SteveD

Soul Invictus,

You posted:
Weak Atheists do not judge that there is no god. Based on lack of evidence they withhold judgement as to the existence of god. This results in a lack of belief. Very few atheists claim to know that there is no god. If you were poll the board I think that you would discover most atheists admit to some small degree of uncertatiny concerning the existence of a god. The onus is not on an atheist to demonstrate evidence that god does not exist unless they are the ones making the claim.

Once again, lack of belief in the existence of god is not the same as the belief that god does not exist.

Steve

Soul Invictus

I concur the onus is on the theist, however the primary reason I added this is to show how it is not a factual claim. What are your opinions on the rest of my reply?

SteveD

Soul Invictus,

I personally find it difficult to deal with several different ideas in one post. I like to stay focused. If there are specific things you would like me to address please let me know.

Regarding some of your other thoughts:

You had asked Goliath to provide the criteria for god. Since Goliath has very clearly stated that he has absolutely no beliefs regarding gods I find your request a little bit odd. Why should one who makes no claim whatsoever be interested in doing this?

I don't feel that everyone needs to come to a consensus on what is meant by god. If you are the one making the claim then you should provide the definition.

Regarding the difference between a value claim and a factual claim.

I don't think that the exitance of god(s) is a value claim, it is a factual claim. If, as you stated previously, there is no factual data then so much the worse for trying to substantiate this claim.

A claim regarding some attribute of god such as "god is benevolent " would be a value claim.

Are there any other points you would like me to address?

Steve

Bumble Bee Tuna

It doesn't matter if you call a belief a factual claim or an opinion claim.

For either one, a perfectly valid option is "no opinion". This is what weak atheism.

I have read all your posts, SI, but I honestly can't see where your argument that atheism is a belief is.

-B

Soul Invictus

I asked Goliath to give me criteria for god because he wanted me to prove how god was unprovable (or something to that effect) If he has no inclinations, i don't see how that's a functional question for him to ask. I am arguing on basis of matters of fact vs matters of opinions not as a theist (presumably me) against an atheist (he), which I think it may be

It would make for an interesting discussion as to how god would be a factual claim, if you cared to comment. If not, that is fine. I'm finding Goliath to be a personality that gets testy in discussion and is quick to reply to aspects of an argument that are easy to critique, (like my word choice of using nor vs thus) instead of the critical part of a post.

This seems like this is the Goliath-Soul Invictus thread because no one is really responding but us two. I wonder if no ones reading/cares; or just watching the banter back and forth between he and I.

Steve, I consider myself a pretty open-minded guy. I may have misinterpreted Goliath's stance, however his choice of wording (using double negatives early on) do not by any means make his means of communicating his stances, by default lucid for understanding. I even gave support to follow how I interpreted his views. Instead he types in big font and calls names instead of refining his phrases (which I have done for him when he so aptly points on my unclarities)

If you're able to elaborate on how God's existence, or the claim that "God is" is a factual claim, I'm willing to concede the argument, if you promise not to get mad if I mis - take your typings. Unlike vocal dialogue, we miss the voice inflections that one could pick up on, so we're relying on words. Deal?

Soul Invictus

True,

however with a factual claim, you can say you have no opinion all you want..it doesn't change the issue that the state is (meaning being.)

An example would be that in my earlier example, I used the factual claim that the US has 48 contiguous states. Your opinion can be no opinion, however this is an observable, proven fact, so the arena (the existence of 48 contiguous statesis factual in nature)

To follow with God, the value claim would be that "God is" or "God exists" or whatever similar to this wording. Your opinion can be none as well, however it doesn't change the issue that this arena (the existence of God) is not an observable proven fact. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Would it be fair to say that atheists are of the thought that there is no empirical evidence to tell that God exists? If this is true, I don't see how the issue of God is a factual claim.

Soul Invictus

What is a proper atheistic repsonse regarding evidence to make belief in a God present? (What would be necessary for atheists to embrace the belief that God exists?)(Why don't atheists believe in God.....I know the burden of proof is on the theists, but I'm asking why don't atheists believe in God(s)? )

Goliath

SteveD,

The only question that I recall you asking of me was to clarify what a belief was. I did this. So, unless I've missed a newer question that you posed to me (which, I guess, is more than possible), I have answered all of your questions.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

Ah, understood. An easy typo to make.

[QUOTE]

And I'll reply again that this is not my problem! I am not--repeat not--trying to prove that a god exists! I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding the existence or nonexistence of any gods, so why in the Abyss would I care about how one would go about proving that a god exists?! You keep trying to put a burden of proof upon my shoulders to prove that a being exists for which I hold no beliefs. Why do you continue to do this?

I do whatever necessary to destroy fallacious arguments. If nitpicking does the trick, then it does the trick. In a year, I will be a Mathematician: I always strive to say precisely what I mean--no more, no less.

If I destroy a particular argument of yours the first time, what does it do to bring said argument up again and again and again as though it carried the slightest amount of weight?

You have babbled on about this for many pages now, and I have yet to see its relevance to your argument that atheism is a belief. I will not address this tangent of yours again until you explain its relevance.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

Why must there be such a response?

Sincerely,

Goliath