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

Paulomycin · Apr 28, 2021

Moral Orel said:
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.

The actual topic is, "Would you ever accept the burden of proof for atheism?"

I have never encountered an atheist who was willing to take on the burden of proof for their negative claim, and you are continuing to fail to deliver on that claim, as predicted.

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

Moral Orel said:
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.

That's exactly right. It's that form of claim, like Russell's orbiting teapot, that's not possible to prove. 'There is no teapot orbiting Uranus (planet selected to allow for schoolboy humour)'. You're kinda screwed in that case.

And let's throw some sand in the gearbox: 'I don't believe in God' is a positive claim (Paulo thinks it's negative but good luck convincing him of that). It's not a claim about God but about belief. And cannot be proved, only affirmed. As in 'No, really. I don't'.

But 'God doen't exist' is a negative claim (as per the dragon and the teapot) about God. And can't be proved. And I've yet to see an atheist in this forum making such a claim. But there's time yet...

LockeeDeck · Apr 28, 2021

Paulomycin said:
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'm confused, you are claiming that your god exists and are asking for proof that he doesn't?
Or are you asking for proof that all possible gods don't exist?

Moral Orel · Apr 28, 2021

Paulomycin said:
I have never encountered an atheist who was willing to take on the burden of proof for their negative claim, and you are continuing to fail to deliver on that claim, as predicted.

What are you talking about? I am an atheist, I made a negative claim (my negative claim) and I proved it.

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

^ That's my (the atheist's) negative claim.

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

Paulomycin said:
The actual topic is, "Would you ever accept the burden of proof for atheism?"

I have never encountered an atheist who was willing to take on the burden of proof for their negative claim, and you are continuing to fail to deliver on that claim, as predicted.

Bradskii gets a G and T, settles in, takes a deep breath and types...

'I am an atheist' is a positive claim. All OK? Good...we'll move on.
'I am an atheist' is another way of saying 'I don't believe in God'. The meaning of each sentance is EXACTLY THE SAME. Someone who 'is an atheist' is someone who 'doesn't believe in God'. The second phrase is actually the definition of the first. If someone said 'Jim-Bob said he's an atheist. What does he mean?', we can literally say that 'Jim-Bob doesn't believe in God'. All good? Probably not, but we'll move on...

If I say 'I am an atheist' and you say 'Prove it!' then all I can do is reitterate what I just said and try to convince you that it's true: 'Honest. I really am. Trust me'. Note that any concept of God is not being discussed. All that's on the table at this moment is whether I actually do really believe what I said. NOT why I said it.

Ipso facto, the exact same thing applies to the exact same way of saying that exact same thing we just looked at. That is: 'I don't believe in God'. If I say that and you say 'Prove it!' then all I can do is reitterate what I just said and try to convince you that it's true: 'Honest. I really don't. Trust me'. And again, note that any concept of God is not being discussed. All that's on the table at this moment is whether I actually do really believe what I said. NOT why I said it.

I hope that's clear. But I'm expecting to have to Whack-A-Mole and answer half a dozen points brought up by that one simple concept. And not that anyone's interested but I went for Una Paloma as opposed to a G and T (recipe on request).

Moral Orel · Apr 28, 2021

Bradskii said:
That's exactly right. It's that form of claim, like Russell's orbiting teapot, that's not possible to prove. 'There is no teapot orbiting Uranus (planet selected to allow for schoolboy humour)'. You're kinda screwed in that case.

It isn't about the form it's about the topic. The topic of these claims makes disproving them impossible.

Bradskii said:
And let's throw some sand in the gearbox: 'I don't believe in God' is a positive claim (Paulo thinks it's negative but good luck convincing him of that). It's not a claim about God but about belief. And cannot be proved, only affirmed. As in 'No, really. I don't'.

But 'God doen't exist' is a negative claim (as per the dragon and the teapot) about God. And can't be proved. And I've yet to see an atheist in this forum making such a claim. But there's time yet...

Sorry, chum, but "negative claim" is defined much more arbitrarily than that. If it's a claim that contains a negative (i.e. "not" or "no" or "none") then it's a negative claim.

Just to demonstrate the arbitrariness, look at these two claims which have identical meanings:

I am a man. <--Positive claim
I am not not a man. <--Negative claim

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

Moral Orel said:
Sorry, chum, but "negative claim" is defined much more arbitrarily than that. If it's a claim that contains a negative (i.e. "not" or "no" or "none") then it's a negative claim.

We'll agree to disagree on this.

If there is a cat in the box and I say 'there is a cat in the box' it's a positive claim (if we skip the subtleties between claims and statements.
If the box is empty and I say 'there is no cat in the box' it's also a positive claim, exactly the same as saying 'the box is empty'. Even though the sentance contains a negative.

In either case we can prove the claim by simply opening the box. Therefore both are positive claims. Which can, by definition, be proved. As opposed to 'There is no cat orbitting Uranus'. What's the equivalent way of saying that there is no cat in orbit that we could prove? There isn't one. Hence...it's negative.

Moral Orel · Apr 28, 2021

Bradskii said:
We'll agree to disagree on this.

You Can Prove a Negative

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

Moral Orel said:
You Can Prove a Negative

Read that. But it's not relative to what we are discussing (not that it nevates anything I've posted so far).

Going back to my cat-in-the-box example. You can easily prove there is no cat in the box. Because it's a positive claim and we can just open the box to check. But if I say 'Ah, but it's an invisible cat' then all bets are off. It's like the flood thread when you ask how the 'roos got to and from Australia and the answer is that God teleported them back and forth. At which point, anybtalk about negative or positive claims of validity of statements etc go out of the nearest window.

Because what we're talking about re positive and negative claims are claims that at least have the potential to BE proved. As in 'open the box and have a look'. Once we get to teleported kangaroos, invisible cats and magic dragons then we're all wasting out time. Let's head to the bar and talk about sport instead.

Moral Orel · Apr 28, 2021

Bradskii said:
Read that. But it's not relative to what we are discussing (not that it nevates anything I've posted so far).

How is it not relative? I thought we were discussing what a negative claim is. You said that this is a positive claim: "There is no cat in the box". That's a negative claim. You are claiming the absence or exclusion of something (by using the word "no") therefore it's a negative claim.

Bradskii said:
If the box is empty and I say 'there is no cat in the box' it's also a positive claim, exactly the same as saying 'the box is empty'. Even though the sentance contains a negative.

Bradskii said:
As opposed to 'There is no cat orbitting Uranus'. What's the equivalent way of saying that there is no cat in orbit that we could prove? There isn't one. Hence...it's negative.

If these are equivalent:

There is no cat in the box.
The box is empty.

Then these are equivalent:

There is no cat orbiting Uranus.
The orbits around Uranus are empty.

The only difference between the claim "There is no cat in the box" and "There is no cat in orbit around Uranus" is the amount of space you would have to search looking for a cat. They are both negative claims. That we are incapable of searching the massive area of space that a cat could possibly orbit Uranus has no effect on the form of the claim.

Bradskii said:
But if I say 'Ah, but it's an invisible cat' then all bets are off. It's like the flood thread when you ask how the 'roos got to and from Australia and the answer is that God teleported them back and forth. At which point, anybtalk about negative or positive claims of validity of statements etc go out of the nearest window.

Because what we're talking about re positive and negative claims are claims that at least have the potential to BE proved. As in 'open the box and have a look'. Once we get to teleported kangaroos, invisible cats and magic dragons then we're all wasting out time. Let's head to the bar and talk about sport instead.

Meh, I'll have more fun speculating about imaginary things than talking sport. Frinstance, I love unicorns, and my friends all say that's "gay". But think about it. They have a weapon on their head and chicks dig them. What could be more manly than loving unicorns?

But seriously. What are your actual definitions for "positive claim" and "negative claim" and can I have a citation please?

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

Moral Orel said:
If these are equivalent:

There is no cat in the box.
The box is empty.

Then these are equivalent:

There is no cat orbiting Uranus.
The orbits around Uranus are empty.

The only difference between the claim "There is no cat in the box" and "There is no cat in orbit around Uranus" is the amount of space you would have to search looking for a cat.

But seriously. What are your actual definitions for "positive claim" and "negative claim" and can I have a citation please?

They aren't equivalent because in the first instance we just look in the box to confirm the statement that there's no cat there. In the second, it's virtually impossible. Logically impossible? No. But I'm talking practicalities here. If we get sometjing equivalent to the following, then all bets are off.

'I just checked literally everywhere'
'Ah, but it slips in and out of existence'.

That's a negative that you're never going to prove. And those are the ones I'm talking about. Dragons, unicorns, teapots and God. At which point most theists will complain that there's so much more evidence for God. Only showing that they weren't following the argument in the first place.

Kylie · Apr 28, 2021

Paulomycin said:
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.

It depends on what kind of atheism.

If someone says that God definitely doesn't exist, then they are making a positive claim - Such and such is definitely the case. This claim needs to be supported.

However, many atheists, including me, do not state our atheism in this way. I would say that I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me that God exists, and without such evidence I see no reason to believe in God. Since this position is NOT a positive claim, then the burden of proof does not rest on an atheist who has this position.

Bradskii · Apr 28, 2021

Kylie said:
It depends on what kind of atheism.

If someone says that God definitely doesn't exist, then they are making a positive claim - Such and such is definitely the case. This claim needs to be supported.

However, many atheists, including me, do not state our atheism in this way.

And we still haven't had one, Kylie. I don't think that they exist on this forum.

Kylie · Apr 28, 2021

Bradskii said:
And we still haven't had one, Kylie. I don't think that they exist on this forum.

You mean atheists who claim that God definitely doesn't exist? I haven't seen any of those either.

Gene Parmesan · Apr 28, 2021

You can't disprove all Gods. Even if you went down the list of every known deity and managed to absolutely disprove each one, you couldn't know if there was some non-intervening god(s) simply observing nature take its course. That kind of deity, by definition, could not be proven or disproven to exist.

Lion IRC · Apr 30, 2021

If the quasi-atheist who thinks there's a very low probability that God (gods) is (are) real, has no burden to shoulder, why does their theist counterpart?

Youre saying no true atheist asserts absolutely the non-existence of God. Why can't I squib it too and throw up a disclaimer of my own that I dont absolutely assert God as a fact?

And we can all live happily ever after, using the correct word by calling ourselves agnostics.

Moral Orel · Apr 30, 2021

Lion IRC said:
And we can all live happily ever after, using the correct word by calling ourselves agnostics.

You don't know for sure, but you hold the belief that God is real. I don't know for sure, but I don't hold the belief that God is real.

"I know for sure" = gnostic.
"I don't know for sure" = agnostic.
"I believe" = theist.
"I do not believe" = atheist.

So yeah, we're both agnostic. But we differ because you hold a belief I don't, and that's where the other terminology comes into play. "Agnostic" isn't sufficient to describe ourselves in this context. So you're an agnostic theist, and I'm an agnostic atheist.

Kylie · Apr 30, 2021

Lion IRC said:
If the quasi-atheist who thinks there's a very low probability that God (gods) is (are) real, has no burden to shoulder, why does their theist counterpart?

Youre saying no true atheist asserts absolutely the non-existence of God. Why can't I squib it too and throw up a disclaimer of my own that I dont absolutely assert God as a fact?

And we can all live happily ever after, using the correct word by calling ourselves agnostics.

So you are willing to change your mind? What evidence would compel you to do so?

BTW, the term agnostic doesn't technically refer to someone who is undecided. It refers to someone who does not claim to know. I am, for example, an agnostic atheist, in that I have no belief in God, but I don't claim to know for a fact that God doesn't exist.

And no, I never said (nor do I recall anyone else saying) that no true atheist would claim absolutely the non-existence of God. If the person lacked belief in God, they would be an atheist, even if they claimed to know it for a fact. They would be a gnostic atheist.

Gene Parmesan · Apr 30, 2021

Lion IRC said:
If the quasi-atheist who thinks there's a very low probability that God (gods) is (are) real, has no burden to shoulder, why does their theist counterpart?

In another universe, there is a man named Gary who speaks to you and that's what your conscious is. We all have a Gary out there.

Do you feel at all compelled to bare the burden of proof of my claim? Or should I provide some proof before you are bothered to consider it?

durangodawood · May 4, 2021

Lion IRC said:
...Why can't I squib it too and throw up a disclaimer of my own that I dont absolutely assert God as a fact?...

Of course you can do that. If you dont assert that God is real, then there's no claim to support or prove.

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.

Well-Known Member

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

Active Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

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

Proud Citizen of Moralton

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

Proud Citizen of Moralton

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

Proud Citizen of Moralton

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

Defeater of Illogic

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

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Dis Member

Similar threads