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

durangodawood · Apr 27, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
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.

That's my atheist (non-theist) claim that I posted earlier:

...my atheist claim goes like this: I dont find sufficient evidence in the world to convince me of the being known as God. Thats a weak claim as they go, and of course is not provable to others...

Its a claim centered on me and the way I understand the world subjectively. It doesn't rely on any claims about the rest if the world. Of course I reject any burden to prove that I dont find sufficient evidence to motivate me to belief.

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

Gene Parmesan said:
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.

And such belief constitutes a claim. To make an honest claim, one has to necessarily believe in it. Otherwise, they're simply lying.

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

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

Not "everyone" here. You forgot the believers.

durangodawood said:
No wonder discussion with you is so enjoyable and productive!

I'm not here to entertain you. Hard truths are often not something we'd rather enjoy dealing with.

You have no standard of "productive" at all. Atheists in-general hate any productivity that moves away from their materialistic dogma.

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

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

^ Didn't read my post.

durangodawood · Apr 27, 2021

Paulomycin said:
And such belief constitutes a claim. To make an honest claim, one has to necessarily believe in it. Otherwise, they're simply lying.

What claim does being, as he puts it, "without belief in any gods" constitute?

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

Moral Orel said:
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.

Sorry, my bad. My post should have read: "I have never encountered an atheist who was willing to take on the burden of proof for their negative claim."

Stay on-topic next time, okay?

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

Gene2memE said:
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.

Oh. Thanks for answering. Are you an authority on atheist subcategories, or are you finally willing to admit you're pretty much making it all up?

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

You ever watch those "behind the magic" shows, where illusionists reveal all the hidden supports, substructures, underprops, and gimmicks for their stage presentations?

durangodawood said:
What claim does being, as he puts it, "without belief in any gods" constitute?

A set of peripherally implied support claims, which may include some or all of the following:

- The philosophy of Empiricism, as well as the assumption that it is both real and accurate.
- Belief in inductive logic as the only and/or most reliable form of reason there is.
- The assumption of uniformitarianism (as the basis for determining dates on an evolutionary scale).
- The metaphysical claim ontological naturalism & materialistic philosophy.
- The assumption that science is a reliable method. And this, in spite of the problem of induction, the historical failure of Verificationism, Karl Popper, and the unreliability of falsificationism. They continue to push it.
- The belief that one's will determines reason. . .or even reality itself.

It takes more faith to adhere to all of the philosophies that hold atheism together (Naturalism, Empiricism, Uniformitarianism, Scientism, etc.) than it would just one religion.

Added to that the massive faith in one's own forced incredulity. If it takes so much more effort to disbelieve, then yes, you have a problem.

Yttrium · Apr 27, 2021

Paulomycin said:
Added to that the massive faith in one's own forced incredulity.

Okay, that makes my head hurt.

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

Yttrium said:
Okay, that makes my head hurt.

I know, right? For me, it's a dull pressure, localized to just above the forehead; right in the center.

durangodawood · Apr 27, 2021

Paulomycin said:
You ever watch those "behind the magic" shows, where illusionists reveal all the hidden supports, substructures, underprops, and gimmicks for their stage presentations?

A set of peripherally implied support claims, which may include some or all of the following:

- The philosophy of Empiricism, as well as the assumption that it is both real and accurate.
- Belief in inductive logic as the only and/or most reliable form of reason there is.
- The assumption of uniformitarianism (as the basis for determining dates on an evolutionary scale).
- The metaphysical claim ontological naturalism & materialistic philosophy.
- The assumption that science is a reliable method. And this, in spite of the problem of induction, the historical failure of Verificationism, Karl Popper, and the unreliability of falsificationism. They continue to push it.
- The belief that one's will determines reason. . .or even reality itself.

It takes more faith to adhere to all of the philosophies that hold atheism together (Naturalism, Empiricism, Uniformitarianism, Scientism, etc.) than it would just one religion.

Added to that the massive faith in one's own forced incredulity. If it takes so much more effort to disbelieve, then yes, you have a problem.

I think most of those claims are just the elaboration of what it feels like to live, observe, make decisions, reap consequences, in daily life. Just because philosophers have blown the intuitions formed from daily living into a giant theoretical structures does mean the typical atheist has to study them and sign off on every line.

For most of us, I think, we're just relying on these intuitions formed from daily living without recourse to the literature. To deny those and form a belief in something totally foreign to our experience, now that requires faith.

As for me, I do not at all rule out the possibility that something might happen to me that violates the intuitions Ive accumulated in 50 years of living. But I'm certainly not going to definitively affirm the possibility either.

durangodawood · Apr 27, 2021

Paulomycin said:
.....Added to that the massive faith in one's own forced incredulity. If it takes so much more effort to disbelieve, then yes, you have a problem.

I applaud effort generally. If ones beliefs require more effort that not believing, is that a sign that youre wrong?

I have been told by various religious thinkers thats its religious faith which demands effort, and holding that everyday intuitions are what defines reality is sort of the lowest energy state.

Bradskii · Apr 27, 2021

durangodawood said:
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!

Enjoyable? It can be fun. Productive? Mmm, not so much...

durangodawood · Apr 27, 2021

Bradskii said:
Enjoyable? It can be fun. Productive? Mmm, not so much...

I find the hostility not so fun. And even worse, its distracting.

Bradskii · Apr 27, 2021

Moral Orel said:
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.

I want to play.

I'd say that's not a claim. It's a statement. Like 'My car is not red'. If I send you a picture of my grey car then that's not proving a negative, it's just confirming the statement. However...

...if I say 'I claim my car is not red' then you can't prove that. I'm not going to send you a piccie, tell you where I live or give you any information that will allow you to do so (the usual claim is 'dragon in my basement').

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

durangodawood said:
I think most of those claims are just the elaboration of what it feels like to live, observe, make decisions, reap consequences, in daily life.

Right? It's so "normal" that it's like breathing to you. You can't imagine thinking outside of that box, or stepping outside of the "meta" for one moment to really question where it all comes from.

durangodawood said:
Just because philosophers have blown the intuitions formed from daily living into a giant theoretical structures does mean the typical atheist has to study them and sign off on every line.

It would really help if they did. This is stuff they're taking way too much for granted.

durangodawood said:
For most of us, I think, we're just relying on these intuitions formed from daily living without recourse to the literature. To deny those and form a belief in something totally foreign to our experience, now that requires faith.

I think it's more "nurture" than "nature." (looking at you, public schools)

durangodawood said:
As for me, I do not at all rule out the possibility that something might happen to me that violates the intuitions Ive accumulated in 50 years of living. But I'm certainly not going to definitively affirm the possibility either.

Right? That would only violate your secure bubble of reality.

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

durangodawood said:
I applaud effort generally. If ones beliefs more effort that not believing, is that a sign that youre wrong?

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

Bradskii said:
Enjoyable? It can be fun. Productive? Mmm, not so much...

Keep pumping those breaks, buddy.

Paulomycin · Apr 27, 2021

durangodawood said:
I find the hostility not so fun. And even worse, its distracting.

". . .other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them." -Diogenes

Bradskii · Apr 27, 2021

Paulomycin said:
Keep pumping those breaks, buddy.

That's not an idiom with which I am familiar.

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

Do atheists ever shoulder the burden of proof for atheism?

No, of course not. Atheism is a negative claim. The burden is on the one making the claim for God.

Yes. All claims are equal, regardless of whether positive or negative.

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Independent Centrist

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Dis Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Dis Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Similar threads