Atheism on Trial

[gcomeau]

It is simply the state of not accepting the claims of theism due to lack of compelling reasons to do so.

Every negation is a claim: they are two side of the same coin.

You appear to be laboring under the same lack of understanding of what atheism is as the article's author.

Atheism is not the negation of theism. It is the lack of acceptance of the claims made by theism. It is the state of *not being convinced* by theism's argument that there exists a supreme being.


Any attempt you may be inclined to make to define it otherwise is simply trying to deflect the burden of proof from those making a claim to those not buying it.


Were I to claim that dimensional shifting gnomes are responsible for every time one sock out of a pair went missing when I did laundry it would not be contingent on you to prove me wrong before you would be justified "negating my claim" and not believing me.

[MacTAO]

The author sets up a straw man. The Greek prefixes a- an- mean "not, without, (having) no". Thus, atheism means, as the OED confirms, "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." It does not assert that there are no gods. Instead, it simply refers to not having belief in gods. Thus, it is a null-hypothesis that will be rejected as soon as evidence becomes available to reject it.

So far, all the evidence that has been presented to me are fabrications of fertile imagination and/or self-delusion. Of course, there are many who want to charge me 10% of my material wealth to do my thinking for me...

[The Inglorious One]

Atheism is not the negation of theism. It is the lack of acceptance of the claims made by theism. It is the state of *not being convinced* by theism's argument that there exists a supreme being.

This reminds me of "the Claw" correcting Maxwell Smart in pronouncing his name: "Not Craw, Craw."

You can go where you want with this, but you are being irrational should you stubbornly resist going where reason takes you.

[gcomeau]

Atheism is not the negation of theism. It is the lack of acceptance of the claims made by theism. It is the state of *not being convinced* by theism's argument that there exists a supreme being.

This reminds me of "the Claw" correcting Maxwell Smart in pronouncing his name: "Not Craw, Craw."

You can go where you want with this, but you are being irrational should you stubbornly resist going where reason takes you.

Would you care to address my illustration of the difference between making a negating claim and simply not being convinced by the original claim and how this relates to the burden of proof? Or were you going to limit your responses to general vague statements implying irrationality on my part without actually delivering specific criticisms of my points?

[The Inglorious One]

Would you care to address my illustration of the difference between making a negating claim and simply not being convinced by the original claim and how this relates to the burden of proof? Or were you going to limit your responses to general vague statements implying irrationality on my part without actually delivering specific criticisms of my points?

Is a straw man the best you've got? Who's talking about anything even remotely related to "dimensional shifting gnomes"? I'm certainly not, so why are you?

Unfortunately, this is quite typical of atheists who claim to be "rational."

[gcomeau]

Would you care to address my illustration of the difference between making a negating claim and simply not being convinced by the original claim and how this relates to the burden of proof? Or were you going to limit your responses to general vague statements implying irrationality on my part without actually delivering specific criticisms of my points?

Is a straw man the best you've got? Who's talking about anything even remotely like "dimensional shifting gnomes"? I'm certainly not, so why are you?

Unfortunately, this is quite typical of atheists who claim to be "rational."

Apparently you're having difficulty with the difference between the illustration of a concept and constructing a strawman.


Who is talking about dimension shifting gnomes? Me. I am talking about them. Because I am using them as a random example of an extraordinary claim of the existence of some entity possessing capabilities that defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them and for which we have no verifiable evidence of the existence of.

(Sound familiar?)

And I was pointing out that should *****I****** propose the existence of such entities the burden would be entirely on me to support my claim, and not at all on you to disprove it to justify not believing it. That general concept does not stop holding just because we stop talking about gnomes, or unicorns, or fairies, or trolls under bridges, or leprechauns... and start talking about all powerful entities that created the universe that you happen to have a personal investment in the idea of.

You propose it, you back your claim. That's how the burden of proof works.


Theism. Proposes. God.


It is on theism to support its claim, it is NOT on atheists to disprove the claim to justify not blindly accepting it.

[Obvious Leo]

It is contingent on theism to support it's claim, it is NOT contingent on atheists to disprove the claim to justify not blindly accepting it.

Inglorious is not the sharpest chisel in the rack, gcomeau, and the notion of ANALOGY appears to be beyond his comprehension. However analogy is a useful tool in philosophical discourse because it can be used to illustrate the simplest of points. I can claim that unicorns have been grazing on my petunias with exactly the same authority as Inglorious can claim that an omnipotent being created the universe. We both have precisely the same amount of evidence to support our respective claims.

[gcomeau]

It is contingent on theism to support it's claim, it is NOT contingent on atheists to disprove the claim to justify not blindly accepting it.

Inglorious is not the sharpest chisel in the rack, gcomeau, and the notion of ANALOGY appears to be beyond his comprehension. However analogy is a useful tool in philosophical discourse because it can be used to illustrate the simplest of points. I can claim that unicorns have been grazing on my petunias with exactly the same authority as Inglorious can claim that an omnipotent being created the universe. We both have precisely the same amount of evidence to support our respective claims.

I've found that a grasp of analogies seems to be highly selective among theistic apologists. They seem to understand them just fine right up until you start drawing analogies to their religious beliefs. Then all of a sudden it's "I don't believe that! Why are you talking about that?"

I suspect it's some kind of defense mechanism.

[The Inglorious One]

Would you care to address my illustration of the difference between making a negating claim and simply not being convinced by the original claim and how this relates to the burden of proof? Or were you going to limit your responses to general vague statements implying irrationality on my part without actually delivering specific criticisms of my points?

Is a straw man the best you've got? Who's talking about anything even remotely like "dimensional shifting gnomes"? I'm certainly not, so why are you?

Unfortunately, this is quite typical of atheists who claim to be "rational."

Apparently you're having difficulty with the difference between the illustration of a concept and constructing a strawman.


Who is talking about dimension shifting gnomes? Me. I am talking about them. Because I am using them as a random example of an extraordinary claim of the existence of some entity possessing capabilities that defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them and for which we have no verifiable evidence of the existence of.

So you consider a non-sequitur analogy a rational argument? Exactly what entity did I propose?

And I was pointing out that should *****I****** propose the existence of such entities the burden would be entirely on me to support my claim, and not at all on you to disprove it to justify not believing it. That general concept does not stop holding just because we stop talking about gnomes, or unicorns, or fairies, or trolls under bridges, or leprechauns... and start talking about all powerful entities that created the universe that you happen to have a personal investment in the idea of.

You propose it, you back your claim. That's how the burden of proof works.

Did I propose an entity? Or do you just assume I did? Is such an assumption rational?

Theism. Proposes. God.

You have a very narrow understanding of what constitutes theism. What do you say to those theists who say God does not exist as such?

[gcomeau]

Apparently you're having difficulty with the difference between the illustration of a concept and constructing a strawman.


Who is talking about dimension shifting gnomes? Me. I am talking about them. Because I am using them as a random example of an extraordinary claim of the existence of some entity possessing capabilities that defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them and for which we have no verifiable evidence of the existence of.

So you consider a non-sequitur a rational argument? Exactly what entity did I propose?

Once again, "theism". "Theism" proposes an entity. Namely, God.

Do try to keep up. I even spelled it out right down below, perhaps you should consider reading all the way through posts before writing your replies to them?

(Here, I'll bold it and make it big for you so you can't miss it:)

Theism. Proposes. God.

You have a very narrow understanding of what constitutes theism. What do you say to those theists who say God does not exist as such?

That since the DEFINITION of theism is a belief in (some form of) God, they're not theists

[Obvious Leo]

What do you say to those theists who say God does not exist as such?

I'd say they need a crash course in English comprehension and a better dictionary.

[The Inglorious One]

Forgetting the Francis Bacon quote, take a kook at the real thrust of what I've said:

Philosophy moves essentially in the realm of a universality (the ground of all being) that includes particulars within itself.

Philosophy is the dialectic between universality and particulars.

The ground of all being has been determined by particulars to be indeterminate.

Therefore, our understanding of particulars is extrapolated from perceived averages and every proposition, without exception, is derived from beliefs.

Philosophy presumes and presupposes that the perceived average has a rational structure or order: it presumes and presupposes that although indeterminate, the ground of all being is inclusive of a unifying principle of some kind.

Where in this did I posit a being or deity of any kind? Why do you insist on dragging this discussion along the lines of a red herring? What have you said that would give me a reason to think you are at all rational? So far, I can have a more rational discussion with dog crap.

That since the DEFINITION of theism is a belief in (some form of) God, they're not theists,

I think Catholics who say that God does not exist as such would disagree. It is not at all uncommon to hear some theists say, "God does not exist, but is existence itself."

[Obvious Leo]

It is not at all uncommon to hear some theists say, "God does not exist, but is existence itself."

In that case they're not theists. They're pantheists. If you don't know the difference then look it up. Theism specifically refers to god as "A" Being, not Being itself. In any event what has this got to with belief? Do you suggest that accepting that existence exists is equivalent to believing in god?

[The Inglorious One]

It is not at all uncommon to hear some theists say, "God does not exist, but is existence itself."

In that case they're not theists. They're pantheists. If you don't know the difference then look it up. Theism specifically refers to god as "A" Being, not Being itself. In any event what has this got to with belief? Do you suggest that accepting that existence exists is equivalent to believing in god?

You are arguing from ignorance. I can explain, but I would be following a red herring.

What follows from the five observations I laid out?

[gcomeau]

I think Catholics who say that God does not exist as such would disagree. It is not at all uncommon to hear some theists say, "God does not exist, but is existence itself."

Yeah, I know a few people who love to make that argument.

Then you ask them how "Being Itself" procreated with a virgin to produce offspring that could be sacrificed to give humanity a path to salvation from it's sins and everlasting life and that cares about them personally and loves them and etc, etc... and it all kind of breaks down pretty fast and they figure out that they can talk about "Being Itself" all they want, but that deity they believe in has all the attributes of a magic entity so they're fooling themselves.

It's an apologetics song and dance that they cobble together as an attempted way of avoiding having to defend all the various ridiculous things that come along with believing in a magic entity... but it doesn't reflect what they actually believe in. Which is the magic entity.