There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[Dirk1540]

What label you or I put on my stance is completely irrelevant for the question whether I have to defend a position or not. So let´s call this stance "non-theism" or "banana milk shake" or whatever you think it should be called - the label doesn´t change my stance. You almost make it sound like the label were important to me. It isn´t. I want my stance to be acknowledged, that´s all.

I totally agree that it's all silliness. So why the silliness of being allergic to being called a hard agnostic? Which is what you are. I don't understand (as many in here have pointed out) this mission to hand this death blow to the term agnostic.

Oh wait that's a lie, I'm guilty of lying, I do know why. Before one even begins to have an 'Educated' stance about God's existence (when we are kids, or in the case of the simply philosophically uninterested) we all start out with one of 3 default stances...I don't think God exists (atheist), I think God exists (theist), or I have no clue if God exists (agnostic).

Naturally the I have no clue God exists position is in closer proximity to the I think God exists position then the I don't think God exists position is. The 'It can't be known' position is also closer in proximity to the I think God exists position than the I think God doesn't exist position is.

Hmm...so in our increasingly atheistic culture, how can militant atheists make it so we can blur the lines better so that the untrained mind who holds the 'I have no clue' position is thrown some 'Semantics Trickery' to fairly quickly fool the untrained person into thinking their 'I have no clue' position is actually the 'I think God doesn't exist' position? Enter Anthony Flew with the move that would make any politician proud!!

But the ultimate icing on the cake is that it's a twofold move...let's also make it so they not only are twisted into thinking they hold the wrong position, but let's also train the untrained mind using this semantics trick that for the first time in philosophical history this deep position that God does not exist is actually not a position at all...therefore requires no arguments! Oh wait...I said 'Position' not 'Argument', I said 'Think' not 'Believe'...I'm so confused...I'm SUPPOSED TO BE confused!!! It's linguistic trickery, it's 'Politics 101'

And that doesn't mean that I'm calling you a militant atheist, or that you're even practicing deceit (you're just playing by the NEW rules). I'm saying that the author of these new rules/definitions was being a slick manipulative militant atheists when he (assuming it was just Flew) altered these confusing definitions.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name!

 

[quatona]

I totally agree that it's all silliness. So why the silliness of being allergic to being called a hard agnostic?

I´m not sure how you came to diagnose such an allergy with me. I said the very opposite: I don´t care what label you put on me, as long as we are clear what my stance is. So for purposes of these discussions we can label the statement "I lack believe in gods" whatever you like. If it were for me, we could let go of the labeling altogether, since this statement is not so incredibly long that replacing it by a label is necessary.

I don't understand (as many in here have pointed out) this mission to hand this death blow to the term agnostic.

In the terminology where "atheism" comprises all sorts of "I don´t believe in gods", agnosticism is still given a distinct meaning. So, no death blow to anything.

Oh wait that's a lie, I'm guilty of lying, I do know why.

Fair enough.

 

[KCfromNC]

I lack beliefs about Marxism because I have not read deeply enough on the subject to really know whether or not I could endorse communism as a functional sociopolitical system.

My view towards modern conservativism is better described as disbelief, as there are aspects of that sociopolitical framework that I am quite convinced are wrong.

I sense a lot of equivocation here. In the first case, do you really not believe that Marxism exists? If not, it really isn't what we're talking about here. Same for conservatism. Do you not believe it exists? Because that's what atheism is - lack of belief that a thing exists, not a lack of understanding of what it is or a disagreement with what the thing sas.

Generally speaking, it is better to use language in a way that promotes clarity, not confusion.
I am not sure why you think that genuine atheists know that God does not exist, though; belief claims do not turn into epistemological claims simply because you state them more forcefully.

That's nice and all, but it doesn't answer my question - which genuine atheists are "erased" by the definition?

 

[Freodin]

Do you, the theists/Christians of various colours who are engaged in this thread, really believe that you are on the right way?

This thread started with a very specific claim. Some people - me included - have tried to respond to this claim... and had their response ignored.

Instead this has devolved into an all-around attack on "atheists" for not being "real atheists", them wanting to eradicate Christianity as well as agnosticsim and not being able to bring evidence for their claims or misunderstanding their own positions. On the other hand, the theists are completely precise in their logic and understanding, "calling a spade a spade"... even if different people call that spade "the first cause in the aristotelian tradition", "the intelligent being that created everything", "God/Jesus" and I-don't-know-what-else.

If you can find any atheists/agnostics/unbelievers/non-Christians here in this thread who want to "be Cain and destroy Christianity"... point them out. If not, start talking to the people. Listen to what they tell you. Don't discard or relabel what people tell you. Adress the points they made.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you, the theists/Christians of various colours who are engaged in this thread, really believe that you are on the right way?

This thread started with a very specific claim. Some people - me included - have tried to respond to this claim... and had their response ignored.

Instead this has devolved into an all-around attack on "atheists" for not being "real atheists", them wanting to eradicate Christianity as well as agnosticsim and not being able to bring evidence for their claims or misunderstanding their own positions. On the other hand, the theists are completely precise in their logic and understanding, "calling a spade a spade"... even if different people call that spade "the first cause in the aristotelian tradition", "the intelligent being that created everything", "God/Jesus" and I-don't-know-what-else.

If you can find any atheists/agnostics/unbelievers/non-Christians here in this thread who want to "be Cain and destroy Christianity"... point them out. If not, start talking to the people. Listen to what they tell you. Don't discard or relabel what people tell you. Adress the points they made.

... sometimes, it's really hard to tell who belongs in a cage and who doesn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not the point. You can't say in one breath "Stop arguing about the meaning of a word and instead address the position!" And then turn around and say in the next breath "Atheism doesn't need to defend a position"...ANYMORE that is, compliments of Flew altering the definition. I can be open about using the word 'Blue' to refer to black. I can be open about using 'Jesus' to refer to Bhudda. This 'As long as we're open about it' rule of yours (if it were honored) would lead to academic madness. It's not that we're obsessed about how a word is defined, it's that YOU are using the definition of a word as a sheild to free yourselves from defending a position.

Dude.........
Open up any dictionary and look up the word "atheism".
All of them include the definition that reads something like "lack of belief / disbelief of gods/deities".

Stop playing these silly games and just accept that apparantly all atheists here self-identify as agnostic atheists.

You can either deal with that and engage the actual points raised, or you can keep bickering about this label.

Because of what I said above. Yes arguments over semantics are silly. Using semantics to excuse yourself from the responsibility of defending a position is not mere silliness however, it's a tactic.

As quatana said.... this is not a game of semantics.
We are all very open about what our position entails.
And out position requires no defending, as our position is not a claim, it is a response to a claim.

It's YOU who's insisting on us having something to "defend", based only on a label while ignoring our actual position - which, again, is something we are very clear about.

Ok then here's your argument, that if you can't absolutely prove something 100% you can't make a truth claim.

That's not an argument. That's just reason and logic.
The truth value of a claim is always in direct proportion to the evidence in support of it.

That if you are dealing in the categories of 'Very Unlikely' or 'Very Likely' you must be agnostic.

Yes. An agnostic atheist.
Someone who doesn't claim to know either way and who does not accept the claims of theism on the basis of them being outlandish with 0 evidence in support of it.
Or in other words: I consider theism to be extremely unlikely. About as unlikely as Santa Claus. Can I demonstrate it to be false? No.

At least not the concept of some kind of generic God.
If we are going to go into specifics concerning supernatural claims that CAN be tested - that's a whole different ballgame.

In that sense, we can definatly disprove a literal genesis, a literal global flood etc.

I don't agree with this, people make non absolute truth claims all the time, without feeling the need to redefine terms.

I'm not redefining any terms.
A claim doesn't need to be "absolutely certain" and backed with "100% certain proof", in order to be reasonable to accept.

As a matter of fact, in the handful of times (maybe 7 or 8) that I've pinned a Christian down to tell me what percentage of them is convinced that Jesus is God, ONE time only did the Christian tell me 100%. Usually I was told 90%. Do we now need to redefine theism because of this??

No, we don't. But for those 90%, you might add the "agnostic" qualifier. They are "agnostic theists". They don't know, but they believe. Is it sinking in now?

Theists don't have an Anthony Flew who redefined 'Theism' in the 1970s to over turn the need to defend it. We're just calling a spade a spade, if there is 'Trickery' it absolutely isn't on us.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know what else to tell you. I also wouldn't know what else I could call myself....

When will we finally be able to move on and discuss content instead of labels?

No, it WAS accurate, then it was re-defined to release it from being associated with a burden of proof. That's trickery.

The burden of proof is established by what people are actually claiming.
The burden of proof is not established by labels and semantics.

Give it a rest already.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not the point. You can't say in one breath "Stop arguing about the meaning of a word and instead address the position!" And then turn around and say in the next breath "Atheism doesn't need to defend a position"...ANYMORE that is, compliments of Flew altering the definition. I can be open about using the word 'Blue' to refer to black. I can be open about using 'Jesus' to refer to Bhudda. This 'As long as we're open about it' rule of yours (if it were honored) would lead to academic madness. It's not that we're obsessed about how a word is defined, it's that YOU are using the definition of a word as a sheild to free yourselves from defending a position.



Because of what I said above. Yes arguments over semantics are silly. Using semantics to excuse yourself from the responsibility of defending a position is not mere silliness however, it's a tactic.


Ok then here's your argument, that if you can't absolutely prove something 100% you can't make a truth claim. That if you are dealing in the categories of 'Very Unlikely' or 'Very Likely' you must be agnostic. I don't agree with this, people make non absolute truth claims all the time, without feeling the need to redefine terms.

As a matter of fact, in the handful of times (maybe 7 or 8) that I've pinned a Christian down to tell me what percentage of them is convinced that Jesus is God, ONE time only did the Christian tell me 100%. Usually I was told 90%. Do we now need to redefine theism because of this?? Almost every truth claim would need redefining if you require 100% certainty.


Theists don't have an Anthony Flew who redefined 'Theism' in the 1970s to over turn the need to defend it. We're just calling a spade a spade, if there is 'Trickery' it absolutely isn't on us.


No, it WAS accurate, then it was re-defined to release it from being associated with a burden of proof. That's trickery.


...

Wow!

Let's try something......

Consider an individual who gives the following answers to these questions:

Q: "Do you believe god exists?"
A: "no, not a single shred of evidence supports such a belief"
Q: "Do you believe NO god exists?"
A: "I consider it very likely that no god exists. Can I prove that? No... You can't really prove a negative... So do I believe it? Strictly speaking: no"

So please tell us all, what that person should be labeled as, if not "agnostic atheist".

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, actually, I don't have a "lack of belief", whatever that might be, nor do I disbelieve. I find it unreasonable to reject these stories as well, as there is one possible explanation for these events that seems quite plausible to me. I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim. I am actually quite neutral.

Then you do not BELIEVE the claims.

To BELIEVE a claim, means that you ACCEPT said claim as being TRUE.
You do not accept the claims as being TRUE. You may find them "interesting" or "intriguing" or whatever, but you are not accepting them as TRUE or ACCURATE.

That means that you can't answer "yes" to the question if you believe said claims.
So you don't HAVE a positive belief in the claims of alien abductees.

When you don't HAVE X, then you LACK X.

And no, that does NOT mean that you have a positive belief in the opposite claim.

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, sure, but in its purest form, it is also the refusal to make a statement of belief one way or the other.

It does not. It pertains to knowledge, NOT to belief.
You can not know and believe.
You can also not know and not believe.

This was a good example, though, as it is a situation where I am genuinely, purely agnostic.

And yet, you can't honestly answer YES to the question "do you accept these claims are true/accurate" or "do you believe these claims?".

I'm really quite bemused that you would complain when theists challenge your claims about what you actually believe, and then turn around and insist that someone else use your definitions to describe their own beliefs. It is really quite hypocritical, so congratulations.

The only amusing thing here, is how you people succeed in contuing to miss such an obvious thing as the difference between accepting a claim as true/accurate, and not accepting a claim as true/accurate.

Falsifiability is an aspect of the philosophy of science, and one that has actually been criticized. Unless you are agnostic about everything that falls outside of the natural sciences, which would include the rationale behind the scientific method itself, that is a very problematic stance.

No, it is a rational stance.
Something that is unfalsifiable, can't be verified properly.
How can you be "gnostic" about something that you can't verify?
It makes no sense. You can't know that which you can't verify/test properly.

I am fine with defining it as disbelief. I am not fine with conflating disbelief and lack of belief.

It's the exact same thing.

The former is a proposition, the latter is a property. They are not the same thing.

Why don't you try to explain the difference with a specific example. And that example can't be theism. Use something we might both agree on.
Because I'm not seeing any difference.

Agnosticism can be a separate position.

No, because agnosticism only tells you about what is (UN)KNOWN
It doesn't tell you about what is (DIS)BELIEVED

Strong agnosticism is not the claim that you personally do not know, but that such knowledge is actually impossible. There are certainly people out there who do not think it reasonable to either believe or disbelieve, and they are agnostics.

Here's where you are confusing yourself....

2 claims are possible, when it comes to the existance of god:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist.

Only the first claim is addressed.

You either accept that claim or you do not.
Either you have a positive belief in that claim, or you do not.

When you do not, that is a position on the first claim - not the second.

They are not agnostic atheists.

Do they answer YES to the question "do you believe the claims of theism"?
No? Then they are atheists.

But by all means, continue telling agnostics what they do and don't believe.

I don't have to. They do that themselves.
The people you describe here, are people who HAVE NO positive belief in theistic claims.
When they are asked: "do you accept theism as true/accurate?" then they can only answer "no". Because they do NOT accept theism as true/accurate.

Which, again, is NOT THE SAME as accepting that theism is FALSE.
Remember? Only the first claim is addressed.

 

[Dirk1540]

And our position requires no defending, as our position is not a claim, it is a response to a claim.

It's YOU who's insisting on us having something to "defend",

Incorrect. You're claim is scientific materialism. Your entire reply is a denial that you hold a position, NOBODY does not hold a position.

The truth value of a claim is always in direct proportion to the evidence in support of it.

Agreed. I would be interested in your evidence to support scientific materialism, as much as you would be interested in evidence for Christian existentialism. The thing that's stopping such an exchange is semantic trickery that result in..."Scientific materialism does not require an argument!"

Yes. An agnostic atheist.
Someone who doesn't claim to know either way and who does not accept the claims of theism on the basis of them being outlandish with 0 evidence in support of it.

Another truth claim, that scientific empiricism is the only form of evidence. I would add that there are actually arguments of inference from scientific empiricism that support the existence of God, so you're claiming that inference is worthless as well I suppose, as far as being called 'Evidence.'

Or in other words: I consider theism to be extremely unlikely. About as unlikely as Santa Claus. Can I demonstrate it to be false? No

I also can not prove 100% that it's incorrect that God does not exist, for the sake of argument let's just stick everyone in the 90% category. Ok I fall below 100%. So...does that mean I get to place the 'Agnostic' qualifier in front of 'Theist'? And does that mean that I also have nothing to defend because of the qualifier.

But I believe that you're conflating what I was complaining about. We are all in a debate forum, so yes I get it, labels don't mean much in here if people peel away at the layers of the onion anyway...my complaint was geared towards the push to convince the general public (many of whom may even care less about debate altogether) that an 'Agnostic Atheist' has nothing to defend. But that's quite alright...next time a layperson (not that I'm an expert lol) on the street tells me that ONLY i have something to defend, I will simply use the linguistic gymnastics of explaining to them that I have an 'Agnostic' qualifier in front of my theism label so NO i do not have to defend anything either!

At least not the concept of some kind of generic God.
If we are going to go into specifics concerning supernatural claims that CAN be tested - that's a whole different ballgame.

Translation, YOUR version of 'Tested' or nothing. Your positive claim that scientific empiricism is the only means to truth.

A claim doesn't need to be "absolutely certain" and backed with "100% certain proof", in order to be reasonable to accept.

Agreed. I am not in the 100% category myself. Of course, according to you that means I have nothing to defend. Because I am an agnostic theist (90%).

No, we don't. But for those 90%, you might add the "agnostic" qualifier. They are "agnostic theists". They don't know, but they believe. Is it sinking in now?

Not really. You say that there is ZERO evidence whatsoever that God exists!!! That sounds like a pretty strong reason for you to just come out and say that 'You Believe' that God does not exist. I say that 'I Believe' that God does exist. It sounds like we are both pretty accurately skating in that '90% Belief' realm. The problem is that you are denying that scientific materialism is a position. (and also denying the scientific materialism inferences to God as evidence).

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't know what else to tell you. I also wouldn't know what else I could call myself....

Ok. I'm an agnostic theist.

The burden of proof is established by what people are actually claiming.
The burden of proof is not established by labels and semantics.

Agreed. And both of us are making a claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Incorrect. You're claim is scientific materialism.

Is it, really?
I challenge you to quote me precisely where I ever made such a claim.

Your entire reply is a denial that you hold a position, NOBODY does not hold a position.

I hold a position on theistic claims.
Holding a position on a claim, is not the same as making a claim.

Agreed. I would be interested in your evidence to support scientific materialism, as much as you would be interested in evidence for Christian existentialism.

I don't make that claim. At least, not as I understand "scientific materialism". Perhaps you should define what you mean by that exactly...

The thing that's stopping such an exchange is semantic trickery that result in..."Scientific materialism does not require an argument!"

So now, you are equating "scientific materialism" with mere atheism?

Another truth claim, that scientific empiricism is the only form of evidence.

It's the only form of evidence that I know of that can actually be independently verified.
If you know of "other forms" of evidence that allow such, I'm all ears...

I would add that there are actually arguments of inference from scientific empiricism that support the existence of God, so you're claiming that inference is worthless as well I suppose, as far as being called 'Evidence.'

I'm unaware of such "arguments".

I also can not prove 100% that it's incorrect that God does not exist, for the sake of argument let's just stick everyone in the 90% category. Ok I fall below 100%. So...does that mean I get to place the 'Agnostic' qualifier in front of 'Theist'?

Yes, that's exactly what it means.
You don't know. You believe.

And does that mean that I also have nothing to defend because of the qualifier.

No, because the thing you believe is accurate, is actually a positive claim.
The burden of proof is on the positive claim. Always. In this case, that claim is "god exists". That's the claim that is being discussed.

But I believe that you're conflating what I was complaining about. We are all in a debate forum, so yes I get it, labels don't mean much in here if people peel away at the layers of the onion anyway...my complaint was geared towards the push to convince the general public (many of whom may even care less about debate altogether) that an 'Agnostic Atheist' has nothing to defend.

In agnostic atheism, there IS nothing to defend, because there are NO CLAIMS to defend. It really is that simple. The position is a response to a claim...

How many times must it be explained...........................

But that's quite alright...next time a layperson (not that I'm an expert lol) on the street tells me that ONLY i have something to defend, I will simply use the linguistic gymnastics of explaining to them that I have an 'Agnostic' qualifier in front of my theism label so NO i do not have to defend anything either!

After all this time, you still manage to be completely oblivious to the point........

As a theist, you are ACCEPTING specific claims as TRUE.
As a theist, you are CLAIMING that a god exists.
This gives you a burden of proof.

As an atheist, I am responding to the claims of a theist by pointing out that you fail to meet your burden of proof and that I don't accept the claims as a result.

This does not require any defending. This is not a claim. It's a response to a claim.

Translation, YOUR version of 'Tested' or nothing. Your positive claim that scientific empiricism is the only means to truth.

For crying out loud.....
A literal genesis / flood story makes claims about physical reality.

When you wish to assess the truth value of claims about physical reality, you need to cross reference them with actual physical reality.

The flood story makes predictions about geology, archeology and genetics.
All those things can be tested.

If you know of another way then empiricism to test claims about reality in actual reality with equal or better track record, I'm all ears.

Until then, I see no better method then empricism to validate claims about reality in actual reality.

Agreed. I am not in the 100% category myself. Of course, according to you that means I have nothing to defend. Because I am an agnostic theist (90%).

For the bazillionth time.... It's the THEISM part that gives you a burden of proof. That's the part that includes the claims.

Sheesh...........................

Not really. You say that there is ZERO evidence whatsoever that God exists!!!

Yep. And by wich I, off course, mean valid / rational evidence.

That sounds like a pretty strong reason for you to just come out and say that 'You Believe' that God does not exist.

In everyday conversation, I might agree to that. But on forums such a this one, I don't like using the word "believe". Because technically, "believe" means to "accept as true / correct".
Which sounds a bit to "certain" and "factual" for my taste, for a claim that cannot be shown to be such.

So instead, I prefer to just say that I consider it "extremely likely" that no gods exist.
That is much more in line with my actual stance.

And it is based completely on the total lack of rational evidence that gods in fact do exist, coupled with the very oulandish nature of these claims.

Let's take alien life for example.
There is zero evidence that alien life exists.
However, life exists right here on this planet. And the variety thereof is extreme, even absurd. So to claim that life exists on other planets is not that outlandish - after all, it exists right here in enormous numbers and variety.

So we have at least 1 precedent of a planet that contains life.
So the idea that life might exist elsewhere as well, isn't that outlandish at all.

Totally not the case with the claims of the supernatural....

I say that 'I Believe' that God does exist. It sounds like we are both pretty accurately skating in that '90% Belief' realm. The problem is that you are denying that scientific materialism is a position. (and also denying the scientific materialism inferences to God as evidence).

The problem rather seems that you are suddenly claiming all kinds of things concerning my position on "scientific materialism" while I literally haven't used those words once, nore have I talked about anything else then (a)theism in this thread.

Ok. I'm an agnostic theist.

Great. So why do you accept the claims of theism?

Agreed. And both of us are making a claim.

I'm not.

 

[Dirk1540]

Is it, really?
I challenge you to quote me precisely where I ever made such a claim.



I hold a position on theistic claims.
Holding a position on a claim, is not the same as making a claim.



I don't make that claim. At least, not as I understand "scientific materialism". Perhaps you should define what you mean by that exactly...



So now, you are equating "scientific materialism" with mere atheism?



It's the only form of evidence that I know of that can actually be independently verified.
If you know of "other forms" of evidence that allow such, I'm all ears...



I'm unaware of such "arguments".



Yes, that's exactly what it means.
You don't know. You believe.



No, because the thing you believe is accurate, is actually a positive claim.
The burden of proof is on the positive claim. Always. In this case, that claim is "god exists". That's the claim that is being discussed.



In agnostic atheism, there IS nothing to defend, because there are NO CLAIMS to defend. It really is that simple. The position is a response to a claim...

How many times must it be explained...........................



After all this time, you still manage to be completely oblivious to the point........

As a theist, you are ACCEPTING specific claims as TRUE.
As a theist, you are CLAIMING that a god exists.
This gives you a burden of proof.

As an atheist, I am responding to the claims of a theist by pointing out that you fail to meet your burden of proof and that I don't accept the claims as a result.

This does not require any defending. This is not a claim. It's a response to a claim.



For crying out loud.....
A literal genesis / flood story makes claims about physical reality.

When you wish to assess the truth value of claims about physical reality, you need to cross reference them with actual physical reality.

The flood story makes predictions about geology, archeology and genetics.
All those things can be tested.

If you know of another way then empiricism to test claims about reality in actual reality with equal or better track record, I'm all ears.

Until then, I see no better method then empricism to validate claims about reality in actual reality.



For the bazillionth time.... It's the THEISM part that gives you a burden of proof. That's the part that includes the claims.

Sheesh...........................


Yep. And by wich I, off course, mean valid / rational evidence.



In everyday conversation, I might agree to that. But on forums such a this one, I don't like using the word "believe". Because technically, "believe" means to "accept as true / correct".
Which sounds a bit to "certain" and "factual" for my taste, for a claim that cannot be shown to be such.

So instead, I prefer to just say that I consider it "extremely likely" that no gods exist.
That is much more in line with my actual stance.

And it is based completely on the total lack of rational evidence that gods in fact do exist, coupled with the very oulandish nature of these claims.

Let's take alien life for example.
There is zero evidence that alien life exists.
However, life exists right here on this planet. And the variety thereof is extreme, even absurd. So to claim that life exists on other planets is not that outlandish - after all, it exists right here in enormous numbers and variety.

So we have at least 1 precedent of a planet that contains life.
So the idea that life might exist elsewhere as well, isn't that outlandish at all.

Totally not the case with the claims of the supernatural....



The problem rather seems that you are suddenly claiming all kinds of things concerning my position on "scientific materialism" while I literally haven't used those words once, nore have I talked about anything else then (a)theism in this thread.



Great. So why do you accept the claims of theism?



I'm not.

Your reply is tripping all over itself. When I read some of it it's as if I do not have a burden of proof if I'm not 100% certain, yet significantly leaning towards a side. When I read other parts it's as if I do have a burden of proof if i'm not 100% sure yet significantly leaning. But you clear it up by telling me that if the side you significantly lean towards is theism you have the burden, but if the side you significantly lean towards is atheism you don't have the burden. That is simply false.

You're simply refusing to admit that theism vs atheism is position vs a position in regards to 2 opposite sides of a coin, and that anybody who significantly leans towards either side has reasons for doing so. I'm sure if I comb through your posts I would find argument on top of argument for atheism being true. Deciding not to 'Say something out loud' means nothing. In this single relpy to me you both challenge me for claiming that you are a believer in scientific materialism...then proceed to make a few statements in the reply that backs your beliefs in scientific materialism. Again tripping all over yourself, but thinking that you get a free pass if you refuse to say scientific materialism out loud.

It's like 2 people waking up after a weekend of partying in a room with no windows and a clock that says 9:00, but both people aren't positive if it's AM or PM. Person A says it's very likely that it's PM. Person B says I would actually say that it's very unlikely that you're correct. That clearly means that person B has positive reasoning for claiming that it's AM, or else a phrase of 'Very unlikely' would not have been used. Person A says "Oh really, so you think it's very likely that it's AM?" Person B backpedals "Timeout!! I never made that claim!!" It's ridiculous. AM & PM are 2 opposite sides of a coin just like atheism & theism are. To argue that saying 'It's very unlikely that it's PM' is not the same thing as saying 'It's very likely that it's AM' is trickery. And the heart of the trickery is this war between the words 'Believe' and 'Think', words that millions of people use interchangeably.

Fine I understand that 'Belief' and 'Think' can have different categories in scholarly circles that the untrained eye doesn't recognize. That's not the problem. The problem is using the distinction deceptively to blur the lines of other concepts.

For crying out loud.....
A literal genesis / flood story makes claims about physical reality.

When you wish to assess the truth value of claims about physical reality, you need to cross reference them with actual physical reality.

The flood story makes predictions about geology, archeology and genetics.
All those things can be tested.

This is not at all what the topic is, but I would totally agree that claims of a global flood will involve those scientific disciplines. I would also point out that a rejection of a global flood theory would have a positive argument for it's position...for the negative. Have you ever heard a moderator say this in a debate "John Smith will be arguing for the negative position"??

If you know of another way then empiricism to test claims about reality in actual reality with equal or better track record, I'm all ears.

I am not claiming an either/or proposition to scientific examination, it is definitely a vital PIECE of the puzzle.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Your reply is tripping all over itself. When I read some of it it's as if I do not have a burden of proof if I'm not 100% certain, yet significantly leaning towards a side. When I read other parts it's as if I do have a burden of proof if i'm not 100% sure yet significantly leaning. But you clear it up by telling me that if the side you significantly lean towards is theism you have the burden, but if the side you significantly lean towards is atheism you don't have the burden. That is simply false.

No no no no no.

It's really very simple.

If you claim that a god (or gods) exist, you have a burden of proof to provide evidence of that claim.

If you claim that a god (or gods) do not exist, you have a burden of proof to provide evidence of that claim.

If you claim neither of those things, like myself and most if not all the atheists here, then there's no claim and no burden of proof. The position "I don't know" requires no proof.

Got it yet?

 

[Dirk1540]

Got it yet?

Wait, let me make one adjustment to your post first,

...If you claim neither of those things, like myself and most if not all the AGNOSTICS here, then there's no claim and no burden of proof. The position "I don't know" requires no proof.

Ok got it now!

Actually this post of mine is not entirely accurate, I would have thought it was accurate not too long ago, before 2PhiloVoid and Silmarien threw me into the world of philosophy. The agnostic doesn't get a free pass either. Everyone holds a philosophical position.

So...I would not really mind if an agnostic told me that they have no position to defend in a passive way. But if they were to arrogantly mock my position than it would probably be time to tell them that they too have a position even if they don't realize it. Being that I am new to philosophy I feel under qualified to get into this any deeper (I'm trying to learn the basics right now). I appreciate 2PhiloVoid & Simarien's ability to change 'Boring' philosophy into something that I actually find very interesting!!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Wait, let me make one adjustment to your post first,

Ok got it now!

Now, why would you go and screw up a perfectly good quote with a mistake like that. It's atheist, not agnostic.

You might as well get over it, because at this point I'm starting to enjoy annoying you theists with your ridiculous semantic nonsense. Do you obsessively go around telling gay people that they've cooped the word and it should only mean "happy"?

The agnostic doesn't get a free pass either. Everyone holds a philosophical position.

No one said they don't. However, you can have a position that doesn't entail a burden of proof.

So...I would not really mind if an agnostic told me that they have no position to defend in a passive way. But if they were to arrogantly mock my position than it would probably be time to tell them that they too have a position even if they don't realize it.

I find that the best course of action when someone is mocking me, instead of actually addressing my position, is to say something terrible about their mother.

Being that I am new to philosophy I feel under qualified to get into this any deeper (I'm trying to learn the basics right now). I appreciate 2PhiloVoid & Simarien's ability to change 'Boring' philosophy into something that I actually find very interesting!!

Let me offer you this advice. A little Philosophy is a dangerous thing. Also, a lot of Philosophy is a dangerous thing. Your goal as a philosopher is to become knowledgeable to the point where you would never be invited on TV as an "expert" in Philosophy, but have the ability to navigate life without getting lost in your own nonsense.

 

[Dirk1540]

You might as well get over it, because at this point I'm starting to enjoy annoying you theists with your ridiculous semantic nonsense. Do you obsessively go around telling gay people that they've cooped the word and it should only mean "happy"?

Ironically a couple of my favorite technical posters in this forum seemed to have bowed out of this topic altogether, using the exact same word of ridiculous! For me it has nothing to do with the actual word choice, just the claim behind the word choice that it need not be defended, but it's looking like we've hit a wall on our interpretation of this, looks like we've entered the agree to disagree moment.

Let me offer you this advice. A little Philosophy is a dangerous thing. Also, a lot of Philosophy is a dangerous thing. Your goal as a philosopher is to become knowledgeable to the point where you would never be invited on TV as an "expert" in Philosophy, but have the ability to navigate life without getting lost in your own nonsense.

Hmm, this is a very interesting theory!! Why? Are you saying that if you dig too deep you can train yourself to get stuck in the abyss of thinking down too many layers all the time? Would you say that too much philosophy is the more dangerous of the two?

Not with philosophically trained people, but sometimes I wonder if this may be the case with some people that I've known. People who have taken cliches way too far, like 'Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.' I swear this one guy I know has let this cliche slowly warp his brain into hyper-skepticism towards EVERYTHING lol. It was his favorite cliche for many years he said it all the time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your reply is tripping all over itself. When I read some of it it's as if I do not have a burden of proof if I'm not 100% certain, yet significantly leaning towards a side. When I read other parts it's as if I do have a burden of proof if i'm not 100% sure yet significantly leaning. But you clear it up by telling me that if the side you significantly lean towards is theism you have the burden, but if the side you significantly lean towards is atheism you don't have the burden. That is simply false.

Your burden of proof is on the claims of theism. I think I was quite clear about that.
Theism is a collection of claims: god exists, the supernatural exists, miracles happen.
While atheism is just the position of not accepting the claims of theism.

It's theism that comes with claims.

You're simply refusing to admit that theism vs atheism is position vs a position in regards to 2 opposite sides of a coin

It is not.
Theism is a collection of religious claims.

I already explained this.....
There are indeed 2 sides of the coin:
1. god exists
2. god does not exist

But only the first side of the coin is being addressed.
Theism claims that god exists. THAT is the claim under discussion.
Atheism is NOT the claim that god does not exist. Making that claim sure is compatible with atheism, but it isn't an inherent part of atheism.

, and that anybody who significantly leans towards either side has reasons for doing so.

The reason I am an atheist... is simply not having reasons to be a theist.
It's theism that requires reasons. You need to actually do something, believe something to be a theist. Theism is the thing that tries to sell something.

Atheists are just those people who aren't buying what theism is trying to sell. Atheism is not selling something else.

I'm sure if I comb through your posts I would find argument on top of argument for atheism being true

Claims can be true or false.
Atheism is not a claim.

THEISM can be true or false.
Atheism is just the position of not considering theism to be true.

Deciding not to 'Say something out loud' means nothing. In this single relpy to me you both challenge me for claiming that you are a believer in scientific materialism...then proceed to make a few statements in the reply that backs your beliefs in scientific materialism.

I also asked you to define what you mean by "scientific materialism", which you still haven't done. I tend to stay away from such labels because they tend to come with a whole lot of baggage which doesn't necessarily reflect my actual views.

So please, define what you mean by that.

It's like 2 people waking up after a weekend of partying in a room with no windows and a clock that says 9:00, but both people aren't positive if it's AM or PM. Person A says it's very likely that it's PM. Person B says I would actually say that it's very unlikely that you're correct. That clearly means that person B has positive reasoning for claiming that it's AM, or else a phrase of 'Very unlikely' would not have been used. Person A says "Oh really, so you think it's very likely that it's AM?" Person B backpedals "Timeout!! I never made that claim!!" It's ridiculous.

What is ridiculous, is your analogy.
Both AM and PM are known real things. And it would be easily verifiable wich is wich to settle the matter.
Between both A and B, there would NO discussion on wether AM and PM are both real.

To compare this with claims of existence of unfalsifiable entities, is beyond ridiculous, I would say.

Fine I understand that 'Belief' and 'Think' can have different categories in scholarly circles that the untrained eye doesn't recognize. That's not the problem. The problem is using the distinction deceptively to blur the lines of other concepts.

Errr.... I'ld say that NOT making the distinction, is what would be blurring the lines..........

This is not at all what the topic is, but I would totally agree that claims of a global flood will involve those scientific disciplines.

I'ld say it is very in line with the topic, if the topic is if there are good reasons to be an atheist or not. If the testable claims of theism, turn out to be totally NOT in line with observable reality.... I'ld say that that is quite relevant if one is trying to figure out if there are good reasons to believe the claims of theism or not....

I would also point out that a rejection of a global flood theory would have a positive argument for it's position...for the negative.

No, it wouldn't.
Just ask AV. When you point out to him that the testable predictions of this story simply don't check out, he just comes back with "ow, that's because god all-might, why can do anything, made all the evidence disappear".

While about as unlikely that this god is actually real, how do you demonstrate that that didn't happen? Simple: you can not. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. It's positive claims that require evidence.

So even here, where we DO find ourselves in the land of empirically testable reality, it comes down to the exact same thing... 2 claims concerning the biblcal flood are possible:
1. it happened
2. it didn't happen

Only the first claim is addressed.

Theists, well some of them, claim this flood literally happened. But the evidence doesn't support that claim. So the claim is discarded / rejected / not considered "true" or "accurate", on the grounds that there isn't sufficient evidence to accept it.

2 is just a negative claim with no merrit. People wouldn't even come up with it, UNLESS someone first makes claim 1.

I'ld also add that when someone comes up and claims this flood happened, my response would not be an argument "for" it never having happened. It would rather be an argument "against" the positive claim, which is NOT the same thing.

I'ld say things like "the positive claim predicts a genetic bottleneck in all living things, but such bottlenecks do not exist..."

I'ld be directly addressing the positive claim and pointing out how its contents and details do not match up to observable reality.

I am not claiming an either/or proposition to scientific examination, it is definitely a vital PIECE of the puzzle.

But you keep implying that there are "other" methods.
I keep asking to mention them.
Are you gonna?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ironically a couple of my favorite technical posters in this forum seemed to have bowed out of this topic altogether, using the exact same word of ridiculous! For me it has nothing to do with the actual word choice, just the claim behind the word choice that it need not be defended, but it's looking like we've hit a wall on our interpretation of this, looks like we've entered the agree to disagree moment.

I'm still at a loss of what we supposedly have to "agree to disagree" about....

Because it seems to me as if the thing we aren't agreeing on, is what MY (and other atheists here) beliefs and claims are.

It's like you keep insisting that you know better then me what I claim and believe.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm still at a loss of what we supposedly have to "agree to disagree" about....

Because it seems to me as if the thing we aren't agreeing on, is what MY (and other atheists here) beliefs and claims are.

It's like you keep insisting that you know better then me what I claim and believe.

That is a good sign, that someone feels threatened by the position of another person, and they need to redefine the other persons meaning. You see this (i know better than you) from numerous theists on this board.

 

[Dirk1540]

That is a good sign, that someone feels threatened by the position of another person, and they need to redefine the other persons meaning.

Lol you go ahead and keep on thinking that that's what it is. This is as bad as partisan politics. It would be so refreshingly honest if an agnostic in this forum were to come in and make a post saying "Wait a minute, how is 'I don't know' the position of an atheist?"

 

[Chriliman]

Can we say an atheist is a person who neither accepts or rejects that God exists? Similar to how an amoral person neither accepts or rejects that something is right or wrong?