for evidence, a sign, the sign is what Christ did on the cross and the relationship we can have with Him because of it.”
So why do some people claim to have miracles? Why must I rely on a story written in an old book of dubious authorship, while others get miracles?
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Morse, the times that miracles happened in my life were mostly times when I was going way out on a limb for Him. There is so much I haven’t written but it all relates to advancing the Kingdom.
As for stories in an old book, what other book besides the Bible has fulfilled prophesies? What other book talks of the Jews being spread out over the nations and then brought back again, and they have been, after being without a homeland for 2000 years. Most nations don’t last more than 400.
Have you ever studied all the prophesies that Jesus fulfilled? It’s phenomenal. Has there ever been a book as attacked and plotted against yet still stands? It’s the most documented and substantiated work in history. I know the arguments, many will teach (especially in college) that the Bible is copied from other religions, but think about it Morse! There is one absolute truth, one reality. For instance, there WAS an actual flood. Many other religions write about it and atheists point at that and claim it’s copied…do you see the irony? Other beliefs wrote about it because IT HAPPENED. It’s that way with so many of the events that line up with the Bible. It wasn’t copied. The most ancient writings that I know of are on stones from Macedonia, that’s where Abraham came from! And the Jews, the chosen people, kept the most accurate detailed records of any nation.
The roots of the Bible are astounding, as are the prophesies, as is the fact that it was written by God through 66 books, 40something different writers, over many continents, cultures, from Kings to prisoners to doctors to fishermen…and it all agrees. It’s PHENOMENAL. God did not want you to miss His Son. On top of that He sends His messengers, people that died for the messages in the Bible, people so sure of what they saw and know they gave their lives. But God goes further, He came down and became Man Himself to pay for the sins of His Children. Because He will not mix with our sin, He is holy, but He longs for relationships with you and with me so He pays the price Himself.
I said you were brought up Christian and you have obeyed. I believed I was a Christian all my life and through my 20s, but I had no clue Who God was or what He wanted from me. I honestly don’t know what would have happened had I died in those days, but maybe that’s why He seemed to protect me even then, as I was living and breathing a modern Californian life, totally outside of what He said.
So I believe you when you say you were raised a Christian, so was I. But if you don’t know Him, if you’re not “born again”, I’m not really sure what it means to “be Christian.”
As far as obeying, we’ve all fallen short. If we ever lied, lusted, coveted, all sorts of sins our sin nature is born with. God loves us but our sins still need to be covered, and He provided for that. We just have to receive it, and in doing so, follow Him.
I still struggle with stuff. I felt like cursing someone just the other day because she was so nasty and critical. But that’s a whole other thing.
So when you say “You assume I have not [obeyed]” you’re right…it’s just that I assume we’ve all disobeyed. I haven’t met anyone can claim they walk on water yet. To be perfect and holy is by His standards, not ours.
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“Have you ever studied all the prophesies that Jesus fulfilled? It’s phenomenal.”
I hate to be rude, but do you really find it impressive that a character in a story fulfills things written about in an earlier part of the story?
Forgive me, but that’s no more impressive than the fact that Harry Potter ends up fulfilling the prophecies about him.
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 2:55 pm
and would you make it your purpose to fulfill THIS prophesy?
WOULD ANY MAN, if he could, pick up his cross and follow Christ to Golgotha? for you? for me? WHAT MAN is this?
6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 “He trusted[b] in the LORD, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!”
9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mother’s womb
You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me,
For trouble is near;
For there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced[c] My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.
19 But You, O LORD, do not be far from Me;
O My Strength, hasten to help Me!
20 Deliver Me from the sword,
My precious life from the power of the dog.
21 Save Me from the lion’s mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!
You have answered Me.
22 I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise Him!
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him,
And fear Him, all you offspring of Israel!
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from Him;
But when He cried to Him, He heard.
25 My praise shall be of You in the great assembly;
I will pay My vows before those who fear Him.
26 The poor shall eat and be satisfied;
Those who seek Him will praise the LORD.
Let your heart live forever!
27 All the ends of the world
Shall remember and turn to the LORD,
And all the families of the nations
Shall worship before You.[d]
28 For the kingdom is the LORD’s,
And He rules over the nations.
29 All the prosperous of the earth
Shall eat and worship;
All those who go down to the dust
Shall bow before Him,
Even he who cannot keep himself alive.
30 A posterity shall serve Him.
It will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation,
31 They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born,
That He has done this.
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 3:06 pm
and so sadly we see, Morsec0de, that though God sent His Son, though He laid down His life that we could be with Him; though God sent amazing witnesses to you, men like Jason Dulle, who have learned and studied your worldly knowledge even to share with you what they know to be true, you would listen to them and then compare what Christ did on the cross with Harry Potter?
You break His heart, not because God should need man, but because God offers SO MUCH, a robe of righteousness, a ring of authority, the angels look on in wonder, an eternity with Him, a table is set before you, and yet you choose ashes. And so many like you, ashes.
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 6:30 pm
morsec0de,
Unlike Harry Potter, Jesus Christ was a historical figure. And unlike Harry Potter books, the prophecies were made by authors that died long before Jesus lived. It’s not at all analogous.
Jason
LikeLike
February 21, 2009 at 6:39 pm
moresc0de,
Regarding #34, yes, I said a lot, but it was not to overwhelm you in hopes that you would not respond. It was because you made a lot of claims in #26. I was not going off topic, but staying on topic. But we wouldn’t get anywhere if all I do is offer sloganesque responses. Your challenges deserve a serious reply, and tough issues don’t usually have easy answers. It takes time to develop an argument. Slogans can’t do that.
If you choose not to respond due to the length of what I said, I won’t hold it against you. But I do find it ironic that you claim theists don’t have good reasons, and then when someone presents those reasons, you complain that they are saying too much.
Jason
LikeLike
February 22, 2009 at 6:09 am
The concept of God is not falsiable. But the Christian God is falsifiable, and some would say falsified.
LikeLike
February 22, 2009 at 6:11 am
Jesus didn’t fulfill prophecies. The OT was reinterpreted to fit Jesus’s life. The Jews know how to read the OT, and they are not looking for a messiah anything like Jesus.
LikeLike
February 22, 2009 at 7:19 am
1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES (back)
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world — on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).
The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm
LikeLike
February 23, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Jason,
#s 27-31 ought to be published as short handbook on how to chump-slap (apologetically speaking) the irrational atheist.
LikeLike
February 23, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Dale,
Thanks, although I was not trying to chump-slap him (not saying you claimed I was). I was merely trying to rebut his claims. I wish he would respond to them, even if it takes him a while to do so because of the length of my comments. As I told him, my goal was not to overwhelm him, but I find that soundbites are not very persuasive, and these are important matters. I am taking him, and his arguments seriously. I hope he’ll take my responses seriously as well.
If he doesn’t repond, I won’t claim it’s because he doesn’t have a rebuttal. But it’s been my experience dialoguing with most atheists that they like to claim there is no evidence for theism, but when it is presented to them, they either slither away from the dialogue, ignore the substance of your argument, or appeal to unlikely counter-explanations, as if merely offering an alternative explanation undercuts theism as the best explanation. It doesn’t. Like I’ve said before, it could be that the universe just popped into existence out of nowhere from absolutely nothing, caused by nothing, but surely it is more reasonable to believe someone existed “prior” to the universe who caused the universe to come into existence. Being only comes from being; something only comes from something, not nothing. And things don’t just come into existence uncaused.
Jason
LikeLike
February 23, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Jason,
I’m sorry, I’ve reading Vox Day again. Tends to put me in a cheeky mood.
Having read some of the material dealing with the subject matter you refer to, I thought your posts were rather concise and direct.
LikeLike
February 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Nothing to be sorry about. I’m glad you thought the posts were well-written. If they don’t help morsec0de, hopefully they’ll help someone else who wants to know the truth about the theism vs. atheism debate.
Jason
LikeLike
February 24, 2009 at 8:40 am
You can count me in. Keep up the awesome work!
LikeLike
March 2, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Atheism: There is no God, and I hate him.
Show a picture of a man on his knees at his beside, hand positioned in the “prayer” postion, eyes closed really tight, sweat coming down his face, teeth grimacing, and a bubble caption above his head which reads, “I HATE YOU!”
Basically it shows a man (or woman) praying to the god she does not beleive in, conveying that she/he hates Him.
LikeLike
March 23, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I am taking these home to think on them. I haven’t told you this but I am some what of an artist so I will try my hand at something when I pick my favorite. Till then I hope you get kick out of this if you haven’t already seen it.
FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming
Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a
discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their
holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such
recognized days. The case was brought before a judge. After listening
to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel
declaring,”Case
dismissed!”
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, “Your
honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have
Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and
Hanu kkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays.”
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, “But you do. Your client,
counsel, is woefully ignorant.” The lawyer said, “Your Honor, we are
unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.”
The judge said, “The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm
14:1 states, ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.’
Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is
no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is
adjourned.
You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!
This is too good not to forward.
LikeLike
March 23, 2009 at 4:23 pm
morsec0de said “So why do some people claim to have miracles? Why must I rely on a story written in an old book of dubious authorship, while others get miracles?”
I may be a little late to the game, but I think it sounds like you have a deep hurt. It also sounds like you are trying very hard.
As someone who claimed to be a christian for all of my life, but only recently gave everything to him, I can tell you there is a big difference in my life; a noticeable dramatic change. I have seen miracles before, even in my own life, but never received an answer to my questions or the peace and joy everyone was always talking about.
One thing I have learned is every scripture that gives a promise of these things has a catch to it – you must serve him with everything. One Example: Psalm 37:5 “Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass”
morsec0de, I am not going to try to convince you of anything. I have no “proof,” at least not the way you want it. I do not believe anyone can change your mind, especially seeing as how you do not want that to happen. I simply want you to think about what I’ve said and the others have said. When, and if, you want to see it, you will.
I will pray for you.
LikeLike
April 21, 2009 at 7:41 am
Atheism: The best way to become your own boss is to pretend your boss doesn’t exist
is my favourite – Have a guy in a cubicle working, and the boss talking to another person saying “I fired him last week, but he still turns up and does the job – All for free!”
Or something like that – the wording may need to change
Atheism: An elite club for those with enough faith to believe everything came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing, Amen
A man sat on a chair with the caption “if I wait long enough, a super model will suddenly appear for no reason to do my bidding”
Atheism: Because nobody tells me what to do.
Someone hitting a lion on the head with a stick with a zoo keeper shouting for them to stop.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 11:18 am
@ jasondulle
You were just owned, philosophically, and logically.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 12:28 pm
See my article here: http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/presumptionatheism.htm
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 2:28 pm
This sort of thread just shows me that Christian apologists do not exist to show others that their theology is true, but rather to keep people already in the faith from leaving. If the former was true, you might actually address what atheists actually think, rather than building up some strawmen to beat down before your largely Christian subscribers.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 2:46 pm
What specific atheist argument have I ignored?
Jason
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Your post fails again, because you use the straw man argument saying that atheism is a belief.
That’s like calling the off button on the tv a channel.
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Sirus,
Did you even read my article? In there I make it very clear why defining atheism as Flew proposed as “lack of belief in God” doesn’t work. That’s not what atheism has always meant, and to pretend it is is to play wordgames. Agnostics lack belief in God. Atheists believe there are no gods.
Jason
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm
@jasondulle
Atheism does not necessitate a positive statement, that’s why agnostics are classified as “weak atheists”, making the whole “it holds the burden of proof” statement null.
You stated “Traditionally, atheism has been defined as the belief that no god(s) exists”
Atheism is Greek.
Root- Theos; Deity or deities
Suffix- ism; Belief in or adherence too, depending on root.
Prefix- A; No, non-, or lacking the quality
Full- Atheism- No or Lacking belief in a deity or deities.
Agnostic is also Greek
Root- Gnostic; Knowledge
Prefix- A; No, non-, or lacking the quality
Full- Agnostic; No or lacking knowledge
Today we associate the word with deities, however it originally wasn’t.
Any agnostic who basses their beliefs on knowledge is an atheist.
Shortly after the Romans began interacting with christians, they started calling christians “atheists”, because christians, in their minds, didn’t believe in the right gods.
You are wrong.
By the way, I never said that positive atheists weren’t real atheists, so don’t say I did.
Further more, you ignore the point that, even if someone uses a false label, you can still address what they are saying.
I don’t claim to know if there is a god, so I am an atheist, and an agnostic. You can try to prove that there is a god, thus, if successful, eliminate any reason not to know. This would focus on my point, that there is no reason to believe, however, you would choose to use the (wrong) definition of my labels, ignoring the point.
This shows your dishonesty, you make a superfluous claims and think it’s a valid argument.
LikeLike
November 13, 2009 at 9:41 am
@jasondulle:
The entirety of the article you sent me was filled with half ass reasoning, and continually tried to show that atheism is a belief, but in no way shows that a “LACK” of belief is a belief. All you do is make a baseless claim, and most of the time don’t even support it; and when you do, it is supported by archaic ideas, made by people who were completely bias. How utterly devoid of intellectual honesty.
LikeLike
November 13, 2009 at 11:42 am
Sirus,
Throwing out disavowals and actually demonstrating their legtimacy are two different things. If there is one thing I have found to be true in my dialogue with atheists, it’s that most of them are not interested in a real dialogue. They are much more content to throw around ad hominems and demean everyone else as being intellectual inferiors. That’s not the way to debate things. Oh that there weren’t more atheists like Anthony Flew (at least when he was an atheist).
I do not claim that lack of a belief is a belief. I claim that a denial of X entails that one believes X does not exist. If you are not denying that the proposition “God exists” is true, then you are not an atheist, but an agnostic. An atheist, however, would deny that this proposition is true. It doesn’t require that He know it is true with absolute certainty. It only requires that he denies it.
Jason
LikeLike
November 13, 2009 at 12:02 pm
soobtoob,
I haven’t ignored you. I’m just busy with other things right now and will get to your comments later.
Jason
LikeLike
November 13, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Soobtoob,
I took three years of Greek, so I am well aware of the Greek roots and meanings of these words. Your assessment is mistaken for two reasons. First, you assume that the prefix “a” simply means “without.” While that is one way it can be used, it is usually used to negate whatever follows (“not X”). “Agnostic” and “amoral” are good examples of the former, while “atypical” is a good example of the latter.
Second, it doesn’t mean “lack of belief in a deity.” Coming from “a” and “theos,” it literally means “no god.” Theism is the proposition that “God exists.” Atheism is a negation of that proposition: God does not exist. And that has been the standard definition for centuries. It was only Anthony Flew who tried to redefine the word by emphasizing the other possible use of “a.” He was wrong to do so, and only confused matters. His intent was to try to shift the burden of proof on the God question entirely to the theist. But the theist is not the only one who bears the burden of proof. While the theist does bear a burden of proof if he wishes to claim the proposition “God exists” is true, the atheist likewise bears a burden of proof if he affirms the negation of that proposition. Only a person who makes no epistemological commitment to either proposition is without a burden of proof, because they aren’t making any claim. But all of these people who want to claim that there is no God (or probably no God) and yet turn around and say they have no burden of proof, are being disingenuous.
But all this talk of definition is not all that relevant. What is relevant is what a particular person means by their terms. If they are making a claim to know something, then they have to defend that claim. So I agree with you that “even if someone uses a false label, you can still address what they are saying.”
You wrote, “By the way, I never said that positive atheists weren’t real atheists, so don’t say I did.” I’ve never seen you post here before, so how could I have made any comments on your views? I don’t understand.
Dishonesty? Why is it that whenever someone disagrees they want to label their opponent dishonest? Dishonesty is proven by being caught in a lie. Even if I was wrong in my claims, has it never occurred to you that I actually and sincerely believe I am right? Such talk on your part demonstrates that you desire to fight more than engage in serious dialogue. Mudslinging words around and maligning people’s motives and character don’t get one very far.
I have supplied several reasons to believe in God on this blog, but I doubt you have looked through the archives for any. It’s much easier to claim that none has been offered, particularly on a post in which none was claimed to be offered.
Jason
LikeLike
November 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm
“Throwing out disavowals and actually demonstrating their legtimacy are two different things. If there is one thing I have found to be true in my dialogue with atheists, it’s that most of them are not interested in a real dialogue.”
Well, isn’t that ironic, since I can give you maybe hundreds of pages of theists doing the very thing you claim atheists do; while the atheists on the opposing side remain as logical and to the point as much as possible; until it is finally realized that the opposition isn’t trying to have a real discussion.
And did you even watch the video I sent you ? It’s obvious from your answer to me that you haven’t, since it is made clear why your definition of atheist is incorrect. Here:
This video explains why your differentiation between atheists and agnostics is also wrong.
LikeLike
November 13, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“But the theist is not the only one who bears the burden of proof. While the theist does bear a burden of proof if he wishes to claim the proposition “God exists” is true, the atheist likewise bears a burden of proof if he affirms the negation of that proposition.”
Do you then contend that Luminous Aether must be disproved by scientists in order for us to currently say that our current theory on Electro-magnetic radiation is correct?
If you don’t know, Luminous Aether was the prevalent theory on how electro-magnetic radiation (such as light, x-rays, gamma rays, etc) traveled through space. Many equations were derived from the logical principle that since a multitude of other energies must travel through some medium, then electro-magnetic radiation must as well.
Unfortunately for these scientists, this was not the case; as the Michelson-Morley experiment showed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_aether
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
Because of these failed experiments, it then postulated that the radiation didn’t require a medium to travel in; and the focus was shifted on how to derive equations that didn’t use the principle of Luminous Aether.
Testing a hypothesis, and failing to prove that hypothesis doesn’t “disprove” the hypothesis. But what does do a good job of destroying any good reason to think that hypothesis is still reasonable is to change the hypothesis and have the now changed hypothesis proven correct.
Your arguments that say atheists are also under a burden of proof shows your lack of understanding what it means to be skeptical; as it is clearly shown by James Randi himself:
The word games you and soobtoob are playing is interesting to read, but what you claim to say what atheist’s believe/lack a belief in is incorrect. If anything, it just reveals that perhaps atheists should consider a new word; because if your statements on it’s origin are correct, then it misrepresents my stance, and those who are like minded.
LikeLike
November 19, 2009 at 4:34 pm
“Do you then contend that Luminous Aether must be disproved by scientists in order for us to currently say that our current theory on Electro-magnetic radiation is correct?”
If you had read my article you would know the answer to that question. I wrote: “There are times, however, in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This happens when we would expect to find evidence of something’s existence, but in fact find none. For example, if Santa Clause exists we would expect to find his home in the North Pole, or have empirical evidence of flying reindeers, elves, or Santa being caught on a security camera while delivering presents inside someone’s home. Where evidence should be found, none is found, and thus the absence of evidence is good evidence that Santa Clause does not exist. The principle here is that ‘the justification conferred…will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount of evidence that we should expect if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist.’ If the ratio is large, then we are justified in believing the entity does not exist.” The same applies to the aether. There is an additional principle that inveighs against the aether as well: the existence of an alternative explanation that better explains the effects we see. That in itself is evidence against the aether. Explanatory power and explanatory scope is how scientists decide which competing theory or postulated (non-visible) entity is true.
“Your arguments that say atheists are also under a burden of proof shows your lack of understanding what it means to be skeptical”
But atheists are not skeptical. They have taken a position: God does not exist. The only people who are skeptical are agnostics. They are skeptical that God exists, or that humans can know whether God exists, or that humans can know anything about the God who exists. Atheists and theists both claim to have knowledge. Theists claim to know the proposition “God exists” is true, while atheists claim to know the proposition “God exists” is not true. Neither knows the proposition is true without certainty, but only a hyper-skeptic thinks we have to have certainty before we can claim knowledge.
As for your last paragraph, a new word would probably be good. But it doesn’t help the dialogue to invest an old word with new meaning. But as I wrote in my article, Flew’s definition of atheism is meaningless anyway, because it eviscerates “atheism” of any cognitive or volitional content. A newborn baby would qualify as an atheist on Flew’s definition. I guess that would help atheists boost their numbers in religion polls. 🙂
LikeLike
November 19, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Don’t tell us what our position is. You’re statement that, “They have taken a position: God does not exist,” is false in many cases, if not most. I take no position other than that there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a god. You call me whatever you want, I define myself as an atheist because I am without (a) a theology (theist).
In this case, my position that there is not enough evidence to warrant belief in a god is verified by the absence of evidence.
Obviously I leave room in my claim for the possibility that there COULD be a god. I simply say belief in such a god is irrational at present.
My favorite thing about all of this is that you, the person claiming to have the truth, are refusing to put forth any evidence that your god exists and instead resort to labeling your opponents and trying to claim that they believe things that they don’t. Why do you shirk the burden of proof? You’re theology is true isn’t it? Embrace it!
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Who says I am including you in “they”? Unless I am missing something, I was not talking about you. You haven’t even been part of the discussion until now. It’s you who lumped yourself in with the people I am describing, not me. I am referring to people who claim the proposition “God exists” is false. People who take such a position have traditionally been called atheists. If that doesn’t describe you, fine. No one said it did.
But you want to call yourself an atheist. Given the historic definition of atheism, it’s best that you find another term to describe your belief because it just brings confusion. To say that those who think the proposition “God does not exist” is false, and those who say there is not sufficient evidence to support the proposition “God exists” should both be called atheists is just as confusing as saying those who think the proposition “God exists” is true, and those who think there is not good evidence to support the proposition “God does not exist” should both be called theists. The positions are very different, and it only brings confusion to label different concepts by the same name, particularly when the 2nd concept has never traditionally been associated with the name in question.
You seem to misunderstand what it means to say one is an atheist. Atheism does not claim that it’s logically impossible for there to be a God, or that there certainly is no God. It just means one denies that “God exists” is a true statement about reality. Certainty is not the issue. Theists don’t have to be certain that there is a God, or think that God’s existence is logically necessary in order to be a theist either. Both theists and atheists can make conclusions about the truth of propositions based on probability, and based on the available evidence. That’s how we know most everything that we claim to know.
Labeling my opponents? By calling them atheists? Sure, that’s a label, but it’s an accurate label for anyone who thinks the proposition “God exists” is false. It’s not “labeling” in a negative sense anymore an atheist calling me a “theist” would be labeling. The purpose of labels such as these are not for slandering, but for clarification and simplification.
Refusing to put forth evidence that God exists? If you are expecting to find it on this post, well there you have it. This post was not about evidence for anything. Have you looked at any of the other posts on this blog? Have you clicked on any of the blog categories such as “moral argument,” “cosmological arguments,” or “theistic arguments?” If you did, you would find that evidence has been provided. And if you go to the critical thinking section of my website, http://www.onenesspentecostal.com, you’ll find articles there as well. I highly doubt you had done so, otherwise you would not have made such a claim. If you have done so, then you are being disenguous because I’ve provided plenty of reasons to support theism on this blog. And don’t come back with, “I saw them, but I think all your reasons are bunk.” First, that’s not a response. Secondly, even if they were bunk, your claim that I haven’t put forth any evidence for God’s existence and that I’m shirking my burden of proof would be disengenuous to the extreme. So either you made an accusation without doing your homework first, or you did your homework but are being disengenous.
Jason
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 1:52 pm
See the problem with the label that you put on people is not the label itself, it’s the definition behind it. Had the label been simply “atheist” it would be fine. However your definition requires atheists to make a truth statement or a statement about reality, neither of which are necessitated by atheism. You said, “They (atheists) have taken a position: God does not exist.” Which is where the problem of the label stems. Your definition of what it is to be an atheist. If I label you as a theist, but under my definition of theist you are also a baby-puncher, then you would take issue with the label. When you label your opponents atheists, then claim that they are taking the position of: God does not exist, you are doing the same essential thing. You purposefully incorrectly define atheist so that it is easier to shoot down.
You are right though that as much as I have been following this thread, I have not been included in the discussion, and for jumping in like that I apologize.
The reason I said you were shirking the burden of proof was because in following the thread I saw how you used your definition of atheist to try and argue that we needed to prove our position. Which, if atheists were making a truth statement, you would be correct. Saying, “God does not exist,” requires proof just as saying, “God exists,” does. What I was getting at (poorly articulated, but still what I was getting at) was that, rather than put a faulty label on what the person believes, and try and shift the burden of proof, why not just have the trust in your arguments? Are they really so week that you need to have these semantics debates and try and tack any person that claims to be an atheist with things they do not believe. I might compare it to something you said on a different post. “Calling Christians homophobic is nothing more than name calling, putting a distasteful label with a negative connotation on us so as to discredit our position before it is ever heard.” The label itself my not be distasteful, but the definition behind your label is only meant to discredit us before we are heard.
Thanks for the reply,
Mo
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Mo,
Atheism as defined by who? The new definition that Anthony Flew gave the term (that you seem to be using) is misleading at best, and confusing at worst. You can’t take a term that virtually everyone understands to mean X, and start using it to mean Y, and think it won’t cause problems, or complain when people continue to use it to mean X. The problem, as I see it, is that people of your position want to claim the label atheist rather than calling yourselves agnostic, or coming up with a new term (as Sirius suggested)? Why not use non-theist, or something like that? It’s your side that is causing the confusion here, not theists.
I wasn’t complaining that you jumped in on the conversation. I was complaining that you accuse me of not supplying any evidence for God’s existence when it seems that you didn’t look anywhere beyond this post (which was not intended to present any evidence for anything). I accept and appreciate your apology, however.
You say you claimed I was “shirking” and “shifting” my burden of proof “because in following the thread I saw how you used your definition of atheist to try and argue that we needed to prove our position.” How is pointing out that the atheist also has a burden of proof to bear, a shirking of my own, or even a shifting of the burden? All I was saying to Sirius is that contrary to his claim that only theists have the burden of proof, atheists have a burden of proof as well since they also make a claim (that God does not exist). I even wrote, “But the theist is not the only one who bears the burden of proof. While the theist does bear a burden of proof if he wishes to claim the proposition “God exists” is true, the atheist likewise bears a burden of proof if he affirms the negation of that proposition.” The bolded “if” further shows that I do not believe, and have not claimed that anyone using the label “atheist” must believe God does not exist. I am not trying to tell anyone what they believe based merely on a particular label they use.
You say you have no burden of proof because you aren’t making any claim. I don’t know enough about your view, so I’ll grant that for the sake of argument. So why don’t you just call yourself an agnostic since everybody agrees that agnostics don’t make a claim to know whether the proposition “God exists” is true or false, and thus they have no burden of proof? Why do you insist on using a word that has historically entailed a positive knowledge claim to God’s non-existence?
You claim, “When you label your opponents atheists, then claim that they are taking the position of: God does not exist, you are doing the same essential thing. You purposefully incorrectly define atheist so that it is easier to shoot down.” Can you point to anywhere I said to someone, “You say you believe X, but you don’t really believe X because you call yourself an atheist and atheists believe X”? I’ve never done that. I am more interested in what people mean than the terms they use. But recognizing that there can be a gap between the two does not mean I am not free to use terms and define them in their traditional sense. And that’s what I am doing.
And since I have not critiqued atheism anywhere on this post, I’m not sure why you would say I am defining it in one particularly way “so that it is easier to shoot down.” I haven’t been shooting down atheism. The only thing I’ve been shooting down is the insistence of some that theists adopt a revisionist definition of atheism.
How is calling someone an atheist, or defining an atheist as “someone who believes God does not exist” interpreted to mean I am trying to “discredit us before we are heard”? I am simply trying to use standard, acceptable labels and their definitions, and I don’t use them to discredit anyone. If I did, point me to an example. Instead, I wrote the following: “While the theist does bear a burden of proof if he wishes to claim the proposition “God exists” is true, the atheist likewise bears a burden of proof if he affirms the negation of that proposition. Only a person who makes no epistemological commitment to either proposition is without a burden of proof, because they aren’t making any claim. But all of these people who want to claim that there is no God (or probably no God) and yet turn around and say they have no burden of proof, are being disingenuous. But all this talk of definition is not all that relevant. What is relevant is what a particular person means by their terms. If they are making a claim to know something, then they have to defend that claim. So I agree with you that “even if someone uses a false label, you can still address what they are saying.”
Jason
LikeLike
December 1, 2009 at 11:40 am
I disagree that we should use outdated labels that, I think, don’t accurately represent the beliefs of a group of people. Especially in higher levels. In common language for uninformed people, it may be defined differently. But we don’t define things in a philosophical forum as common people use these words. If there is a more accurate definition then I think it’s reasonable to expect a switch.
As far as any claims I make, it is not entirely accurate to say that I do not make any truth claims. I think the fairly standard truth claim of atheists is not, “God does not exist,” but, “There is insufficient evidence to warrant a belief in God.” This claim obviously verified by the lack of evidence. This does put the complete and full burden of proof solely on the theist. They must prove their claim that god exists by offering evidence.
The reason I don’t call myself agnostic is because I don’t find that to be a very accurate description of how I feel about the issue. Agnostics tend to hold the position that knowledge of god is outside what men can learn. I don’t see why that is necessarily true, so I don’t define myself as agnostic. I really like the term freethinker but that just sounds like I’m tooting my own horn.
The reason I find this important is because people DO try and shut down the dialogue by claiming atheists need to disprove god. I know a man who uses that a jumping off point to argue for teaching creationism in classrooms. It’s not that I so much mind people getting it wrong and correcting them, but when they insist that the definition be a certain way, even when most people who are atheists don’t feel that way, it just makes the discussion turn sour. You end up getting bogged down in semantics and never getting anywhere.
Thanks,
Mo
LikeLike
December 1, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Using “atheist” to refer to the claim that God does not exist is not an outdated label, because the meaning of that word has not changed. That’s what virtually everyone means by that term. 98% of the population should not be strong-armed into abandoning the traditional meaning of this word just because a small minority of individuals want to invest it with new meaning. Just get a new word to describe this new position and call it a day. Insisting that “atheism” be changed to mean “no belief in God,” while also acknowledging that it can be used to describe “belief in no god” only brings confusion. For when you say “I am an atheist,” now that becomes ambiguous. One would have to ask, “What kind of an atheist are you?” But the purpose of labels is to clarify and make distinctions. Trying to co-opt a standard and commonly understood word for this new position does the opposite.
This is not a matter of “common” vs “educated.” Even in philosophical circles an atheist still means one who denies the proposition “God exists” is true. You can argue that “atheist” has acquired a secondary meaning in philosophical circles, but you can’t argue that this new, secondary meaning has replaced the primary meaning. It simply hasn’t. To think that it could or should is hubris. How can a 35 year old concept take over a centuries-old definition, and then leave that old concept with no label by which it can be identified with.
Agnosticism is not necessarily the claim that knowledge of God is impossible. “Agnostic” is one of those words that has been invested with multiple meanings over the years, which waters down its effectiveness as a label (which is what we should seek to avoid doing with the “atheist” label). “Agnostic” can refer to any number of positions, including: (1) the claim that knowledge of God is impossible [which claim can be, and is often made by people who believe that God exists]; (2) the claim that the question of God’s existence is beyond our ability to discover with any reasonable certainty and thus we are not justified in claiming any position in regards to the existence of God; (3) an expression of one’s personal lack of knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the proposition “God exists,” but an acknowledgment that attainment of such knowledge may be possible, or even actual for others. I think the common man understands “agnostic” to only refer to the 3rd definition, which is pretty descriptive of the position taken by many people like yourself.
The reason people claim that atheists need to disprove the existence of God is because they are using the standard, centuries-old definition of atheism. Why should they be berated for using the term in its standard way, rather than according to its newly acquired definition a la Flew? They shouldn’t be. The only time they should be berated is if the person who claims to be an “atheist” according to the new definition of the word clarifies to the theist what his definition of “atheism” is, and yet the theist continues to say that “atheist” needs to disprove the existence of God.
Jason
LikeLike
December 24, 2009 at 6:16 am
“The reason people claim that atheists need to disprove the existence of God is because they are using the standard, centuries-old definition of atheism. Why should they be berated for using the term in its standard way, rather than according to its newly acquired definition a la Flew? They shouldn’t be. The only time they should be berated is if the person who claims to be an “atheist” according to the new definition of the word clarifies to the theist what his definition of “atheism” is, and yet the theist continues to say that “atheist” needs to disprove the existence of God.”
I have a theist in mind who needs badly to be berated for this very thing…
LikeLike
July 29, 2010 at 6:34 am
“But theologically speaking, all of them hate God.”
Absolute tosh. An Atheist cannot hate that which does not believe to exist. What an Atheist CAN hate is the concept – the IDEA – of the theistic God and what that concept has inspired human-beings to think, do and say over the years. In the same way that one can hate a fictional character or a fictional book based on how that character or book causes it’s fans to act.
The close-minded thinking, the continual denial of scientific truths and the persecution of those that discover them. The intolerance, the hypocrisy, the inequality, the demand for unquestioning loyalty under threat of eternal damnation (or actual torture and painful death depending on what country or which century we’re looking at.) all of those are excellent reasons for an Atheist to hate and be angry at the idea of a Theistic God – an idea that is entirely conceived of the the human brain.
LikeLike
July 29, 2010 at 11:48 am
Those might be good reasons to hate theists (although I thought atheists were supposed to be tolerant), but anybody who hates a fictional character has something wrong with them. Not liking what a fictional character stands for is one thing, but to actually hate a fiction…that is pathological.
Jason
LikeLike
December 12, 2012 at 1:55 pm
[…] years there has been a lot of debate regarding the proper definition of “atheist,” even on this blog. Traditionally, atheism has been defined as the claim that God does not exist. In the mid-20th […]
LikeLike