How to Talk to Atheists
November 16th, 2006 by 
drunkentune
Let’s make this blunt: I am an atheist; you, the reader, presumably, are a believer. To be quaint, I’m making an educated guess, since there’s a ~84% chance that you believe in God. That, my friend, is an excellent guess to make, and I’ve made it in confidence. So, to the 84% of you out there that are believers, listen up: I’ve got a confession to make…
I. Introduction: I swear, we’re not that bad
I have debated informally with many believers for years, and it’s time for a watershed moment. I’m done with haughty debate, with inane arguments and ridiculous presuppositions. I’m done with insulting people that are genuinely concerned about my future. It is time that atheists and theists alike flense our argumentative shells and have honest conversations without the ad hominem [wiki] attacks so common today. But if you want to dialogue with an atheist, it’s time for some short, simple ground rules.
‘Short?’ you may quip. ‘Cut to the heart of the matter all ready! Enough with the blabbering!’
I must concede. Yes, this will be fairly long, and if you wish to cut through the wax, just read the synopsis [Appendix] at the end. So, let us begin, and as the title suggests, I am here to provide a guide on how to talk to an atheist. You can jump to points [1] - [6], which details some conduct atheists dislike, or [7] - [12], which details some content atheists detest.
But first, I want to be witheringly clear: I am just like you. I bleed, I love life, I worry about the state of the world we’re in. You may think of me and other atheists as Shakespeare’s Shylock [wiki] incarnate, but simply put, I am human, not a beast, and I wish to be treated as a human being. When you, the believer, speak with a condescending tone, you do not help to convey your argument.
Really, the only difference between you, the believer, and the atheist, is that atheists do not believe in God. We just don’t believe. I have never seen any evidence for me to think otherwise. In fact, I have seen plenty of evidence in polemics, philosophy, history, and science to conclude that the theistic god described in the Bible does not exist, and furthermore, that a being with the characteristics of a deistic or pantheistic God, cannot exist, or are meaningless.
Searching for the truth lead me to realize that God is not necessary. If the universe is an equation, the deistic God is only a sloppy addition to the wonder that can be eliminated in numerous mathematical ways. The onus is on the one making the claim to show evidence in support of adding God to the equation and refute evidence against its removal. If you describe ‘God,’ please understand that there are many different definitions present in each religion, sect, and individual person. To some, the ’soul’ means one thing, while to others, the ’soul’ means something else. To an atheist, hearing the words of ‘Heaven,’ ‘Hell,’ ‘Sin,’ ’soul,’ or ‘God’ mean very little unless you give them meaning to the atheist. All I ask is that you give us a working definition!
II. Meta-offenses: Mega-offending
[1] Please don’t try to convert the atheist while engaging in healthy dialogue. Just as the basketball player may try for hours to sink a shot, sometimes allowing the mind and body to relax will bring the perfect three-pointer. It is a Zen-like moment when your body and mind are empty of extra baggage, and you just do.
Perhaps if you relax, and not enter the conversation attempting to convert, you will not leave frustrated, confused why the atheist did not understand your argument for belief. If you do not act as if the world revolves around the argument, perhaps you will just do, and do so well.
If your expectations are to provide a mannered and thoughtful conversation, us atheists will be more likely to take your argument seriously. The more you act like a solipsistic, self-righteous prick, the more I, and other atheists, dislike you, and write letters to the editor, or blog privately about our dislike for believers. It is not in your interest to be rude.
If you wish to convert me, you may visit my site here. I allow quotations from scripture, appeals to faith, and any other argument as long as you are willing to defend it. You are free to attempt to convert me while at my site, but not here.
[2] Please don’t appeal to scripture as if that is sufficient proof to convince atheists. To you, you may believe that it is evidence, but after reviewing holy texts of other religions, I, and other atheists, can only conclude that scripture does not give evidence. This does not mean that the Bible is impossible to use. Far from it. Instead, when the topic is on the theistic god, quoting the Bible does not help your argument; when the topic is on the Bible, it is fair to quote the Bible. However, many atheists see quoting the Bible as an authority is appealing to the Bible’s authority, as if quoting from it was proof of the Bible’s very authority. It’s complicated, I know. It’s a circular argument that makes little sense to atheists when we hear it that way.
[3] Please don’t resort to appeals to faith when you do not know the answer. If you don’t know, then just say so. Please don’t say a variation of, “God did it.†I , and other atheists won’t believe you, and will interpret the phrase to mean, “I just don’t know at this time.†I’ll be honest, and I hope you will be too.
Many atheists believe that it is unfair for a Christian to argue on a logical level for a period of time, but when there are unanswered points, resorts to faith. If the believer is allowed to resort to faith, then it seems to reason that it is fair for atheists to resort to faith as well.
Some Christians are convinced that atheists do believe in God, but chose to deny it. This is flatly not true. While it may be convenient for you to believe so, the argument is meaningless. I just don’t believe.
For example, if a lunatic were to come to you and try to convert you with the words, “You know in your heart that you believe in unicorns,” you would laugh him out of the room. You don’t believe in unicorns because it’s a silly idea. It makes no sense to you. That is how atheists see such arguments from believers.
[4] Please don’t try to take blood. Sometimes ‘winning’ the argument becomes more important than the truth. I am here to find the truth through proven scientific methodology. I am here to test, question, and examine the world around me. Atheists despise believers if believers go for the low blow, or lie to win, as if ‘winning’ the debate was all that matters. ‘Winning’ will not convince atheists. Evidence and cogent arguments will.
[5] Please do listen to our arguments, and when a common argument used by believers has been debunked, please stop using it. I am tired of explaining that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution. I am tired debunking the fallacy of Pascal’s Wager, C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma, and false dichotomies. Please, for the life of me, don’t tell me that Adolph Hitler was an atheist. I have heard them all, and plenty of creationist claims as well. It’s exhausting, giving the same argument to many people. Please, think for yourself and make your own points and observations. I am willing to listen to almost all novel theories or arguments if they’re honestly thought through, and many atheists will consider these ideas because they are genuine breaths of fresh air. These are chances for us to flex our minds a bit, and we enjoy them immensely.
[6] Please do write on one issue at a time. If we’re talking about evidence for or against God, please do not talk about problems you may see in evolution or quantum mechanics. Perceived problems in evolution do not prove that God exists; evolution does not disprove God, unless you are following the strictest interpretation of the Bible. I can steer you to scientists, papers on evolution or other topics and write in layman’s terms about the implications for belief, but I am no scientist by trade. To the atheist, when you jump from topic to topic, it feels like you’re either dodging the question, or trying to push the conversation into a false dichotomy, where evidence against evolution or science is then evidence for the existence of God.
III. Minor quibbles: We’re pulling our hair out, guys!
[7] Please don’t tell atheists that you have had divine revelation without giving evidence to support your claim. Without evidence to prove otherwise, I can only formulae a null hypothesis, which is that you do not receive divine revelation.
To the atheist, arguments for divine revelation mean little, so please refrain from using such theistic arguments unless there is a way to give evidence for this claim. For example of an atheistic argument against, consider this:
Assume god exists.
Assume god does speak to people.
Assume people do have delusions.
I assert: There is no way to distinguish between someone who has truly been spoken to god and someone who is having delusions, for either the person receiving the messages or an outside observer.
[8] Please do treat atheists the way you would treat fellow believers.
[9] Please don’t tell atheists that we’re going to Hell. Atheists do not believe in Hell or Heaven, but we still find it very offensive when you say we’re going to burn in a lake of fire.
[10] Even if you argue for the existence of a god on purely theological grounds, or advocate for Intelligent Design, that still gives no reason why atheists such as myself should accept the Bible as part of the body that describes such a god.
[11] Please do not tell atheists that you are praying for them at the end of a debate. You may believe that your intentions are for the best, but to atheists such as myself, it is equivalent to a final “Fuck you!” at the end of a debate. If you want to get your message across, this is the wrong thing to do. Instead of saying, “I’m praying for you,” you could say, “I hope things work out for the best,” or, “Have a nice day!”
[12] Please do understand that to an atheist, the burden of proof is on the believer to convince the atheist that God exists.
IV. Some more information: This is safe ground. Really, it is!
It is my hope that dialogue between open theists and atheists can only lead to a positive outcome on both sides. I am not here to debate; I am here to speak. At this site, you are safe. I am not here to crush your religion. I will criticize an argument that I see as illogical or faulty, but I will not attack you, religion, or faith. I do this on my own time, on my own website.
On my personal website, I am a misanthrope: a rude, offensive asshole that routinely shuts down arguments with cold logic and humorless tone. However, on this website, I will put these things aside. I guarantee that I will listen to you if your words are cogent, insightful, and you are in the pursuit of truth. If your arguments are not insulting to atheists, we’re much more likely to listen to them with an open mind.
I am here to explain what many atheists will accept as evidence.
I am not here to start wars, but to build bridges, and I do hope that my brief introduction has not offended you in some way already. Why, if a mere collection of words from a heathen can send you into a tizzy, than this may not be the place for you.
If you are close-minded, or believe without question that you hold the ultimate truth, then having a conversation with an atheist such as myself will be very difficult. For an atheist, having a conversation with a believer that is absolutely sure that God exists is on par with a child convinced that Santa Claus exists. If you believe you hold the ultimate truth, than I must ask you to go about debunking Santa Claus.
Thank you.
A synopsis of the points given above:
1. Don’t try to convert atheists in relaxed conversation.
2. Don’t appeal to scripture in the wrong situation.
3. Don’t appeal to faith; just tell us you don’t know the answer yet.
4. Don’t try to win; try to make a clear argument.
5. Focus on the topic at hand.
6. Listen to the atheist’s arguments, and give up broken ones.
7. Don’t appeal to revelation unless you can back it up.
8. Treat atheists as human beings too. We deserve respect.
9. Don’t tell atheists that we’re going to Hell.
10. Arguing for design in nature isn’t enough to convince us that your god exists. We need more.
11. You may pray for us atheists, but we find it a final ploy used to extract guilt.
12. We believe that the burden of proof is on the believer to show why God exists.
Posted in atheism, how to dialogue | 
November 17th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Great list, drunkentune. This will help greatly in our conversations on this site, and it will hopefully help atheist/theist conversations more broadly. I’d like to speak to believers on some of the points you make.
Regarding [1]: Believers may have a problem with this one because of Jesus’ imperatives to evangelize everyone. If you notice Jesus’ practice, however, you will find he was always able to be in the moment, and often did not bring up belief in a evangelistic way when the conversation was going elsewhere or the person’s needs were different. In fact, it is my conviction that Jesus’ admonitions to “ask, seek, and knock” apply just as much to other people as to God. This would mean it is not ethical to evangelize someone who has not in some way been asked and agreed to be lead to faith in God. It makes sense to ask someone if you can use scripture, talk about God, and apply such talk personally, and to respect them if they say no. There is much we can talk about other than getting them to agree with our belief, after all, according to our faith, all things good and wonderful belong to us. I am afraid our current passion for evangelism is motivated by a false fear that without absolute adherence to our faith, or even cultural majority or dominance, it is invalid. That idea is neither Christian nor true.
Regarding [2]: Every believer should have an answer to why they believe in scripture that is not based on proof texts from scripture.
Regarding [3]: It is time for us to admit there is much in our understanding of God that is unknown, unknowable, and mysterious. Otherwise we are proclaiming a god-in-a-box that is no compelling and not very large. If we talk about faith in the face of the unknown, we should be immediately explore what that means, the risks involved, and why we choose such a path. Faith is not guessing about ideas — it is active trust and is somewhat counter-intuitive (so we should admit that).
Regarding [4, 5, 6]: Our morality, if we truly claim to follow Jesus, should make these no-brainers.
Regarding [12]: Atheists are right. If there is a burden of proof, it lies with us. Otherwise there would be no Great Commission and Paul would not say, “how will they trust Him who they have not heard, how will they hear if no one broadcasts it. And how will it be broadcast if they have not been sent.”
November 18th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Regarding [12]: Any atheists (or theists) who place a “burden of proof” on the theist are wrong.
The standard rules for applying a burden of proof do not fall exclusively on either side of this question. Neither side is advancing a proposition that is plainly obvious. Both sides are advancing propositions that are likely unprovable … assuming both sides can somehow be said to be perpetually advancing a proposition.
So with regard to this question, there is no “burden of proof”, and furthermore, there is no standard of proof until we agree upon one in context.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:40 am
Matthew,
I assert that Santa Claus exists. The burden of proof is not on you to show that Santa Claus does not exist. The onus is on me, since I make the claim. That is clear.
If you assert God exists, you must prove it. We had this very discussion before at my website.
I am confused, however. Why do the “standard rules” not apply in this case? The burden of proof rests on the theist; the negative atheist is reserving judgment until evidence is shown.
I am not asserting anything when I argue from the negative atheist’s standpoint: Given that you assert that God exists, and given that the existence of God is indeterminate, prove to me that God exists.
How is that not the burden of proof?
November 19th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Maybe I should clarify my statement “Regarding [12]” for believers. I was saying that the “burden of proof” is upon us regardless of the “standard rules” of logic. Our belief system, if we truly ascribe to it, asks us to take up the burden of proof whether it truly belongs to us logically or legally. Why Christians spend time agruing that atheists should prove their position is beyond me, when we have the calling to prove ours. After all, we claim to follow a God who takes responsibility even when it is not his, who reveals the truth even when it is not asked for, and who fixes messes whether he created them or not. Taking the burden of proof is simply ethical for the believer. I think we only play that card to hide behind our perceived dominance.
Drunkentune, sometimes I worry what will happen to movements that are largely defined in reaction to other movements. For example, what overadjustments would Democrats make if they simply react against Republicians, and will they have a reductionist or shallow identity? Do you think this is a danger for atheism and has there been any other basis for identity other than “we are the guys who don’t believe”?
November 20th, 2006 at 11:52 am
@dt - “I am not asserting anything when I argue from the negative atheist’s standpoint: Given that you assert that God exists, and given that the existence of God is indeterminate, prove to me that God exists.”
But that cuts both ways: “Given you assert that God does *not* exist, and given that the existence of God is indeterminate, prove to me that God does not exist.”
The essential problem is, there is no such thing as a “negative atheist’s standpoint”, or a “negative theist’s standpoint”, only a “negative agnostic’s standpoint”.
The atheist makes the *positive* assertion “God does not exist”, which is a *positive* assertion to someone who takes the existence of God as prima facie [wiki]Â true. The theist similarly asserts “God does exist”, to someone who takes the existence of God as prima facie false. Both must prove their cases, or neither must, but regardless, there is no imbalanced “burden of proof” that falls on one and not the other.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:55 am
@soulster - “Our belief system, if we truly ascribe to it, asks us to take up the burden of proof whether it truly belongs to us logically or legally.”
It does?
How’s that? I’m assuming that you are referring to the “great commission” … how is that a command to provide proof of God’s existence? In fact, in Romans, the apostle Paul seems to say the opposite - that if someone doesn’t see the existence of God as prima facie true, it’s their own fault.
(I’m not making this assertion … that’s just what Paul says.)
November 20th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
@soulster - “Why Christians spend time agruing that atheists should prove their position is beyond me, when we have the calling to prove ours.”
We spend time on the “burden of proof” argument because if we assume that the existence of God is unprovable, and then also assume a burden of proof, it’s game over.
Frankly, I find it disingenuous for an atheist who assumes that the theist has the burden of proof to spend any time arguing. Every time a theist makes an argument, he should isntead say, “sorry, that doesn’t constitute proof,” and go on about his business.
If neither side accepts a burden of proof, then we can have an open and honest discussion. Otherwise, we can have no discussion at all.
November 20th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Matthew,
The negative atheist has an absence of belief in God. The positive atheist believes there is no God. Unless you can see that distinction, then we’re failing to communicate.
I tell you Santa exists. Honestly, wouldn’t you ask for proof? Honestly, wouldn’t you ask for some kind of evidence, and if you saw the evidence was lacking, wouldn’t you tell me so? You wouldn’t say, “Well, since I make the positive assertion that Santa doesn’t exist, I better prove that Santa doesn’t exist.” You’d say, “Prove it!”
Until shown otherwise, Santa doesn’t exist, fairies don’t exist, unicorns don’t exist, the soul doesn’t exist, and God doesn’t exist.
For argumentative purposes, it is absolutely fair for a positive atheist to use the negative atheist approach, which is “Prove it!”
I don’t see what you’re getting at. Many theists I’ve spoken to claim that the evidence against God just doesn’t convince them. Some arguments by theists do convince atheists, while other arguments don’t work at all.
Yet, if we’re to take that position, theists should not be able to fall back on faith for similar reasons.
November 20th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Matthew,
I’m not sure you get what I’m saying. When I say we have the burden of proof, I mean that we take it missionally in imitation of God, not that it is ours because logic demands it, or because it is our fault if the world does not believe. God could have said, “well, these people don’t understand — screw them.” Instead, he amazes us in the biblical narrative by revealing himself over and over again, providing proofs of his existence and nature such as the many signs and wonders (see the Israel narrative and the rhetoric of the prophets).
I understand what you’re saying about logical arguements, and the bit about assuming God’s existence is unprovable. That’s been the intellectual position of many believers, but I’m not sure we’re making any progress trying to get atheists to agree to those terms. Instead, I think we come off as hiding behind that assertion. In my experience, most of them seem to still think the “burden of proof” rests with us whether it does or not. Paul’s probably right in Romans 1-2 that, if there is in fact a God, humans are to blame for thier own unbelief (I’ve already said we should take responsibility even if is not logically or legally ours). But Jesus’ mission, at least in one aspect, was to prove the existence of God, not so much in an atheistic context, but in the context of polytheism (Greeks) and many misrepresentations of God (Judaism). Paul’s preaching in acts also reflects this, especially to the Greeks and notably the philosophers at the Areopagus (Acts 17), some of which were Stoics [SEP] and Epicureans [wiki] who were toying with what might be considered atheistic leanings at the time compared to classical Greco-Roman Pantheism. While I think there is nothing either biblical or logical that makes me feel like I have to prove God’s existence, I want to because I care for the world, making the burden of proof arguement moot. I guess I’m just not going to tell an atheist, “there is no burden of proof” and then attempt to offer proof. Ultimately, I’m moving beyond to the “has to prove” to the “wants to prove”, which might be my way of arriving at the open discussion you’re talking about when you say: “if neither side accepts a burden of proof, then we can have an open and honest discussion.”
November 20th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Soulster,
I’ve got to commend you for taking the ethical high ground for the burden of proof. It’s difficult to hold a handicap and still come out even, and I think the burden of proof is a considerable one indeed.
I’m not sure there is any other prominent identity for atheists. In the media we’ve been portrayed in an unfavorable light. Perhaps there’s the “we’re a small minority with the truth” identity, or the “please look into the facts” identity, but atheism is only an unbelief in God/belief it doesn’t exist. I’m not sure atheism could be anything but reactionary since it’s a response to theism. I don’t think belief/unbelief is shallow.
There is secular humanism, though, and that is not shallow or reductionistic.
November 20th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
That’s interesting, drunkentune. From cyber-content, it seems many atheists eventually move into secular humanism for morality, purpose, community, etc. Would that be fair to say? For example, I noticed on Infidels.org there was advertising for a secular humanist organization that helps people have non-Christmas holidays.
There are identities that are transitional. For example, post-modernism, which defines itself, to some extent, by its reactions to modernism. But these identities are simply a portal to other more stable identities. In fact, some people might say that remaining exclusively in a transitional identity is dangerous (this is one arguement for moderate ideologies which are less polarized). I wonder: would you recommend that atheists (such as the ignorant atheists you mention in another post) also explore secular humanism so they are not just living in a reactionary world?
November 20th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Soulster,
The two of us come from different starting points and presuppositions, but I feel that we both agree on how we should conduct ourselves, just not necessarily on why. So far, I don’t see much for Matthew’s argument. Is Matthew taking a “to the right of Genghis Kahn” approach to the burden of proof? I’d like to hear his argument further and his responses to both of us.
I would prefer if more people practiced a humanist set of ethics - be it religious or secular. I see secular humanism in particular as a sister to atheism, defining a morality on humanity’s terms, not on dogma, religion or God, but religious people can be secular humanists as well.
I believe that just as a good Christian can be secular in many areas of his life, a good Christian can be secular when it comes to pragmatic morality and ethics.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
@DT -
I see the distinction, but I think I would use the word “agnostic” where you use “negative atheist”. And I think this is a fairly standard way to arrange the spectrum of belief: atheist-agnostic-theist. Actually, I haven’t been exposed to any discussion where a person labels themselves as a “negative atheist” and then proceeds to consistently argue against the existence of a God.
This is what I propose: if you’re undecided, please label yourself “agnostic”, and then present arguments both for and against the existence of God. In the interest of balance, you might find an atheist to consistently argue against the existence of God.
On the other hand, if you’re decided - that is, you want to back the assertion “God does not exist”, then you should accept your share of the burden of proof, because you’re clearly making a positive assertion of nonexistence.
Not if most people thought the existence of Santa was prima facie true.
Traditionally, the burden of proof falls not on the person who is claiming the existence of something, but the person who is making an assertion that runs counter to the status quo, or to what a person finds to be prima facie - clearly or obviously - true. If the atheist asserts “God does not exist”, and the theist thinks it’s obvious that God DOES exist, then the atheist has some burden to prove their assertion before expecting the theist to recant.
If it helps, consider the assertion, “whales do not exist.” If someone tells you this, who do you think should have the burden of proof?
November 20th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Matthew,
I think we’re falling into the “semantics and etymology†black hole that occasionally emerges to gobble a discussion up. An agnostic doesn’t know, coming from a (without) + gnosis (knowledge). A negative atheist (or weak atheist, as some call them) has an absence of belief. There is a fundamental difference between the two.
Traditionally, there have been three categories. However, I think that belief has a more diverse spectrum, ranging from 1. apatheism, 2. ignosticism (I happen to consider myself an ignostic or non-cognitivist), 3. strong (positive) atheism, 4. weak (negative) atheism, 5. agnostic atheism (doesn’t know, but doesn’t believe), 6. apathetic agnosticism (doesn’t care either way), 7. agnostic theism (doesn’t know, but believes), 8. pantheism (the universe is God), 9. deism, and finally, 10. theism. Some theists from ~7 to 9 consider God to be “love” or something utterly different than many other theists. I’m sure there’s a lot more I missed, but that’s what I could recall in approximate order.
In fact, I consider myself an ignostic in relation to a deistic God, since I see that a deistic God is undefined, an atheist to the theistic God, since I argue that the theistic God of the Bible does not exist, and an apathist to the pantheist God, since it’s just a game of wordplay and emotion.
For the sake of argument, I can take any position that I happen to agree with if it advances my argument, just as a theist may take a deist approach to discussion, or vice versa. I can argue from 4 even if I believe 2 or 3, just as a theist could argue from 7, 8, or 9 when he believes 10.
What I personally believe has no real matter if a “How to…†piece. Most atheists are generally negative atheists, and negative atheism encompasses all atheists. On this website I try to keep my claims away from “I believe that God does not exist†and keep them in the realm of “I don’t believe in God.â€
Now, on to your second point.
I believe that you’re trying to push the discussion in a direction that won’t be taken on this website.
There may be individual posts in the future where I assert that God does not exist, but when I do so, I will back up my assertions with what I believe to be evidence in my favor. In that situation, the burden of proof is on me. Yet, in most cases, I am merely a Doubting Thomas, asking for evidence in support of a claim.
How would someone go about proving the nonexistence of something such as a whale? I don’t think this is possible. If the whale disbeliever claims he has seen no evidence for whales (after all, they’re slowly going extinct), all the whale believer has to do is tell the whale unbeliever that he hasn’t looked under every rock, pond, or estuary. Even if we were at a point when all whales were extinct, the whale believer could still claim that I have not looked everywhere.
If I claimed, “Whales do exist,†all I’d have to do is take you to the aquarium. I’m not claiming that whales do not exist. I tell you, “I do not believe in X, where X is a fantastic being that I don’t see evidence for.†X could be fairies, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, aliens, etc.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
@Soulster -
But this is exactly why it is an important point to argue.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:04 am
Until Matthew provides evidence for his existence, I am an “amatthewist.”
November 21st, 2006 at 4:12 am
False dichotomy. What DT is “decided” upon is not the proposition “God does not exist,” but rather that no evidence exists for God’s existence. Hence, there is no reason to believe in God. And hence, there is a burden of proof upon those who have decided that “God exists.”
Wrong. Your argument re: the status quo is really just an appeal to popularity. That a majority of people believe in God’s existence does not prove that God exists. “Finding” something “clearly or obviously true” does not make it true.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:14 am
(Ah, OK. Evidently quote tags don’t work here. (blush) I’m responding to Matt. Mine are the last and third last pars.
November 21st, 2006 at 7:30 am
AV,
Use <blockquote> </blockquote> tags. They work just the same. I fixed yours up for you this time.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:45 am
@beepbeepitsme -
Sure, I guess you could use “you do not exist” instead of “whales do not exist.” The point is the same.
@AV and @DT -
No, it’s not an appeal to popularity. I’m not saying, “because most people believe God exists, God exists.”
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Let me revisit my core argument.
Essentially, I am arguing about when someone should be assumed to have a “burden of proof.” Traditionally, if party A is presenting an argument that party B thinks is obviously, plainly, on its face, false, party A has the burden of proof.
This is why someone who tells me “unicorns exist” should have the burden of proof … because I think this assertion is clearly false. Similarly, this is why someone who says “you do not exist” should have the burden of proof.
If party A cannot present a case that meets the standard of proof, then party B is justified in continuing to believe the thing he finds to be prima facie true.
If you think the burden of proof should be applied in some new and exciting way, please provide that alternative. Otherwise, I’ll just assume that the burden of proof should continue to be applied in the way I’ve described.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:13 am
Matthew,
You’ve made our point for us. If we substitute “God” for “unicorns,” then we’re done.
I’ll paraphrase… When someone tells me “God exists” they should have the burden of proof … because atheists think this assertion is clearly false.
If you cannot present a case that meets the standard of proof, then I am justified in continuing to not believe that God exists. …
I make no such claim. There are universal statements and subjective statements. “I do not believe God exists” or rephrased, “I see no evidence for believing in the existence of God,” are subjective statements, saying nothing about if the existence of God is true or false.
They are vastly different than the claim “God exists” or “God doesn’t exist.”
The atheist does not need to make a positive (strong) assertion that is universal, only a negative (weak) claim that he does not believe in God.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Fine, sure, you could hide behind the “I believe” shield, but I don’t see how this makes for productive conversation.
I mean, the theist could also only choose to defend the proposition, “I believe God exists”, and then we’d just sit and stare at each other. This would be fine with me. Unlike soulster, I don’t have any deep spiritual compulsion to provide empirical evidence of a noncorporeal being’s existence.
But the only way we get any kind of interesting, balanced discussion is if the theist hefts his balls and attempts to defend the proposition “God exists”, and if the atheist hefts his balls and attempts to defend the proposition “God does not exist”.
And, as I’m sure you see, once you decide to champion that proposition, everyone has an equal burden of proof. Everyone is justified in believing what they believe until the standard of proof has been met.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Matthew,
I’m going to step aside for a bit, and allow others to enter the conversation. I’ve bogarted much of the points, but other atheists on the site should keep you occupied. Now, on to a few clarifications:
It’s actually an “I don’t believe” shield. You use the shield too when you don’t believe in zombies, ghosts or flying pigs. Sounds silly calling non-belief a “shield” now, doesn’t it?
I suggest you read points [4] and [5] above in the “How to…” After all this time, you continue to use the same argument even after your argument has fallen apart. Now, it seems like you’re trying for a below the belt hit. If I’m wrong, then I apologize, but this is the message I’m getting.
I must ask you then: What evidence do you have for believing in God?
Saying “I do not believe…” means that I see no evidence for God’s existence; saying “I do believe…” means that you see evidence for God’s existence.
Show me what you believe to be evidence, and I may reverse my non-belief. I’ve looked for a long time, and I see no evidence for belief. Perhaps there is evidence somewhere, but I don’t see any, and find it highly unlikely.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Funny, I see it exactly the other way ’round. =)
Let me restate what I believe to be the first proposition under consideration:
1. If person A is making an argument that person B finds to be obviously false, then the burden of proof should fall on person A.
So, let’s get this out of the way first. Regardless of how this rule might be applied, do we agree that this should be the rule, or not?
November 21st, 2006 at 12:39 pm
We seem to be talking at cross-purposes with regard to the “burden of proof.” In the scenario above, if B is convinced of the falsity of X, A is going to have a difficult time convincing B of the truth of X. (I gather this is what you mean by “burden of proof.”) However, if X is true, it remains true however B feels about it. But certainly the task if convincing B of the truth of X–if A is so inclined–would be burdensome.
When DT and I talk about the “burden of proof” lying with the believer, we mean something different from what you mean by the expression.
We hold that the burden of proof always lies with the one making the positive knowledge claim (since you can’t prove a negative). With regard to the existence of God, this applies to theists and strong atheists alike. It doesn’t apply to the weak atheist, and I’ll show you why:
The theist makes a positive knowledge claim with regard to God’s existence: “God exists.”
The strong atheist makes a positive knowledge claim with regard to God’s existence: “God does not exist.”
The weak atheist says this: “I see no evidence of God’s existence, hence I see no reason to believe in God’s existence.” This is not a positive knowledge claim.
(I know I’m repeating some of what DT has already said. Given the aims of this blog, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing.)
November 21st, 2006 at 1:04 pm
This model of the burden of proof is flawed because it is based upon an argument from ignorance.
E.g.
X, Y
Let Y = “X is false”
Person A says “X is true.”
Person B says “Sorry, but until you can convince me that X is true, I’ll continue to believe Y.”
X and Y are positive knowledge statements. Hence, Person B is advancing an argument from ignorance.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Yay!
So now we have two competing propositions for defining who should assume the burden of proof:
OK, so to progress from here, please let me introduce another related proposition:
3. This statement is *not* a positive knowledge claim:
“I see no evidence of God’s non-existence, hence I see no reason to believe in God’s non-existence.”
(note that the proposition regards the truth of whether the statement is truly a “positive knowledge claim”, not whether the statement itself is true.)
November 21st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I don’t really know where you’re headed with this, Matthew, but if it’s up a blind alley or into a hall of mirrors, I’ll have to point you in the direction of guideline No. 4.
So, could you please elaborate?
November 21st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
I’m really not trying to be sneaky, that’s as simple as I can make the proposition.
If we get a few propositions down the line and you decide that you want to change your mind about this one, we’ll just roll back.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I see a few problems for you here:
(a) Your proposition counters the strong atheist position, not the weak atheist position from which we have been arguing. (Weak atheists don’t claim to see evidence of god/s non-existence either.)
(b) Your proposition paints you as epistemologically agnostic on the question of god/s existence–unless you’re also claiming to have evidence of the existence of god/s (which would constitute a positive knowledge claim). If so: out with it!
(c) The weak atheist proposition takes the following form:
“I see no evidence for the existence of X; hence, I see no reason to believe in the existence of X.”
X, in this case, equals God–but it also equals the Celestial Teapot, or pink unicorns, or fairies, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters (other entities whose existence cannot be disproved).
Your proposition, the corollary of ours, takes the following form:
“I see no evidence of X’s non-existence, hence I see no reason to believe in X’s non-existence.”
If this is indeed your position, are you prepared to accept its ramifications? Is it really your position, in other words, that you see no reason to believe in the non-existence of the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or, for that matter, Thor or Odin)?
November 21st, 2006 at 7:43 pm
While the current discussion is mildly interesting, it is likely to take the direction it usually does in cyberspace — going round and round until it drops off into the blackhole of boredom. I think this demonstartes effectively my comments on making the burden of proof mine missionally (whether other Christians want it or not). I will continue to that end and get on to authoring some more posts for this blog.
I would encourage users to read the first post, Philaletheia: What is this, anyway?, especially the part about “listening deeply” and “learning to talk to one another”. Since dialogue is the point, we might have to give up trying to be right on certain points of disagreement so we can ask questions and explore each other’s thoughts and beliefs. While I might give a crack at saying why I think my beliefs are reasonable at some point I haven’t even articulated them yet, so that would be premature. Right now I want to understand what atheists think, express some of what theists think, build a vocabulary, dispell stereotypes and generalizations, etc. I see getting to the nitty-gritty discussion of the existence of God as something down the road. After all, these first few posts are about us just seeing what the other requires for conversation to begin. Please ask questions of other readers and continue to make comments, but if the conversation stalls in one area, there are nearly an infinite amount of directions for us to explore.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:32 pm
I don’t see why these are problems for *me*. All I am hoping for at this point is your opinion on whether the proposition in question is true. Matthew may be a strong theist, or he may be a strong atheist. That has no bearing on whether the proposition is true.
(Earlier, I did bring up DT’s personal position, but only because it is relevant to this blog. If DT is a weak atheist and soulster a strong theist, this needs to be stated up front. Then those of us hoping for interesting debate will know to go elsewhere. Because the only thing I expect to see between a weak atheist/agnostic and a strong theist is the theist presenting arguments and the agnostic swatting them down. Borrrring.
If, on the other hand, DT is a strong atheist, then we can expect some interesting arguments from him too, but by your rules, he ought to claim his part of the burden of proof.
Or thirdly, I suppose that DT could abandon his personal position, and agree to play the part of strong atheist for argument’s sake. Again, he will need to assume a burden of proof.)
November 21st, 2006 at 8:35 pm
@soulster -
Thanks, but I think AV and I have made quite a bit of progress.
In fact, I’m seriously considering changing my mind and accepting his rule about who takes the burden of proof … I just need him to flesh out some things about positive knowledge claims.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Matthew,
Don’t worry. I will be eventually arguing from the positive (strong) atheist position on several issues, namely on the inerrancy of the Bible and other arguments in favor of positive atheism. When I do so, the burden of proof will be on me.
I will also be writing a good deal on the theist and deist’s positions, and how a positive atheist deals with their arguments.
We’re still on “How to…” FAQs at this point. My next post will be on ignosticsm and non-cognitivism when faced with deism, and I’ll begin discussing theistic arguments in later posts.
November 21st, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Sorry, Matthew. If you are making progress, by all means proceed.
As far as your statement:
I must be reading your mind (can I say that here
), because I was starting a post to that effect as you were posting this comment: The “Spectrum of Beliefâ€. Please feel free to comment since I quoted you.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:03 am
@ matthew
There are some things I accept without requiring a burden of proof. One of these is that we exist. So, if you ever have an argument with me, I won’t be asking for proof of your existence.
There seems little point in anyone typing anything in these forums unless we accept the existence of each other. That was the point I was trying to make with you.
We can each claim that we exist without having the burden of proof.
But most other claims entail a burden of proof.
If you claim that flying monsters live in your nose, it is not my job to disprove it. The burden of proof lies with you as you are making the positive claim for the existence of something.
If I say ” I don’t believe you,” you have no argument until you can provide evidence for your claim.
I don’t have to pay any respect to your claim until you can provide evidence for said claim.
If you are unable to provide evidence for the existence of said nasal dwelling monsters, you do not win the argument because someone cannot prove you wrong.
If I claim that meteorites are inhabited by purple, 3 legged amoebas who eat KFC on sunday after church; you are under no obligation to accept this or to believe it, until I can provide evidence which satisfies the claim.
It is not your job to fly off to every meteorite in the universe with a team of scientists and conduct expensive, comprehensive study of all the meteorites in the universe in order to attempt to prove me wrong.
Afterall, when you get back, I could just as easily claim that you missed the meteorite that had the amoebas on it, or that they were there last time I looked and they just transmigrated to mars.
To sum up, if you claim that a god exists, it is your job to provide the evidence for said claim. I am under no obligation to accept or believe such a claim if you cannot, or are unwilling to support your claim with evidence.
It is not my job to go running all over the universe, looking in toilet bowls, or under rugs, to try and prove you wrong.
I hope you get the point.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:45 am
@beepbeep -
Sure, that’s fine. I’m not arguing with you there. What I would argue is that the person who believes in the nose monsters is justified in believing that they exist if it is prima facie obvious to him that they exist.
If it is clearly obvious to him that the nose monsters exist, then no one should fault him for continuing to believe this until someone provides him with sufficient evidence to meet some standard proving that they do not exist.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
I’ll be out for a while, so if you make some spectacular argument, it will take a few days before I can come back and admire it.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
If we’re talking about the statement: “I see no evidence of God’s non-existence, hence I see no reason to believe in God’s non-existence.‖then I don’t think the statement advances a positive knowledge claim.
Then in the interests of keeping you all awake, I should perhaps bow out of the discussion and watch from the sidelines. I honestly would find it as difficult to champion the strong atheist position as I would theism.
If that is case, I hope I’ve addressed your questions adequately.
What I would argue is that the person who believes in the nose monsters is justified in believing that they exist if it is prima facie obvious to him that they exist.
This I cannot agree with. If it seems obvious to a person that nose monsters exist, then that is a satisfactory explanation for why that person believes in the existence of nose monsters. But it is not a satisfactory justification for positing the existence of nose monsters: just because X seems obvious does not make X true.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
@ matthew
RE: “Sure, that’s fine. I’m not arguing with you there. What I would argue is that the person who believes in the nose monsters is justified in believing that they exist if it is prima facie obvious to him that they exist.”
He should be able to provide the information which has convinced him that the monsters are “prima facie.”
If he is unable to present prima facie evidence on any required element of the claim, the claim may be dismissed without any response by person who doesn’t believe the claim.
November 23rd, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Out of curiosity, guys: is this how one is supposed to talk to atheists?
Via Smogblot
November 24th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Definitely not, AV.
While I think the historical context of our ideologies should be addressed and we need to look at the past in order to forge a future, I do not think the blame game gets us very far.
Being a Christian, I sincerely question how much such a rant expresses the values of Christ. He lived under the occupation of Rome, a brutal and unethical regime to say the least, but his only harsh criticism was for the religious leaders of his day who misused the populace through social control and religious-cons. I believe it is our mission to take responsibility for the world — such a defensive fortress mentality does not seem likely to be able to do so.
November 25th, 2006 at 12:02 am
AV,
Thanks for pointing the article out. Muehlenberg must be out of his mind. His argument is completely absurd. His whole article is a prime example of an association fallacy.
This may be the most retarded thing I have ever heard. When I say ‘retarded,’ I mean utterly ignorant of facts, holding back the progress of rational thought and inquiry so that dogma may triumph. No matter how you bundle up a lie in fancy bows and wrapping paper, it’s still false. He argues that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were atheists, and implies that they killed millions of people because they did not believe in God. Let’s see how his claim holds up to the facts:
1. Adolf Hitler was Catholic [1], [2], [3]; he was not an atheist. To say otherwise is to lie. In light of the evidence, should we follow this association fallacy to its logical end and claim that Hitler killed several million people because he was Catholic?
2. Stalin was an atheist, that’s true. Yet, was also male and a Communist. What does this say about all males or all Communists? Not that much. In fact, it could be argued that his upbringing in a Russian orthodox seminary could have influenced his later actions. So following the association fallacy, did Stalin kill several million people because he was a Communist and raised in a seminary?
3. Mao Zedong was an atheist, a male, and a Communist as well. Yet, if you look at history, each ‘liquidation’ (mass execution) was committed in the name of advancing the Communist goal. Property was confiscated, and those with wealth were promptly killed. Collectivization was enforced, and millions died as a result. Anyone, including intellectuals, university students, and dissidents speaking out against Communism was immediately ‘liquidated’ (Hosking, A History of the Soviet Union, 1917-1991: 183-204). Anyone remember something called “The Great Leap Forward?†What did that have to do with belief or disbelief in a god? Following the association fallacy, did Zedong kill several million people because he was a Communist, Asian, and was male?
The whole article makes my skin crawl. None of these political maneuvers have any relationship whatsoever to atheism, no matter what he says.
“But what of Karl Marx?†you might say. “He’s a pinko. A Commie. Practically the King of Commies, he is.†Here is his take on atheism:
Marx himself said that atheism had nothing to do with Communism or Socialism. “Socialism as such no longer needs [atheism]…â€
If we allow this straw man to rule, then it must be applied equally: for every murder committed by a Christian, the logic must go, the death was due to Christianity. For every genocide committed by a brown-haired man, the death was due to brown hair.
Yet, AV, we cannot point the association fallacy at all Christians. I hold nothing but disdain for this man. Muehlenberg is an idiot, but that does not make all Christians idiots.
November 25th, 2006 at 7:20 am
RE drunkentune
I think that the basic premise, based in fallacy, is that atheists as they do not believe in god (but specifically, my god, or the god condoned by our country), must be, by default, obviously more capable of horrendous acts than any other group.
In other words, theists believe that there is NO morality without god, so therefore those who do not believe in god, must be immoral evidenced by their stated lack of belief.
This is, I think, the real issue when theists make this fallacious claims of association.
It stems from their belief that there is no morality without god.
Theists get 2 bites of the fallacious cherry arguing like this, as they then claim that whatever they do MUST be moral as they are god believers.
November 25th, 2006 at 11:35 am
I think an effective way to debunk this fallacy for the readers of this site would be to 1) present an atheist ethical structure (not necessarily based on atheism, but one you would advocate that does not require God), or 2) present how atheists would prevent such problems as tyranny, genocide, and war.
I used to believe this hype about atheists. Now I know that it is always a truth system plus something that adds up to killing, seldom a truth system alone. For example Christianity+feudalism+manifest destiny+economic depression+waring factions at home = crusades. Knowing that atheists can be ethical helped me get past the hype (I use ethical rather than moral, since moral relates to social conformity to mores, but ethics relates to logical motivations for actions).
November 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
There’s no way to answer this question that would represent the position of all atheists.
But I think it’s fair to say that atheists approach moral questions in the same way that–most of the time–theists do: through reasoning. I daresay that if you were to ask the average Christian to identify reasons that we should not kill each other, other than “because God commands it,” he or she would not be stumped for an answer.
Another way of thinking about the question of whether ethics is possible without reference to a deity/deities is provided here.
November 26th, 2006 at 5:40 am
RE: “an atheist ethical structure (not necessarily based on atheism)”
There is no ethical structure based in atheism. There are merely atheists who may, or may not support a number of philosophical worldviews.
I will try to explain that as I am sure it needs qualification.
“Atheism” isn’t a system of belief even if some atheists and theists claim otherwise as the word “atheist” merely describes what someone does NOT believe in. Not what they do believe in.
Hence, it is not through the definition of being an atheist, that I have an ethical or moral philosophy, because the term atheist does not assert any positive claim.
It is kind of like asking someone who describes themselves as apolitical, to please demonstrate how they form their opinions on politics.
Humanists do, in their various philosophical forms, present an ethical worldview, and some of those people define themselves as atheists and agnostics. But one does not need to be an atheist or an agnostic in order to be a humanist.
From my experience, atheists and theists arrive at similar conclusions concerning ethics and morality. Atheists just get there without god belief.
I think that all of us derive our morality and ethics from a number of sources.
These sources may include:
1. our family
2. our community
3. our culture
4. our education
5. our socialization
6. our tribe
7. our religion
(in no particular order)
The common basis for ethical behaviour stems from the concept of mutually beneficial actions and behaviours.
Human beings are “pack animals.” From the time of the cavemen to the time of technology, we have recognised the need to act and behave for mutual benefit.
This generosity of cooperation would have at first been limited to the small tribal group, (probably the family group),and would have been crucial in order to preserve the existence of said group.
This would have gradually extended itself to larger groups with which they may have shared a common interest or goal.
So, it is basically an evolving survival mechanism. The major problems occur when large groups which also share a similar survival mechanism, disagree on a major issue. Such as religion or politics.
Then the courtesy and goodwill which exists within each group towards its members, is not necessarily extended to those outside of the group.
So, tenets of belief such as “love everyone as yourself” tend to only apply to those who support the interests of the group.
And these beliefs are retracted and cease to be extended to members outside of the group, if an opposing group threatens, or appears to threaten the existence of the group.
In other words, our sense of morality and ethics is determined by our tribal group, even if that tribal group has now extended itself to encompass a nation or nations.
November 26th, 2006 at 5:54 am
I forgot to mention that religious beliefs have acted as a method to encourage conformity within respective groups. Whether this was through the worship of the sun, the worship of the king as a god, or the worship of a “personified man god.”
Religion has been a tool for societal glue. Or another way of defining the group and the interests and behaviours of the group. This has occured regardless of the truth of any of the gods which have been worshipped throughout human history.
Sheep are always much easier to herd and much easier to convince that the group is undeniably correct.
Herding atheists is like herding cats. The streak of individualism is strong in them.
November 26th, 2006 at 10:29 am
I felt that the topic of ethics was worthy of it’s own post, so I started: Can Atheists be Good? Since this is one of the most common places where theists get atheists wrong, I’d really like to get into things a little deeper there without taking over drunkentune’s original post.
November 26th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Can theists be “good?” The question makes as much sense.
November 27th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
I didn’t mean for my title to be offensive. Hope it didn’t come off as an attack. The verbage was intended to be bluntly obvious, especially to theists who need to read it and come to understanding that they don’t have a corner on ethics or morality. It was my intention that the article be informative and pro-atheist/theist positive relations.
Since you ask the question, I recomend drukentune makes similar post asking about theist morality.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
soulster,
I don’t think beepbeep was offended. It was my impression that you were engaging in a little friendly nudge - after all, I compared God to Monty Python’s cartoon god. What can be more offensive than calling something you know exists imaginary? Seeing it through the Christian’s eyes puts it in a different perspective.
The point beepbeep makes still stands. Even though the question makes little sense, many Christians I know ask me that often. In your case, humor; in others, I’m worried that they do believe that you have to be Christian to be moral.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I’m glad if beepbeep wasn’t offended. I’m trying to be as sensitive as possible about the topic, but it seems from comments on the new article that I have offended some anyway. Oh well.
I do agree that many Christians think atheism is a precursor to all sorts of corruption personal and social. I think both “Can Atheist be Good?” and “Can Theists be Good?” are silly questions. Of course they can using the conventionaly idea of “a basically good person”.
Given the doctrine of the Fall prevalent in Christianity, I should wonder why believers even ask this question. They should, from our own doctrines, simply assume no one can be totally good, even ourselves (and especially ourselves, given our call for authenticity). I will go on record here as saying I do not think I am a good person, so there is no point in me condeming anyone else for not being good. Absent grace and later perfection, isn’t everyone ’sinner’ and ’saint’ to some degree? If such is true, there is no value in proving our faith or the condemning others based on ethics or morality.
And then there are all these other questions: What do we mean by good? Is there any promise that they will always be good? How can I make sure others around me are also trying to be good? Etc.
But the conversation on the other post promises to be good, and might unearth some understanding in the process, so it was worth asking a silly question to do some digging.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Regarding the burden of proof discussion, the burden is on the theist to prove that a deity exists. This is how the scientific method, which is a primary tool atheists use to obtain knowledge, works. According to the scientific method, a person makes a falsifiable hypothesis, and then tries to falsify that hypothesis. When every available explanation that you can think of to falsify it fails, the hypothesis is stronger, and when many people fail to falsify it, you know you are getting closer to the truth.
Falsifiability is the key; any hypothesis that is not falsifiable cannot lead to scientific knowledge. A statement that X exists is not falsifiable. No amount of searching is exhaustive. However, the statement that X does not exist is falsifiable. All you have to do is show a sample of X.
Theists say God exists. An atheist cannot do anything to falsify this hypothesis. Atheists say God does not exist. All a theist has to do is show a sample of God. That is why the burden is on the theist.
November 27th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Good laymen’s explanation for scientific concept of burden of proof, Buches.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I wasn’t offended. I just find it a strange question. As if there is the assumption, (which obviously there is by the framing of the question), that atheists cannot be “good.”
As an atheist, I realise that theists claim the moral high ground and believe that it is only through belieiving in a god, but specifically THEIR god, that “goodness” can be conferred.
So, the question seems to be one of: “I believe that only theists can be good, but I am willing to let atheists provide an argument for their ability to be good, which I can reject if it doesn’t comply with premise number 1.
(Premise number 1 states that only believers can be “good.”)
In other words, the framing of the question has an inbuilt bias.
If I framed the question as : “Can theists be good?” The question would also have an inbuilt bias.
It is a little bit like the words “intelligent design”. The words themselves assume a designer.
The question, “Can atheists be good?” assumes the position that they can’t.
Having got that out of the way, I will suggest to you that my lack of a belief in a god deters me from a desire to kill others.
(I am not assuming that this is the same for all atheists, in the same way that I would not assume that belief in a god deters all people from killing either.)
I think that this life is all I have. I don’t believe there is a life after death, or any judgement outside of a human judgement.
Because I think that this life that I am living is all I have, consequently, I think that your life is all you have also.
I cannot convince myself that it is feasible to kill others and that “god will sort them out afterwards”, or that human beings will go on to a better life from which they will escape the perils, hardships, or tribulations of this one.
Nor do I believe that they wil go on to a life where they will reap the rewards according to the life they have led while living. So, I am unconvinced that the killing of them would send them either to a place where they will be punished forever, or to a place where they will be rewarded forever.
Therefore, I cannot be convinced that their death will provide them with anything except death.
Because I don’t believe that they go to a better or a worse place, and that they simply cease to exist as human beings, I would be taking from them their ONLY chance at life.
And it IS a chance at life. It was “chance” based on probabilities, (not randomness in the sense that anything was possible), that means I am here today.
I am based on the probabilities associated with the fertilization of my mother’s egg with my father’s sperm. (This is not to be confused with the idea of randomness defined as chaos, or that anything was possible, as conception is not random in this sense, but based on probabilities.)
So, I am here typing away because of the probabilities associated with my conception.
Millions of sperm died which were unsuccessful. One was susccessful and I am the result of that biological success.
Hundreds of my mother’s eggs were not fertilized. I am the result of the successful egg. (This is what I mean by chance - probabilities.)
The same process occurs in all mammals. Hundreds of eggs are unsuccessful and millions of sperm are unsuccessful.
Regardless of this high rate of attrition, I am here, as are thousands of other mammals here due to the same biological process.
I value my own existence, so I realise that potentially, others also value their existence.
It is mutually beneficial for me to value the existence of others in the same way that I value my own existence, as I can increase my own chances of survival by being cognizant of the value that other people also attach to their lives.
My genetically scripted code towards empathy allows me to do this.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:26 am
This is my first posting here on your site.
I wanted to put my 2 cents on the issue about burden of proof. I made a blog post about this just the other day.
http://closetathesit.blogspot.com/2006/11/burden-of-proof.html
Its a short read and gets to the point.
December 1st, 2006 at 10:14 am
Closet Atheist,
Thanks for your take on the burden of proof! I hope to hear more from you on other topics. The more voices we hear from, the more progress we’ll make.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Hi Folks,
An auspicious beginning, but I fear that this venture will fall into the same semantic and etymological traps that other philosophical discussions between theists and atheists fall.
Not that it isn’t fun to argue philosophy - especially when it’s framed by the question of the existence or non-existence of a god, but if I might offer a small bit of advice?
If you are going to be arguing in a debate-style, point-by-point rebuttal/statement format, you might consider changing this blog format to one more suited to it. Reading a long, linear list of comments makes it terribly difficult to follow the thread of the discussion.
Maybe a threaded discussion forum software would be better? There’s a ton of free, open-source ones out there available for you to install and use.
Just a thought.
Best of luck, folks! I’ve blogrolled you over at UTI.
Brent Rasmussen
Unscrewing The Inscrutable
December 1st, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Brent,
Thanks for stopping by! While we may be doomed from the start (I should hope not), that doesn’t mean we can’t give it an honest try. What interests me is the process of extending friendly relations between atheists and Christians; the outcome is secondary.
I don’t know if this will be a rebuttal/argument format. I should hope that it would be in part an open discussion that follows the rules of engagement we set forward.
While a forum sounds interesting, I’m comfortable with the style as of now. If soulster wants to talk this over, than I’m open to change.
Wait a minute… UTI???
I’m a really, really big fan of your website! I love your Carnival of the Godless!
Holy shit! This is so cool to be blogrolled by UTI! I can’t believe I just called him Brent.
Just give me a minute to calm down…
December 3rd, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Nice list! I agree about the “I’ll pray for you” comment, it irks me when people say that to me.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:53 am
bah! I totally dropped the ball on this. A brief necro-post, to satisfy my sense of symmetry, and then onward.
RE nose monsters:
My point is that a person is justified in believing things he finds prima facie obvious, until someone can present evidence that proves otherwise. This obviously says nothing about the truth of the belief … it simply places the burden of proof where it should be: on the person who wants to stir the pot.
In other words, I am allowed to believe that I exist until someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary.
RE positive knowledge claims:
OK, I’m prepared to accept this definition … AV, at least, seems to be able to apply it evenhandedly.
Incidentally, one thing this definition does is make inadequate the original claim that the burden of proof is “on the theist”. It may be acceptable to say “the burden of proof is on the strong theist”, but only if one also says “and the strong atheist”. The weak atheist and weak theist are justified to persist in their non-belief until one of the strong positions manages to prove something.
RE the scientific method:
First, we haven’t accepted “the scientific method” as an acceptable method of proof within an philosophical argument. Second, we haven’t defined “scientific method”. Third, if we accept Buches’ claims about falsifiability, we also have to accept that the scientific method can never provide positive proof of anything. Failing to falsify a hypothesis is not the same thing as proving it true.
There. I’m done.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:54 am
RE: “RE nose monsters:
My point is that a person is justified in believing things he finds prima facie obvious, until someone can present evidence that proves otherwise.”
No. If it is prima facie, it is information which is able to be shared. Information can be critically analysed. You are still saying that the burden of proof is with those who disagree that the nose monsters exist. This is ludicrous in the extreme.