Marijuana.com

anewaphorist

As an atheist, I have many reasons for denying the existence of God. However, one of the more defensible, philosophic arguments I maintain is known as the presumption of atheism, a sobriquet given it by English philosopher Tony Flew in his essay of the same title.

Although many philosophers have argued against the existence of God, I believe (as Flew did) that it is not necessary to do so in order to establish the rationality of atheism. Because of the nature of theism, we ought to all be atheists until presented with strong evidence or sound arguments for theism, even if we do not possess any such evidence or arguments for atheism. Now there are two forms of atheism as a result of the presumption of atheism: strong atheism and weak atheism.

I have no doubt you have heard the position of the weak atheists: that theirs is the default position because he who asserts must prove. Theists obviously make the positive claim that God exists, whereas weak atheists merely withhold their assent from the claim. The theist, thus, bears the burden of proof. Since he who asserts must prove, the weak atheist will be justified in his atheism unless the theist can offer a sound argument or strong evidence for God's existence.

The other position is the presumption of strong atheism, who asserts that God does not exist. The strong atheist reformulates the presumption of atheism argument. He or she does not point to the tentativeness of their position as a reason precluding an argument but rather points to the ordinary nature of their position as fulfilling this role. Strong atheism does not go beyond our experiences; it coheres with our observations of the world around us. Theism, however, makes extraordinary claims about a heavenly realm, spiritual beings, and the resurrection of the dead. Since these claims are extraordinary and do not fit with out everyday experiences, they are to be disbelieved except in the face of a sound argument or extraordinary evidence for the existence of God.

Now, I outline these two rudimentary and logical arguments for atheism to see if anyone can disprove either the strong or weak atheist with sound logic or evidence against their claims. I am not asking for sound logic or evidence in regards to proving the existence of God; we all know such rationality does not pervade religion. But I will be very impressed if someone can refute either of the two positions without reverting to one of the typical cop-outs (i.e., "God is above all logic," "Logic is man-made," etc...).

 

Trocisp

One can very easily refute weak atheism.

Weak atheism posits that there is no god, because Occam's Razor dictates that the simpler answer is that naturally occurring phenomena can more easily be explained by logic than the supernatural.

The point at which all physical laws break down is 5 or so seconds after the big bang (pre-baryogensis). Since there is no applicable logic, there must be a God.





Not that I believe that. If I was ever presented with hard evidence of a God, I'd accept him or her, them or it, however, until them... it's Occam's Razor for me... There's no evidence of God, so why believe in him or her, them or it?


No evidence for unicorns, why believe in them? What makes God different from Unicorns? The fact that he or she, them or it has supernatural powers? Wouldn't that make it harder to believe?


To each their own.

__________________
"No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights." - Vladimir Putin
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." - Oscar Wilde
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies." - Aristotle

dj Dozhe

opiate of the masses.

Hashishi

I'd argue that most 'believers' or 'theists' are pantheists at heart and that established religion and all religious doctrine is an abstraction thereof. How then to refute either argument? This is God: it is omnipresent; the summary existence and experience thereof from the material to the immaterial is God and is therefore self-evident. Theological argument would be entirely redundant if such emphasis weren't placed on the doctrinal intricacies of established religion (i.e. an anthrocentric super-entity)

I don't offer this position without evidence, either: the most 'primitive' or 'untouched' peoples discovered in modern times ascribe to pantheistic spirituality; the dreamtime of the indigenous peoples of Australia and Native American spirituality, to name but two. Theism, as we debate it, it is for the Semites and it is from my perspective a redundant topic.

__________________
SWP



"I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty." -- "If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly." -- "Secretary Powell and I agree on every single issue that has ever been before this administration except for those instances where Colin's still learning." -- "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns: the ones we don't know we don't know."

Trocisp

Actually, both Aboriginal American and Australian (as well as Amazonian aboriginals, not to be confused with "amazonian women-tribe") peoples have, more or less, structured belief systems.

Not nearly so structured as the Catholic or Christian churches in general, however, there are doctorines.


And, I'll say as I've said before, refer to my signature. "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

anewaphorist

Here is a link to Flew's article. A brilliant piece, really...

The Presumption of Atheism

anewaphorist

And Tro, you did not actually refute the weak atheist's position. Stating that the big bang theory does not hold up does not provide evidence for the existence of God or against the position of the weak atheist (who maintains that the theist must prove). The most that assertion does, if it is true, is provide evidence against the big bang theory, not evidence for God.

Hashishi

That wasn't my point. Before I clarify, I do understand this is a huge generalisation, but hey?

The further spiritual beliefs are from 'civilisation' the more pantheistic they become. Succinctly put, all religion is an abstraction of a pure, pantheistic world view.

StonedImmaculate21

Why embrace either position? To me, to claim to be a true atheist or a true believer is presumptuous. I believe that life is a continuous journey of learning and truth-seeking. To fully accept or deny either position immediately cuts your options for finding truth in half. Only by exploring all possible paths with an open mind can you form a truly educated view of what is truth. I hate to refer back to such an old argument, but I believe it to be true: the idea of God can not be disproven any more than it can be proven. Sure, you can compile evidence and make theories, but that's all they can possibly be, theories. Only when you can admit that you know nothing for sure can you begin to seek true knowledge.

As my high school philosophy teacher, Father Edward Craig (most open-minded priest ever) said: "Knowledge and love are the two imperatives of life; pursue each like a wild beast."

__________________
Feel free to add me at my MySpace page.
The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
Erowid.org:

nornerator

I'm not sure if you are joking or not. But the "logic" presented is a non-sequitur, that is, it doesn't make sense. Basically you are saying "Since A is not explainable at present moment, god must exist" Not a very good argument because the two are not related in any way what-so-ever.

In addition to this, our physical laws can account for time much smaller than a second after the big bang. They break down close to the point of explosion. This has nothing to do with evidence for god. All this says is that our physical laws are not perfect, which should be obvious since we do not actually know what causes gravity, how can we expect the rest of our physical laws to be 100% perfect. Only time and research can improve our physical laws.