Philosophical Underpinnings for Rejecting God

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence for any of the gods humanity has created to soothe its fears....including yours.  Philosophy is irrelevant.

[Whateverist]

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

But what is the philosophical underpinning for rejection of God?

Well there's your problem.  Antitheism comes closer to the situation you describe.  But in the house of atheism there are many rooms and the one inhabited by the antitheists is by far not the largest.

The only reason atheism is a thing at all is that you blokes keep pushing the god belief question.  What we all share is the initial reaction of "what you huffing?"  But then, based as much on our own disposition as anything else our response varies between:

ignosticism:  Sorry, didn't understand the question.  What is it you are asking if I believe in exactly?;

agnosticism:  I have no information whatsoever regarding this god thingy of which you speak, no opinion;

apatheist: I just don't care one way or the other. (Go away.)

antitheism:  Of course not you dumb fuck, what the hell are you smoking?


One thing each has in common is a lack of a philosophic underpinning.  The ignostic doesn't understand the question, the agnostic politely reports on his lack of useful information to contribute to the question, the apatheist isn't interested, but only the antitheist will do his confrontational best to help you reach a better decision too. None of us takes the question seriously to search for philosophical underpinning, but only the antitheist cares enough to offer you tough love.

[Pyrrho]

Guys. Hello.

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

But what is the philosophical underpinning for rejection of God?

Is it Naturalism? Empiricism? Materialism?

Thanks.

You have things backwards.  One does not need an argument to not believe in something.  (Do you form an argument to not believe that there is a dragon under my bed?  My guess is, the idea that a dragon was under Pyrrho's bed never even occurred to you before you read that sentence.  So how could you have had an argument about it?)  The question is, why does someone believe in a god?  There is no good reason to believe in a god, and so one ought not believe in one.

And, as has already been said, atheism is about just one thing, about whether there is a god(s) or not.  It is not about anything else.

[Tonus]

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

I don't believe in any of those, so I suppose you can say that I "reject" them. But it's no different than the way you "reject the existence of" every other mythical (or "metaphysical") creature, being, or plane of existence. If faced with clear proof of any of it, I'm willing to agree that such-and-such being, creature, or place exists. But stories that have been handed down over the centuries with nothing but urban legends and never-corroborated events as support just aren't convincing.

I'll stop rejecting god when he stops bringing such weak moves to the basket. Same for the afterlife, angels, satan, etc.

[robvalue]

Hello, welcome

Looks like it's been pretty much covered!

[Alex K]

What is a metaphysical reality?

It is the dumb fuck illusion that things made up in a lazy pretense of explaining an imperfectly known reality is more real than the reality it purports to explain. 

Sure sure, but I wanted to hear OP say it

[ignoramus]

welcome matey to the crazy church of "seventh day asphaltists" ... have you seen our wares? Alex has got some beauties for Sale!

[bennyboy]

I understand that Atheism is a rejection of existence of God, or more broadly speaking (and correct me if I am wrong) rejection of all metaphysical realities. For example, Afterlife, Angels, Heaven/Hell, Satan, etc.

But what is the philosophical underpinning for rejection of God?

Well there's your problem.  Antitheism comes closer to the situation you describe.  But in the house of atheism there are many rooms and the one inhabited by the antitheists is by far not the largest.

The only reason atheism is a thing at all is that you blokes keep pushing the god belief question.  What we all share is the initial reaction of "what you huffing?"  But then, based as much on our own disposition as anything else our response varies between:

ignosticism:  Sorry, didn't understand the question.  What is it you are asking if I believe in exactly?;

agnosticism:  I have no information whatsoever regarding this god thingy of which you speak, no opinion;

apatheist:  I just don't care one way or the other.  (Go away.)

antitheism:  Of course not you dumb fuck, what the hell are you smoking?


One thing each has in common is a lack of a philosophic underpinning.  The ignostic doesn't understand the question, the agnostic politely reports on his lack of useful information to contribute to the question, the apatheist isn't interested, but only the antitheist will do his confrontational best to help you reach a better decision too.   None of us takes the question seriously to search for philosophical underpinning, but only the antitheist cares enough to offer you tough love.

Should be stickied.

[The Grand Nudger]

antitheism:  Of course not you dumb fuck, what the hell are you smoking?

-further, you're a terrible person for believing in it, for even wanting it to be true.......and as soon as I finish electrifying this fence.....I'm going to insist that you stay on the other side of it.


Can't leave that out..

[Jenny A]

---

Atheism is not a philosophy.  It is a single position on a single issue:  the existence of a god or gods. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. That's all.  

It is not a general rejection of an afterlife, or any other supernatural idea although many atheists not believe in the supernatural generally.  Angels and Satan on the other hand are gods (supernaturally powerful beings) and lack of belief in them is required.

Many atheists including myself reach this position through skepticism, but it might be reached by any number of means including simply never have been indoctrinated in a religion.  No stance on naturalism, empiricism, or materialism is required.  Again, atheism is not a philosophy, it is a position on a single issue, the existence of god.

Nor is it necessary in order to be an atheist to believe that all or indeed any gods have been disproved. It is quite common to lack a belief in something's existence because that thing has not been proved and not because it's existence has been disproved.  Right now I lack a belief that there is a million dollars in my crawlspace, but I haven't proven it isn't there.  In fact is not really possible to prove the lack of existence of anything.

Nor yet is it a belief in a god coupled with a decision to reject that god.  Even if you are opposed to the only god you believe in, belief in a god would preclude you from being an atheist.  It's definitional.

---

I really like your post a lot, very, very much, except for this:

"In fact is not really possible to prove the lack of existence of anything."

Right now, I have proof that there are no elephants existing in my dining room.  If there were any elephants in my dining room, they would be seen by me (and smelled, etc.).  So I know that there are no elephants existing in my dining room.

You, of course, do not have the proof, as you are not here to see for yourself.  But very likely, you have proof that there are no elephants existing in the room you are in (if you are in a room).

So it is possible to prove that something does not exist.


Also, there are descriptions that are self-contradictory, and one can know that they do not exist.  For example, I know that there are no married bachelors.  Married bachelors do not exist.  This is because to be a bachelor, one must not be married.

So we have another kind of possible proof that something does not exist.

I should have been more clear. It is possible to prove something isn't in a particular place if the place is small enough to search entirely. I could show that there isn't a million dollars in my crawlspace though it would take considerably more time and effort than it would take you to prove there are no elephants in your dining room. But it is not really possible to prove that something isn't anywhere. Somethings are of course more likely not to exist than others. I can argue that if there were a big foot, we'd have found some bones or captured one by now. But showing that there is no such creature on earth is not really feasible, and showing it exists no where in the universe is impossible. All we can say is that there is no evidence for it.

Proving something self-contradictory doesn't exist like married bachelors or four sided triangles isn't really what I meant either. That is simple a game of definitions. What you are saying is I've defined bachelors and anything outside the definition isn't one.