Atheistic Double Standard?

[ImmortalFlame]

Then yes, atheism and physicalism both make claims in the sense that they believe X over Y. Well said!

What claim does atheism make?

 

[1137]

Ahh, the ad hominem defence. Well done

Disbelief is the opposite of belief... Note the dis

It is not an ad hominem to call someone out on their fallacy, Hahaha. It's not my fault your metaphor was absurd. I don't believe there is a unicorn in my garage, which is logically identical to me believing my garage does not have a unicorn in it. All stances are a position of some sort in philosophy.

What claim does atheism make?

Well atheism holds the belief that a godless universe is more likely than one with gods in it. It's according to you that belief is a claim, and I think I'm convinced by your reasoning.

 

[Willamena]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

I think the naturalist has a case, hands down.

 

[Willamena]

What claim does atheism make?

That there is no god.

Whether one is ignorant of gods, denies god-claims, or simply understands the case of "no god," the claim (made or implied) is that there is no god.

 

[Willamena]

Ahh, the ad hominem defence.

Ad hominem is a fallacy of argument, not defence.

 

[Willamena]

In logic the negative belief is the default belief.

Cite?

Example: I cannot prove that the toothfairy does or does not exist, but since there is no evidence for their existence then I do not bevel in the toothfairy.

That's a positive claim, the posit being "there is no tooth fairy."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well atheism holds the belief that a godless universe is more likely than one with gods in it.

False. An atheist doesn't have to make any claims with regards to probability or likelihood - they just have to not believe a God is responsible.

 

[ChristineM]

It is not an ad hominem to call someone out on their fallacy, Hahaha. It's not my fault your metaphor was absurd. I don't believe there is a unicorn in my garage, which is logically identical to me believing my garage does not have a unicorn in it. All stances are a position of some sort in philosophy.



Well atheism holds the belief that a godless universe is more likely than one with gods in it. It's according to you that belief is a claim, and I think I'm convinced by your reasoning.

First you have to prove a fallacy, to date you have given opinion whereas i have, in previous posts, provided the dictionary definition of atheist. I'll go with the dictionary definition thanks.

Why do you consider it absurd? Is it because you fail to understand it?

Here let me repeat repeat that definition for the hard of understanding

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Other than that, whatever you chose to fabricate to justify your opinion is just fabrication

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That there is no god.

Whether one is ignorant of gods, denies god-claims, or simply understands the case of "no god," the claim (made or implied) is that there is no god.

If you don't believe that the quantity of grains of salt in the ocean is even, does that mean you must believe that it is odd?

 

[ChristineM]

Ad hominem is a fallacy of argument, not defence.

Using it to defend a claim is a defence

Ad hominem : (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

 

[Willamena]

If you don't believe that the quantity of grains of salt in the ocean is even, does that mean you must believe that it is odd?

"Even" is an arbitrary term.

If you hold no belief one way or the other about the number of grains of salt in the ocean, you are not an atheist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Even" is an arbitrary term.

No, it isn't.

If you hold no belief one way or the other about the number of grains of salt in the ocean, you are not an atheist.

Yes you are, since an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God, not just someone who believes there isn't a God. Using the grains of salt analogy, an atheist is equatable to an "a-evenist". If you don't believe the grains of salt in the ocean are even, you are an a-evenist. You don't have to believe that the number of grains of salt is odd, you just have to not accept that claim that the number is even.

 

[Willamena]

No, it isn't.

It is, especially when you have no way of judging how many grains of salt there are.

Yes you are, since an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God, not just someone who believes there isn't a God. Using the grains of salt analogy, an atheist is equatable to an "a-evenist". If you don't believe the grains of salt in the ocean are even, you are an a-evenist. You don't have to believe that the number of grains of salt is odd, you just have to not accept that claim that the number is even.

No, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. And I'll always stand at odds with people like you who misuse the English language.

Not knowing how many grains of salt there are is not the equal of knowing whether there are an even or odd amount of grains of salt.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is, especially when you have no way of judging how many grains of salt there are.

That doesn't mean the word is arbitrary.

No, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods. And I'll always stand at odds with people like you who misuse the English language.

That's virtually identical to the definition I just gave. And please don't ever accuse an English person who studied English of misusing the English language.

Not knowing how many grains of salt there are is not the equal of knowing whether there are an even or odd amount of grains of salt.

I don't think you understand the analogy - I specifically dealt with belief, not knowledge. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand that a quantity of something is either even or odd?

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't mean the word is arbitrary.

How so?

That's virtually identical to the definition I just gave. And please don't ever accuse an English person who studied English of misusing the English language.

I disagree that it's identical, especially as we gave contrasting emphasis, and I've just edited to emphasize my emphasis.

I don't think you understand the analogy - I specifically dealt with belief, not knowledge. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand that a quantity of something is either even or odd?

I was hoping that the analogy was equating agnostics with atheists.

Else you only demonstrate the misuse of "not believing." There is no opposite or negation to believing something, there is just believing something else.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How so?

It refers to a quantity of something, and a quantity is either even or odd. Therefore, the word is not used arbitrarily.

I disagree that it's identical, especially as we gave contrasting emphasis, and I've just edited to emphasize my emphasis.

There really is no meaningful difference between our definitions, unless you're being extremely pedantic. If it helps, I can also define it like this: "Disbelief or lack of belief in God or Gods."

I was hoping that the analogy was equating agnostics with atheists.

It isn't. Agnosticism is irrelevant to the analogy.

Else you only demonstrate the misuse of "not believing." There is no opposite or negation to believing something, there is just believing something else.

Yes there is. "Not believing" is the opposite of "believing". What is difficult to understand about that concept? "To believe" is to "accept as true", to "not believe" is to "NOT accept as true".

 

[Willamena]

It refers to a quantity of something, and a quantity is either even or odd. Therefore, the word is not used arbitrarily.

Unless the quantity is not known.

There really is no meaningful difference between our definitions, unless you're being extremely pedantic. If it helps, I can also define it like this: "Disbelief or lack of belief in God or Gods."

The semantic/meaningful difference between what we are saying is evident in that we are in disagreement about who gets to be an atheist or not.

And I am ALWAYS pedantic. Pedantry makes the world go 'round (not oblong, not donut-shaped, not wibbly-wobbly).

It isn't. Agnosticism is irrelevant to the analogy.

Yes there is. "Not believing" is the opposite of "believing". What is difficult to understand about that concept? "To believe" is to "accept as true", to "not believe" is to "NOT accept as true".

When I say "not believing," I'm not negating belief. I could never, with any honesty, integrity, kindness or sanity, possibly negate anyone else's belief with the words that I use.

When "not believing" means "not accepting as true," it refers to gods, just as when I use it to refer to Santa Claus, it refers to Santa.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Unless the quantity is not known.

That doesn't make any difference. If I wrote down a number on a piece of paper, than number is either even or odd, regardless of whether I show it to you.

The semantic/meaningful difference between what we are saying is evident in that we are in disagreement about who gets to be an atheist or not.

"My definition of atheism is x."
"I disagree. The definition of atheism is actually x."
"But, that's the same definition I just gave."
"It can't be the same definition, because I disagreed with you!"

And I am ALWAYS pedantic. Pedantry makes the world go 'round (not oblong, not donut-shaped, not wibbly-wobbly).

In that case, it should actually make the world an oblate spheroid.

When I say "not believing," I'm not negating belief. I could never, with any honesty, integrity, kindness or sanity, possibly negate anyone else's belief with the words that I use.

You're not negating someone ELSE'S belief, you're stating a position of your own.

 

[1137]

False. An atheist doesn't have to make any claims with regards to probability or likelihood - they just have to not believe a God is responsible.

Remember, you're the one who argued beliefs are claims. If you don't believe in any gods, how could you possibly believe anything other than "there don't seem to be gods?" The only other option is to believe there is one or more god, which is theism. There's been a lot of discussion on this, and really the only remaining questions is whether individuals such as you are being intentionally dishonest, or if you simply blindly belief the vacuous reasoning of modern atheism.

First you have to prove a fallacy, to date you have given opinion whereas i have, in previous posts, provided the dictionary definition of atheist. I'll go with the dictionary definition thanks.

The fallacy is pretty obvious buddy, how is comparing "I believe in gods" to "I collect stamps" at all related in any slight way?

Why do you consider it absurd? Is it because you fail to understand it?

Here let me repeat repeat that definition for the hard of understanding

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Other than that, whatever you chose to fabricate to justify your opinion is just fabrication

Ah, so logic is fabrication to you. Fits perfectly with literally every experience I have with atheists online, just like how 9/10ths Penguin frowned upon me asking for support for a position.

 

[Valjean]

That there is no god.

Whether one is ignorant of gods, denies god-claims, or simply understands the case of "no god," the claim (made or implied) is that there is no god.

You haven't been paying attention. Some atheists believe there is no God, But atheism's sine qua non is simply lack of belief, as in withholding judgement pending evidence.