Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism and a "Lack of belief"

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:52:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it can be reformed to:

Atheism: one who denies the existence of God.

This can be split into:

Weak atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the weak case presented in favour of God.

Strong atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the strong case presented against God.

So a weak atheist simply needs to rebut all claims, whilst a strong atheist would further need to provide justification for his claim e.g. Epicurus' Dilemma
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:57:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:52:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it can be reformed to:

Atheism: one who denies the existence of God.

This can be split into:

Weak atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the weak case presented in favour of God.

Strong atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the strong case presented against God.

So a weak atheist simply needs to rebut all claims, whilst a strong atheist would further need to provide justification for his claim e.g. Epicurus' Dilemma

Who can argue with logic like that? ()()
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 8:58:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:52:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it can be reformed to:

Atheism: one who denies the existence of God.

This can be split into:

Weak atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the weak case presented in favour of God.

Strong atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the strong case presented against God.

So a weak atheist simply needs to rebut all claims, whilst a strong atheist would further need to provide justification for his claim e.g. Epicurus' Dilemma

Your definitions only apply to the word "Atheist". I was speaking about the word "Atheism".
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:07:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's logic, then there's practicality. How in the world would the refutation of a definition do anything to affect the claims to begin with? Why does the definition of Atheism or Atheist even need defense?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:09:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

This is a horrible refutation. First, we only assign ability to believe or not believe to sentient beings. Second, even if they are correct, it does not mean that the definition is incorrect.
In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:24:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

Those people are just being difficult. If you want to pay them any attention at all, you can point out that isms are about people's beliefs.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

This fails to describe the intended category. There are theists, and strong atheists, and then there's everybody else, the weak atheists.

If your definition doesn't include everyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist, then it isn't the definition of weak atheism.

Some weak atheists don't have the belief that theism is unfounded. Some, for instance, believe that they will become theists once they know more about god.

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Again, weak atheism doesn't require a specific justification. It requires only that you be neither a theist nor a strong atheist.

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

It's the belief that gods don't exist, which is so close to what you said that I should probably let it slide.

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

Again, this is a justification for strong atheism, as opposed to a description of strong atheism. Consider Plantinga's claim that he can't not believe in god. He, apparently, would believe in god without any justification at all.

You could also be a strong atheist without any justification.

Strong atheism is a particular belief, not a justification for that belief. You could have the belief without the justification, and you could have the justification without the belief.

At 6/2/2012 8:52:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it can be reformed to:

Atheism: one who denies the existence of God.

What if the Pope is a secret atheist? By this definition, that can't happen, so it's a bad definition: Unless he confessed his non-belief, he would not technically be an atheist.

Atheism is not believing that gods exist, regardless of whether you say so.

This can be split into:

Weak atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the weak case presented in favour of God.

It doesn't matter why. If you are neither a theist nor a strong atheist, then you are a weak atheist. Weak atheism is not believing either that gods exist or that gods don't exist.

Strong atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the strong case presented against God.

Strong atheism is the belief that gods don't exist. It doesn't matter whether you say you believe that, and it doesn't matter why you believe that.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:26:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:58:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:52:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it can be reformed to:

Atheism: one who denies the existence of God.

This can be split into:

Weak atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the weak case presented in favour of God.

Strong atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the strong case presented against God.

So a weak atheist simply needs to rebut all claims, whilst a strong atheist would further need to provide justification for his claim e.g. Epicurus' Dilemma

Your definitions only apply to the word "Atheist". I was speaking about the word "Atheism".

An atheist is one who holds to atheism. In the same way that a socialist is one who holds to socialism, or a rapist is one who rapes. Although I see I've moved the discussion slightly, an atheist is just one who holds to atheism, so I see no problem with this.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:28:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:26:13 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:58:13 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:52:53 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it can be reformed to:

Atheism: one who denies the existence of God.

This can be split into:

Weak atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the weak case presented in favour of God.

Strong atheism: One who denies the existence of God due to the strong case presented against God.

So a weak atheist simply needs to rebut all claims, whilst a strong atheist would further need to provide justification for his claim e.g. Epicurus' Dilemma

Your definitions only apply to the word "Atheist". I was speaking about the word "Atheism".

An atheist is one who holds to atheism. In the same way that a socialist is one who holds to socialism, or a rapist is one who rapes. Although I see I've moved the discussion slightly, an atheist is just one who holds to atheism, so I see no problem with this.

The problem I have with your definitions is that when you say "denies," there's an implication of the denial being ACTIVE, which is indicative of a strong statement of "I believe a god/s does not exist," whereas weak atheism is simply "I do not believe a god/s exists."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 7:24:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:28:33 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
...whereas weak atheism is simply "I do not believe a god/s exists."

And also, "I do not believe gods do not exist.

If you just say, "I do not believe gods exist," then you are describing atheism, not weak atheism.
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 10:28:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People are so fvcking petty. Why do you have to put a name to everything. I don't believe in God. Why does that need a name? It is what it is. What about people who don't believe in unicorns? What's the name for them? Or dragons? Or Ghost? Or aliens?
#BlackLivesMatter
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 1:33:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My my my, I've caused quite a stir, now haven't I?

The funny thing is, I don't really care anymore how you define weak atheism. However, I personally would be delighted to know that atheists outnumber theists. After all, there are a lot of inanimate objects out there ;)
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 1:34:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 1:33:18 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
My my my, I've caused quite a stir, now haven't I?

The funny thing is, I don't really care anymore how you define weak atheism. However, I personally would be delighted to know that atheists outnumber theists (if I were an atheist). After all, there are a lot of inanimate objects out there ;)

Fix'd.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:04:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 1:33:18 AM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
My my my, I've caused quite a stir, now haven't I?

The funny thing is, I don't really care anymore how you define weak atheism. However, I personally would be delighted to know that atheists outnumber theists. After all, there are a lot of inanimate objects out there ;)

Your objection doesn't work with the term "Atheist" though (only "Atheism") , so don't worry, theists still outnumber us.

Also as wiploc pointed out, "isms" presuppose a position or a belief so I'm not sure how valid your objection is anymore in the first place. Either way, "the position that theism is unfounded" works and cannot a apply to a brick lol.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 10:57:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:28:31 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
People are so fvcking petty. Why do you have to put a name to everything. I don't believe in God. Why does that need a name? It is what it is. What about people who don't believe in unicorns? What's the name for them? Or dragons? Or Ghost? Or aliens?

I find this funny. You are complaining about valid technical distinctions.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:06:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 10:57:27 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/2/2012 10:28:31 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
People are so fvcking petty. Why do you have to put a name to everything. I don't believe in God. Why does that need a name? It is what it is. What about people who don't believe in unicorns? What's the name for them? Or dragons? Or Ghost? Or aliens?

I find this funny. You are complaining about valid technical distinctions.

No, I agree with him. "Person who doesn't believe in God" is a valid technical distinction from "Person who believes in God". If it's the term "Atheist" that's giving people all these semantic troubles, why SHOULDN'T he complain?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:17:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

As several did not realize, I clarify for them; these technical distinctions have bearing within a debate format to understand the burden of proof.

I have no problem with your distinctions but they would just be added to the scale concerning the Burden of Proof would they not? Sam Harris spent so much time arguing for redefining of this atheism, I love how Anthony Flew retorted back in the 90's, before he converted to Deism.

Again, Flew was the person who wrote the 'Presumption of Atheism' in the 1950's (the conceptual definition of default position). This very work that defined his career he later abandoned as untenable. He choose scholastic accuracy.

***
Within a debate, you simply cannot take the position of the lack of belief as a rock lacks belief. As WLC and Flew point out to do this is invalid to the discussion as it does nothing to 'actually' discovering the veracity of a position.

This is important to the debate setting.
The problem for the atheist that takes weak atheistic perspective, they are thus left with a burden of proof they cannot endure to win a debate.
dirkson
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 2:00:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why is it important that a glass of milk be considered or not considered an atheist? I can't see as it has any particular downsides or upsides for either side.

At best, it could make a medium-funny punchline for a joke : )

Cheers,
-Dirk
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 2:02:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 10:28:31 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
People are so fvcking petty. Why do you have to put a name to everything. I don't believe in God. Why does that need a name? It is what it is. What about people who don't believe in unicorns? What's the name for them? Or dragons? Or Ghost? Or aliens?

I agree on principle, however, the difference is that most people believe in some kind of God; the three monotheisms are pretty similar in many/most ways, and most people adhere to one of those in our society. But most people do not believe in unicorns and dragons. Hence while it is true that we don't have names for people who don't believe in things/aren't something (or at least not usually, but I cant think of a case other than people who deny religion), the label atheist kind of makes sense because most people are theists....
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 2:52:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 11:06:48 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 6/3/2012 10:57:27 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/2/2012 10:28:31 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:
People are so fvcking petty. Why do you have to put a name to everything. I don't believe in God. Why does that need a name? It is what it is. What about people who don't believe in unicorns? What's the name for them? Or dragons? Or Ghost? Or aliens?

I find this funny. You are complaining about valid technical distinctions.

No, I agree with him. "Person who doesn't believe in God" is a valid technical distinction from "Person who believes in God". If it's the term "Atheist" that's giving people all these semantic troubles, why SHOULDN'T he complain?

Are you just not using explanatory definitions then claiming the philosophical word that explanation defines is at issue? Explain why that is productive?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 4:07:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

(wA)

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

So then wA only affirms ignorance on the matter.

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Again, wA only affirms ignorance on the matter.

Strong Atheism:

(sA)

"The belief that theism is false"

So sA affirms ~theism

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

Yup, sA affirms ~theism.

So the difference between sA & wA is that sA makes a claim about reality which therefore demands justification in a debate, whereas wA only makes a claim about our epistemic position or gnosis... hence wA = Agnosticism.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 5:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 4:07:26 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

(wA)

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

So then wA only affirms ignorance on the matter.

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Again, wA only affirms ignorance on the matter.

No, they don't claim they are ignorant on the matter. They claim they are knowledgeable enough about Theism to hold the position that it is unfounded. This is not being ignorant on the matter.


Strong Atheism:

(sA)

"The belief that theism is false"

So sA affirms ~theism

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

Yup, sA affirms ~theism.

So the difference between sA & wA is that sA makes a claim about reality which therefore demands justification in a debate, whereas wA only makes a claim about our epistemic position or gnosis... hence wA = Agnosticism.

If someone feels like they are more in the middle they may chose to call themselves Agnostic, also if someone is leading towards Atheism they may chose to call their selves a weak Atheist. There are many subsets of Atheism, some which aren't mutually exclusive from agnosticism.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 7:07:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 11:17:02 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

As several did not realize, I clarify for them; these technical distinctions have bearing within a debate format to understand the burden of proof.

I have no problem with your distinctions but they would just be added to the scale concerning the Burden of Proof would they not? Sam Harris spent so much time arguing for redefining of this atheism, I love how Anthony Flew retorted back in the 90's, before he converted to Deism.

Again, Flew was the person who wrote the 'Presumption of Atheism' in the 1950's (the conceptual definition of default position). This very work that defined his career he later abandoned as untenable. He choose scholastic accuracy.

***
Within a debate, you simply cannot take the position of the lack of belief as a rock lacks belief. As WLC and Flew point out to do this is invalid to the discussion as it does nothing to 'actually' discovering the veracity of a position.

This is important to the debate setting.
The problem for the atheist that takes weak atheistic perspective, they are thus left with a burden of proof they cannot endure to win a debate.

So lets apply the argument that fairies exist. So in a debate about fairies you could not assert in a debate that there is no evidence for fairies therefore they should not be believed in. You would have to assert that they do not exist.

Is that what you are saying?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 7:40:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 5:24:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/3/2012 4:07:26 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

(wA)

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

So then wA only affirms ignorance on the matter.

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Again, wA only affirms ignorance on the matter.

No, they don't claim they are ignorant on the matter. They claim they are knowledgeable enough about Theism to hold the position that it is unfounded. This is not being ignorant on the matter.


Strong Atheism:

(sA)

"The belief that theism is false"

So sA affirms ~theism

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

Yup, sA affirms ~theism.

So the difference between sA & wA is that sA makes a claim about reality which therefore demands justification in a debate, whereas wA only makes a claim about our epistemic position or gnosis... hence wA = Agnosticism.

If someone feels like they are more in the middle they may chose to call themselves Agnostic, also if someone is leading towards Atheism they may chose to call their selves a weak Atheist. There are many subsets of Atheism, some which aren't mutually exclusive from agnosticism.

I'm not concerned with some spectrum of emotions sir.

Agnosticism bespeaks a ~knowledge; where "~" is 'denial of'

Atheism bespeaks a ~God's existence

Weak Atheism bespeaks a for all we know God doesn't exist.

Call "for all we know" ignorance, I

If the belief, "God doesn't exist" is held tentatively, well that's compatible with strong atheism, but it's just held tentatively like my belief in say, evolution, or an various arguments.

But now if the belief, "God doesn't exist" is held in ignorance, well then how is this different from the agnostic who isn't a theist but assumes ignorance on the matter?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 7:48:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 7:07:03 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:17:02 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

As several did not realize, I clarify for them; these technical distinctions have bearing within a debate format to understand the burden of proof.

I have no problem with your distinctions but they would just be added to the scale concerning the Burden of Proof would they not? Sam Harris spent so much time arguing for redefining of this atheism, I love how Anthony Flew retorted back in the 90's, before he converted to Deism.

Again, Flew was the person who wrote the 'Presumption of Atheism' in the 1950's (the conceptual definition of default position). This very work that defined his career he later abandoned as untenable. He choose scholastic accuracy.

***
Within a debate, you simply cannot take the position of the lack of belief as a rock lacks belief. As WLC and Flew point out to do this is invalid to the discussion as it does nothing to 'actually' discovering the veracity of a position.

This is important to the debate setting.
The problem for the atheist that takes weak atheistic perspective, they are thus left with a burden of proof they cannot endure to win a debate.

So lets apply the argument that fairies exist. So in a debate about fairies you could not assert in a debate that there is no evidence for fairies therefore they should not be believed in. You would have to assert that they do not exist.

Is that what you are saying?

The same applies to fairies.
Someone states fairies exist. Simple enough.
First we apply claim distinction. Quality of the source of claim and quantity of sources. Known Novelic icon is not the same as Historical divinity claim thus requires a much heavier burden of proof.

After testing for a physical entity called a fairy we have contrary evidence that fairies indeed do not exist. Where we expect them to exist they do not. You can literally prove a fairy does not exist.

Back to the God concept:
The atheist is going against a design intuition of human nature and against Scholastic consensus of Theologians, compounded by the manifest evidence for a God entity. Now this does not mean believers or theologians are correct despite all of that, but you can see the burden of proof is clearly on the view bucking scholastic consensus.

So saying I 'lack a belief'
1: in the majority human design inference

2: the scholastic consensus of those who interact with while studying God's interaction

3: compounded by the fact that I even lack assent upon the evidence most of the world holds to be 'proof of God'.

Such a person's view obviously holds the burden when they are the minority view.

So to further avoid the BoP the atheist attempts to claim a lack of belief is default like a rock. After all a rock has nothing to prove.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 8:18:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 7:48:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/3/2012 7:07:03 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:17:02 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

As several did not realize, I clarify for them; these technical distinctions have bearing within a debate format to understand the burden of proof.

I have no problem with your distinctions but they would just be added to the scale concerning the Burden of Proof would they not? Sam Harris spent so much time arguing for redefining of this atheism, I love how Anthony Flew retorted back in the 90's, before he converted to Deism.

Again, Flew was the person who wrote the 'Presumption of Atheism' in the 1950's (the conceptual definition of default position). This very work that defined his career he later abandoned as untenable. He choose scholastic accuracy.

***
Within a debate, you simply cannot take the position of the lack of belief as a rock lacks belief. As WLC and Flew point out to do this is invalid to the discussion as it does nothing to 'actually' discovering the veracity of a position.

This is important to the debate setting.
The problem for the atheist that takes weak atheistic perspective, they are thus left with a burden of proof they cannot endure to win a debate.

So lets apply the argument that fairies exist. So in a debate about fairies you could not assert in a debate that there is no evidence for fairies therefore they should not be believed in. You would have to assert that they do not exist.

Is that what you are saying?

The same applies to fairies.
Someone states fairies exist. Simple enough.
First we apply claim distinction. Quality of the source of claim and quantity of sources. Known Novelic icon is not the same as Historical divinity claim thus requires a much heavier burden of proof.

After testing for a physical entity called a fairy we have contrary evidence that fairies indeed do not exist. Where we expect them to exist they do not. You can literally prove a fairy does not exist.
What if the claim is that these faeries are invisible, phased out of our current dimension? How could we possibly test for that, and if we cant, is it still unreasonable to deny its existance?
Back to the God concept:
The atheist is going against a design intuition of human nature and against Scholastic consensus of Theologians, compounded by the manifest evidence for a God entity. Now this does not mean believers or theologians are correct despite all of that, but you can see the burden of proof is clearly on the view bucking scholastic consensus.

If, in the near future, islam grows larger than christianity, is the burden of proof on christians because they are the ones who are bucking the scholastic consensus? Isnt this an argument from popularity?

So saying I 'lack a belief'
1: in the majority human design inference

What do you mean by "huma design inference"?

2: the scholastic consensus of those who interact with while studying God's interaction
3: compounded by the fact that I even lack assent upon the evidence most of the world holds to be 'proof of God'.

What sort of proofs?

Such a person's view obviously holds the burden when they are the minority view.

So to further avoid the BoP the atheist attempts to claim a lack of belief is default like a rock. After all a rock has nothing to prove.

Well, no, its really simple.

What is the default position?

a). Believe that something exists until there is proof or evidence against its existance.

b). Believe that something does not exist until there is proof or evidence supporting its existance.

Which is it?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:03:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 7:48:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/3/2012 7:07:03 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 6/3/2012 11:17:02 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/2/2012 8:28:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I have seen many theists try refute this definition of weak Atheism, because even a glass of milk has a lack of belief in God.

In my opinion, better definitions for Atheism would be:

Weak Atheism:

"The belief that theism is unfounded"

or

"The position that the reasons for God's existence are insufficient for belief in God's existence"

Strong Atheism:

"The belief that theism is false"

or

"The position that the reasons against God's existence are sufficient for belief in God's non-existence"

As several did not realize, I clarify for them; these technical distinctions have bearing within a debate format to understand the burden of proof.

I have no problem with your distinctions but they would just be added to the scale concerning the Burden of Proof would they not? Sam Harris spent so much time arguing for redefining of this atheism, I love how Anthony Flew retorted back in the 90's, before he converted to Deism.

Again, Flew was the person who wrote the 'Presumption of Atheism' in the 1950's (the conceptual definition of default position). This very work that defined his career he later abandoned as untenable. He choose scholastic accuracy.

***
Within a debate, you simply cannot take the position of the lack of belief as a rock lacks belief. As WLC and Flew point out to do this is invalid to the discussion as it does nothing to 'actually' discovering the veracity of a position.

This is important to the debate setting.
The problem for the atheist that takes weak atheistic perspective, they are thus left with a burden of proof they cannot endure to win a debate.

So lets apply the argument that fairies exist. So in a debate about fairies you could not assert in a debate that there is no evidence for fairies therefore they should not be believed in. You would have to assert that they do not exist.

Is that what you are saying?

The same applies to fairies.
Someone states fairies exist. Simple enough.
First we apply claim distinction. Quality of the source of claim and quantity of sources. Known Novelic icon is not the same as Historical divinity claim thus requires a much heavier burden of proof.

So you don't think there are any historical books claiming that fairies exist?

The fact that your claim has more proof than fairies does not mean its burden of proof is smaller.

For example, the theory of relativity has tons of evidence but because it is arguing something quite extreme it still have a significant burden of proof. Now that burden of proof may have been met but that burden is still there. So proof only meets the burden of proof, it does not decrease the burden of proof.

After testing for a physical entity called a fairy we have contrary evidence that fairies indeed do not exist. Where we expect them to exist they do not. You can literally prove a fairy does not exist.

What contrary evidence against fairies do you have?

Back to the God concept:
The atheist is going against a design intuition of human nature and against Scholastic consensus of Theologians, compounded by the manifest evidence for a God entity. Now this does not mean believers or theologians are correct despite all of that, but you can see the burden of proof is clearly on the view bucking scholastic consensus.

You need evidence to make claims about the secrets of the universe. Intuition is unreliable. Obviously theologians believe in theism, and that does not affect the burden of proof. Any extraordinary claim about the universe has a high burden of proof no matter how intuitive it is.

So saying I 'lack a belief'
1: in the majority human design inference

Inference is not good enough, evidence is.

2: the scholastic consensus of those who interact with while studying God's interaction

Don't you think that people who study God's interaction with the universe are more likely to start out as theists in the first place? There is no scientific consensus in theism being true. Also, theism is highly controversial and lacks a scientific level of evidence so a consensus if it existed means nothing.

3: compounded by the fact that I even lack assent upon the evidence most of the world holds to be 'proof of God'.

Such a person's view obviously holds the burden when they are the minority view.

"Most people" are in no way experts on the origin of the universe. That is irrelevant.

So to further avoid the BoP the atheist attempts to claim a lack of belief is default like a rock. After all a rock has nothing to prove.

A lack of belief is the default. Our criminal system even goes by this rule. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the defendant is guilty.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:36:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 8:18:19 PM, tkubok wrote:

What if the claim is that these faeries are invisible, phased out of our current dimension? How could we possibly test for that, and if we cant, is it still unreasonable to deny its existance?

IF you have hundreds of millions of scholars claiming interaction with said beings then absolutely.
The question of invisible trans dimensional fey folk is again a claim of source. How did you meet them? Then repeat. If you are the only person claiming to have met them, then the claim has a quality and quantity issue and burden of proof is on the claimant.

Back to the God concept:
The atheist is going against a design intuition of human nature and against Scholastic consensus of Theologians, compounded by the manifest evidence for a God entity. Now this does not mean believers or theologians are correct despite all of that, but you can see the burden of proof is clearly on the view bucking scholastic consensus.

If, in the near future, islam grows larger than christianity, is the burden of proof on christians because they are the ones who are bucking the scholastic consensus? Isnt this an argument from popularity?

Is citing scientific consensus for evolution ad populum? certainly not, it is quite valid to do so.
As to Christianity and Islam, they both hold an independent consensus of source but both agree on concept. Very different concept and not a problem for the scholastic process.


So saying I 'lack a belief'
1: in the majority human design inference

What do you mean by "huma design inference"?

That humans naturally see design or agency. A well documented scientific fact.


2: the scholastic consensus of those who interact with while studying God's interaction
3: compounded by the fact that I even lack assent upon the evidence most of the world holds to be 'proof of God'.

What sort of proofs?

All sorts, philosophical, metaphysical, mathematical and indirect physical.

Such a person's view obviously holds the burden when they are the minority view.

So to further avoid the BoP the atheist attempts to claim a lack of belief is default like a rock. After all a rock has nothing to prove.

Well, no, its really simple.

What is the default position?

a). Believe that something exists until there is proof or evidence against its existance.

b). Believe that something does not exist until there is proof or evidence supporting its existance.

Which is it?

Reread. To hold to be is to deny my 3 points, which still holds a burden to show why you deny all 3 when most hold to it.

So the atheists are now trying to assert they default a lack of belief like a rock, not just your (b).
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2012 11:52:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/3/2012 11:03:59 PM, Dan4reason wrote:

So you don't think there are any historical books claiming that fairies exist?

The fact that your claim has more proof than fairies does not mean its burden of proof is smaller.

Of course it does. It means exactly that.

For example, the theory of relativity has tons of evidence but because it is arguing something quite extreme it still have a significant burden of proof. Now that burden of proof may have been met but that burden is still there. So proof only meets the burden of proof, it does not decrease the burden of proof.

A claim for the theory of relativity is not an existence claim but a mathematical formula.
Does mathematical formula (X) represent reality?

Such a concept is subject to variable integration and reformulation.


After testing for a physical entity called a fairy we have contrary evidence that fairies indeed do not exist. Where we expect them to exist they do not. You can literally prove a fairy does not exist.

What contrary evidence against fairies do you have?

It is nowhere it had been claimed to have existed.


Back to the God concept:
The atheist is going against a design intuition of human nature and against Scholastic consensus of Theologians, compounded by the manifest evidence for a God entity. Now this does not mean believers or theologians are correct despite all of that, but you can see the burden of proof is clearly on the view bucking scholastic consensus.

You need evidence to make claims about the secrets of the universe. Intuition is unreliable. Obviously theologians believe in theism, and that does not affect the burden of proof. Any extraordinary claim about the universe has a high burden of proof no matter how intuitive it is.

Did you read my statements? The design inference was the first. It is itself evidence of an internal nature via cognition. It is not some mystical woman feeling she is going to have a boy or such. It is a cognitive recognition of design and expectation of a God entity within all humans. We see design everywhere we look.


So saying I 'lack a belief'
1: in the majority human design inference

Inference is not good enough, evidence is.

The design inference, again, is evidence.


2: the scholastic consensus of those who interact with while studying God's interaction

Don't you think that people who study God's interaction with the universe are more likely to start out as theists in the first place? There is no scientific consensus in theism being true. Also, theism is highly controversial and lacks a scientific level of evidence so a consensus if it existed means nothing.

That is a physicality bias by implying science determines everything.
Theology (not theism) holds a scholastic consensus of God's existence after a cornucopia of evidence, physical and otherwise is reviewed.

3: compounded by the fact that I even lack assent upon the evidence most of the world holds to be 'proof of God'.

Such a person's view obviously holds the burden when they are the minority view.

"Most people" are in no way experts on the origin of the universe. That is irrelevant.

You will have to give relevance as this is merely one aspect of one evidentiary line, which points to a non physical origin.


So to further avoid the BoP the atheist attempts to claim a lack of belief is default like a rock. After all a rock has nothing to prove.

A lack of belief is the default. Our criminal system even goes by this rule. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the defendant is guilty.

A very poor analogy (disanalogy), which I have heard before, to the presumption of Innocence within jurisprudence.

It misses the point entirely as to the desire of atheists.