Someone sent me this blogpost, and I'd like to see what other persons thinks of this view.

The belief in the non-existence in God isn’t based on logical proof, probability or plain old common sense - belief and disbelief in God are intuitive - because there just isn’t any logical proof, empirical evidence, or probable basis for asserting God doesn’t exist. Atheists who try argue that they require no evidence to support their disbelief, rely on the Latin maxim: ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat, meaning (”the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies,”). But this just shows their ignorance: this is a legal maxim not a law of logic. The absence of proof isn’t proof of absence. In logic, the burden of proof always lies with whoever asserts the proposition, whether the proposition is positive or negative. Atheism rests on a proposition that cannot be logically proved, i.e. God doesn’t exist - so it’s just another faith-based belief system.

This is why atheist philosopher Antony Flew, (who has since rejected his atheist faith and is now a supporter of ID theory!) tried to redefine atheism to include agnosticism precisely to circumvent the irrationality of atheism. But his defintion was rejected by atheist and theist philosophers alike - atheism means the rejection of God/Gods - anything less just isn’t atheism.

There are numerous logical arguments for God existence, including Exodus 3:14: ego sum qui sum (I am who am) - a form of the ontological argument - but none of the arguments(ontological cosmological or argument by design) prove God’s existence. The best argument for God’s existence isn’t rational, it’s Pascal’s beautiful maxim: “The heart has its reasons which reason does not know” — which is also the only sensible argument for disbelief in God.

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that atheism has any more logical, scientific or moral foundation than theism, both are faith-based belief systems, and anyone who would claim otherwise is either a fool or a fraud.


PS: There is no use commenting in the blog, I've (and a few others) had 3 of my comments deleted. So I'm making a discussion here for those who should agree or disagree with the post.

Views: 11

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I am an atheist in the same way I am an ateapoist, an afairyist and an asantaclausis....

In this respect atheism isn't just a rational point of view, it is the only rational point of view. To say that atheism takes "faith' is like saying that the disbelief in sea monsters or fire breathing dragons also takes faith..

And it's by a lawyer... go figure.

She sums up her own position quite succinctly:
12 steph
I choose faith over reason.

however she accuses the atheist of doing the same thing, but then she's pigeonholing atheists to the assertive "there is no god" while most atheists I know assert "there is no credible evidence for a god"
Fool and/or fraud here.

God is absent. I guess it could be argued that he/she/it is off somewhere else. But definitely absent from what we call the here and now.

For practical purposes, that absence is equal to non-existence.

The humorous thing about these bloggers is that they attempt describe the God they're promoting as "beyond" the one described by the Judeo-Christian tradition yet they always slip up and throw some Bible texts into their mess.
Contrary to this blogger’s claim, atheism is an empirical conclusion, not dependent upon faith. Atheists do not believe in supernatural entities.

Science examines claims of supernatural events all the time, and none of them ever stand up under investigation. If just one could be proved, it would win the claimant the $1 million Randi prize, but that has not happened.

We reject claims of the existence of things all the time, because they cannot be found, and because the they do not conform with what we know about natural processes. A couple of examples are phlogiston and cold fusion. We have done everything possible to find these, but eventually we had to conclude that it was hopeless. They just don’t exist.

As science advances, more of the world is under constant examination. We can peer deep into the atom with microscopes, and back to the earliest structures of the universe, and everywhere we find natural processes. A very shy god might be able to avoid detection if he never does anything at all, but if he ever intervenes in the natural world, we are going to nail him.

Of course, it is possible that any empirical conclusion could be proved wrong by later experience. Some day we might find a god, just as black swans were found in Australia. If we do, of course we will change our conclusion. But since, as far as we can find, the world is devoid of supernatural events, completely barren of miracles, we are forced until then to conclude that there are no gods.
This is all just an argument of semantics. All atheists I know fully agree that they can't prove the non-existence of god or gods, but they do find it very, very, very unlikely.

The problem here is of the marketing sort - should be begin calling ourselves "very atheistic agnostics" or "type 6 agnostic" (on Dawkins' scale) and lose the momentum of the newest atheist movement? That way we would stop having to argue this specific point with theists. Or should we just keep the moniker "atheist" and take the time to explain that we know we can't prove the non-existence of god or gods?

I personally think we should stick with the term atheist, because we're making progress. We just have to make sure we're ready to clarify.

But calling "positive disbelief in god(s)" a faith-based belief system is going a bit far, I think. It's one assertion, not a whole system.

I think she makes no sense when she says that "the best argument isn't rational" - how can a good argument be irrational? It's an oxymoron. "The heart has its reasons which reason does not know" is a cute sentence, with a play on different meanings of the word 'reason', and I think it's simply an argument for ignorance. "I have a feeling in my heart that I cannot explain, thus it is inexplicable". This is not a sensible argument for anything but one's own ignorance.
Great replies, I recommend you to reply to the blog even though it may be a useless attempt. My reply was similar to Eli, but apparently it had already been discussed even though I fail to see the comment.
"The belief in the non-existence in God..."

Fallacy, right off the bat. The absence of a belief is not a belief, just as the absence of a coin in my hand is not the presence of a coin in my hand. Why can't people like that wrap their minds around such a simple thing?
We do not need faith. We have reality the same as saying there is no tooth fairy or santa claus. The burden of proof is on the theist. I go by the knowledge that there are no mythical figures as the hundreds of past gods and this present one is exactly the same.
I suspect this 'attack is the best form of defense', logically flawed reasoning, is coming from a Christianity which is currently backed so far into a socialogical corner that it isn't getting out any time soon, and is flinging the last remnants of its bullsh*t at what it sees as the biggest threat...

The link between level of education and atheism is patently obvious, and, unfortunately for religion, the world is becoming more educated, and rejecting mythologies as it goes.

Somehow - the cartoonish 'The End is Nigh' plackards take on a whole new meaning. (One can hope)

CandT

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service