The burden of proof fallacy?

[KCfromNC]

The truth is atheists don't want to accept God exists

When you start off with something that's easily shown to be false, it is going to hurt your credibility on your claims about things we can't easily verify.

 

[Gadarene]

This sums it up pretty much.

Thirded (or fourthed, can't remember )

 

[ianb321red]

Well, the link I posted did point out that negative atheism has been around a while.



Which is irrelevant to weak atheism.

Btw, there are positive atheistic arguments against the Christian god.

I just do not bother making them largely because (a) they are not arguments for atheism as such, only against one particular form of theism, and (b) still not my burden of proof

So they are certainly a handy extra to have, but it is still not a priority for me to make them.



Of course it does. It still addresses the arguments made by those making the positive claim that God exists.



It means that both strong and weak atheism.....are atheism.



Whatever you need to tell yourself to evade presenting evidence for your burden of proof. It changes the situation not a jot.

Pretty much everything you've argued for on this thread, you have at some point in the post on other threads used as arguments against Christianity and a belief in God. Do you realise this?

The explanation you give for the definition of atheism is total nonsense and basically the result of pop-philosophy Dawkinsism. The correct, philosophical definition is the one I gave in post#1...anything less than that is agnosticism if we are using the correct philosophical definitions.

And you can cue up the "no true scotsman" fallacy if you like, but actually serious atheists - those not in the public eye - would accept this also.

The good thing about "new atheism" from a theistic point of view at least, is that it has actually put atheism under the microscope due to its notoriety. If it wasn't for the likes of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins "outting" atheism then there wouldn't have been high profile discussions, debates, books, tv programmes and so on.

New atheism is fizzling out - being replaced by "new new atheism" which is less aggressive, more measured and considered.

I think this is because "new atheism" has run it's course. It hasn't triumphed in any way, but it has made certain individuals fairly wealthy

Has it "defeated" theism? Hardly - "new atheism" is deemed to have lost according to one columnist:
Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists » The Spectator

In some respects "new atheism" has damaged atheism because it gave it unnecessary exposure and scrutiny which ultimately it couldn't deal with.

The glaring evidence for this was the laughable behaviour and excuses by Dawkins, AC Graying, Toynbee et al in avoiding high profiles debates a couple of years ago - widely criticised by other atheists I hasten to mention.

 

[KCfromNC]

The explanation you give for the definition of atheism is total nonsense and basically the result of

listening to how dictionaries define the word. Who are we supposed to believe - large numbers of professionals in the field of word usage in the English language or some random dude on the internet?

If your starting point requires disregarding what experts in the field say, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

Enjoy your ranting, though. Hopefully it makes you feel better.

 

[contango]

listening to how dictionaries define the word. Who are we supposed to believe - large numbers of professionals in the field of word usage in the English language or some random dude on the internet?

If your starting point requires disregarding what experts in the field say, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

Enjoy your ranting, though. Hopefully it makes you feel better.

Of course all this assumes people under the same label are some kind of amorphous mass.

If someone says "I am an atheist" it makes far more sense to ask them just what it is they believe or don't believe than to assume that because they took the label "atheist" we already know what they believe.

If someone says "I am a Christian" we don't make assumptions regarding whether they are Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian etc. If someone says "I am a Muslim" we don't assume they are Shia or Sunni. Yet when someone says "I am an atheist" somehow it's supposed to be crystal clear just what is in their heads.

It's most curious when you think about it

 

[Gadarene]

Pretty much everything you've argued for on this thread, you have at some point in the post on other threads used as arguments against Christianity and a belief in God. Do you realise this?

Post examples, perhaps?

Chances are I was referring to a theistic argument or claim someone had put forward already.

The explanation you give for the definition of atheism is total nonsense and basically the result of pop-philosophy Dawkinsism.

Yes, of course it is.

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms negative atheism and positive atheism were used by Antony Flew in 1976,and appeared again in Michael Martin's writings in 1990.

Antony Flew is an academic philosopher. Michael Martin is an academic philosopher.

Antony Flew - if he was the first to use the term, as it's possible the concept has existed longer - did so in 1976. The year Richard Dawkins' first published book, The Selfish Gene, came out.

And I have my copy of it right here, and "atheism" isn't in the index.

AND - I didn't learn about the concept from Dawkins. In fact, he doesn't use the term in his spectrum of theistic probabilty.

AND! I don't agree with his spectrum of theistic probability not least because it is one-dimensional. He doesn't really give agnosticism a decent description, nor does he factor in other stances like ignosticism.

Would you like to try again?

The correct, philosophical definition is the one I gave in post#1...anything less than that is agnosticism if we are using the correct philosophical definitions.

Yes, your unsourced definition. What WAS I thinking, not just blindly accepting that?

And you can cue up the "no true scotsman" fallacy if you like, but actually serious atheists - those not in the public eye - would accept this also.

I notice that yet again, you haven't actually named any.

I have named two recognised philosophers that DO acknowledge the concept of negative vs. positive atheism. Neither were "new atheists", as they made use of the concept in their writings long before that movement started.

So enlighten us all, Ian - who are these "serious atheists"?

(And why are they so srs?)

The good thing about "new atheism" from a theistic point of view at least, is that it has actually put atheism under the microscope due to its notoriety. If it wasn't for the likes of Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins "outting" atheism then there wouldn't have been high profile discussions, debates, books, tv programmes and so on.

New atheism is fizzling out - being replaced by "new new atheism" which is less aggressive, more measured and considered.

I think this is because "new atheism" has run it's course. It hasn't triumphed in any way, but it has made certain individuals fairly wealthy

It popularised atheism as a concept, which has led to a growth in awareness about it, and more people identifying as atheist. I don't begrudge atheist writers their money.

Has it "defeated" theism? Hardly - "new atheism" is deemed to have lost according to one columnist:
Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists » The Spectator

Where did I claim "new atheist" was what I identified as, or whether it had ' "defeated" theism', or whether I cared?

You seem to be awfully concerned with what you think my stance should be, rather than what it actually is. You might want to listen and pay attention instead, as it seems to be leading you to post an awful lot of nonsense and red herrings.

I'll give you a hint that you seem to have missed - very few people actually identify explicitly as "new atheists". Be wary of labels that aren't actually used by the people they're applied to.

In some respects "new atheism" has damaged atheism because it gave it unnecessary exposure and scrutiny which ultimately it couldn't deal with.

The glaring evidence for this was the laughable behaviour and excuses by Dawkins, AC Graying, Toynbee et al in avoiding high profiles debates a couple of years ago - widely criticised by other atheists I hasten to mention.

Again - something you don't actually cite. Video?

(Oh wait, is this him not debating Jesus Lane Craig?

Plenty of other atheists have taken him on and done just fine.)

-----

Yet again, Ian - none of this - not one bit - changes the fact that you (and many other Christians) definitively claim that God exists, and that I (and many other atheists) hold the stance that there is no compelling evidence for such a claim. The quickest way to resolve that dilemma is to post your best evidence.

And yet you'd rather keep up this rather laughable and dishonest tangent about how we're not really atheists and that the form of atheism you think we hold has failed, even when it is not just wrong, but irrelevant too.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course all this assumes people under the same label are some kind of amorphous mass.

If someone says "I am an atheist" it makes far more sense to ask them just what it is they believe or don't believe than to assume that because they took the label "atheist" we already know what they believe.

If someone says "I am a Christian" we don't make assumptions regarding whether they are Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian etc. If someone says "I am a Muslim" we don't assume they are Shia or Sunni. Yet when someone says "I am an atheist" somehow it's supposed to be crystal clear just what is in their heads.

It's most curious when you think about it

It should be crystal clear, much more so than what is in a christian or muslims head.

An atheist does not believe in deities and that is pretty simple, so don't make it more difficult. Questions about whether they believe in your God or any God should not be necessary.

Now, you could ask them if they are a weak atheist or a strong atheist, but what is the point, they still don't believe in a God. You could also ask a christian if they are a strong christian or a weak christian, but no one really does. And if you don't think there are a whole bunch of christians walking around that don't have doubts about their faith, you are fooling yourself.

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course all this assumes people under the same label are some kind of amorphous mass.

If someone says "I am an atheist" it makes far more sense to ask them just what it is they believe or don't believe than to assume that because they took the label "atheist" we already know what they believe.

Sure, there's a lot of things about a person which "atheist" gives zero insight into. But the word does have a clear meaning, and if someone is atheist you can know that they lack belief in gods. Obviously people will have more to them than this one particular lack of belief, but the word is still useful in what it does attempt to describe.

 

[contango]

Sure, there's a lot of things about a person which "atheist" gives zero insight into. But the word does have a clear meaning, and if someone is atheist you can know that they lack belief in gods. Obviously people will have more to them than this one particular lack of belief, but the word is still useful in what it does attempt to describe.

The trouble is when "atheist" is used to cover a number of beliefs or lacks of belief it ceases to have a clear meaning.

When someone people are atheist in the sense of having an active belief in the non-existence of gods, and others are atheist in the sense of lacking an active belief in the existence or otherwise of gods, the term "atheist" is of very little value in terms of describing what someone believes. It is arguably akin to me describing my hobbies by saying "I don't play golf". While it's true I don't play golf, that fact alone gives no useful information unless I'm discussing my interests with someone who was about to ask me to join them on the golf course.

 

[Gadarene]

The trouble is when "atheist" is used to cover a number of beliefs or lacks of belief it ceases to have a clear meaning.

When someone people are atheist in the sense of having an active belief in the non-existence of gods, and others are atheist in the sense of lacking an active belief in the existence or otherwise of gods, the term "atheist" is of very little value in terms of describing what someone believes. It is arguably akin to me describing my hobbies by saying "I don't play golf". While it's true I don't play golf, that fact alone gives no useful information unless I'm discussing my interests with someone who was about to ask me to join them on the golf course.

Of course it doesn't, but it's not supposed to.

This is why we're always telling Christians who frequently get this wrong that atheism is not a worldview akin to their Christianity.

It would be great if they stopped assuming this and actually sought clarification on what we actually believed instead. Expecting considerable variation among atheists in terms of their politics, moral systems, etc will help as well, as there is a lot of variation!

As an example of where this muddleheadedness gets you, look at Ian's derpery upthread about "new atheism". I don't identify as a "new atheist" and certainly haven't in this thread (to reiterate, I'm a negative atheist wrt to the topic of deities). Few people do, and no-one in this thread had identified as such either - but because he's making assumptions left right and centre he posted a load of irrelevancies.

It seems to me that some Christians somehow think it's "unfair" that they aren't being argued against by people with an equivalent belief system to them. Too bad - that's simply not how things are. Accepting this and adapting to it, instead of whining, would be a huge improvement. It would certainly help increase their credibility.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

The truth is atheists don't want to accept God exists and deny the proof because it would mean someone is above them.
...

Um, no.

The reason most atheists don't accept God exists is because there is no evidence. Just like there is no evidence that Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy exist, so we don't believe in them either.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course it doesn't, but it's not supposed to.

This is why we're always telling Christians who frequently get this wrong that atheism is not a worldview akin to their Christianity.

It would be great if they stopped assuming this and actually sought clarification on what we actually believed instead. Expecting considerable variation among atheists in terms of their politics, moral systems, etc will help as well, as there is a lot of variation!

As an example of where this muddleheadedness gets you, look at Ian's derpery upthread about "new atheism". I don't identify as a "new atheist" and certainly haven't in this thread (to reiterate, I'm a negative atheist wrt to the topic of deities). Few people do, and no-one in this thread had identified as such either - but because he's making assumptions left right and centre he posted a load of irrelevancies.

It seems to me that some Christians somehow think it's "unfair" that they aren't being argued against by people with an equivalent belief system to them. Too bad - that's simply not how things are. Accepting this and adapting to it, instead of whining, would be a huge improvement. It would certainly help increase their credibility.

Well said.

I don't get this; "what does an atheist believe in" question.

It's not that tough folks. It means they don't believe a God exists. It tells you nothing else about their worldview on any other topic and it is not intended to.

 

[contango]

Of course it doesn't, but it's not supposed to.

This is why we're always telling Christians who frequently get this wrong that atheism is not a worldview akin to their Christianity.

It would be great if they stopped assuming this and actually sought clarification on what we actually believed instead. Expecting considerable variation among atheists in terms of their politics, moral systems, etc will help as well, as there is a lot of variation!

As an example of where this muddleheadedness gets you, look at Ian's derpery upthread about "new atheism". I don't identify as a "new atheist" and certainly haven't in this thread (to reiterate, I'm a negative atheist wrt to the topic of deities). Few people do, and no-one in this thread had identified as such either - but because he's making assumptions left right and centre he posted a load of irrelevancies.

It seems to me that some Christians somehow think it's "unfair" that they aren't being argued against by people with an equivalent belief system to them. Too bad - that's simply not how things are. Accepting this and adapting to it, instead of whining, would be a huge improvement. It would certainly help increase their credibility.

Sounds like we're on the same page. Whatever the dictionary says an "atheist" is, to assume that anyone who calls themself "atheist" has a very well defined set of beliefs is silly.

It's part of the reason I dislike labels, they start out as an easy way of describing someone or something without using lots and lots of words, and end up being used to pigeonhole people and assign beliefs to them regardless of whether they actually hold those beliefs.

 

[quatona]

Also: does the burden of proof have a burden of proof?

(Shut up, quatona.)

(Almost missed this one.)

 

[bhsmte]

(Almost missed this one.)

That's Received for you. Always making a rather straight forward issue, more difficult with, paralysis from analysis.

 

[quatona]

Definitions:
Atheism – believing there is no God or gods
Theism – belief in the existence of God or gods

Common objection to theism:

Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"

Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?

Surely the absolute claim of alpha theos/ "no god" has to be a claim of some kind of knowledge in order to support or substantiate this claim? Just as much as the claim that there IS a god is likewise a claim to knowledge?

As this is the case , then surely both propositions require just as much justification as each other?

Is it therefore not a fallacy to hold position A and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to position T?

If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..

Well, I think before we get to matters like "burden of proof" there are some other burdens on those who introduce the idea "God" - provided they want me (who doesn´t operate with such a concept = an a-theist) to consider it, in the first place.
From where I stand theists who want to discuss "Does God exist?" with me tend to rash things, and ask me to take the tenth step before they make the first.

 

[Received]

(Almost missed this one.)

You kept me guessing for a while!

 

[Gadarene]

Sounds like we're on the same page. Whatever the dictionary says an "atheist" is, to assume that anyone who calls themself "atheist" has a very well defined set of beliefs is silly.

Yes, in the sense that it only necessarily entails a lack of belief in a god. So that only really tells you it rules out ideas or sets of ideas that explicitly involve a deity or deities in some way. It obviously implies nothing about their politics, their moral system/values etc beyond that, though these might be well defined. They are simply not inherent to their atheism. It also, interestingly, tells you nothing about why they are an atheist. They may be an atheist for very poor reasons, or for somewhat better reasons.

It's part of the reason I dislike labels, they start out as an easy way of describing someone or something without using lots and lots of words, and end up being used to pigeonhole people and assign beliefs to them regardless of whether they actually hold those beliefs.

Well, that's what usually happens with categorisation. It's rarely ever perfect

 

[contango]

Yes, in the sense that it only necessarily entails a lack of belief in a god. So that only really tells you it rules out ideas or sets of ideas that explicitly involve a deity or deities in some way. It obviously implies nothing about their politics, their moral system/values etc beyond that, though these might be well defined. They are simply not inherent to their atheism. It also, interestingly, tells you nothing about why they are an atheist. They may be an atheist for very poor reasons, or for somewhat better reasons.

Even ruling out some specific ideas about deities doesn't tell anyone what the person actually believes regarding deities.

The thread has already covered the difference between the passive "I do not believe in gods" and the active "I believe in the non-existence of gods". The latter is an explicit statement of faith, the former could cover anything from someone leaning towards an active belief in the non-existence of gods to someone leaning towards an active belief in one of the many deities followed by the different religions.

Interestingly your point about the "atheist" label not implying anything about politics, moral values etc also applies to most religions. I know Christians who struggle to understand how anyone could vote for left-leaning parties, and Christians who struggle to understand how anyone could vote for right-leaning parties. I'm sure if you looked at a large group of Muslims, Hindus etc you'd find similar patterns. Likewise some Christians are fine with drinking, smoking etc while others consider them sinful. I've known people who call themselves Muslims who eat pork and drink alcohol. Some people take the "Jew" label and keep kosher strictly, others less strictly, others not at all.

Then of course there are the people who label themselves based on a faith when they don't actually hold that faith but assume they are a member of it by default because it's their parents' faith.

 

[Received]

Of course it doesn't, but it's not supposed to.

This is why we're always telling Christians who frequently get this wrong that atheism is not a worldview akin to their Christianity.

It would be great if they stopped assuming this and actually sought clarification on what we actually believed instead. Expecting considerable variation among atheists in terms of their politics, moral systems, etc will help as well, as there is a lot of variation!

As an example of where this muddleheadedness gets you, look at Ian's derpery upthread about "new atheism". I don't identify as a "new atheist" and certainly haven't in this thread (to reiterate, I'm a negative atheist wrt to the topic of deities). Few people do, and no-one in this thread had identified as such either - but because he's making assumptions left right and centre he posted a load of irrelevancies.

It seems to me that some Christians somehow think it's "unfair" that they aren't being argued against by people with an equivalent belief system to them. Too bad - that's simply not how things are. Accepting this and adapting to it, instead of whining, would be a huge improvement. It would certainly help increase their credibility.

In general this is definitely true. Atheism stands for a negative position, and a negative position has nothing positive about it that people could agree on. "Hey, everyone knows all atheists not only don't believe in God, but also believe in donuts." What?

But there seems to be at least a stance among many atheists (particularly if not exclusively the "new atheist" crowd) for where "atheism" implies positive stuff, particularly reason. This is why this type of atheism has a freaking commercial dedicated to it:

Atheist Superbowl Commercial - 720p Best Commercial on the PLANET - YouTube

Reason, logic, knowledge. Those are definitely positive stances identified with their brand of atheism. And it's not that this brand of atheism just popped up right before this commercial was made, or even before Dawkins et al. made a move on the world.

What really goes with this atheism? Logical positivism, scientism, materialism, a post-enlightenment value of reason over action, just knowing things. These are very much positive identifiers, and they very much represent a group of people who adhere to the atheist label.

So while I think that honest atheists stand for a negative position (not believing in God, the rest is relative to the individual), I think that at least lately a large swath of the population has taken atheism to almost religious levels in terms of its unswerving faith to the positive identifiers mentioned above.

And also notice the peculiar thing that happens when you start separating yourself from this crowd of atheists. "Oh, I'm not that type of atheist." Well, what does that mean? What other type is there? By definition you've moved into a type, a positive identifier, if nothing else than "I'm not that type of atheist." We have to be very careful, I guess, with how we even remove ourselves from the positive atheists to adhere to the honest definition you've espoused.