Obviously you have a large need to feel you present arguments so cogent and convincing that people like me would have to “dodge” them.
Frankly, I don’t even find your arguments especially persuasive…so there is absolutely no reason to dodge them.
If you would just pick one argument out and discuss just that one…I will give you my undivided attention until you are satisfied that I am not dodging you.
May I add that the very thought of “dodging” your arguments are as far from my mind as possible to get. You do me a great service with what you right. I welcome every word.
Now…if you can: Give me one particular argument you want me to address.
Speaking of the kind of agnostics who criticizes atheists, I think there are two kinds of these people:
people who really don’t understand the position of actual atheists, and who thus are unknowingly setting themselves in opposition to strawmen.
Stealth theists who wish to criticize atheists but recognize that the theist position is indefensible, and so adopt a pretense of impartial superiority to avoid being obliterated argumentively.
The longer such a person argues against the strawman hard athest position in the face of explanations to the contrary, the less I believe they’re type 1.
Well in my case…I do understand that the “position of actual athesists” differ as much among atheists as the positions of actual theists do among theists.
There are all sorts of atheists.
I try to limit my comments to the atheists who assert “there are no gods”…or who assert a “belief” that there are no gods.
And I try (not always successfully) not to criticize (in a dissing sense) atheists…I merely am intrigued by the similarities they share with theists in the way they treat their arguments and passion.
Nothing wrong with discussion of differences.
Well I am definitely not a theist…stealth or otherwise…but I am astonished there are not theists here who can defend their positions against the challengers I’ve seen so far. Even when you are dead wrong in your thinking…you should be able to hold your own against some opponents.
For the record…got my butt kicked in the tourney. Patience is not my strong suit…and unfortunately, patience is perhaps the most important part of poker strategy.
Most atheists will assert there are no gods with the exact same sentiment that you have when you assert “there are no unicorns” - the assertion is not that such things are impossible, but that there’s literally no reason to believe in the silly things, and thus the evidence suggests that they’re not there. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, after all - not 100% conclusive evidence, of course, but it’s suggestive nonetheless. I feel confident in saying that without fail, when atheists make this assertion about gods in general, this is all they’re saying.
So, this is not a statement of 100% certainty, and given compelling evidence on the subject atheists to a man would admit their error, just as you would once you’d been allowed to pet and ride and vivisect your unicorn.
Personally I don’t see anything about this kind of disbelief that makes it comparable to theism. It’s not a faith-based certainty and it’s not resistant to evidence. It’s merely a statement of reasonable certainty that most stuff that’s completely made up doesn’t exist, not until somebody discovers a reason to think it actually does.
Now, for specific gods, the claim can mean what you think it means, which is absolute certainty in the non-existence of the diety. There are various avenues through which this certainty can derive from, such as knowledge of that the diety was invented, knowledge that the diety is self-contradictory, knowledge that the diety is defines as having done things that actually happened for other reasons, in other ways, or that simply didn’t happen at all. Regarding the specific disproven diety, there is certainty - but it’s not faith-based. It’s backed by evidence and is as solid as the evidence is (which can indeed be 100%).
Another thing to note that atheists tend to define themselves in opposition to specific gods, rather than all imaginable gods in general. So, when atheists think of the set of “all gods”, they tend to think of gods that other people actually believe in and worship. You know, the ones that get all the press and cause all the problems. Against that set of gods it’s quite possible to have justified certainty that they all are fictional, simply because you’re not even taking the nonintervationist gods into consideration at all. We argumentive types tend to think this way; we can argue quite strongly about the god theories that are relevent, and don’t bother to constantly qualify our statements to take into account the gods nobody worships anyway. Which leads to some of the flat certainty you’ve seen.
Our thinking along these lines has been sharpened and hardened by the fact that the only time you ever even hear about these noninterventionist gods is when some theist is trying to make a fallacious argument based on them, typically a bait-and-switch. (Or occasionally a false equivalence.) Seriously - that’s the only place they turn up; outside of such fallacious arguments they’re a pointless thought exercise. So we’re defensive - when somebody points out that we can’t disprove the existence of invisible teapots, we just know the minute we say “yeah, gods like that might exist” that the next thing will be an assertion of victory in the name of Jesus, or whatever. So instead we’re going to whip out occam’s razor and cut you off at the pass just to give ammunition to those bait and switch arguments. Which I think explains the rest of the erronous impression you have about us.
Seriously, the non-omnimax non-interventionist god that nobody believes in? That never did anything to the universe? It might exist. Also there might be another dimenion in which Harry Potter is a real live person. But seriously, we think not.
What similarities?
I see only fallacious false equivalences. Or mistakes - but
Most theists are bringing knifes to gun battles. Or in many cases, rubber chickens against panzers. The playing field is simply not even.
It doesn’t help that many of them are firmly convinced that that their bible is an actual cite, which is kinda like thinking that a rubber band gun is a deadly weapon.
I don’t think this is true. I’ve seen a distinction drawn between “hard” and “soft” atheists, where a “soft” atheist is as you’ve described above, while a “hard” atheist would make the argument not that there’s no evidence of God, but that there’s evidence that there is no God. Put succinctly, I suppose, it’s that a “soft” atheist doesn’t believe in God, while a “hard” atheist believes in not-God.
I’m not sure I follow that distinction, though. I don’t believe that there is specific evidence against the existence of gods; how could there be such a thing? However, I believe in not-God in the same way that I believe in not-Santa Claus and not-Leprechauns. When it comes right down to it, I recognize that it’s not impossible for me to be wrong about those things (or any other of the infinite possible entities whose non-existence I assume by default), but absent any evidence for them, even entertaining the notion of their existence is absurd.
Does that make me a “hard atheist” or a “soft atheist?”
Well later on you ask me about similarities between atheists and theists…and this discourse of yours is one of those things. Just as you are asserting that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence…they assert that “existence” is evidence of a “creator.”
Neither is particularly compelling or logical…but trying to get theists or atheists to see that is like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that there are any sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the five nearest stars to Sol…NONE WHATSOEVER. That, Begbert, is NOT evidence that there are no sentient beings living on any of those planets. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And lack of evidence of gods (as one possible explanation for existence) is not evidence of the absence of gods.
Absence of evidence of “x” is not meaningful evidence of the absence of “x.”
Well…I have no doubt most atheists would…but I am agnostic as to whether or not EVERY ATHEISTS TO A MAN (or women)…would admit to error. Atheists share another characteristic in common with theists; in discussion of these issues, they very seldom admit to error.
I’ve given some comparisons of thought processes I think they share in common…I don’t see any need to go further. I am certainly not suggesting atheism is a religion…just that people who claim atheism often argue their atheism in ways that theists argue their theism.
If you do not see that…so be it.
Well…if you are saying that the cartoon god of the Bible seems more likely to be the creation of ancient Hebrews than an actual revelation from a Supreme Being…we have no argument. My guess would be that the theological aspects of the Bible are almost certainly pure fiction (rather brutal, boorish fiction)…and much of the historical content is significantly skewed in favor of the writers.
I try to qualify my comments to atheists who assert there are no gods. If I miss…and you are reading what I have written, understand that is what I mean. One of the reasons I would love to drop the agnostic and atheist designations and talk just about the position each person holds is that agnostics and atheists come in all sorts of brands and clothes.
I do not have “erroneous impressions” about the “us” to whom you refer. You seem to have an erroneous impression of my impressions of those “us.”
I have never asked anyone to prove or disprove anything here! Ever.
When a theist makes an assertion “there is a god” or “there has to be a god”…I ask for the evidence the theist used to determine that. I HAVE NEVER had a theist offer evidence that came close to being compelling that there is a god…or that there HAS TO BE a god.
When an atheist makes an assertion “there are no gods” or “there cannot be any gods”…I ask for the evidence the atheist used to determine that. I HAVE NEVER had an atheist offer evidence that came close to being compelling that there are no gods…or that there cannot be any gods.
That’s all.
Yeah, theists often say the same thing to me about my arguments against their beliefs. What can I tell ya?
In my opinion, that is another thing theists and atheists share in common when debating with agnostics.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE: I thank you for you consideration of what I have said, Begbert, and for taking the time to reply. Atheists and theists will always have their differences…and they may well be irreconcilable. Atheists and agnostics have differences that seem even less amenable to reconciliation. Doesn’t mean we cannot share a beer or two together…or to hope for world peace!
I’ll try to tackle this again. For the initial condition, we can say that these aliens aren’t expected to make their presence known, so all we can say is that we lack belief in them.
Believing that they don’t exist is a bit strong.
But let’s say that someone tells you that these aliens exist and are in constant radio communication with the aliens on the other worlds. In this case, the absence of evidence of this radio communication is good evidence that this type of alien does not exist.
A god of a deist is like the first type of alien - I can lack belief, but since this god is by definition aloof from us, I see no reason to believe it doesn’t exist. So I’m a weak adeist. But theism involves gods with a bit more oomph. I start out lacking belief in any, but then I start examining each claim. Each god defined by some human religion I examine I find I can falsify. With each god I falsify, my confidence in the proposition that there are no human defined gods increases. Some of us have reached the level where it makes sense to believe that there are no gods as defined by humans, in the same way that we move from a hypothesis to a theory given sufficient testing and lack of falsification. I can’t prove the nonexistence of a god, but I can falsify this proposition the moment a god pops up and splits San Francisco Bay or something.
I don’t know anything about totally alien gods, so my belief is provisional and has nothing to do with knowledge. But believing in no god, given the evidence and the lack of expected evidence, is a perfectly rational position.
Not being an expert of psychopathology, I don’t know.
I have never seen China, but I accept that there is a place called “China.” I have seen proofs I deem acceptable that China exists. I am certainly unable to convince you there is a place called China, but I do not feel a need to do so. I believe in China and my worldview holds together fairly well.
And, again, that analogy doesn’t work. Aliens do not violate physical laws, and we do have evidence right here on earth that life is possible. Aliens are FAR more plausible than gods.
Because we atheists are seldom wrong ( in religious arguments, at least ); being on the side that has all the evidence on its side, is making a much simpler claim, and arguing against people who are relentlessly wrong tends to do that.
Only according to the special definitions you are using. You are using special definitions of “evidence” and “proof” that have only one purpose; to claim that believing in a god is reasonable.
If you look for something and cannot find it, that is certainly “an outward sign” that the thing you’re looking for isn’t around. Is it absolute proof? No. (Well, not usually.) But the thing is, “evidence” is not synonymous with absolute proof. And as long as you base your arguments on the assumption that it does mean absolute proof, you are and will remain wrong.
Which is why you’re wrong in saying this is a similarity between theists and atheists. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence - not proof, but evidence nonetheless. Whereas the theists who say that existence is proof of god have no more basis for their claim than if I said that the existence of the interness is proof that I am a helicopter.
I said “given compelling evidence”. On this issue, that probably amounts to the diety in question rolling in and saving/enslaving/destroying the world - remember, we’re talking about compelling evidence that it’s a god. Merely handing out bibles doesn’t qualify, nor would demonstrating garden-variety-level esp. Anything that would qualify would be pretty hard to shrug off.
I see that your comparisons are based on erronous interpretations of atheist thought.
Actually I’m saying that pretty much any god that a person might even briefly consider worshipping is likely to be at least somewhat disprovable, because they tend to be interventionist. Interventions would tend to leave fingerprints, if they occurred; after all, a miracle that nobody can detect isn’t much of a miracle. Once you have a god that answers prayers you can check the statistics to see if the results are skewed the way the believers think they are.
Seriously, the only gods that don’t intervene are completely immune to evidentiary examination, and quite seriously, nobody worships those guys. So if somebody bothers to disagree with an atheist, usually they believe in a disprovable god…or they are trying to score agnostic points. And agnostics aren’t really on atheist radar excepting when they’re fronting these (strawmannish) arguments.
And as I laboriously explained, there are two types of atheists:
ones who don’t actually mean “I can be absolutely provably certain that no gods exist, not even noninterventionist nonomnimax nonrelevent ones.”
ones that are rarer than hen’s teeth.
For you to be even bothering to argue the position you’re arguing is pretty good evidence (though not absolute proof) that you have an erroneous impression of atheists - you seem to think that your arguments apply to some of us here!
Atheist arguments against god do not -and necessarily cannot target all theoretically possible gods. This is because the word is damn near meaningless, and there are a litterally an infinite number of possible and infinitely varying targets to disprove. Seriously, the difference in difficulty in proving one supposedly interventionist diety and in trying to disprove a hundred billion billion billion billion billion billion trillion billion billion separate different possible gods is so disparate that that kind of blows away any equivalence right there.
Atheists make a good try of it, though, typically through one of two methods:
rebutting theist arguments. This is where you take their own bible and use it to bludgeon their heads in. (They survive because their heads are unnecessary to their beliefs. ;)) These are the most common types of atheist arguments just because atheism is a reaction to theism, so we usually have specific theists in mind.
logicking large swaths of gods and/or theological models out of existence. This is stuff like the POE or the foreknowledge/free will contradiction; these attack gods that meet certain properties and disprove them all in one shot. Obviously this gets closer to your goal of having an atheist offer you compelling evidence that no gods exist - but it necessarily fail to, because one can always posit a god that doesn’t have the properties targeted by the proof. (Such properties will always be part of such proofs because without them the proof will necessarily disprove the existence of everything in the universe, which would tend to indicate the proof has a flaw in it.)
The closest thing to a universal god-proof is Occam’s razor, which does correctly define atheism as the default position, but on its own provides no additional certainty of that position. So Occam’s razor says their are no non-interventionist gods waiting in the wings, and so the rational thing to do is to deny they exist - at least until you have a reason to think otherwise.
Theists tell you you’re making false equivalences? Eqivalences to what?
The situation is that theist assert that gods don’t exist with high certainty, and atheists assert that gods don’t exist with lower certainty (excepting specific more-disprovable cases, which include all the gods people actually worship). Logically the atheist position is the correct one - granting made-up things unearned credibility is a logically incorrect position. It’s alright to be like an atheist and admit that you’re not 100% certain, but equating the credibity of arbitrary fictions and justified skepticism is not.
You have a fine tank but you’re firing it at a false target, one made of straw, that stands well off to the left. Virtually no atheists think that they can disprove any possible gods. They just think that just because you have the ability to make something up, that’s zippo reason to give it the slighest shred of belief. I can make up undetectable noninterventionist gods all day, but that doesn’t make any of them real.
Can I try to put your position in one sentence? Correct me if I’m wrong here:
“Atheists are incorrect for saying Sauron is fictional without having first proven that there isn’t an alternate Tolkien dimension out there somewhere.”