Ambiguity of Atheism

[Falvlun]

I don’t need a ‘well thought out’ lack of belief'. It so happens that I lack belief in mystical beings because there is no evidence for such, and I do not have to justify further my not believing in supposed mystical beings from faith alone. Or are we to descend into absurdity where it is being said that anything is existent, true, or credible unless a justified argument to the contrary is given?

I am not saying that everything under the sun needs to be justified. I am, however, saying that anything which you are asserting as a belief, or position, should have well-thought out reasons to support it.

It's like questions on an exam. You might get lucky by randomly choosing the correct answer, but there is nothing commendable about that. True understanding of why that answer is correct, or at the very least, why you believe that answer is correct, is what we should all be shooting for.

Lack of evidence is the atheist's ace in the hole. But it doesn't hurt to have supporting characters.

Now look, if I’m in discussion with a believer my scepticism is evident in the arguments that I’m disputing. And if I’m not in discussion with a believer then the question is impertinent, just as it would be with the situation reversed.

If you are having a discussion with a believer, then why wouldn't you expect to elaborate on your skepticism?

And wouldn't one way of starting such a discussion be by asking that "impertinent" question? (I really don't see it as impertinent either-- do you really find religious questions that taboo? That seems strange, coming from an RF member.)

And besides, that doesn't really address our point at all. The point is, that if you are in a discussion with a theist, and he asks you to provide evidence or reasons for being an atheist, then it is reasonable and polite to provide them, rather than to throw the "Burden of Proof" argument in his face.

I don’t expect people to understand my atheism – although I hope they understand my arguments.

How do you expect them to understand your arguments if you are unwilling to present them in the name of Burden of Proof?

(Oh, and I’m definitely not in the business of patronising theists in the cringe-making way you describe above!) On the contrary, I expect believers to explain why people ought to believe as a matter of faith in the existence of mystical beings, and I’m entirely open to any arguments, facts, propositions or indeed a full and final proof to show why my scepticism is misplaced.

I'm not being patronizing, but realistic. You may be in a more religiously diverse area, but it wouldn't even cross most peoples' minds around here that I was anything but a Christian. And regardless, the point stands: Theism is a much more prevalent meme in our society than atheism, so it makes sense that the concept of theism and arguments for it are more generally known and understood than those for atheism.

And as noted before, we are not saying that theists have no reponsiblitity to present their arguments as well. I do expect believers to be able to articulate arguments, present evidence, and give reasons for their beliefs.

The argument you are making proposes not truth but credibility as the benchmark. You say ‘people feel strength in numbers’ as if that were an argument in itself, rather than the identification of an inclination or a disposition.

You really are trying to read more into this than there is. I AM just saying that strength in numbers is something that predisposes people to accept beliefs. I AM just saying that we tend to find a belief in which the majority believes more credible than belief which only a minority hold.

I AM saying that this is why it is reasonable for theists to request atheists to support their positions.

I am NOT saying that majority belief demonstrates the truth of the belief. This debate we are having is not about whether theism is true. It is about common courtesy and how to debate politely and effectively.

And the Cliff Notes version:
My argument is NOT that majority belief provides evidence of the truth of theism, but that it provides an explanation of why it is reasonable for theists to ask atheists to support their position.

What I have said is that if the beliefs are true, then ultimately the advocates can settle the matter by providing proof, and a failure to do so cannot be discharged by offering the sceptic an opportunity to disprove the claim. It would be helpful if you were to look again at my very first post on this subject.

Well, duh. Of course that would be the only way to ultimately settle the question. But if that is impossible, that doesn't mean that your side automatically wins. Nor does it mean that it is unreasonable for the side unable to provide absolute proof to request reasons why they shouldn't hold their belief.

 

[Falvlun]

[/font]

Believers may be unified in their belief in mysticism, but they are not unified in any other respect. That’s the point I’m making. There is no absolute or settled determination concerning what the term ‘god’ means (which is not to say that all mystics believe in gods).

The concept of god is well enough defined for a group of people to be unified in their belief of a particular type, or subset of them. I previously gave my definition.

And ‘God’ for example can be omnipotent, or not; benevolent, or not; the world’s Creator, or not; eternal, or not; anthropomorphic, or not; immanent, or not; transcendent, or not; beyond logic, or not; infinite, or not; a supernatural agency, or not.

You are trying to prove that a general concept of god is impossible by presenting unique characteristics of various gods. Don't you see how that doesn't work? It would be like me saying that the word "dog" isn't a unified concept, because some dogs are big, some are small, some herd sheep, some catch frisbees, some are nice, some bite, etc. You have to find what they all have in common, which is what I did in my previous definition.

And if you don't like my definition, any dictionary will have an entry for the word god as well. Funny how they are able to do that if a general concept of god is impossible to have.

So the catch-all scenario you propose is misleading because religious belief is propositional and makes claims to the truth. Believers aren’t just alluding to a broad metaphysical hypothesis to explain the world and our place in it; they believe in various but specific doctrines and creeds that they hold to as articles of faith. To attempt to link all believers with a vague metaphysical notion makes the concept less credible and pushes the question of truth even further into the distance. Therefore the matter of credibility (and ultimately the truth) hangs not on a loose, generic aspect but a specific universal concept. And there is no single, specific and necessary concept that is self-evident, and nor is there one with which belief systems and believers universally agree.

Do note that I'm not the one who coined the word "theism". Your beef is with him.

 

[idav]

[/font][/color]
The concept of god is well enough defined for a group of people to be unified in their belief of a particular type, or subset of them. I previously gave my definition.


You are trying to prove that a general concept of god is impossible by presenting unique characteristics of various gods. Don't you see how that doesn't work? It would be like me saying that the word "dog" isn't a unified concept, because some dogs are big, some are small, some herd sheep, some catch frisbees, some are nice, some bite, etc. You have to find what they all have in common, which is what I did in my previous definition.

And if you don't like my definition, any dictionary will have an entry for the word god as well. Funny how they are able to do that if a general concept of god is impossible to have.


Do note that I'm not the one who coined the word "theism". Your beef is with him.

The core concept of the term god to me is a creator but created is a tough concept or the problem of infinite regression. The detail afterword describes attributes and I can tell you whether I believe in it. Like small dogs or big dogs or walking dogs I can believe in one aspect and not another.

 

[Falvlun]

The core concept of the term god to me is a creator but created is a tough concept or the problem of infinite regression. The detail afterword describes attributes and I can tell you whether I believe in it. Like small dogs or big dogs or walking dogs I can believe in one aspect and not another.

"to me" is the operative phrase there. Do you have a generic concept of god that encompasses all (or at least most) god-beliefs? Or do you not recognize non-creator gods as a type of god at all?

(Also note that "creator" alone is not adequate without further clarification. Tolkien created the Lord of the Rings. Was he a god?)

 

[idav]

"to me" is the operative phrase there. Do you have a generic concept of god that encompasses all (or at least most) god-beliefs? Or do you not recognize non-creator gods as a type of god at all?

(Also note that "creator" alone is not adequate without further clarification. Tolkien created the Lord of the Rings. Was he a god?)

A creator god would cover most religions I can think of. I wouldn't consider pantheism a creator god but would more so for panentheism. When you say there is not creator your pantheist or buddhist or even atheist which is a lot more narrow. Though if someone could prove some god created humans that might count but I mainly speak of whatever the source of existence is.

 

[Copernicus]

Cottage, I simply do not believe that it is possible for us to resolve this dispute. I agree pretty much with Falvlun's arguments here, so it doesn't make much sense for me to just repeat them in my own words. As I said in my last post, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. We are on very different wavelengths regarding this issue.

However, there is just one claim by you that I cannot let pass without a response:

It isn’t question begging, and it is the argument. Here it is again: Santa is a fictional character (no contradiction).

I'm sorry, but that is just absurd. The word "fictional" entails the meaning of "does not exist". In a debate about the existence of Santa Claus, you cannot argue your case by saying that Santa Claus is a "fictional character", because that assumes the conclusion you are trying to prove. Surely, you understand that. If you set out to debate the existence of God, you would similarly beg the question by saying that "God does not exist because God is a fictional character." The logical response is "How do you know that God is a fictional character?" That is, the most reasonable reply is to repeat the question that has just been begged.

 

[tomteapack]

2 desires here for this thread.

One is to collect various assertions about atheism from around the forum and essentially cut and paste wherever someone has made claim about atheism (mainly in fashion of defining it, stating what it entails).

Second is to hopefully reach a consensus, via discussion, that summarizes atheism.

While I am aware of "weak" and "strong" atheism, that to me is part of 2nd aim of this thread. On that level, anyone is welcome to come in and provide definitions, personal assertion, sub-classifications, whatever. I will do my best to be person who is seeking clarification among participants and reaching consensus.

I will admit bias up front that says I think the term is rather ambiguous, and I desire to collect from this site the many pronouncements I find about the term. To be clear, I am most interested in those who are self identified atheists, according to "Religion" field, and will do what I can to separate those assertions from others who I think are presenting something viable.

Also, if a self identified theist, or pantheist, or even satanist (or other) were to assert something along lines of, "atheism sucks and is plain deception," I will refrain from adding to this thread.

Updated: Am done for research on first night I care to do the searching for quotes. I would estimate I am about 1 percent complete. Not trying to exaggerate, that strikes me as how far I am, with how much I would like to search. So far, the process has been fairly educational for me. I would also note that I am bypassing a lot of posts where atheists say things about atheists, and trying my best to stick to what is said about atheism.

I am an atheist, and atheism is simple to understand, it is simply for any number of reasons, the lack of a belief in any god or gods. That is it, end of definition.

The reasons for that simple belief tend to divide how people think about atheists, strong, weak, emphatic, negative, positive, etc. But those describe the reasoning behind the belief that no god exists, not the actually atheist belief itself.

For instance, I am an atheist by faith, faith in the complete and total lack of any evidence suggesting any god or gods may exist. 50,000 years and more of human history and the only hint of a god comes from the minds of men, their myths, their superstitions, their imagination. To me, that is way more than enough PROOF to be positive that no god or gods exist.

 

[atanu]

'Atheism' is indeed a belief that spans a wide spectrum. On one hand, it may include charvak's who hold that there is nothing more than the physical self. And on the other hand, it may include the Self realised Vedantist, who holds that Deity is only a relative truth in the phenomena of the Being, which is not a belief but is self evident.

 

[cottage]

I am not saying that everything under the sun needs to be justified. I am, however, saying that anything which you are asserting as a belief, or position, should have well-thought out reasons to support it.

It's like questions on an exam. You might get lucky by randomly choosing the correct answer, but there is nothing commendable about that. True understanding of why that answer is correct, or at the very least, why you believe that answer is correct, is what we should all be shooting for.

Lack of evidence is the atheist's ace in the hole. But it doesn't hurt to have supporting characters.

The lack of evidence (for mystical beings) is the only issue, and by definition the sole reason that atheism exists. Let us remind ourselves that theists aren’t posing the existence of gods as a hypothetical or philosophical notion, or as just one more metaphysical speculation among many. They are claiming their beliefs as true, and not in a probable sense but in the sense that they cannot be false. The term you use ‘true understanding’ (or should we say ‘understanding truth’) definitely has merit, but I don’t need to introspect or over-analyse my lack of belief as faith in mystical beliefs in order to come to that understanding, which is that the claims made for those things are not certain and true.

If you are having a discussion with a believer, then why wouldn't you expect to elaborate on your skepticism?

Well I would be, wouldn’t I? Have another look at what I wrote.

And wouldn't one way of starting such a discussion be by asking that "impertinent" question? (I really don't see it as impertinent either-- do you really find religious questions that taboo? That seems strange, coming from an RF member.)

Forgive me, but you’re really not getting what I’m saying. I repeat: if I am already in discussion (or beginning a discussion) with a believer, say on this forum, my scepticism is plainly evident in the arguments I’m making or disputing. But if I’m not in discussion with a believer, ie out in the community, I’m not going to seek out believers to impose my sceptical religious views uninvited. And the same should apply to the other party.

And besides, that doesn't really address our point at all. The point is, that if you are in a discussion with a theist, and he asks you to provide evidence or reasons for being an atheist, then it is reasonable and polite to provide them, rather than to throw the "Burden of Proof" argument in his face.

I love the way you say ‘throw the "Burden of Proof" argument in his face’ as if the question of proof were an obscene reference or in some way fallacious or illegitimate! My entirely reasoned answer for the umpteenth time is that there is no sound reason to believe in the existence of mystical or supernatural beings, since doctrinal beliefs from faith are not evidence of what is certain and true. And that is the golden opportunity, always on offer, for the advocate to demonstrate why that statement is false or misplaced.

How do you expect them to understand your arguments if you are unwilling to present them in the name of Burden of Proof?

I’m saying it is only the arguments that matter as in what is true or false, possible or impossible. We don’t need to discuss ‘my atheism’ in quasi-mystical terms as if I were suffering from some kind of chronic condition, which renders sceptics unable to transcend the world of experience, facts and logic. And I have no idea what you mean by ‘unwilling to present them (the arguments) in the name of burden of proof’! But I can and will argue any aspect of the philosophy of religion you care to name.

I'm not being patronizing, but realistic. You may be in a more religiously diverse area, but it wouldn't even cross most peoples' minds around here that I was anything but a Christian. And regardless, the point stands: Theism is a much more prevalent meme in our society than atheism, so it makes sense that the concept of theism and arguments for it are more generally known and understood than those for atheism.
And as noted before, we are not saying that theists have no reponsiblitity to present their arguments as well. I do expect believers to be able to articulate arguments, present evidence, and give reasons for their beliefs.

Yes, I now see what it is you are saying and I withdraw my previous remarks

You really are trying to read more into this than there is. I AM just saying that strength in numbers is something that predisposes people to accept beliefs. I AM just saying that we tend to find a belief in which the majority believes more credible than belief which only a minority hold.

And that last sentence is my point of contention. The reason I’m on this site now, and you are reading these words, is because I do not accept that mystical beliefs from faith are credible. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that your ‘majority’ have never in the history of the world demonstrated the credibility of their beliefs. With respect, the mistake you are making is comparing ordinary beliefs, which are subject to the test of possible experience, with mystical beliefs that claim to transcend experience. In everyday life what ‘we tend to find credible’ in majority beliefs is what is, or might be, the case in possible experience. The explicit difference is, of course, that whatever might be the case in possible experience also has the possibility of not being the case, which assuredly is not the argument theists and mystics are making.

I AM saying that this is why it is reasonable for theists to request atheists to support their positions.
I am NOT saying that majority belief demonstrates the truth of the belief. This debate we are having is not about whether theism is true. It is about common courtesy and how to debate politely and effectively.
And the Cliff Notes version:
My argument is NOT that majority belief provides evidence of the truth of theism, but that it provides an explanation of why it is reasonable for theists to ask atheists to support their position.

Where is it being said, and by whom, that atheists don’t support their position? Further more (unless they’re just being abusive) it is logically impossible for atheists not to support their position when they’re actively arguing with believers!

Well, duh. Of course that would be the only way to ultimately settle the question. But if that is impossible, that doesn't mean that your side automatically wins. Nor does it mean that it is unreasonable for the side unable to provide absolute proof to request reasons why they shouldn't hold their belief.

You’ve replied ‘Well duh’(whatever that’s supposed to imply?) to one part of the sentence while ignoring the essential second part, which was the essence of the argument I made in my original post.
But anyway, if proof is impossible then so is the claim. And in that case ‘my side wins’. (Is it really about ‘winning’, though?) And there are no reasons that I can think of why people shouldn’t hold the beliefs they do. Although I maintain that it is for believers to explain to unbelievers why they ought to believe that mystical beliefs from faith are true.

 

[cottage]

[/font][/color]
The concept of god is well enough defined for a group of people to be unified in their belief of a particular type, or subset of them. I previously gave my definition.


You are trying to prove that a general concept of god is impossible by presenting unique characteristics of various gods. Don't you see how that doesn't work? It would be like me saying that the word "dog" isn't a unified concept, because some dogs are big, some are small, some herd sheep, some catch frisbees, some are nice, some bite, etc. You have to find what they all have in common, which is what I did in my previous definition.

And if you don't like my definition, any dictionary will have an entry for the word god as well. Funny how they are able to do that if a general concept of god is impossible to have.


Do note that I'm not the one who coined the word "theism". Your beef is with him.

I’m definitely not claiming that broad-brush definitions are impossible. Far from it! As you yourself say every dictionary on the planet presumes to attempt that task, awarding the concept with varying attributes. However the ongoing case in point is one of credibility, as it has been throughout the discussion, therefore my contention is that any supposed generic link is a precarious one and being inadequate it is open to contradiction. There is no absolute definition that applies in every case to every god in history and to every believer, other than an entity (or image) being an object of faith and worship, which is more of a prescription of mysticism than a defining feature of deities. Gods don’t even have to be supernatural, and to say gods have control over some aspect of the natural realm applies equally to humankind. There are numerous so-called general concepts of ‘God’ and, for example, profound disagreement over whether 'God' is a personal being, a causal agent, or prior to logic. Individuals’ faith is specific when it comes to gods or God. It isn’t a generic term that defines gods but rather the contradictions and differences that individualise them. That last point is so patently obvious that it hardly needs saying. Quite simply, gods are whatever believers say they are, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of universality or their credibility. The only factor common to all god concepts is that they are necessarily faith-based.

 

[cottage]

Cottage, I simply do not believe that it is possible for us to resolve this dispute. I agree pretty much with Falvlun's arguments here, so it doesn't make much sense for me to just repeat them in my own words. As I said in my last post, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. We are on very different wavelengths regarding this issue.

I apologise for the extended delay in responding to you guys, but I’ve got stuff going on at the moment that requires most of my time.
Indeed, we may be on different wavelengths as you say. But in my view the arguments still need to be aired, although isn’t always necessary for a discussion to attain a particular or sought-after resolution. I'm sure you'll agreee this isn't a competition where there are correct answers. And to be brutally honest I'm here to express my ideas; I'm not looking for agreement.

However, there is just one claim by you that I cannot let pass without a response:
I'm sorry, but that is just absurd. The word "fictional" entails the meaning of "does not exist". In a debate about the existence of Santa Claus, you cannot argue your case by saying that Santa Claus is a "fictional character", because that assumes the conclusion you are trying to prove. Surely, you understand that. If you set out to debate the existence of God, you would similarly beg the question by saying that "God does not exist because God is a fictional character." The logical response is "How do you know that God is a fictional character?" That is, the most reasonable reply is to repeat the question that has just been begged.

In reply to what you understood as question-begging, let me explain that if I am saying Santa (a fictional character) does not exist, his non-existence isn’t contingent upon the question concerning his alleged fictional characterisation, but upon the argument concerning his non-existence. The conclusion concerning his fictional status then follows from his logically demonstrable ontological status. I apply the same propositional argument to God (as a necessary being).

So the logical response you ask for: ‘How do you know that God is a fictional character’ is actually the one I’ve that I gave you (albeit in a highly compressed form)! Here it is again, this time in detail.


Assume Santa exists.

Proposition: ‘Santa Claus exists’ is true

but

If there is no contradiction in denying ‘Santa Claus exists’ then ‘Santa Claus exists’ isn’t true.

There is no contradiction in denying Santa Clause exists, therefore ‘Santa Clause exists’ isn’t true.

(If A, then B. A, therefore B)

The proposition ‘Santa Claus exists is true’ entails the proposition that ‘Santa Clause does not exist’ is false, which must involve a contradiction if denied. But with no such contradiction evident the proposition ‘Santa Clause exists’ is demonstrably untrue.

So if Santa Clause doesn’t exist then his character is proved to be merely fictional.

Santa Clause doesn’t exist. Therefore Santa Clause is a fictional character

 

[Copernicus]

...And to be brutally honest I'm here to express my ideas; I'm not looking for agreement.

What is so "brutal" about that? I am perfectly aware of that fact.

In reply to what you understood as question-begging, let me explain that if I am saying Santa (a fictional character) does not exist, his non-existence isn’t contingent upon the question concerning his alleged fictional characterisation, but upon the argument concerning his non-existence. The conclusion concerning his fictional status then follows from his logically demonstrable ontological status. I apply the same propositional argument to God (as a necessary being).

You seem to be tying yourself up in logical knots to try to defend an indefensible position. If someone asks you why you think Santa Claus does not exist, then the reply that he his a "fictional character" is non-responsive. It is merely repeating your conviction that he does not exist. If you can explain why you think he does not exist (or is fictional), then you have addressed the question rather than begged it.

So the logical response you ask for: ‘How do you know that God is a fictional character’ is actually the one I’ve that I gave you (albeit in a highly compressed form)! Here it is again, this time in detail.

OK. Let's take a close look at it.

Assume Santa exists.

Proposition: ‘Santa Claus exists’ is true

It looks like you are going for a reductio ad absurdum here, but you never actually carry it off.

If there is no contradiction in denying ‘Santa Claus exists’ then ‘Santa Claus exists’ isn’t true.

However, you have just assumed his existence. So you have produced a contradiction by asserting that assumption is false.

There is no contradiction in denying Santa Clause exists, therefore ‘Santa Clause exists’ isn’t true.

Huh? You've completely lost me at this point. If you assume he exists, then denying his existence yields a contradiction. You aren't making any sense.

(If A, then B. A, therefore B)

Yes, I'll go along with material implication. Its logic is not in dispute here.

The proposition ‘Santa Claus exists is true’ entails the proposition that ‘Santa Clause does not exist’ is false, which must involve a contradiction if denied. But with no such contradiction evident the proposition ‘Santa Clause exists’ is demonstrably untrue.

One might quibble over your use of 'entails' here, but it is certainly the case that 'Santa Claus exists' and 'It is not the case that Santa Claus does not exist' are logically equivalent. I don't see any argument here for or against the existence of Santa Claus, since you are only talking about the implications of jumping to conclusions. The question we started out with still remains: "Does Santa Claus exist?" You have not provided an answer to that, although you seem to have logic-chopped your foot off.

So if Santa Clause doesn’t exist then his character is proved to be merely fictional.

True, but you haven't given any reason to believe that he does or does not exist. Can you defend either side of the argument? At this point, I see no answer to the question, which is why I accused you of begging the question.

Santa Clause doesn’t exist. Therefore Santa Clause is a fictional character

I'll agree to that. Now, why is it that you think Santa Claus does not exist (i.e. is a fictional character)?

 

[idav]

I'll agree to that. Now, why is it that you think Santa Claus does not exist (i.e. is a fictional character)?

Not believing in santa isn't all that ambiguous. Since it is a myth that has been perpetuated around the world for centuries, not believing is the same as dismissin the character that is santa as ficticious.

 

[Copernicus]

Not believing in santa isn't all that ambiguous. Since it is a myth that has been perpetuated around the world for centuries, not believing is the same as dismissin the character that is santa as ficticious.

Idav, are you trying to defend Cottage's attempt at a logical argument? If so, be aware that he is not a big fan of arguments from popularity. So he cannot rely on the fact that everyone believes Santa Claus to be a fictional character is sufficient evidence that he is indeed a fictional character. He has to come up with something more than that.

 

[idav]

The argument for popularity just makes it a good comparison for the santa myth. At what point are we dismissing the entity due to lack of evidence vs. dismissing the attributes related to the stories about the entity?

 

[Copernicus]

The argument for popularity just makes it a good comparison for the santa myth. At what point are we dismissing the entity due to lack of evidence vs. dismissing the attributes related to the stories about the entity?

This gets us to the heart of the question. You can dismiss Santa Claus and God on the very weak grounds that there is no evidence for either entity. I call that "weak", because people who believe in such beings tend to believe that they can produce satisfactory evidence of their existence, even if you do accept their evidence. So the argument from lack of evidence goes nowhere. A much better strategy is to list reasons why you consider Santa and/or God an implausible being--i.e. not worthy of belief--in the reality that we currently find ourselves in. That is, belief in the existence of either being leads to absurd or unsustainable conclusions. Arguments in favor of atheism are almost always plausibility arguments.

The main difference between God and Santa is that the former is considered plausible by most people and the latter implausible. So you don't have to work very hard to argue that Santa is unreal. Since almost nobody believes in him anyway, you can dismiss him on the grounds that he is obviously a fictional character. That is begging the question, but few people are motivated to defend their belief that Santa is fictional. God is another matter. A majority of people take the existence of God seriously. So you need to offer something a little more to warrant dismissal than the blanket assertion that there is "no evidence" for his existence. Well, you need to offer something more if you expect your dismissal of God's existence to be taken seriously.

 

[idav]

The argument for plausibility starts going after the character as described with certain attributes. Like I could believe in santa but just not the santa that is heavy set and manages to squeeze into chimineys. That would be a fictional aspect of the character which uses the argument of implausibility but I don't think it needs to get that far that you need to argue against fallacies and absurdities but I can see that it does make the case stronger.

For example someone can accuse me of a crime without having any evidence at all but that in itself would be absurd without something. Now say they think I was at the scene of the crime at some point and show proof I was out of the country that week then it does make my case stronger unless they want to argue I was in two places at once whic would also be absurd. I don't see how you can make the claim without evidence in the first place and after that your arguing against certain details which is dependant on what the accuser or person making the claims is saying.

 

[Falvlun]

The lack of evidence (for mystical beings) is the only issue, and by definition the sole reason that atheism exists.

Red part: The only issue? Isn't that a little presumptuous? Atheists can have a myriad of issues with theism, resulting in their atheism. Besides, lack of evidence, while likely the atheist's strongest card, still isn't all that overwhelming. What of the time honored example of black swans? Absence of evidence is certainly evidence of absence, but it is not proof, and it has been shown to be wrong. It really doesn't hurt to have supporting arguments.

Green part: By definition? Really? Where in the definition of atheism does it say "lack of evidence"? Again, isn't that a bit presumptuous to be speaking for all atheists?

Let us remind ourselves that theists aren’t posing the existence of gods as a hypothetical or philosophical notion, or as just one more metaphysical speculation among many. They are claiming their beliefs as true, and not in a probable sense but in the sense that they cannot be false. The term you use ‘true understanding’ (or should we say ‘understanding truth’) definitely has merit, but I don’t need to introspect or over-analyse my lack of belief as faith in mystical beliefs in order to come to that understanding, which is that the claims made for those things are not certain and true.

I still don't follow your argument. My belief is that any position you hold, and particularly those you actively support, should have arguments and reasons to back them up. Otherwise, they are no better than the simple faith of the theists.

Just because someone else's belief is not well supported, doesn't give your alternate belief the license to be poorly supported as well.

Forgive me, but you’re really not getting what I’m saying. I repeat: if I am already in discussion (or beginning a discussion) with a believer, say on this forum, my scepticism is plainly evident in the arguments I’m making or disputing. But if I’m not in discussion with a believer, ie out in the community, I’m not going to seek out believers to impose my sceptical religious views uninvited. And the same should apply to the other party.

Your skeptisim is probably apparent. That's not what I'm getting at. You are having this discussion with a believer, and he gets frustrated and gives the classic "Well, prove god doesn't exist then!" The burden of proof response is not helpful in moving the discussion forward. It's a discussion killer, making the believer feel that atheists are just weasely jerks. My question is, at the point the believer asks you to "prove" your atheism, why not give your reasons, while acknowledging that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something? In other words, this is the time to elaborate upon your skepticism.

I love the way you say ‘throw the "Burden of Proof" argument in his face’ as if the question of proof were an obscene reference or in some way fallacious or illegitimate! My entirely reasoned answer for the umpteenth time is that there is no sound reason to believe in the existence of mystical or supernatural beings, since doctrinal beliefs from faith are not evidence of what is certain and true. And that is the golden opportunity, always on offer, for the advocate to demonstrate why that statement is false or misplaced.

The burden of proof argument is often used in an unproductive manner which simply fosters more ill-will towards atheists. The argument itself isn't the problem; it's the way in which it is used that is.

I'm not arguing that your reasons for atheism are inadequate, by the way. We are having more of a debate-etiquette debate, than any "atheological" issues.

And that last sentence is my point of contention. The reason I’m on this site now, and you are reading these words, is because I do not accept that mystical beliefs from faith are credible. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that your ‘majority’ have never in the history of the world demonstrated the credibility of their beliefs. With respect, the mistake you are making is comparing ordinary beliefs, which are subject to the test of possible experience, with mystical beliefs that claim to transcend experience. In everyday life what ‘we tend to find credible’ in majority beliefs is what is, or might be, the case in possible experience. The explicit difference is, of course, that whatever might be the case in possible experience also has the possibility of not being the case, which assuredly is not the argument theists and mystics are making.

It seems you are still stuck on the idea that "majority belief" doesn't provide a good indicator of the truth of theism. You are correct, but that is completely besides the point. It doesn't matter whether people "should" or "should not" believe god exists based upon majority belief. The point is that people do believe god exists, partly due to majority belief. (Because majorities make a belief more credible, regardless of whether it should or not.)

Where is it being said, and by whom, that atheists don’t support their position? Further more (unless they’re just being abusive) it is logically impossible for atheists not to support their position when they’re actively arguing with believers!

Debate between the two parties is usually about what the theist believes and why it is wrong, rather than specifically, what the atheist believes and why. It's a fine nuance, but one that directly leads to the theist asking for the atheist to prove his position (whereupon the burden of proof argument is given in reply.)

But, atheists-not-supporting-their-position was not the thrust of that statement: "My argument is NOT that majority belief provides evidence of the truth of theism, but that it provides an explanation of why it is reasonable for theists to ask atheists to support their position."

The bolded portion is my whole original point in this entire god-forsaken debate. In your original post you stated that there was "an element of sophistry and mischief in the ploy of failing to make a proper case and demanding of the doubters that they make theirs instead."

That was what I objected to in your original post-- the idea that it is unreasonable for theists to ask atheists to make their case. Which is what I said in my response to you: "While I agree that theists should be held accountable, I was merely pointing out that it is not unreasonable to desire an explanation of an atheist's stance as well."

In other words, theists aren't being sophistic or mischevious when they ask for atheists to support their stance: they are making a reasonable demand. That is the root of this debate. Do you still find it unreasonable of theists to demand that atheists make their case?

You’ve replied ‘Well duh’(whatever that’s supposed to imply?) to one part of the sentence while ignoring the essential second part, which was the essence of the argument I made in my original post.

You keep bringing up your original post like it is some holy grail. I didn't respond to the rest of your post because there was nothing else there that interested me-- because it made an obvious point (that the only way you could fully settle an argument is by providing absolute proof, hence the "duh"). The purple part above was what interested me. If you think there was something of merit there that deserves a second look, then by all means, trot it out instead of making all these not-so-veiled claims that I should comment on it.

But anyway, if proof is impossible then so is the claim.

Oh really. I guess that means that the claim of atheism is impossible too, since proof is impossible.

Regardless, I'm a soft-core agnostic. I don't believe we can have absolute proof of anything, except, perhaps, our own existence.

And in that case ‘my side wins’. (Is it really about ‘winning’, though?)

No, it doesn't. Again, say Galileo couldn't come up with some good proof that the Earth revolves around the sun. Does that mean the geocentric model is correct and they were justified in believing it?

One side doesn't "win" simply because the arguments for the other side suck.

 

[Falvlun]

Bah. I hate it when conversations get this long. Feel free to chop mercilessly, leaving only the relevant bits.

 

[Falvlun]

However the ongoing case in point is one of credibility, as it has been throughout the discussion, therefore my contention is that any supposed generic link is a precarious one and being inadequate it is open to contradiction.

Nevertheless, people are united in their belief of some higher power, in contrast to those who don't believe in one. That is all that is needed for a majority to exist.

There is no absolute definition that applies in every case to every god in history and to every believer, other than an entity (or image) being an object of faith and worship, which is more of a prescription of mysticism than a defining feature of deities. Gods don’t even have to be supernatural, and to say gods have control over some aspect of the natural realm applies equally to humankind. There are numerous so-called general concepts of ‘God’ and, for example, profound disagreement over whether 'God' is a personal being, a causal agent, or prior to logic. Individuals’ faith is specific when it comes to gods or God. It isn’t a generic term that defines gods but rather the contradictions and differences that individualise them. That last point is so patently obvious that it hardly needs saying. Quite simply, gods are whatever believers say they are, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of universality or their credibility. The only factor common to all god concepts is that they are necessarily faith-based.

The concept of god is intelligible despite all the variation in form. It is a distinct concept, one that is distinguishable from other concepts, regardless of any shortcoming of definition. It unites all those who hold a belief in a type of one in contrast to those who don't believe in any types. I simply do not see how you can minimize the fact that the majority of people believe in the existence of some god or another. It doesn't matter what type of god you believe in, as long as it's a god, you're part of the majority group. And if you don't believe in any, you're a part of a minority group.