A case for strong atheism

[Roundearth]

This board is supposed to be open to discussion of all topics, so I'll post this here.

I am a strong atheist. That is, I think that there is no God. (A weak atheist simply fails to affirm God's existence.) In this thread, I will defend that position with some brief arguments, and then solicit arguments against my arguments and against strong atheism. I hope to hone my critical thinking skills and to learn from you guys.

I have found that there are certain misconceptions I have to deal with before I can make any progress in dialogues with most theists. If you were already aware of any of the following points, I apologise:

* Strong atheism is JUST the belief that there is no God.

* Strong atheism is not a moral position, and does not necessarily entail any particular moral belief.

* A strong atheist can have a moral foundation.

* Strong atheism does not necessarily entail a belief in determinism, evolution, abortion, materialism, or naturalism.

* Strong atheists do not hate God. We do not believe in God.

* Strong atheists do not worship Satan. We do not usually believe in Satan.

* Strong atheists are rarely nihilists.

* Strong atheism is not a religion.

* Strong atheists do, in fact, exist.

* Strong atheists are not repressing knowledge that God exists.

* Strong atheism is not impossible to defend in principle. In principle, it could be defended by finding that the concept of God contradicts itself, the laws of logic, or empirical evidence. You will be able to make up your mind about whether my case for strong atheism is successful after reading this post.

If any of that came across as condescending to you, I apologise. Every clarification on that list is necessary for some theists. If you already knew everything in that list, it is a testament to your sophistication.

The first reason to be an atheist follows from the burden of proof principle.

Humans are limited beings, without the capacity of omniscience and infallibility. We wake up on earth without any concepts, idea, or beliefs, and we gradually expand our knowledge from the day we are born until the day we die. We have to perform a specific process to arrive at correct beliefs from that initial state of nonbelief. That means, we must have evidence and logical backing for our beliefs. Otherwise, we'll likely believe wrongly, and act incorrectly. The idea that all positive claims should be validated (that is, self evident or supported by reasoning) before we accept them is the burden of proof principle. I submit that theism does not meet the burden of proof principle. So far as I know, all of the arguments for God fail, which makes theism an arbitrary belief. On the burden of proof principle, this justifies a lack of belief in God. If someone was to accept this line of reasoning, then this has them becoming a weak atheist - that is, an atheist who fails to affirm the existence of God. To get to strong atheism, however, we need the arguments that follow below. Let's define "God," for starters.

"God" is a very difficult word to define. Some theists have taken it to mean a powerful warrior with a white, billowing beard, while others have taken it to mean a relatively mundane "ground of being." Let's just say for the purposes of the thread that God is a supernatural, infinite being.

My case for strong atheism rests on the law of identity. A is A. A thing is itself. The law of identity is a self-evident proposition, and serves as the base of all knowledge. To deny it, therefore, is to contradict oneself. It is to assert that one is right to deny the law of identity - not right and wrong at the same time. The law of identity has two corollaries: First, that everything acts in accordance with its nature. Second, that to exist is to be defined.

Let's talk about supernatural beings first. A supernatural being is a being above nature, that is, a being above the regularities of natural law. Now, a natural being is one that acts in accordance with nature, that is, one that obeys various regularities. My computer is a natural being because its inputs and outputs are flowing through it according to certain regularities. Now, by definition, a supernatural being would have no regularities like this. It could not act in any regular way, for then we would say that it was a natural being. So it would have to be an undefined, amorphous, shifting thing with no identity - which is to say, it could not exist.

Now, to infinite beings. An infinite being would necessarily be a being that exceeded all limits, which means that it could not be defined. This means that it would have no firm identity, and therefore that it could not exist.

But I've been doing all the talking. Your turn. What reasons do you have for supposing that God exists?

Edited February 23, 2010 by Roundearth

[NeuroTypical]

We have to perform a specific process to arrive at correct beliefs from that initial state of nonbelief. That means, we must have evidence and logical backing for our beliefs. Otherwise, we'll likely believe wrongly, and act incorrectly. The idea that all positive claims should be validated (that is, self evident or supported by reasoning) before we accept them is the burden of proof principle.

What a wonderful process for allowing beliefs into your brain! I wholeheartedly vote yes (and no, I'm not being smarmy or sarcastic).

I submit that I arrived at a belief in God through exactly this process. Wanna hear about it?

LM

(welcome, by the way)

[Roundearth]

Hi LM,

What a wonderful process for allowing beliefs into your brain! I wholeheartedly vote yes (and no, I'm not being smarmy or sarcastic).

I submit that I arrived at a belief in God through exactly this process. Wanna hear about it?

Sure, but you will need to address my arguments against the concept of God.

LM

(welcome, by the way)

Thank you. Edited February 23, 2010 by Roundearth

[prisonchaplain]

Two difficulties I have with the OP. First, while I agree that atheism is not an organized religion, be it soft or hard, in the broadest sense, it is a faith system. Since atheism cannot be absolutely proved, at some point the atheist--especially the strong one, takes the preponderance of evidence and concludes that God does not exist. Note the definition...strong atheists BELIEVE God does not exist.

BTW, in an age of large government, another "proof" I'd offer of atheism's status as a religion is that our federal prison system offers inmates "atheist" as one of the broad categories for religious preference. :-)

As to my second difficulty, I just generally fine logical proofs based on definition to not be compelling. I vaguely remember in my Introduction to Religion class, that the Ontological argument for God was like this. Except, when it came time to look at "proofs" against God's existence, a very similar argument was used. If I'm not mistaken, our professor was a soft atheist, and he led our class to the conclusion that arguments from logic or philosophy could direct one towards or against faith in the existence of God, but that conclusive proof was likely impossible one way or the other.

[Roundearth]

Two difficulties I have with the OP. First, while I agree that atheism is not an organized religion, be it soft or hard, in the broadest sense, it is a faith system. Since atheism cannot be absolutely proved, at some point the atheist--especially the strong one, takes the preponderance of evidence and concludes that God does not exist. Note the definition...strong atheists BELIEVE God does not exist.

BTW, in an age of large government, another "proof" I'd offer of atheism's status as a religion is that our federal prison system offers inmates "atheist" as one of the broad categories for religious preference. :-)

The main problem here is your definitions of "faith" and "religion." Faith is belief without evidence. But atheists do have evidence that there is not a God - the arguments that I gave in the OP. Even if you reject my definition of faith, you seem to admit that atheism is only a faith system when we stretch the term significantly. But why stretch the term like that?

You do not have enough authoritative support for your definition of religion. The fact that "atheism" is offered as an option under religious preference is not evidence that atheism is a religion. You would need a definition of religion supported by philosophic or dictionary authority to establish that point, and the dictionaries tend to show that atheism is not a religion.

As to my second difficulty, I just generally fine logical proofs based on definition to not be compelling. I vaguely remember in my Introduction to Religion class, that the Ontological argument for God was like this. Except, when it came time to look at "proofs" against God's existence, a very similar argument was used. If I'm not mistaken, our professor was a soft atheist, and he led our class to the conclusion that arguments from logic or philosophy could direct one towards or against faith in the existence of God, but that conclusive proof was likely impossible one way or the other.

Well, wait a minute, your own post contains an argument from definition: "at some point the atheist--especially the strong one, takes the preponderance of evidence and concludes that God does not exist. Note the definition... strong atheists BELIEVE God does not exist." So I don't think you really believe that arguments from definition don't work. I think you just refuse to look at arguments from definition when they pertain to the existence of God. To me, that seems inconsistent. There isn't any reason to think that an argument from definition for or against the existence of God would not work. The success of mathematics and physics in describing the world show that our conceptual faculties are very powerful and can arrive at correct conclusions about things far from experience.

You say that you do not find logical arguments "compelling." I'm not sure what that means. Do you mean that you accept logical argumentation in general, but that most logical arguments fail? I agree with you there, but that's not a reason to reject any particular logical argument without giving it a good look.

Or do you mean that you reject logical arguments in general? But that's obviously unreasonable, since logic is self evident. Maybe the ontological argument shook your confidence in logical argumentation in general. But there are rebuttals to the ontological argument, my favorite being that it leaves the term "greatness" hopelessly fuzzy.

Or do you mean that logical arguments leave you subjectively unconvinced? That's not a good enough reason to reject an argument. It makes your beliefs invulnerable to criticism, since you will never feel like changing your beliefs. I recommend trying to become more objective. Reason really does work, even when you use it rigorously. I don't mean to be condescending here - it took me a long time studying philosophy to realize that reason really does work.

So, let's have another look at my arguments from definition, shall we?

Edited February 23, 2010 by Roundearth

[NeuroTypical]

I submit that I arrived at a belief in God through exactly this process. Wanna hear about it?

Sure, but you will need to address my arguments against the concept of God.

I'll 'need to' address your arguments why? Let me hazzard a guess at an answer - you're not interested in understanding, you're interested in winning the debate, because you're right and we're wrong.

If I'm in the ballpark, I think I'll pass. I'm big on debate, but I'm less big on debating with someone who sees no value in just plain understanding where the other is coming from, and will not budge a dang inch unless some predetermined methodology has it's hoops jumped through in the right order.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of structured debate. It's just that I understand that conversion stories based on logic won't help you.

There are some folks here much more egg-heady than I am - I hope you get your good structured debate.

LM

[Vanhin]

This board is supposed to be open to discussion of all topics, so I'll post this here.

I am a strong atheist. That is, I think that there is no God. (A weak atheist simply fails to affirm God's existence.) In this thread, I will defend that position with some brief arguments, and then solicit arguments against my arguments and against strong atheism. I hope to hone my critical thinking skills and to learn from you guys.

Welcome. I appreciate the honesty in your stated purpose for being here. I sense that you are reasonable, so, I'll give it a shot.

I have found that there are certain misconceptions I have to deal with before I can make any progress in dialogues with most theists. If you were already aware of any of the following points, I apologise:

* Strong atheism is JUST the belief that there is no God.

* Strong atheism is not a moral position, and does not necessarily entail any particular moral belief.

* A strong atheist can have a moral foundation.

* Strong atheism does not necessarily entail a belief in determinism, evolution, abortion, materialism, or naturalism.

* Strong atheists do not hate God. We do not believe in God.

* Strong atheists do not worship Satan. We do not usually believe in Satan.

* Strong atheists are rarely nihilists.

* Strong atheism is not a religion.

* Strong atheists do, in fact, exist.

* Strong atheists are not repressing knowledge that God exists.

* Strong atheism is not impossible to defend in principle. In principle, it could be defended by finding that the concept of God contradicts itself, the laws of logic, or empirical evidence. You will be able to make up your mind about whether my case for strong atheism is successful after reading this post.

If any of that came across as condescending to you, I apologise. Every clarification on that list is necessary for some theists. If you already knew everything in that list, it is a testament to your sophistication.

Thank you for your clarifications. They might prove to be helpful in us understanding each other.

The first reason to be an atheist follows from the burden of proof principle.

Humans are limited beings, without the capacity of omniscience and infallibility. We wake up on earth without any concepts, idea, or beliefs, and we gradually expand our knowledge from the day we are born until the day we die.

I agree that humans, in our current state, are limited beings. However, I do take issue with the premise that we "wake up" on earth without any concepts, ideas, or beliefs - though, I do agree that we gradually increase in knowledge. I think this might be our first point of debate, since at least a part of your argument is based on this premise.

In Mormonism, we have a doctrine that is closely associated with our ability to reason, and to choose for ourselves, which teaches us that mankind is born with an innate ability to discern the difference between "right" and "wrong". This ability is evident in the common morality that mankind enjoys, which transcends religious systems and culture. Things like honesty, being nice, not murdering people in cold blood, and so forth, would be things that I think can be shown, that people seem to know without anyone telling them. Though the religious systems and cultures of the world can influence a developing persons sensitivity to that discernment for better or for worse.

Some people call this conscience.

Kind Regards,

Vanhin

Edited February 23, 2010 by Vanhin

[Roundearth]

I'll 'need to' address your arguments why? Let me hazzard a guess at an answer - you're not interested in understanding, you're interested in winning the debate, because you're right and we're wrong.

If I'm in the ballpark, I think I'll pass. I'm big on debate, but I'm less big on debating with someone who sees no value in just plain understanding where the other is coming from, and will not budge a dang inch unless some predetermined methodology has it's hoops jumped through in the right order.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of structured debate. It's just that I understand that conversion stories based on logic won't help you.

There are some folks here much more egg-heady than I am - I hope you get your good structured debate.

LM

I'm happy to listen to an opposing viewpoint. The reason you need to address those arguments is that if you don't address my arguments against God, God is not a viable explanation for any experiences you've had. If you don't address those arguments, then to me, saying you experienced God would be like saying you met a being with a square circle for a head. Edited February 23, 2010 by Roundearth

[Vanhin]

I'm happy to listen to an opposing viewpoint. The reason you need to address those arguments is that if you don't address my arguments against God, God is not a viable explanation for any experiences you've had. If you don't address those arguments, then to me, saying you experienced God would be like saying you met a being with a square circle for a head.

Following that logic, do you mean that if I had a brother whom you have never met, who lives in a far off country, and I visit him on occasion, that my explanations of experiences I have had with him are not viable, simply because you have not spoken to him nor met him yourself?

Perhaps you have reason to doubt the viability of my explanations, but what if I had other brothers and sisters who you know, who also visit my foreign brother, each returning with stories of their time with him? Still not viable?

Sure, you don't have first hand proof, but you have witnesses, which definitely makes it "viable" that a brother exists, and that his siblings enjoy his company from time to time.

This is like arguing that all the people who inhabit this earth, that you have never seen, do not exist, despite the countless others who maintain that they do exist, and that they have seen them.

I think personal experience with God is viable because it is possible that God has made himself known to one but not the other. If it is your claim that that is not possible, then I would like to see your reasoning behind it.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Roundearth]

Welcome. I appreciate the honesty in your stated purpose for being here. I sense that you are reasonable, so, I'll give it a shot.

Thanks. This should be interesting.

I agree that humans, in our current state, are limited beings. However, I do take issue with the premise that we "wake up" on earth without any concepts, ideas, or beliefs - though, I do agree that we gradually increase in knowledge. I think this might be our first point of debate, since at least a part of your argument is based on this premise.

In Mormonism, we have a doctrine that is closely associated with our ability to reason, and to choose for ourselves, which teaches us that mankind is born with an innate ability to discern the difference between "right" and "wrong". This ability is evident in the common morality that mankind enjoys, which transcends religious systems and culture. Things like honesty, being nice, not murdering people in cold blood, and so forth, would be things that I think can be shown, that people seem to know without anyone telling them. Though the religious systems and cultures of the world can influence a developing persons sensitivity to that discernment for better or for worse.

Some people call this conscience.

Well Vanhin, this is an interesting argument and I can see where you're coming from. We seem to have a limited ability to discern the difference between right and wrong by means of our emotions. I am shocked by murder and theft, and happy to see acts of heroism. I am inclined to be nice to other people and do charity. And other people around the world seem to have more or less the same mental setup.

However, there are a few considerations that incline me to believe that we have no innate ability to discern right and wrong.

1. This ability is severely limited. We do not know by means of our emotions whether to vote for one politician or the other, whether to go into medicine or law, whether to go to war or not. If we had the ability to make those decisions by ourselves, ethics would not be necessary. But indeed ethics is necessary - we need a conscious, abstract method for making all of our most important decisions. So I deny that we can always discern the difference between right and wrong by means of our emotions, or even that we can discern enough to keep us alive on the basis of our emotions. If our ability to discern right and wrong was innate and conscience-based, we should only be able to get reasonable moral answers in these areas by conscience. Instead, we can and must use reason.

2. This ability is unreliable. Depending on my mood and the moral teachings given me by my elders, my emotions may incline me in one direction or the other. If I am angry at a person, my emotions may tell me that I am right to take out my vengeance on him even if I am not. If I was raised a Christian, my emotions will tend to tell me to give away my belongings and be kind to people of lower social status than myself. If our ability to discern right and wrong was innate, these things should not be possible. You could respond that we have an innate ability to discern right and wrong that is simply skewed by our emotions. But then how do we know when it's really pointing to good and when it's not?

3. This ability is not possessed by everyone. The standard example here is serial murderers, but you could rightly say that they are an exception that your theory does not have to deal with. The eskimos, in the early 1800s, lived in a pretty extreme environment with minimal food, and so they had to push the oldest members of their clan out onto the ice to die. What shocked European explorers about this practice was that the eskimos did not seem upset about this. They were completely callous regarding their elders. They did not cry, or mourn the fact that their elders were starving out on the ice, even though the elders would often try to come back to the village. So it seems like these eskimos did not possess what you and I call conscience. Other instances in history seem to point to a similar conclusion. Aztec child sacrifice, Chinese foot binding, African genital mutilation and slavery throughout the world all seem to indicate a lack of conscience on the part of those who perpetrate them. If we have an innate ability to discern right and wrong, we would not expect these practices to occur.

So I think we need a better explanation. Here's mine. In my philosophy, we develop the distinction between good and evil by watching living things struggle to survive. X is good for a living thing if X promotes that living thing's life. So in my philosophy, the distinction between good and evil is originally based on an entirely factual, intellectual, cognitive integration that we performed in infancy, not on emotion or conscience. What you call conscience, our ability to discern good and evil in the world by means of our emotions, is just the result of our recognition that some things are good for certain beings' lives, and others are not. This ability is limited to non-abstract cases because our emotions cannot generally keep up with our minds on the very abstract level. The ability is unreliable because it is just another emotion, fallible and untrustworthy. People feel badly about different things because A. they live in wildly different environments, where the requirements of life differ, and B. they may evade or not recognize the necessity of thinking about the practical consequences of the practices they endorse. So I think my account of good and evil is more plausible, and better explains 1-3 than the Mormon account.

[Roundearth]

Following that logic, do you mean that if I had a brother whom you have never met, who lives in a far off country, and I visit him on occasion, that my explanations of experiences I have had with him are not viable, simply because you have not spoken to him nor met him yourself?

Perhaps you have reason to doubt the viability of my explanations, but what if I had other brothers and sisters who you know, who also visit my foreign brother, each returning with stories of their time with him? Still not viable?

Sure, you don't have first hand proof, but you have witnesses, which definitely makes it "viable" that a brother exists, and that his siblings enjoy his company from time to time.

This is like arguing that all the people who inhabit this earth, that you have never seen, do not exist, despite the countless others who maintain that they do exist, and that they have seen them.

I think personal experience with God is viable because it is possible that God has made himself known to one but not the other. If it is your claim that that is not possible, then I would like to see your reasoning behind it.

Regards,

Vanhin

Sure. But if there were a contradiction in the definition of your brother, I could never believe that he existed. My claim in the OP is that the definition of God contradicts the Law of Identity.

[LDSVALLEY]

Welcome, nice OP gave, you stated your position clearly. I have no intention of attempting to debate your position because both sides of the debate have incomplete data based on the other view point.

To someone who does not believe in God the scientific process that has created the theory of Earth's development and that of the universe is evidence that God does not exist.

To someone who does believe in God the scientific process that has created the theory of Earth's development and that of the universe is evidence that God does exist.

I used Logic to decide God exisited. I used Logic to tell me the LDS church is correct, at least for me. I went into both assuming a scam and looking at the angles. Surprise to me was I came to the realization that both God and the church are real, for me.

We could spend endless and somewhat enjoyable hours debating different issues but to what end?

If you have specific questions, a couple at a time please, that you would like to discuss then I would be happy to do so although I have not been on here much lately. But the broad spectrum serves no purpose that is useful or meaningful.

Heavenly Father has proven to me that he exists in my life and I am grateful for that. While the confirmation is through feeling and spiritual enlightenment I found my faith due to logic. Besides I long ago figured that if he didn't exist then when I die there is nothing so I'll never know I was wrong. If he does and I don't believe then I'll have an eternity to kick myself over it. While alive I feel better believing when my loved ones or myself die we will be together again, I am a better person to myself, my family and others since becoming a member. So for me it is all a win for believing, even if I didn't have personal confirmation of him.

I admire your belief in what works for you. I support you in your right to your opinion and your ability to voice it. For me I have no choice to accept that right since I believe God has given us the agency to choose for ourselves, in order to maintain my belief I must support your right to yours.

Enjoy life, love and help others and may you be blessed by what you believe.

[Vanhin]

Sure. But if there were a contradiction in the definition of your brother, I could never believe that he existed. My claim in the OP is that the definition of God contradicts the Law of Identity.

Based on the hypothetical definition of God that you proposed, I think that latter-day saints would find little to disagree with you about, considering that many of us do not define God the way you have for the purpose of this thread. I think perhaps some of our other non-LDS Christian friends might identify with that definition better.

How much do you know about our beliefs?

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

And I will have to respond to your reply about conscience later. I have to go. :)

Vanhin

[prisonchaplain]

The main problem here is your definitions of "faith" and "religion." Faith is belief without evidence. But atheists do have evidence that there is not a God - the arguments that I gave in the OP. Even if you reject my definition of faith, you seem to admit that atheism is only a faith system when we stretch the term significantly. But why stretch the term like that?

I only stretch the term faith to say it does not require an allegiance to an organization, or formal system of worship. Faith need not be blind to be deemed religious. Surely you do have some evidence that drives you to your belief that God does not exist. Likewise for monotheists and Christians. Even those Christians who respond to a Billy Graham-like invitation to "accept Jesus," generally are doing so because they've been thinking about faith, however informally, for quite some time. None of these conclusions happens in a vacuum.

You do not have enough authoritative support for your definition of religion. The fact that "atheism" is offered as an option under religious preference is not evidence that atheism is a religion. You would need a definition of religion supported by philosophic or dictionary authority to establish that point, and the dictionaries tend to show that atheism is not a religion.

I realize that this is a point of some controversy. Even if I could find some dictionary to support my claim, there's no doubt that atheism is only religious in the broadest sense. My point is that both atheism and theism ultimately require a certain amount of faith, combined with evidences. In any kinda of debate one side or other would "win" by preponderance of the evidence, not by a conclusive amount. You might prove that one or the other is "odds-on" accurate, but never "beyond the shadow of doubt."

A question, if I may: Did you "convert" to atheism? That is, were you once an adherent of some religion, and finally you concluded there is no God? I am aware that the president of the Freedom from Religion organization used to be a Christian minister. Likewise, Bishop Pearson was a former Oral Roberts University graduate, and a pentecostal minister of reknown, before he converted to the vaguest of theism/soft atheism. I just find it interesting that this purported non-religion is adhered to mostly by converts.

Well, wait a minute, your own post contains an argument from definition: "at some point the atheist--especially the strong one, takes the preponderance of evidence and concludes that God does not exist. Note the definition... strong atheists BELIEVE God does not exist." So I don't think you really believe that arguments from definition don't work. I think you just refuse to look at arguments from definition when they pertain to the existence of God.

It's called irony. I'll look at them. I just don't find such arguments compelling. And yes, especially in relation to something as esoteric as the existance of God.

To me, that seems inconsistent. There isn't any reason to think that an argument from definition for or against the existence of God would not work. The success of mathematics and physics in describing the world show that our conceptual faculties are very powerful and can arrive at correct conclusions about things far from experience.

Think about this. Many of the posters here have had personal, emotional, and dramatic experiences that we believe are God-authored. In my case, I've spoken in tongues, and had many experiences sensing God's presence. I've even spoken out in public meetings as I believed God directed, concluding with, "Thus saieth the Lord." LDS here have often had similar powerful experiences in their Temples, and in their searching for truth.

Someone comes along and says, "None of that can be true, because, by definition, an infinite God would defy the very definition of existence." I believe most, like me, would be non-plussed. I hope you understand, I'm attempting to help you understand my thoughts, not to simply debate you formally on this matter. I don't mind engaging your thoughts, but I'd much rather converse than play an adverserial game of debate.

You say that you do not find logical arguments "compelling." I'm not sure what that means. Do you

What I said was that I do not find arguments based purely on definition to be compelling. I'm all for logic, though, remembering the Intro. to Logic class I took, I found the informal kind much more practical.

Or do you mean that you reject logical arguments in general? But that's obviously unreasonable, since logic is self evident. Maybe the ontological argument shook your confidence in logical argumentation in general. But there are rebuttals to the ontological argument, my favorite being that it leaves the term "greatness" hopelessly fuzzy.

Or do you mean that logical arguments leave you subjectively unconvinced? That's not a good enough reason to reject an argument. It makes your beliefs invulnerable to criticism, since you will never feel like changing your beliefs. I recommend trying to become more objective. Reason really does work, even when you use it rigorously. I don't mean to be condescending here - it took me a long time studying philosophy to realize that reason really does work.

Reason and logic are powerful primarily when the resonate with experience and subjective perception. You'll find above my example--posters here have generally had powerful subjective experiences with what we believe to be God. No amount of formal logical disputation will, by itself, convince anyone towards atheism. Likewise, many former theists who convert do so because of some personal disappointments with religion. Such folk then here some of the logic behind atheism, and believe themselves to have been freed to think reasonably.

Bottom line: converts always believe they've been freed.

[LDSVALLEY]

Thanks. This should be interesting.

Well Vanhin, this is an interesting argument and I can see where you're coming from. We seem to have a limited ability to discern the difference between right and wrong by means of our emotions. I am shocked by murder and theft, and happy to see acts of heroism. I am inclined to be nice to other people and do charity. And other people around the world seem to have more or less the same mental setup.

However, there are a few considerations that incline me to believe that we have no innate ability to discern right and wrong.

1. This ability is severely limited. We do not know by means of our emotions whether to vote for one politician or the other, whether to go into medicine or law, whether to go to war or not. If we had the ability to make those decisions by ourselves, ethics would not be necessary. But indeed ethics is necessary - we need a conscious, abstract method for making all of our most important decisions. So I deny that we can always discern the difference between right and wrong by means of our emotions, or even that we can discern enough to keep us alive on the basis of our emotions. If our ability to discern right and wrong was innate and conscience-based, we should only be able to get reasonable moral answers in these areas by conscience. Instead, we can and must use reason.

2. This ability is unreliable. Depending on my mood and the moral teachings given me by my elders, my emotions may incline me in one direction or the other. If I am angry at a person, my emotions may tell me that I am right to take out my vengeance on him even if I am not. If I was raised a Christian, my emotions will tend to tell me to give away my belongings and be kind to people of lower social status than myself. If our ability to discern right and wrong was innate, these things should not be possible. You could respond that we have an innate ability to discern right and wrong that is simply skewed by our emotions. But then how do we know when it's really pointing to good and when it's not?

3. This ability is not possessed by everyone. The standard example here is serial murderers, but you could rightly say that they are an exception that your theory does not have to deal with. The eskimos, in the early 1800s, lived in a pretty extreme environment with minimal food, and so they had to push the oldest members of their clan out onto the ice to die. What shocked European explorers about this practice was that the eskimos did not seem upset about this. They were completely callous regarding their elders. They did not cry, or mourn the fact that their elders were starving out on the ice, even though the elders would often try to come back to the village. So it seems like these eskimos did not possess what you and I call conscience. Other instances in history seem to point to a similar conclusion. Aztec child sacrifice, Chinese foot binding, African genital mutilation and slavery throughout the world all seem to indicate a lack of conscience on the part of those who perpetrate them. If we have an innate ability to discern right and wrong, we would not expect these practices to occur.

So I think we need a better explanation. Here's mine. In my philosophy, we develop the distinction between good and evil by watching living things struggle to survive. X is good for a living thing if X promotes that living thing's life. So in my philosophy, the distinction between good and evil is originally based on an entirely factual, intellectual, cognitive integration that we performed in infancy, not on emotion or conscience. What you call conscience, our ability to discern good and evil in the world by means of our emotions, is just the result of our recognition that some things are good for certain beings' lives, and others are not. This ability is limited to non-abstract cases because our emotions cannot generally keep up with our minds on the very abstract level. The ability is unreliable because it is just another emotion, fallible and untrustworthy. People feel badly about different things because A. they live in wildly different environments, where the requirements of life differ, and B. they may evade or not recognize the necessity of thinking about the practical consequences of the practices they endorse. So I think my account of good and evil is more plausible, and better explains 1-3 than the Mormon account.

I agree that we have no real natural ability to establish right from wrong, good from evil etc. We are products on this Earth of our enviroment, history, biology, upbringing, learning etc. What is proper and correct in one society is the worst evil in another. Many run on emotion and not logic with both good and evil results.

But this has no bearing on the existence or non existence of God.

LDS believe we were in heaven as spirits before coming to Earth. While on Earth we have no knowledge of this pre-existence. We are like empty bottles that become filled with what we are dipped into.

But all the things discussed are of the Earth, the different cultures etc are all man made on Earth. Our attitudes constantly change based on our knowledge. in 1830's scientests swore that people would die from lack of oxygen when steam trains went over 40KM per hour. They backed it up with scientific evidence of the times. When it didn't happen they created new theories as to why it didn't. We constantly change our theory of everything around us as "evidence" changes. So it is with all aspects of our world and it's view.

Because we lack that natural ability we have the word of God to provide us with the direction needed. In #2 you mentioned about choosing a reaction based on emotion. God gives us the choice to follow his direction. Just as my father on Earth would often give me the choice to follow his advise or not.

However if we are simply the product of our situation then we would never have the ability to evolve beyond that. We can not change what is already in our bottle but we can change how we react with it, and what we put into it in the future. We can choose a different path then the one around us. We can become the best or worst of our abilities.

Realize we are discussing God not religion, because in most cases large parts of society has mixed with little bits of religion. Thus the point about giving all away to others is not a God based concept but mans in the context you mean. We should give to help and support others, avoid greed, but if we are unable to care for ourselves then we can not help others. We are to strive to be the best we can be, that we should have a balance. In the LDS church for example we are taught our first priority is our employer so we can support our family, our family so we can be strong and good teachers and the church is third on the list.

I believe strongly in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But that does not mean that the workings of the church are perfect. We must always guard that we do things in God's way and not ours. Often in our Ward I see things done with the best of intentions but not in the manner God has laid out. That does not invalidate the Church or God, actually it does the opposite. Because when you then do things the way it is intended it works.

Now this is what I meant in an earlier post about the evidence supporting what we choose to belive depending on how we look at it. Your entire answer to me supports the theory of God because we need that guidence to have even survived to this point.

peace

[Moksha]

Let's see strong atheism comfort you in times of sorrow. Visit when you are sick and help you bury the dead.

Faith stands as a bulwark when we need it. It provides an answer to entropy and despair. Like Ivan Ilytch Golovina in Tolstoy's novel, there will come a time when we will wish that we had clung to that which was most precious all along. Frolic entirely in rationality while you can for inevitably there will come a winter when the spiritual will be the path you wished was chosen.

[Guest Godless]

Following that logic, do you mean that if I had a brother whom you have never met, who lives in a far off country, and I visit him on occasion, that my explanations of experiences I have had with him are not viable, simply because you have not spoken to him nor met him yourself?

Perhaps you have reason to doubt the viability of my explanations, but what if I had other brothers and sisters who you know, who also visit my foreign brother, each returning with stories of their time with him? Still not viable?

Sure, you don't have first hand proof, but you have witnesses, which definitely makes it "viable" that a brother exists, and that his siblings enjoy his company from time to time.

This is like arguing that all the people who inhabit this earth, that you have never seen, do not exist, despite the countless others who maintain that they do exist, and that they have seen them.

I think personal experience with God is viable because it is possible that God has made himself known to one but not the other. If it is your claim that that is not possible, then I would like to see your reasoning behind it.

Based on the hypothetical definition of God that you proposed, I think that latter-day saints would find little to disagree with you about, considering that many of us do not define God the way you have for the purpose of this thread. I think perhaps some of our other non-LDS Christian friends might identify with that definition better.

This line of reasoning fails due to inconsistency. LDS claim that the brother has two more brothers who are equal to himself, while Christians claim that the three brothers are the same person. Muslims believe that one of the three brothers is actually more of a cousin. Jewish people believe that the third brother has not yet been born.

Millions of people claim to know God, but they can't define him in a consistent manner. This has been the case for thousands of years. The definitions change and the number of variations seems to keep growing.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Godless

[Guest Godless]

Let's see strong atheism comfort you in times of sorrow. Visit when you are sick and help you bury the dead.

Faith stands as a bulwark when we need it. It provides an answer to entropy and despair. Like Ivan Ilytch Golovina in Tolstoy's novel, there will come a time when we will wish that we had clung to that which was most precious all along. Frolic entirely in rationality while you can for inevitably there will come a winter when the spiritual will be the path you wished was chosen.

Religion is just one of many coping mechanisms that man has devised over the centuries. I've seen my share of hardships and have gotten along just fine without religion. My grandfather, who is 80 years old, doesn't seem to need religion now that he's reaching the last decade or two of his life. Yes, faith works wonders for many people during hard times, and I would never try to take that away from anyone. But it's not the only source of comfort and strength out there.

[Finrock]

This board is supposed to be open to discussion of all topics, so I'll post this here.

I am a strong atheist. That is, I think that there is no God. (A weak atheist simply fails to affirm God's existence.) In this thread, I will defend that position with some brief arguments, and then solicit arguments against my arguments and against strong atheism. I hope to hone my critical thinking skills and to learn from you guys.

Good evening Roundearth! Welcome to the forums. I hope you have been well today. :)

I have found that there are certain misconceptions I have to deal with before I can make any progress in dialogues with most theists. If you were already aware of any of the following points, I apologise:

* Strong atheism is JUST the belief that there is no God.

* Strong atheism is not a moral position, and does not necessarily entail any particular moral belief.

* A strong atheist can have a moral foundation.

* Strong atheism does not necessarily entail a belief in determinism, evolution, abortion, materialism, or naturalism.

* Strong atheists do not hate God. We do not believe in God.

* Strong atheists do not worship Satan. We do not usually believe in Satan.

* Strong atheists are rarely nihilists.

* Strong atheism is not a religion.

* Strong atheists do, in fact, exist.

* Strong atheists are not repressing knowledge that God exists.

* Strong atheism is not impossible to defend in principle. In principle, it could be defended by finding that the concept of God contradicts itself, the laws of logic, or empirical evidence. You will be able to make up your mind about whether my case for strong atheism is successful after reading this post.

OK, so you are establishing some definitions to guide the discussion. I, however, do not accept all of your definitions. At least I do not accept them at face value. Some clarification is in order.

You make certain assertions. I will list your assertions and then I will briefly describe why I do not agree with this definition:

1. Strong atheist can have a moral foundation -> I do not accept this definition. I would contend that if there is no God, then neither is there any moral foundation.

2. Strong atheism is not a religion -> I do not accept this definition. Experientially I see very little difference between a theist zealot and a strong atheist. Only the object of their adoration and faith varies. Rationally, I would argue that atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, etc.

3. Strong atheist do, in fact, exist -> I do not accept this definition. This goes with point 2. I would contend that strong atheist worship a god, even if it isn't the God of Israel, etc. There are many types of gods and one need not worship the God of Christianity or any "personal" God in order to worship a god.

Now, some of this may be a matter of semantics. A point of clarification would be to agree upon a definition of what is "religion" and what is "faith".

Regards,

Finrock

[Roundearth]

Based on the hypothetical definition of God that you proposed, I think that latter-day saints would find little to disagree with you about, considering that many of us do not define God the way you have for the purpose of this thread. I think perhaps some of our other non-LDS Christian friends might identify with that definition better.

How much do you know about our beliefs?

Oh, not a lot. Just what I've heard "around" and from talking to members of LDS.

[Elphaba]

Let's see strong atheism comfort you in times of sorrow. Visit when you are sick and help you bury the dead.

Faith stands as a bulwark when we need it. It provides an answer to entropy and despair. Like Ivan Ilytch Golovina in Tolstoy's novel, there will come a time when we will wish that we had clung to that which was most precious all along. Frolic entirely in rationality while you can for inevitably there will come a winter when the spiritual will be the path you wished was chosen.

I certainly can understand how believing in a god is comforting, especially during times of great sorrow. That does not mean, however, that the god is real. It only means that, in your worldview, your concept of that particular god is real.

As an atheist, the fact that there is no god is comforting to me. It is what it is, and I find reality, even at its most agonizing, to be more reassuring than anything supernatual.

Atheism is not as bleak as may theists believe.

Elphaba

[Guest Godless]

You make certain assertions. I will list your assertions and then I will briefly describe why I do not agree with this definition:

1. Strong atheist can have a moral foundation -> I do not accept this definition. I would contend that if there is no God, then neither is there any moral foundation.

What do you base that on?

2. Strong atheism is not a religion -> I do not accept this definition. Experientially I see very little difference between a theist zealot and a strong atheist. Only the object of their adoration and faith varies. Rationally, I would argue that atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, etc.

What is the "object of adoration and faith" for atheists? By definition, we do not worship anything. Many of us are enamored by science and reason, but we do not worship them. And our "faith" in these things reaches only as far as our perceptory ability to understand them. It is not in our nature to give unsupported traits to our intellectual pursuits without tangible evidence.

3. Strong atheist do, in fact, exist -> I do not accept this definition. This goes with point 2. I would contend that strong atheist worship a god, even if it isn't the God of Israel, etc. There are many types of gods and one need not worship the God of Christianity or any "personal" God in order to worship a god.

Can you elaborate please? I'm afraid you've lost me.

[Dravin]

Godless, I think that eloquent explanation of the continuum of belief/agnosticism might be beneficial. I think a lot of folks see atheism as a statement of disbelief in God as opposed to an absence of belief in him (does that make any sense?).

Let me see if I can dig it up...

Edit: Here, found it!

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/25543-calling-all-atheists-2.html#post416003

Edit 2: Maybe... not sure if that is the one I'm actually recalling...

Right thread, wrong post: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/25543-calling-all-atheists-3.html#post416117

Edit 3: (How high will the edits go?) I could have sworn I thanked you for that post I'm thinking of, but I didn't for either of these...

Edited February 24, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest Godless]

Godless, I think that eloquent explanation of the continuum of belief/agnosticism might be beneficial. I think a lot of folks see atheism as a statement of disbelief in God as opposed to an absence of belief in him (does that make any sense)*?

Actually, that makes perfect sense. It's a semantical error that I see quite often in these types of discussions. Problem is, the difference runs far deeper than semantics, and that tends to cause confusion.

Thanks for bringing that up.