Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Defiant Heretic · 03-03-2003, 01:50 PM

The way I like to go about it is to have both sides attempt to provide evidence for their chosen proposition. That way, the burden of proof doesn't have to be brought up at all, and whatever side has the best evidence will likely win. (at least in theory)

AJ113 · 03-03-2003, 03:03 PM

Once again Koy, you are totally correct, imo.

I am struggling to come to terms with the loss of my faith. I was comforted and solaced by it for forty years. I would be really pleased if someone could give me some reasonable evidence of the existence of the christian god.

However, up to now, that has not happened.

My faith was based on programmed acceptance, instead of logical, reasoned thinking.

So now I would say to anyone who wants to convert me: Show me some decent evidence to support your beliefs, and I'm your man!

Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen, is it?

ex-xian · 03-10-2003, 11:07 AM

Koy, sorry I took so long to respond, had mid-terms last week.

Quote:

Koyaanisqatsi originally posted,
I don't attribute "brainwashing or other cultish techniques" to all theists. I attribute "brainwashing or other cultish techniques" to theism in general; i.e., that such techniques as removing reliance upon reason from the equation is part and parcel to the belief structure.

I apologize if you feel that I misrepresented you in my posts. Since you have implicitly claimed that theism = brainwashing in this and other threads as well as at your homepage, and made the statement above, let me ask you a question.

Do you believe any theist is such because of cult, brainwashing techniques? If not, what types would you consider to be exceptions?

Quote:

xianseeker originally posted,
While there are certainly examples that do fit this criteria, my own experience and the experience of AJ113 show this to be true. My friends and relatives do not believe in god because of a concerted effort my a minority to intentially distort their concept of reality. They honestly believe that traditional theism is the correct position.

Koyaanisqatsi originally posted,
And how did they arrive at this belief? Through inculcation from childhood by their parents, preachers and social environment, yes?

Are you trying to argue that you just walked along a dirt road one day and found a copy of the Bible and out of that vacuum the "truth" was made plain to you without any kind of "concerted effort" by other individuals in your life? That you reasoned soley upon Aquinas and the like and had no other influence in your belief?

To answer you questions, sarcastic as they are, most of family were christians and naturally encouraged me to follow suit. On my own, I found some semi-pagan friends and we practised our own brand of pagan/occult beliefs. Eventually, I began to read the apologetic works of several contemporary authors and was converted to christianity, and continued thus for several years. In the past year, I have rejected traditional christianity as a viable option because of its total unreasonableness.

Quote:

Koyaanisqatsi originally posted
As I asked several times before, how do you propose to challenge the theist's position without addressing these fundamental flaws in their reasoning (or lack thereof or scrambling thereof)?

Addressing the fundamental flaws of theism is exactly what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is that merely telling them that they have the burden of proof and leaving it at that is, while true, an ineffective method of argumentation.

edited to correct grammar

malookiemaloo · 03-11-2003, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xianseeker
OK, I don't necessarily believe that the burden of proof is on atheists to prove that there is no God, but I believe this is a better response than to state this to theists.

I used to moderate on a board called "Challenging Atheism" on ezboards. It was ran by Andrew (no last name), I believe he used to frequent here before starting his own board. Anyway, his whole purpose was to challenge atheists to give proof of their claim that there is no god. Many of the atheists/non-theists who came to the board cited that the burden of proof is on the theist who makes the positive claims, after all, you can't prove a negative.

The thing is, you can prove a negative. We do it in mathematics all the time (I'm a math major). All you have to do is assume that the point is true and show that a contradiction follows (reductio ad absurdum).

My point is that one doesn't have to argue about burden of proof. It's much more fun to assume that a supernaturalist god exists and show all the wonderful contradictions that follow.

(for the record, I would not call myself an atheist...more of a agnostic or panentheist)

Reductio ad absurdum! Takes me back to maths at school nearly 40 years ago. Something about concyclic points, a tangent and measuring angles I think. Can't really remember. Just as well I was not entrusted with writing the gospels.

One point. You say that you assume God to exist then show contradictions, therefore He does not exist. Surely that makes you an atheist. Why are you only an agnostic?

m

Just · 03-11-2003, 12:44 AM

Why not just point out all the other religions which are ALSO presumed TRUE.
You can't presume one religion and not another, this alone discounts it.

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-11-2003, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xianseeker : I apologize if you feel that I misrepresented you in my posts. Since you have implicitly claimed that theism = brainwashing in this and other threads as well as at your homepage, and made the statement above, let me ask you a question.

Do you believe any theist is such because of cult, brainwashing techniques? If not, what types would you consider to be exceptions?

Again, I don't claim that "theism=brainwashing;" I claim that brainwashing is part and parcel to theism. Clearer?

That said, I do think that any theist is ultimately the result of brainwashing techniques, yes. The degree of those techniques may be in question on an individual to individual basis, of course, but there is no other way that I am aware of for an individual to accept something as true in spite of either the lack of evidence for or abundance of evidence against ("evidence" including arguments and the whole cornucopia we are necessarily talking about), that could explain the irrational adherence to theism (your arguments included, as I will get to in a minute).

It is by no means merely my "bias" or "presupposition" or "bitterness" or any of the other common apologetic responses; it is the result of studied deconstruction and detailed analysis/deconstruction first from within the cult (I was a presbyterian cult member) and then from outside the cult.

So, if you care, the correct assessment of my contention is to say: "Theism is largely the result of brainwashing techniques."

Quote:

MORE: To answer you questions, sarcastic as they are, most of family were christians and naturally encouraged me to follow suit.

See? Evidence right there of "brainwashing;" the most simplistic one (and powerful one, IMO): believe as your family believes.

"Brainwashing" does not just mean a dark room with a bare light bulb, you know. It means constant affirmation of a train of thought (a belief) inculcated into your brain through many different, yet consistent, techniques.

In your own experience, for example, you were brought up by people who believed that a god exists; in an environment in which the existence of god was not only not questioned, but accepted as true without question. Pay close attention to what I'm typing; in your childhood, the existence of a god concept was not in question, it was a given, yes?

Whether or not you believed in the specifics of what that god concept was or whether or not you questioned those specifics is entirely irrelevent, as you demonstrate:

Quote:

MORE: On my own, I found some semi-pagan friends and we practised our own brand of pagan/occult beliefs. Eventually, I began to read the apologetic works of several contemporary authors and was converted to christianity, and continued thus for several years. In the past year, I have rejected traditional christianity as a viable option because of its total unreasonableness.

Yet, you haven't (presumably, from what you've written thus far) rejected the initial "god concept," yes?

Why? Why have you rejected the specifics and not the underlying concept, if not for your childhood inculcation? If you have, then I applaud you, but if you have, then you should see precisely what I'm talking about.

Quote:

MORE: Addressing the fundamental flaws of theism is exactly what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is that merely telling them that they have the burden of proof and leaving it at that is, while true, an ineffective method of argumentation.

Then we are in agreement, since I have advocated no such thing.

Where do I argue one should "merely" tell them that they have the burden of proof and leave it at that?

markstake · 03-11-2003, 10:55 AM

This seems like a relatively simple topic to me. Whoever makes an assertion has the burden of proof.

If two people are opposed, they should both be making arguments. (If they aren't opposed, what's to argue about?)

Me? I'm undecided. That doesn't really help me out on the whole "burden of proof" thing, since I at least need to convince myself one way or another.

Of course, I could just not care. Then I wouldn't have any burden of proof. A lot of people get by that way.

ex-xian · 03-11-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

One point. You say that you assume God to exist then show contradictions, therefore He does not exist. Surely that makes you an atheist. Why are you only an agnostic?

Basically, because there are ideas of God other than the traditional theism that I'm not yet convicned that they contain contradictions.

ex-xian · 03-11-2003, 11:18 AM

Quote:

This seems like a relatively simple topic to me. Whoever makes an assertion has the burden of proof.

If two people are opposed, they should both be making arguments. (If they aren't opposed, what's to argue about?)

Agreed, 100%.

ex-xian · 03-11-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Koy posted
Again, I don't claim that "theism=brainwashing;" I claim that brainwashing is part and parcel to theism. Clearer?

Very much so, thank you.

Quote:

Koy posted
Yet, you haven't (presumably, from what you've written thus far) rejected the initial "god concept," yes?

Why? Why have you rejected the specifics and not the underlying concept, if not for your childhood inculcation? If you have, then I applaud you, but if you have, then you should see precisely what I'm talking about.

I have questioned the existence of God. The past two years I done nothing else. I've read more atheistic and skeptical books than anything else, endeavoring to find the truth. Perhaps eventually I end up as an atheist, but right now I'm not there.

Still, I do not think my beliefs about God as a child were brainwashing. Yes, my family advocated a belief in God and wanted me to do the same, but, with the exception of my father, no one told me believe the way they did. I was free to pursue whatever I wanted to believe. Perhaps the fact that most of the people that I looked up to believed in god influenced me, but that could be said about anything.

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

03-03-2003, 01:50 PM	#31
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	The way I like to go about it is to have both sides attempt to provide evidence for their chosen proposition. That way, the burden of proof doesn't have to be brought up at all, and whatever side has the best evidence will likely win. (at least in theory)

03-03-2003, 03:03 PM	#32
AJ113 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Hull UK Posts: 854	Once again Koy, you are totally correct, imo. I am struggling to come to terms with the loss of my faith. I was comforted and solaced by it for forty years. I would be really pleased if someone could give me some reasonable evidence of the existence of the christian god. However, up to now, that has not happened. My faith was based on programmed acceptance, instead of logical, reasoned thinking. So now I would say to anyone who wants to convert me: Show me some decent evidence to support your beliefs, and I'm your man! Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen, is it?

03-11-2003, 12:44 AM	#35
Just Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Melbourne Posts: 22	Why not just point out all the other religions which are ALSO presumed TRUE. You can't presume one religion and not another, this alone discounts it.

03-11-2003, 10:55 AM	#37
markstake Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Iowa Posts: 42	This seems like a relatively simple topic to me. Whoever makes an assertion has the burden of proof. If two people are opposed, they should both be making arguments. (If they aren't opposed, what's to argue about?) Me? I'm undecided. That doesn't really help me out on the whole "burden of proof" thing, since I at least need to convince myself one way or another. Of course, I could just not care. Then I wouldn't have any burden of proof. A lot of people get by that way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.