Lets face it...

[Davian]

What claim are you referencing ?

You don't remember?

 

[agua]

You don't remember?

How did the gecko cross the road. ( I must warn you that soon enough my post count will, well, vanish )

 

[Davian]

How did the gecko cross the road. ( I must warn you that soon enough my post count will, well, vanish )

...

The brand of atheism you present is definitely apologetic, of course.

In reference to what claim?

 

[agua]

. :d

 

[Chesterton]

Again, atheism makes no claims to defend, negating any requirements for apologetics.

A negative assertion is still a claim.

 

[Davian]

A negative assertion is still a claim.

Disbelief isn't.

 

[Chesterton]

Disbelief isn't.

If I disbelieve that moon landings happened I'm making a claim about the moon landings.

 

[TillICollapse]

If I disbelieve that moon landings happened I'm making a claim about the moon landings.

What claim would you be making other than stating your disbelief ?

 

[Chesterton]

What claim would you be making other than stating your disbelief ?

That landings didn't happen.

 

[TillICollapse]

That landings didn't happen.

That's a separate issue.

If I state I dislike pizza, that isn't making a positive claim concerning pizza specifically, it's stating something about my own self.

 

[Chesterton]

That's a separate issue.

If I state I dislike pizza, that isn't making a positive claim concerning pizza specifically, it's stating something about my own self.

I agree, disliking something is a separate issue, and I'm not talking about that issue.

 

[TillICollapse]

I agree, disliking something is a separate issue, and I'm not talking about that issue.

Stating you disbelieve the moon landing didn't happen, doesn't shift the burden of proof concerning the moon landing yet because you haven't made a positive claim concerning the moon landing. Stating the moon landings didn't happen shifts the burden of proof to you. Stating what one believes concerning a thing, isn't the same as asserting something concerning that thing.

 

[Chesterton]

Stating you disbelieve the moon landing didn't happen, doesn't shift the burden of proof concerning the moon landing yet because you haven't made a positive claim concerning the moon landing. Stating the moon landings didn't happen shifts the burden of proof to you. Stating what one believes concerning a thing, isn't the same as asserting something concerning that thing.

The only reason I can think of to disbelieve in God would be if I were to assert that there is no God. How could it be any other way?

 

[Davian]

The only reason I can think of to disbelieve in God would be if I were to assert that there is no God. How could it be any other way?

To me to assert that there is none of something, I would have to define that something that I am asserting does not exist. Are you prepared to accept my definition of "God"?

Try this: I have a number of coins in my pocket. Do you believe that the number of those coins is even, or odd?

 

[TillICollapse]

The only reason I can think of to disbelieve in God would be if I were to assert that there is no God. How could it be any other way?

What you believe or disbelieve, and why you believe or disbelieve it are two different things.

For example, if I disbelieve Stephanie, I'm not asserting anything concerning Stephanie. I'm not saying she's a liar, or untrustworthy, etc. I'm saying I disbelieve her. I haven't made a positive or negative claim concerning Stephanie. If Stephanie were to claim something, and I retorted with, "That's false," I'm now making a negative claim and burden of proof can shift. But that's not the same as saying, "I disbelieve."

Claiming one disbelieves in a deity, isn't the same as asserting there are no deities or that even the deity in question doesn't exist. It's a claim about a belief, or the lack of the belief. The REASON behind that lack of belief, or disbelief, is different from asserting something concerning the focus of the belief. For example, even amongst those who identify as atheist ... I have heard the argument before that the atheist who asserts there are no deities is the actual atheist, where as the one who merely claims a lack of belief but doesn't take the extra step and assert there are no deities is in actuality a variation of agnostic/ignostic/etc. Hence the terms positive/negative atheist (or hard/soft, etc).

If one were to disbelieve in a specific deity for example, one such person may disbelieve because they haven't seen sufficient evidence presented to warrant their belief. This isn't the same as asserting such a deity doesn't exist however. They aren't necessarily synonymous. One may be willing to change their position based on evidence presented.

It's an assumption, to assume that someone's lack of belief or disbelief implies certain assertions they *must* be making. Just because you can only link disbelief with asserting that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean everyone else does. Take the moon landing example again: if you were to say you disbelieved the moon landing happened, I could ask why not, and you may come back with, "Because it was erased from history by time traveling aliens. So it technically didn't happen." Or you could say, "Because it actually took place on a sound stage in Nevada," or "Because we actually landed on Mars, not the moon. They don't want you to realize we've made it to Mars." See the difference between asserting something and merely claiming disbelief in something ?

 

[Chesterton]

To me to assert that there is none of something, I would have to define that something that I am asserting does not exist. Are you prepared to accept my definition of "God"?

Yes obviously if you're going to say something about something, you need to know what the something is.

Try this: I have a number of coins in my pocket. Do you believe that the number of those coins is even, or odd?

I'm agnostic, of course. I have no belief due to complete lack of information.

 

[TillICollapse]

I'm agnostic, of course. I have no belief due to complete lack of information.

Which is one reason that's a good example. Your lack of belief isn't the same as asserting what the status of the coins are.

 

[Chesterton]

What you believe or disbelieve, and why you believe or disbelieve it are two different things.

For example, if I disbelieve Stephanie, I'm not asserting anything concerning Stephanie. I'm not saying she's a liar, or untrustworthy, etc. I'm saying I disbelieve her. I haven't made a positive or negative claim concerning Stephanie. If Stephanie were to claim something, and I retorted with, "That's false," I'm now making a negative claim and burden of proof can shift. But that's not the same as saying, "I disbelieve."

Claiming one disbelieves in a deity, isn't the same as asserting there are no deities or that even the deity in question doesn't exist. It's a claim about a belief, or the lack of the belief. The REASON behind that lack of belief, or disbelief, is different from asserting something concerning the focus of the belief. For example, even amongst those who identify as atheist ... I have heard the argument before that the atheist who asserts there are no deities is the actual atheist, where as the one who merely claims a lack of belief but doesn't take the extra step and assert there are no deities is in actuality a variation of agnostic/ignostic/etc. Hence the terms positive/negative atheist (or hard/soft, etc).

If one were to disbelieve in a specific deity for example, one such person may disbelieve because they haven't seen sufficient evidence presented to warrant their belief. This isn't the same as asserting such a deity doesn't exist however. They aren't necessarily synonymous. One may be willing to change their position based on evidence presented.

It's an assumption, to assume that someone's lack of belief or disbelief implies certain assertions they *must* be making. Just because you can only link disbelief with asserting that God doesn't exist, doesn't mean everyone else does. Take the moon landing example again: if you were to say you disbelieved the moon landing happened, I could ask why not, and you may come back with, "Because it was erased from history by time traveling aliens. So it technically didn't happen." Or you could say, "Because it actually took place on a sound stage in Nevada," or "Because we actually landed on Mars, not the moon. They don't want you to realize we've made it to Mars." See the difference between asserting something and merely claiming disbelief in something ?

Yes, the "why" for believing or disbelieving is a side issue. What I said is simply that a negative claim is a claim, regardless of the reasons for it.

 

[Chesterton]

Which is one reason that's a good example. Your lack of belief isn't the same as asserting what the status of the coins are.

Which is why I didn't say I'm atheist about the coins.

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes, the "why" for believing or disbelieving is a side issue. What I said is simply that a negative claim is a claim, regardless of the reasons for it.

But you conflated stating belief or disbelief with making a claim about the focus of the belief. That is not the same thing. A negative claim is a claim ... stating belief or disbelief is not a positive or negative claim.

Which is why I didn't say I'm atheist about the coins.

Yet the atheist stance isn't necessarily one making a negative claim. Hence the positive/negative and strong/hard. So appealing to the definition of atheist as though the term itself were a positive or negative claim falls flat.