RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/12/09 at 03:22 PM | Reply with quote | #1 |
|
It seems that atheists do not want to shoulder any burden of proof while remaining atheists. They simply contend it means "no belief in God."
When a truth-claim is made, it is expressed in a proposition. Propositions are stand-alone; that is, they do not require anyone to believe in them, and they are true or false regardless. "It is raining outside my house right now" is true or false whether anyone believes it or not. Beliefs, however, are not stand-alone. They require a subject. Even if one says simply "I believe," he believes something, even if the answer is "everything" or "nothing!"
A theist is one who believes in theism. Theism is the belief in the existence of God. These types of atheists are put in the uncomfortable position of either denying that the prefix "a" is one meaning "without" or "absence of" or "none," or saying that a theist is one who "believes in the belief of the existence of God." Of course, that would make everyone a theist, and thus only atheists would deny the reality that people believe in God. I recently had an email debate with someone over this concept in which he was forced to assert something to the effect of theists not having to postulate that God exists.
For if theists must postulate "There is a God," then atheists must deny "There is a God," which is equivalent to saying "there is no God." It is true in the meaning of the word itself, and if atheism purports to answer the question of whether or not there is a God (which I understand in this new defense they do not).
|
| Loading... | |
parklife
Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 643
|
| | 10/12/09 at 03:49 PM | Reply with quote | #2 |
|
If the atheist sees no good reason to believe in God, why should the burden of proof be on the atheist? If you see no good reason to believe in fairies, are you actually going to bother trying to disprove the existence of fairies? No, you don't believe and that's it. It's up to the theist to present an argument that no rational person can deny, then the burden is going to be on the atheist to show how the argument is wrong.
To me it's not even clear what a God is (words like "spirit" and "immaterial" are vacuous to me), so that's an additional reason to not waste any time to try to disprove the existence of a God. Disproving something that is vaguely defined seems like a futile exercice. Theists can just redefine their God at-will, as an answer to whatever objection the atheist could have about a God.
__________________
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie. |
| Loading... | |
RandyE
Registered: 09/01/09
Posts: 891
|
| | 10/12/09 at 03:57 PM | Reply with quote | #3 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by parklife
If the atheist sees no good reason to believe in God, why should the burden of proof be on the atheist? If you see no good reason to believe in fairies, are you actually going to bother trying to disprove the existence of fairies? No, you don't believe and that's it. It's up to the theist to present an argument that no rational person can deny, then the burden is going to be on the atheist to show how the argument is wrong.
To me it's not even clear what a God is (words like "spirit" and "immaterial" are vacuous to me), so that's an additional reason to not waste any time to try to disprove the existence of a God. Disproving something that is vaguely defined seems like a futile exercice. Theists can just redefine their God at-will, as an answer to whatever objection the atheist could have about a God.
As to your second paragraph, we must be careful when deciding that the term "God" cannot be meaningfully defined, lest we commit the Loki's Wager fallacy. Unless you are saying you are an agnostic (like one cannot know whether there is a God).
|
| Loading... | |
Lightfoot
Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 1,989
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:04 PM | Reply with quote | #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by parklife
If the atheist sees no good reason to believe in God, why should the burden of proof be on the atheist? If you see no good reason to believe in fairies, are you actually going to bother trying to disprove the existence of fairies? No, you don't believe and that's it. It's up to the theist to present an argument that no rational person can deny, then the burden is going to be on the atheist to show how the argument is wrong.
To me it's not even clear what a God is (words like "spirit" and "immaterial" are vacuous to me), so that's an additional reason to not waste any time to try to disprove the existence of a God. Disproving something that is vaguely defined seems like a futile exercice. Theists can just redefine their God at-will, as an answer to whatever objection the atheist could have about a God.
Right, I don't believe in fairies or Santa, but I certainly don't spend my time debating and arguing about such!
__________________
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."
C.S Lewis |
| Loading... | |
jonahbear
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 778
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:12 PM | Reply with quote | #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by LightfootQuote: Originally Posted by parklife
If the atheist sees no good reason to believe in God, why should the burden of proof be on the atheist? If you see no good reason to believe in fairies, are you actually going to bother trying to disprove the existence of fairies? No, you don't believe and that's it. It's up to the theist to present an argument that no rational person can deny, then the burden is going to be on the atheist to show how the argument is wrong.
To me it's not even clear what a God is (words like "spirit" and "immaterial" are vacuous to me), so that's an additional reason to not waste any time to try to disprove the existence of a God. Disproving something that is vaguely defined seems like a futile exercice. Theists can just redefine their God at-will, as an answer to whatever objection the atheist could have about a God.
Right, I don't believe in fairies or Santa, but I certainly don't spend my time debating and arguing about such!
I notice that lately most atheists are conceding this point. The "lack of belief" notion just doesn't stick.
It is "important" enough to stimulate debate which means there is an object to debate (to the theist, God, to the atheist belief in God).
__________________
There is only mercy and, believe me, it's enough ~ Matthew West
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_4pMBU58e8 |
| Loading... | |
parklife
Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 643
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:16 PM | Reply with quote | #6 |
|
It just seems then that the issue is a dictionary definition. Perhaps the issue is really just that some atheists shouldn't call themselves atheists? Or that atheism should have several definitions?
I do agree that if one makes the claim: "there is no god", he has the burden of proof. But I don't hear very often people making that claim, though that some atheist philosophers do attempt to show that there is no god.
Quote:
we must be careful when deciding that the term "God" cannot be meaningfully defined
Well, I'm not saying it cannot be meaningfully defined... But from my point of view, I haven't seena meaningful definition of what is a God.
__________________
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie. |
| Loading... | |
parklife
Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 643
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:18 PM | Reply with quote | #7 |
|
Quote: Right, I don't believe in fairies or Santa, but I certainly don't spend my time debating and arguing about such!
That's because people generally don't present arguments for the existence of fairies or Santa. If they would, I still don't think you would have to present arguments against the existence of fairies or Santa to not believe in such entities.
__________________
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie. |
| Loading... | |
wonderer
Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 2,835
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:22 PM | Reply with quote | #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lightfoot
Right, I don't believe in fairies or Santa, but I certainly don't spend my time debating and arguing about such!
What is your point? The difference has been explained to you many times so I can't help wondering if you are demonstrating a problem with comprehension or honesty.
__________________
“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man." - Richard Feynman |
| Loading... | |
Maxeo
Registered: 06/13/09
Posts: 1,718
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:24 PM | Reply with quote | #9 |
|
Quote: Right, I don't believe in fairies or Santa, but I certainly don't spend my time debating and arguing about such!
lol
__________________
The first to present his case seems right until
another comes forward and questions him. -Prov. 18.17
twitter.com/maxeoa |
| Loading... | |
jonahbear
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 778
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:25 PM | Reply with quote | #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by parklifeQuote: Right, I don't believe in fairies or Santa, but I certainly don't spend my time debating and arguing about such!
That's because people generally don't present arguments for the existence of fairies or Santa. If they would, I still don't think you would have to present arguments against the existence of fairies or Santa to not believe in such entities.
The truth is, that belief in God is an important subject (whatever side of the fence your on). That nullifies any silly analogies to FSM's, fairies, etc..
__________________
There is only mercy and, believe me, it's enough ~ Matthew West
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_4pMBU58e8 |
| Loading... | |
Maxeo
Registered: 06/13/09
Posts: 1,718
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:26 PM | Reply with quote | #11 |
|
| Gr. a [prefix not] theos [god]
I believe [not-god].
Those are logically equivalent statements.
__________________
The first to present his case seems right until
another comes forward and questions him. -Prov. 18.17
twitter.com/maxeoa |
| Loading... | |
parklife
Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 643
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:32 PM | Reply with quote | #12 |
|
Quote: If there were people presenting arguments for Santa or tooth fairies, I personally would be unswayed in my apathy.
The truth is, that belief in God is an important subject (whatever side of the fence your on). That nullifies any silly analogies to FSM's, fairies, etc..
The purpose of the analogy - which isn't silly at all - is to point out that we don't need to disprove something when we see no good reason to believe it. In that sense, a God is exactly the same thing as fairies.
Belief in God is an important subject, because a lot of people believe in God.
__________________
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie. |
| Loading... | |
jonahbear
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 778
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:51 PM | Reply with quote | #13 |
|
Quote: The purpose of the analogy - which isn't silly at all - is to point out that we don't need to disprove something when we see no good reason to believe it. In that sense, a God is exactly the same thing as fairies.
Then
Quote: Belief in God is an important subject, because a lot of people believe in God.
Now the fact that many people believe in God does not, in itself, make God true obviously.
However, the fact that many people believe in God versus the fact that most people do not believe in FSM's, fairies, etc. gives makes this analogy float away.
The fact that many people do believe in God should give the person who doesn't believe interest to discover why they do not believe (or why so many others do). That is a key difference between the silly FSM, fairy analogies and they should be shed if the skeptic wanted to maintain honesty with themselves and others. Those analogies are put out there in an attempt to ridicule and nothing more. However, the topic of God will not be shut up with silly and invalid metaphors.
__________________
There is only mercy and, believe me, it's enough ~ Matthew West
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_4pMBU58e8 |
| Loading... | |
parklife
Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 643
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:57 PM | Reply with quote | #14 |
|
The purpose of the analogy - which isn't silly at all - is to point out that we don't need to disprove something when we see no good reason to believe it.
__________________
I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie. |
| Loading... | |
Lightfoot
Registered: 01/22/08
Posts: 1,989
|
| | 10/12/09 at 04:59 PM | Reply with quote | #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by parklifeQuote: Right, I don't believe in fairies or Santa, but I certainly don't spend my time debating and arguing about such!
That's because people generally don't present arguments for the existence of fairies or Santa. If they would, I still don't think you would have to present arguments against the existence of fairies or Santa to not believe in such entities.
Look, if there was an argument for the existence of Santa Claus, the most I would do is take a peak and scram!
__________________
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."
C.S Lewis |
| Loading... | |
