A case for positive atheism

[The Omnissiunt One]

Atheists often say (I've seen numerous members of this forum do it) that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, so atheists have no burden of proof. We make no positive statement about God's non-existence, it is argued. My problem with this is that it's unclear how this is different from agnosticism. Agnostics aren't sure whether God exists or not, but they lack belief in a god as much as they lack disbelief.

A few months ago, while debating some wishy-washy fence-sitters over at Agnostic Forums, I devised an argument to show that the default epistemic position is that there probably is no god. God's non-existence is more likely than his existence, a priori. It's a very simple argument, and I'm going to set it out for you in a few steps, like a formal logical argument in philosophy. See what y'all think.

1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.
2) There is no necessary correspondence between these ideas and reality. We can easily demonstrate this, because I can imagine there being a giraffe on my desk, but there is not. Nor are there any skunks, perpetual motion machines, 12th century minstrels, or purple fairies called Gerald.
3) Only if there is evidence for a particular idea is its existence in reality probable.
4) Because there are so many things we can think of, none of which is necessarily real, what we think of is very unlikely to be real.
5) There is no evidence, or no good evidence, for God's existence (this, of course, could be disputed, but that's no doubt been done and dealt with elsewhere).
6) The concept of God is very unlikely to exist in reality.
7) Ergo.. there probably is no god.

I'd appreciate your comments on this argument. Any flaws that you can see, please tell me. Especially if you think it's a load of shit.

Omnissiunt One

[Skeptisma]

To address the difference issue: Obviously, how you define things (or interpret them rather) is quite subjective. So, my explanation for choosing atheism over agnosticism might not even ring true for anyone else. However, your statement "they lack belief in a god as much as they lack disbelief" was my main selling point. I do not find them to be on equal footing. Science has shown that the universe is explainable (to the highest degree possible that we can attain as of yet) without any divine intervention. That isn't 50/50 to me, so... atheist I am.

Edit: And then I see the point of your whole post to begin with. Hi, I can't read. Nice to meet you.

Edit x 2: One issue I have is with #2. We CAN put a giraffe on your desk, or a skunk - so I think I'd stick to things that (as we currently know) could not be placed onto your desk.

[chatpilot]

I consider myself a militant atheist or a hardcore atheist for the simple fact that I am convinced to my own satisfaction that god or any gods for that matter do not, nor cannot exist outside the confines of the imaginations of those that do believe in him or them. I am of the opinion that the whole idea or concept of gods in general were created by men as a means to explain those things which in a more primitive time were not known. One of the best examples for this is found in Greek mythology where most of their deities were representatives of various natural phenomenon or human traits. Other more ancient cultures also followed the same blue print and had created deities that were also representative of the planets, the times or the seasons.

[DR7164]

I think its a great train of thought for someone who is *sitting on the fence* .. consider it a shove off the fence onto the side of atheism, but just a shove. IMHO, it wouldn't hold up against fundamentalists, but you probably didn't devise this to be used as an argument while debating a religious person.

*edit* point number 5 is probably your weakest point if you were dealing with an agnostic leaning more towards the existence of a deity.

[Minimalist]

1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.

Not to nit-pick but lots of people can't think of much at all.

[DR7164]

1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.

Not to nit-pick but lots of people can't think of much at all.

hahaha a good phrase would be "the human mind has the capacity to..."

[Skeptisma]

1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.

Not to nit-pick but lots of people can't think of much at all.

hahaha a good phrase would be "the human mind has the capacity to..."

Not quite. Not all human minds have that capacity or ability. Some don't have the ability even if they wanted to.

[The Omnissiunt One]

1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.

Not to nit-pick but lots of people can't think of much at all.

That's unfair. They can think of things... it's just all bullshit. Which was the point of my argument, really.

[Minimalist]

Where does it say that I have to be "fair" to shit-wits?


If they wish to believe in their gods and boogeymen then they are fair game.

[theVOID]

Atheists often say (I've seen numerous members of this forum do it) that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, so atheists have no burden of proof. We make no positive statement about God's non-existence, it is argued. My problem with this is that it's unclear how this is different from agnosticism. Agnostics aren't sure whether God exists or not, but they lack belief in a god as much as they lack disbelief.

Oh dear, you've already failed.

Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive.

I do not believe that the existence of god can be proved or disproved, so i hold no belief in god. This makes me both an atheist and and agnostic.

A few months ago, while debating some wishy-washy fence-sitters over at Agnostic Forums, I devised an argument to show that the default epistemic position is that there probably is no god.

I agree - statistically speaking even. Out of all the possible outcomes god is just one of many many different proposed ideas. That alone makes it probabilistically low. Then you consider the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence nor a single logically valid argument for his existence.... Even super-out-there string theory is at least logically coherent.

God's non-existence is more likely than his existence, a priori. It's a very simple argument, and I'm going to set it out for you in a few steps, like a formal logical argument in philosophy. See what y'all think.

Okay.

1) The human mind can conceive of an infinite, or at least very large, number of things.

My brain has a limited capacity for storage and a limited capacity for processing data, therefore it cannot possibly conceive of an unlimited number of things... So from this point on i approach your argument through the statement "the human mind can conceive of a very large number of things".

2) There is no necessary correspondence between these ideas and reality. We can easily demonstrate this, because I can imagine there being a giraffe on my desk, but there is not. Nor are there any skunks, perpetual motion machines, 12th century minstrels, or purple fairies called Gerald.

Agreed

3) Only if there is evidence for a particular idea is its existence in reality probable.

This statement assumes we have the knowledge required to make such claims, which imo is entirely naive.

The fact that we know of no evidence for a particular something does not make the something improbable. All we can say is what explanation is best supported, considering the total information available . It is exactly akin to saying "we have no evidence for the cause of inflation therefore the cause of inflation is improbable"... That's garbage, as you can see.

4) Because there are so many things we can think of, none of which is necessarily real, what we think of is very unlikely to be real.

This only works in situations where no evidence favors either position, such as the cause of universal inflation.

5) There is no evidence, or no good evidence, for God's existence (this, of course, could be disputed, but that's no doubt been done and dealt with elsewhere).

Agree.

6) The concept of God is very unlikely to exist in reality.

Agreed.

7) Ergo.. there probably is no god.

That is agnosticism buddy...

Example: Of the 20 or near abouts explanations i have conceived of for the cause of inflation, none are supported by evidence, therefore we cannot logically conclude that one is more likely than any other. God is one such explanation therefore is just as likely as all any other individual explanation.

Since no explanation is any more supported than any other, the only logical position is to withhold judgement - This is agnosticism.

Specifically excluding God as an explanation is irrational.

I'd appreciate your comments on this argument. Any flaws that you can see, please tell me. Especially if you think it's a load of shit.

Objections noted.