Do atheists argue from a position of strength?

Question

It's been said that when discussing the existence of God that atheists are the ones that argue from a position of strength, since their beliefs come more from logical reason reasoning rather than faith. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

And no, this is not a homework assignment (It's summer anyway). I'm interested in reading what people have to say.

Answer 1

Well, burden of proof isn't ours, we tend to have had some experience with logical reasoning/debate skills, and then there's that whole education differential thing. So yes, I'm inclined to agree. And so do a fair number of other people, judging by how the numbers are moving.

Answer 2

Personally, I don't think atheists are arguing from a position of strength. Logically, since religion has been around since there were people advanced enough to worshi, somewhere, back in antiquity, there must have been a foundation for this worship. Like so many universal "myths", there simply must be a truth behind this legend.
It is strange that atheists are not so adamant when it comes to such myths as dragons, for instance. Since the legend of the dragon is pretty much universal, they logically look for some creature that may have been the dragon of legend and lore.
But, when you mention that religion is even older and more universla than dragons, they get quite upset, and begin talking about leprachauns and unicorns.
As if anyone could actually prove that there never have been little people, or, for that matter, one horned creatures. I'm sure we all know better than that...
To argue that no god exists is, therefore, illogical, and obviously a fallacy.

OH, and the remark that "the burden of proof lies with the believer" is just as foolish. If you claim, positively, that no god exists, then you ought to be able to back your position up with facts. Since that is quite impossible, then, again, the atheists succeeds only in making a fool of himself.

Answer 3

When discussing the "existance of God," atheists actually argue from a position of weakness. Understanding why it is a weakness is where the strength of an atheist argument lies.

It is logically impossible to disprove the existance of God. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with God, but the form of the arguement. It is logically impossible to disprove the existance of ANYTHING. God, the celestial teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, etc, etc. This is why, using logic and reason, the onus is on proving that something (ie God) DOES exist.

Theists have never proven the existance of God using logic, reason and science. Theists don't need to use these tools for themselves, because they rely solely on faith and tradition.

Oh and just in case anyone here thinks Intelligent Design is anything more than creationism masking as pseudoscience, consider Project Steve (link in sources) It's a list of scientists only named Steve (or variants) who accept evolution over ID. Even though only Steves were allowed to sign, the list is longer with more emminent scientists than any list supporting ID.

Anyway, considering theists do not have their beliefs based on reason or logic, pointing out the logical fallacies of their beliefs probably isn't going to convert anyone firmly entrenched in their faith. No matter what science has to say, a theist can always put God just outside of our level of understanding. Kind of like that game kids play where they keep asking "Why?" No matter what answer you give, the kid can always ask why. No matter what an atheists says, a theist can always say, "That's God's will."

God is Von Neumann's Catastrophe to the Nth degree.

So rather than argueing directly over the existance of God, I would say stronger, more effective, arguements for an atheist would include:

Explaining what the idea of God is and why the idea of God has been so successful. Like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar8zwSlWsWX6RlUcNqsLNBbty6IX?qid=20070426140807AA4TDBY&show=7#profile-info-6064bd72a9d33a8f2e618cc79b0f9629aa

Describing more probable explanations of the roots of religion, like this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuZb7zkSRcBL.7Q3MRbQY4rty6IX?qid=20070423151857AAYpYDM&show=7#profile-info-6064bd72a9d33a8f2e618cc79b0f9629aa

These I think are some examples of the questions behind the questions.

So yes, it is imperative to point out the fallacies in theism, by using the flying spaghetti monster, or celestial teapot, but when a theist says he or she can "feel God" or things like that, the discussion pretty much ends right there because theists and atheists are speaking completely different languages.

When argueing solely on the existance of God, the debate is entirely in the theists language, and logic, reason and science can only take an atheist so far.

Answer 4

Christians not only base there belief on Bible Truths, but the fact that things that have been prophesied have not only come to pass but still are. Unbelievers will never beable to see the Bible in the same light as a believer. The Holy Spirit opens up the scriptures to all believers and gives them the knowledge of understanding. So unbelievers are arguing against something they don't understand and don't have the knowledge to understand. Knowledge is givin by the Holy Spirit. If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Therefor never obtaining the Knowledge of understanding when it comes to the Bible. So yes we do have a defense! We will defend The Almight God and his word till the end. Unbelievers like to pass off Christians as ignorant and illiterate but the fact of the matter is, its not us...................!

Answer 5

Strength is in the eye of the beholder so to speak. The atheist believes there is no proof for the existence of God. Because of this they feel the only way to justify that belief is through logic and reason. I do not see therefore it does not exist. The thing they rely on the most is what attributes to the weakness in their argument. They erroneously charge believers in God, claiming their only proof is faith, which requires no proof. I say this is erroneous because if you ask most Christians they will tell you they know God exists. What they have faith in is the sacrifice that Jesus made for the sins of the world. They have faith that it is enough to pay as retribution for their sins.

What the atheist relies on for his/her strength, logic and reasoning, is actually more of a weakness. They ask for and require proof for something that there is already an abundant proof for, but what seems even more illogical is that the proof they require is both illogical and unreasonable. They want you to prove God exists through the scientific method as if it is something you can test for yet you need no more scientific evidence than you would anyone else, which is through observance. I don't need to use the scientific method to prove you exist. Alls I need is to observe. You have written this question, which tells me without ever seeing you that you must exist. Same with the idea of a painting and building. Without ever seeing anything more than the painting or the building I know there was both a painter and a builder. Without ever seeing I know the wind exists, I know people around me have feelings towards me whether good or bad. I don't need to see emotion to know it exists. Why? Because I see the results of it. The same with God, there is no difference. I know He exists without having to see Him or visit the "cosmological factory" and see the display floor of His creations. I don't need proof added on top of proof of what i already see and observe. I look at creation and can see that there was a creator, without requiring more proof. Its not blind faith, its observable facts. Through science we see atoms, DNA, cells, organs, organ systems, whole creatures, ecosystems, etc. etc. etc. I know that no matter what level something exists there is a purpose for everything. I now that DNA has the purpose of carrying information to build, that from the parts of cells up to the whole cell, organ, organ system, etc. all have specific purposes. Even if we can't readily define that purpose for something "yet" I still know it exists. Because all of this I know God exists. There shows purpose in everything in existence.

I can logically and reasonably deduce that God exists because of what I see. I think part of the disconnect for some people is the believe it when I see it mentality. It doesn't work that way, to see is to believe, not the other way around. If you go into it with the presupposition that God doesn't exist, then how will you ever see the things of God? Another words, if you don't believe in God then how will you ever believe in the things of God? Without the basic foundation and premise that God exists you will find other reasons to explain what it is you observe.

Answer 6

i think of that the way that a controversy is made defines whether or no longer that's "from a place of capability." you would be able to desire to be arguing that gravity is a stress we could desire to handle on a daily basis, yet once you have a vulnerable argument, you heavily isn't able to capability, in spite of the certainty of your factor. As to a logical evidence of G-d... do you realize what the probabilities life evolving actual are? I ignore the extensive sort, whether that's minuscule! Then, the possibilities of a complicated life sort evolving, and then an smart life sort evolving. there are maximum of required variables that are each very uncommon that that's impossible for it to have "in basic terms surpassed off"... for this reason, somebody made it take place. There you flow. A logical argument for G-d's life.

Answer 7

The problem is the burden of proof is on those claiming something exists rather than that something does not exist. It is virtually impossible to prove the negative.

The problem is that believers feel that proof is unnecessary, so that debates between believers and non-believers do not even have the same ground rules.

Where some Christians have gone astray is in an attempt to "prove" by establishing scientific foundations for miraculous events such as Life. The Intelligent Design movement is one of the most poorly conceived attempts by Christians to shore up their beliefs.

Answer 8

All arguments of any kind, whether dealing with religion or not, are ultimately based on premises that can't be proved. If we had to prove all of our premises, then the premises in those arguments would require proofs as well. We'd get into an infinite regress and never be able to substantiate our premises since we could never complete an infinite series of proofs.

So both theists and atheists have to rely in one way or another or premises that can't be proved.

For any argument to be sound, the premises have to be true and the conclusion has to follow from the premises. All you need for the conclusion to follow from the premises is the rules of logic. Theists and atheists both make logical arguments, so in that sense, atheists don't have any priviledged access to reason over theists. They both use logic in their arguments.

Answer 9

This is a very subjective question. The great debate between science and faith will never end because neither side can ever win. Atheists are atheists for a number of reasons, most of which center around the fact that modern science has disproved many Biblical stories (or has not found any evidence to support them) and therefore has made it difficult to blindly believe in an omnipresent being. In other words, from my personal point of view as an atheist, we don't believe in God because there are so many logical and scientific explanations that contradict his/her existence. Personally, I grew up in a very religious (Christian) family and thought that I did believe. But as I grew older, I realized that I didn't really have faith, but that I just went along with everything as if it were all just a bunch of stories and God just another character, never really believing these things actually happened or that God actually is present at all times in all places. To be honest I have tried, made a true effort, to give faith a chance, but all my reasoning and logic just doesn't allow it.

I do have to admit that many atheists are arrogant and unnecessarily rude to believers. It is probably because they are people of science rather than people of faith, they believe in logic and fact backed up by tangible evidence, and therefore can't understand how religious people can believe in something blindly (that is, without tangible evidence).

What bothers me is when religious people will denounce modern science (i.e. evolution, stem cell research), while getting flu vaccines (which regularly change as the virus evolves) for example.

When it comes to religion vs. science, there needs to be a live and let live policy. You simply cannot compare them because they come from completely different schools of thought. This is not to say there are no religious scientists, there are. Just as there are spiritual atheists (of which i am one) who may not believe in any one supreme being or doctrine, but the sprituality of life itself and the sense of sharing that spirituality with all living things since we all have that in common. I, for one, do not feel it necessary to rely on God or any other deity to give me faith and hope, to tell me how to live, or to guide me through tough times. Other people do. That, in and of itself, doesn't tell me what kind of people they are, and there's nothing wrong with our difference of opinion. What frustrates me is when religious people do any of the following: use their religion to manipulate people for their own personal greed, force their beliefs down other people's throats, are intolerant of other beliefs, denounce evidence-supported scientific fact (whether there is or is not a God is not a fact, it is a personal belief), or perform seditious acts in the name of religion.

The point is, there are closed-minded a**holes on both sides of the spectrum, and the important thing to remember is to not turn into one yourself, and to not judge everyone of the same belief based on the opinions of a small group.

Answer 10

USING LOGIC TO PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS:-

Atheists argue from a position of ignorance. Believe me! I have been there (belief in atheism) and back (usually, this is considered by many christians as a point of no return)!

One reason people move towards atheism is due to superficial comprehension (hence ignorance) of discoveries presented by modern science (from the fields of Physics and Biology in particular). For this reason, I am going to talk of my own experiences as a student of Physics.

I have a degree in physics. This is a subject that implies absence of God. The truth I discovered was that the more you read and the deeper you look into the physics' explanations of the universe, the more you begin to discover God in there. A great book I have read which helped me to find God was Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace". There were a lot of thought provoking ideas which for me once again made belief in God compatible with the IDEAS (these are beliefs themselves) of modern physics. However, unless you have a good background in physics, you are unlikely to find God in physics through this book.

I find that to accept the cr*p of quantum mechanics takes a greater leap of faith than does a belief in God. There are some ludicrous arguments presented by quantum mechanics. Having said that, I do believe in many ideas of physics but QM is not one of them.

You asked for for an example of how logic can be used to prove the existance of GOD. Now, what I am about to present, I find to be quite interesting. An eye opener.....

If we interpret GOD as the CREATOR OF ALL. Then by definition, we must accept and begin to view GOD as those forces, WHATEVER THEY WERE, which have been responsible for the creation of the universe! Perhaps, we should consider ditching our instincts/prejudices to personify God. We need to let go of our preconceptions of God as an old man with a beard, for example, or as a human like entity with human characteristics (of personality and emotions). Even within many religous texts, be it the bible or the Quran, you will find it said that God is beyond our comprehension. So let's stop trying to comprehend her and making her form subject to our prejudiced preconceptions. Maybe instead, we should simply accept the broadest interpretation of God that we can. If that means that we should begin to see God as those forces which have created and shaped the universe as we experience it today, then that should be how we view her. DOES THIS VIEW NOT MAKE GOD COMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE? I think it does!

I remember a time when I was talking to my sister about the great Einstein / Bohr debate. Einstein, like myself, also rejected quantum mechanics and was famous for quoting "God does not play dice". Upon hearing this, my sister replied "Oh, so did Einstein believe in God then?". My sister failed to appreciate that Einstein was using the term "God" as a synonymn for the laws of physics which govern the universe. But perhaps, that is where God lies. Perhap these forces which have structured and shaped the universe, forces which govern the universe, -forces which are still very much a mystery to us, may explain the very the nature of God.

Viewing God as such effective forces of the universe IS compatible with science and also allows for miracles to arise such as for example, the genesis of consciousness through Emergent phenomena (See Reference 2).