Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ojuice5001 · 03-22-2002, 06:11 PM

The following two premises are widely held at II:

1. There is a considerable burden of proof placed on the positive side of a debate. This burden of proof applies to theism and other similar questions, with the result that theists should be held to a high standard when arguing for theism.

2. The evidence for theism (or Christianity in particular--my point is valid either way) is too weak to satisfy the standard, with the result that reason doesn't require (in a few people's opinion, doesn't allow) serious consideration of theism.

So if both of those premises are true, the existence of Janus or Christ holds the same status as the IPU or 300-pound clams that live on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy. It follows from this that arguments against theism or Christianity are unimportant. That is, they're unimportant in the sense that your beliefs about the gods should be the same whether the Argument from Evil (for example) is valid or not.

So if the question of God's existence is mostly unchanged when the Argument from Evil succeeds or fails, no one who understood this would care much about whether it succeeds or fails. If I had an argument against the IPU or clams, I wouldn't care about whether someone else could refute it.

But it seems like most atheists, including many who agree with both the numbered statements I listed, do care about whether an argument against theism succeeds or fails. The tone of debate would indicate that this is so.

So why is this? I say, the likely explanation is that these atheists aren't too confident in one of the premises. I think premise #2 is the more likely to be true, so if others see it the way I do, they probably have only a moderate confidence in their claim that theirs is the default position.

Jayhawker Soule · 03-22-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
... atheists ... care about whether an argument against theism succeeds or fails. [Therefore,] these atheists aren't too confident in one of the premises.

Huh?

Pitshade · 03-22-2002, 07:12 PM

You are jumping to a unwarranted conclusion here. Just because someone gets emotional about something is not proof that they are insecure about it. Other likely causes could be:

They could be angry over the poor reasoning, dishonesty or thick headedness of their opponent
They could be frustrated or under a lot of stress caused by events not related to the discussion or their beliefs/ideas. (Family troubles, work problems, sickness.)
They could be angry at Christians (or theists) in general.
They could just be excitable.

DarkDruid · 03-24-2002, 02:47 PM

I think this is a bit of a circular argument. In premise 2, you say we assume that the evidence is not powerful enough to allow concideration for a deity. This is true, but when we argue, this is what we are arguing about. When we debate things of that nature we are striving to prove premise 2 of your arguement.

LinuxPup · 03-25-2002, 03:56 PM

Quote:

1. There is a considerable burden of proof placed on the positive side of a debate. This burden of proof applies to theism and other similar questions, with the result that theists should be held to a high standard when arguing for theism.

Atheists face an equal burden (if not greater), for they claim an absolute truth: "There is no God." The skeptic must question this claim as much as he/she would the theists claim: "God exists." When denying God's existance one ought to heavily consider what they're doing, for they're essentially saying "An infinite being cannot exist, and I know this to be infinitely so." Betrand Russel, when debating a theist, had to deal with this problem early in the debate, by changing from an atheist to an agnostic, for if he didn't, the debate would be over in a matter of minutes.

Pomp · 03-25-2002, 04:09 PM

LinuxPup,

Atheists face an equal burden (if not greater), for they claim an absolute truth: "There is no God."

You are semi-correct. Those atheists who do profess that there is no god face a burden of proof. It is genrally held that it is very difficult to prove a negative. Please note that not all atheists profess that "there is no god." Many atheists, including myself, merely state that, as they have seen no convincing evidence for the existence of a god, they do not believe in a god. Stating that, to the best of my knowledge, no god exists is much different from professing to know with certainty that there is no god.

This leads into my comments on the OP.

I personally am an atheist for the reasons Ojuice5001 describes. I find the Argument from Evil and similar arguments useful for two reasons:

1) While I am a weak atheist ("to the best of my knowledge, no god exists") with regards to a generic god-concept, I am a strong atheist ("there is no god") with regards to most specific conceptions of god, including the Christian one. It is possible to prove a negative ("there is no Christian god") if one can show that assuming the positive ("the Christian god exists") to be true would lead to a contradiction, which is exactly what the AfE and simlar arguments attempt to do.

2) The AfE is specifically useful for countering common Christian emotive appeals. God is loving. God is good. God is just. I find it useful to demonstrate that, in order to remain internally consistent, Christianity must redefine such words so drastically that they no longer bear any relation to what we commonly mean by "good," "just," or "loving."

Jayhawker Soule · 03-25-2002, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LinuxPup:


Atheists face an equal burden (if not greater), for they claim an absolute truth: "There is no God." The skeptic must question this claim as much as he/she would the theists claim: "God exists." When denying God's existance one ought to heavily consider what they're doing, for they're essentially saying "An infinite being cannot exist, and I know this to be infinitely so.

Bullpuckie! Before paternalistically suggesting what atheists "ought to heavily consider", you might consider that that many of us (a) consider "abolute truth" a fiction, and (b) given the remarkable and ongoing success of methodological naturalism, deny only that there exists a need to posit the supernatural in the absence of evidence.

03-25-2002, 10:20 PM

No winged elephants have ever been born. Anywhere. Do I have to prove this? No, simply because there is no evidence such a fantastic creature exists.

Could I be wrong? Obviously I could. Still, I'm going to call a spade a spade, and a deity a myth. If I'm wrong, well, it's not all that bad to be beaten by God at a game of hide and seek.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

"I never found God, but I don't blame him."
-Franz Kafka

hinduwoman · 03-26-2002, 04:12 PM

I positively don't believe a god exists, because I have not found any empirical proof of this.

Does this become agnosticism? I think this too is strong atheism.

Wyrdsmyth · 03-26-2002, 07:12 PM

I assert no gods exist. I also assert no spirits exist, no fairies, no unicorns, no leprechauns, no ghosts, no harpies, no hippogriffs and the whole slew of mythological beings -- I assert none of them exist. My default position is that all of these mythological beings are fictitious creations of men, perpetrated by men.

Do I feel any particular burden in my claims by demonstrating, via some logical proof, that none of them exist? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. Atheism means the lack of belief in god(s) -- call it denial if you want, or a "strong assertion," or whatever. The a-part of atheism is a negation, so it means "not", the theism means belief in god(s)(from Greek theos, or divine). Interpet that "not" however you like. Likewise, the a-part of agnosticism means "not" also, not-knowing (from Greek gnosis, to know).

Some people distinguish between strong and weak atheism and agnosticism, the positive claims that (1a) no god exists, and (1b) there are things I can't know even in principle (such as the Kantian noumena), or negative claims such as (2a) I don't believe in any gods because I don't have enough evidence to warrant belief, and (2b) there are things I don't know (such as whether god(s) exist, or an afterlife exists, etc.) but I may be able to know, in principle. 1a is a strong atheist, 1b a strong agnostic, 2a a weak atheist, 2b a weak agnostic.

In my experience, a lot of the different terms are used, depending on how confident one feels, or whether one wants to make social concessions. When I was younger and less sure of myself, or didn't want to be stigmatized as a bad guy, I told people "I wasn't sure if god existed" or "I don't really know for sure." But as I get older, and perhaps more confident and less sensitive to what other people think of me, I'm more apt to be more honest and assertive, and just say that I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in any gods, or anything supernatural. Sure, I could be wrong, but that's what I think. That's where my money goes on the big bet, the honest bet -- Pascal's Wager swept aside for the horsetrack theologians. I'm not going to live my life intimidated out of fear I might be wrong, and that I might go to hell. I don't think there is a hell. There it all is, on the table.

For me, it all comes down to common sense. You want to get me to believe something? The onus is on you to provide the proof. I'm not actually trying to get anyone to not believe in god(s). I do think such beliefs are unfounded, from where I'm standing. I think the ancient world lacked the division of fiction and non-fiction that we currently have, and the line often got blurred. The more I read history, and get exposed to other cultures, philosophies and belief systems, the stronger this conviction becomes. Human history has a long line of myth-makers. The difference is, nowadays, they're more likely to publish fantasy books instead of starting new religions. That's what the Harry Potter books and the Lord of the Rings books are -- fantasy -- not the insidious promotion of rival religions, like some people think.

I don't feel any particular burden to prove that gods, leprechauns, Santa Claus, sky fairies, or any of that stuff doesn't exist. I assert that none of it does -- I think it's all fictional, but I don't claim to be able to prove it. There are, however, inconsistencies and logical problems that can sometimes be pointed out, derived from certain god-concepts. I think that's what is getting argued here, quite a bit -- the philosophical conceptions of god, and whether they make any logical sense or not. There a lot of arguments over whether god X can or cannot exist or not, or whether it seems likely that a god with traits A, B, and C actually exists given certain states in the world (i.e., the Argument from Evil), or whether something god-like is deemed necessary for existence, the universe, etc. (First Cause).

But all of these arguments and discussions, thought-provoking though they may be, generally sidestep the discussion of actual proof or evidence. I don't regard the Bible as sufficient evidence to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, the one I was raised to believe. I can't disprove old Jehosophat, but I can't disprove old Zeus, either, or Ahura-Mazda, or Osirus, and I'm sure there have been a lot of old world holy men who have claimed to "experience" and "absolutely verify" the existence of their various gods. But that just doesn't cut it with me.

From where I'm standing, we never really get outside of the words of men, human chatterboxes, giving lots of vocal testimony and arguments: "You gotta have faith, because there isn't enough proof. No wait, there is proof, you just don't want to accept it. The universe is so complex, it must have an intelligent designer behind it. The Virgin of Guadalupe is crying, because you won't accept Jesus. But even if that's a fraud, it doesn't mean God isn't real. He is. Even though when you pray, all you ever hear back is dead silence, you have to open your heart. You just gotta believe, and have faith."

Well, I don't. Nothing personal to you theists. But faith just doesn't cut it. And the evidence is too shaky.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

03-22-2002, 06:11 PM	#1
Ojuice5001 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: A city in Florida that I love Posts: 3,416	Question about the burden of proof The following two premises are widely held at II: 1. There is a considerable burden of proof placed on the positive side of a debate. This burden of proof applies to theism and other similar questions, with the result that theists should be held to a high standard when arguing for theism. 2. The evidence for theism (or Christianity in particular--my point is valid either way) is too weak to satisfy the standard, with the result that reason doesn't require (in a few people's opinion, doesn't allow) serious consideration of theism. So if both of those premises are true, the existence of Janus or Christ holds the same status as the IPU or 300-pound clams that live on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy. It follows from this that arguments against theism or Christianity are unimportant. That is, they're unimportant in the sense that your beliefs about the gods should be the same whether the Argument from Evil (for example) is valid or not. So if the question of God's existence is mostly unchanged when the Argument from Evil succeeds or fails, no one who understood this would care much about whether it succeeds or fails. If I had an argument against the IPU or clams, I wouldn't care about whether someone else could refute it. But it seems like most atheists, including many who agree with both the numbered statements I listed, do care about whether an argument against theism succeeds or fails. The tone of debate would indicate that this is so. So why is this? I say, the likely explanation is that these atheists aren't too confident in one of the premises. I think premise #2 is the more likely to be true, so if others see it the way I do, they probably have only a moderate confidence in their claim that theirs is the default position.

03-22-2002, 07:12 PM	#3
Pitshade Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Sugar Grove,NC Posts: 4,316	You are jumping to a unwarranted conclusion here. Just because someone gets emotional about something is not proof that they are insecure about it. Other likely causes could be: They could be angry over the poor reasoning, dishonesty or thick headedness of their opponent They could be frustrated or under a lot of stress caused by events not related to the discussion or their beliefs/ideas. (Family troubles, work problems, sickness.) They could be angry at Christians (or theists) in general. They could just be excitable.

03-26-2002, 07:12 PM	#10
Wyrdsmyth Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Sarver, PA, USA Posts: 920	I assert no gods exist. I also assert no spirits exist, no fairies, no unicorns, no leprechauns, no ghosts, no harpies, no hippogriffs and the whole slew of mythological beings -- I assert none of them exist. My default position is that all of these mythological beings are fictitious creations of men, perpetrated by men. Do I feel any particular burden in my claims by demonstrating, via some logical proof, that none of them exist? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. Atheism means the lack of belief in god(s) -- call it denial if you want, or a "strong assertion," or whatever. The a-part of atheism is a negation, so it means "not", the theism means belief in god(s)(from Greek theos, or divine). Interpet that "not" however you like. Likewise, the a-part of agnosticism means "not" also, not-knowing (from Greek gnosis, to know). Some people distinguish between strong and weak atheism and agnosticism, the positive claims that (1a) no god exists, and (1b) there are things I can't know even in principle (such as the Kantian noumena), or negative claims such as (2a) I don't believe in any gods because I don't have enough evidence to warrant belief, and (2b) there are things I don't know (such as whether god(s) exist, or an afterlife exists, etc.) but I may be able to know, in principle. 1a is a strong atheist, 1b a strong agnostic, 2a a weak atheist, 2b a weak agnostic. In my experience, a lot of the different terms are used, depending on how confident one feels, or whether one wants to make social concessions. When I was younger and less sure of myself, or didn't want to be stigmatized as a bad guy, I told people "I wasn't sure if god existed" or "I don't really know for sure." But as I get older, and perhaps more confident and less sensitive to what other people think of me, I'm more apt to be more honest and assertive, and just say that I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in any gods, or anything supernatural. Sure, I could be wrong, but that's what I think. That's where my money goes on the big bet, the honest bet -- Pascal's Wager swept aside for the horsetrack theologians. I'm not going to live my life intimidated out of fear I might be wrong, and that I might go to hell. I don't think there is a hell. There it all is, on the table. For me, it all comes down to common sense. You want to get me to believe something? The onus is on you to provide the proof. I'm not actually trying to get anyone to not believe in god(s). I do think such beliefs are unfounded, from where I'm standing. I think the ancient world lacked the division of fiction and non-fiction that we currently have, and the line often got blurred. The more I read history, and get exposed to other cultures, philosophies and belief systems, the stronger this conviction becomes. Human history has a long line of myth-makers. The difference is, nowadays, they're more likely to publish fantasy books instead of starting new religions. That's what the Harry Potter books and the Lord of the Rings books are -- fantasy -- not the insidious promotion of rival religions, like some people think. I don't feel any particular burden to prove that gods, leprechauns, Santa Claus, sky fairies, or any of that stuff doesn't exist. I assert that none of it does -- I think it's all fictional, but I don't claim to be able to prove it. There are, however, inconsistencies and logical problems that can sometimes be pointed out, derived from certain god-concepts. I think that's what is getting argued here, quite a bit -- the philosophical conceptions of god, and whether they make any logical sense or not. There a lot of arguments over whether god X can or cannot exist or not, or whether it seems likely that a god with traits A, B, and C actually exists given certain states in the world (i.e., the Argument from Evil), or whether something god-like is deemed necessary for existence, the universe, etc. (First Cause). But all of these arguments and discussions, thought-provoking though they may be, generally sidestep the discussion of actual proof or evidence. I don't regard the Bible as sufficient evidence to believe in the Judeo-Christian God, the one I was raised to believe. I can't disprove old Jehosophat, but I can't disprove old Zeus, either, or Ahura-Mazda, or Osirus, and I'm sure there have been a lot of old world holy men who have claimed to "experience" and "absolutely verify" the existence of their various gods. But that just doesn't cut it with me. From where I'm standing, we never really get outside of the words of men, human chatterboxes, giving lots of vocal testimony and arguments: "You gotta have faith, because there isn't enough proof. No wait, there is proof, you just don't want to accept it. The universe is so complex, it must have an intelligent designer behind it. The Virgin of Guadalupe is crying, because you won't accept Jesus. But even if that's a fraud, it doesn't mean God isn't real. He is. Even though when you pray, all you ever hear back is dead silence, you have to open your heart. You just gotta believe, and have faith." Well, I don't. Nothing personal to you theists. But faith just doesn't cut it. And the evidence is too shaky. [ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-24-2002, 02:47 PM	#4
DarkDruid Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 131	I think this is a bit of a circular argument. In premise 2, you say we assume that the evidence is not powerful enough to allow concideration for a deity. This is true, but when we argue, this is what we are arguing about. When we debate things of that nature we are striving to prove premise 2 of your arguement.

03-25-2002, 04:09 PM	#6
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	LinuxPup, Atheists face an equal burden (if not greater), for they claim an absolute truth: "There is no God." You are semi-correct. Those atheists who do profess that there is no god face a burden of proof. It is genrally held that it is very difficult to prove a negative. Please note that not all atheists profess that "there is no god." Many atheists, including myself, merely state that, as they have seen no convincing evidence for the existence of a god, they do not believe in a god. Stating that, to the best of my knowledge, no god exists is much different from professing to know with certainty that there is no god. This leads into my comments on the OP. I personally am an atheist for the reasons Ojuice5001 describes. I find the Argument from Evil and similar arguments useful for two reasons: 1) While I am a weak atheist ("to the best of my knowledge, no god exists") with regards to a generic god-concept, I am a strong atheist ("there is no god") with regards to most specific conceptions of god, including the Christian one. It is possible to prove a negative ("there is no Christian god") if one can show that assuming the positive ("the Christian god exists") to be true would lead to a contradiction, which is exactly what the AfE and simlar arguments attempt to do. 2) The AfE is specifically useful for countering common Christian emotive appeals. God is loving. God is good. God is just. I find it useful to demonstrate that, in order to remain internally consistent, Christianity must redefine such words so drastically that they no longer bear any relation to what we commonly mean by "good," "just," or "loving."

03-25-2002, 10:20 PM	#8
Synaesthesia Guest Posts: n/a	No winged elephants have ever been born. Anywhere. Do I have to prove this? No, simply because there is no evidence such a fantastic creature exists. Could I be wrong? Obviously I could. Still, I'm going to call a spade a spade, and a deity a myth. If I'm wrong, well, it's not all that bad to be beaten by God at a game of hide and seek. Regards, Synaesthesia "I never found God, but I don't blame him." -Franz Kafka

03-26-2002, 04:12 PM	#9
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	I positively don't believe a god exists, because I have not found any empirical proof of this. Does this become agnosticism? I think this too is strong atheism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.