Here we go: The definition of atheism.

[AtheistArchon]

- I notice that the common argument has arisen: You atheists, you're denying god, therefore you have a position of belief, which means the burden of proof is on you to show that god doesn't exist. Defend your belief!

- To this, some have stated the meaning of atheism as being a-theism, or without theism (theism being, undeniably, a faith based belief). This is my own position, although for certain definitions of god, I am indeed a "strong" atheist... but those occasions are few and far between since getting a concrete definition of god is not an easy thing to do.

- Anyhow, here's the grind. Most atheists define themselves as "without belief", since they disbelieve in god. It's only proper to take us at our word, theists, regardless of how you may define atheism. You may define it as knowing god exists but spitting in his face... but that's just not my status, I don't care what your church taught you.

- So, proceeding from this point, what's your opinion (Christians)? Are atheists in denial? Or are we in a justified skeptical position?

- To help the argument along, I'll remind everyone that disbelief in any incorporeal (immaterial) entity is perfectly justified:

1. Nobody here "believes" in the tooth fairy, regardless of how she is defined by tooth-fairy-believers. Are we not justified in not believing? Need we "prove" she doesn't exist?

2. Nobody here "believes" in ancient Greek or Roman gods, regardless of how they were defined by Greeks and Romans.

3. Nobody believes in [insert silly immaterial make-believe being here]. Need we justify this disbelief?

- Claiming that your personal deity is the one true deity, or that it has special status somehow because it's "not ad-hoc", or because it's defined in some special way, does not help. Gods are not apparent or obvious... if they were, nobody would have reason to doubt claims of their existence.

- Flame on! :thumb:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70912#post70912)
AtheistArchon:

- I notice that the common argument has arisen: You atheists, you're denying god, therefore you have a position of belief, which means the burden of proof is on you to show that god doesn't exist. Defend your belief!


If there is an actual denial of the existence of god, then one has reason to expect the atheist to support his proposition.



- To this, some have stated the meaning of atheism as being a-theism, or without theism (theism being, undeniably, a faith based belief). This is my own position, although for certain definitions of god, I am indeed a "strong" atheist... but those occasions are few and far between since getting a concrete definition of god is not an easy thing to do.

- Anyhow, here's the grind. Most atheists define themselves as "without belief", since they disbelieve in god. It's only proper to take us at our word, theists, regardless of how you may define atheism. You may define it as knowing god exists but spitting in his face... but that's just not my status, I don't care what your church taught you.

- So, proceeding from this point, what's your opinion (Christians)? Are atheists in denial? Or are we in a justified skeptical position?


Whether or not the soft stance is justified depends on the individual--and by "justified" I simply refer to possession of a reasonable rationale for lacking belief in a god or gods. If an atheist has an IQ of 34 and simply can't seem to process information about a deity, then we could say that lack of belief was apparently justified, for instance. Or, if the atheist has an IQ of 189, and thinks that a reasonable argument for the existence of god has been made yet doesn't feel like acknowledging god, then even that could be found a reasonable position--in terms of providing an understandable rationale for his professed (lack of) belief.



- To help the argument along, I'll remind everyone that disbelief in any incorporeal (immaterial) entity is perfectly justified:


Agreed. You're at least minimally justified (see above) in disbelieving the existence of energy, time, and numbers.
I removed the rationale provided by AArchon, since I agree with the basic premise of his proposition.



- Claiming that your personal deity is the one true deity, or that it has special status somehow because it's "not ad-hoc", or because it's defined in some special way, does not help. Gods are not apparent or obvious... if they were, nobody would have reason to doubt claims of their existence.


Yet people doubt the existence of the material world . . . I don't think that your comments subsequent to bringing up the definition of "atheism" are getting us very far.

[Warcraft3]

AthiestArchon:


So, proceeding from this point, what's your opinion (Christians)? Are atheists in denial? Or are we in a justified skeptical position?

I guess that depends on why you are a non-theist. If you are a non-theist because of some purely emotional reason then you may want to reconsider your position. But if you are a non-theist for philisophical or intellectual reasons then I would say your position isnt an unreasonable one.

Of course as a believer myself I would proceed to hit you on the head like so: :bonk: :whack:


Russ

:teeth:

[WinAce]

Linguistic hair-splitting. Meh.

Neither leprechauns nor giant lake reptiles nor anthropomorphic disembodied minds with comic book superpowers exist. Deal with it. It's not that I lack belief in those things, but that they're so impossibly ridiculous that in the absence of supporting evidence they're false until proven otherwise.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 06:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70982#post70982)
WinAce:

Linguistic hair-splitting. Meh.

Neither leprechauns nor giant lake reptiles nor anthropomorphic disembodied minds with comic book superpowers exist. Deal with it. It's not that I lack belief in those things, but that they're so impossibly ridiculous that in the absence of supporting evidence they're false until proven otherwise.

Argument by assertion and the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam stated specifically (in the absence of supporting evidence they're false until proven otherwise). You've gotta love it.
http://www.irelandseye.com/leprechaun/webcam.htm
http://www.southeasternpolysteel.com/gibbs/Staug02.html
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.htm

[johnransom]

Today @ 10:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70912#post70912)
AtheistArchon:

- I notice that the common argument has arisen: You atheists, you're denying god, therefore you have a position of belief, which means the burden of proof is on you to show that god doesn't exist. Defend your belief!
Given the general thrust of the rest of your post, I take it that you have no beef with the idea that the denial of a proposition bears an equal burden of proof with its acceptance. Good.


- To this, some have stated the meaning of atheism as being a-theism, or without theism (theism being, undeniably, a faith based belief). This is my own position, although for certain definitions of god, I am indeed a "strong" atheist... but those occasions are few and far between since getting a concrete definition of god is not an easy thing to do.
Apart from being a mangling of the application of Greek etymology in English, the concept of “lacking a belief in God” has only three grounds: 1) acceptance of evidence to the contrary combined with denial of supporting evidence (if there be any); or 2) the prejudicial rejection of the proposition with no regard to the evidence; and 3) no conclusion as to the validity of either case. #1, as noted above, we agree establishes a burden of proof. #2, if admitted to by its holder, has the virtue of honesty, although the holder still carries a burden of proof, given that in most cases such a rejection is not entirely irrational but rather an a priori conclusion that the proposition is absurd (for which there must be at least some grounds, even if they be merely emotional). But #3 is different. It is a position of agnosticism, not atheism. That is, an intentional withholding of judgment pending further consideration or additional evidence. Much as atheists seem determined to co-opt agnosticism to their side, real agnosticism is fully uncommitted to the truth or falsity of a proposition and is therefore not inimical to theism. Moreover, agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief, the latter being what one does with the former. Thus the true agnostic can rightly say he lacks belief in God, but at the same time must say he lacks a disbelief in God.

However, practically speaking, a position of true agnosticism is unattainable, since virtually all persons will approach any proposition with a prior disposition as to whether it is true or not, or will tend to weigh evidence as it is received. Thus one can be an agnostic and the same time either an atheist or a theist. That is, one can hold a belief position, but approach it with a skeptical methodology. Such a person, on the atheist side, may reasonably describe himself as a “weak” atheist, I suppose. But such a position does not relieve the burden of proof; one is admitting to a belief position and must therefore defend it.


- Anyhow, here's the grind. Most atheists define themselves as "without belief", since they disbelieve in god. It's only proper to take us at our word, theists, regardless of how you may define atheism. You may define it as knowing god exists but spitting in his face... but that's just not my status, I don't care what your church taught you.
Grind? You mean rub? Or maybe gripe? Certainly it is fair to take the atheist at his word. That is precisely why we are inclined to make such statements, because your words betray your true position. And, much as it mat dismay you to be out of the limelight, but most churches really don’t spend much time talking about atheists and their motivations.


- So, proceeding from this point, what's your opinion (Christians)? Are atheists in denial? Or are we in a justified skeptical position?
Give us an argument justifying it, and we’ll tell you.


- To help the argument along, I'll remind everyone that disbelief in any incorporeal (immaterial) entity is perfectly justified…Claiming that your personal deity is the one true deity, or that it has special status somehow because it's "not ad-hoc", or because it's defined in some special way, does not help. Gods are not apparent or obvious... if they were, nobody would have reason to doubt claims of their existence.
Again, if the disbelief is justified, then provide the justification. So long as one can demonstrate why a deity is not ad hoc, this is a perfectly valid statement. And the obviousness of a proposition (or of anything, for that matter) has relatively little to do with the doubting of it. Plenty of people disbelieve the patently obvious.

[WinAce]

I take it from your links you don't think Leprechauns, flying teacup-shaped robot probes orbiting Pluto and gods don't exist, Capt. Ochre? If so, I applaud your consistency.

[SlaveofChrist]

I have never posted before, and I dont see an excellent reason to post now because what I desire to say has already been said. Nevertheless, I am here posting... Atheists make a positive statement, so defend it.
I dont believe that the tooth fairy exists because... she (or he) has no evidence for existence.

I believe God exists because... well, you know there is a nearly infinite amount of evidence and I agree that most of it is able to be disproven rather quickly but there is a good deal that is very difficult if not impossible to disprove

So there you go

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 08:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71096#post71096)
WinAce:

I take it from your links you don't think Leprechauns, flying teacup-shaped robot probes orbiting Pluto and gods don't exist, Capt. Ochre? If so, I applaud your consistency.

Doesn't take either much evidence or the lack thereof to stimulate the formation of a conclusion for you, eh?
I would say that I lack a belief in robot probes orbiting Pluto, and that I suspend judgement on the truth or falsehood of the proposition pending evidence &/or some reason for making an affirmation one way or the other.

Did you read the link concerning the fallacy of argument from ignorance? Did you see yourself there?

[Woman]

Captain

If there is an actual denial of the existence of god, then one has reason to expect the atheist to support his proposition.

Not sure what this means. How does an actual denial of the existance of god differ from a simple "I don't believe in god?" Are there degrees of disbelief? Suppose, I say "I don't believe in demons" or you say, "I don't believe in ghosts." Would you consider it logical to have others demand that we provide proof they don't exist? (I'm trying to avoid the "Tooth Fairy" type comparisons because I do think that's a little condescending.)

Are you more comfortable with the Agnostic view and definition?

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god - Merriam-Webster

Captain:

...thinks that a reasonable argument for the existence of god has been made yet doesn't feel like acknowledging god...

I guess this misunderstanding is one I find most curious. It's a common assertion by many Christians that athesists are "god-haters." This is silly, of course, for in order to hate something, one must acknowledge its existance and thus becomes...a believer.

Then there is this mistaken comparison. In response to Archon's statement,
To help the argument along, I'll remind everyone that disbelief in any incorporeal (immaterial) entity is perfectly justified.

Captain says:

Agreed. You're at least minimally justified (see above) in disbelieving the existence of energy, time, and numbers.

The mistake here is that, for purposes of this discussion, those are concepts and not entites or beings. You might just as well have used "education" or "fear" which are also concepts, not incorporeal entities.


johnransom:

but most churches really don’t spend much time talking about atheists and their motivations.

Well, I'm glad to hear it. I guess that "Evangelism" is on its way out then?
:huh:

steadele:

If you are a non-theist because of some purely emotional reason then you may want to reconsider your position. But if you are a non-theist for philisophical or intellectual reasons then I would say your position isnt an unreasonable one.

Of course as a believer myself I would proceed to hit you on the head like so: :bonk:

Again we have that curious assertion that some Christians have: one can view evidence, come to an intellectual conclusion, have an emotional reaction to the "truth" and somehow trick the mind into "not believing."

Of course as a believer myself (though not a Christian) I would proceed to hit you on the head like so:

[garthoverman]

Yeah, yeah... burden of proof, blah, blah, blah....:ahem: its like a hot potato, everyone trying to toss it to the other and get it out of their own hands as quickly as possible.

This is my assertion:

"I lack belief in the existence of the Christian God"

I AM the proof of that statement since it is the verbal expression of my own internal state, and thus any burden of proof that might exist is immediately satisfied and cannot be proven objectively. You can call me a liar if you like, but if that is the best argument you have you'll quickly find our conversation at an end.:wink:

Now, if I wished to convince you that my internal state should ALSO be YOUR internal state, THEN I have a burden of proof beyond reporting my own internal state. Lucky for me I don't really give a rat's patoot WHAT you believe just as long as you keep it to yourself more-or-less. :nc:

In sum, I'm not out to convince you that your God doesn't exist, if that is what you believe. Instead, I'm here to show you that the the ways gods are typically defined and/or supposedly apprehended are irrational.:poke:

Yours,
Garth

[Sheepdog]

Today @ 11:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70912#post70912)
AtheistArchon:

You may define it as knowing god exists but spitting in his face... but that's just not my status, I don't care what your church taught you.


since several Christians made good responses as i would like to already, IMO, i will merely to respond to this. of all the churches i have been to, not one has ever even dealt with atheism from the pulpit, or in Bible studies, or small groups, etc. it looks like most skeptics are paranoid that we are trash talking behind your back-- and that is simply not the case. of all the topics out there, atheism is a mino in Lake Michigan. no one but those specialized in apologetics is wasting his/her time on it.

[Warcraft3]

Woman:


I made the comment:

If you are a non-theist because of some purely emotional reason then you may want to reconsider your position. But if you are a non-theist for philisophical or intellectual reasons then I would say your position isnt an unreasonable one.

Of course as a believer myself I would proceed to hit you on the head like so

To which you replied:

Again we have that curious assertion that some Christians have: one can view evidence, come to an intellectual conclusion, have an emotional reaction to the "truth" and somehow trick the mind into "not believing."

Of course as a believer myself (though not a Christian) I would proceed to hit you on the head like so:


Im not trying to make any kind of assertion here. I was trying to make a distinction between a purely emotional decision and a decision based on more than a emotional reaction. Perhaps an example from my own past will illuminate my point:

While I was growing up I watched my Mother (who had lupus and many other physical problems) suffer greatly. There were days when all she did was scream in pain. For 25 years I watched her suffer an agonizing existance. I was helpless to do anything (as were my father and two sisters) to ease her pain. Many, many times she went to "faith healers" who told her why she was sick. We were told all of the things we were doing wrong as a family and individually was hindering the healing. Everyone had the answer and everyone said they really cared. And everyone except for 2 people lied. How many people actually visited my Mother when she was at home, in the hospital, or when she eventually ended up in a nursing home? Not many. Out of a church of HUNDREDS maybe 2 people actually came. But of course they kept on telling us EVERYTHING WE were doing wrong and why we should have a stupid smlie forever pasted on our faces. And to make matters worse I watched as one of my best friends went through the very same thing with BOTH of his parents.

Now there actually was a time when my mother was miraculously healed of several things instantly, so of course everyone told us that eventually she would be healed of EVERYTHING as long as we got our act together. Well the end of the story was death not healing, so the promises I clung to so tightly never came.

For a time I stopped believing in God and became very very cynical. But my decision was based SOLELY on an emotional responce. So there is an example of what I was trying to convey. It isnt good to base your beliefs solely on feelings, regardless of what they are. Now I am still very cynical and skeptical of everything and I wouldnt say I am once again a practicing Christian, but my anger has subsided a bit and my former beliefs are returning.


Sorry if my example was too personal for anyone, but I am a very open person with a thick skin. I can tell a perfect stranger my darkest secrets because they have made me who I am today, and I am not ashamed of who I am or where I come from. Ok Im rambling now.....

So I wasnt trying to make the accusation that people
have an emotional reaction to the "truth" and somehow trick the mind into "not believing

I hope I have clarified what I meant.


Russ

:juggle:

[WinAce]

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71134#post71134)
Captain Ochre:

Doesn't take either much evidence or the lack thereof to stimulate the formation of a conclusion for you, eh?

Generally, it does. The notable exception is when some claim is totally bizarre and foreign to every common sense and scientific notion we've yet come up with, in which case disbelief is the default position. The existence of tiny paranormal-laden people who hide pots of gold at the end of rainbows would certainly qualify. So would the existence of huge lake reptiles which no scientific investigation has ever uncovered and that persist primarily thru anecdotes and forged photos. So would the existence of disembodied minds with comic book superpowers that we call "gods". :)


I would say that I lack a belief in robot probes orbiting Pluto,

What a copout!


and that I suspend judgement on the truth or falsehood of the proposition pending evidence &/or some reason for making an affirmation one way or the other.

Presumably this means you suspend judgement on the proposition that there are man-eating alligators under your bed. That means you believe one possibility is as good as the next. So, I have to ask you - aren't you scared to sleep on the bed, since there's a good chance magic crocodiles which you don't disbelieve might eat you? ;)


Did you read the link concerning the fallacy of argument from ignorance? Did you see yourself there?

Yes, and no, I didn't see yourself there. Have you heard of the fallacy of the false analogy? That fits the attempt to apply a label of "argument from ignorance!" to the improbability of subspace-breathing elephants, paranormal gnomes with magic pots of gold or minds without brains.

[Jezz]

WinAce
That fits the attempt to apply a label of "argument from ignorance!" to the improbability of subspace-breathing elephants, paranormal gnomes with magic pots of gold or minds without brains.

Hi, just curious - may I see those probability calculations that demonstrate the improbability of subspace-breathing elephants, paranormal gnomes with magic pots of gold or minds without brains?

Actually, on the topic of minds without brains... do you believe in the possibility of artificial intelligence? If you claim that the existence of "minds without brains" is improbable, doesn't that mean that you consider it improbable that we could ever develop artificial intelligence?

Oops, I didn't write enough in this post to get an anti-spam point. If I'm not careful, my posts:anti-spam ratio will drop to below 1:1... :teeth:

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 10:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71193#post71193)
Woman:

Captain


Not sure what this means. How does an actual denial of the existance of god differ from a simple "I don't believe in god?&quot


One is a proposition made without evidence in support, the other is a proposition where it is sensible to give the speaker the benefit of the doubt (we presume that he is giving us his real opinion).

"I don't believe in space aliens."
"Space aliens do not exist."
You really don't see a difference?

Regarding providing evidence for one's beliefs or lack thereof, it's an issue of burden of proof. Any proposition that one wishes for somebody else to accept as true should be accompanied by proof. As noted above, a statement of opinion is reasonably taken at face value. If an atheist tells me "Your god doesn't exist" and he expects me to take his statement seriously, then he bears the burden of proof for supporting his statement.



Are you more comfortable with the Agnostic view and definition?


It's not an issue of "comfort" with me. Atheists and agnostics can define themselves however they like even if one is in disagreement with another.



I guess this misunderstanding is one I find most curious. It's a common assertion by many Christians that athesists are "god-haters." This is silly, of course, for in order to hate something, one must acknowledge its existance and thus becomes...a believer.


I'm not sure how you derive hatred of God from what I wrote. I happen to believe that persons have a degree of autonomy in what they believe. If you don't want to believe in God, nothing's going to force you to do so.
That's my opinion, mind you.



Then there is this mistaken comparison. In response to Archon's statement,
To help the argument along, I'll remind everyone that disbelief in any incorporeal (immaterial) entity is perfectly justified.

Captain says:

The mistake here is that, for purposes of this discussion, those are concepts and not entites or beings. You might just as well have used "education" or "fear" which are also concepts, not incorporeal entities.



"Entity" doesn't have a mandatory connotation of personality.
Look it up.

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 01:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71345#post71345)
WinAce:

What a copout!


Sure, if that's what you want to call it. Sue me for taking the logical fallacies seriously.



Presumably this means you suspend judgement on the proposition that there are man-eating alligators under your bed.


An alligator that is able to fit under my bed doesn't worry me in the least. Did somebody cross alligators with fire ants, or something?



That means you believe one possibility is as good as the next.


No, it means that I've got relevant experience to use as evidence in one case, and insufficient evidence for rendering judgement in the other case.



So, I have to ask you - aren't you scared to sleep on the bed, since there's a good chance magic crocodiles which you don't disbelieve might eat you? ;)


Magic crocodiles who used to be alligators who were crossed with fire ants who can magically make themselves small enough to fit under my bed?
I hope he doesn't give the cat an upset stomach.



Yes, and no, I didn't see yourself there. Have you heard of the fallacy of the false analogy? That fits the attempt to apply a label of "argument from ignorance!" to the improbability of subspace-breathing elephants, paranormal gnomes with magic pots of gold or minds without brains.

If you want to talk about probability, then you say that you doubt that X is true or that you think that X is probably false, not "X is false". "X is false" is deductive conclusion demanding strong deductive proof.

[Woman]

steadele,

Yes, I do understand what you mean. Thanks for sharing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Captain,

Does this more or less summarize it? If one says "I don't believe in God." it's a simple personal statement of one's thoughts. No proof offerred, none required.

If one says "There is no God," that is a positive statement requiring proof?

If so, then I think I can say I get it!

:joy:

[Vorkosigan]

Yesterday @ 07:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71806#post71806)
Woman:

Captain,

Does this more or less summarize it? If one says "I don't believe in God." it's a simple personal statement of one's thoughts. No proof offerred, none required.

If one says "There is no God," that is a positive statement requiring proof?
:joy:

That's pretty much it. "There is no god" is the strong atheist position, a minority one among atheists. But I think "proof" is the wrong word here. It would require strong argument, instead.

Vorkosigan

[johnransom]

04-17-2003 @ 05:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71220#post71220)
garthoverman:
This is my assertion:

"I lack belief in the existence of the Christian God"

I AM the proof of that statement since it is the verbal expression of my own internal state, and thus any burden of proof that might exist is immediately satisfied and cannot be proven objectively.

04-18-2003 @ 01:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71806#post71806)
Woman:
Does this more or less summarize it? If one says "I don't believe in God." it's a simple personal statement of one's thoughts. No proof offerred, none required.

If one says "There is no God," that is a positive statement requiring proof?

If so, then I think I can say I get it!

Well, at least Woman finally gets the difference.

But there is a perfectly valid response to the kind of person who thinks that the statement "I don't believe in God" or such like bears no further burden of proof simply because that is their internal stateof mind, which cannot be proven or disproven.

That response is: "Is your ego so inflated that you think your internal state of mind is of any real interest in and of itself to anyone else?" And then, once the ego has been suitably deflated: "What exactly is your position on God, then?" As has been adequately pointed out, and in part apprehended, this statement is ambiguous and can be used equally validly by atheists and agnostics, although it means something entirely different to each group.

[Ghost]

<snip>


- Anyhow, here's the grind. Most atheists define themselves as &quot;without belief&quot;, since they disbelieve in god. It's only proper to take us at our word, theists, regardless of how you may define atheism. You may define it as knowing god exists but spitting in his face... but that's just not my status, I don't care what your church taught you.

It is nice to know that you care so much, but... While I have no doubt that atheists lack belief in God, as a Christian I also put God's Word above yours. God has revealed Himself, provided evidence of His existence, and I have no reason to believe that 'real atheists' exist. But this has little to do with the burden of proof concerning God's existence.

"God exists" is a synthetic proposition that incurs the burden of proof, shifting this burden would be arguing argumentum ad ignorantium.

"God does not exist" is a synthetic proposition that incurs the burden of proof as to the truth of the proposition. Likewise, attempting to shift the burden of proof is argumentum ad ignorantium.


- So, proceeding from this point, what's your opinion (Christians)? Are atheists in denial? Or are we in a justified skeptical position?

This is not a either/or dilemma. It may be that atheists are in denial and that atheists are justified in a skeptical position. Skepticism is healthy to a point, and why would a rational God condemn His creation for using reason?

But starting from your starting point, it is unlikely that any answer would satisfy you. You stated that you know what your status is and you don't care what our church taught us. It seems, and I may be wrong, that you have started from the point that you are right, and that your position on the matter is prima facie justified. I am already holding up my white flag.


- To help the argument along, I'll remind everyone that disbelief in any incorporeal (immaterial) entity is perfectly justified:

Then so is belief since we are moving from the burden of proof to epistemic status. You start from your presuppositions and so do I. That leaves us with examining my position and the evidence that I have to support my position. And examining your position and the evidence that you have to support your position. So far as I can see, you want to start from the point that your atheism is not only prima facie justified, but is the default position to hold. What is the point of your post? You have already won. If we were talking about the validity of the Bible, I would be convinced I was speaking with Farrell Till.


nobody here &quot;believes&quot; in the tooth fairy, regardless of how she is defined by tooth-fairy-believers. Are we not justified in not believing? Need we &quot;prove&quot; she doesn't exist?

You don't have to prove anything. But you should not confuse epistemology with logic either. Claiming that tooth-fairies don't exist would carry the burden of proof, but I can be warranted in my lack of belief and maintain an inductively strong position. Most people however, are not concerned with any distinction between epistemology and logic, and these differences break down in ordinary language. Whether you are justified in comparing God to tooth-fairies is another question. It would seem that you are attempting to argue ad absurdum, but what you are doing is begging the question and attempting to define God's non-existence. You are taking for granted that tooth-fairies are myths and then using that as an analogy to God. This is stacking the deck in your favor and is hardly a neutral starting point that is willing to examine the evidence fro and against God's existence. There are many other problems with the tooth-fairy route that you are taking, but my point here is simply that you son't seem willing to accept any evidence, but would rather reject all evidences and assume that God does not exist.


2. Nobody here &quot;believes&quot; in ancient Greek or Roman gods, regardless of how they were defined by Greeks and Romans.

3. Nobody believes in [insert silly immaterial make-believe being here]. Need we justify this disbelief?

And now you are just insulting and mockin theists.


- Claiming that your personal deity is the one true deity, or that it has special status somehow because it's &quot;not ad-hoc&quot;, or because it's defined in some special way, does not help. Gods are not apparent or obvious... if they were, nobody would have reason to doubt claims of their existence.

God is apparent to billions of people. You have given me no reason at all to believe you over what God has revealed to me and billions of other people. People doubt the Big Bang even though evidence favors that it happened. People doubt evolution even though evidence favors it. Skeptics are everywhere, and you are under the faulty impression that skepticism entitles you to some kind of rationality that theists don't have. There is a near universal belief that other minds exist, that we were not created five minutes ago complete withe memories, and there is, among the majority of people, an intuitive sense of God's existence. I would say that theists are justified in their belief and that atheists (which is ultimately faith based) are not justified in their lack of belief. So yes, I think that no true atheists exist (and yes, I have read M. Martin's article on this very topic).

Regards,

~ The Ghost In The Machine

[AtheistArchon]

But there is a perfectly valid response to the kind of person who thinks that the statement "I don't believe in God" or such like bears no further burden of proof simply because that is their internal stateof mind, which cannot be proven or disproven.

That response is: "Is your ego so inflated that you think your internal state of mind is of any real interest in and of itself to anyone else?"

- That's not a response, that's another question, and one that has no relevance to the issue. I can be the cockiest man alive, and that makes zero difference.

- I see this all the time... the ego argument. "If you just dropped your damed egotistical skepticism for a moment..." No.


And then, once the ego has been suitably deflated: "What exactly is your position on God, then?"

- Another question. When are we going to address the issue? My position on all gods and goddesses, ghosts and goblins, demons and angels, is that I don't believe in them. I thought that was pretty clear. At no time have you successfully placed the burden of proof on the skeptic.

- As for the issue of strong vs. weak atheism, that's what this thread has now boiled down to, and it's already a new topic, so I'll post there.
:smile:

[WinAce]

04-18-2003 @ 02:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71796#post71796)
Captain Ochre:

An alligator that is able to fit under my bed doesn't worry me in the least. Did somebody cross alligators with fire ants, or something?

"A mind able to exist without a brain in a vacuum doesn't worry me in the least. Did someone manage to cross superman's powers with Bronze Age myths, or something?"


No, it means that I've got relevant experience to use as evidence in one case, and insufficient evidence for rendering judgement in the other case.

What "relevant exprerience" would that be? You have no criteria (except... har har... the argument from ignorance?) to say that magic crocodiles under your breath can't exist. Yet you're sure I made them up anyway. Now, why is that? ;)


If you want to talk about probability, then you say that you doubt that X is true or that you think that X is probably false, not &quot;X is false&quot;. &quot;X is false&quot; is deductive conclusion demanding strong deductive proof.

Hair-splitting at its finest. There's pretty much no difference between "magical crocodiles under my bed don't exist" and "I think magic crocodiles under my bed don't exist". But fine, if you want, I'll agree to say "I'm pretty darn sure no gods exist" if you agree to say "I think a god exists, and he happens to be MY god".

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 10:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74923#post74923)
WinAce:



&quot;A mind able to exist without a brain in a vacuum doesn't worry me in the least.


Well, it shouldn't, since you probably can't justify the existence of mind in the first place.
:poke:



Did someone manage to cross superman's powers with Bronze Age myths, or something?&quot;


If so, they did it with apparently omniscient knowledge of Superman, since they did so prior to the apparent invention of Superman.



What &quot;relevant exprerience&quot; would that be? You have no criteria (except... har har... the argument from ignorance?) to say that magic crocodiles under your breath can't exist.


I didn't say that they don't exist. I said that I'm not concerned about them. I thought that you had picked up on that.



Yet you're sure I made them up anyway. Now, why is that? ;)


Because the likelihood that you know
1) Where my bed is
2) How much room is under my bed
3) What is actually under my bed
is very slim.
Regarding my being "sure" that you made them up, that's simply an expression of relative certitude, reflecting an inductive approach to the issue.
IOW, I take the logical fallacies seriously, and you apparently don't (still).



Hair-splitting at its finest. There's pretty much no difference between &quot;magical crocodiles under my bed don't exist&quot; and &quot;I think magic crocodiles under my bed don't exist&quot;. But fine, if you want, I'll agree to say &quot;I'm pretty darn sure no gods exist&quot; if you agree to say &quot;I think a god exists, and he happens to be MY god&quot;.

:zzz:
Fine, pass up the opportunity to learn something.

[johnransom]

Yesterday @ 04:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74895#post74895)
AtheistArchon:
- That's not a response, that's another question, and one that has no relevance to the issue. I can be the cockiest man alive, and that makes zero difference.
Since when is a question not a response to the statement that triggered it? Ridiculous. And cockiness has nothing to do with an inflated ego. The point is that if all you intend is to make a gratuitous statement, then you should have no problem with a response that questions your right to assume that anyone else should care, since that also is an internal state of mind.


- I see this all the time... the ego argument. &quot;If you just dropped your damed egotistical skepticism for a moment...&quot; No.
And you see it all the time because it's totally valid. We see it here all the time. Just check out anything posted by the class(less) clown tIll.


- Another question. When are we going to address the issue? My position on all gods and goddesses, ghosts and goblins, demons and angels, is that I don't believe in them. I thought that was pretty clear. At no time have you successfully placed the burden of proof on the skeptic.
Sez you. This has been perfectly well addressed and (naturally)evaded. Whether your "skepticism" (which is of course a totally invalid use of that term) is indicative of atheism or agnosticism, you still bear the burden of proving either why you believe there is no God (atheist) or why you consider the evidence inconclusive (agnostic).


- As for the issue of strong vs. weak atheism, that's what this thread has now boiled down to, and it's already a new topic, so I'll post there.
You have apparently added to your already known inabilities to read and write an inability to understand categories. How exactly does a discussion of so-called strong and weak atheism not fit within a thread on the definition of atheism? Again, ridiculous.

[Jezz]

johnransom:
You have apparently added to your already known inabilities to read and write an inability to understand categories. How exactly does a discussion of so-called strong and weak atheism not fit within a thread on the definition of atheism? Again, ridiculous.
Well, I think you're being a little harsh here. Yes, it's true that a discussion of strong vs weak atheism does fit under the topic of this thread - however it also fits under the narrower topic of "strong vs weak atheism" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=3430). AtheistArchon didn't say that such a discussion didn't belong in this thread - only that it belonged even better to that other thread, so rather than post twice he chose to post once on the more specific thread. Isn't that a reasonable thing to do?

[DBoone]

Is an atheist the same as what the Bible calls an unbeliever?

[spacemanspiff]

what's the point here?

so atheist can't prove god doesn't exist. that in no way proves that god does exist.

there's really no evidence either way.

asides, a proof in the existance of some sort of God does not mean it has to be the christian version. there are many possibilities.

[Sheepdog]

i don't see any responses to my post earlier (not suprizing, it was a tangent after all), but i made a goof that i'd like to make up for. i wrote:

no one but those specialized in apologetics is wasting his/her time on it.
i did not intend to imply that atheists are a waste of time. i apologize if i offended anyone with my comment. since most Christian leaders have no practical use in dealing with atheism, i intended to imply that they wouldn't comment on it because there are many other topics to be concerned about.

[Ben Franklin]

AtheistArchon wrote:

- I notice that the common argument has arisen: You atheists, you're denying god, therefore you have a position of belief, which means the burden of proof is on you to show that god doesn't exist. Defend your belief!


Ben Franklin's response:

- Sorry, AA, but I think someone can be an atheist without defending a "belief" ! Yes, the burden of proof does falls on the assertor, but in denying God's existence, an atheist is attempting to demolish the concept of God, not "prove" it ! In effect, an atheist sets out to "disprove" God's existence, that's all !

For an atheist's to defend his "belief" in the way you're suggesting, would mean he must first "conceive" of the very thing he says doesn't exist !
Am I the only one here who sees how backwards this is ? Let the theists make their own arguments !

[WinAce]

I wonder how I missed this back when it was still new.


04-21-2003 @ 10:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=75177#post75177)
Captain Ochre:

Well, it shouldn't, since you probably can't justify the existence of mind in the first place. :poke:

Is 'justifying the existence of mind' even a coherent concept? What does that mean, anyway? Is a mind somehow evil and in need of explanation before a court?

Also, nice non-reply to the fact mind-brain dependence makes disembodied minds (ghosts, gods, etc.) look as incoherent as vacuum-breathing crocodiles ;)


If so, they did it with apparently omniscient knowledge of Superman, since they did so prior to the apparent invention of Superman.

You're confusing terms. The word you're looking for is prophetic, not omniscient. In addition, it may be that the authors of the Superman franchise borrowed from ancient myths, instead of the opposite. Or they may share a common origin in human mythical archetypes of the man with amazing powers.


I didn't say that they don't exist. I said that I'm not concerned about them. I thought that you had picked up on that.

It's rather difficult to not be concerned with magic crocodiles if you have no opinion on whether they exist. After all, if you're not sure a dangerous entity like a murderer or werewolf isn't in the house at this very moment, you would probably behave as if it did, just to be on the safe side. To tell the truth, it appears your lack of concern betrays an unfounded belief in the non-existence of magic crocodiles...


Because the likelihood that you know
1) Where my bed is
2) How much room is under my bed
3) What is actually under my bed
is very slim.

How do you figure? Have you analyzed the antecedent probability of all known and conceivable mechanisms by which I could know those things, from clairvoyance to spying technology to divine revelation?

Or are you using that evil commie maxim of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' again? ;)


Regarding my being &quot;sure&quot; that you made them up, that's simply an expression of relative certitude, reflecting an inductive approach to the issue.

I agree. The best explanation for some sets of claims are that they were made up, and one of the major criteria that can decide this is how well it meshes with hard-earned and confident prior experience.

[EdJones]

A'THEISM, n. The disbelief of the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.

[chsalvia]

It seems to me that when someone professes a differing belief system from our own, we attribute it to some sort of emotional agenda. Because it's difficult to imagine how someone else could possibly come to a different conclusion than our own, and yet still be considered logical.

Thus, atheists sometimes assume that most Christians only believe in God because they were brought up with it, or they are comfortable with it, or they need to believe in a higher power, a higher purpose, they need someone to pray to who will listen to them - they need someone who cares about their problems. It can't possibly be that they actually feel intellectually justified in believing in God.

On the other hand, I'd imagine that Christians sometimes assume that most atheists deny the existence of God because they want to rebel against authority, they don't want to be held accountable for their actions, they don't want anyone telling them what to do, they don't want to feel as though they're always being watched and judged. It can't possibly be that they actually feel intellectually justified in disbelieving in God, in the face of all the evidence for His existence.

But something else has occurred to me. Doesn't the Christian point of view demand that the atheist is simply being irrational, or emotionally driven to deny God? Because, if the Christian God really existed, and He truly wants mankind to turn to Him, presumably every person would be given a fair opportunity to accept Christ, and receive the Holy Spirit. Presumably, everyone would be given fair testimony - through Scripture, through reason, and through the work of the Spirit. So, doesn't the Christian point of view demand that atheists are being unreasonable? From a Christian point of view, an atheist cannot be justified in his skepticism. There must be an ulterior, emotional motive to deny God.

But since I am, in fact, a skeptic, I believe I am intellectually justified in my skepticism. But Christians must necessarily doubt this. If Christianity is true, God desires that I accept His grace, and come to know Christ. Since I have not, it means that I have willfully and illogically rejected His testimony. Therefore, whatever punishment is coming to me is well-deserved. And yet...I feel totally justified, intellectually and philosophically, in my skepticism.

However, I recognize that many Christians feel totally justified, both intellectually and philosophically, in their belief. But doesn't their belief demand that I am being irrational, and emotionally driven, in my denial of Christ's testimony? For a Christian, an atheist's belief system can never be justified.

[Fideist345]

AtheistArchon:

- Anyhow, here's the grind. Most atheists define themselves as "without belief", since they disbelieve in god. It's only proper to take us at our word, theists, regardless of how you may define atheism. You may define it as knowing god exists but spitting in his face... but that's just not my status, I don't care what your church taught you.



I was lookingv around the net for a definition that is niether from a theist site or an atheist site and found this:

"There is a general consensus that:
A person who believes in a specific God, Goddess or combination of deities is a Theist.
A person who actively denies the existence of any and all deities is an Atheist.
A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic."

The above is, of course, out of context. The rest of the article is here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

I was hoping to find an article I read on this some years ago, but I was unable to locate it. But if memory serves, part of the article stated that the term atheist came into use in the 16th century and is originally a French term derived from the Greek theos (the above article states the same). That would appear to make the term one possibly born during the Renaissance and it's focus on both individualism and secularism.

Anyway, if the second proposition is turned around......?

[AtheistArchon]

I was hoping to find an article I read on this some years ago, but I was unable to locate it. But if memory serves, part of the article stated that the term atheist came into use in the 16th century and is originally a French term derived from the Greek theos (the above article states the same). That would appear to make the term one possibly born during the Renaissance and it's focus on both individualism and secularism.

- Really? I was under the impression that the term goes back a lot further than this, even being used, in essence, by the ancient Greeks themselves. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is indeed very recent an inventon.


Anyway, if the second proposition is turned around......?

- How do you mean? Deities denying the existence of all of us? :smile:

[Fideist345]

“ I was hoping to find an article I read on this some years ago, but I was unable to locate it. But if memory serves, part of the article stated that the term atheist came into use in the 16th century and is originally a French term derived from the Greek theos (the above article states the same). That would appear to make the term one possibly born during the Renaissance and it's focus on both individualism and secularism. ”



- Really? I was under the impression that the term goes back a lot further than this, even being used, in essence, by the ancient Greeks themselves. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is indeed very recent an inventon.

Nope. I just looked it up in M Websters :smile: According to that dictionary, Atheism comes from the Middle French athisme which is turn taken from the Greek atheos

“ Anyway, if the second proposition is turned around......? ”



- How do you mean? Deities denying the existence of all of us? :smile:

Never mind :smile: I realised after I posted that the term atheism would not then be limited to only that form. So, looks like they'll be more semantic verbiage :)

[WinAce]

Originally posted by chsalvia

But Christians must necessarily doubt this. If Christianity is true, God desires that I accept His grace, and come to know Christ.

Calvinists would reject your premise that God wants you to believe he exists. Universalists may believe God thinks, all things considered, you'd make a better skeptic in this life. "Christianity" is not some monolithic entity with a unified set of claims, but encompasses a wide variety of possible beliefs.