Atheists in Britain have taken out adverts on the side of buses questioning God. Thanks to the virtual bus slogan generator, I’ve crafted a response:
(click to enlarge)
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
{ 41 comments }
What perks do atheists get?
Yay this is fun!
The problem with the slogan is that you can, actually, logically prove a negative. There is, after all, the logical concept of a “provable negative.” You just can’t prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt using an inductive argument. (To that same end, you can’t completely prove a positive through inductive argument, either.)
For example, I can prove that I’m not a dog and not living in Detroit. But I can’t really prove that there isn’t a doppelganger of me on some other planet, although I can make a pretty good inductive argument in favor of that position.
Having said that, I really do like the tagline about “perks.”
ah but the great thing about faith is that you dont need to prove the positive :)
jrogge, thats exactly what i was hoping people would do. It IS fun, and I think healthy.
Elizabeth: at best, total obliteration of their consciousness? (assuming they are right and I’m wrong.)
As St. Paul, wrote, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” That you and I may not see a need to prove the positive doesn’t mean we can’t prove negatives. :)
That’s a little bit objectionable, in that it’s a strawman argument. Atheism isn’t about “proving” anything, negative or otherwise.
But it was obviously offered in a humorous spirit, and I’ll take it as such. :)
OK, here’s mine.
exactly – no offense intended, just as I am sure the atheist campaign was in the same vein :)
however, the statement “there is no god” may be a reasonable inference based on lack of data, but its not a logically rigorous one. A more intellectually robust position would be agnosticism.
Aziz:
Spirituality and the existence of a creating supernatural being are orthogonal concepts. Neither necessarily presupposes the existence of the other. Atheism does not necessarily take a position on the existence of the soul, it merely says that there is no overarching supreme being which created all and looms over us like Santa Claus on steroids.
I really don’t care what superstitious nonsense people need to believe to make their lives meaningful. I only care when they force their views down my throat. And that goes for both atheists and theists. And animists and pantheists for that matter.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Troubled industry bailout request
Apatheism
Freewill
Apatheism
Freewill
Well, maybe 3rd times a charm?
Apatheism
Freewill
Agnosticism
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Keep your fingers crossed!
If we’re all supposed to contribute.
Derek, that was great.
Pragmatism
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Keep your fingers crossed!
How do you format a link? I can’t figure it out.
Kevin: It’s a standard html link. <a href=”put url here”> put text here </a>
We’ll see if that works….
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Drunk with power
Kevin is this what you’re looking for?
<a href = “…link URL here…”>Place Link Here</a>
Oh well, it didn’t… I left out the semicolons….
Hopefully this is better: <a href=”put url here”> put text here </a>
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Drunk with power
Whoops.
[a href = “…link URL here…”]Place Link Here[/a]
Replace square brackets with angle brackets (greater than/less than)
For those who’re familiar with NW Pennsylvania:
Jesus Walks On Water
For those not familiar with NW Pennsylvania – a reference.
Atheists and Foxholes?
however, the statement “there is no god” may be a reasonable inference based on lack of data, but its not a logically rigorous one. A more intellectually robust position would be agnosticism.
“There is no god” isn’t an atheistic statement; it’s an antitheistic one. “I don’t know whether there’s a god or gods, and you don’t either” is about as close as I can get.
Consider also the subtle but important distinction between disbelief and nonbelief.
(I don’t address agnosticism in discussions like this; the word is poorly and variously defined, and has more to do with statements about the provability of matters of faith – which is oxymoronic – than anything else.)
mark, as far as my limited understanding goes, youve just described agnosticism perfectly. I think though that people like Dawkins would take issue with you.
If you can’t disprove a negative, neither can you prove it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
WWBCD?
I’m with Aziz. Atheism is, really and truly, a religion. They can claim it isn’t, but they’re simply wrong. They have made a positive affirmation, and that affirmation has strong, even radical, influence on their beliefs and their behavior.
The agnostic, to me, takes the less religious approach: “I don’t know, I’m not sure.” The atheist often declares that to be nothing but some sort of intellectual cowardice. The believer looks at the agnostic and maybe says the same. But ultimately, I think the agnostic is the most honest and the most humble: “I just don’t know” is the ultimate statement of humility. Not cowardice, but true intellectual humility.
Here’s one of my all-time favorite machinima that seems appropriate here.
Or the agnostic may take a more clinical approach. You can’t prove a negative and there is no proof positive. How can one say they know? This further personifies nonbelief because the varied stances on agnosticism (many are different) reflect a more open and ponderous approach to the matter versus the hardline approach of the atheist, and the devout.
Die heretic!!!
jrogge:
a more clinical approach.
there is no proof positive
personifies nonbelief
varied stances
reflect open, ponderous
approach to the matter
On second thought, please don’t.
The original sign placed on the London busses were by the Humanist Society and it said:
“There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Everything spins off from that, even the WashPost.
Saturday last, driving home on the freeway, an interviewer on local radio (Calif) was dialoguing a british spokeswoman from the London Humanist society responsible for its organizations bus ads.
Her organization managed to raise some whatevers in Brit pounds or US dollars around 200,000 in contributions.
Now everyone else has been getting into the act.
And as far as I heard there was no discussion whatsoever about atheism being a religion per se nor was it recruiting adherents.
It was just trying to collect some money.
I believe agnositicim has been mis-defined here. It isn’t saying “I don’t know”. It’s much worse than that. It’s taking the position that the question of whether or not there is G-d is not, theoretically, possible to answer. In many ways its much worse than atheism, since it is crippling. The athiest has the wrong answer. The agnostic denies the question has any meaning.
“I believe agnositicim has been mis-defined here”
detroitVB,
I’m sure you’re right, have another martini.
In many ways its much worse than atheism, since it is crippling. The athiest has the wrong answer. The agnostic denies the question has any meaning.
You assume the agnostic believes the question is meaningless. How can it be meaningless? The question has a lot of meaning. People do not die over something that is meaningless. The difference between agnosticism and atheism is at the end of the day, if some dramatic proof positive occurred the agnostic would be less likely to deny it’s significance.
Can you prove you have the right answer?
Dean: I’m with Aziz. Atheism is, really and truly, a religion.
No, it is not. Atheism is the absence of religion.
Dean, you go on to make several very offensive claims about what atheists “believe,” and how those “beliefs” affect our behavior and character. But I’m not going to address those here. After all, this thread was initiated in a humorous vein, and I’m not going to go against that. And, of course, it’s your blog, and I think it’s kind of bad manners to take a sh-t on one’s host’s carpet.
But, really: if you truly feel that way about atheists, I’d suggest that you proclaim a ban against us, as you did a few years ago for anti-Islamists. I’ll be glad to just get the f–k out, if that’s what you want.
Just let us know, okay?
McK,
I can botch my spelling when completely sober. Just watch…
JRogge,
I don’t think so. I don’t find agnostics saying “Gee – I’m not sure. Maybe and maybe not. I’ll have to think about it some more.”. I consistently find them saying – “You can’t know. Truth is relative. Whatever works for you. Blah Blah”. The atheist, on the other hand, thinks he can prove there is no G-d, e.g. Can G-d make a stone He can’t life? Can He catch a cold? etc.
“You can’t know. Truth is relative. Whatever works for you. Blah Blah”
No, some might but others do not. This is why it is not a religion. Too many varying opinions on the matter. Atheists also believe the world would be a beautiful place without religion. So you think the people who would like to see you wiped out are better than the people who are willing to let you believe what you want? Okay.
You also haven’t proved why Agnostics believe the question is meaningless. In fact your condemnation of the open attitude of the Agnostic only shows that they respect the fact the question has meaning. You see, if the question was meaningless it would be perfectly acceptable for me to tell you that your belief is incorrect. This doesn’t happen.
So seeking proof is worse than thinking you can prove something you cannot?
See my bus sign you need another martini.
I think that labeling “atheism” as religion makes a point, but it muddies the conversation by unnecessarily creating a point of contention.
Common definitions of religion tend to include a phrase along the lines of “in service or worship to God or a supernatural power.” Atheism would, by those measures, be an antonym of religion. If one is trying to make a point about the vociferousness of some atheists, why complicate matters by introducing a debate about word choice?
Atheism and the world’s religions are more properly identified as ideologies, in my opinion. And, just like “religionists,” athiests can be extremely dogmatic. Of course, one could also describe someone as “religiously atheistic.”
jrogge:
I find myself in the rare position of being in agreement with you on a subject. You do a fine job of describing the agnostic position, something I thought about doing last night but decided to go to bed instead.
For those who insist that “atheism is a religion,” such a solipsism is not only profoundly incorrect, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word “religion” means.
Here is the primary definition of the word: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
Atheism, in its most common form, lacks every single attribute in the definition. Atheism does not accept that there is a divine “cause” or “purpose” for the universe. Atheism lacks any devotionals or rituals. Atheism itself does not contain a moral code. In fact this last one is the main criticism of atheism from theists.
It is important here to note that although “atheism” lacks a moral code, atheists themselves do not! Atheists derive moral codes from a variety of sources, from the familiar “Golden Rule” to more complex derivations of morality based on their understanding of natural law.
I really tire of the attempt of theists to paint atheists with the same brush in the lame attempt to turn atheistic arguments against themselves. It’s intellectually disingenuous at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. There is a profound and fundamental difference between the theistic and atheistic views. They are not merely “different belief systems.” One is a “belief system” the other is not.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Drunk with power
Derek, our posts crossed as we posted them, so I didn’t address your comments in my post. I think your description of theism and atheism as “ideologies” is much closer to an accurate description than the tired claim that atheism is “just another religion.” I think there is a bit more to it than just ideology though, but it’s much closer to the truth.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Drunk with power
Comments on this entry are closed.