Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God isn't practically needed as a starting point. If we want to understand something, it's generally about the world we live in, so we have to assume that our minds can represent something true about the world through our senses. If our senses are completely false all the time then we have no starting point.
Maybe the world doesn't exist somehow, or maybe it began 5 seconds ago, but if we want to learn anything about the world we appear to live in, we have to assume for now that our senses have some truth to them.
I will grant that some kind of reality of our senses is a reasonable basic belief. But I also think that some kind of basic belief about first cause can be a basic belief.
I have defined atheism properly:
atheism - definition of atheism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
The problem with speaking with atheists (which you assume I have not) is that they don't all agree on the definition in the first place.
I could quite easily mention some other forums I've been on the past couple of weeks which could clearly demonstrate this point about atheists/ definition of atheism...
Ok so this is your problem.
Strong atheism is basically incoherant and doesn't fit with your own definition of atheism anyway
Weak atheism is simply the absence of a belief, and makes no statement of the existence of God
Theism doesn't have this muddle; there is no weak and strong theism in any comparable sense to atheism. The terms do exist but weak theism is pretty much another name for deism as it refers to God's activity/ inactivity in the world..
I will grant that some kind of reality of our senses is a reasonable basic belief. But I also think that some kind of basic belief about first cause can be a basic belief. I don't think you could claim a fully developed theology about the nature of God is basic, but whether or not this cause is natural or supernatural seems valid as a basic belief.
I would say the "First Cause" qualifies as a basic belief, or is at least based on a basic concept.I will grant that some kind of reality of our senses is a reasonable basic belief. But I also think that some kind of basic belief about first cause can be a basic belief. I don't think you could claim a fully developed theology about the nature of God is basic, but whether or not this cause is natural or supernatural seems valid as a basic belief.
Questioning whether the universe exists or not is a valid question, but it leads to solipsism, which doesn't seem all that practical.That isn't a basic belief... that is just making stuff up for no reason. The idea that the universe needs a cause assumes that the universe exists and needs a cause... it is not basic then.
Even if all of this were true, what difference does it make? No matter how you want to define them, there's a group of people who don't believe in god(s). Playing word games with definitions isn't going to change that fact, nor is it going to somehow create a burden on them to produce evidence for someone else's belief. What do you hope to accomplish with this sort of semantic fiddling?
Who is doing the semantic fiddling though?
17 different kinds of atheism according the following article
17 Kinds of Atheism
Again, what is your point? Ok, say I'm not actually an atheist (I am, as it is those who hold the label who primarily get to define it) but say I'm a <foo>ist instead.
My actual stance hasn't changed. I don't think there is any compelling evidence for the existence of God (which, yet again, does not equate to a positive claim that there is no god), and you do. The most expedient way to resolve this for everyone is for you, the person making the positive claim, to present the best piece of evidence.
Definitions:
Atheism believing there is no God or gods
Theism belief in the existence of God or gods
Common objection to theism:
Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"
Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?
Surely the absolute claim of alpha theos/ "no god" has to be a claim of some kind of knowledge in order to support or substantiate this claim? Just as much as the claim that there IS a god is likewise a claim to knowledge?
As this is the case , then surely both propositions require just as much justification as each other?
Is it therefore not a fallacy to hold position A and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to position T?
If it is not then atheism cannot be understood correctly as "believing there is no god. " and should instead be understood as "not believing that there is a God" - which is merely a lack of knowledge something that infants and animals also share, and only deals with beliefs rather than whether something (God) actually exists or not..
Again, what is your point? Ok, say I'm not actually an atheist (I am, as it is those who hold the label who primarily get to define it) but say I'm a <foo>ist instead.
My actual stance hasn't changed. I don't think there is any compelling evidence for the existence of God (which, yet again, does not equate to a positive claim that there is no god), and you do. The most expedient way to resolve this for everyone is for you, the person making the positive claim, to present the best piece of evidence.
The fact that you would rather faff around with definitions and try and make out that atheists are engaging in fallacy suggests that maybe you don't have actual confidence in the evidence and are trying to just lawyer your way into a stronger position.
Definitions:
Atheism believing there is no God or gods
Theism belief in the existence of God or gods
Common objection to theism:
Theist: "God exists - there is sufficient evidence and therefore sufficient reason to believe that this is true. (Some may add to this something like "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does".)"
Atheist: "You are the making the assertion that God exists, therefore the burden of proof lies is on you to demonstrate that this is true"
Is position A correct to shift the burden of proof here?
Who is doing the semantic fiddling though?
17 different kinds of atheism according the following article
17 Kinds of Atheism
What I have had confirmed to me on this thread and on other forums is that conveniently it might seem, the definition of atheism has evolved (or drifted as you put it) over time.
It doesn't even warrant sensible dialogue or necessity of burden of proof with theism primarily because their starting points aren't opposites - they're dealing with totally different things in reality..
Questioning whether the universe exists or not is a valid question, but it leads to solipsism, which doesn't seem all that practical.
So assuming we are not heads in jars for practical purposes at this moment (or that, if we are, we will still be a head in a jar in the next 5 minutes) ..
I would say that the "First Cause" concept is a basic one, as it's an example of a person's basic understanding of cause and effect and a conclusion one might come to, or, at the very least, question. Notice I didn't say anything about facts or proofs, or "needs" or questioning the existence of reality itself. Only that I think it qualifies as a basic belief.
A child often asks where something came from ... then you answer them, and they ask, "Well where did THAT come from ?" and it goes on and on. This is an example of a person's ability to try and understand basic concepts, and whatever they conclude based on their basic understanding of concepts ... one could label as a "basic belief". Basic questions may yield basic conclusions which would qualify as basic beliefs. It doesn't mean they are correct or not.
Regardless of what you believe about "Uncaused Causes" and "First Causes", causality itself is a basic premise for understanding the classical universe. I would say this is basic. Coming up with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and other implications of causality or attempts to define it with "laws", are arguably not basic ... but the assumption of causality on a classic scale is pretty basic. I may argue that attempting to understand causality is one of the first things humans often stumble upon as they begin to reason and question the world around them, but I have no sources to quote other than children themselves lol.
I'm not sure if we are meaning different things or not ... I jumped into a conversation I wasn't part of, so it's possible I could be talking out of turn or context.I think we might be meaning different things. Questioning where everything came from makes sense... claiming you know where the universe came from just because you decided to make up an answer isn't justified.
Making up an answer, in my opinion, would look something more like this:
"The universe came from Chuck Norris who, trapped in a time loop, mated with a blue banther while eating Cargo Cult marshmallows."
Huh? Theists believe at least one god exists, and that's the opposite of atheists.
I haven't seen anything in the thread which points to this conclusion.
Oops lolI guess my new Marshmallow Cargo Cult is doomed before it even gets going now. Thanks very much...
That isn't a basic belief... that is just making stuff up for no reason. The idea that the universe needs a cause assumes that the universe exists and needs a cause... it is not basic then.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?