Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[QuestioningMind]

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!

Silly analogy... one I've never heard an atheist make. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about my atheism. I have yet to be presented with what I consider to be sufficient imperial evidence that any God or gods exist. Should you are anyone else present such evidence I will definitely reassess my position.

Can I ask, do you believe in the god Odin? If not, can I assume that it's because no one has given you sufficient reason to believe that Odin is anything more than a myth? Is your atheism as far as the god Odin concerned 'dishonest' in some way or have you genuinely never been presented with sufficient evidence to believe?

 

[1137]

Silly analogy... one I've never heard an atheist make. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about my atheism. I have yet to be presented with what I consider to be sufficient imperial evidence that any God or gods exist. Should you are anyone else present such evidence I will definitely reassess my position.

Can I ask, do you believe in the god Odin? If not, can I assume that it's because no one has given you sufficient reason to believe that Odin is anything more than a myth? Is your atheism as far as the god Odin concerned 'dishonest' in some way or have you genuinely never been presented with sufficient evidence to believe?

Indeed I do believe Odin is an interpretation of something real. And if I did not, I would believe without certainty that Odin is a fabrication, nonexistent.

 

[YmirGF]

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!

Sometimes it's better to say nothing than to beat the living **** out of a strawman.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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!

I kinda dont understa d what you mean. Id have to reread later.

My thing is, just because a theist makes a claim, if an atheist sees nothing in the box And understand why and how the mind of theism works to consider something in the box, just because the claim is made givien the evidence and conlusions the atheist made, why would he "not believe"? If there is nothing, there is nothing. A theist claim of belief does not change whether his assurtion is true or false.

Mostly I see atheist speaking as agnostics with strong convictions. A theist can give examples and proof of why and how there is something in the box. From my experience and research and many other peoples research, they understanz there is nothing in the box and why people claim there is.

Yet, on RF, I never hear any challenges to atheist who Know there is nothing in the box. They stick with I dont know.

I ask theist what is their belief based on and Id ask atheist the same thing. If you dont know there is nothing in the box, dont say you believe there isnt any. Just say you dont know.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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!

I agree , in practice a-theism is obviously a set of very specific beliefs about the nature of reality, which claims 'default' status by framing itself as merely a disbelief of any alternative.

And similarly as a theist, I could simply label myself an a-naturalist, I make no claims that need supported, I simply don't believe in naturalistic explanations for life, the universe and everything. (and I default to the obvious alternative meanwhile)

But theists don't do this because they are willing and able to defend their own assertion on their own merits. As an ex-atheist though, I don't think this is usually dishonest, just blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself as such.

A person cannot question a belief that he does not even acknowledge having

 

[McBell]

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!

I am an atheist simply because theists have all failed to convince me a deity exists.

If the best you got in reply to the box analogy is "require them to the accept something is in it" then you do not have anything worth while to respond to.

Saying that I do not know what is in the box is not the same as saying there is something in the box.
Hells bells, that nonsense doesn't even warrant a "nice try"....

 

[1137]

Sometimes it's better to say nothing than to beat the living **** out of a strawman.

The only straw man is on the part of atheists, that their position is agnosticism and agnosticism does not exist. The atheistic version of these examples is founded on just such dishonesty.

 

[1137]

I agree , in practice a-theism is obviously a set of very specific beliefs about the nature of reality, which claims 'default' status by framing itself as merely a disbelief of any alternative.

And similarly as a theist, I could simply label myself an a-naturalist, I make no claims that need supported, I simply don't believe in naturalistic explanations for life, the universe and everything. (and I default to the obvious alternative meanwhile)

But theists don't do this because they are willing and able to defend their own assertion on their own merits. As an ex-atheist though, I don't think this is usually dishonest, just blind faith, faith which does not recognize itself as such.

A person cannot question a belief that he does not even acknowledge having

Exactly, and that's just the problem. In fact, I'd guess these dishonest tactics are used explicitly to avoid the burden of proof!

 

[1137]

I am an atheist simply because theists have all failed to convince me a deity exists.

If the best you got in reply to the box analogy is "require them to the accept something is in it" then you do not have anything worth while to respond to.

Saying that I do not know what is in the box is not the same as saying there is something in the box.
Hells bells, that nonsense doesn't even warrant a "nice try"....

Saying "I don't know what's in the box" accepts something in the box (gods) but uncertainty to the specifics (agnostic theism). Atheism does not see reason to believe anything is in the box, and if they follow their reasoning believe the box to be empty. Couldn't be more simple.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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!

Whoosh

 

[McBell]

Saying "I don't know what's in the box" accepts something in the box (gods) but uncertainty to the specifics (agnostic theism). Atheism does not see reason to believe anything is in the box, and if they follow their reasoning believe the box to be empty. Couldn't be more simple.

No, it doesn't.

When asked if god exists, I say I do not know.
I do not know does not mean god exists.

Like I said, not even worth a "nice try"

 

[Falvlun]

Saying "I don't know what's in the box" accepts something in the box (gods) but uncertainty to the specifics (agnostic theism). Atheism does not see reason to believe anything is in the box, and if they follow their reasoning believe the box to be empty. Couldn't be more simple.

There's no implication of belief that something is in the box if someone says "I don't know".

"I don't know" encompasses all possibilities: I don't know what's in there or even whether something is in there.

If I ask you what I had for lunch, you say "I don't know." But that doesn't mean you are claiming that I must have had something for lunch.

 

[Valjean]

I agree , in practice a-theism is obviously a set of very specific beliefs about the nature of reality, which claims 'default' status by framing itself as merely a disbelief of any alternative.

Poppycock. How is this obvious, and what are these beliefs?
Specific atheists may believe any number of things, but atheism, per se, involves no beliefs whatever.

Saying "I don't know what's in the box" accepts something in the box (gods) but uncertainty to the specifics (agnostic theism). Atheism does not see reason to believe anything is in the box, and if they follow their reasoning believe the box to be empty. Couldn't be more simple.

The box itself is a straw man, and going from no reason to believe there's anything's in it to a belief it's empty is doesn't follow.

Atheists may have no reason to believe there's anything in the box, but they also have no reason to believe it empty. In fact, the reasonable course is to hold no opinion on the matter.

 

[Kapalika]

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 problem with your argument is that you are assuming there is a 50% chance god exists and a 50% chance god doesn't exist.

The truth is, no one really knows. The reason atheism should be the default position is because the lack of any evidence isn't a reason to go off and believe that there is a god and that he cares about you and divinely intervenes supernaturally. That's the leap that's dishonest.

Now *that* is a real argument you might hear, not this version you didn't portray accurately.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Poppycock. How is this obvious, and what are these beliefs?
Specific atheists may believe any number of things, but atheism, per se, involves no beliefs whatever.

Likewise, as an a-naturalist, I have no beliefs whatsoever regarding the nature of reality, per-se. I simply don't happen to believe in natural causes behind the universe and life until I see compelling evidence.

So the burden of proof is entirely on those who believe in natural mechanisms governing everything, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all. (And I will assume they are utterly wrong meanwhile)

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. I must have done something wrong, then. I opened the box. Then I put things inside the box. And by "things" I mean everything. I put everything inside the box.

What now, @1137 ?

Seems to me people choose what to put in their boxes.

 

[Milton Platt]

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!

You can agree or disagree with the analogy, but your statement that atheism is a belief is still wrong. How is not believing someone's claim a belief?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Silly analogy... one I've never heard an atheist make.

I've used something like that analogy myself in certain contexts, but @1137 is misrepresenting the sorts of situations where I've seen it used.

Personally, I use the analogy to illustrate the difference between rejecting an argument and rejecting the argument's conclusion: if someone says "there are an even number of jelly beans in this jar" (or "a god exists"), there's a different - and IMO generally lower - burden of proof for the response "I reject what you're saying because I think you have no way to tell how many jelly beans are in the jar" (or "because you have no evidence for your god") than there is for the response "I reject what you're saying because I know that there are really an odd number of jelly beans in the jar" (or "because I *know* no gods exist").

This doesn't mean that it's impossible for an atheist to go that extra step and decide that no gods exist; it just means that once we've rejected any arguments for gods, we're done with the immediate question (i.e. "should I believe in the god that this theist is telling me to believe in?").

 

[Curious George]

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.

Problem is you are assigning a truth value when you say no.

 

[Valjean]

No, in this case is a rejection of truth value. It's an abstention.