Is atheism as dogmatic as piety?

[Valuebettingtheriver]

It seems to me that to be 100 percent certain of anything that can neither be affirmed nor denied is foolish. Granted everything can be subject to doubt to some degree, however, the existence or non-existence of God is extremely controversial because there is virtually no scientific evidence to either side. In the Apology, Socrates argues that to fear death is ignorant for any man who does so is foolishly presuming its nature. I apply this reasoning to God, and therefore, maintain an agnostic position precisely because there is no negative or positive proof. Atheism seems as flawed and stubborn as piety because it wrongly denies the first premise of religion--God exists--without any convincing argumentation or evidence.

Thoughts?

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that to be 100 percent certain of anything that can neither be affirmed nor denied is foolish. Granted everything can be subject to doubt to some degree, however, the existence or non-existence of Thor is extremely controversial because there is virtually no scientific evidence to either side. In the Apology, Socrates argues that to fear death is ignorant for any man who does so is foolishly presuming its nature. I apply this reasoning to Thor, and therefore, maintain an agnostic position precisely because there is no negative or positive proof. Atheism seems as flawed and stubborn as piety because it wrongly denies the first premise of religion--Thor exists--without any convincing argumentation or evidence.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Cerril]

As they say, 'Nice hand'.

What the OP is saying, of course, is a comment about disbelief in supernatural beings in general (rather than one specific God), but still it's distorting the Atheist stance. That's not to say I haven't met some willful atheists who were just denying God in a way that would make any christian/catholic proud. They just aren't very good atheists.

The actual reasonable Atheist stances can be found plastered all over this board, but to just summarize here:

1) The definition of 'God' is insensible. I can't even understand what you mean by 'God,' belief is a nonissue.

2) The given definition of 'God' is sensible, but directly contradicted by things which are known to be the case. Given the choice between denying the existence of God and denying the existence of the world as I experience it daily, I choose to believe my senses.

3) The probability that 'God' exists is vanishingly small, while the probability that 'God' doesn't exist, given the knowledge we have available, is very high. Therefore I believe that God doesn't exist in the same way that I believe anything of extremely high probability is the case.

4) Atheist means exactly what it says, no theism. Lacking a positive belief in any God is all that is meant by a claim to Atheism. This is quite valid, but less strong a point.

Disbelief hardly requires certainty, but suspension of disbelief without an actual reason is a lot more foolish than an alternative. Certainty is not something easily come by, and for most atheists, treating God as an exception to the rule requires assumptions that include a certain nod to His existence.

[Prevaricator]

I agree that closed mindedness is foolish. However, however I call myself an atheist because I need to be shown proof of a god in order to believe, not the proof of no god to deny its existence. The burden of proof has to fall on one side and I say it must fall on the side of the theists because proving something is more straightfoward than disproving something, and the logic behind it restricts people from making any kind of claim they want and forcing their opponents to disprove it (which could be near impossible if the claim is abstract) rather than them back up their claim with evidence.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, Yes. But I will address two themes that are, in some ways, at the heart of this issue. Though it is possible that it may simply lead into the bog of semantics. The following are portions of two separate and previous posts I gave to similar themed threads that were discussed during the Dark Ages of the Psychology Forum when 'religious questions' were debated there. Since a miracle occurred that precipitated the creation of the Science, Math, Philosophy Forum, that quagmire has moved into this jurisdiction. Anyway, The second portion about 'Atheism and Rationalism' was posted almost two years (July 31, 2003) the first portion about 10 months ago (September 14, 2004) [I have edited each portion somewhat from the original.]

Enough of a prologue, to the main course:


"Religion and the belief in a deity is not something sacrosanct. There is no reason to show any more respect to religious opinions (including the belief in a deity) than other opinions receive. Indeed, there is every reason to suspect that they should get a great deal less respect, say as a belief in astrology or numerology should. One reason rational discourse is so seldom seen in the area of religion is the societal convention that one must respect every person’s opinion in the field of religion. This is nonsense of course but continues on unabated and usually puts the ‘non-religious’ person at an immediate disadvantage in any debate and also in trying to knock some sanity into the world. I usually opt for a vigorous offense and attack. "

************************************************** ******

"I am loath to interject my caustic outlooks into this rather stimulating thread, but I decided to post something if for no other reason than to be annoying. First, there are two good books that deal very well with the differences and similarities of atheism/agnosticism. One is simply titled: Atheism, edited by S. T. Joshi; the other is titled: An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, edited by Gordon Stein (published by Prometheus Books). This second book is especially worthwhile because it covers a variety of subjects including atheism, agnosticism, religion, god, and free thought. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in these themes.

Personally I do not particularly like the term atheist as it frames your outlook (or a particular debate) in terms of religion, god, and supernatural beliefs, etc. It is a “negative definition” and in most circumstances and locations about this cesspool of a planet carries a very negative aura and is also grossly misunderstood by most people. Thus, I prefer the term Rationalist. This is, in my opinion, a better descriptor for most people that would call themselves atheists or agnostics, and it is a more useful term - in that it more accurately reflects and is more inclusive of an overall philosophical outlook or worldview. The term can confound, at least for a time, even an Archbishop or a Jesuit Professor, though usually not for long. If you mention the word Rationalist to a Baptist or to fundamental religious fanatics you usually evoke a very blank look. Which is good.

Now, Let Us Pray.

-Zeno: Atheist, Rationalist, Agnostic, Misanthrope, and sometimes Poker Player and Masturbator. "

************************************************** *****



It is with no thought of the morrow that I repost the above screeds from a bygone era. They touch upon subjects both fair and foul that may seem askew somewhat from the Original Post but I make no apologies and will not ask for any forgiveness.

-Zeno, Free Thinker

[Valuebettingtheriver]

[ QUOTE ]
As they say, 'Nice hand'.

What the OP is saying, of course, is a comment about disbelief in supernatural beings in general (rather than one specific God), but still it's distorting the Atheist stance. That's not to say I haven't met some willful atheists who were just denying God in a way that would make any christian/catholic proud. They just aren't very good atheists.

The actual reasonable Atheist stances can be found plastered all over this board, but to just summarize here:

1) The definition of 'God' is insensible. I can't even understand what you mean by 'God,' belief is a nonissue.

2) The given definition of 'God' is sensible, but directly contradicted by things which are known to be the case. Given the choice between denying the existence of God and denying the existence of the world as I experience it daily, I choose to believe my senses.

3) The probability that 'God' exists is vanishingly small, while the probability that 'God' doesn't exist, given the knowledge we have available, is very high. Therefore I believe that God doesn't exist in the same way that I believe anything of extremely high probability is the case.

4) Atheist means exactly what it says, no theism. Lacking a positive belief in any God is all that is meant by a claim to Atheism. This is quite valid, but less strong a point.

Disbelief hardly requires certainty, but suspension of disbelief without an actual reason is a lot more foolish than an alternative. Certainty is not something easily come by, and for most atheists, treating God as an exception to the rule requires assumptions that include a certain nod to His existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Is belief in a god completely irrational? Some people actually believe they have solid proof, though it may be unconvincing to many (mystical experiences).

2) Perhaps maybe a contradiction to God's existence is the problem of evil which Hume addressess? How can an omnibenevolent God exist when there is so much evil in the world? There are ways to get around this, if you imagine that evil is a necessary part of the gradual soul building process (an approach by John Hick). Its not altogether convincing that we should deny God's existence because of contradictions since there are reasonable ways around them.

3) This claim makes an erroneous assumption in that the probability that God does or does not exists is completely unknown. It could be low, it could be high...

4) to lack a positive belief is not the same thing as affirming a negative belief; namely denying God's existence. This is the position of the agnostic, who lacks any positive or negative beliefs towards God. It shouldnt be a justification for atheism.

[ThreeMartini]

You may indeed get your proof. It's the timing I'd be concerned with.

[Cerril]

I'm not actually making the arguments, I'm just showing how an atheist standpoint can avoid the trap. #4 is just definitional though. Some claim the stance as agnostic, some claim it as atheistic. The only real response to that is 'ohhhh, I see. THAT's what you mean.' The terrain is very rough there

[Cerril]

<laughs> I usually dread your posts because of the tone (not the content); I'm very much a plain-english philosophy sort of person. A lot of this had me cracking up though.

[FredJones888]

right on.

this idea that somebody can make odds on the existence of god is absurd.