Justifying atheism, is the absence of evidence sufficient.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I implied that one rejecting the argument takes on a burden.

That's not what this says:

If one is not sure whether y supports x, then they do not understand and need to inquire more.

 

[Curious George]

That's not what this says:

Hmm, I thought burden was being used in terms of rationalizing. But, Yes I suppose their is a burden to understand if we are trying to communicate as well. My use prior was referring to the rejection of an argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm, I thought burden was being used in terms of rationalizing. But, Yes I suppose their is a burden to understand if we are trying to communicate as well. My use prior was referring to the rejection of an argument.

No, it was in reply to my post, which was about merely not accepting an argument.

 

[Curious George]

No, it was in reply to my post, which was about merely not accepting an argument.

If you are not accepting an argument you either 1)do not understand the argument , 2) reject the argument, or 3) could simply care less.

In the first case, you are in no position to evaluate the argument, and you need further inquiry.

In the second case, you have a burden of rationalizing the rejection of the argument.

In the last case, you are in no position to evaluate the argument. And have a burden to rationalize you apathy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are not accepting an argument you either 1)do not understand the argument , 2) reject the argument, or 3) could simply care less.

In the first case, you are in no position to evaluate the argument, and you need further inquiry.

In the second case, you have a burden of rationalizing the rejection of the argument.

In the last case, you are in no position to evaluate the argument. And have a burden to rationalize you apathy.

So... you're saying that when you hear an argument, either:

- you accept it, or
- you don't accept it and one of three possibilities happens, each of which has a burden associated with it.

Exactly how is this different from what I said before: that you're implying that someone who hears an argument automatically has some burden if they don't accept the argument?

 

[McBell]

If you are not accepting an argument you either 1)do not understand the argument , 2) reject the argument, or 3) could simply care less.

In the first case, you are in no position to evaluate the argument, and you need further inquiry.

In the second case, you have a burden of rationalizing the rejection of the argument.

In the last case, you are in no position to evaluate the argument. And have a burden to rationalize you apathy.

So it is not possible to withhold judgement until more information is available?

 

[Curious George]

So it is not possible to withhold judgement until more information is available?

No. But let me explain.

You make an assertion say that assertion is that you drive a pinto.

I ask you to show evidence

You show me a picture with you standing beside a pinto.

If I do not believe your argument(including if I am "reserving judgment" on whether you drive a pinto), I am still making a judgement regarding the evidence (that it insufficient to prove you drive a pinto and need to inquire further).

However, there are other alternatives. It is possible that I couldn't understand the evidence you provided ( perhaps I am blind and cannot see the picture, or perhaps there was an error in transmission of the evidence) in this case I need to inquire further to understand the evidence before I can make a judgement.

Or, I could simply not listen to or view any evidence that you might provide regarding the car you drive. In this instance, I am implying that your evidence has no relevance to the car you drive and I need to support that assertion.

All of this presupposes that I have engaged in discussion about the car you drive and that it is of some importance to me.

If the car you drive doesn't matter to me, then it is unlikely that I am going to engage in any inquiry in the first place, let alone weigh any evidence you provide concerning the matter. In this case, you never would have had any burden in the first place, because their was no one for whom to prove your point in the first place.

 

[Curious George]

So... you're saying that when you hear an argument, either:

- you accept it, or
- you don't accept it and one of three possibilities happens, each of which has a burden associated with it.

Exactly how is this different from what I said before: that you're implying that someone who hears an argument automatically has some burden if they don't accept the argument?

I hadn't originally said there was a "burden" to understand. I had said there was a obligation to try to understand. But, based upon the phrasing of one of your posts I acknowledged you could define such an obligation as a burden. However, I would not choose the word burden, because it has a connotation of one-sidedness. At such a point I would choose obligation because there is an obligation to try to understand and an obligation to try to be understood. Do both parties have an obligation at the point of communication. But, if you want to use the term burden for that obligation I acknowledge that such a term would still work for the purpose.

But on the use of the term burden, we had been using it as shorthand for the colloquialism, "burden of proof," then
You suggested that:

You implied that the person hearing an argument automatically takes on some sort of burden if they don't accept it.

I tried to correct that:

No, I implied that one rejecting the argument takes on a burden.

To which you replied

That's not what this says:

referring to this quote:

If one is not sure whether y supports x, then they do not understand and need to inquire more.

Thinking you were taking the "need to inquire" as a "burden." Then I gave that proposition thought and wrote:

Hmm, I thought burden was being used in terms of rationalizing. But, Yes I suppose their is a burden to understand if we are trying to communicate as well. My use prior was referring to the rejection of an argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

Reading through recent threads on atheism, it seems that the question of justifying atheism as a logical position is contentious.
To my mind my disbelief in deities is legitimised by the absence of evidence for God and the incoherence of descriptions and definitions of God. I see atheism as simply the absence of a belief in a God, and believe that the absence of evidence alone is sufficient to inform a disbelief.

So please share what you feel is sufficient justification for atheism, and if you see the absence of evidence as sufficient justification.

As I see it, there can be no burden of proof in this case - so ask that we speak to sufficiency rather than proof. If you do believe there is a burden of proof however please feel free to participate and share your ideas.

Not really. Because there isn't one definition of deity, you are basically stuck with disagreeing with theists, individually, for whatever reason. This doesn't mean that you don't have a strong position, argument wise, however, there isn't one sound refutation of theism.

If someone says, ''I worship /such and such deity",, I am going to disbelieve some stated beliefs outright. This doesn't make me an ''atheist''. Even if I did that with every ones proposed belief. Does it? So, atheism has to mean more than just a ''lack of belief''. It has no meaning, in that capacity. Where it does have meaning, is if the person asserts that there are no deities. And this, is a position, a belief, an assertion.

 

[Bunyip]

Not really. Because there isn't one definition of deity, you are basically stuck with disagreeing with theists, individually, for whatever reason. This doesn't mean that you don't have a strong position, argument wise, however, there isn't one sound refutation of theism.

If someone says, ''I worship /such and such deity",, I am going to disbelieve some stated beliefs outright. This doesn't make me an ''atheist''. Even if I did that with every ones proposed belief. Does it? So, atheism has to mean more than just a ''lack of belief''. It has no meaning, in that capacity. Where it does have meaning, is if the person asserts that there are no deities. And this, is a position, a belief, an assertion.

Ok, great post thanks mate. Now in your example of a person who is asserting that there are no deities - what more evidence could that assertion need to inform and justify that assertion other than the absence of evidence for deities? What other evidence could there possibly be?

 

[Desert Snake]

Ok, great post thanks mate. Now in your example of a person who is asserting that there are no deities - what more evidence could that assertion need to inform and justify that assertion other than the absence of evidence for deities? What other evidence could there possibly be?

I think that would depend on what someone might set as a parameter for 'proof' of existence, /existence of the deity. It's a slippery slope, though, because we don't really have 'evidence' for everything we tend to take for granted. What can happen, though, I think, is a compromise, ie, a logical parameter of what we could not use as proof, and what we could. Dunno, it's up the individual, you don't have to believe anything, of course. I would tend to agree with you on the "proof" issue. Some ones late night 'mystical' experience, where they feel the 'oneness' of the deity, lol, is more likely from the pizza they ate.
In other words, they wouldn't need to ''justify'' that assertion. However, once one takes that position, it is only fair to extend that to other beliefs/assertions.

 

[Bunyip]

I think that would depend on what someone might set as a parameter for 'proof' of existence, /existence of the deity. It's a slippery slope, though, because we don't really have 'evidence' for everything we tend to take for granted. What can happen, though, I think, is a compromise, ie, a logical parameter of what we could not use as proof, and what we could. Dunno, it's up the individual, you don't have to believe anything, of course. I would tend to agree with you on the "proof" issue. Some ones late night 'mystical' experience, where they feel the 'oneness' of the deity, lol, is more likely from the pizza they ate.

I'm not asking for proof. What I am asking is; For those making the assertion that there are no deities - surely the absence of evidence for deities is sufficient. If not - what other evidence could there possibly be?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not asking for proof. What I am asking is; For those making the assertion that there are no deities - surely the absence of evidence for deities is sufficient. If not - what other evidence could there possibly be?

Right, it is; but no one is consistent with those parameters. Or if they are, that's extremely rare. Those parameters tend to apply to deity, and then not, to a whole lot of other subjective things.

 

[Bunyip]

Right, it is; but no one is consistent with those parameters. Or if they are, that's extremely rare. Those parameters tend to apply to deity, and then not, to a whole lot of other subjective things.

What parameters?

 

[Desert Snake]

What parameters?

The parameters for ''existence''. Like, I could say, Thor doesn't exist, /haven't met him, etc., and use those as my parameters of disbelief. But, we believe things that aren't completely verifiable, so, what do I do there? I have to change my parameters. So instead of having some strict parameter of evidence that I can't maintain consistently, it's better to compromise, so, Thor may not exist. I may argue that. However, perhaps some other deity form does exist, and is not so dis-provable under my own set of parameters, my standards to measure 'proof', or, likelihood, etc., depending on your overall criteria, and beliefs in general.

Theoretically, one could say outright, that deities, don't exist, period. But this is really not an optimum stance; this is just my opinion, of course.

 

[Bunyip]

The parameters for ''existence''. Like, I could say, Thor doesn't exist, /haven't met him, etc., and use those as my parameters of disbelief.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't know what you mean by 'the parameters of existence' or 'parameters of disbelief'. My apologies.

But, we believe things that aren't completely verifiable, so, what do I do there? I have to change my parameters. So instead of having some strict parameter of evidence that I can't maintain consistently, it's better to compromise, so, Thor may not exist. I may argue that. However, perhaps some other deity form does exist, and is not so dis-provable under my own set of parameters, my standards to measure 'proof', or, likelihood, etc., depending on your overall criteria, and beliefs in general.

Theoretically, one could say outright, that deities, don't exist, period. But this is really not an optimum stance; this is just my opinion, of course.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't know what you mean by 'the parameters of existence' or 'parameters of disbelief'. My apologies.

No worries, I'm prolly not explaining my points that well.

So, we have ''standards'', by which we might judge something to be ''real''. With 'deity', we have an immediate problem. The deity ideas vary. There is another problem. Not everything we take for granted, 'believe' in, essentially, has proof, at least not to a further standard than the standard we have set for deity to be ''proven''. So, making a claim that 'deity doesn't exist', is great. It's an opinion. However if we are not consistent with our parameters of proof, then what happens, is an obvious ''hypocritical'', or inconsistent stance on what evidence is required in order to prove something //to ourselves/. What happens, is that a 'hard line' atheism, is very difficult to maintain, with intellectual honesty.
Back in a while, off to the store.

 

[Bunyip]

No worries, I'm prolly not explaining my points that well.

So, we have ''standards'', by which we might judge something to be ''real''. With 'deity', we have an immediate problem. The deity ideas vary. There is another problem. Not everything we take for granted, 'believe' in, essentially, has proof, at least not to a further standard than the standard we have set for deity to be ''proven''. So, making a claim that 'deity doesn't exist', is great. It's an opinion. However if we are not consistent with our parameters of proof, then what happens, is an obvious ''hypocritical'', or inconsistent stance on what evidence is required in order to prove something //to ourselves/. What happens, is that a 'hard line' atheism, is very difficult to maintain, with intellectual honesty.
Back in a while, off to the store.

Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify. But how is proof even relevant? Neither side has proof, I do not see how it could be relevant.

You say that 'hard line' atheism is difficult to maintain with intellectual honesty - may I ask why? Surely it is a position that can readily be justified by simply pointing to the absence of evidence for deities?

I would love for you to clarify further - please keep in mind that we are not talking about proof, proof is irrelevant. Can you express your position without reference to it please?

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks for taking the trouble to clarify. But how is proof even relevant? Neither side has proof, I do not see how it could be relevant.

You say that 'hard line' atheism is difficult to maintain with intellectual honesty - may I ask why? Surely it is a position that can readily be justified by simply pointing to the absence of evidence for deities?

I would love for you to clarify further - please keep in mind that we are not talking about proof, proof is irrelevant. Can you express your position without reference to it please?

Well, 'proof' in a relative sense. I would not state absolutely that there is no evidence of deities, that's all.
As far as the position being justified, no, it really isn't quite that simple. We don't have ''evidence'' for many things. Things that we talk about, as if they are ''facts''. So, I suppose if one is willing to admit that they choose subjectively, to determine what they consider facts, then that is fine. I'm not that comfortable saying that.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, 'proof' in a relative sense.

Please try to forget about proof in this context, neither side has or needs proof.

I would not state absolutely that there is no evidence of deities, that's all.

Why not? Is there any?

As far as the position being justified, no, it really isn't quite that simple. We don't have ''evidence'' for many things. Things that we talk about, as if they are ''facts''. So, I suppose if one is willing to admit that they choose subjectively, to determine what they consider facts, then that is fine. I'm not that comfortable saying that.

Again, I'm sorry but I don't follow. Surely that there is no evidence is a fact, and therefore the position that gods do not exist is drawn from that fact. Why isn't it that simple?

I keep asking you what other evidence there could possibly be? If hard atheism demands more justification than simply pointing to the absence of evidence - what possible form could such evidence take? How could one evidence the absence of the immaterial?