What is Atheism?

[RoadRunner79]

Note:  Didn't vote, because both can be used.

[Nonpareil]

But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof.

No. Both sides carry a burden of proof.

It is just that atheists meet theirs.

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!"

Theism, classical or otherwise, is not the "best explanation" for anything. It has literally zero explanatory power. It is functionally equivalent to "because magic".

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.

No. He is pointing out that the null hypothesis is not a question of how many people believe a certain proposition to be true. The null hypothesis is not determined by consensus. It is the position which has already met its burden of proof - that is, the position that does not posit the existence of any entities or properties of entities not already in evidence.

And we don't assume that we know what a godless universe looks like. We conclude it, because we see a universe that apparently lacks gods.

'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.

No. Solipsism is incoherent, and boils down to semantic games. It is the null hypothesis up until the point where you actually start experiencing anything, at which point it is discarded.

We are saying that the proposition "God exists' is the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the most observable facts about reality.

You are also failing to back this up.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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.

By trying to understand reality in a parsimonious manner, is it possible that this way of thinking can cause people to stay within their current thought processes and be prone to confirmation bias via looking for things that support their current way of thinking rather than finding ways to change their way of thinking in order to fit with reality and the observable facts in it?

In addition, as a theist, how do you know that what is being attributed to God today won't be discovered to be the result of some occurrence in reality (unrelated to god), which can be understood and explained via reason and science?

[Neo-Scholastic]

It must be really convenient for you to claim that you know what people's motivations are better than they do themselves.

Incredulity is about not finding the belief in God credible. That can be as simple as raising an objection. Once an objection has been raised then the person making that objection has expressed a belief as to why he or she will not accept the proposition that God exists.

Otherwise I am no different from anyone else. I make inferences about people motivations from their behaviors. If someone expressly ridicules Christians (irrational, delusional, etc.) and mocks their beliefs (sky daddy, zombie Jew, etc.) then it is reasonable to infer he or she doesn't simply 'lack belief.' Likewise, if someone openly objects to biblical prohibitions of certain sexual activities, then it is reasonable to infer that he or she is inclined to reject the Christian faith because he or she tacitly approves of them, if not for themselves, then for everyone else. Not all atheists are like that, obviously, but you cannot deny that there are more than a few who are like that. Those are the people I'm talking about. If the shoe fits wear it.

Of course you are free to speculate about my motives. I doubt I have ever given any indication that I use faith as a psychological crutch; although, that is clearly the case for some believers. As for me, I was once a perfectly content atheist.

---

Not exactly. We are saying that the proposition "God exists' is the most parsimonious explanation...

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.

To dismiss all the things for which God would be responsible, atheists propose a wide range of unconnected alternatives:delusions, coincidence, confirmation bias, emergent properties, niche fitness, multiverses, brute facts,...the list is endless. I have one - a necessary being that is fully in act and whose existence is identical to its essence.

[Mister Agenda]

It must be really convenient for you to claim that you know what people's motivations are better than they do themselves.

Incredulity is about not finding the belief in God credible. That can be as simple as raising an objection. Once an objection has been raised then the person making that objection has expressed a belief as to why he or she will not accept the proposition that God exists.

Otherwise I am no different from anyone else. I make inferences about people motivations from their behaviors. If someone expressly ridicules Christians (irrational, delusional, etc.) and mocks their beliefs (sky daddy, zombie Jew, etc.) then it is reasonable to infer he or she doesn't simply 'lack belief.' Likewise, if someone openly objects to biblical prohibitions of certain sexual activities, then it is reasonable to infer that he or she is inclined to reject the Christian faith because he or she tacitly approves of them, if not for themselves, then for everyone else. Not all atheists are like that, obviously, but you cannot deny that there are more than a few who are like that. Those are the people I'm talking about. If the shoe fits wear it.

Of  course you are free to speculate about my motives. I doubt I have ever given any indication that I use faith as a psychological crutch; although, that is clearly the case for some believers. As for me, I was once a perfectly content atheist.

We've already had this conversation, and I'm sure you've had it with others. I don't find the claim that God exists credible. That doesn't mean it isn't true. I have explained why I do not accept the claim, and that is not the same thing as saying I will not. There would be no atheist to theist conversions if that were true.

I would be tempted to mock someone who believed magical leprechauns are real, but having to actually deal with a magical leprechaun would set me straight if the experience was convincing enough. And it would still be understandable for someone to mock me for my subsequent belief in magical leprechauns if all I brought to support my contention was a story. Not because I was lying (in this scenario, I'm absolutely certain that magical leprechauns are real), but because I'm foolish enough to expect reasonable people to believe my account of something so fantastic when all I have is a story and 'you can't prove leprechauns aren't real!' People who are interested might suggest I was hallucinating or having some kind of internal brain experience, and if I don't acknowledge that's at least possible, I'm presenting myself as some kind of supreme witness who uniquely can't possibly be fooled by something going on in my brain. I'm not foolish for having the experience or believing it's real, I'm foolish for thinking I can prove it based on testimony alone. I might think people really ought to be nicer to me about it, but I'm still the one being foolish in this scenario. It would be different if I could get the leprechaun to show up and do some magic under controlled conditions, then it would be the people who refused to accept the findings who would be foolish.

A. Suppose I say the sexual prescriptions of the Bible make no sense apart from it being presented as God's will. C. You conclude that's why I don't believe in Christianity. You don't see a missing step there?

The shoe doesn't fit me, and it fitting someone else who shares some opinion with me is no justification for trying to fit it on all of us. Some theists like orgies, that's clearly the case for some believers. What remarks about theists does that justify me making? That when some of them say they're not into orgies I can dismiss that because I know they secretly are?

I was once a perfectly content theist. So what? That qualifies me to tell you your motivations over your objections?

---

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.

To dismiss all the things for which God would be responsible, atheists propose a wide range of unconnected alternatives:delusions, coincidence, confirmation bias, emergent properties, niche fitness, multiverses, brute facts,...the list is endless. I have one - a necessary being that is fully in act and whose existence is identical to its essence.

For an entity to be more parsimonious, it has to actually exist. The whole point of parsimony is not to introduce entities that haven't been established as existing. The way you're using the word 'parsimonious', the most parsimonious explanation for presents under the trees on Christmas is Santa. To dismiss all the things for which Santa would be responsible, a-Santa-ists propose a wide range of unconnected alternatives: fairy tales, parental conspiracies, childish credulity, child behavior management, NORAD faking Santa showing up on radar, Santa's feats being physically impossible, Santa photos being of imposters...the list is endless. I have one-a jolly elf with magic powers who's existence is identical to the spirit of giving.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The shoe doesn't fit me, and it fitting someone else who shares some opinion with me is no justification for trying to fit it on all of us.

Look, I'm not trying to be an ass about it (this time). In the absence of specifics, I have no reason to believe you when you say that my generalizations do not apply to you in particular. At the same time, people cannot have conversations about these AF topics without making broad generalizations. Insisting that people add all kinds of qualifiers stifles the discussion. If 90% of atheists hold to some from of naturalism, then what is wrong with just saying atheists are naturalists.

[downbeatplumb]

The shoe doesn't fit me, and it fitting someone else who shares some opinion with me is no justification for trying to fit it on all of us.

Look, I'm not trying to be an ass about it (this time). In the absence of specifics, I have no reason to believe you when you say that my generalizations do not apply to you in particular. At the same time, people cannot have conversations about these AF topics without making broad generalizations. Insisting that people add all kinds of qualifiers stifles the discussion. If 90% of atheists hold to some from of naturalism, then what is wrong with just saying atheists are naturalists.

Because it is not an essential part of atheism.

From what I can tell by looking at the news most American Christians appear to be extreme right wing neo-nazis, do I think that all American Christians are extreme right wing neo-nazis, no.

[Whateverist]

I would say because it gives you more information, than a more vague rendition. Therefore it has more meaning.
Although coverage and applicability is sacrificed.

That was my reasoning anyway. Big Grin

Maybe you just like thinking the god question is as important for us as it is for you.  Sorry, no dice.

Yes... I detect a lack of critical thinking... and critical reading as this has nothing to do with what I said.

Oh but it does. You were saying the god-does-not-exist interpretation of atheism was more informative. Well that's only important to you because you'd like to know that means we want to argue god doesn't exist. Many of us don't care. It is no lack of critical thinking to not give limitless attention to such silly stuff as one finds in the bible. The laziness is yours for wanting atheists to declare the information you seek for you. Our not wishing to be bothered to serve you in this way is no indication of sloth on our part. Do your own sleuthing.

[Amarok]

Theists are selling an idea (god) and I'm not buying it till there's a reason to (atheism)

[Whateverist]

So what is atheism to you RR?

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).

Much better.  I agree with the part I bolded.  

As for your point that strong atheism is as legitimate an interpretation as the weaker form, I agree based on common usage.  Both work.  But when you really analyze it, you find that strong atheism is a special subset of atheists.  Anyone who would insist that the properties of this subset define the entire class, just looks like a person insisting that all rectangles have four sides of equal length.  Like strong atheism, squares are a special case within the class.

---

D'aw, Chad, you sweet talker.

Point taken, I'm in a pissy mood this morning.

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's not up to atheists to provide an alternative explanation because most of us don't claim to have an explanation for everything.

The ball is still in your court. It is still up to the theists to convince us of this god nonsense. It's okay to admit you don't know, which i think is exactly what most atheists do.

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!"

If this turns into a pissing contest try to remember: never cross the streams.