For Skeptics Only: Would you ever accept the burden of proof for atheism?

[Paulomycin]

What's wrong with beliefs being provisional?

Nothing. But making a career out if it is outright suppression.

I'm also convinced that the ToE is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Then you read the discussion wrong.

I'm also open to having that belief changed.

Then you're flip-flopping in the same post and contradicting yourself.

I'm just translating your statement as no hill you're willing to die on.

 

[Paulomycin]

You have a very stubborn hangup on the semantics that I haven't seen from... anybody else here. Granted, I have seen a person on another forum with the same issue, and also a similar issue with the term "agnostic".

Words are all we have.

Your life can and will someday depend on mere words in a life or death context, whether in a court of law or in an ER.

You're here for entertainment.

I'm not.

Very different priorities will naturally cause one to dial-up the semantics.

 

[Yttrium]

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." - Some classic rock atheist.

Being convinced of something isn't a matter of choice. One does't decide to be convinced of something. The evidence either convinces you or it doesn't.

 

[Yttrium]

Words are all we have.

Your life can and will someday depend on mere words in a life or death context, whether in a court of law or in an ER.

You're here for entertainment.

I'm not.

Very different priorities will naturally cause one to dial-up the semantics.

I'm here to learn.

 

[Paulomycin]

Being convinced of something isn't a matter of choice. One does't decide to be convinced of something. The evidence either convinces you or it doesn't.

The subjective will is like a gatekeeper for objective evidence. Sometimes it happens so fast that you don't even think it's a choice, but it is. Evidence doesn't have an "automatic" or magical effect on one's will.

Best example: Flat earthers.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm here to learn.

Mmm-hmm.

2 Timothy 3:7

 

[Gene2memE]

You're omitting the context. In the context of the binary choice of a coin flip, 'Not-A' = 'B' and "Not-B' = A.

You're ignoring the existence of claims and beliefs.

Yes a coin flip is A or B. A belief about a truth statement concerning a claimed result of coin flip is not.

A failure to accept the truth statement 'The coin landed heads' does not require me make the contrary statement 'The coin landed tails'. I can be uncertain about the state of the coin until I have enough evidence to verify or reject the claim. I don't have to trust that the source making the claim is speaking correctly.

David Hume: "In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

Straight-up wrong. It's presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even when found "not guilty," the court doesn't declare the suspect "innocent," but rather "not guilty." Since it's impossible to prove innocence.

When dealing with claims concerning the existence of God or gods, what is the presumption I should take?

Should I work on the presumption that such things exist, until proven not to exist?
Or should I work on the presumption that such things don't exist, until proven to exist?

Which one involves proving a negative?

Onto the license example

Why?

Again, because you have no justification for your rejection of the claim. All you have to go on is my claim that my license is valid. It may be either true of false, but you don't have sufficient information to determine the truth value of the statement.

Do I have to prove a negative?

If you're making a positive claim (i.e. that my license is expired), then yes the burden of proof lies with you. If you'd merely said 'I don't believe you', the burden would have remained with me.

Now you're implying that it's a legit question after all. Which is it?

You believe the Christian God exists. I don't believe your truth statement. Are you implying that in order not to believe that truth statement, I need to prove a negative?

 

[Paulomycin]

You're ignoring the existence of claims and beliefs.

A belief is the acceptance of a claim.

A claim is a statement or assertion of belief.

Problem?

Yes a coin flip is A or B. A belief about a truth statement concerning a claimed result of coin flip is not.

But in both cases, there is an actual result from a coin flip. Therefore, any given belief about a truth statement concerning a claimed result of coin flip is either only true or false.

A failure to accept the truth statement 'The coin landed heads' does not require me make the contrary statement 'The coin landed tails'.

So you claim the coin is not necessarily heads nor tails.

David Hume: "In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

So you solved Hume's Problem of Induction? If a matter of fact exists, it will only exist in an absolute sense. You can't contradict yourself on claims of fact. The Problem of Induction has never been solved, nor can it be solved, because it is by nature inductive. Not EVERY claim is inductive.

When dealing with claims concerning the existence of God or gods, what is the presumption I should take?

You going to sit there and tell me that theism is a criminal trial?

My answer:

"Appeal to ignorance - the claim that whatever has not been proven false must be true, and vice versa. (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore, UFOs exist, and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan​

In other words, you can't make any conclusions either way, regardless.

Period.

A statement of belief or non-belief is still conclusive; regardless of whether or not you claim it's "provisional."

Again, because you have no justification for your rejection of the claim. All you have to go on is my claim that my license is valid. It may be either true of false, but you don't have sufficient information to determine the truth value of the statement.

But at the same time the truth is only either "valid" or "expired." If I am really honest about my stated un-belief of your claim, then I am gambling that the license is expired. However, if I was intellectually honest, I would simply state, "I don't know," without making a belief claim for or against.

You believe the Christian God exists. I don't believe your truth statement. Are you implying that in order not to believe that truth statement, I need to prove a negative?

No, I just want you to admit that you're making an appeal to ignorance.

 

[Paulomycin]

Epistemological naturalism = the belief claim that nature is all there is. Thus it naturally follows it is also a claim that God does not exist. <-- If this were not the case, then one is not taking this overall epistemic position of (non) belief.

 

[Gene2memE]

But at the same time the truth is only either "valid" or "expired." If I am really honest about my stated un-belief of your claim, then I am gambling that the license is expired. However, if I was intellectually honest, I would simply state, "I don't know," without making a belief claim for or against.

Welcome to soft/weak/negative atheism.

Gods either exist or they don't exist. I don't know.

But, I don't accept the claims of those that do claim to know. I don't have their belief.

 

[Paulomycin]

Welcome to soft/weak/negative atheism.

From my end, it's all equal pushback.

Gods either exist or they don't exist. I don't know.

But your label there sez "atheist."

But, I don't accept the claims of those that do claim to know. I don't have their belief.

But you do claim non-belief. Which is a belief claim that leans towards one end of the spectrum.

See, either you are leaning toward a particular direction, or you honestly don't know.<--If the latter, then you cannot honesty claim "a-theism."

 

[Paulomycin]

Welcome to soft/weak/negative atheism.

Where do existentialist atheists (absurdists), igtheists, and ignostics fall under?

 

[Moral Orel]

When dealing with claims concerning the existence of God or gods, what is the presumption I should take?

Should I work on the presumption that such things exist, until proven not to exist?
Or should I work on the presumption that such things don't exist, until proven to exist?

Which one involves proving a negative?

Whether or not you're proving a negative is immaterial. The issue is that every belief should have a solid foundation or you'll end up with an epistemology that let's you believe any-old-thing.

You can prove a negative. Not all negative claims can be proven, just like not all positive claims can be proven. The nature of a claim being positive or negative isn't what makes proof impossible when it is actually impossible.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

See poll. This poll is directed at all non-theistic skeptics in general, including agnostics, hard/soft atheists, agnostic atheists, apatheists, igtheists, ignostics, existentialist atheists, etc.

Note: The "A" in Atheism means "without." The etymological root for the word atheism originated before the 5th century BCE from the ancient Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)" The same "without" makes it a negative claim regarding theism itself.

I use the colloquial use of the term atheism, which usually means without belief in any gods. It seems that dictionary definitions align closely to that. I agree that anyone who makes the claim that no gods exist has the burden of proof for such a claim. Personally, I do not claim that no gods exist. I'm just currently without the belief that they do.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not convinced.

^ Yeah, I said it.

Not convinced of what? That I believe what I say I believe?

 

[durangodawood]

Just looking for an honest man.

Ah. So thats your regard for everyone here: all liars. (Or at least the men are).

No wonder discussion with you is so enjoyable and productive!

 

[DamianWarS]

My professor told us that "proof" was limited to math & booze, respectively. In science, there is no such thing as proof; only inductively falsifiable approximations.

then let's define proof because we can't really give it unless we know what it means.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If you're apolitical you are not making a negative assertion about politics, its existence or validity. You just don't play the politics game. You are without politics. If you are an atheist, you are without a belief in gods. You don't play the god game.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do I have to prove a negative? In 12 years of debating online and in-public, I have never encountered an atheist who was willing to take on the burden of proof for a negative claim.

Allow me to break your streak, then. I'll take on the burden of proof for a negative claim. Here's my negative claim:

The next sentence, directly after this one, which I write in this post, will not contain the letter 'Q'.

See, I just proved a negative claim.

 

[Gene2memE]

Where do existentialist atheists (absurdists), igtheists, and ignostics fall under?

I dont know of any of the first, but of the handful of ignostics and igtheists that I do know, they're all fine with holding the label atheist as well. Several identified as atheists initially and have since refined their positions to igtheism/ignosticism.

I can't speak for these groups fully, but because they all identify as being without a belief in deities my expectation is that they all fall under weak atheism.