Convince Atheists

[Mount Brocken]

To me, if I am trying to convince you that God does exist then the burden of "proof" is mine. If you are trying to convince me that God does not exist, then the burden of "proof" lies with you. Beyond trying to convince someone there really isn't any burden of proof.

This is typically not how it works though. For an atheist doesn't generally find that he or she has to disprove God, since saying God exists is an assertion that has to follow any set of qualifying logically compelling claims.

 

[oldfart]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Careful philosophers note that a crucial element is missing in this kind of discussion. For a proposition such as "God exists", there are actually four possibilities: theism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-cognitivism. The last is the one that usually gets left out of the discussion, but is the most important.

To answer a question, the questioner and the answerer must have an understanding as to what the question means. For the proposition "God exists" this boils down to what is meant by "God". The non-cognitivist position is that the proposition is not sufficiently defined to allow an answer which would be understood by the parties of the discussion in the same way. Personally I am a non-cognitivist regarding the proposition "God exists". My usual response is "Which God?"

Now if I ask you "Do you believe in Jupiter?" You will answer "No" and I can confidently state that both you and I are atheists with respect to the existence of Jupiter.

In general terms, all questions of the form "Do you believe in X?" require a common understanding as to what X exactly is.

Something along those lines is brought up on the wikipedia page I linked to. Non-cognitivism is, I think, a form of Negative Atheism. A person who either chooses not to think about deities or who has never heard of any deity, does not believe in any deity. That person doesn't assert that there is not any deity, they simply do not think about deities at all (or at least not for any significant amount of time.) This is also known as Implicit Atheism as opposed to Explicit Atheism.

First, thanks for a well thought out response! Non-cognitivism is an outgrowth of logic rather than philosophy of religion. As such, it makes no judgment of a proposition that might be implied but is not stated. So I don't think it is a form of Negative Atheism. My personal faith is a form of philosophical Taoism which holds that personified deities (those that exhibit human emotions and characteristics such as favoritism, anger, pride, susceptability to cajolery, etc) are human constructs designed for social control. They are a sociological phenomena, not a religious one. So my personal beliefs are Negative Atheist toward almost all deities in your framework. But that is not a universal characteristic of a non-cognitivist position with regard to any particular proposition of god-talk.

Anyone who does not believe that all deities exist can fit into one of these categories of Atheism with respect to any given description of a deity. To your example, I don't think many people believe in Jupiter any more. Even among Christian sects, the God one sect describes is not necessarily the same God that another sect describes. Some of the most vehement disputes I have witnessed about God were between two Christians.

My experience is very similar to yours. There is more dispute over the "true" God than over the general proposition of the existence of a deity.

That said, unless you are "Atheist" with regards to all deities (or at least every one you had ever heard or thought of) you would not describe yourself as Atheist in general.

I do not consider myself an atheist in a general sense. My objection is to a large class of proposed deities, and to some others I am a non-cognitivist. I see no harm in the "Clock-maker God" of the Deists of the 16th century, nor of the "smaller gods" of hearth and home. No one ever went to war over these "gods", although quite a few witches were burned for believing in them (but that is a reflection on those who hunted, not the hunted).

I would finish with one note. When you ask the wrong question, you usually get bad results. The Abrahamic religions ask "What does God want us to do?" and has therefore spawned a great deal of evil in the world. One is hard pressed to conceive of a crime against humanity not committed in the name of those religions. And of course those faiths are mutually exclusive in many cases and in a state of violent conflict against each other. In contrast, the Eastern traditions (Vedic religions, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism and so forth) are less exclusive. A Chinese proverb states that every Chinese wears a Confucian hat, a Taoist robe, and Buddhist sandals. Each of these faiths starts from a different question, "How should a wise person live their life and treat other people?"

 

[Mathbud1]

To me, if I am trying to convince you that God does exist then the burden of "proof" is mine. If you are trying to convince me that God does not exist, then the burden of "proof" lies with you. Beyond trying to convince someone there really isn't any burden of proof.

This is typically not how it works though. For an atheist doesn't generally find that he or she has to disprove God, since saying God exists is an assertion that has to follow any set of qualifying logically compelling claims.

But that only matters in practice if I am trying to convince an Atheist that God exists. If I am not trying to convince anyone, why would I need to prove anything?

If an Atheist wants to convince me that God does not exist, is he simply going to say, "if you cannot prove that God does exist, he must not exist?" That statement does not make any sense logically, so if he is trying to base his position on science and rationality, he has failed. Failing to prove that something does exist does not prove that it does not exist. The person trying to effect a change is the person who has to form a cogent argument. An Atheist trying to convince a Theist does not necessarily need to prove that God does not exist or cannot exist, but they do need to present some kind of reasoning to change the Theists opinion.

 

[Mount Brocken]

But that only matters in practice if I am trying to convince an Atheist that God exists. If I am not trying to convince anyone, why would I need to prove anything?

If an Atheist wants to convince me that God does not exist, is he simply going to say, "if you cannot prove that God does exist, he must not exist?" That statement does not make any sense logically, so if he is trying to base his position on science and rationality, he has failed. Failing to prove that something does exist does not prove that it does not exist. The person trying to effect a change is the person who has to form a cogent argument. An Atheist trying to convince a Theist does not necessarily need to prove that God does not exist or cannot exist, but they do need to present some kind of reasoning to change the Theists opinion.

I don't deny this, I am merely pointing out that usually atheists, even when publicly denying theism, claims burden of proof since they are denying what theists propose. They say they claim nothing until a claim of something like a God is presented.

I proposed that typically atheists deny God's existence on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence. However, since empirical evidence is the only evidence they embrace, and empiricism assumes there is an objective reality, IF one were to question the presence of an objective reality THEN the burden of proof would rest on them.

 

[oldfart]

I have always been fascinated by the burden of proof clause in a debate. For atheists often appeal to this, in that, a theist claims something and the atheist is questioning that claim, therefore there is a burden of proof established in favor of the atheist. And yet, there are implicit assumptions that the atheist claims, such as there being an objective world, that is denied by some, say, idealists. If this is the case, then why isn't there a burden of proof on an atheist that promotes the view that the senses and objective reality exist in the first place?

I suggest you perform the following experiment: drink four beers and refrain from urinating for twelve hours. Just tell yourself that the information from your senses is not real. The argument you propound is specious. We must all live as if the information of our senses is generally correct, no matter what philosophical arguments we chose to entertain ourselves with.

 

[Mount Brocken]

Firstly, I do not drink. Secondly, just because corresponding pains with corresponding actions such as drinking does not mean there is a thing like matter apart from the brain.

 

[Mathbud1]

If you are going to discuss Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, you probably ought to do so by first defining what you mean by the terms. Theism and Agnosticism are both relatively easy to define. Theism can be reasonably said to be a belief in some form of deity. Agnosticism is generally accepted to be the position that we either do not or can not know for sure whether any deities exist or do not exist. Atheism is much harder to define. I think this page has some good discussion of different "forms" of Atheism:

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





I've never seen a good rational arguement for positive atheism. To assert that no deities exist is to assert full knowledge of everything which would imply that you are some form of deity yourself since full knowledge of the universe would not be possible for a human. To make the assertion, "There is no deity anywhere in existence," is to implicitly refute your own assertion.

I can understand the statement, "I believe there is no deity." I can understand the statement, "I do not believe there is a deity." I cannot understand the statement, "There is no deity."

Careful philosophers note that a crucial element is missing in this kind of discussion. For a proposition such as "God exists", there are actually four possibilities: theism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-cognitivism. The last is the one that usually gets left out of the discussion, but is the most important.

To answer a question, the questioner and the answerer must have an understanding as to what the question means. For the proposition "God exists" this boils down to what is meant by "God". The non-cognitivist position is that the proposition is not sufficiently defined to allow an answer which would be understood by the parties of the discussion in the same way. Personally I am a non-cognitivist regarding the proposition "God exists". My usual response is "Which God?"

Now if I ask you "Do you believe in Jupiter?" You will answer "No" and I can confidently state that both you and I are atheists with respect to the existence of Jupiter.

In general terms, all questions of the form "Do you believe in X?" require a common understanding as to what X exactly is.

Something along those lines is brought up on the wikipedia page I linked to. Non-cognitivism is, I think, a form of Negative Atheism. A person who either chooses not to think about deities or who has never heard of any deity, does not believe in any deity. That person doesn't assert that there is not any deity, they simply do not think about deities at all (or at least not for any significant amount of time.) This is also known as Implicit Atheism as opposed to Explicit Atheism.

First, thanks for a well thought out response! Non-cognitivism is an outgrowth of logic rather than philosophy of religion. As such, it makes no judgment of a proposition that might be implied but is not stated. So I don't think it is a form of Negative Atheism. My personal faith is a form of philosophical Taoism which holds that personified deities (those that exhibit human emotions and characteristics such as favoritism, anger, pride, susceptability to cajolery, etc) are human constructs designed for social control. They are a sociological phenomena, not a religious one. So my personal beliefs are Negative Atheist toward almost all deities in your framework. But that is not a universal characteristic of a non-cognitivist position with regard to any particular proposition of god-talk.

Anyone who does not believe that all deities exist can fit into one of these categories of Atheism with respect to any given description of a deity. To your example, I don't think many people believe in Jupiter any more. Even among Christian sects, the God one sect describes is not necessarily the same God that another sect describes. Some of the most vehement disputes I have witnessed about God were between two Christians.

My experience is very similar to yours. There is more dispute over the "true" God than over the general proposition of the existence of a deity.

That said, unless you are "Atheist" with regards to all deities (or at least every one you had ever heard or thought of) you would not describe yourself as Atheist in general.

I do not consider myself an atheist in a general sense. My objection is to a large class of proposed deities, and to some others I am a non-cognitivist. I see no harm in the "Clock-maker God" of the Deists of the 16th century, nor of the "smaller gods" of hearth and home. No one ever went to war over these "gods", although quite a few witches were burned for believing in them (but that is a reflection on those who hunted, not the hunted).

I would finish with one note. When you ask the wrong question, you usually get bad results. The Abrahamic religions ask "What does God want us to do?" and has therefore spawned a great deal of evil in the world. One is hard pressed to conceive of a crime against humanity not committed in the name of those religions. And of course those faiths are mutually exclusive in many cases and in a state of violent conflict against each other. In contrast, the Eastern traditions (Vedic religions, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism and so forth) are less exclusive. A Chinese proverb states that every Chinese wears a Confucian hat, a Taoist robe, and Buddhist sandals. Each of these faiths starts from a different question, "How should a wise person live their life and treat other people?"

I love good discussion.

Negative Atheism as decribed in the Wikipedia article I linked to is really simply a lack of belief for any given deity. I don't think it is the best name for it because Atheism implies belief against deities to most people. Realistically a lack of belief in any given thing is where everyone starts. Nobody can believe in a deity until they can conceptualize a deity in their own mind. You can't believe that any deity does exist until you believe some kind of deity could exist, and you can't believe that some kind of deity could exist until you are aware of the concept of a deity existing. Even if you do become aware of the concept of a deity/deities and believe that a deity or deities could exist, you may not actually believe that any deities do exist much less that a specific deity exists. That is the state that many people call Agnostic, but non-cognitivism fits in that state too. If you don't care to put any thought into the concept of deities beyond acknowledging that the concept exists, then you won't ever leave that state. You will remain not believing for any deity and not believing against any deity. But even if you do give it a lot of thought you may not ever gain belief for or against deities in general or specific.

The reason many people call Atheism a faith or religion is that many Atheists express a belief or "knowledge" that deities do not exist. To express that, they have to have gone beyond merely lacking a belief for deities. They have to have gained belief against deities. They have gone from, "I do not believe God exists" to "I believe God does not exist" or simply "God does not exist."

Asking what God wants ignores the more important questions of why he would want it and why should I care that he wants it. If God wants you to do something just because he has asked you to do it, that God does not make any sense to me. If God wants you to do soemthing because it is good, for your own good, and for the good of others, that makes sense to me. Then you don't need to try to find out what God wants you to do. You have to find out what is good and do that because it is good and not because God wants you to do it. In essence you need to find "how... a wise person [should] live their life and treat other people." Anyone who uses that God as an excuse to do evil is in for a world of hurt if and when they ever come face to face with him. A God that wants you to blindly follow is not a God that I want to follow. The only God I think worthy of following is a God that wants you to do good for the sake of doing good, and who wants you to use your own mind and will to find, recognize, and choose those good things. A God who wants you to seek the truth, to seek the good, to grow, to learn. Empty obedience is worthless to me.

 

[dblack]

To me, if I am trying to convince you that God does exist then the burden of "proof" is mine. If you are trying to convince me that God does not exist, then the burden of "proof" lies with you. Beyond trying to convince someone there really isn't any burden of proof.

This is typically not how it works though. For an atheist doesn't generally find that he or she has to disprove God, since saying God exists is an assertion that has to follow any set of qualifying logically compelling claims.

But that only matters in practice if I am trying to convince an Atheist that God exists. If I am not trying to convince anyone, why would I need to prove anything?

If an Atheist wants to convince me that God does not exist, is he simply going to say, "if you cannot prove that God does exist, he must not exist?" That statement does not make any sense logically, so if he is trying to base his position on science and rationality, he has failed. Failing to prove that something does exist does not prove that it does not exist. The person trying to effect a change is the person who has to form a cogent argument. An Atheist trying to convince a Theist does not necessarily need to prove that God does not exist or cannot exist, but they do need to present some kind of reasoning to change the Theists opinion.

I really don't see most atheists trying to convince anyone that gods don't exist. Pretty much any discussion of the matter is in response to the claims, or demands, of theists. And even then, most of atheists are content to respond with "Cool story, bro!", and leave it that. It isn't until religious folks start proselytizing or otherwise pushing their faith on others that it becomes an issue.

 

[Mathbud1]

I really don't see most atheists trying to convince anyone that gods don't exist. Pretty much any discussion of the matter is in response to the claims, or demands, of theists. And even then, most of atheists are content to respond with "Cool story, bro!", and leave it that. It isn't until religious folks start proselytizing or otherwise pushing their faith on others that it becomes an issue.

In that case the burden definitely lies with the proselytizer. They are trying to do the convincing.

I, unfortunately, have seen many Atheists who are hell-bent (pun intended) on convincing Theists that they are absolutely and unequivocally delusional.

EDIT: as in most cases it is a vocal minority who do such.