Does the claim "there is no God" require evidence/reasoning to support it?

[Belloc_Fan]

Claims about the world outside of my head are evaluated on the basis of how much evidence they have going for them. The more evidence I have, the more certain I am that they are true, all the way up to 99% (because, obviously, we don’t have absolute knowledge of things).

For some very ordinary claims, I would probably be willing to accept them for the sake of convenience – for extraordinary claims, I would not. If you told me that you had a dog, for example, I’d probably believe you because that’s a very ordinary claim and because it doesn’t really affect me one way or another.

That second paragraph there completely refutes the first. You’re saying that for certain evidentiary claims, you’d accept them as prima facia true without any evidence.

I understand that what you’re actually trying to say is that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” but what you’re actually claiming is that all claims require evidence (which “I have a dog” doesn’t) and that all claims require empirical evidence, which is an arbitrary subset of evidence that I see no defense for.

The problem, more generally, is that most of the New Atheists come from the natural sciences – biology, and the like. They assume that the methodologies they’ve derived from those sciences can be applied outside those fields with equal success. They can’t. Just as you can’t derive a test proving (on the spot, anyways) that someone does or doesn’t have a dog, you can’t derive a test proving that Columbus arrived in America in 1492, etc. The social sciences use total different methodologies and standards of evidence than do natural scientists. I can’t think of any social science claims which would be very testable under the New Atheist’s absurd demands for scientific empirical data for everything – even if there are some testable claims, they’re in the minority.

No, the truth is that for everything from ordinary to extraordinary claims, the historian (for example) relies upon available data. Once in a blue moon, this is archaeology, possibly subject to carbon dating. Much more often, it’s manuscripts – even if a natural scientist can date the manuscripts to a given age, it doesn’t prove that the text is honest.

Christianity relies on standards of data quite similar to what’s relied upon by historians. Read the works of early Church Fathers on these points – they point to old text, to multiple attestation, to continual traditions, and so on. These are all things which a good historian would find to be compelling evidence. They just aren’t “empirical data” in the sense that a natural scientist uses that term.

Likewise, had there been no media footage of the Holocaust, and had the physical and structural remains been lost to time, we would have had to have relied upon the testimony of survivors, just as we did for evidence of the existence of the Black Plague. Would you be right in denying the Holocaust presumptively, because it’s extraordinary claim? Certainly, it is one. If the only available evidence were detailed survivor accounts – just as the only available evidence for the Black Plague was – would you declare yourself AntiSurvivor, and discount all of their testimonies?

 

[Windfish]

All I wanted was a simple answer to the thread title’s question. I think I got it, but this is why I avoided the semantics.

I do want to comment on this, though:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I have never understood this maxim. Evidence for a particular claim can be judged by its quality, strength, etc., but the nature and variety of evidence itself could only ever be the same as for any other claim. There is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence, only evidence.

Now, I think what it is meant by “extraordinary evidence” is “compelling evidence.” If that’s the case, ok.

 

[Windfish]

I don’t think that this is semantics at all. This is the answer to your question. If someone is an agnostic, and says, “I don’t see sufficient evidence to prove that there is or is not a God,” there’s no particular need to provide evidence – the belief is premised off of the notion that the evidence is insufficient to arrive at either conclusion.

On the other hand, if someone is an atheist, they’re affirming the proposition that there is no God. This is the central point on which they disagree from agnostics. And since they don’t simply say that the evidence is insufficient to prove God, but say instead that the evidence shows that there is not a God, some recourse to evidence can fairly be called for.

Or, to put it in your original terms, atheism makes a “postive claim,” while agnosticism doesn’t necessarily (although some agnostics make the postive claim that the truth of the existence of God is unknowable, rather than simply unknown to them).

Now that my question has been answered, I want to discuss the semantics.

My dictionary widget provides this defintion for atheism:
Oxford American Dictionaries:

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist

Many atheists on the internet would dispute the above definition and draw a distinction between positive (or strong) atheism and negative (or weak) atheism, which they say means a “lack of a belief” in God. What do you think about this distinction, Belloc Fan?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Many atheists on the internet would dispute the above definition and draw a distinction between positive (or strong) atheism and negative (or weak) atheism, which they say means a “lack of a belief” in God. What do you think about this distinction, Belloc Fan?

I think “weak” atheism is just agnosticism. Calling it atheism is wildly misleading. Even anti-theist admitted as much:

Anyway, to address this thread topic, “atheism” is simply a word for not having a belief in god, and it includes both “weak atheists” (i.e. those who don’t think there is sufficient evidence to support the god claim, or sometimes called “agnostics”) and “strong atheists” (those who actively assert that there are no gods).

Both are equally without a belief in god, both are equally a-theist.

Properly understood, agnosticism says we don’t know if God exists or not. It’s the opposite of gnosis, or knowledge - it’s a lack of knowledge (about the existence of God). It doesn’t claim that God exists (and isn’t theism), but it also doesn’t claim God doesn’t exist (and isn’t atheism).

Imagine a person just completely torn on the evidence, unable to figure out which side was right: the theists, or the atheists. If a theist says, “God exists,” the agnostic says, "I don’t see enough evidence to support that conclusion. But if an atheist says, “God doesn’t exist,” the agnostic still says, "I don’t see enough evidence to support that conclusion. So calling him an agnostic is just a false way to increase the number of “atheists.”

To use one of the earlier examples, if you say, “Person X stole my car,” and person X says, “no, I didn’t!” that’s not really enough to go on (unless I have some reason to suspect one of you is more credible than the other). A judge would be agnostic to this issue (at this point), and willing to hear both sides. Even if there isn’t enough evidence to convict X in the end, it doesn’t mean X is innocent. Likewise, it’s possible that even in the absence of compelling evidence for God, He still exists. That’s the natural problem of agnosticism – by definition, one just doesn’t know.

An agnostic doesn’t necessarily not believe. A judge may suspect that you’re telling the truth about X - he just isn’t sure. An agnostic may likewise suspect that God exist, but remains in doubt. Calling such a person a “weak atheist” completely perverts the etymology of the word and its historic usage. That’s why the claim that agnostics are “without God,” and therefore atheist, just isn’t etymologically or logically valid: the agnostic doesn’t know if he’s with or without God, and besides, that’s not what the term functionally means.

 

[Windfish]

Your example necessitates that a conclusion be reached about Person X. If you were watching the case on the news and no evidence emerged that convicted Person X, you would not have to reach a conclusion about him (or her). I think this is what atheists mean by their new definition of the word. They neither believe nor disbelieve, that have a lack of a belief. Practically, I don’t see how this makes much of a difference from agnosticism, but they are very defensive about it. I think it’s also worth noting that when you converse with this variety of atheist, their arguments are indistinguishable from positive atheists and agnostics.

Does this change at all your point of view?

 

[Leela]

I am quite new to the ongoing debate between atheism and theism, so I will be asking very basic questions to orient myself properly before I attempt to tackle the “big” topics.

“There is no God.”

Is the above a positive claim? Does the above claim require evidence/reasoning to support it?

I have always understood a positive claim to be a matter of fact statement, whether it affirms or denies something. I know Wikipedia is hardly an authority, but here is its definition:

I have been told, though, that the the above claim is actually a negative claim, and a negative claim cannot be proven. If this is the case, why make such a matter of fact statement in the first place if it cannot be proven?

I hope someone can help me with this basic question.

I think that atheists on this site have tried to make something of the positive/negative claim business in very disingenuous ways. The issue seems to be about trying to shift the burden of proof to the theistic side of the debate. The fact is that anyone claiming to be an atheist thinks that she has good reason to believe that there is no God. Now, it is important to add that it would be absurd to claim that all possible conceptions of God are fanciful without even knowing what conceptions are in question. By claiming that there is no God, what we mean (or ought to mean) is that we have good reason to believe that God (based on whatever conception of God has been brought up and found wanting) is not what you think God is. As atheists, we have as much a burden of expressing the justification of our “negative” doubts as anyone does for their “positive” beliefs.

It is possible that a person has never even considered the God/no gods question and can claim ignorance and atheism as a neutral state, but once one has considered the issue, she ought to be able to explain her position.

So, in short, yes. The claim that atheism is true–that the theistic conception of God is false–is as open to demands for evidence and arguments as any other claim. It seems obvious to me that if someone wants to convince someone else of something, the burden of proof is one them. So the whole positive/negative claim distinction is not useful for shirking the obligation we have to one another in conversation to defend the claims we make.

That’s right folks. I’m calling fellow atheists who hide behind a “negative” claim notion of atheism sissies. You fellas need to man up and take responsibility for what you believe as well as for what claims you disbelieve. Doubts need to be justified as well as beliefs do. Otherwise we would have to take seriously all those “brain in a vat” skeptics who aren’t even sure whether or not they really exist.

Best,
Leela

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Your example necessitates that a conclusion be reached about Person X. If you were watching the case on the news and no evidence emerged that convicted Person X, you would not have to reach a conclusion about him (or her). I think this is what atheists mean by their new definition of the word. They neither believe nor disbelieve, that have a lack of a belief. Practically, I don’t see how this makes much of a difference from agnosticism, but they are very defensive about it. I think it’s also worth noting that when you converse with this variety of atheist, their arguments are indistinguishable from positive atheists and agnostics.

Does this change at all your point of view?

I get what you’re saying, and I agree that if someone calls themselves an atheist, but means only that they’re not convinced of the existence of God (but are also not convinced of His non-existence), they aren’t really making a positive claim at all. Without the fancy labels, it’s just, “I’m not convinced one way or the other.” Someone obviously doesn’t need to prove that they’re unconvinced, or to provide inconclusive evidence – the entire point is that they don’t know.

My only point here is that this is what everyone calls agnosticism, and trying to claim this for atheism is some sort of stupid attempt to dishonestly inflate the number of atheists. It empties the word “atheist” of any meaning. Take, for example, this Pew survey, showing that a whopping 21% of American “atheists” believe in God:
hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/
So the “New Atheists,” who are obsessed with changing the meaning of words (trying to call themselves “New Atheists,” and even the ridiculous moniker “brights,” and trying to call anyone and everyone else that they can "atheists) have only succeeded in butchering linguistic clarity.

On the other hand, if someone affirmatively declares that there is no God, or that the existence of God is logically (or otherwise) impossible, that’s atheism. That’s also a clear positive claim. If they’re going to much an extraordinary claim like that (nearly the entire world, throughout all of human history, is wrong, and there is no God), they need, by anti-theist’s own logic, extraordinary evidence. Saying, “I’m not personally convinced” isn’t evidence at all. One could just as easily “disprove” the lone Kennedy assassin or the Holocaust using that same warped version of logic – “I’m not convinced, so everyone else is wrong, Q.E.D.”

 

[R_Daneel]

I have never understood this maxim. Evidence for a particular claim can be judged by its quality, strength, etc., but the nature and variety of evidence itself could only ever be the same as for any other claim. There is no such thing as “extraordinary” evidence, only evidence.

Now, I think what it is meant by “extraordinary evidence” is “compelling evidence.” If that’s the case, ok.

Well said. The “extraordinary claim…” is just a figure of speech. Any and all claims need the same evidence if they are to be accepted (no need to go into details at this point, it is a separate topic). The difference is that for “ordinary” claims one does not bother to check the presented hearsay evidence (I have a dog), while for an “extraordinary” claim (I have a flying and fire-breathing dog) the hearsay evidence is not sufficient, or as you said “not compelling”. Out of lazyness, or lack of need we simply do not bother to find the real evidence for everyday claims. We just accept the hearsay evidence.

 

[Windfish]

Thanks, Leela, that is a rather frank and lucid assessment of things.

Belloc Fan, I am sorry to press you on this, but I am not getting your specific thoughts on atheism as a “lack of a belief in God.” I have always thought that this innovation on the definition is bogus, but I cannot articulate why. It is an odd view to have because, really, it’s no view at all. If you actually talk with this variety of atheist, what they will tell you is indistinguishable from what a positive atheist and/or agnostic will tell you, so something is obviously amiss.

What I want, I guess, is a clear and thoughtful critique or debunking of this innovative definition.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Thanks, Leela, that is a rather frank and lucid assessment of things.

Belloc Fan, I am sorry to press you on this, but I am not getting your specific thoughts on atheism as a “lack of a belief in God.” I have always thought that this innovation on the definition is bogus, but I cannot articulate why. It is an odd view to have because, really, it’s no view at all. If you actually talk with this variety of atheist, what they will tell is indistinguishable from what a positive atheist and/or agnostic will tell you, so something is amiss.

What I want, I guess, is a clear and thoughtful critique or debunking of this innovative definition.

I’ll try and be as clear and succinct as I can. Historically, atheism meant those who affirmed the proposition that God is non-existent. This is a positive claim which they should be able to prove with compelling evidence.

In recent years, atheists have tried to squirm out of the burden to prove their claims by conflating their own position with agnosticism, and putting both agnostics and atheists under the umbrella of “atheism” – hence the creation of so-called “weak atheism.”

Here are the problems with that:

1. 
   *]Agnosticism isn’t necessarily atheist at all. A number of agnostics suspect God exists.
   *]Agnosticis are those who aren’t convinced of atheism, so calling them “atheists” is absurd.
   *]Agnosticism isn’t a positive claim, atheism is, so they’re subject to two different burdens, and believe two different things.
   *]Calling agnosticism “atheism,” or vice versa serves as a sort of NewSpeak, where words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. If we’re going to have an adult discussion on life-changing propositions, it’s important that all parties act in good faith, and use terms in a reasonable and predictable way, whenever possible.
   *]Theists could do the same absurd linguistic gymnastics to try and “prove” everyone is a theist easily enough – after all, God is present in the lives of even those who question or deny His existence, so in that sense, there’s no such thing as being without God (a-theos), so atheism doesn’t exist. But, of course, if theists insisted on calling atheists and agnostics theists, they’d be rightfully outraged that we’d perverted the plain meaning of words to try and score cheap points.
   *]Finally, what does it benefit anyone to call agnostics “atheists”? Particularly when they’re not?
   
   Do these help?

 

[Windfish]

I’ll try and be as clear and succinct as I can. Historically, atheism meant those who affirmed the proposition that God is non-existent. This is a positive claim which they should be able to prove with compelling evidence.

In recent years, atheists have tried to squirm out of the burden to prove their claims by conflating their own position with agnosticism, and putting both agnostics and atheists under the umbrella of “atheism” – hence the creation of so-called “weak atheism.”

Here are the problems with that:

1. 
   *]Agnosticism isn’t necessarily atheist at all. A number of agnostics suspect God exists.
   *]Agnosticis are those who aren’t convinced of atheism, so calling them “atheists” is absurd.
   *]Agnosticism isn’t a positive claim, atheism is, so they’re subject to two different burdens, and believe two different things.
   *]Calling agnosticism “atheism,” or vice versa serves as a sort of NewSpeak, where words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean. If we’re going to have an adult discussion on life-changing propositions, it’s important that all parties act in good faith, and use terms in a reasonable and predictable way, whenever possible.
   *]Theists could do the same absurd linguistic gymnastics to try and “prove” everyone is a theist easily enough – after all, God is present in the lives of even those who question or deny His existence, so in that sense, there’s no such thing as being without God (a-theos), so atheism doesn’t exist. But, of course, if theists insisted on calling atheists and agnostics theists, they’d be rightfully outraged that we’d perverted the plain meaning of words to try and score cheap points.
   *]Finally, what does it benefit anyone to call agnostics “atheists”? Particularly when they’re not?
   
   Do these help?

1. 
   They are very thoughtful points,but they do not address the newly proposed definition.
   
   This is what an atheist would probably tell you: theism means belief in God. Atheism means without belief in God. Whereas the agnostic has the position that he cannot decide either way, this kind of atheist will abdicate the whole decision altogether and say that they really lack a belief. They would tell you that they are not trying to conflate their position with agnosticism.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

They are very thoughtful points,but they do not address the newly proposed definition.

This is what an atheist would probably tell you: theism means belief in God. Atheism means without belief in God. Whereas the agnostic has the position that he cannot decide either way, this kind of atheist will abdicate the whole decision altogether and say that they really lack a belief. They would tell you that they are not trying to conflate their position with agnosticism.

Who do you mean by “this kind of atheist”?

 

[R_Daneel]

This is what an atheist would probably tell you: theism means belief in God. Atheism means without belief in God.

Correct. One either believes, or one does not. There is no “middle” ground. One cannot “suspend” belief. Theism and atheism are metaphysical propositions.

Whereas the agnostic has the position that he cannot decide either way, this kind of atheist will abdicate the whole decision altogether and say that they really lack a belief. They would tell you that they are not trying to conflate their position with agnosticism.

The term “agnosticism” does not deal with metaphysics, it deals with epistemology. It simply should not be used, but unfortunately it gained wide acceptance, especially among those who like to muddy the waters, or those who feel uncomfortable with calling a spade a spade…

 

[Windfish]

Who do you mean by “this kind of atheist”?

The kind of atheist that says that they “lack” a belief. They would disagree with you that they’re conflating atheism with agnosticism. Agnosticism actually takes a position that says it’s difficult or impossible to know either way, but this “new” atheist would abdicate the whole paradigm altogether. Now, as I have said, this is quite odd, but I cannot articulate why its bogus. I was hoping you could help me with that! :flowers:

Have I mentioned that I really, really like this site’s smileys? :egyptian:

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Yes… All reasonable people (i.e. all of humanity) would need to be given reason to believe something (that is if they do not already believe it). Theists provide reasons. So should atheists. Empirical evidence does not need to be a factor (although it certainly can and would be of tremendous assistance). A priori evidence is sufficient by itself as long as it is logical (of course).

 

[Windfish]

Correct. One either believes, or one does not. There is no “middle” ground. One cannot “suspend” belief. Theism and atheism are metaphysical propositions.

“Without belief” does not mean the same thing as “does not believe.” Again, I tent to agree with you, but I am trying to argue their side so you can debunk it!

 

[AntiTheist]

That second paragraph there completely refutes the first. You’re saying that for certain evidentiary claims, you’d accept them as prima facia true without any evidence.

I’m saying that for the sake of practical convenience, I don’t personally bother to investigate every claim that’s made to me if it’s a common enough claim.

what you’re actually claiming is that all claims require evidence (which “I have a dog” doesn’t)

It requires evidence, like all claims. I’m merely saying that in my daily life, for the purposes of convenience, I don’t typically bother to check out the evidence for most really common claims when it doesn’t really matter one way or the other.

If some random dude online tells me that he has a dog, I’m happy to grant that as a part of our conversation. It doesn’t mean that the claim is exempt from all evidence or that I would consider the dude justified in believing he had a dog if there were actually absolutely zero evidence that he owns a dog (no dog dish, no dog food, no dog door, no physical dog, etc.).

and that all claims require empirical evidence, which is an arbitrary subset of evidence that I see no defense for.

All claims about the world outside of people’s minds require empirical evidence drawn from the world around them.

Obviously, claims about things like my inner state (like, “I feel happy right now”) only require the evidence of my own personal observation of my inner state.

I’m not saying that empirical evidence is necessary to support every claim – just those claims that pertain to the world outside of my head. And the claim that “a disembodied intelligence exists and created the universe and cares for everything in the universe and intervenes in nature” is a claim about the world outside of my head that needs to be justified with evidence.

I can’t think of any social science claims which would be very testable under the New Atheist’s absurd demands for scientific empirical data for everything

Again, “new atheists”…or any other kind of atheists…don’t demands “scientific empirical data for everything.” I don’t demand empirical scientific data to know that “I’m hungry right now” – since it’s a claim about my inner state, my observation of my inner state is sufficient for that claim.

But when the conversation is about the world outside of our heads, evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads is necessary. And when the conversation is about something within the realm of science, then scientific, empirical evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads is necessary.

What you’re doing here is playing a disingenuous game where you observe that empirical evidence isn’t necessary for every last single claim and then you try to make believe that empirical evidence isn’t necessary for a claim about the world outside of our heads…the very place where empirical evidence is necessary!

Your whole argument is a bunch of hand-waving in an attempt to convince gullible people that they don’t need evidence to believe in an extraordinary claim about the world around them.

 

[Windfish]

By the way, the reason I’m being so insistent is not to frustrate any of you. I had originally planned to make this its own topic, but since it has arisen, anyway, I thought I would use this opportunity to discuss it thoroughly.

The most popular sense of the word on the internet is “a lack of a belief in God.” Obviously, it’s popular because it puts the burden of proof solely on the theist, which is fine by me, but what I want to know is how this definition is practically viable. The more I think about it, the more it just doesn’t make sense. It’s a view that is a lack of a view. Weird, huh?

But it’s necessary to grapple with it and address it because it’s so pervasive a definition, and they’re really defensive about it!

 

[AntiTheist]

By the way, the reason I’m being so insistent is not to frustrate any of you. I had originally planned to make this its own topic, but since it has arisen, anyway, I thought I would use this opportunity to discuss it thoroughly.

The most popular sense of the word on the internet is “a lack of a belief in God.” Obviously, it’s popular because it puts the burden of proof solely on the theist, which is fine by me, but what I want to know is how this definition is practically viable. The more I think about it, the more it just doesn’t make sense. It’s a view that is a lack of a view. Weird, huh?

But it’s necessary to grapple with it and address it because it’s so pervasive a definition, and they’re really defensive about it!

Do you believe in Thor? If not, you lack a belief in Thor.

Atheism is exactly the same as your lack of belief in Thor, except it applies to every god concept that humans have come up with.

 

[Windfish]

Do you believe in Thor? If not, you lack a belief in Thor.

Atheism is exactly the same as your lack of belief in Thor, except it applies to every god concept that humans have come up with.

But I do not lack a belief in Thor, I disbelieve in Thor. In fact, I would positively say that Thor doesn’t exist. My evidence and reasoning for such a positive claim may not be logically sound ™ all the way through, but they are as strong as for the positive claim that unicorns don’t exist.

If I really did lack a belief in Thor in this new sense of the word, then I would neither believe nor disbelieve, I would have no belief.