Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheistic Neutral Ground

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:49:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have had 30 atheists in the last several years make a neutrality assertion, two on this forum in the last day alone and most in RL. I thought this would have died pretty early on but apparently it is sticking with the teenage crowd.

This is what I hear:

They claim they are not saying "There is(are) No God(gods)". They are saying atheism is the rejection of the claim "God".

From every class and discussion I have ever had in the past the scale has been:
- atheism "No God" assertion
- agnosticism "Unknown" non-assertion (Neutrality)
- Theism "A God" assertion

These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position. It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:15:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:49:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I have had 30 atheists in the last several years make a neutrality assertion, two on this forum in the last day alone and most in RL. I thought this would have died pretty early on but apparently it is sticking with the teenage crowd.

This is what I hear:

They claim they are not saying "There is(are) No God(gods)". They are saying atheism is the rejection of the claim "God".

From every class and discussion I have ever had in the past the scale has been:
- atheism "No God" assertion
- agnosticism "Unknown" non-assertion (Neutrality)
- Theism "A God" assertion

These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position. It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?

http://i.imgur.com...

In short, I don't think it's possible to be a rational gnostic atheist (implication being an absolute assertion).

I think the best way of saying it goes along the lines of; "Given the evidence (or lack of thereof), there is an overwhelming indication to the non-existence of a personal god/s. As such, we should act with the assumption that a personal god/s does not, in fact, exist."

It is not a dichotomy, and a rejection of god/s is not synonymous with saying that there is no god/s. Acknowledging the slight possibility that a god may exist (if only because it can't be disproved) creates another option; agnostic-atheist.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:50:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position. It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?:

In theory atheism is simply declaring a default position in the absence of evidence. That said, a lot atheists tend to be hostile towards religion and many others go further than that towards anti-theism. You really have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Not all atheists are foam-at-the-mouth atheists, and not all atheists are all peacenik about it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 9:15:26 PM, Physik wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:49:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I have had 30 atheists in the last several years make a neutrality assertion, two on this forum in the last day alone and most in RL. I thought this would have died pretty early on but apparently it is sticking with the teenage crowd.

This is what I hear:

They claim they are not saying "There is(are) No God(gods)". They are saying atheism is the rejection of the claim "God".

From every class and discussion I have ever had in the past the scale has been:
- atheism "No God" assertion
- agnosticism "Unknown" non-assertion (Neutrality)
- Theism "A God" assertion

These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position. It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?

http://i.imgur.com...

In short, I don't think it's possible to be a rational gnostic atheist (implication being an absolute assertion).

I think the best way of saying it goes along the lines of; "Given the evidence (or lack of thereof), there is an overwhelming indication to the non-existence of a personal god/s. As such, we should act with the assumption that a personal god/s does not, in fact, exist."

It is not a dichotomy, and a rejection of god/s is not synonymous with saying that there is no god/s. Acknowledging the slight possibility that a god may exist (if only because it can't be disproved) creates another option; agnostic-atheist.

Parts of your article is just the mid 20th century redefining of atheism.
Craig addresses that here in this article and quotes anthony flew.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The second half seems to closely mirror the statement of rejection of claim = neutral.

But I would contest you stated idea of "rejection of evidence = neutral".
A denial of evidence =/= neutral.

Theism has a mountain of philosophical, metaphysical, mathematical, testimonial and documented evidence on its side. That appears to just be saying "nuh uh".

But the Grid part mirrors the claim. Somehow creating a quasi state to hide in that is just a synonym. Can you elaborate further?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:53:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 9:50:36 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position. It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?:

In theory atheism is simply declaring a default position in the absence of evidence. That said, a lot atheists tend to be hostile towards religion and many others go further than that towards anti-theism. You really have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Not all atheists are foam-at-the-mouth atheists, and not all atheists are all peacenik about it.

You also appear to be saying "rejection of evidence should equal a neutral state".

I do not see how that is the case.
Denying mountains of evidence does not make them neutral.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 9:53:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In other words, alot of atheists don't really care about the God debate. Some are neutral on the point that they don't outright dismiss the possibility of God, only that they have no compelling reason to assume it. That's kind of how I feel about it. I have no aversion towards the concept of God, but I do towards certain elements of religion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:10:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 9:53:37 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
In other words, alot of atheists don't really care about the God debate. Some are neutral on the point that they don't outright dismiss the possibility of God, only that they have no compelling reason to assume it. That's kind of how I feel about it. I have no aversion towards the concept of God, but I do towards certain elements of religion.

That would still be a "not neutral" stand correct?

I also do not know how that avoids the definition of agnosticism.
If a person says God is possible but I have not reviewed the evidence, I would immediately assume him/her to be agnostic.

Also the proponents of this seem to be asserting that atheism is a neutral statement.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:16:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That would still be a "not neutral" stand correct?

I also do not know how that avoids the definition of agnosticism.
If a person says God is possible but I have not reviewed the evidence, I would immediately assume him/her to be agnostic.

Also the proponents of this seem to be asserting that atheism is a neutral statement.:

Neutral in the sense of not making any declaration at all? That Gods (non)existence if equiprobable in both directions?

I don't think that's what they mean when they state they're neutral. To me it means more that they're indifferent about the argument in general. So perhaps "neutral" is not the best word to use in that instance
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:21:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I don't think belief in the Abrahamic God could be a default position when, without prior knowledge of it, you could never come to "know" it.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:22:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:21:29 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I don't think belief in the Abrahamic God could be a default position when, without prior knowledge of it, you could never come to "know" it.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "neutral"--are you talking about atheists claiming they are the default position?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:28:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:49:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I have had 30 atheists in the last several years make a neutrality assertion, two on this forum in the last day alone and most in RL. I thought this would have died pretty early on but apparently it is sticking with the teenage crowd.

This is what I hear:

They claim they are not saying "There is(are) No God(gods)". They are saying atheism is the rejection of the claim "God".

From every class and discussion I have ever had in the past the scale has been:
- atheism "No God" assertion
- agnosticism "Unknown" non-assertion (Neutrality)
- Theism "A God" assertion

These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position. It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?

To say somebody rejects god is to pressuppose god as something exist/true to reject.

And this may make sense from the speaker who takes for granted the truth of god which needs to be positive faith based rejection.

but the atheist speaker is not pressupposing its truth/existence/ that needs be rejection.

And so an assertion is only a rejection to the correspondence of a claim to the (thing in itself) which stands alone. That is alone from the idea or its verbal expression; the definition.

That is (the thing in it self = the thing in itself) where as (the definition)=(the definintion)

and thus you cannot define something in to existence for it will alway just be an ideas in your mind.

another case.

To say that someone believs in X
is to say that someone expects X to be true/existing

thus to not believe is the lack the expectation of the truth of X

For a common formulation is as such.

1. the atheist believes that there is no god.
2. is the same as non-belief of god.

But the first formulation gives the impression of a necessity of faith in no god..
Only because or the order in which faith and the claim. It makes it seem as though faith is a necessary condition. But the formulation ends up with the same logical meaning. even if somebody claims it as a belief it is only linquistical (as alfonso mentioned) and natural to say, because it is true. But just formulated in a way with give a perception of difference. Even to believe that would be superflous to the matter.

I was agnotic and I discoverd this problem, which made me realize its the same.

I came to that conclusion watching The God Delusion debate when Dawkens charges with this, it felt weird then I realized the why?

But here is another formulation; if a child grows up and is explained the world naturally(with out appealing to supernatural) it is most obvious that its false to say that there is any relation to beliefs for or not God. They concept doesn't even exist in thier mind. ( that is a direct and undesputible refutation)

Thus the burdon could never be negive. On anything, not to be confused with a court case where someone need to demonstrate a defend of a charge. For evidence like an alaby. is Positive in that is something there. (I have already gave a proof of this which you are simply just ignoring, and you know it. "Gileandos" !!!!!!

PROOF it itself is a positive n in itself it could never be in a form of notness.

And thats straight from the hill !! ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:34:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:22:46 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:21:29 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I don't think belief in the Abrahamic God could be a default position when, without prior knowledge of it, you could never come to "know" it.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "neutral"--are you talking about atheists claiming they are the default position?

It may be a bit confusing as there are atheists across the board attempting to get rid of their assertion and burden of proof. Vbacculum posted a forum post about Sam Harris's attempt to get people to stop using atheism. I am not talking about the consistent attempts at redefining but very much about shifting the burden of proof.

The assertion seems to now be from this "talking point" is that a rejection of God does not equal an assertion, that atheists are taking a stance of rejection of God, though they may "happen" to believe there is no God, yet they are merely rejecting theistic claims thus should be neutral with zero burden of proof.

The default view is not necessarily what I am discussing but may overlap. The fact that humans would be default atheism is absurd given the Design inference. Though I agree, the complexity of special revelation/argument from divine interaction is not a part of the design inference.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:41:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:34:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:22:46 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:21:29 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I don't think belief in the Abrahamic God could be a default position when, without prior knowledge of it, you could never come to "know" it.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "neutral"--are you talking about atheists claiming they are the default position?

It may be a bit confusing as there are atheists across the board attempting to get rid of their assertion and burden of proof. Vbacculum posted a forum post about Sam Harris's attempt to get people to stop using atheism. I am not talking about the consistent attempts at redefining but very much about shifting the burden of proof.

The assertion seems to now be from this "talking point" is that a rejection of God does not equal an assertion, that atheists are taking a stance of rejection of God, though they may "happen" to believe there is no God, yet they are merely rejecting theistic claims thus should be neutral with zero burden of proof.

The default view is not necessarily what I am discussing but may overlap. The fact that humans would be default atheism is absurd given the Design inference. Though I agree, the complexity of special revelation/argument from divine interaction is not a part of the design inference.

I'll be honest. Up until recently I also believed atheism was the default position (I've previously referred to it as the null hypothesis) and that everyone else had the burden of proof. For the last several years I was an anti-theist, and then I was an atheist. Based on reading certain threads on DDO over the last few days, I've actually switched from being an atheist to agnostic. Go figure.

I'm currently open to other views, so I'll see what other people have to say :)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:48:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:41:20 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:34:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:22:46 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:21:29 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I don't think belief in the Abrahamic God could be a default position when, without prior knowledge of it, you could never come to "know" it.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "neutral"--are you talking about atheists claiming they are the default position?

It may be a bit confusing as there are atheists across the board attempting to get rid of their assertion and burden of proof. Vbacculum posted a forum post about Sam Harris's attempt to get people to stop using atheism. I am not talking about the consistent attempts at redefining but very much about shifting the burden of proof.

The assertion seems to now be from this "talking point" is that a rejection of God does not equal an assertion, that atheists are taking a stance of rejection of God, though they may "happen" to believe there is no God, yet they are merely rejecting theistic claims thus should be neutral with zero burden of proof.

The default view is not necessarily what I am discussing but may overlap. The fact that humans would be default atheism is absurd given the Design inference. Though I agree, the complexity of special revelation/argument from divine interaction is not a part of the design inference.

I'll be honest. Up until recently I also believed atheism was the default position (I've previously referred to it as the null hypothesis) and that everyone else had the burden of proof. For the last several years I was an anti-theist, and then I was an atheist. Based on reading certain threads on DDO over the last few days, I've actually switched from being an atheist to agnostic. Go figure.

I'm currently open to other views, so I'll see what other people have to say :)

Thank you for your candor!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:51:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:34:43 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:22:46 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:21:29 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I don't think belief in the Abrahamic God could be a default position when, without prior knowledge of it, you could never come to "know" it.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you meant by "neutral"--are you talking about atheists claiming they are the default position?

It may be a bit confusing as there are atheists across the board attempting to get rid of their assertion and burden of proof. Vbacculum posted a forum post about Sam Harris's attempt to get people to stop using atheism. I am not talking about the consistent attempts at redefining but very much about shifting the burden of proof.

The assertion seems to now be from this "talking point" is that a rejection of God does not equal an assertion, that atheists are taking a stance of rejection of God, though they may "happen" to believe there is no God, yet they are merely rejecting theistic claims thus should be neutral with zero burden of proof.

The default view is not necessarily what I am discussing but may overlap. The fact that humans would be default atheism is absurd given the Design inference. Though I agree, the complexity of special revelation/argument from divine interaction is not a part of the design inference.

Gileandos!!! why do you run away like sooo !!;)

Run . run.. run.. run .. !!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:52:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 9:51:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 9:15:26 PM, Physik wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:49:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I have had 30 atheists in the last several years make a neutrality assertion, two on this forum in the last day alone and most in RL. I thought this would have died pretty early on but apparently it is sticking with the teenage crowd.

This is what I hear:

They claim they are not saying "There is(are) No God(gods)". They are saying atheism is the rejection of the claim "God".

From every class and discussion I have ever had in the past the scale has been:
- atheism "No God" assertion
- agnosticism "Unknown" non-assertion (Neutrality)
- Theism "A God" assertion

These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position. It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?

http://i.imgur.com...

In short, I don't think it's possible to be a rational gnostic atheist (implication being an absolute assertion).

I think the best way of saying it goes along the lines of; "Given the evidence (or lack of thereof), there is an overwhelming indication to the non-existence of a personal god/s. As such, we should act with the assumption that a personal god/s does not, in fact, exist."

It is not a dichotomy, and a rejection of god/s is not synonymous with saying that there is no god/s. Acknowledging the slight possibility that a god may exist (if only because it can't be disproved) creates another option; agnostic-atheist.

Parts of your article is just the mid 20th century redefining of atheism.
Craig addresses that here in this article and quotes anthony flew.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The second half seems to closely mirror the statement of rejection of claim = neutral.

But I would contest you stated idea of "rejection of evidence = neutral".
A denial of evidence =/= neutral.

Theism has a mountain of philosophical, metaphysical, mathematical, testimonial and documented evidence on its side. That appears to just be saying "nuh uh".

But the Grid part mirrors the claim. Somehow creating a quasi state to hide in that is just a synonym. Can you elaborate further?

If I have redefined the word atheism, then you have redefined the word agnostic.

The article you linked to is essentially making the following claim:

"For the assertion that "There is no God" is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that "There is a God." Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God's existence. He confesses that he doesn't know whether there is a God or whether there is no God."

If the proposed assertions were accurate, that may indeed make sense; but at least one is not. For one to make the absolute assertion that "There is no god", one must be gnostic in their stance. I don't know a single 'atheist', by either supposed definition, that would make that claim.

All rational people who act with the belief that there is no god are agnostic to an extent, but only because god/s existence cannot be disproved.

So, to end with two things:

1. As far as I am aware, all 'evidence' that you refered to has been convincingly refuted. If I am mistaken, do present.

2. Craig's whole argument is just raging at semantics. What happens when you remove the words entirely?

Let 'x' represent the assertion that "A personal god/s exists." Let 'y' represent the assertion that "A personal god/s probably does not exist." Let 'z' represent a complete absence of the notion of god entirely. The word 'probably' is applicable, as Gnosticism only really applies to those that advocate 'x'.

In the absolute beginning of religion, someone first asserted 'x'. 'y' is the reactionary observation that before the assertion of 'x', 'z' was the default position. 'y' is 'z' in every single aspect, except that it acknowledges it's own existence.

'z' is undoubtedly the default position, and subsequently; so is 'y'. There is no difference between the two, as 'y' is merely 'z' that became aware of itself due to 'x'.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 10:55:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And really does it matter? The concept of "God" is so nuanced that one's belief in God is completely different than anothers. And who then has the copyright on who or what God would be?

It may very well be that God (whatever that means) does exist, and it still leaves the possibility that every major religion has gotten it all wrong.

So for me, I remain an open skeptic, and therefore agnostic. If you want me to believe in extraordinary claims, it's going to take an extraordinary reasons to do so. Until that time, I remain neutral on the existence of God. I make no absolute statements in either direction, but allow the evidence to lead me in whatever direction it may go.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:12:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 8:49:29 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I have had 30 atheists in the last several years make a neutrality assertion, two on this forum in the last day alone and most in RL. I thought this would have died pretty early on but apparently it is sticking with the teenage crowd.

I may be one of them, though I'm no teenager.

This is what I hear:

They claim they are not saying "There is(are) No God(gods)". They are saying atheism is the rejection of the claim "God".

I'll say there are no gods. I can say that because I'm a strong atheist, one who believes there are no gods. But I usually self-identify as an atheist, which is to say a non-theist, one who does not happen to believe in gods.

(I threw in the "happen" in the attempt not to be read as using litotes. It's a problem, litotes is. It makes it hard to be clear. So I stress that I'm not using understatement as a figure of speech. That is, I'm not saying atheists, " don't believe in gods" as a way of indicating that we believe gods don't exist. Rather, I'm being literal, indicating only that we don't believe gods exist.)

From every class and discussion I have ever had in the past the scale has been:
- atheism "No God" assertion
- agnosticism "Unknown" non-assertion (Neutrality)
- Theism "A God" assertion

That used to be the way of it. Language changes. And that is certainly still a legitimate usage. More people still use that old nomenclature than use the new one.

These atheists seem to be asserting a "new" neutrality to their argument to attempt to shift the burden of proof away from the atheistic position.

I don't think that's what's going on at all. If I say "I'm an atheist," that doesn't mean I think god doesn't exist. But it's still true that I believe god doesn't exist. I'm happy to argue for what I believe. I'm not shifting burden of proof.

I'm just explaining a word.

Imagine this situation:

I say, "I'm an atheist."
You say, "That means you believe gods don't exist."
I say, "No, it means I don't believe in god."

I don't mean that I don't have to prove god doesn't exist if I assert it---and I'm happy to assert it. I'm just pointing out that I haven't asserted it yet. I just said I'm an atheist; I didn't say I'm a strong atheist.

All will be clear if you think of "atheist" as meaning "non-theist."

It is attempting to ignore the dichotomy between the positions? How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

See, now we're getting weird. You yourself just described "agnosticism" as a third position, but now it sounds like you're denying the possibility of a third position.

Does anyone have some insight into this talking point from the atheistic pundents?

Sure. Most---or at least many---atheists today think of atheism as not-theism.

Atheists come in flavors (many flavors, but here I'm listing two):

Strong atheists believe gods do not exist.
Weak atheists are neither theists nor strong atheists.

You used to call strong atheists "atheists."
And you used to call weak atheists "agnostics."

You can still call them that if you wish, but if you make the switch you'll avoid a lot of confusion when you talk about agnostics, those who are not gnostic, which is to say, those without knowledge.

A gnostic strong atheist knows that gods don't exist.
A gnostic theist knows that gods do exist.

Many theists are agnostic. They believe gods exist without knowing gods exist.

Most strong atheists are agnostic. They believe gods don't exist, but they don't know it.

I hope this helps.

How is rejection of God not synonymous with saying No God?

Atheists don't necessarily "reject" gods. Some of us have never heard of gods. Babies wouldn't understand if you tried to tell them about gods. But they still aren't theists, so they are atheists.

Noncognitivists don't believe that the claim that gods exist is meaningful or truth apt. They don't reject the claim; they don't say it is false. They just aren't theists. So they are atheists.

When I was reading Paley's classic watch argument, I expected to be persuaded. I was not rejecting gods: I expected to be a theist by the time I finished reading. But I wasn't a theist yet, so I was an atheist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:22:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheists really have no burden of proof because "no God" is the neutral position, you should always believe that extraordinary claims are not true until it's proven when dealing with filtering out false assertions, you don't believe extra ordinary claims until it's disproven. If somebody wants to add some new additive knowledge to what we know about existence, then they have to prove it.

Example:

If there are 3 people, and person A says "I have a dragon in my garage" is it then logical for person B to turn to person C and say "disprove it"? Of course not that is utterly moronic, it's logical for person B to ask person A to prove his claim of a dragon in his garage. Lets flip that around, what if person C said to person A "you don't have a dragon in your garage"...This of course would be the neutral position and bears no burden of proof.

Conclusion:

The burden of proof is always on the one claiming something exists (AKA a positive claim) when attempting to add new knowledge of existence in a factual manner. The only exception to this would be is someone claimed something didn't exist regarding something that was already proven. For example, if I said "Henry Ford didn't exist" then I would have the burden of proof because it has already been proven that he did exist. Basically, if we are starting from a neutral point (nothing has been proven or disproven) then it's completely illogical to place the burden of proof on the one claiming something doesn't exist (as I showed with the "dragon in my garage" example.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:23:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:52:09 PM, Physik wrote:
1. As far as I am aware, all 'evidence' that you refered to has been convincingly refuted. If I am mistaken, do present.

Please don't. That would belong in a different thread.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:32:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

Maybe I don't know what you're talking about and shouldn't have said anything.

Weak atheism is neutral. The weak atheists don't believe gods exist, and they don't believe gods don't exist. That seems neutral to me.

But "rejection of god" sounds like something else. It sounds like somebody who believes in a god but doesn't want to go along with her program. Like I reject Sara Palin. I know she exists, but I don't like her.

If she runs for office, I'll vote for someone else. I reject her.

That doesn't sound like a neutral position, but it also doesn't sound like atheism.

Sounds like Satanism, actually: believing in a god, but being on the other team.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:34:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:23:16 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 2/11/2012 10:52:09 PM, Physik wrote:
1. As far as I am aware, all 'evidence' that you refered to has been convincingly refuted. If I am mistaken, do present.

Please don't. That would belong in a different thread.

If I didn't mention it, he would have gone on and on about me being ignorant.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:37:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:22:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheists really have no burden of proof because "no God" is the neutral position, you should always believe that extraordinary claims are not true until it's proven when dealing with filtering out false assertions, you don't believe extra ordinary claims until it's disproven. If somebody wants to add some new additive knowledge to what we know about existence, then they have to prove it.

Is this what you're talking about, Gileandos? If so, I have to come down on your side here. Anybody who says gods don't exist is making a positive assertion, and has the burden of proof.

The reason that atheism can be said to have no burden of proof is that atheism includes weak atheism, and many weak atheists have no burden of proof (An exception is those weak atheists who say that weak atheism is the only correct position. They are making a positive claim, so they have the burden of proof.)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:43:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:37:58 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 2/11/2012 11:22:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheists really have no burden of proof because "no God" is the neutral position, you should always believe that extraordinary claims are not true until it's proven when dealing with filtering out false assertions, you don't believe extra ordinary claims until it's disproven. If somebody wants to add some new additive knowledge to what we know about existence, then they have to prove it.

Is this what you're talking about, Gileandos? If so, I have to come down on your side here. Anybody who says gods don't exist is making a positive assertion, and has the burden of proof.

The reason that atheism can be said to have no burden of proof is that atheism includes weak atheism, and many weak atheists have no burden of proof (An exception is those weak atheists who say that weak atheism is the only correct position. They are making a positive claim, so they have the burden of proof.)

lol. that is a great argument.. QED
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:44:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 11:37:58 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 2/11/2012 11:22:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheists really have no burden of proof because "no God" is the neutral position, you should always believe that extraordinary claims are not true until it's proven when dealing with filtering out false assertions, you don't believe extra ordinary claims until it's disproven. If somebody wants to add some new additive knowledge to what we know about existence, then they have to prove it.

Is this what you're talking about, Gileandos? If so, I have to come down on your side here. Anybody who says gods don't exist is making a positive assertion, and has the burden of proof.

The reason that atheism can be said to have no burden of proof is that atheism includes weak atheism, and many weak atheists have no burden of proof (An exception is those weak atheists who say that weak atheism is the only correct position. They are making a positive claim, so they have the burden of proof.)

"Anybody who says gods don't exist is making a positive assertion"

Umm do you know what positive means? look up the symbol "+" if you don't. Saying something DOESN'T exist is a obviously negative claim, saying something DOES exist is a positive claim.

Doesn't = Negative
Does = Positive
Addition = Positive
Subtraction = Negative
Non-existence = Negative
Existence = Positive

....I'm baffled I actually have to explain the different between a positive claim and a negative claim.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:47:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason that atheism can be said to have no burden of proof is that atheism includes weak atheism, and many weak atheists have no burden of proof (An exception is those weak atheists who say that weak atheism is the only correct position. They are making a positive claim, so they have the burden of proof.)

No, 'we' don't. I only make that assertion because gnostic (or strong) atheism has a burden of proof due to it's absolute nature; and no reason currently exists to think that the existence of god can possibly be disproved. Unless my supposed burden of proof is then filled by pointing that out, in which case I'm getting confused.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2012 11:50:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/11/2012 10:14:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 2/11/2012 8:55:38 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. It is an assertion of belief, not knowledge.

Yes and that is a redefining of atheism as Craig discusses. But that is not classic atheism.
I am talking about, these people claiming "rejection of God" gains a neutral stance.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Believing something doesn't exist (especially unlikely extra-ordinary claims) is the neutral position until there is prove of this existence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 12:16:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lets clear up the argument about what Atheism means.

"a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

"Definition of ATHEIST

one who believes that there is no deity"

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"a·the·ist Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

1. According to the first definition, atheism is just the rejection of the belief in a God. It is no knowledge assertion that a God doesn't exist 100%.

2. The second definition is similar to the first.

3. The third definition is similar to the third.

3. According to the forth definition, in a broader sense atheism is the same as the first definition, but in a narrow sense it is the knowledge assertion that he doesn't exist 100%.

Conclusion:

All definitions I have found either:

Defined atheism as the lack of belief in God (most of definitions)

Defined it as a lack in belief in God OR the assertion of knowledge that he doesn't exist (these definitions offer an alternative type of Atheism called narrow atheism or strong atheism).

No definitions I have found:

Implied that it is a belief that can only meet it's definition standard if it is narrow or strong Atheism.

Why Craig is wrong:

If anybody is trying to "change the definition of Atheism", Craig is the culprit in the crime.