Atheism on Trial

[Hobbes' Choice]

absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

Absence of what, exactly?

You mean absence of a thing for which there is no evidence at all.

You mis-use the phrase. It is usually made in the context of a known thing's absence at a particular location.
For example. There is no evidence that the Romans did not colonised Scotland just because there is not evidence in Scotland for them being there.
You are misusing the phrase in a similar way to this:" There is no evidence that Aliens from Alpha Centauri did not colonise Scotland because there seems to be no evidence that they were ever there."

We know that it might have been at least possible for Rome to have visited Scotland, but what the fuck evidence is there for god or aliens?

[Impenitent]

absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

Absence of what, exactly?

You mean absence of a thing for which there is no evidence at all.

You mis-use the phrase. It is usually made in the context of a known thing's absence at a particular location.
For example. There is no evidence that the Romans did not colonised Scotland just because there is not evidence in Scotland for them being there.
You are misusing the phrase in a similar way to this:" There is no evidence that Aliens from Alpha Centauri did not colonise Scotland because there seems to be no evidence that they were ever there."

We know that it might have been at least possible for Rome to have visited Scotland, but what the fuck evidence is there for god or aliens?

a particular location for that which is omnipresent?

but you are correct of course, everyone knows the aliens from Mars are the ones who wear kilts...

-Imp

[Impenitent]

absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

But in the absence of proof, there is no reason to accept the proposition either. Which is basically what most atheists say. 'No evidence is provided, so currently I have no reason to accept the proposition as true'. Including the proposition doesn't give new insight into reality, it doesn't predict anything and it doesn't explain anything. Worst case, it makes reality even more of a mystery. Making the proposition completely worthless, even as a possible explainatory device

This is why atheists do not accept, or 'not believe', the proposition is true.

Little extra, because it kinda annoys me:
For making such a statement the proposition of 'god' needs to be known. So, no, cats and dogs (or rocks) do not have a philosophical stance on the proposition of there being a god. They are not atheists.

propositions have little worth for me in any event...

are propositions taken on the faith of reason or derived from the faith of definitions immune from faith?

-Imp

p.s. welcome to the boards

[Scott Mayers]

absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

But in the absence of proof, there is no reason to accept the proposition either. Which is basically what most atheists say. 'No evidence is provided, so currently I have no reason to accept the proposition as true'. Including the proposition doesn't give new insight into reality, it doesn't predict anything and it doesn't explain anything. Worst case, it makes reality even more of a mystery. Making the proposition completely worthless, even as a possible explainatory device

This is why atheists do not accept, or 'not believe', the proposition is true.

Little extra, because it kinda annoys me:
For making such a statement the proposition of 'god' needs to be known. So, no, cats and dogs (or rocks) do not have a philosophical stance on the proposition of there being a god. They are not atheists.

I compared a cat to being an "atheist" because it is NOT a position. The posited belief, theism, is NOT one by default. So my comparison is correct. The cat may not care one way or other. So too are many non-believers in theism who refer to ourselves as "atheist". Thus a cat is "atheist" too. Read what I wrote above for the details of the differences in meanings. "a-" means "without" or "absence of", and "theism" is "a posited belief in an entity of some supreme super-being, often granted as an empathetic 'creator' of life, especially to favor humanity". You'd have to agree that even rocks are "atheist" by this understood definition. But your misunderstanding is particularly why theists believe atheists are negating, which is an inverse position.

[Hobbes' Choice]

absence of proof is not proof of absence

-Imp

Absence of what, exactly?

You mean absence of a thing for which there is no evidence at all.

You mis-use the phrase. It is usually made in the context of a known thing's absence at a particular location.
For example. There is no evidence that the Romans did not colonised Scotland just because there is not evidence in Scotland for them being there.
You are misusing the phrase in a similar way to this:" There is no evidence that Aliens from Alpha Centauri did not colonise Scotland because there seems to be no evidence that they were ever there."

We know that it might have been at least possible for Rome to have visited Scotland, but what the fuck evidence is there for god or aliens?

a particular location for that which is omnipresent?

-Imp

Yes, the universe. Ever heard of it?

[Obvious Leo]

I compared a cat to being an "atheist" because it is NOT a position. The posited belief, theism, is NOT one by default. So my comparison is correct. The cat may not care one way or other. So too are many non-believers in theism who refer to ourselves as "atheist". Thus a cat is "atheist" too. Read what I wrote above for the details of the differences in meanings. "a-" means "without" or "absence of", and "theism" is "a posited belief in an entity of some supreme super-being, often granted as an empathetic 'creator' of life, especially to favor humanity". You'd have to agree that even rocks are "atheist" by this understood definition. But your misunderstanding is particularly why theists believe atheists are negating, which is an inverse position.

I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I've expressed a similar opinion in a philosophy forum. The term "atheist" conveys no information other than the fact that the person so described is not a theist. It's rather like somebody asking you what you do for a living and you reply "I'm a non-dentist". You haven't told him much.

[Impenitent]

Absence of what, exactly?

You mean absence of a thing for which there is no evidence at all.

You mis-use the phrase. It is usually made in the context of a known thing's absence at a particular location.
For example. There is no evidence that the Romans did not colonised Scotland just because there is not evidence in Scotland for them being there.
You are misusing the phrase in a similar way to this:" There is no evidence that Aliens from Alpha Centauri did not colonise Scotland because there seems to be no evidence that they were ever there."

We know that it might have been at least possible for Rome to have visited Scotland, but what the fuck evidence is there for god or aliens?

a particular location for that which is omnipresent?

-Imp

Yes, the universe. Ever heard of it?

ah, and you have empirical evidence or knowledge of every square centimeter of the universe?

"assumption is the mother of all f-ups"

-Imp

[Hobbes' Choice]

a particular location for that which is omnipresent?

-Imp

Yes, the universe. Ever heard of it?

ah, and you have empirical evidence or knowledge of every square centimeter of the universe?

"assumption is the mother of all f-ups"

-Imp

So you are saying that because I can't know every inch of the Universe I am obliged to believe in fairies.
This is a moronic way to live your life.
I assume nothing: that's your problem.

[Impenitent]

So you are saying that because I can't know every inch of the Universe I am obliged to believe in fairies.
This is a moronic way to live your life.
I assume nothing: that's your problem.

not at all.

keep trying to prove your negative...

-Imp

[Hobbes' Choice]

So you are saying that because I can't know every inch of the Universe I am obliged to believe in fairies.
This is a moronic way to live your life.
I assume nothing: that's your problem.

not at all.

keep trying to prove your negative...

-Imp

I don't have to, That remains your problem.

[Obvious Leo]

ah, and you have empirical evidence or knowledge of every square centimeter of the universe?

You commit a very basic error in dialectics sometimes referred to as the Russell's teapot analogy. This error effectively transfers the burden of proof in an argument onto the wrong person because it goes to the question of falsifiability. A statement which is not falsifiable cannot logically be accepted as either true or false. If I claim that a china teapot is orbiting the earth between here and Mars do you feel obliged to accept this as a true statement because you are unable to disprove it? You would have every right to insist that the burden of proof for such a claim lies with me.

[Vanilla Almond Milk]

Like at least one other reader here, I registered with Philosophy Now's site just to express my disappointment in this article.

If Stephen Anderson had taken a mere three hours to randomly browse several web's discussions of atheism, then it would be hard for him not to learn what's wrong with several of the arguments in his article. As another person here has said, one of Christopher Hitchens' memorable comments comes to mind: "You give me the awful impression of, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position, ever."

The article is evidence that PN's normal editors don't review the articles that appear only on PN's website. Somebody please tell me if I'm wrong about that because if I am it means PN has been taken over by people with absolutely no academic credentials and that I needn't waste my time picking up the magazine again.

[Impenitent]

ah, and you have empirical evidence or knowledge of every square centimeter of the universe?

You commit a very basic error in dialectics sometimes referred to as the Russell's teapot analogy. This error effectively transfers the burden of proof in an argument onto the wrong person because it goes to the question of falsifiability. A statement which is not falsifiable cannot logically be accepted as either true or false. If I claim that a china teapot is orbiting the earth between here and Mars do you feel obliged to accept this as a true statement because you are unable to disprove it? You would have every right to insist that the burden of proof for such a claim lies with me.

I am not trying to prove anything except the limitations on human knowledge

HC claimed there was no evidence and I simply stated that his powers of observation were limited

I would not deny the possibility of said teapot any more than I would deny the possibility of the existence of purple wombats on Jupiter...

as I said elsewhere, "propositions have little worth for me in any event..."

-Imp

[Obvious Leo]

I was merely pointing out that a proposition for which there is no evidence is a belief and thus cannot be subjected to scientific or philosophical scrutiny because these disciplines derive their validity from the examination of evidence.

From a purely philosophical point of view the proselytising atheist is just as ludicrous a figure as the proselytising theist because neither has a shred of evidence in support of his argument. Entire rainforests have been laid waste in the production of literature both for and against a non-existent argument. No wonder philosophers are so routinely ignored by the rest of the community.

[The Inglorious One]

I was merely pointing out that a proposition for which there is no evidence is a belief and thus cannot be subjected to scientific or philosophical scrutiny because these disciplines derive their validity from the examination of evidence.

When you come right down to it, every proposition is derived from a belief of some kind.