Atheism

[createdtoworship]

"You are a horrible person and incredibly inept."

There is a positive statement, for you.

Now, by your own logic, it holds true until you can prove it is not.

Good luck.

(I like your logic, when used against you.)

you have shown a weakness referring to negative statements, but not universal negatives.

like God does not exist

Jesus did not exist

 

[Eudaimonist]

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist.

If she is an atheist, then she isn't mad at God.

Instead, she's mad at religiously motivated politics, wars, or violence, or at corrupt religious institutions, or at gullibility, or at anti-science factions, or at the oppression of women, or at any number of other things.

If she were mad at God, she wouldn't be an atheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TScott]

If she were mad at God, she wouldn't be an atheist.

That doesn't always fit. If she considered God to be a concept that others believed in even though she did not, then I think she could be angry at God.

I may be apolitical in that I don't believe in politics. Now understand that politics is a concept, it is not corporeal, I don't believe in it, in fact I hate it; I think it is the cause of all kinds of miscief and evil in the world.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That doesn't always fit. If she considered God to be a concept that others believed in even though she did not, then I think she could be angry at God.

I'm sorry, but that's an absurd argument.

No one argues that the concept of God doesn't exist. What they argue is that the concept of God doesn't have a referent (some entity to which the concept refers), or that claims that the concept does have a referent fail.

What you are talking about isn't atheism.

I may be apolitical in that I don't believe in politics.

Poor analogy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TScott]

I'm sorry, but that's an absurd argument.

I'm sorry you feel the need to say that, since what follows here certainly does not support your position...

No one argues that the concept of God doesn't exist. What they argue is that the concept of God doesn't have a referent (some entity to which the concept refers), or that claims that the concept does have a referent fail.

Since you are improperly defining the word referent (a referent doesn't have to be corpereal), and since you are featuring the word exclusively in your response it is difficult for me to respond to this. The second problem is that you seem to have failed to tie any of this to my statement that you claim is absurd, except when you say, "What you are talking about isn't atheism", which you also do not support in any way with an argument. but to which I can respond simply, "of course it is, that is exactly what atheism is."

In the short of it, I don't know how you expect me to respond. We could sit here and call each other absurd all day, but that isn't discussion.

Poor analogy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Again, lazy response.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

you have any references for the "guilty until proven innocent" logic? After all you are the one claiming "The onus of proof is on me to prove my claim, not on your to disprove it"

Indeed! You have successfully grasped the concept, well done. A brief peruse of Wikipedia shows that not only is 'innocent until proven guilty' framed and based in the reasoning I said it was, but that it also stems directly from the concept of the onus of proof.

Besides maybe there is a dinasaur and unicorn in the garden, you never know until you prove it wrong.

No, you have to believe in the dinosaur and the unicorn. It's not simply a case of, "Oh, maybe they exist, maybe they don't" -according to your logic, we must logically assert the existence of the dinosaur and the unicorn, as real and as firmly as anything else, simply because no one's disproven them.

Obviously, they may exist. But simply asserting that they exist is not enough to justify belief in them - you have to have evidence that they do, in fact, exist. Otherwise, the null hypothesis - they don't exist - is what we logically lean towards. Non-existence is the preferred choice due to Occam's Razor, by the way.

And, as it happens, there's good evidence that the dinosaur and the unicorn don't exist, as absence of evidence is evidence of absence: if a hulking great dinosaur exists, I'd expect to see poop. If I see no poop, despite looking high and low, I'm justified in rejecting the claim that they don't exist.

Here is another link suporting universal negatives as false.....

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

The Burden of Proof

This is demonstrably fallicious reasoning. Consider the following negative statement:

"There are no married bachelors".

This is a true statement, and it is known. We can logically and absolutely prove that there married bachelors are non-existent. Moreover, in the realm of science, we can demonstrate to exceedingly high degrees of accuracy that something doesn't exist - the luminiferous aether, a living T. rex, etc. Your logician's approach only means that we can't disprove most things with 100% certainty - but neither can we prove them. Ultimately, we need to have standards of reasonable proof, and with those standards we can prove and disprove something.

Atoms, for instance. There's almost the minutest chance that it's all magic gnomes or aliens or God, but that's unlikely. We have proven, beyond reasonable doubt (but not all doubt), that atoms exist.

So, with relation to negative argumentation, your logician's approach is simply repeating the obvious. We can justify a belief that something doesn't exist, and we disprove it with 99.999999...% certainty, we just can't always mathematically disprove it to 100% accuracy. Which is fine. But don't think that we can't do anything to knock or support a negative claim.

Short answer: your logic is flawed (you must, by your logic, affirm the existence of unicorns in my garden. I trust that you don't).

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist.

Which is why we atheists chuckle when a theists accuses us of just being mad at God - as you astutely pointed out, atheists don't believe God exists, so how could we be mad at him? Are you, a Christian, mad at Vishnu? No: you simply don't believe he (she?) exists.

 

[Non sequitur]

you have shown a weakness referring to negative statements, but not universal negatives.

like God does not exist

Jesus did not exist

So, negative statements are not true, until proven positive... but "universal negatives" (concepts) are true until proven not to be.

Riiiiight.


Does your head get tired of constantly doing mental gymnastics?

Do your arms get tired, from moving goal posts?

Don't you find it telling that not one person supports what you are saying?

 

[createdtoworship]

If she is an atheist, then she isn't mad at God.

Instead, she's mad at religiously motivated politics, wars, or violence, or at corrupt religious institutions, or at gullibility, or at anti-science factions, or at the oppression of women, or at any number of other things.

If she were mad at God, she wouldn't be an atheist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

it was a teen ager that believed in
God after going to a marylin manson concert. She said I never thought about God so much until someone was so negative about it. "how can you hate someone so much that doesn't exist" was her comment about it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Indeed! You have successfully grasped the concept, well done. A brief peruse of Wikipedia shows that not only is 'innocent until proven guilty' framed and based in the reasoning I said it was, but that it also stems directly from the concept of the onus of proof.


No, you have to believe in the dinosaur and the unicorn. It's not simply a case of, "Oh, maybe they exist, maybe they don't" -according to your logic, we must logically assert the existence of the dinosaur and the unicorn, as real and as firmly as anything else, simply because no one's disproven them.

Obviously, they may exist. But simply asserting that they exist is not enough to justify belief in them - you have to have evidence that they do, in fact, exist. Otherwise, the null hypothesis - they don't exist - is what we logically lean towards. Non-existence is the preferred choice due to Occam's Razor, by the way.

And, as it happens, there's good evidence that the dinosaur and the unicorn don't exist, as absence of evidence is evidence of absence: if a hulking great dinosaur exists, I'd expect to see poop. If I see no poop, despite looking high and low, I'm justified in rejecting the claim that they don't exist.


This is demonstrably fallicious reasoning. Consider the following negative statement:

"There are no married bachelors".

This is a true statement, and it is known. We can logically and absolutely prove that there married bachelors are non-existent. Moreover, in the realm of science, we can demonstrate to exceedingly high degrees of accuracy that something doesn't exist - the luminiferous aether, a living T. rex, etc. Your logician's approach only means that we can't disprove most things with 100% certainty - but neither can we prove them. Ultimately, we need to have standards of reasonable proof, and with those standards we can prove and disprove something.

Atoms, for instance. There's almost the minutest chance that it's all magic gnomes or aliens or God, but that's unlikely. We have proven, beyond reasonable doubt (but not all doubt), that atoms exist.

So, with relation to negative argumentation, your logician's approach is simply repeating the obvious. We can justify a belief that something doesn't exist, and we disprove it with 99.999999...% certainty, we just can't always mathematically disprove it to 100% accuracy. Which is fine. But don't think that we can't do anything to knock or support a negative claim.

Short answer: your logic is flawed (you must, by your logic, affirm the existence of unicorns in my garden. I trust that you don't).


Which is why we atheists chuckle when a theists accuses us of just being mad at God - as you astutely pointed out, atheists don't believe God exists, so how could we be mad at him? Are you, a Christian, mad at Vishnu? No: you simply don't believe he (she?) exists.

your bachelor analogy was not a universal negative. It must be applied universally for it to be unprovable. Like atheism in general : God does not exist. Is a universal negative and therefore unprovable. God may be under an asteroid hanging on for His life at the far corner of the universe. You can't prove universal negatives and so far I have only encountered the kind that speaks of nonexistence of things.

 

[createdtoworship]

So, negative statements are not true, until proven positive... but "universal negatives" (concepts) are true until proven not to be.

Riiiiight.


Does your head get tired of constantly doing mental gymnastics?

Do your arms get tired, from moving goal posts?

Don't you find it telling that not one person supports what you are saying?

You are getting both wrong. Firstly,. Negatives that are universal in nature cannot be proven. Thats all I said. Then you went off into this tangent that has nothing to do with the conversation. Secondly, It must be applied universally to be unprovable. And it doesn't have anything to do with positive statements. And thats not moving the goal posts thats just the fact of the matter. Like atheism in general : God does not exist. Is a universal negative and therefore unprovable. God may be hanging on to an asteroid in the far corner of the universe. You can't prove universal negatives.

"The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist. "

from
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscien...ER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

 

[Wiccan_Child]

your bachelor analogy was not a universal negative. It must be applied universally to be unprovable.

Except, there are no married bachelors, universally. Anywhere in the universe. I don't see how more universal a negative statement can get.

In other news, do you accept that, by your logic, you must believe in dinosaurs and unicorns roaming my garden? According to you, since you cannot disprove the claim 100%, we should believe it. Not, "Oh, it may be true", but, "It is true".

In reality, as I explained, you don't really understand how negative and positive statements relate to burdens of proof. The onus is on the claimant ("Dinosaurs exist in my garden") than on the status quo ("Dinosaurs don't, in fact, roam your garden").

 

[createdtoworship]

Except, there are no married bachelors, universally. Anywhere in the universe. I don't see how more universal a negative statement can get.

In other news, do you accept that, by your logic, you must believe in dinosaurs and unicorns roaming my garden? According to you, since you cannot disprove the claim 100%, we should believe it. Not, "Oh, it may be true", but, "It is true".

In reality, as I explained, you don't really understand how negative and positive statements relate to burdens of proof. The onus is on the claimant ("Dinosaurs exist in my garden") than on the status quo ("Dinosaurs don't, in fact, roam your garden").

your statement about unicorns would be unprovable as well (at least until they could become visible). So the statement is neither true nor false, just unprovable.

 

[createdtoworship]

"There are no married bachelors".

This is a true statement, and it is known. We can logically and absolutely prove that there married bachelors are non-existent. Moreover, in the realm of science, we can demonstrate to exceedingly high degrees of accuracy that something doesn't exist - the luminiferous aether, a living T. rex, etc.

T rexes could live on another planet somewhere in the universe. We don't know. Therefore it is unprovable, like the rest. Married bachelors is an irrational concept and unworthy of response (like square circles, or a God who Creates a rock so Big He can't pick it up).

 

[createdtoworship]

G.K. Chesterton made this point: “Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”

G.K. Chesterton, Twelve Types (The Echo Library, Middlesex, U.K., 2008), 29.

God does not exist is a universal negative and cannot be proven.

If X does not exist we must go to the entire universe and have unlimited knowledge to find out if this is true or not. The universal negatives like atheism become unprovable as long as we remain finite, and not omniscient.

 

[quatona]

That doesn't always fit. If she considered God to be a concept that others believed in even though she did not, then I think she could be angry at God.

Look at the statement to which Eudaimonist responded.

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist.

(emphasis added)
Now you are explaining that even to an atheist God(s) (as a concept or several different concepts) does/do exist. Quite obviously that was not what the poster meant, and consequently it was not what Eudaimonist responded to.
If you wish to equivocate God (the entity) and God (the concept) the target of your argument would have been gradyll, not Eudaimonist.

 

[createdtoworship]

ATHEISM by CS lewis

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.' ~C.S. Lewis”

 

[Non sequitur]

You are getting both wrong. Firstly,. Negatives that are universal in nature cannot be proven. Thats all I said. Then you went off into this tangent that has nothing to do with the conversation. Secondly, It must be applied universally to be unprovable. And it doesn't have anything to do with positive statements. And thats not moving the goal posts thats just the fact of the matter. Like atheism in general : God does not exist. Is a universal negative and therefore unprovable. God may be hanging on to an asteroid in the far corner of the universe. You can't prove universal negatives.

1) Atheism does not hold the belief that your god does not exist.
2) Everything starts as universally negative, until it is proven as a positive; you don't need to require that universal negatives can or cannot be proven.

"The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence...

*snip*

Well, thankfully, we can just stop right there.

No, they can't...

*drum roll*

...because you don't need to logically prove nonexistence, for there to be a negative claim.

They inherently work that way.


Again, can you find one person who agrees with you?

 

[quatona]

ATHEISM by CS lewis

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if i did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.' ~C.S. Lewis”

This just shows that C.S.Lewis doesn´t know what the term "atheism" means. What he actually used to be was a misotheist. He had an issue with the God he believed in. The idea that something you don´t like therefore doesn´t exist is incredibly stupid.

 

[createdtoworship]

This just shows that C.S.Lewis doesn´t know what the term "atheism" means. What he actually used to be was a misotheist. He had an issue with the God he believed in. The idea that something you don´t like therefore doesn´t exist is incredibly stupid.

well you can't say that evil exists therefore God does not exist, under the same guidelines.

 

[createdtoworship]

1) Atheism does not hold the belief that your god does not exist.

Your just being snippy today. I never said my God does not exist. I said "god in general" does not exist for the atheist.

Everything starts as universally negative, until it is proven as a positive;

references please

...because you don't need to logically prove nonexistence, for there to be a negative claim.

They inherently work that way.

references please

Again, can you find one person who agrees with you?

G.k Chesterton believes the way I do.

“Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative.”

-G.K. Chesterton,
Twelve Types (The Echo Library, Middlesex, U.K., 2008), 29.

God does not exist is a universal negative and cannot be proven.

If X does not exist we must go to the entire universe and have unlimited knowledge to find out if this is true or not. The universal negatives like atheism become unprovable as long as we remain finite, and not omniscient.