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

[Yttrium]

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

Yes. I don't consider myself to be atheist. Frankly, I prefer your definition. The "soft" atheism definition overlaps with other things like agnostic too much. Frankly, the definition for agnostic can be wonky too, with a "hard" agnostic making a knowledge claim, and a "soft" agnostic being someone who just doesn't know.

I would have preferred to list my faith as "N/A". It would be the most accurate. Lacking that option, I settled for skeptic, since I've always been skeptical, leaving me hoping that there isn't some old philosophic definition of skeptic that would conflict with my views.

 

[Paulomycin]

Loaded Question Fallacy. It assumes atheists made a claim.

Oh, so now it's not a claim at all. Very contradictory. When will you commit to any position?

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.

Which would make it a negative claim. lol.

Burden of proof applies when claims are made.

Which are positive and not negative. You really had me going for awhile there.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yes. I don't consider myself to be atheist. Frankly, I prefer your definition.

I honestly didn't realize I even had a definition of atheism. Did I appear to confidently claim there was one?

I'm already fairly aware that, for the atheist, the word means anything they want it to mean to gain advantage over theistic arguments.

 

[Moral Orel]

Loaded Question Fallacy. It assumes atheists made a claim.

Oh, so now it's not a claim at all. Very contradictory. When will you commit to any position?

Loaded Question Fallacy. It assumes my position is inconsistent. When did I ever say that atheism is a claim? Quote me.

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.

Which would make it a negative claim. lol.

Wrong. The absence of a claim is not a negative claim.

Burden of proof applies when claims are made.

Which are positive and not negative. You really had me going for awhile there.

Now you're denying that negative claims even exist?! Dude, you're all over the place.

 

[Paulomycin]

Loaded Question Fallacy. It assumes my position is inconsistent. When did I ever say that atheism is a claim? Quote me.

That's why I used the term "negative claim." I got it from some very reliable and intelligent atheists. It's much more coherent that way. All claims are either positive or negative, depending on the wording.

You just hate communicating.

 

[Yttrium]

I honestly didn't realize I even had a definition of atheism. Did I appear to confidently claim there was one?

It's the note in the OP. You're saying that atheism makes a negative claim regarding theism. Theism is a belief in God or gods. A negative claim would deny the existence of a god or gods. This is "hard" atheism. (As opposed to "soft" atheism, which does not have a claim about theism, and simply lacks a belief about a god or gods.)

 

[Paulomycin]

It's the note in the OP. You're saying that atheism makes a negative claim regarding theism. Theism is a belief in God or gods. A negative claim would deny the existence of a god or gods. This is "hard" atheism. (As opposed to "soft" atheism, which does not have a claim about theism, and simply lacks a belief about a god or gods.)

"Lack" is lexically ambiguous.

NOUN

1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

^ Please do not try to claim this is more than one definition. It is definition #1. Not #2, which even has the same ambiguous "or" in it. Clizby already tried that with me.

And since atheists have been trying to pull this one on me for years, it's deliberately ambiguous. That's why so many atheists prefer it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Loaded Question Fallacy. It assumes atheists made a claim.

Oh, so now it's not a claim at all. Very contradictory. When will you commit to any position?

Loaded Question Fallacy. It assumes my position is inconsistent. When did I ever say that atheism is a claim? Quote me.

That's why I used the term "negative claim." I got it from some very reliable and intelligent atheists. It's much more coherent that way. All claims are either positive or negative, depending on the wording.

You just hate communicating.

Quote me making a claim (positive or negative) about the existence of god(s).

 

[Paulomycin]

You're going to need to find an atheist who actually makes a claim (I personally don't).

^ That there is a negative claim that you didn't make a claim.

But at the same time you fight as-if you were making a claim.

 

[Paulomycin]

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.

I accept the burden of proof. So it's not an issue for me. Atheists never know the difference between burden of proof vs. burden of refutation.

 

[Paulomycin]

Quote me making a claim (positive or negative) about the existence of god(s).

Direct quote:

My claim about the existence of god(s) is the following: "". Which is not a claim.

^ Claiming that this is not a claim is in-fact a claim that this is not a claim.

 

[Moral Orel]

Quote me making a claim (positive or negative) about the existence of god(s).

Direct quote:

Wrong. "Nor can there be" is a negative claim in my words. My claim about the existence of god(s) is the following: "". Which is not a claim.

^ Claiming that this is not a claim is in-fact a claim that this is not a claim.

That's a claim about what I have claimed. Now quote me making a claim about the existence of god(s).

 

[Paulomycin]

That's a claim about what I have claimed. Now quote me making a claim about the existence of god(s).

lol. You're skimming past your own statements now.

My claim about the existence of god(s) is the following: "". Which is not a claim.

^ Claiming that this is not a claim is in-fact a claim that this is not a claim.

 

[Moral Orel]

My claim about the existence of god(s) is the following: "". Which is not a claim.

^ Claiming that this is not a claim is in-fact a claim that this is not a claim.

My claim about the existence of god(s) is only what is within the quotation marks. Is there anything in between those quotation marks?

 

[Paulomycin]

My claim about the existence of god(s) is only what is within the quotation marks. Is there anything in between those quotation marks?

Then you're being deliberately incoherent with your own syntax errors.

 

[Paulomycin]

My claim about the existence of god(s) is only what is within the quotation marks. Is there anything in between those quotation marks?

Here you go. . .

Quotation Marks: How To Use Them Correctly (With Examples) | Grammarly

 

[Moral Orel]

Then you're being deliberately incoherent with your own syntax errors.

Nope. I'm showing you the absence of a claim.

Hey, can we keep this to one thread? Stop arguing this exact same thing in the other thread.

 

[Bradskii]

^ That there is a negative claim that you didn't make a claim.

But at the same time you fight as-if you were making a claim.

Actually it's a statement about what I haven't done. Don't use schoolyard arguments here. We're all adults expecting a reasonable disussion.

And what I generally do is debate the strength of evidence put forward by those making claims.

 

[Bradskii]

Claiming that this is not a claim is in-fact a claim that this is not a claim.

Oh, good grief...this is positively Pythonesque. Please cease and desist.

 

[Paulomycin]

Actually it's a statement about what I haven't done.

Still a statement. <-- Which, when not stated in a negative sense is a positive claim.

And what I generally do is debate the strength of evidence put forward by those making claims.

Via pure subjective doubt. I'm well aware of that.