You Can Prove a Negative

"A principle of folk logic is that you can’t prove a negative. Skeptics and scientists routinely concede the point in debates about the possible existence of everything from Big Foot and Loch Ness to aliens and even God. In a recent television interview on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, for example, Skeptic publisher Michael Shermer admitted as much when Stephen Colbert pressed him on the point when discussing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the comedian adding that once it is admitted that scientists cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, then belief in anything is possible. [...] There is one big problem with this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right, zero.

[...]

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things: (1) Disappointment that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) A desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. [...] Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible. Since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.
If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep manure. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones.
You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.

Steven D. Hales, Skeptic.com, 7. December 2007

The Exploitation of Antony Flew

"Have you heard the shocking news? The world's most notorious atheist has converted!
No, it's not Richard Dawkins.
Or Sam Harris.
Or Christopher Hitchens.
Or Dan Barker.
Or Michael Newdow.
Or Julia Sweeney.
No, this world-famous, notorious atheist convert is the philosopher Antony Flew.

[...]

Mark Oppenheimer of the Times went to Reading to interview Flew. Oppenheimer found that he was polite and agreeable, but suffering from serious memory gaps. Flew could not define terms like "abiogenesis" and was unfamiliar with the arguments advanced in the book. He freely admitted, and Varghese confirmed, that Varghese wrote all the original content of the book ["There is a God"]. Flew was simply persuaded to sign his name to it after it had been written for him."

Dayligth Atheism, Nov 6, 2007

Sickening.
I insert a small excerpt of a long piece by Richard Carrier:

"I'm well known for my correspondence with Flew on the matter of his conversion from weak atheism to strong Deism, and anyone who wants the full story about that can read my article on the subject (which has numerous subsequent updates appended to it): Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of (2004). Now, after reading "Flew's" new book, I was appalled at how badly argued it was, and how obviously it was not written in his style or idiom, but in that of contemporary Christian apologetics (like someone attempting a poor imitation of the style and approach of a Lee Strobel or Gary Habermas). Moreover, from crucial omissions (and distortions of history) it was clear the author could not have been Flew. Unless Flew had gone completely insane."

Real Atheism Requires Omniscience?

"Myth: The only logical basis for atheism is to know everything — in other words, to be God!

[...]

However, such knowledge is not necessary in order to make other negative statements. Examples of this latter type include "no married bachelors exist" or "no round squares exist." We can prove each of them with logic, primarily based upon the definitions of the terms involved. To assert the opposite of either statement entails asserting something which is incoherent — and we are rationally justified in denying something incoherent. If an atheist believes that the statement "God exists" is similarly incoherent, then that atheist can say "no god exists" with certainty and without being ominscient."

atheism.about.com, 20. September 2007

Some more reasons given. It's a must-read if you're unfamiliar with the issue.

Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?

"Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.
At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living."

New York Times, September 18, 2007

See also some of my previous posts:
This, this, this, and this.

Atheist ‘Metaphysics’ and Religious Equivocation

"We have a very limited scope of knowledge. Everything we do know about our universe, we have learned through the scientific method. That which is outside our circle of knowledge, we seek to discover. We do not accept any new information about our universe into this circle of knowledge without sufficient evidence, and we only accept that evidence when instrumentation or multiple observers thoroughly corroborate it. In this manner, we seek to carefully and prudently expand the boundaries of our circle of understanding further into the great unknown. We accept that no matter how far we expand that boundary, there will always be much more to learn. Therefore we accept and make peace with the unknown, for it will always be with us."

BlackSun / July 12th, 2007

Is Atheism a Philosophy or Belief System?

"Atheism is no more a belief system or a philosophy than theism is. Both can be part of belief systems, some religious and some not, some good and some not.

If atheism were a philosophy, then John should be able to explain exactly what philosophy it is that is held in common by all atheists who are: Raelians, Objectivists, Buddhists, Religious Humanists, communists, libertarians, socialists, Secular Humanists, conservatives, monarchists, Jews, liberals, etc. I don't think John can — just as his email didn't actually offer any counter-arguments to the explanations I have provided on the site. No one else that I've ever posed this challenge to has ever managed to provide an answer, either."

atheism.about.com, July 8, 2007

An annoying question answered nicely!

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Presents our Top 20 Logical Fallacies

"What is a logical fallacy?
All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true.

Top 20 Logical Fallacies (in alphabetical order):"

See article for the full 20!

See also this post!

[Ideology] Isn't Atheism the Same as Communism? Doesn't Atheism Lead to Communism?

"A common complaint made by theists, typically those of the fundamentalist variety, is that atheism and/or humanism are essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism and humanism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. Evidence indicates that bigotry and prejudice towards atheists in America is due in no small part to anti-communist activism by conservatives Christians in America, so this claimed connection has had serious consequences for American atheists.

[...]

Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to hold communist or socialist economic views while being a theist and it isn't at all uncommon to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism — a combination often found among Objectivists and Libertarians, for example. Their existence alone demonstrates, without question, that atheism and communism are not the same thing."

Atheism.about.com, May 10, 2007

[History] Humanism in Ancient Rome

Although much of what we regard as the ancient forerunners of humanism tend to be found in Greece, the original humanists of the European Renaissance first looked to the forerunners who were also their own ancestors: the Romans.

[...]

Like Epicurus, Lucretius sought to free humanity from the fear of death and of the gods, which he considered the primary cause of human unhappiness.

[...]

Lucretius insisted that the soul is not a distinct, immaterial entity but instead just a chance combination of atoms that does not survive the body. He also postulated purely natural causes for earthly phenomena in order to prove that the world is not directed by divine agency and that fear of the supernatural is consequently without reasonable foundation. Lucretius did not deny the existence of gods, but like Epicurus he conceived of them as having no concern with the affairs or destiny of mortals.

atheism.about.com, May 3, 2007

[Arguments] God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

"It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs."

Godisimaginary.com

A good summary! Worth reading for the unsure, and also referring to.

Is Karl Rove an Atheist? What Does George W. Bush Believe?

"Although some might find this unbelievable, there are reasons to think it plausible that Karl Rove could be an atheist. Rove and other neoconservatives seem to use the political philosophy of Leo Strauss who taught, in part, that religion was necessary to control people.

[...]

First: Strauss believed that a leader had to perpetually deceive the citizens he ruled.
Secondly: Those who lead must understand there is no morality, there is only the right of the superior to rule the inferior.
Thirdly: According to Drury, Religion "is the glue that holds society together." It is a handle by which the ruler can manipulate the masses. Any religion will do. Strauss is indifferent to them all.
Fourthly: "Secular society…is the worst possible thing," because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, all of which encourage dissent and rebellion. As Drury sums it up: "You want a crowd that you can manipulate like putty."
Fifthly: "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat; and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured."
Sixthly: "In Strauss's view, the trouble with liberal society is that it dispenses with noble lies and pious frauds. It tries to found society on secular rational foundations."

About Atheism April 28, 2007

[Philosophy] What Atheism Isn't, Part 1: Atheism and Religion

"Ultimately, atheism is about arguments, about justifying what one believes – whereas faith is belief without regard to justification."

Thenewhumanist.com, April 2007

[Philosophy] The 10 Reasons Why Christianity is Wrong

A good ten reasons!

10. It is Absurd
9. Jesus Has Not Returned
8. God Doesn’t Care
7. Other Religions
6. There is No Soul
5. Evil
4. The Bible is Not Consistent
3. Christianity Cannot be the Religion that Jesus Preached
2. The Gospels are not Historically Reliable
1. The Gospels are not History

October 30th, 2006

[Sam Harris, philosophy] The Empty Wager

"As many readers will remember, Pascal suggested that religious believers are simply taking the wiser of two bets: if a believer is wrong about God, there is not much harm to him or to anyone else, and if he is right, he wins eternal happiness; if an atheist is wrong, however, he is destined for hell. Put this way, atheism seems the very picture of reckless stupidity.

But there are many questionable assumptions built into this famous wager. One is the notion that people do not pay a terrible price for religious faith."

Newsweek, April 18, 2007

[Logics] Answering believers

A very good summary of Atheist arguments, by Hume's Razor at the Sam Harris forum. If you're well read, you may know them, but this is a keeper for reference!

Answering Believers