Is Atheism logically inconsistent?

Question

Earlier today, an atheist claimed that atheists are often hated because atheism is on the verge of disproving all religions. Yet whenever a theist asks an atheist for a proof that God does not exist, the atheists will retreat to the statement that no one can prove a negative. Logically, atheism would thus appear to be incapable of debunking any theistic position. Why didn't any atheists catch the logical error in the statement of the atheist who claimed that atheists are hated because they are imminently going to disprove all religions?

icarus62: I disagree. For example, if you were to doubt the existence of the Eiffel Tower and I said "Here, I'll show you a photo of the Eiffel Tower" and you said "That won't prove anything photos can be faked!" Are you really be logical and based on evidence?

In other questions I have asked what standards of evidence atheists have and the answer is none. It's not that you withold belief because of a lack of evidence. You declare that something definitely doens't exist no matter what evidence is available. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Grazie: I didn't ask about science or mythology. I asked about atheism, which as has already been shown, is inherently unscientific. Atheism is a metaphysical position in philosophy, not a science.

Lysol: In my experience all atheists attack as "strong atheists" and then when challenged retreat to "weak atheism". The problem is that we already have a name for "weak atheism": agnosticism. Strong atheism, a.k.a atheism is quite simply an irrational unjustifiable position.

Answer 1

Great, you found one person who doesn't know what they're talking about. So what? Personally I didn't catch it because I didn't read it. Which question was this? Of course, I wouldn't necessarily have said anything about it if I did catch it. I try to avoid talking to the other answerers within the question, unless they say something particularly profound or something that just boggles my mind with idiocy. In short: yes, stupid people can be atheists too. I'm not going to tell you that every atheist is a genius, and you certainly can't tell me that every theist is.

Answer 2

I'm not an atheist, but I see a problem in the logic of your question. It makes the assumption that religion and belief in God go hand in hand, and that is not the case at all.

For me, and I speak for only myself, all religions have so far been disproved. Doesn't mean that I think that there's no God, at least not at the moment. I'm still on my own path and searching.

Disproving a religion - its texts, its theories, its practices, and what have you - is something altogether different from disproving the existence of a deity.

You yourself, I imagine, have probably disproved many a religion as far as YOU see it. Do you believe in all the gods and goddesses, all the tenets, and all the texts of all the religions? If not, then some religions must have been disproved to your own mind in some way.

As far as the comment that atheists are "on the verge of disproving all religions," - that I think is a rather arrogant claim - because it implies that everyone will soon be forced to admit they are wrong about their religion. People have the right to find the truth for themselves, and to believe the truth that comes to them if they so desire.

Hypothetically, though - even IF it were to happen... even IF an atheist disproved every single religion... it still wouldn't disprove the existence of God.

I just want to make sure you understand that "no belief in religion" does not mean "no belief in God." There's a definite difference. :) And also please remember that one atheist does not represent them all. People are individuals, and can not be wholly defined by the groups or categories they fall into.

Answer 3

Just because one atheist wrote something that means all atheist feel the same way? Does that mean that all Christians protest the funerals of soldiers because "God hates fags"? You shouldn't judge all of atheism on the words of one.

And weak atheism and agnosticism are very different. Only a truly arrogant person would not call themselves agnostic. Agnostic refers to what you know. An agnostic's position is that it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not, even I will admit that such knowledge is impossible to know. An atheist believes that no God exists. Agnosticism refers to knowledge, atheism refers to belief. It is possible, and common, to find an Agnostic Christian. That is simply a person who believes the Christian God exists, but feels it is impossible to know for sure.

Answer 4

I will be speaking for myself only here. I don't agree with the notion that atheists are going to disprove all religions. I acknowledge that my atheism has no ironclad evidence that will convince a lot of people. It only has evidence that convinced ME.

I do agree that a negative cannot be proven or disproven, but do agree that a positive has to be proven. However, in the same token, it's fair to turn the tables around---to ask the atheists for their personal evidence on that convinced them of their atheism.

EDIT: I don't agree with your definitions of weak atheism being agnosticism. I was agnostic for 8 years, then switched to weak atheism (I term it my own spiritual atheism). I am not a hard-liner atheist, nor have I ever claimed to be.

Answer 5

Because the atheist who stated that all atheists are hated is as daft as a brush. Just because someone claims to speak for a vast number of people doesn't mean that they should all go rushing to his defense when he says something silly.
"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in the existence of deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods, and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism, however, typically only label people who affirmatively assert the nonexistence of gods as atheists, classifying other nonbelievers as agnostics or simply non-theists.'
Science disproved all religions long ago; if you choose to believe in magical thinking and concepts that is up to you.

Answer 6

Atheism's purpose is not to debunk religions.

Atheism is simply not believing in the existance of God.

There is strong atheism and weak atheism. A weak atheist would not have many reasons for not believing in God. A strong atheist has reasons to back up why they don't believe, and aren't afraid to state them.

Whoever you were talking to is probably an idiot, or a weak atheist. Atheism isn't about disproving them, it's about not believing in them.

Answer 7

Theists believe something exists without valid argument or evidence. Atheists decline to believe something exists without valid argument or evidence. Only the latter position is logically justifiable.

In fact, it's quite easy to prove a negative - For example, if we prove that it's impossible for nothing to exist, then it's impossible that an act of creation caused it to exist, and therefore the classic creator deity of monotheism is proven not to exist (since a necessary part of such an entity, by definition, is that he created the universe). Quantum Mechanics, or some subsequent theory, may just do exactly that.

Addendum: I'm sorry but I think you missed the point. Suppose I say "there are fairies at the bottom of my garden but you won't be able to see them, you'll just have to take my word for it". Which is logically justified - Belief, or non-belief? If you say belief, then I can prove you wrong by then saying "fairies don't exist at all, you'll just have to take my word for it". If your position is correct then you are open to believing two mutually exclusive things at the same time. Therefore your position must be incorrect, and in fact belief in the absence of logically justifiable evidence cannot be justified. No such internal contradiction exists in the position of non-belief - i.e. in response to BOTH your statements I can say "I have no logically justifiable reason to believe you" and be perfectly consistent in that position.

Hence non-belief in inadequately supported claims is the ONLY logically justifiable position to take.

Answer 8

For me, atheism isn't about proving or disproving the existance of a god. I know we will never in our lifetime be able to do that and that doesn't really matter to me.

For me, being an atheist means living without a god. Living for myself and for making myself and the people I know and love happy. It means living my life without thinking some god is going to help me if I pray or worship.

Answer 9

Science has, and will continue to push religion further on to the back foot. Eventually there will be no need for such woolly-thinking superstition and mythology – even in America. Come to England, most people are far less insecure and gullible, and have no need for a god.

Answer 10

Atheism exists based on fact. However, they have to ignore 'fact' in order to continue to believe in atheism. The "big bang theory" is a supreme example. The first law of physics is that "From nothing, comes nothing". They say our universe came from the collision of matter and energy. However, energy depletes itself from continual use and it cannot regenerate itself. Therefore, from whence came the energy that produced the big bang? By their own physical laws, it could not have perpetually existed. In order for them to rely on their theory, they must ignore their first physical law. So, is it really more logical to assume that random events created our universe? Or is it more logical to assume our universe was created? Albert Einstien concluded the latter.