The burden of proof fallacy?

[ThinkForYourself]

... "Oh, I'm not that type of atheist." ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't atheism simply mean not believing in the existence of god.

In terms that definition, wouldn't the burden of proof be on those claiming there is a god?

 

[Received]

I don't know where you're quoting me from. Which post?

 

[Received]

Nm, got it now.

My point in that post is that, yes, linguistically atheism means not believing in God, but based on the philosophical identifiers that are considered by many people (see the video) as intrinsic to "atheism", no, atheism doesn't just mean (for these people) "not believing in God."

 

[Gadarene]

But there seems to be at least a stance among many atheists (particularly if not exclusively the "new atheist" crowd) for where "atheism" implies positive stuff, particularly reason. This is why this type of atheism has a freaking commercial dedicated to it:

*snip*

Reason, logic, knowledge. Those are definitely positive stances identified with their brand of atheism. And it's not that this brand of atheism just popped up right before this commercial was made, or even before Dawkins et al. made a move on the world.

What really goes with this atheism? Logical positivism, scientism, materialism, a post-enlightenment value of reason over action, just knowing things. These are very much positive identifiers, and they very much represent a group of people who adhere to the atheist label.

So while I think that honest atheists stand for a negative position (not believing in God, the rest is relative to the individual), I think that at least lately a large swath of the population has taken atheism to almost religious levels in terms of its unswerving faith to the positive identifiers mentioned above.

Non sequitur on whether they are negative or not. What do they actually claim? An ad with a few terms in it still doesn't mean they aren't negative atheists.

It's possible to be certain about a lack of currently available evidence

Again, even with the atheist everyone loves to bring up - Richard Dawkins - and Christians love to paint him as this ardent arch-atheist that we're all supposed to be in thrall to - he is still a NEGATIVE atheist. If you read TGD, that's his actual stance.

So no, I don't buy this idea that confident promotion, or a particular swing in atheism formulated in a particular way = an implied positive atheistic stance.

Positive atheism is still only referring to one's nonbelief in deities, and nothing else. One can push the fact of a current lack of evidence for a particular claim quite hard while still retaining the possibility that the situation might change in the future. I'm against alternative therapies being promoted in our healthcare system that don't have any clinical evidence validating them, for example. I'm very against them being used until that happens - but I'm not claiming that will never happen.

And also notice the peculiar thing that happens when you start separating yourself from this crowd of atheists. "Oh, I'm not that type of atheist." Well, what does that mean? What other type is there? By definition you've moved into a type, a positive identifier, if nothing else than "I'm not that type of atheist." We have to be very careful, I guess, with how we even remove ourselves from the positive atheists to adhere to the honest definition you've espoused.

It's true that the outspoken, reason+logic based form of atheism is more common than it used to be, or at least more outspoken!

But I think there's something you're not considering here. I've clashed with a few people who want movement atheism to be about more than just atheism, and I've encountered atheists here and elsewhere who are very different from me politically, philosophically, and in how they construct their morality. Yet, despite all those differences (some of them quite acrimonious, particularly with the feminist atheist crowd O_O):

I've never once seen an atheist tell me or any other atheist in the vicinity that they're not an atheist.

And I hate to come across as singling you lot out, but......contrasting that with the number of times I was accused of not being Christian when I was a Christian, I don't think atheism has any kind of labelling crisis at all. Or at least, if it does, it is doing pretty well with it compared to other groups.

This is of course an advantage with taking a stance that is comparatively simple in form, rather than being an entire worldview.

The problem still seems to me to be that Christians expect there to be far more positive atheists than they actually are. I've not been an atheist for very long, but positive atheists seem to be pretty rare beasts indeed. It seems to me they may even be a minority now (assuming they ever were). To keep insisting and insisting that more positive atheists should exist when they don't is like insisiting that Christians should be predominantly Anabaptist. It simply isn't so - and I notice they keep insisting there be more of the type of atheist that are making the same sorts of claim as they are.

 

[bhsmte]

Non sequitur on whether they are negative or not. What do they actually claim? An ad with a few terms in it still doesn't mean they aren't negative atheists.

It's possible to be certain about a lack of currently available evidence

Again, even with the atheist everyone loves to bring up - Richard Dawkins - and Christians love to paint him as this ardent arch-atheist that we're all supposed to be in thrall to - he is still a NEGATIVE atheist. If you read TGD, that's his actual stance.

So no, I don't buy this idea that confident promotion, or a particular swing in atheism formulated in a particular way = an implied positive atheistic stance.

Positive atheism is still only referring to one's nonbelief in deities, and nothing else. One can push the fact of a current lack of evidence for a particular claim quite hard while still retaining the possibility that the situation might change in the future. I'm against alternative therapies being promoted in our healthcare system that don't have any clinical evidence validating them, for example. I'm very against them being used until that happens - but I'm not claiming that will never happen.

It's true that the outspoken, reason+logic based form of atheism is more common than it used to be, or at least more outspoken!

But I think there's something you're not considering here. I've clashed with a few people who want movement atheism to be about more than just atheism, and I've encountered atheists here and elsewhere who are very different from me politically, philosophically, and in how they construct their morality. Yet, despite all those differences (some of them quite acrimonious, particularly with the feminist atheist crowd O_O):

I've never once seen an atheist tell me or any other atheist in the vicinity that they're not an atheist.

And I hate to come across as singling you lot out, but......contrasting that with the number of times I was accused of not being Christian when I was a Christian, I don't think atheism has any kind of labelling crisis at all. Or at least, if it does, it is doing pretty well with it compared to other groups.

This is of course an advantage with taking a stance that is comparatively simple in form, rather than being an entire worldview.

The problem still seems to me to be that Christians expect there to be far more positive atheists than they actually are. I've not been an atheist for very long, but positive atheists seem to be pretty rare beasts indeed. It seems to me they may even be a minority now (assuming they ever were). To keep insisting and insisting that more positive atheists should exist when they don't is like insisiting that Christians should be predominantly Anabaptist. It simply isn't so - and I notice they keep insisting there be more of the type of atheist that are making the same sorts of claim as they are.

Extremely well said Gadarene!

I believe one thing that bothers some christians, is that atheists and agnostics are more willing to go public with their views, even though there exists negative social stigma to being a non-believer, at least in the United States, but much less so in other countries.

A christian can have all sorts of different world views and atheists can have many different world views. The atheist, just doesn't share the one world view that a christian does, that a God exists.

 

[Gadarene]

A christian can have all sorts of different world views and atheists can have many different world views. The atheist, just doesn't share the one world view that a christian does, that a God exists.

Well, I don't think you can really say it's a case of just one worldview less - the Christian worldview is a total one, it is envisaged as covering every aspect of their life.

Atheism is the exact opposite. It's basically little more than a "nah" to all of that.

I just think it's something many of them aren't going to be as used to processing, given that the stances are so different.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Nm, got it now.

My point in that post is that, yes, linguistically atheism means not believing in God, but based on the philosophical identifiers that are considered by many people (see the video) as intrinsic to "atheism", no, atheism doesn't just mean (for these people) "not believing in God."

Got it!

Well, hopefully those people realize what atheism means, and that atheists are as unique as Christians.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I don't think you can really say it's a case of just one worldview less - the Christian worldview is a total one, it is envisaged as covering every aspect of their life.

Atheism is the exact opposite. It's basically little more than a "nah" to all of that.

I just think it's something many of them aren't going to be as used to processing, given that the stances are so different.

I get what your saying, but I was thinking along these lines:

An atheist or christian can be any of these things:

Liberal
Conservative
pro choice
pro life
anti war
pro war

and the list could go on and on.

 

[quatona]

Nm, got it now.

My point in that post is that, yes, linguistically atheism means not believing in God, but based on the philosophical identifiers that are considered by many people (see the video) as intrinsic to "atheism", no, atheism doesn't just mean (for these people) "not believing in God."

Luckily, for us "plain" atheists, it just requires a short sentence to replace that what we mean to express when saying "I´m an atheist.": "I don´t believe in God(s)". (ok, five words instead of three, but avoiding the usual misunderstandings is worth the additional time and effort).

Which brings to mind a conversations with the mother of a new student a couple of years ago. For whatever reason, at some point she started going to great lengths about how important it is to bring our children closer to God etc. etc.
So after a while I said: "Well, you know, I don´t believe in any Gods."
The completely puzzled, alarmed, aghast, eyes-wide-open view she gave me was impressive: "What...not even in the One And OnlyTrue God??"
"Yeah, right, not even in that one."

 

[Received]

Please, please, no snips. Not because of anything other than it reminds me of a form of castration, thanks.

Non sequitur on whether they are negative or not. What do they actually claim? An ad with a few terms in it still doesn't mean they aren't negative atheists.

No, negative atheism is "just atheism," not atheism that identifies with certain positive characteristics, such as reason, logic, knowledge, whatever. That is clearly what is taking place with the video: not just "negative atheism" and "oh yeah, we also correlate nicely with these qualities." No correlation; inextricable connection. That's the newer religious atheism of today. Which doesn't at all negate the negative atheism of honest folks like yourself.

It's possible to be certain about a lack of currently available evidence

Again, even with the atheist everyone loves to bring up - Richard Dawkins - and Christians love to paint him as this ardent arch-atheist that we're all supposed to be in thrall to - he is still a NEGATIVE atheist. If you read TGD, that's his actual stance.

He says he's a negative atheist. A huge part of my point has to consider what people say about themselves and how they actually act in terms of using identifiers. Again, the implicit claim is that, "come over to atheism, where we have reason, logic, knowledge, no superstition, etc."

At the very least you can't claim that no strands of people who identify as atheist aren't using positive identifiers. I know of no study that would confirm this, so we're left with anecdotes, but I know plenty of examples of people who put positive identifiers mentioned above with their atheism that thinking of a "just atheist" dude has been extremely difficult, given the corruption of the term with not merely correlated qualities, but positive identifiers. Again, your atheism doesn't play that way, and that's for the best, but it's out there. And it's religious, even militant, even Stalinesque at times.

But I think there's something you're not considering here. I've clashed with a few people who want movement atheism to be about more than just atheism, and I've encountered atheists here and elsewhere who are very different from me politically, philosophically, and in how they construct their morality. Yet, despite all those differences (some of them quite acrimonious, particularly with the feminist atheist crowd O_O):

I've never once seen an atheist tell me or any other atheist in the vicinity that they're not an atheist.

And I hate to come across as singling you lot out, but......contrasting that with the number of times I was accused of not being Christian when I was a Christian, I don't think atheism has any kind of labelling crisis at all. Or at least, if it does, it is doing pretty well with it compared to other groups.

Of course nobody has said that: the essential criterion for atheism is not believing in God. I'm claiming that there are other things that go with atheism that people like you hold as extrinsic or even correlated with atheism, but that many other atheists hold as intrinsic and defining of atheism. And what would a non-atheist atheist look like? So long as you're swinging some type of rationality that works against theism, you're fulfilling the rationality (or knowledge, or logic) standard.

I know, it sounds like I'm complicating things, but that's what I see.

The problem still seems to me to be that Christians expect there to be far more positive atheists than they actually are. I've not been an atheist for very long, but positive atheists seem to be pretty rare beasts indeed. It seems to me they may even be a minority now (assuming they ever were). To keep insisting and insisting that more positive atheists should exist when they don't is like insisiting that Christians should be predominantly Anabaptist. It simply isn't so - and I notice they keep insisting there be more of the type of atheist that are making the same sorts of claim as they are.

Of course many Christians would be far more likely to claim to see positive atheism where there isn't any. Biblically they've appealed to atheism as a conscious rejection of a conceptualization of God (of course, the case exegetically really isn't this, given that "belief" in God isn't a rootedly cognitive sort of deal), and that's pretty dang positive sort of identifier: God-hatin'.

But to me, positive atheism has been around for a while, but has especially been more prevalent in the last few years, presumably since the post-911 literary outpouring by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc., and which is seen most clearly in its marketing campaign (for heaven's sake) with a collection of glittery, cool-sounding identifiers.

 

[contango]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't atheism simply mean not believing in the existence of god.

In terms that definition, wouldn't the burden of proof be on those claiming there is a god?

The difference has been covered in the thread, but to summarise there's a difference between a passive lack of belief ("I do not believe God exists") and an active belief ("I believe God does not exist").

The former is effectively a statement of uncertainty, in which case it's reasonable to ask someone who has taken a position to explain why they took a position. The latter is a statement of faith, in which case it's reasonable for a theist to discuss reasons both sides took their position of faith, and an uncertain person to ask why they took an active belief in the non-existence of God.

 

[poolerboy0077]

In general this is definitely true. Atheism stands for a negative position, and a negative position has nothing positive about it that people could agree on. "Hey, everyone knows all atheists not only don't believe in God, but also believe in donuts." What?

But there seems to be at least a stance among many atheists (particularly if not exclusively the "new atheist" crowd) for where "atheism" implies positive stuff, particularly reason. This is why this type of atheism has a freaking commercial dedicated to it:

Atheist Superbowl Commercial - 720p Best Commercial on the PLANET - YouTube

Oh Jeeze. You do realize that's a Scientology commercial that was sloppily edited by someone to attach an atheist label at the end, don't you?

Church Of Scientology commercial TV Ad pays $8 million during Super Bowl - YouTube

So while I think that honest atheists stand for a negative position (not believing in God, the rest is relative to the individual), I think that at least lately a large swath of the population has taken atheism to almost religious levels in terms of its unswerving faith to the positive identifiers mentioned above.

Calling it faith is disingenuous. They're values that are held -- valuing evidence, reason, etc. Moreover, that certain trends exist among people who reject certain things does not make atheism itself a positive claim. It just simply identifies like interests that led them to that non-subscription.

 

[Gadarene]

Oh Jeeze. You do realize that's a Scientology commercial that was sloppily edited by someone to attach an atheist label at the end, don't you?

*snip*

Calling it faith is disingenuous. They're values that are held -- valuing evidence, reason, etc. Moreover, that certain trends exist among people who reject certain things does not make atheism itself a positive claim. It just simply identifies like interests that led them to that non-subscription.

Ha, nice catch, and nice response

 

[Gadarene]

No, negative atheism is "just atheism," not atheism that identifies with certain positive characteristics, such as reason, logic, knowledge, whatever. That is clearly what is taking place with the video: not just "negative atheism" and "oh yeah, we also correlate nicely with these qualities." No correlation; inextricable connection. That's the newer religious atheism of today. Which doesn't at all negate the negative atheism of honest folks like yourself.

You've just gone and completely redefined what both positive and negative atheism are. Why should I accept this?

He says he's a negative atheist. A huge part of my point has to consider what people say about themselves and how they actually act in terms of using identifiers. Again, the implicit claim is that, "come over to atheism, where we have reason, logic, knowledge, no superstition, etc."

At the very least you can't claim that no strands of people who identify as atheist aren't using positive identifiers. I know of no study that would confirm this, so we're left with anecdotes, but I know plenty of examples of people who put positive identifiers mentioned above with their atheism that thinking of a "just atheist" dude has been extremely difficult, given the corruption of the term with not merely correlated qualities, but positive identifiers.

Only to those who, apparently like you, conflate usage of a particular set of ideas in accompanient to atheism as an implied claim that they are necessarily part of being an atheist.

You will not prove this to anyone using innuendo. You will need actual direct evidence of this - a good way to demonstrate this would be showing these particular atheists engaging in no-true-atheist fallacies.

The huge irony of this is if you changed "atheist" to "skeptic" I'd probably be in agreement with you.

Again, your atheism doesn't play that way, and that's for the best, but it's out there. And it's religious, even militant, even Stalinesque at times.

Drop this kind of rhetoric, it really isn't helping you.

Holding a few extra values and making a commercial isn't Stalinesque. That's small beer to a decent sized church, for one. Let's leave the Stalinesque in Stalinist Russia, hm?

Of course nobody has said that: the essential criterion for atheism is not believing in God. I'm claiming that there are other things that go with atheism that people like you hold as extrinsic or even correlated with atheism, but that many other atheists hold as intrinsic and defining of atheism. And what would a non-atheist atheist look like? So long as you're swinging some type of rationality that works against theism, you're fulfilling the rationality (or knowledge, or logic) standard.

Not at all. Only if I'm claiming that people who aren't purporting to be rational atheists aren't really atheists.

It is like how some Christians feel that Catholicism is the better way to be a Christian, and they may hold forth on the characteristics of their church they most relate to or think are overall beneficial. But that does not mean they are claiming that Catholicism is the one true belief, and all other denominations are false. To imply that they are is little more than putting words in their mouth.

Of course many Christians would be far more likely to claim to see positive atheism where there isn't any. Biblically they've appealed to atheism as a conscious rejection of a conceptualization of God (of course, the case exegetically really isn't this, given that "belief" in God isn't a rootedly cognitive sort of deal), and that's pretty dang positive sort of identifier: God-hatin'.

But to me, positive atheism has been around for a while, but has especially been more prevalent in the last few years, presumably since the post-911 literary outpouring by people like Dawkins, Harris, etc., and which is seen most clearly in its marketing campaign (for heaven's sake) with a collection of glittery, cool-sounding identifiers.

No, not buying this. You've completely ignored my point and example that there is a way to be forthright about a stance even given that it is currently unconvincing. We do it all the time. You're ignored it in lieu of suddenly redefining both negative and positive atheism on a whim.

If you want me to buy it, then as I've said - give me examples of the new atheists saying the only way to "faith" is through new atheism. Give me some "no true atheists" being played.

 

[KCfromNC]

I curious if people are also upset about the growth of positive a-Santaism. After all, the only rational position is weak a-Santaism since we can never prove a negative. Everything else is a statement of faith which puts the burden on the person claiming Santa isn't real.

I'll await long discussions about the correct way to not believe in Santa and where that places the burden of proof - at least assuming that all this nitpicking about weak and strong atheism isn't selectively applying an unreasonably strict standard towards non-belief in god that's not used for anything else.

 

[bhsmte]

"I know, it sounds like I'm complicating things, but that's what I see."

Yes, Received, I have commented numerous times, you seem to tend towards making fairly straight forward issues much more confusing. A little paralysis from over analysis perhaps?

You seem bothered that recently some atheists are more willing to be public with their non-belief, why is that? Atheists in general, have been in the closet for numerous years in the US because of the social stigma attached to not believing, much more so than any advanced nation. Sure, there are some loud atheists and have ALWAYS been some loud christians, so what.

And sure, there could be other traits that are common place with atheists that are not as common with christians. And, since atheists likely tend to think more analytically about their beliefs (which is how they got to be a non-believer), they could very well have traits most christians do not. I have seen studies claiming as a general rule, atheists are better educated, have lower divorce rates, lower crime rates and are more empathetic.

Christian Polling Group Finds Atheists Divorce Less Than Christians | The New Civil Rights Movement

 

[Gadarene]

I curious if people are also upset about the growth of positive a-Santaism. After all, the only rational position is weak a-Santaism since we can never prove a negative. Everything else is a statement of faith which puts the burden on the person claiming Santa isn't real. I'll await long discussions about the correct way to not believe in Santa and where that places the burden of proof - at least assuming that all this nitpicking about weak and strong atheism isn't selectively applying an unreasonably strict standard towards non-belief in god that's not used for anything else.

Yes, apparently putting forth any supporting case for a stance means you are necessarily making a positive claim even if you're not.

 

[quatona]

I curious if people are also upset about the growth of positive a-Santaism.

Or a-Satanism.

 

[Received]

I'm fine with people using all sorts of adjectives in whatever superfluous way when discussing things (I do it myself, it's fun), but please for the love of no God, don't say I'm complicating things.

That's terribly condescending and inconsiderate. OK?

 

[Received]

You've just gone and completely redefined what both positive and negative atheism are. Why should I accept this?

I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as positive and negative atheism before our discussion, so I don't know how I'm redefining them.

Only to those who, apparently like you, conflate usage of a particular set of ideas in accompanient to atheism as an implied claim that they are necessarily part of being an atheist.

You think I'm creating ideas for the fun of it? No, I'm doing it given observations about how people who identify as atheists act. That is the reason new terms are needed. Period.

You will not prove this to anyone using innuendo. You will need actual direct evidence of this - a good way to demonstrate this would be showing these particular atheists engaging in no-true-atheist fallacies.

Incommensurate with evidence. You can't prove innuendo, or anything non-literal for that matter.

The huge irony of this is if you changed "atheist" to "skeptic" I'd probably be in agreement with you.

I'd be interested in hearing more on this point.

Drop this kind of rhetoric, it really isn't helping you.

Sorry, I know what looks best on me when I go out on Saturdays.

Holding a few extra values and making a commercial isn't Stalinesque. That's small beer to a decent sized church, for one. Let's leave the Stalinesque in Stalinist Russia, hm?

Never said it was. I'm speaking of the commercial as evidence of positive atheism in general. Stalinesque atheism (i.e., atheism to the highest and most militant degree that holds to positive identifiers) is not at all implicit in everyone who identifies with this commercial's message. I'm just saying there are degrees of positive atheism, just like there are degrees of any type of religious standing. Positive atheism is analogous to religion in its unquestioned adherence to its values (and accompanying behaviors). I wonder if you'd be as snippy with this earlier response if you didn't identify on some way with atheism in general being considered Stalinesque. But your atheism (negative atheism) and positive atheism are two completely different beasts.

Not at all. Only if I'm claiming that people who aren't purporting to be rational atheists aren't really atheists.

Right, but my point is that *anything against theism* can be considered a type of rationality, especially given that pretty much all atheists (positive or negative) adhere to a type of appreciation of reason in divorcing themselves from theism. So positive and negative atheism, by using reason against theism, are both fulfilling their different criteria for atheism depending on whether it's positive or negative: the positive being not believing in God with rationality as an identifier, and negative often (but not always) meaning not believing in God (...) and having rationalism (or whatever-ism) as extrinsic to or a correlate rather than an identifier.

It is like how some Christians feel that Catholicism is the better way to be a Christian, and they may hold forth on the characteristics of their church they most relate to or think are overall beneficial. But that does not mean they are claiming that Catholicism is the one true belief, and all other denominations are false. To imply that they are is little more than putting words in their mouth.

And in a similar vein, you have "just theist" theists, who might be seen as the theistic reflections of negative atheists, who "just don't believe" in God. And you have theists who espouse particular beliefs about God, just like you have positive atheists, who espouse particular beliefs about atheism.

I'm dead serious, no rhetoric at all, about this. It can't be "proven" unless we're both going to take the time to randomly select a cross section of atheists and see how many identify with rationality versus how many consider things like rationality correlated but not identifiers of their atheism. Even this is arguably flawed, given that people might easily say, "oh, atheism is not believing in God," but speak of things like rationality and other things the commercial holds in such a way that indicates positive atheism.

No, not buying this. You've completely ignored my point and example that there is a way to be forthright about a stance even given that it is currently unconvincing. We do it all the time. You're ignored it in lieu of suddenly redefining both negative and positive atheism on a whim.

If you want me to buy it, then as I've said - give me examples of the new atheists saying the only way to "faith" is through new atheism. Give me some "no true atheists" being played.

What point are you talking about?

And there's no whim here about articulating the terms in more detail.