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

Paulomycin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oh no. I step out of the box all the time. I dont for a second think that these intuitions provide a definitive picture of all of reality. In fact I think we're highly conditioned by evolution to ignore many aspects of reality. (Mainly I was just defending atheists generally, those people you suspect are typically lying.) Yet in my travels beyond the box, I havent found a convincing experience or argument for God yet.

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

Click to expand...

Possibility is a dangerous word and I think I handled it carelessly. I'm certainly open to the possibility of something that "rocks my world". I'm just not affirming that such a thing is definitely out there.

Paulomycin said:

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

Click to expand...

One of my personal heroes is Paul Keating. Ex PM of Australia. Ye gods, he would verbally savage his opponents. One comment that he made about his political opposite number, a fairly decent but inneffective opponent, was that debating with him was 'like being flogged with warm lettuce'.

Paulomycin said:

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

Click to expand...

You have to make friends first for that to work. Going around biting strangers wont save anyone.

Paulomycin said:

I'm only a stranger to them. But to me, they're not.

Click to expand...

That there is grotesquely prideful and arrogant.

Paulomycin said:

That, or I used to be an atheist myself.

Click to expand...

Yeah. You and what you did grant you the measure of everyone else. Sure.

Paulomycin said:

But if that were truly the case, then I wouldn't be reported all the time.

Click to expand...

People report you? [Sarcasm on]I would really have no idea why that would be so.[/Sarcasm off].

But trust me. I have never reported anyone in all my years on forums. Or put anyone on ignore.

Paulomycin said:

"what you did" <--What did I do?

Click to expand...

"I used to be an atheist myself."

Paulomycin said:

Is this going to start drifting into "No True Scotsman" territory?

That's what this ongoing thread is about, you know.

Click to expand...

No. Just dont think you know various random atheists on the internet as "friends" just because you held an atheist position once.

Hmm. Like I said, the hostility is distracting. And here we are, distracted! Imagine that. I really should endeavor to rise above tho.

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.

Click to expand...

Okay. But that's a straw man. Well, wait, it's not exactly a straw man. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty accurate description of a philosophy of Naturalism. And yeah, it requires faith, which is why I'm not a Naturalist. As far as atheism goes, though, it's a straw man. Naturalists are atheists. Not all atheists are Naturalists. Atheism is not a philosophy of life, the universe and everything. That's why there are things like Naturalism and Buddhism and Taoism and such. Yes, you can be an atheist Buddhist. They work quite well together. And Buddhists just do not fit your above description.

Think about what you're doing. You're chewing out the non-committal non-religious people for not being full-blown Naturalists, when you think full-blown Naturalists are dead wrong. We're too wishy washy. We have a lot of faith in not having faith, as if that makes any kind sense. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, who frequently vilified moderates (like me), even though he needed moderates to vote for his candidates. You shouldn't be driving the non-Naturalists to become full blown Naturalists. That's just counterproductive, unless you're actually a Naturalist in disguise.

Paulomycin said:

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?

Click to expand...

I am on topic. We're talking about proving a negative, I proved a negative. Furthermore, that was my negative claim, so your attempt at moving the goalposts isn't working.

Bradskii said:

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...

Click to expand...

You don't have to use the word "claim" for it to be a claim. Asserting a fact is a claim.

Bradskii said:

...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').

Click to expand...

Okay, so there are some things that can't be proven because I don't have access to the information. If you said, "I claim my car is red" then it's a positive claim I can't prove and the reason I can't prove it has nothing to do with the nature of the claim being positive or negative.

The "dragon in my garage" is more about disproving God, but remember the whole thing is that every time I attempt to make a proof about the existence of the dragon, you move the goal posts. "Well I don't see a dragon" "That's because he's invisible" "I don't feel a dragon" "That's because he's intangible" etc.