What is Atheism?

[Minimalist]

Normally in my mind, I still think in terms of atheism as opposed to agnosticism (more specific meanings similar to theism as opposed to deism).  However the less specific term is valid, and used by many who call themselves atheist.  I don't have an issue with this. But do think it is a little ridiculous, when people demand only the one meaning, acting like the other isn't legitimate.

The important thing is that we are both both on the same page in a discussion. (which may at times require clarification).

Perhaps the more accurate and least contestable term would be godless. But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof. The conceit of many here is that atheism is some kind of benign ignorance. In point of fact, most are incredulous, have reasons for being incredulous, and avoid defending the beliefs behind their incredulity. When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"

So again, you have no evidence for your absurd beliefs but simply want to play Lily Von Schtup.





No good, son.  you want a god you'll have to provide evidence for him.

[RoadRunner79]

Normally in my mind, I still think in terms of atheism as opposed to agnosticism (more specific meanings similar to theism as opposed to deism).  However the less specific term is valid, and used by many who call themselves atheist.  I don't have an issue with this. But do think it is a little ridiculous, when people demand only the one meaning, acting like the other isn't legitimate.

The important thing is that we are both both on the same page in a discussion. (which may at times require clarification).

Perhaps the more accurate and least contestable term would be godless. But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof. The conceit of many here is that atheism is some kind of benign ignorance. In point of fact, most are incredulous, have reasons for being incredulous, and avoid defending the beliefs behind their incredulity. When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"

I agree... I see equivocation with the term from a number of people as well.  Those who want to make claims, but then when pressed, try to bring up the one definition and claim skepticism.   The claim is not retracted, the position is not altered,  but they act like the definition which doesn't apply to what they are saying absolves them of justification.  And it is not like the definition is exclusive to an agnostic position.  I also find that along with shouting their claim over and over, these people often think insulting or attacking the person or source is a valid argument as well.  All you can do is point out the issues and move on.

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps the more accurate and least contestable term would be godless. But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof. The conceit of many here is that atheism is some kind of benign ignorance. In point of fact, most are incredulous, have reasons for being incredulous, and avoid defending the beliefs behind their incredulity. When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"

I agree... I see equivocation with the term from a number of people as well.  Those who want to make claims, but then when pressed, try to bring up the one definition and claim skepticism.   The claim is not retracted, the position is not altered,  but they act like the definition which doesn't apply to what they are saying absolves them of justification.  And it is not like the definition is exclusive to an agnostic position.  I also find that along with shouting their claim over and over, these people often think insulting or attacking the person or source is a valid argument as well.  All you can do is point out the issues and move on.

I'd be very interested in seeing the most egregious example you have of this claim.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If homeopathy was believed in for centuries and almost everyone but a few irrationally skeptical scientists believed in it unquestioningly, to prove it really works, the null hypothesis to overcome would still be 'homeopathically treated water is indistinguishable from the same water if not homeopathically treated in its medical effects'.

I guess what you are trying to say is that a world without God is indistinguishable from a world in which God exists. Is it? That begs the question by assuming you already know what a godless universe would look like.

In the homeopathy example you have the ability to isolate variables by comparing treated and untreated water. How does one create a sample set of all existence in which God exists to compare with a control set of all existence without God? It cannot be done and it is ludicrous to suggest an impossible test be used to test the proposition.

'The world is all that exists' is the null hypothesis. If you want to show that something besides the world exists, that's the proposition that you need to overcome.

If you are going to take that to the ultimate extreme then the null hypothesis is actually solipsism. Anything else, including 'The [physical] world is all that exists' is an alternative explanation or profoundly incurious. (I added 'physical' to the proposition to clarify my original meaning.)

[Mister Agenda]

Perhaps the more accurate and least contestable term would be godless. But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof. The conceit of many here is that atheism is some kind of benign ignorance. In point of fact, most are incredulous, have reasons for being incredulous, and avoid defending the beliefs behind their incredulity. When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"

It must be really convenient for you to claim that you know what people's motivations are better than they do themselves. I can see the attraction, I could just say you really know you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to your belief in God being rationally justified and that ultimately the real reason you believe is because you desperately want it to be true that you go to heaven when you die. And no matter what you say, I can always go back to asserting that your real motivation is that you desperately want not to die and will use any means you can think of to prop up your position to avoid confronting death being the end. Do you think it's fair that I make that my go-to from here on? After all, I might be right, and instead of dealing with your statements at face value, I can focus on your real motivation. And maybe add something about you running away like a petulant child shouting 'Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God doesn't exist!'

What do you think? Because you certainly seem to think it's legitimate discourse.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You people have been shouting and screaming about fairies at the bottom of the garden for the past god knows how many years... Then telling us that we have the burden of proving you wrong. Goddam, you're like little petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot DISPROVE god's existence!"

Not exactly. We are saying that the proposition "God exists' is the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the most observable facts about reality. You're saying that it doesn't without providing a coherent alternative or appealing to brute facts to avoid the principle of sufficient reason.

[Mister Agenda]

If homeopathy was believed in for centuries and almost everyone but a few irrationally skeptical scientists believed in it unquestioningly, to prove it really works, the null hypothesis to overcome would still be 'homeopathically treated water is indistinguishable from the same water if not homeopathically treated in its medical effects'.

I guess what you are trying to say is that a world without God is indistinguishable from a world in which God exists. Is it? That begs the question by assuming you already know what a godless universe would look like.

In the homeopathy example you have the ability to isolate variables by comparing treated and untreated water. How does one create a sample set of all existence in which God exists to compare with a control set of all existence without God? It cannot be done and it is ludicrous to suggest an impossible test be used to test the proposition.

One would almost think you were trying to shift attention from your misunderstanding of how a null hypothesis works to the logistics of applying it to God's existence. I agree that it's difficult, especially when you can't think of a single variable that would be different in a world where God exists and a world where God doesn't. No evidence that the earth ever stopped turning for a few hours, no evidence of a global flood in historical times, no evidence that God responds to prayers in a detectable way...claims about God not surviving any hypothetical test don't affect the proposition that God exists because God can always be redefined to explain why the results expected if the claim were true weren't found, just like one could do with an imaginary being.

'The world is all that exists' is the null hypothesis. If you want to show that something besides the world exists, that's the proposition that you need to overcome.

If you are going to take that to the ultimate extreme then the null hypothesis is actually solipsism. Anything else, including 'The [physical] world is all that exists' is an alternative explanation or profoundly incurious. (I added 'physical' to the proposition to clarify my original meaning.)

Science is based on what's useful and what works and what's testable. Solipsism doesn't fall in those categories, it's like God in that while accounting for everything, it doesn't actually account for anything.

[RoadRunner79]

I agree... I see equivocation with the term from a number of people as well.  Those who want to make claims, but then when pressed, try to bring up the one definition and claim skepticism.   The claim is not retracted, the position is not altered,  but they act like the definition which doesn't apply to what they are saying absolves them of justification.  And it is not like the definition is exclusive to an agnostic position.  I also find that along with shouting their claim over and over, these people often think insulting or attacking the person or source is a valid argument as well.  All you can do is point out the issues and move on.

I'd be very interested in seeing the most egregious example you have of this claim.

See the Carl Sagin Thread!   (edit:   correction Neil Degrasse Tyson thread)

(note: perhaps not the most eregious, but a recent one)   I don't keep a list to bring up later and shove in peoples faces.   Just know that I run into it quite often.

[AceBoogie]

You people have been shouting and screaming about fairies at the bottom of the garden for the past god knows how many years... Then telling us that we have the burden of proving you wrong. Goddam, you're like little petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot DISPROVE god's existence!"

Not exactly. We are saying that the proposition "God exists' is the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the most observable facts about reality. You're saying that it doesn't without providing a coherent alternative or appealing to brute facts to avoid the principle of sufficient reason.

Before we even begin to discuss any rebuttal of your argument you first have to build a valid argument. Saying, "God exists, prove me wrong" means nothing and will get you laughed out of any serious discussion.

[Mister Agenda]

You people have been shouting and screaming about fairies at the bottom of the garden for the past god knows how many years... Then telling us that we have the burden of proving you wrong. Goddam, you're like little petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot DISPROVE god's existence!"

Not exactly. We are saying that the proposition "God exists' is the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the most observable facts about reality. You're saying that it doesn't without providing a coherent alternative or appealing to brute facts to avoid the principle of sufficient reason.

Parsimony is not adding entities to an explanation that aren't required. Your burden is to show that reality with 'God exists' is more parsimonious than reality without 'God exists'. Just saying that it's more parsimonious doesn't make it so. And 'God did it' is no different from 'a magical sparkly unicorn did it' in terms of actually accounting for facts about reality. It's avoiding actually trying to account for (explain by providing details) facts about reality.