Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Roy]

It doesn't fail. Both the theist and the atheist are answering the question "does gods/ or does god/s not exist?"

Not quite - I'm answering the question "Is your religion true?". To answer "does god exist" I'd have to have a preferred definition of god independent of those advanced by various theists. I don't.

In that way, your atheism has shaped your overall worldview in many ways that my theism has shaped my overall worldview. It answers the big questions, "who am I, is there a purpose for any of this, where did I come from, and where am I going?" So, no. I don't consider my view that Edward Hyde is a fictional character similar to my belief in God. How could I? Edward Hyde's existence or lack thereof says absolutely nothing about the questions that everyone has.

But my atheism doesn't answer the big questions at all. It merely involves rejecting answers proposed by others.

By claiming to lack belief, the atheist is attempting to say that they have no view, and instead, that atheism is simply some sort of psychological state. In this way they can nitpick the theist's view to their heart's content and never have to worry about defending their own view on the subject. It's dishonest. If you really truly lack a belief about the question "does god/s exist or does god/s not exist" then what you really are is an agnostic.

I've never said I have no view, and I've rarely if ever shied away from defending my views on the subject. I leave that to certain apologists.

But this whole line of argument is futile, since the underlying purpose of it is to show that atheists are just as much believers as theists, and stretching the definition of belief to do that is self-refuting.

[Sparko]

You don't have to defend or promote your belief to me either, but you do anyway, right? Really not sure what all the whining is about. All I'm saying is that if you don't like it then don't participate.

Btw, I do have a belief concerning existence, though it isn't faith based such as is your belief, and if that is what we were discussing then your gripe would be legitimate, but we weren't, we were discussing your belief.

I do it because I believe it is necessary to promote one's viewpoint if you want to even have a chance of changing other people's minds. Which of course is why you and Tassman actually DO promote and defend atheism and hang around tweb. Yet when confronted by evidence you can't argue against, your fallback is: We just have disbelief, we don't have to defend our view!

It is just an excuse when you have no argument. That's all it is, and that is what we are pointing out - your hypocrisy.

[Sparko]

Non-stampists don't have views on non-stamp collecting. But they do need to defend their rights as citizens against fundy stampists who seek to impose THEIR views on everyone else and demand legislation to facilitate their beliefs and grant them benefits. All at the non-stampist's expense!

You don't realize you just admitted that Adrift was right all along, do you?

[Adrift]

Not quite - I'm answering the question "Is your religion true?".

Then why not call yourself an a-religionist instead of an a-theist? Afterall, you don't have to be part of a religion to be a theist.

To answer "does god exist" I'd have to have a preferred definition of god independent of those advanced by various theists. I don't.

I don't think that's necessary. I think that any intelligent honest atheist can look at the world around them and wonder to themselves, "Is this really all the cause of a cosmic accident, or was there something transcendent with an intended purpose that caused it to come into being?" Surely in at least one of your debates with a theist, or even when you chose to claim the mantle "atheist" you had to have considered the concept before deciding "No, there's nothing more than blind physical forces".

But my atheism doesn't answer the big questions at all.

Of course it does. Here, this is an easy one, "What happens to us when we die?" The atheist absolutely has an answer to that. The answer is...nothing. It's just blackness, and then poof, nothing. Our brains becomes inactive, our bodies go cold, then they rot, or are cremated, and maybe memories of us live on among our family and friends for a time, a stone sitting in some graveyard eventually fades and people stop visiting it, but Roy is gone.

I've never said I have no view, and I've rarely if ever shied away from defending my views on the subject. I leave that to certain apologists.

But this whole line of argument is futile, since the underlying purpose of it is to show that atheists are just as much believers as theists, and stretching the definition of belief to do that is self-refuting.

The argument isn't futile at all, I mean, it might seem that way to an atheist, because they gain nothing but the trouble of supporting their claims, but really it serves to make debate honest between the two parties. Those who make claims are responsible for supporting their claims. That's all we ask for.

[Roy]

Then why not call yourself an a-religionist instead of an a-theist? Afterall, you don't have to be part of a religion to be a theist.

You don't have to be part of a specific religion to be a theist, but you do have to be religious. However, you can be religious without being theistic.

I don't think that's necessary. I think that any intelligent honest atheist can look at the world around them and wonder to themselves, "Is this really all the cause of a cosmic accident, or was there something transcendent with an intended purpose that caused it to come into being?"

I certainly can, but the word 'God' has so much more baggage added to it (such as prayer and heaven and morality and an interest in impregnating human females) as well as the so-frequent apologetic elision from 'something transcendant that kicked off the universe' to 'my chosen personal deity' that I wouldn't use the word 'god' for it.

Of course it does. Here, this is an easy one, "What happens to us when we die?" The atheist absolutely has an answer to that. The answer is...nothing. It's just blackness, and then poof, nothing. Our brains becomes inactive, our bodies go cold, then they rot, or are cremated, and maybe memories of us live on among our family and friends for a time, a stone sitting in some graveyard eventually fades and people stop visiting it, but Roy is gone.

Sure, but that answer doesn't come from atheism. It comes from biology, medicine and other fields. The answer from atheism is 'we don't reincarnate as weevils, get reborn on the planet Kolob, awaken in a bottle on a grassy plain, or experience any of the other afterlives proposed by various religions.

The argument isn't futile at all, I mean, it might seem that way to an atheist, because they gain nothing but the trouble of supporting their claims, but really it serves to make debate honest between the two parties. Those who make claims are responsible for supporting their claims. That's all we ask for.

That's fine. The claims of atheism are 'I don't believe your god(s) exist(s)'. Pointing out that theists have provided no reason to believe what they say about their god(s) is support for that claim. So is pointing out when theists frequently avoid the responsibility for supporting their claims.

[Adrift]

You don't have to be part of a specific religion to be a theist, but you do have to be religious.

No you don't.

I certainly can, but the word 'God' has so much more baggage added to it (such as prayer and heaven and morality and an interest in impregnating human females) as well as the so-frequent apologetic elision from 'something transcendant that kicked off the universe' to 'my chosen personal deity' that I wouldn't use the word 'god' for it.

Well, start small then. God for many people may have more, as you say, baggage, but that's not what one means by "God" in, say, philosophical circles when questioning the existence of a transcendent being who brought into existence the natural world. At anyrate, at least you do have some inkling what is meant by the term that is not necessarily advanced by theists (though that shouldn't be a stumbling block in-of-itself).

Sure, but that answer doesn't come from atheism. It comes from biology, medicine and other fields. The answer from atheism is 'we don't reincarnate as weevils, get reborn on the planet Kolob, awaken in a bottle on a grassy plain, or experience any of the other afterlives proposed by various religions.

But it does come from your atheism. You sit on a planet filled with people who have always believed something more happens (whatever shape that something more might take), and people since before recorded history have always thought something more happened. The atheist is taking the bold stride in a different direction, they are bucking the trend and saying...nope, nothing happens. That's HUGE. That's not just some conclusion you accidentally bump into. You had to actively tune out all of the other voices on the planet and walk in an entirely different direction. Your atheism absolutely changed the course of how you think about that question, and it's a minor belief that totally reversed thousands and thousands of years of belief that something more happened. Your atheism leads you into all sorts of directions and decisions that I, as a theist, cannot follow, and vice versa. Believe it or not, your atheism is much more powerful to your worldview than you realized!

That's fine. The claims of atheism are 'I don't believe your god(s) exist(s)'. Pointing out that theists have provided no reason to believe what they say about their god(s) is support for that claim. So is pointing out when theists frequently avoid the responsibility for supporting their claims.

I agree, lots of theists don't support their claims. That's wrong of them. They should. You'll find, though, that most of the theists on this forum do actually support the claims for their belief in God, and have been doing it since the forum's inception. I realize that you hang out mostly in non theist/atheist debate areas, but it really does happen very often. The atheist must go one better, though, than simply poopooing the reasons that theists have given for their beliefs, they must substantiate their own belief, but as the noted Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig correctly points out, "But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions."

[Teallaura]

I have a viewpoint concerning theistic beliefs. I'm happy to defend it. It's not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs.

Seriously?

Definition of belief

1:a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

• her belief in God

• a belief in democracy

• I bought the table in the belief that it was an antique.

• contrary to popular belief

2:something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion :something believed

• an individual's religious or political beliefs

; especially :a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

• the beliefs of the Catholic Church

3:conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

• belief in the validity of scientific statements

How the HECK is that last one not a description of your 'viewpoint'?

------------------

Okay, this next bit is a rant. it isn't specific to Roy - it pertains only to the argument.


This, this kind of nonsense was why I avoided other atheists back when I was an atheist. It's a STUPID argument. The whole thing is stupid! It's predicated on the idiotic notion that 'belief' is somehow less founded than 'opinion' and should therefore be immediately disregarded. It's total nonsense!

Of course atheists have a set of beliefs - all humans do. Denying that fact does no damage to theism but makes atheism appear irrational.

[JimL]

I do it because I believe it is necessary to promote one's viewpoint if you want to even have a chance of changing other people's minds. Which of course is why you and Tassman actually DO promote and defend atheism and hang around tweb. Yet when confronted by evidence you can't argue against, your fallback is: We just have disbelief, we don't have to defend our view!

It is just an excuse when you have no argument. That's all it is, and that is what we are pointing out - your hypocrisy.

No, actually thats where you've got it wrong Sparko, atheists don't necessarily have no beliefs concerning existence, I have beliefs, its just that what we believe in is not defined by our atheism, atheism is nothing but a disbelief in what it is that you believe in, in what theists believe in, i.e. god. As far as making excuses and having no arguments, I don't know where you've been, I guess you only hear your own thoughts.

[Sparko]

No, actually thats where you've got it wrong Sparko, atheists don't necessarily have no beliefs concerning existence, I have beliefs, its just that what we believe in is not defined by our atheism, atheism is nothing but a disbelief in what it is that you believe in, in what theists believe in, i.e. god. As far as making excuses and having no arguments, I don't know where you've been, I guess you only hear your own thoughts.

You have a belief about the universe and the supernatural: You believe that the universe is completely materialistic and there is no supernatural. You believe that there is no God. You believe that materialism is all that there is. You believe we have no spirit. You believe people that believe in such things are wrong.

I never said anything about your beliefs being "defined by your atheism" - that's asinine. Your 'atheism' describes your beliefs and your world view.

[Joel]

I have a viewpoint concerning theistic beliefs. I'm happy to defend it. It's not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs.

And in later posts you referred to different kinds of beliefs. Can you be more specific about how you are subdividing belief into kinds?

Do we mean by "belief" something other than a proposition that one thinks is true? And then is believing a proposition is false a different kind of belief from believing a proposition is true? No, because the negation of a proposition X is just as much a proposition (~X). Believing that X is false is the same thing as believing that ~X is true. And we can even substitute a different term (A = ~X) such that the negation is reversed. So it seems that those are not two different kinds of beliefs.

I'm curious what you are getting at.

[Roy]

Seriously?

How the HECK is that last one not a description of your 'viewpoint'?

It is a description of my viewpoint.

But it's not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs, as can be seen easily from the fact that you've highlighted defn #3 of belief, while belief in God is given under definition #1, and the beliefs associated with a specific church are given under defn #2.

You have just confirmed that my viewpoint is not a belief in the sense that most religions are beliefs.

This, this kind of nonsense was why I avoided other atheists back when I was an atheist. It's a STUPID argument. The whole thing is stupid! It's predicated on the idiotic notion that 'belief' is somehow less founded than 'opinion' and should therefore be immediately disregarded. It's total nonsense!

Yeah, that's a stupid argument. Beliefs (and opinions) should not be immediately disregarded. They should be subjected to scrutiny to see if they are well-founded, and disregarded only if they aren't. Luckily this rarely takes long.

[Roy]

No you don't.

I think we are using different definitions of 'religious'.

But it does come from your atheism. You sit on a planet filled with people who have always believed something more happens (whatever shape that something more might take), and people since before recorded history have always thought something more happened. The atheist is taking the bold stride in a different direction, they are bucking the trend and saying...nope, nothing happens. That's HUGE. That's not just some conclusion you accidentally bump into. You had to actively tune out all of the other voices on the planet and walk in an entirely different direction. Your atheism absolutely changed the course of how you think about that question, and it's a minor belief that totally reversed thousands and thousands of years of belief that something more happened. Your atheism leads you into all sorts of directions and decisions that I, as a theist, cannot follow, and vice versa. Believe it or not, your atheism is much more powerful to your worldview than you realized!

I don't think my atheism leads me in directions; I think it keeps me away from dead-ends. But once the cul-de-sacs of religion have been dug up, there's still a huge range of possibilities to explore that atheism does not and cannot help navigate.

The atheist must go one better, though, than simply poopooing the reasons that theists have given for their beliefs, they must substantiate their own belief, but as the noted Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig correctly points out, "But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions."

I've noted that several times in Craig writings, most recently in the argument MM cited. All too often Craig argues against what 'many atheists admit' or what 'atheists typically say' - and he doesn't cite atheists who actually admit or say those things. He doesn't deal with the strongest possible criticisms of his arguments, only the simple ones he can handle. I've yet to see an article of his that dealt with the flaws I perceive in his logic, I'm always disappointed by him addressing superficial and flawed criticisms instead.

[Roy]

And in later posts you referred to different kinds of beliefs. Can you be more specific about how you are subdividing belief into kinds?

Teallaura provided a handy reference chart

Do we mean by "belief" something other than a proposition that one thinks is true? And then is believing a proposition is false a different kind of belief from believing a proposition is true? No, because the negation of a proposition X is just as much a proposition (~X). Believing that X is false is the same thing as believing that ~X is true. And we can even substitute a different term (A = ~X) such that the negation is reversed. So it seems that those are not two different kinds of beliefs.

I'm curious what you are getting at.

There are a myriad of propositions for gods out there. It's not ~X, its ~(X₁ | X₂ | X₃ | Y₁ | Z₁₇ | Q₂₄₇ | π₁ | π_f4 | ... | A^QW_33.3), where X₁ etc are largely incompatible, internally inconsistent and poorly defined.

[Mountain Man]

Of course atheists have a set of beliefs - all humans do. Denying that fact does no damage to theism but makes atheism appear irrational.

Only appear to be irrational? Frankly, the more I interact with atheists, the more I'm convinced that irrationality lies at the heart of atheism.

[Mountain Man]

And in later posts you referred to different kinds of beliefs. Can you be more specific about how you are subdividing belief into kinds?

Do we mean by "belief" something other than a proposition that one thinks is true? And then is believing a proposition is false a different kind of belief from believing a proposition is true? No, because the negation of a proposition X is just as much a proposition (~X). Believing that X is false is the same thing as believing that ~X is true. And we can even substitute a different term (A = ~X) such that the negation is reversed. So it seems that those are not two different kinds of beliefs.

I'm curious what you are getting at.

All he's getting at is a desperate attempt to avoid shouldering the burden of proof. The modern atheist is incredibly squeamish about defending his worldview and has put a considerable amount of effort into arguing about why he shouldn't have to defend it instead of just defending it directly.