The futility of modern atheism

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's been a tendency among atheists to use a recent definition of the term, one from Anthony Flew.

This is presented as a legitimate intellectual position, it is "the absence of a belief in God".

This is preferred over the more traditional definition "the belief there is no God" which is the definition you'll find in most historic philosophical books on the subject.

The latter of course cannot be sustained by an evidence based argument (something atheists demand from theists all the time) so by using the first definition the atheist is safe, their position is (apparently) easy to defend "I've seen no evidence".

Their position (which they think requires no evidence) "the absence of belief in God" is thus presented as being in no need of proof, or support, it the "default" position they say, and all the pressure can be applied to the theist who must argue and defend their presence of belief, with evidence.

But I put it to the reader that this is just trickery, by replacing the term "believe" (which is a conviction some proposition is true) with the term "absence of belief" it is claimed no evidence is now required, only belief requires evidence, no evidence is required to "not hold a belief" - but is this true?

A predicate like "God does exist" is binary, it can only have two values - true and false, it certainly cannot be both.

Now just as I cannot say "I believe God exists and I believe God does not exist" I surely cannot say "I do not hold a belief that God exists and I do not hold a belief that God does not exist"?

How could one adopt such a position? the only way is to rephrase it as "I do not know if God exists" that is certainly possible, and that is the true default, agnostic.

But many ardent atheists refuse to be described as "agnostic", not for them the soft position, not for them the admission that God might, just might exist, oh no that will not do.

So the position they adopt is "I do not hold a belief in God" but do they not grasp? this is logically indistinguishable from "I do hold a belief in not God".

For if X is true or false then to not assume it is true is the same as to assume it is false!!

(e.g. if I base some outdoor planning decisions on the position I am not going to assume it will rain, then I must, unavoidably base my decisions on the position I am going to assume it will not rain).

It cannot be any other way - to not assume God does exist is a choice (for it is either true or false) just as much a choice as to not assume God does not exist.

 

[MamboDervish]

There's been a tendency among atheists to use a recent definition of the term, one from Anthony Flew.

This is presented as a legitimate intellectual position, it is "the absence of a belief in God".

This is preferred over the more traditional definition "the belief there is no God" which is the definition you'll find in most historic philosophical books on the subject.

The latter of course cannot be sustained by an evidence based argument (something atheists demand from theists all the time) so by using the first definition the atheist is safe, their position is (apparently) easy to defend "I've seen no evidence".

Their position (which they think requires no evidence) "the absence of belief in God" is thus presented as being in no need of proof, or support, it the "default" position they say, and all the pressure can be applied to the theist who must argue and defend their presence of belief, with evidence.

But I put it to the reader that this is just trickery, by replacing the term "believe" (which is a conviction some proposition is true) with the term "absence of belief" it is claimed no evidence is now required, only belief requires evidence, no evidence is required to "not hold a belief" - but is this true?

A predicate like "God does exist" is binary, it can only have two values - true and false, it certainly cannot be both.

Now just as I cannot say "I believe God exists and I believe God does not exist" I surely cannot say "I do not hold a belief that God exists and I do not hold a belief that God does not exist"?

How could one adopt such a position? the only way is to rephrase it as "I do not know if God exists" that is certainly possible, and that is the true default, agnostic.

But many ardent atheists refuse to be described as "agnostic", not for them the soft position, not for them the admission that God might, just might exist, oh no that will not do.

So the position they adopt is "I do not hold a belief in God" but do they not grasp? this is logically indistinguishable from "I do hold a belief in not God".

For if X is true or false then to not assume it is true is the same as to assume it is false!!

(e.g. if I base some outdoor planning decisions on the position I am not going to assume it will rain, then I must, unavoidably base my decisions on the position I am going to assume it will not rain).

It cannot be any other way - to not assume God does exist is a choice (for it is either true or false) just as much a choice as to not assume God does not exist.

The futility of your OP.
For something to be futile implies some sort of effort on the part of atheists, when in fact, it appears their position requires no effort whatsoever.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The futility of your OP.
For something to be futile implies some sort of effort on the part of atheists, when in fact, it appears their position requires no effort whatsoever.

There has been effort on the part of the militant atheists' (Hitchens, Dawkins et-al), efforts to hoodwink the gullible into accepting "I have an absence of belief in God" as a legitimate position that has no need of supporting evidence. That effort has paid off as many atheists have assumed they were correct when in fact they were not.

The futility is that despite this effort they are no better off philosophically or logically than if they'd simply stuck with the prevailing definition "I assert there is no God" or declare themselves agnostics.

 

[MamboDervish]

There has been effort on the part of the militant atheists' (Hitchens, Dawkins et-al), efforts to hoodwink the gullible into accepting "I have an absence of belief in God" as a legitimate position that has no need of supporting evidence. That effort has paid off as many atheists have assumed they were correct when in fact they were not.

The futility is that despite this effort they are no better off philosophically or logically than if they'd simply stuck with the prevailing definition "I assert there is no God" or declare themselves agnostics.

Well . . . no. What you seem to be selling is your own variation on the "atheists are believers, too" fallacy. While it may be true of some atheists - which is to say they may define themselves that way - atheism has always been an absence of belief, even a refusal to believe, in something without evidence. Religious theists, because they have no proof of their own beliefs, are always desperate to paint atheists as subject to the same pitfalls that come from believing something unprovable. But it never works - because atheism is not a religion. It has always refused to become one because, unlike religion, it insists on being evidence based. Religious theism and atheism remain fundamentally different animals, despite determined efforts by the religious to make them two sides of the same coin.

 

[vegas giants]

Well . . . no. What you seem to be selling is your own variation on the "atheists are believers, too" fallacy. While it may be true of some atheists - which is to say they may define themselves that way - atheism has always been an absence of belief, even a refusal to believe, in something without evidence. Religious theists, because they have no proof of their own beliefs, are always desperate to paint atheists as subject to the same pitfalls that come from believing something unprovable. But it never works - because atheism is not a religion. It has always refused to become one because, unlike religion, it insists on being evidence based. Religious theism and atheism remain fundamentally different animals, despite determined efforts by the religious to make them two sides of the same coin.

Agnostic is the scientific position. It means we dont know which is the position every scientist takes. To separate it from atheist position we conclude atheist position as belief in no god

 

[MamboDervish]

Agnostic is the scientific position. It means we dont know which is the position every scientist takes. To separate it from atheist position we conclude atheist position as belief in no god

So - you define yourself as an agnostic, and agnostics define atheists as those who believe in no god. Do I have that right?

 

[vegas giants]

So - you define yourself as an agnostic, and agnostics define atheists as those who believe in no god. Do I have that right?

Yes. I dont speak for all agnostics though

 

[MamboDervish]

Yes. I dont speak for all agnostics though

HAHA! You're an agnostic who doesn't speak for all agnostics - but you seem to be willing to speak for atheists. That tickles me.
My suspicion is, when it comes to beliefs and disbeliefs, there are more than 50 shades of gray matter in people's brains.

 

[Dragonfly]

How does one provide proof/evidence that something doesn’t exist?

Making the problem even more difficult, how does one prove something supernatural doesn’t exist?

The burden of prove must fall on those claiming something exists.

Prove that Fairies don’t exist. How would you provide proof for that?

I claim that there are trees that never lose their leaves, produce 8 different kinds of fruits throughout the year, never need pruning, and are the home of magic wood-fairies who keep the trees alive for thousands of years.

Do I need to provide proof those trees exist? Or would it be you who needs to provide proof they don’t exist?

By the way, I can bring you a bag of the eight different fruits that I harvested from the tree I’m describing, but I can take you to the tree as it’s in a secret location to protect it from human interference and harm.

 

[Dragonfly]

Also, the definitions of words evolve. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Dragonfly]

One more question:

Is modern theism futile as well?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well . . . no. What you seem to be selling is your own variation on the "atheists are believers, too" fallacy. While it may be true of some atheists - which is to say they may define themselves that way - atheism has always been an absence of belief, even a refusal to believe, in something without evidence. Religious theists, because they have no proof of their own beliefs, are always desperate to paint atheists as subject to the same pitfalls that come from believing something unprovable. But it never works - because atheism is not a religion. It has always refused to become one because, unlike religion, it insists on being evidence based. Religious theism and atheism remain fundamentally different animals, despite determined efforts by the religious to make them two sides of the same coin.

What specifically did I write that you disagree with?

Nothing in your reply seems to directly correspond to anything I said.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

How does one provide proof/evidence that something doesn’t exist?

Making the problem even more difficult, how does one prove something supernatural doesn’t exist?

Yes I agree, which is why atheism is vacuous, claiming there is no God.

The burden of prove must fall on those claiming something exists.

No, this is not true or rather its imprecise, simplistic.

Anyone making any proposition must provide a reasoned evidence based argument that supports their position.

If I say God does exist - I must justify the proposition, if I say God does not exist - I must justify the proposition.

Prove that Fairies don’t exist. How would you provide proof for that?

I claim that there are trees that never lose their leaves, produce 8 different kinds of fruits throughout the year, never need pruning, and are the home of magic wood-fairies who keep the trees alive for thousands of years.

Do I need to provide proof those trees exist? Or would it be you who needs to provide proof they don’t exist?

By the way, I can bring you a bag of the eight different fruits that I harvested from the tree I’m describing, but I can take you to the tree as it’s in a secret location to protect it from human interference and harm.

You seem to be unaware that it is the atheist who is exposed here (I can provide and evidence based reasoned argument that God exists, by the way). It is the atheist who asserts "there is no God" and that requires evidence or some other rational justification.

The point of my OP which seems to have gone over the heads of some here, is that the atheist mantra "I do not hold a belief in God" or "my position is that I am absent of any belief in God" is logically indistinguishable from "I believe there is no God" - this requires evidence, a reasoned argument.

The modern atheist hides behind a lie, they claim they have nothing to justify but they do.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

One more question:

Is modern theism futile as well?

Not in my case because the predicate "God does exist" is supported by evidence and by reason.

 

[MamboDervish]

I thought it was clear. As I wrote - "what you seem to be selling . . . . " is the fallacy that all atheists are the other side of the coin from believers. I make a distinction between atheists, and anti-theists, which to me is closer to what you're describing.

There really is a distinction between "the absence of a belief in God", and "the belief there is no God". It's subtle, but it's there, and I wanted to point it out.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I thought it was clear. As I wrote - "what you seem to be selling . . . . " is the fallacy that all atheists are the other side of the coin from believers. I make a distinction between atheists, and anti-theists, which to me is closer to what you're describing.

There really is a distinction between "the absence of a belief in God", and "the belief there is no God". It's subtle, but it's there, and I wanted to point it out.

Very well, perhaps you'd be so good then as to answer this question:

If I asked you to plan some activities and not assume it will rain how would your plans differ if I also asked you to plan by assuming it will not rain?

 

[MamboDervish]

Very well, perhaps you'd be so good then as to answer this question:

If I asked you to plan some activities and not assume it will rain how would your plans differ if I also asked you to plan by assuming it will not rain?

I'm sorry, but false equivalencies won't make your case. There is no hypothetical activity being planned that is impacted by the distinction in this case.
Being atheist need not be anti-theist.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm sorry, but false equivalencies won't make your case. There is no hypothetical activity being planned that is impacted by the distinction in this case.
Being atheist need not be anti-theist.

I think your reply seals my case, there's no difference between not assuming X is true and assuming X is not true.

These are exactly the same, the atheist insistence they are not does not stand up to serious analysis, it is a lie, the emperor's new clothes.

No matter how you phrase it atheism always amounts to the assertion there is no God.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I have no need to justify anything to the OP.

If the god of the bible exists... Then so must Zeus and Thor and Vishnu or the Shinto Gods.

The evidence for all of them is equal, none.

I know with 110% certainty that the god of the bible is a purely man made invention.

Period.

I won't bother trying to convince you of any of this, or anyone for that matter, but its the truth at the end of the day.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have no need to justify anything to the OP.

If the god of the bible exists... Then so must Zeus and Thor and Vishnu or the Shinto Gods.

The evidence for all of them is equal, none.

I know with 110% certainty that the god of the bible is a purely man made invention.

Period.

I won't bother trying to convince you of any of this, or anyone for that matter, but its the truth at the end of the day.

Well here's the catch though - I used to be an atheist - I used to reason the same way, pretty much a dumb concept God etc, really no reason to even treat it seriously.

But ask yourself how can we tell what is and is not evidence for God? can we prove that all material things came to be without God being involved? how would we recognize evidence for God if we did stumble upon it?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well here's the catch though - I used to be an atheist - I used to reason the same way, pretty much a dumb concept God etc, really no reason to even treat it seriously.

But ask yourself how can we tell what is and is not evidence for God? can we prove that all material things came to be without God being involved? how would we recognize evidence for God if we did stumble upon it?

To which precise concept of god are you referring to?

 

[MamboDervish]

I think your reply seals my case, there's no difference between not assuming X is true and assuming X is not true.

These are exactly the same, the atheist insistence they are not does not stand up to serious analysis, it is a lie, the emperor's new clothes.

No matter how you phrase it atheism always amounts to the assertion there is no God.

LOL - I guess the distinction really is too subtle for you. Sorry if I am raining on your activity.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

To which precise concept of god are you referring to?

That's for you to decide, after all you are the person saying "The evidence for all of them is equal, none."

If you aren't even sure what it is that there's no evidence for then clearly there's some further thinking to do?

 

[Jetboogieman]

That's for you to decide, after all you are the person saying "The evidence for all of them is equal, none."

If you aren't even sure what it is that there's no evidence for then clearly there's some further thinking to do?

Mumbo Jumbo.

I'm not the one who's not sure what it is there's no evidence for.

What you're doing is essentially taking the scenic route to "you can't prove god doesn't exist".

To someone who believes in God, or any god, you're right, I can't because no argument of evidence would ever be sufficient.

I know this already.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

LOL - I guess the distinction really is too subtle for you. Sorry if I am raining on your activity.

If there was a distinction then we could show how reasoning from "I don't assume X is true" and from "I do assume X is not true" leads to a difference - but I can't do that, until I can see, appreciate a different outcome from each of these they are the same surely?

You can't say two things are subtly different when you can't show any difference, can you?