Clutch

I'm afraid I don't understand. Why should it matter how they view it, as opposed to what it is? It is a legitimate argument:

On the same grounds that any rational agent would require evidence before believing in unicorns, any rational agent should require evidence before believing in gods. In the absence of such evidence, I (being a rational agent) will not believe in gods. Having grounds of rational agency to decline any belief in gods, I consider myself an atheist. (Viz, in whatever sense that I am also an "aunicornist".)

Your "above posts" provide nothing to defuse this "burden of proof" reasoning, which is a legitimate argument if anything is. Vague allusions to how people perceive this or that are simply irrelevant.

ex-xian

Nope, the word faith does not equal "blind faith." Faith is simply a belief in something.

Yes, christianity is inherently self-contradictory, however, one must consider it deeply to find it so. If it was a priori unacceptable, it never would have survived medieval philosophy.

I would argue that there is rational reason for a belief in a different type of god than the traditional view. Of course, this statement makes me an unreasonable brainwashed sheep, in your view.

I think that I would have, your sarcastic comment aside, only because as I searched for something to believe in, I found the arguments for christianity first.


I do agree that it is a legitmate argument, and if your only goal is to win an argument, then the case is settled. My point is that in attempting to change minds or advance the cause of freethinking, the burden of proof argument is understood as a dismissal and therefore something else should be used.
I thought that I had made the above point, perhaps restating it explicitly better gets across my point.

Re: Clutch and Hawkingfan,

I don't think that all theists would immediatley reject reason out of hand. Historically, the only significant theist to claim that he believed in god because the belief was absurd was Tertellian, who was denouced as a heretic.

I know of no theists who would claim that god is "above" contradictions or not subject to the rules of logic, further, I know of no theists who claim that god is seperate from the logical universe. They rely on argumentation to advance their cause. After all, the bible records that jesus and paul engaged in debate regularly.

Hawkingfan

They say they don't. But they most certainly do, from my experience. They clearly state that we cannot apply the reasoning of man to understanding god. They take the position that man does not, and will never, have the mental capacity to understand the mysteries of god. Therefore, he transcends our logic. Man can never comprehend god completely, so there is always an answer to give us when things don't add up logically.
I know plenty. And it's not just "seperate". He is both seperate from our universe and exists in our universe at the same time! He is outside because he had to create it and because no scientific theory can explain him, and because he cannot be detected by man's feeble attempts of detection (this is a convenient way of getting around the scientific argument). But he is inside because nothing happens in this universe without his hand in it. He is both outside of science and inside of science! He is both inside of time and outside of time! He is whatever he wants to be because he is all-powerful. You cannot argue with them. It's just like the evidence issue. The evidence of god would be beyond humanity's grasp, so why provide it?

ex-xian

I believe it would be necessary to differenitate between the popular theists and the scholarly theists. I believe a useful analogy would be the everyday person who says they believe in einstien's theories of relativity, gravitation, or even the germ theory of disease, but never come close to explaining what those beliefs really mean.

Similarly, the everyday christian claims to believe in god, but has never thought thru the consequences of his beliefs. In fact, scholarly theists would never claim that god is seperate from logic. His orderly creation depends on that fact.

I agree that it is frustrating to argue with a person who has a "god of the gaps" mentality. The people I respect the most are the ones who admit the flaws and possible falsifications of their opinions.

AJ113

Semantics. If there was good rationality and reason behind acceptance of gods then you would not need to have faith, would you? Check the dictionary. Faith means trust. You wouldn't need to "trust" gods if you had good reason to accept gods in the first place, would you?

I did not say christianity is self-contadictory or unacceptable. I said it is unreasonable. i.e. Without good reason. Irrational. Hence the need for faith.

No, it means your religeous faith is not reasoned. It is illogical and irrational. This does not mean that YOU are generally illogical and irrational, or sheep-like. Just your faith.

Now ask yourself exactly why you searched for something to believe in. I suggest that had you not been brought up surrounded by religeous adults, it would not have even crossed your mind to make such a search.

ex-xian

:boohoo:
You know, AJ, I'm starting to tihink you're right about my beliefs. I had a long conversation with my physics and philosophy professors, both of whom are atheist. Belief in the type of god that my parents believe is utterly unreasonable for me, but for some reason I still cling to the notion of a god. ONe in the vein of whitehead or hartshorne, but a god nonetheless. Thanks for helping me see that.

Anyway, I still think my points in the OP still stands.

Tabula_rasa

I'm diving in here at the end, forgive me if I'm repeating anything that may have been said before. I understand the premise put forth - there is a particular burden of proof on athiests to prove that god does not exist.

Because there is no useful definition of god, I'd like to know where one should stop with this set of proofs.

Should we be out to disprove the J/C god, allah, etc. Is it sufficient to disprove only one of them or do we have to run the full gamet?

How about disproving two gods simultaneously existing? Three? ad infinitum? (hmmm... if god is infinite does that mean there are infinite gods? discuss.)

Should we first work our way up the chain of disproofs before we get to god? Should we start out by disproving angels, avatars, leprechauns, feys, goblins, gremlins, etc?

How about UFO'S, alien abductions, telekinesis and the like?

It does sound like a jolly good bit of fun, but I don't think there are enough people with that much time on their hands.

Tabula_rasa

JCS

Exactly! I have nothing to assert against, because nothing has been presented to me. If theists actually presented something that could be proven, I would be in a similar position except I would be a theist. In other words instead of rejecting their claim, I would be accepting it.

The discussion concerning whether indoctrination is linked to brainwashing is a good one. All one has to do is look a how belief is linked to who and where you are. Christians don't raise their children to be Voodoo practitioners or the other way around. Each faith has their beliefs & claims and due to that, I feel they just cancel each other out.

Koyaanisqatsi

Do you mean, between the "average" christian and a theologist or apologist?

Well, that's probably because they wouldn't classify them as "beliefs." Why would they? Einstein's Theory of Relativity isn't a "belief" like judaism or hinduism. Nor is gravity or even the "germ theory of disease."

These are not "beliefs" comparable in any pertinant way to theistic beliefs.

See what I mean? There are no like "consequence" of "believing" in Einstein, for example and to explode your analogy.

Nor are there any dire consequences (in a different sense) of not "believing" in Einstein.

Do you mean apologists (aka, "spin doctors") would never claim that god is separate from logic? Like Aquinas?

A theist must "seperate" god from logic; that's the basis of faith.

Yes, well, unfortunately, theists can't admit to any flaws and possible falsifications and remain theists, IMO. That would instantly relegate you to "agnostic."

AJ113

That's a big post, Xianseeker. Hats off to you.

Now, the OP..............

The phrase "prove a negative" could be interpreted in a number of ways because of its ambiguity. In the first instance you apply it to the non-existence of gods and immediately afterwards apply it to a mathematical function, attempting to have us believe that both applications are similar.

Clearly they are not.

The issue is not whether you can or cannot "prove a negative," but whether there is a need to do so.

How about we skip the fancy language and take it down to the nitty gritty? For me it goes something like this:

THEIST: Gods exist
ME: Ok show me one.
THEIST: I can't
ME: Then I'll reserve judgement on that one, if you don't mind.
THEIST: Ok
ME AFTER 12 MONTHS: There has to come a point when my judgement is no longer reserved, but actioned. As you still have not shown me gods then I conclude that gods do not exist.
THEIST: You'll be sorry.
ME: Nope.

Philosophise and debate all you like, but it never gets past this point for me.