Vorkosigan

I guess I have been trying to figure out why people are atheists.

Each atheist has her own story. Did you check out the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=55&t=000020" target="_blank">Atheist Testimony</a> thread?

You are very welcome here. Stick around. We have had many excellent theist discussants, such as Polycarp and the redoubtable Kenny, who has disappeared since his marriage, and Luv, whom I've been irritating lately, and several others.

By atheist I mean strong atheists. The reason I wondered was because I am fully willing to admit that it takes a leap of faith to believe in God. But I also think that it takes a leap of faith to believe that there is no God.

Strong atheism is the default position, the same position one brings to any claim about the nature of reality.

Suppose we were not talking about gods, but about the assertion: "There exists a large city of 15 million people 10 miles west of Ann Arbor, Michigan." Now, no one would think it illogical or unreasonable or indefensible if the person making a claim -- which is, after all, a claim about the nature of reality -- was required to present evidence about that claim. The default position would be strong A-city-ism: there is no such city until you present positive evidence of its existence. Ditto for YHWH or Yog-Soggoth or Shiva or whatever other god you support.

I personally distinguish three levels of knowledge, potentiality, possibility, and certainty, which reflect the accumulating weight of evidence and probability.

Any strong atheist will happily admit the potentiality of the existence of god(s), just as any biologist will happily admit the potential survival of a relic population of dinosaurs. But seen one way, this amounts to recognizing that we're human beings and never free from the threat of error, and that the universe always surprises us.

Possibility is another issue. This is where Giron's analysis begins to go wrong. Giron is correct that potentiality can never be ruled out, but he didn't explore the issue of potentiality versus possibility. Let's imagine you were trying to determine whether a relic population of dinosaurs could exist. You'd first note that it would have to be of a certain size, in order to sustain genetic variability and allow for survival in the face of illness, natural disasters, etc. But how could anyone fail to notice such a large population? What would it eat without leaving traces, and so on? Seeing that the possibility is remote, is there some other explanation for the reports out of Africa?

In other words, you attack the problem from both ends, first explaining that it is not possible, and second, developing an alternative explanation that allows for error, and a more sophisticated view of local peoples that admits them to full humanity, and recognizes that they know whites are looking for dinosaurs, and love to pull their leg. You explain both the human framework and the natural one.

In the same way, the strong atheist looks at the "evidence" for gods. What does this say about possibility? First, the evidence is equivocal and admits of many supernatural explanations, never mind natural ones. Second, we look at the other end, the human as a reality-constructor. We know first that the evolutionary origins of human cognition bias people to think about the universe in ways conducive to religious belief. We know that virtually all religious experiences can be reproduced by electrical stimulation of the brain. We know further that people lie and cheat, and religion is a leading cockpit of this. We know also that there are powerful sociological reasons for the development of religions. For example, numerous scholars have noted how the Jesus movement resembles 19th and 20th century anti-colonial movements in Africa and Asia. So a multifaceted view of the problem explains religion in terms of what we know. In science, we go with the most parsimonious explanation of the facts at hand. To the strong atheist, there is nothing in religion that requires a supernatural explanation.

Hope it is a little clearer.

Those people were not modeling Christianity. You can put salt in a jar and label it sugar, but it's still salt.

The problem with this argument is that the Christians were never sugar to begin with. Many of us who look at Christianity see another authority-system, just like Facism, Communism, Islam, and with just the same results. Authoritarian control and killing are the inevitable result of the existence of such systems, irrespective of the attitude of particular believers. So long as there is prayer, there will never be peace.

Furthermore whether or not God exists has nothing at all to do with the behavior of those who claim to follow him.

Interesting. This would be arguing that belief in god has no effect one way or the other on a person's behavior.

The second is the, "God's characteristics are incoherent or incompatible" argument. Sometimes I like to call it the "How can a loving God send an nice person to Hell" argument.

This is actually the "it's impossible to envision a god with a particular set of omnimax characteristics which contains no contradictions or incoherencies." The Problem of Evil is one very effective aspect of this, used because it is easy to understand and impossible to refute, at least with the Christian god. But it is hardly the only one.

Any statement about invisible pink dragons when made seriously takes a leap of faith as well.

Congratulations. You've just proved the argument for us. Any positive statement about undetectable beings is a leap of faith. Only the negative one, "There are no ____________" requires no leap of faith. It simply recognizes the current status of evidence and argument.

Also, you should be careful about the word "empirical." Mysticism is an empirical method, but is not a scientific one. The two words are often used interchangeably, but that is not necessarily the case.

Vorkosigan

parkdalian

The only belief reqired of the atheist is that generally, people can be superstitous, can be mistaken about reality. More specifically, they believe that is the case with theists.

It is a proven fact that sane, intelligent people can believe things which contradict reality. We also know that people of the past were more susceptible to superstition, before we were able to develop science. We also know that the process of indoctrination, and with the vunerability of children to it, carries these beliefs from generation to generation. As adults they continue to believe for many emotional reasons, including comfort, the time, effort and thought they've invested in it.

Atheists have a sound theoretical basis to be atheist, because they've identified the root causes of theism and the mechanism for its spread, using simple and absolutely proven principles. It is sound theory, and I mean "theory" in the scientific sense of applicable and proven knowledge, not in the popular sense used by antievolutionists and police detectives.

Conversely, theists can't describe the mechanism or process of prayer, the nature of heaven, or how God created the universe. The lack of a comprehensible process behind the numerous specious claims of spiritual belief is what makes them too irrational to be believed.

So, it's a reasonable opinion to hold, that the believers of an ancient, traditional religions are most probably mistaken.

Hawkingfan

I disagree. My beliefs are based on scientific knowledge and understanding (things that there is plenty of evidence for). It requires no "leap of faith". It is based on facts that can be properly tested and upheld.
You need to add this to your list of reasons to be an atheist: Science. God does not play any role whatsoever in any logical theory in science.

Pookmaster

Wackyboy,
Why is it that you would consider me, or any other person, “irrational”, for refusing to believe in a myth that was started by people thousands and thousands of years ago?
MAN made GOD, it’s as simple as that. Man needed to feel secure that his place in the world was overseen by someone or something higher than himself, because man himself could not keep the world under control.
Now, according to you, those of us who choose not to pander to this myth must JUSTIFY ourselves? Let those who follow it do the explaining! If theists want to continue perpetuating falsehood, THEY should be the ones backing up their claims, NOT the atheists who refuse to accept them.
It does not, as you claim, “take a leap of faith to believe in no god”; this notion is absurd. How insecure must you be that you think everybody on earth is obliged to worship the same fantasy you do?
By the way, Wackyboy, your “I believe everyone who rejects god ultimately goes to hell” tirade lost you a lot of respect… and credibility… if you had any to begin with…..

K

parkdalian:

That's a very good argument from a direction that I'd never seen before.

LordSnooty

What compelling evidence is there? Religion tends to spread via indoctrination rather than education. It's what you grow up with, and it's rarely questioned. There is no need for evidence. That's very few many muslims/hindus/jews convert to christianity, and vice versa.

After all, if there is compelling evidence for Islam, why aren't you a Muslim? It can't be that compelling!

Paul

LordSnooty

...
If you want to be seen as a nice guy, then don't presume to know how people think. Don't you realise how smug and patronising you sound?

I don't think that a single person here lacks belief in god simply because they have been treated unjustly by Christians. For you to say otherwise is ignorant at best.

Certainly, injustices carried out by Christians can act as a catalyst that might encourage someone to consider their belief, but atheists aren't as simple minded as you would like to believe.

Paul

miscreant

Do you believe it takes a leap of faith to believe that there are no dragons, no fairies, no elves, no santa clause, no...?

If not, why not? What makes your god so special that it requires a leap of faith not to believe in it when there is no evidence, but no such faith is required to dismiss the examples above?

Miscreant

rdalin

The problem with this argument is that it conflates two different gods.

The god you're talking about is, I think, the Jewish/Christian/Islamic version, and with that addition, I think you're correct.

There is another god, however, and that's the god of the deists; that is, an entity which created everything, set it in motion, and then left it to its own devices. The argument from evil doesn't address this type of god.

I am a strong atheist because I have drawn the conclusion that no supernatural entities of any type exist, but I think in discussions of this sort we have to be careful to define what type of entity we're addressing.

doodad

I don't think "compelling evidence" is the best term to use for this question. It's a matter of motivation, and the desire to placate one's fears or to satisfy some of one's emotional needs seems to be the compelling factor. You are correct in what you say but the compulsion is for the practice of religion in general, not for any specific creed. At least that's how I read the OP.