Re:Why I can’t be an atheist, part 3

Robert Meyer’s third installment about why he can’t be an atheist: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/meyer/061217

Robert’s words are in red and in quotes, my responses follow.

This article has more problems than the other ones. Bear with me as I will try to go chronologically.

"The dictionary of philosophy defines atheism as: "Belief that god does not exist. Unlike the agnostic, who merely criticizes traditional arguments for the existence of a deity, the atheist must offer evidence that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying what is not known to be true.""

Which dictionary of philosophy? I’m not familiar with "the" dictionary of philosophy.  Strange how the definition has a moral imperative for the atheist – ‘the atheist must offer evidence that there is no god or propose a strong principle for denying…’.

Ok two main responses:

First of all, I think that atheism is broader than this definition and includes people who merely lack a belief in god (more on this later).

Second, offering evidence that there is no god is a strange thing. The best way to do this would be to pick a specific concept of God, (all knowing, all powerful, all good) and demonstrate that there is evil and suffering in the world. Does that rule out all possible gods? No.

Really though, what kind of evidence could we look at and all agree that, "yep, there aren’t unicorns in space"?

A strong principle for denying "what is not known to be true"? What an oddly worded phrase. And it’s a false requirement, but I’ll fulfill it anyway. Logical impossibilities do not exist in reality — that’s a strong principle that would apply.

"Yet when this definition is applied, the atheist objects profusely. The atheist wants to instead define his position as merely lacking belief in a God, not one that positively asserts there is no God."

An atheist might say this, sure.

"One must rightfully ask how atheists who define themselves this way constructively differ from agnostics, and we ought to chide him for his own insufficiency — satisfaction with a willingness to prove less than he ought to prove."

Go ahead and chide away. Difference between atheists and agnostics. Theism or atheism refers to whether a person holds a belief in god(s). Agnosticism refers to the ability to know whether god(s) exist. They are completely separate, and, a person can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

Prove less than he ought to prove. Gracious. OK, let’s use Russell’s famous orbiting teapot example (slightly modified). A person says that there is a teapot orbiting the sun in space at a distance roughly the same as Pluto. Now, before I mentioned this teapot, did you believe in such a teapot? No. Should you believe that the teapot exists? Well, all I’ve told you so far is that a person makes the claim that there is such an object. According to "the dictionary of philosophy" it would seem that if you did NOT believe in this teapot, you must offer some evidence that there is not a teapot.

Good luck.

Wait, Robert has another way out of this… He could instead propose a strong principle for denying that this teapot exists. Good luck with that, too. There are no philosophical or scientific problems with the example at all. No physical laws are even modestly bent. So one must believe that this teapot exists, right?

And there are all manner of possible space objects that could be in orbit. With regard to the teapot, a person can be a teapotist (one who believes in the existence of this orbiting teapot), a weak ateapotist (a person who lacks the belief in this orbiting teapot), or a strong ateapotist (a person who denies the existence of the teapot).

 Notice that everyone is either a teapotist or an ateapotist of one kind. A person can be, in addition, a teapot agnostic (one who doesn’t believe that we can know whether such a teapot exists).

 
Robert may say, "I see no reason to believe in a damn teapot in orbit around Pluto."

 
But this is when Robert’s own words come back to bite him:

 
"That leaves us in a position where we are almost forced to conclude that any such claim of insufficiency is necessarily arbitrary."

 
Perhaps it’s more reasonable to believe in a claim when you have some evidence FOR believing in the claim.

<font face="Arial" co

lor=”#000000″ size=”2″ arial=””> "Atheists demand proof that God exists, yet when it is presented, they casually disregard it as proof they can accept."

 Robert must mean "proof that they can’t accept"? Either way, I’m curious as to ANY of the proof that God exists. It’s not that I’ve seen some evidence of God, and I just don’t think it’s enough to justify believing it, or something. I have seen zero evidence for God. The best arguments for God that I’ve ever seen are arguments from ignorance like, "Well, I can’t see any way that people evolved unless there was a God involved, therefore, there was a God involved." This is exactly NOT an argument for anything except the person’s own limited imagination. Reality is not limited by what you can or can’t think of.

 Hell, miracles would be a good start toward evidence of a deity. A person regenerating a lost limb, for example. Or maybe something like Jesus, after coming back from the dead walking around on earth until today. Or Mohammad writing the Koran on the face of the moon. Any of those things would honestly be worth a serious going over by every atheist.

 "But how many websites or organizations do you see dedicated to the disproof or ridicule of those who believe in [tooth fairy, Santa Claus]? If they were all equivalent, there should be a more even distribution of critiques proclaiming the fictitious nature of these various cultural icons."

 
If they were all equivalent in every respect with the belief in God, then yes, you would expect a more even distribution of critiques. It appears that the only relevant difference is the effect that belief in God has on policy and daily life to just start with two. Yeah, how weird is it that absurd beliefs that affect everyone in the nation are the ones most frequently talked about. So strange that atheists aren’t concerned with convincing everyone that the tooth fairy isn’t real…

 
"We can’t neglect observing that it is most frequently the Judeo-Christian conception of God which is attacked with a heaping surplus of vitriol and sarcasm. Comparing belief in God to belief in Zeus might be comic relief for the converted choir, but it is sermonized ignorance to an astute congregation. Atheists don’t have the same intensity of distain for the small minority of folks who actually are devote followers of obscure deities."

 
Right, belief in Zeus is different why? Because people no longer believe in him? What exactly distinguishes the belief in Jesus from the belief in Zeus? Seriously. Why is one more rational than the other?

 
I think that people who believe in different gods than God are just as wrong as majority of people. Ironically, I challenged a person last week who believed in Athena as to why she thinks her god is real. Her response, "would you question the faith of a person who believes in Jesus?"

 
"When the atheist claims that he does not need to offer a cogent explanation for the origin of matter, he is displacing the "myth" he despises with his own tale of greater credulity."

 
I say that I don’t know about the origin of the universe. That’s completely honest. To say that you think you know is ridiculous.