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

[Paulomycin]

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.

 

[Yttrium]

If a claim of existence or non-existence is made, then it needs to be backed up.

"There is life on Mars." - Requires firm evidence of the existence of life on Mars.

"There is no life on Mars." - Requires firm evidence of the non-existence of life on Mars. Good luck with that.

Without proof, a firm belief in either case is made on faith. We're comfortable that the second claim isn't going to be proven any time soon, because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It's an empty claim. We do expect the person making the first claim to come up with evidence, because it's a positive claim. You can hardly expect everybody else to jump to the belief without hard evidence.

If someone claims "there is no pink unicorn", well, that's a pretty safe bet, but it's still an empty claim. You can't scour the universe to prove that there is no pink unicorn anywhere. BUT on the other hand, you can strongly doubt a claim of the existence of a pink unicorn until firm evidence of one is provided.

 

[durangodawood]

....Atheism is a negative claim.....

What exactly is the atheist claim in question here?

 

[Paulomycin]

What exactly is the atheist claim in question here?

Implying a distinction. Go on.

 

[durangodawood]

Implying a distinction. Go on.

I'm asking what claim you are inquiring about.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

I don't feel like your two options properly cover the scope of the question.

A positive atheist assertion "There are no gods" seems totally impossible to prove.

We don't even have complete knowledge of the physical universe, so making statements about something that caused or is in some way outside that seems impossible.

You can't use logic or evidence to demonstrate things that aren't bound by them.

So while I'm personally basically convinced that gods don't exist, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't only really demonstrate a soft atheistic position.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm asking what claim you are inquiring about.

What is the implied distinction?

 

[Paulomycin]

I don't feel like your two options properly cover the scope of the question.

A positive atheist assertion "There are no gods" seems totally impossible to prove.

We don't even have complete knowledge of the physical universe, so making statements about something that caused or is in some way outside that seems impossible.

You can't use logic or evidence to demonstrate things that aren't bound by them.

So while I'm personally basically convinced that gods don't exist, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I can't only really demonstrate a soft atheistic position.

So why can't you choose "no?"

 

[Paulomycin]

OP edited for clarification.

 

[durangodawood]

What is the implied distinction?

Doesnt matter. Its your poll with your terms. "The atheist claim" means what exactly for the purpose of your poll?

(Not trying to be awkward. Just want to respond to your poll before spinning out in a bunch of different directions.)

 

[Shemjaza]

So why can't you choose "no?"

I can't because atheism can be, and often is, a positive claim. It's just not possible to prove.

Our beliefs have the personal advantage that an atheist's life isn't changed by how much certainty and conviction they have about existence or non existence of gods.

 

[Yttrium]

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.

So your definition of "atheist" is essentially "someone who claims that no gods exist". Well, that's pretty much the popular definition. I for one am not interested in debating the actual meaning of the words "atheism" or "atheist". I'm certainly not an atheist by your definition.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

both claims cannot be supported by the demands of science because science cannot "see" God. The space-time continuum is the vacuum science operates under. The idea of God however would not only pre-exist the continuum but also be the creator of it so the rub is inside the vacuum God cannot be measured or observed ergo the positive and negative claims are equally unprovable. The best we can say in science is God both exists and does not exist at the same time, a sort of Schrodinger's God.

claims like the GSM are based on the observable and measurable and well within the sandbox of science. Although we cannot definitively say the GSM does not exist we can say it is possible to prove/disprove the existence of the GSM through science because it falls under its jurisdiction however we cannot say the same for God as God is outside of science.

Hate or love him I think Jordan Peterson puts it the most consistent way for theists saying "I act as if God exists and I'm terrified that he might". Jordan knows he can't prove God and he knows how inconsistent it is for him to say there is a God. Rather he seemingly states paradoxically from an agnostic perspective that his actions are motivated by a theistic concept and through that, it's a sobering reality that if commitment should follow belief how truly impossible it is to believe in God.

 

[Moral Orel]

See poll.

Loaded Question Fallacy. It assumes atheists made a claim. I am without belief in a god, therefore I am an atheist. Burden of proof applies when claims are made. I make no claims about things I am without belief in.

 

[Moral Orel]

The case for theism would have a lot more credibility without all of these repeated attempts to justify using the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

 

[Paulomycin]

Doesnt matter. Its your poll with your terms. "The atheist claim" means what exactly for the purpose of your poll?

(Not trying to be awkward. Just want to respond to your poll before spinning out in a bunch of different directions.)

You're not trying to be awkward at all, you are awkwardly trying to entrap me. Now then, please post the available options of "meaning" that I have to choose from. I'm sensing a "gotcha" with a lecture attached. So I'm invoking my rights. I don't know what you believe and it's not even my job to define atheism for you. What's worse is that even if I tried, I'd get a dozen follow-up objections from atheists to make the term even more ambiguous than it actually is.

So give me the list of available meanings and we can move on from there. Otherwise, I can only conclude you don't even know what atheism means. You are in no way obligated to answer further, or even participate.

 

[Paulomycin]

I can't because atheism can be, and often is, a positive claim. It's just not possible to prove.

That really looks like a "no" vote to me.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

You're going to need to find an atheist who actually makes a claim (I personally don't). I hope one turns because I'd like to see how he or she answers the poll.

 

[Paulomycin]

So your definition of "atheist" is essentially "someone who claims that no gods exist". Well, that's pretty much the popular definition. I for one am not interested in debating the actual meaning of the words "atheism" or "atheist". I'm certainly not an atheist by your definition.

Ambiguous definitions and equivocations are easier to fool people with. Or to fool yourself.

 

[Paulomycin]

both claims cannot be supported by the demands of science because science cannot "see" God. The space-time continuum is the vacuum science operates under. The idea of God however would not only pre-exist the continuum but also be the creator of it so the rub is inside the vacuum God cannot be measured or observed ergo the positive and negative claims are equally unprovable. The best we can say in science is God both exists and does not exist at the same time, a sort of Schrodinger's God.

claims like the GSM are based on the observable and measurable and well within the sandbox of science. Although we cannot definitively say the GSM does not exist we can say it is possible to prove/disprove the existence of the GSM through science because it falls under its jurisdiction however we cannot say the same for God as God is outside of science.

Hate or love him I think Jordan Peterson puts it the most consistent way for theists saying "I act as if God exists and I'm terrified that he might". Jordan knows he can't prove God and he knows how inconsistent it is for him to say there is a God. Rather he seemingly states paradoxically from an agnostic perspective that his actions are motivated by a theistic concept and through that, it's a sobering reality that if commitment should follow belief how truly impossible it is to believe in God.

Not all theists are fideists.