Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[1137]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not seeing anything in this jar.

 

[suncowiam]

The logical presumption of what is inside a closed box, is something that would fit in the box. It could be air. It could be anything as long as it can fit in the box.

Until we use further diagnostics and tests with our senses and abilities, then we can come to a better conclusion.

I'm not going to presume what others will do, but here's what I would do. I would open it.

 

[sayak83]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

As has been said by others, the box could also be empty.

 

[Lirille]

First you have to prove there is a box.

 

[1137]

As has been said by others, the box could also be empty.

Well yes, that's atheism. The agnostic would be unsure, and the theist would believe there's something in the box, either vaguely or specifically (weak vs strong).

 

[sayak83]

Well yes, that's atheism. The agnostic would be unsure, and the theist would believe there's something in the box, either vaguely or specifically (weak vs strong).

There is something called agnostic atheist.
Agnostic Atheist - Dictionary Definition

Basically an agnostic atheist places zero weight-age on things that are not known (is there existence after death, is there a God, are there alien life forms?) and instead places all weights on things that are known (this life exists, this world with its natural laws exists, humans exist) in deciding how to live and act.

 

[Lirille]

The trouble, I think, is that too many atheists are disgruntled ex-religious people. They're still trying to solve the non-existent problem "is there a God?"

 

[Iti oj]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

What box? Awful analogy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Been seeing this one a lot.

Cite two examples.

I ask because watching folks fabricate some construct that they then attempt to pummel gets old.​

 

[Altfish]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

The only time I've ever seen this used is to rebut an argument put forward by Theists...

Theist: Here is a jar full of coins, do you think there are an odd number of coins?
Atheist: No
Theist: AH, so you think there is an even number of coins?
Atheist: No, I don't know what there are.

 

[buddhist]

Buddhist: "There is a box. Unfulfilled speculation about the box or its contents disturbs my serenity, so I choose to not concern myself with it."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think the box is old, and made of flimsy, poorly constructed material. In need of an update. Probably too many permits to apply for though... and too many people who feel they alone hold the red tape.

 

[JustWondering]

Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I think this is the first time I've heard this analogy, but my memory isn't the greatest. It seems to me that your beef isn't with the analogy, it's with atheists. This seems to me to be nothing more than a rant about how you think atheists are dishonest, horrible people.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think this is the first time I've heard this analogy, but my memory isn't the greatest. It seems to me that your beef isn't with the analogy, it's with atheists. This seems to me to be nothing more than a rant about how you think atheists are dishonest, horrible people.

Hence making the OP not only inaccurate, but also ironical. To be fair, those two things often go together though.

 

[1137]

I think this is the first time I've heard this analogy, but my memory isn't the greatest. It seems to me that your beef isn't with the analogy, it's with atheists. This seems to me to be nothing more than a rant about how you think atheists are dishonest, horrible people.

You're more than welcome to twist it any way you want . But yeah, when the majority of online atheists solely rely on dishonest philosophy I take issue. Any real seeker of truth would.

 

[1137]

Hence making the OP not only inaccurate, but also ironical. To be fair, those two things often go together though.

No argument as always, how hysterical!

 

[Falvlun]

I agree, that's a bad analogy. Most analogies suffer when they are removed from the specific context, though, so I can't judge too harshly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No argument as always, how hysterical!

And the frog denigrates the owl for not being able to fly when he sees him sitting on a branch. How novel.

 

[Neo Deist]

I don't care about what's in the box, but rather, who put the box there in the first place.