Justifying atheism, is the absence of evidence sufficient.

[LuisDantas]

You do not think religion has tried to show atheists evidence? I agree it is inadequate, but this assertion means we need to be able to articulate why it is inadequate

It has. And that was a mistake of goals, IMO.

Any evidence for the existence of a deity is inadequate if the attempt is to convince others as opposed to oneself. Nor is it quite proper for any religion to attempt to sustain its practice and values on the supposed existence of some deity.

Deities very useful tools for those with the proper affinities, but they are not for everyone, and there is really no excuse for attempting to force-feed them into unbelievers, nor for using them without the proper care against mishandling.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I see it, atheists are obligated to argue for materialism. If they are willing to do that, then their "atheism" is suspect.

I guess that brings the question of why anyone would need your approval for disbelieving.

 

[Gambit]

I guess that brings the question of why anyone would need your approval for disbelieving.

I hope you realize that Buddhist cosmology includes gods and goddesses. (IOW, antitheistic Buddhism is an oxymoron.)

 

[Gambit]

If anyone who can't understand what you're talking about is a "suspect" atheist, then there must be a lot of "suspect" atheists.

Any espousing atheist like yourself who doesn't know what the term "materialism" entails is suspect.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hope you realize that Buddhist cosmology includes gods and goddesses. (IOW, antitheistic Buddhism is an oxymoron.)

Yes, it does include them. But do you think we rely on them?

Once again, what are your credentials for judging the rights of anyone else for being an atheist?

And for that matter, when and how did you convince yourself that you knew what Buddhism was like?

 

[Gambit]

Yes, it does include them. But do you think we rely on them?

The term "atheism" means "without belief in gods or goddesses." And as you have learned, Buddhism has a belief in gods and goddesses. More to the point, Amida-Buddha and Kwan Yin have essentially the same status in Pure Land Buddhism (by far the most common form of Buddhism in the Far East) that Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary have in Catholicism.

 

[Curious George]

It has. And that was a mistake of goals, IMO.

Any evidence for the existence of a deity is inadequate if the attempt is to convince others as opposed to oneself. Nor is it quite proper for any religion to attempt to sustain its practice and values on the supposed existence of some deity.

Deities very useful tools for those with the proper affinities, but they are not for everyone, and there is really no excuse for attempting to force-feed them into unbelievers, nor for using them without the proper care against mishandling.

That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. If I say to you x is true. Here is my proof y. And you do not believe me and assert x is not true, have you not just acquired the burden of proof? You are now essentially asserting that y is invalid, therefore you have the burden to show why y is invalid.

 

[LuisDantas]

That doesn't answer my question in the slightest. If I say to you x is true. Here is my proof y. And you do not believe me and assert x is not true, have you not just acquired the burden of proof?

If my disbelief is enough to challenge your claim, then you don't have much of a proof in the first place, now do you?

So no.

You are now essentially asserting that y is invalid, therefore you have the burden to show why y is invalid.

Nope. It does not work that way. Your evidence should stand on its own, without my protection.

 

[LuisDantas]

The term "atheism" means "without belief in gods or goddesses." And as you have learned, Buddhism has a belief in gods and goddesses. More to the point, Amida-Buddha and Kwan Yin have essentially the same status in Pure Land Buddhism (by far the most common form of Buddhism in the Far East) that Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary have in Catholicism.

Gambit, you are really dabbling on areas you understand nothing about.

Having a place for a form of theistic belief in no way whatsoever implies rejection of atheism.

I should be obvious, really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any espousing atheist like yourself who doesn't know what the term "materialism" entails is suspect.

I know what "materialism" means. I have no idea what you think it means.

 

[Curious George]

If my disbelief is enough to challenge your claim, then you don't have much of a proof in the first place, now do you?

So no.



Nope. It does not work that way. Your evidence should stand on its own, without my protection.

Sometimes I have trouble understanding you Luis. Let us be specific. I am a staunch supporter of evolution, my evidence stands on its own. However I am constantly told on these boards by creationists that the evidence doesn't work to prove evolution. I am not told how it doesn't work just that there are holes or that it doesn't explain the complexity. Go saunter into the evo threads, I've seen you there before. You must understand what I am talking about.

Are you trying to tell me that it is valid to simply say "evolution does not exist" and to say when asked that the evidence doesn't support it, and the person that says such does not carry the burden of showing how the evidence is flawed?

Now let's try abstractly, you agree that if someone makes a claim they carry the burden of proving that claim? Now after they give their evidence, if a person asserts that the evidence is not valid, the person who is now making a claim is the person claiming "the evidence is not valid." Thus this person now has the burden of proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sometimes I have trouble understanding you Luis. Let us be specific. I am a staunch supporter of evolution, my evidence stands on its own. However I am constantly told on these boards by creationists that the evidence doesn't work to prove evolution. I am not told how it doesn't work just that there are holes or that it doesn't explain the complexity. Go saunter into the evo threads, I've seen you there before. You must understand what I am talking about.

Yes, I do. It is incredible how far they will go in their denial.

However, there is a world of difference between denying evolution (which is deep denial and goes against tons of evidence) and denying the existence of deities (which are basically evidenced only by the belief itself).

People are entitled to simply disbelieve in however many deities they see fit. And believe them back into existence if they want. In a whim, if it comes to that.

There is no contradiction whatsoever in so doing. As a matter of fact, there is no way for any beliefs about deities to be insufficiently supported, because deities are such arbitrary concepts to begin with.

Are you trying to tell me that it is valid to simply say "evolution does not exist" and to say when asked that the evidence doesn't support it, and the person that says such does not carry the burden of showing how the evidence is flawed?

No. Of course not.

Now let's try abstractly, you agree that if someone makes a claim they carry the burden of proving that claim? Now after they give their evidence, if a person asserts that the evidence is not valid, the person who is now making a claim is the person claiming "the evidence is not valid." Thus this person now has the burden of proof.

That is valid in most situations. It is definitely not the case with claims of the existence of deities, though. Those are inherently one-sided, and so is the burden of proof.

Assuming, of course, that the theists care about proof in the first place, which they probably should not, since that would have little use for it. There is no point in attempting to convince disbelievers, and therefore less use for proof.

 

[Gambit]

Gambit, you are really dabbling on areas you understand nothing about.

Having a place for a form of theistic belief in no way whatsoever implies rejection of atheism.

I should be obvious, really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now let's try abstractly, you agree that if someone makes a claim they carry the burden of proving that claim? Now after they give their evidence, if a person asserts that the evidence is not valid, the person who is now making a claim is the person claiming "the evidence is not valid." Thus this person now has the burden of proof.

And what happens when that burden of proof isn't met? We're left with "the validity of the evidence is unknown", which itself is justification for not accepting the original claim.

 

[Curious George]

And what happens when that burden of proof isn't met? We're left with "the validity of the evidence is unknown", which itself is justification for not accepting the original claim.

Absolutely but your assertion that the burden of proof is not met requires an explanation. You would still have to articulate why the burden of proof is not met.

 

[Bunyip]

As a theist, I would say the absence of evidence for God would be sufficient reason to be an atheist. (But obviously I believe the evidence favors belief).

Thanks George.

 

[Bunyip]

In order to be a product of reason, atheism needs to challenge itself in the same way it challenges theism. This process is called "intellectual honesty", a phrase often tossed about in such discussions, but rarely practiced.

Consider the theist who claims that God exists because it says so in the Bible. Why do we not accept this claim? The reason is simple, the theist has skipped the required first step of proving the Bible is a qualified authority on the subject of gods. Unless the Bible is shown to be a qualified authority on the topics under discussion, then what it says in the Bible really doesn't matter.

Every atheist I've met gets the reasoning above when it is aimed at theism. They immediately understand why it is necessary to inspect the credentials of the authority being used to justify a clam. Simple, simple, simple, no problem at all.

But the atheist's understanding on this issue falls completely apart at the first moment it is suggested that the very same process we reasonably apply to theism should be applied to their position too.

Well no Typist it doesn't. A disbelief is just the default. How could you apply the same intellectual processes to a belief in the supernatural that you do to the absence of that belief?

Once this is suggested, the clarity they once had about challenging referenced authorities dissolves in to chaos, confusion, emotion outbursts, and an impressive array of avoidance tactics.

Avoiding what? Could you give me an example please. There is no evidence for god for atheists to avoid.

The atheist looks to human reason for an answer in the same way the theist looks to their holy book. Thus, the qualifications of human reason to deliver credible answers on the subject of gods should be challenged in the very same way we challenged the authority of holy books.

Just like with holy books, exactly the same thing, unless human reason can be proven to be capable of delivering credible answers on the subject of gods

Which it has - the answer being that there is no evidence for gods.

, then all the supposedly clever little logic dances members so love to do really don't matter. The burden for proving reason's qualifications falls squarely upon the atheist, just as the burden for proving the qualifications of holy books falls upon the theist.

What 'burden for proving reason's qualifications'? What does that even mean?

None of you are going to get this, even though it is the simplest thing. All that is required is basic intellectual honesty, but that is asking too much. This post will be ignored or yelled at until I go away, and then you will return to the comfy cozy routine of doing snazy logic calculations, completely unconcerned that you've not proven human reason qualified to provide credible answers on the subject of gods.

It's just like the theist who quotes verses from the Bible, as if that was enough.

Well it is enough. Faith does not demand evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, I believe reason is entirely sufficient in very many areas where it's qualifications have been proven. As example, we've built millions of bridges using reason, and it's working, thus no need to question reason there.

The problem arises when considering proposals about the ultimate nature of everything, the scope of god proposals. The scale of such topics extends so far beyond human experience.

Oh ok - I think I see where you have got things confused. Proposals about the ultimate nature of everything are PHILOSOPHY not atheism. You have confused PHILOSOPHY for atheism. Atheism is just the disbelief in god. NOT the notion of the ultimate nature of everything.

 

[Bunyip]

A materialist must take a solipsist position if he is being intellectually honest, otherwise he is a liar or a hypocrite.

Why would you think that?

 

[Bunyip]

As I see it, atheists are obligated to argue for materialism. If they are willing to do that, then their "atheism" is suspect.

Could you supply a rationale for that claim please? I have no idea whatsoever why you would think that is the case, so please elaborate.