Subject: Question: Why do people choose to be atheists?
You think that it is up to theists to convince you that their God exists. Suppose that my God does exist. Would it matter if I made a credible case or not? My God would exist independently of anything I would have to say about it.
This is a very interesting use of the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy. Of everyone who has ever written to me, Richard is perhaps the most confused when it comes to basic logic. This is curious considering how coherent and well-constructed his emails were - but when it came to logic, Richard's writings were insensible.
Here Richard points out something correct (that if his god exists, then it exists regardless of what he says on the matter) and concludes from this something completely nonsensical (that therefore it isn't necessary for him to provide support for his claim that his god exists). By that "logic," a prosecutor could tell a jury that if the defendant is guilty, then she is guilty regardless of what the police have to say - and therefore there is no need for the prosecution to present a case.
If you've proven that my imagined God doesn't exist, however, then you're perfectly safe from any imagined ramnifications I may have of you not believing in my imagined God. Otherwise, I suggest that you try to do the impossible and prove that my God doesn't exist so that you can have more assurance of a safety from any negative ramnifications of not believing in my God.
If my God exists then you do have a lot to lose. You claim to believe that there is no God ie. you claim to be an atheist, therefore, if I believe in atheism then I'm on equal footing with you and even if I don't I'm still on equal footing - we both meet the same end when we die. However, I don't believe the same as you do and if you're wrong you'll have more to answer for. I would say there is more at stake for you to establish the truth than there would be for me. You can try to put the burden of proof on me all you like, but I have nothing to lose if you don't accept what I am saying.
Now Richard moves right along to a long-winded example of Pascal's Wager - there's a lot to lose if you don't believe in God but God does exist, yet nothing to lose for those who believe even if there is no God. Unfortunately for Richard, his explanation of it offers no improvements over the original. There are losses for believing in a god that doesn't exist - both in the case that there are no gods and in the case that some other god actually exists. As to whether there are any losses for not believing in an actual god, that depends upon the nature of that god. There might be no losses. There might even be advantages. Who knows? Richard certainly can't claim to.
Also, it should be noted that Richard's assumption that it is "impossible" to prove the nonexistence of his god isn't necessarily true. Any god that is defined clearly enough could, in theory, be disproven. Any god not defined clearly can't be disproven - but then again, belief in such a god probably isn't rational anyway. Unless we have something approaching a clear ideas to what we are talking about, how can we possibly invest the time and effort for belief into it? Another way of putting it is: if we can identify what difference is made in our world by this god's existence over its nonexistence, then disproof may be possible - and if we can't identify any such difference, then there doesn't appear to be much point in believing.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Why do people choose to be atheists?
I am an atheist, but I most certainly didn’t choose to be one.
You cannot choose to believe or not to believe in something.
Either you do or you don’t. There is no choice. Belief is not
like picking the color for your walls in you house.
Now you can choose to pretend to believe or not believe in
something. But that is something quite different. And speaking of
Pascal’s Wager, this is one of the many reasons why it falls flat on
its face. Pascal might have been deluding himself when he talked
about believing or not believing in some god, but in reality he was
talking about not believing while pretending to believe. What kind of
god, were one to exist, would fall for something like that. It might even
backfire.
When family tell me I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, I say that the person making the spectacular claim is the one that has to show some evidence for it. Pisses them off and they just say they don’t have to prove ANYTHING.
My mother-in-law just says they are more people that feel the way SHE does (i.e. an “ueber-Catholic!”) than how I feel, as if that makes me “wrong.” My response that there is more EVIDENCE for my view (i.e. religions are man-made hokum) just goes out into a vacuum.
“When family tell me I can’t prove God doesn’t exist, I say that the person making the spectacular claim is the one that has to show some evidence for it. Pisses them off and they just say they don’t have to prove ANYTHING.”
Use Russel’s teapot on them. Ask them to prove that an oragne teapot orbiting the sun does not exist. When they cannot disprove it, claim that it must therefore exist. Do the same with ancient pagan gods and scientology as well. That should get them thinking.
“My mother-in-law just says they are more people that feel the way SHE does (i.e. an “ueber-Catholic!”) than how I feel, as if that makes me “wrong.” My response that there is more EVIDENCE for my view (i.e. religions are man-made hokum) just goes out into a vacuum. ”
Show her a site on basic logical fallacies. Most people at one point believed the world to be flat, which somehow makes it right if you consider that fallacy as valid. Also, the truth would continually change, abd basically become useless.
His argument, as you noted a variation of Pascal’s Wager, is outdated and has been shown to be weak countless times in the past.
“If my God exists then you do have a lot to lose.”
Richard just needs to be reminded that by his argument he’s going to be in trouble with all the countless other deities (both contemporary and extinct) that he’s chosen not to worship or believe in. Unless of course he’s figured out a way to worship all of them at once. For his god’s Heaven, there are a thousand other gods’ Hells.
His statement that he has “nothing to lose” shows his lack of contemplation into the matter. Every religion has costs to the individual, both stated and implied: tithe, offerings, your time (whatever you value that), energy, devotion, freedom, etc. Takes some serious scratch to build all those cathedrals and mega-churches.
“His argument, as you noted a variation of Pascal’s Wager, is outdated and has been shown to be weak countless times in the past.
“If my God exists then you do have a lot to lose.”
Richard just needs to be reminded that by his argument he’s going to be in trouble with all the countless other deities (both contemporary and extinct) that he’s chosen not to worship or believe in. Unless of course he’s figured out a way to worship all of them at once. For his god’s Heaven, there are a thousand other gods’ Hells.”
I just say that there is a hell and heaven, but without deities. It is run by daemons/aliens/agels/fairies/whatever, who throw people into hell for believing in god and put people in heaven for not believing in god. Some will try and counter it by saying that their religious faith is truer, but that would be the special pleading fallacy.
I assert that it is a Supernatural Law that no gods can exist. Unless Richard can prove that this Supernatural Law does not exist then he must accept that it is true and thus that his God does not exist. What goes around comes around, Richard.
I’m constantly amazed at how often Pascal’s Wager shows up in arguments with theists. Are they all thinking of it themselves, or do they hear it from someone else? It’s like the whole “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship with Christ” meme. I’d love to know how these things happen.
Personally I utterly detest this kind of blatant intellectual dishonesty.
I find it very hard to keep my bile from rising every time I see it. I don’t and don’t want to think of myself as a hateful or intolerant person, but the more I see garbage like this the less certain I am of that.
Tom T. (Personally I utterly detest this kind of blatant intellectual dishonesty.)
A good argument against intelligent design.
savor it!
>”If you’ve proven that my imagined God doesn’t exist, however, then you’re perfectly safe from any imagined ramnifications…”
To be honest, even if I don’t prove an imagined god doesn’t exist, I’m still safe from “imagined” ramifications.
This guy is seriously logically impaired. But very funny.
See also: Invisible Pink Unicorn.
/blessed be her hooves
I usually confront Pascal’s Wager with the atheist’s wager:
“You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.”