Koyaanisqatsi

I'm used to disagreement. That doesn't change the fact that you're incorrect.

Yes, you do, however trivial the burden. The fact that no one challenges you on that claim does not mean the burden has necessarily been alleviated. It just lies dormant, shall we say.

That's not a claim, negative or otherwise; that's simply a needless tautology that would be inherent in your own claim (i.e., your dormant burden of proof). Follow me on this one. You have made a positive claim: My mother exists. For me to then challenge that claim by asking you to shoulder your burden of proof is not a claim on my part at all, regardless of how poorly I may have chosen my words to express that challenge.

See the difference?

Again, you're misconstruing my "position." That "God" is a fictional creature from ancient mythology is a demonstrable fact. The only positive claim requiring a burden of proof is upon anyone who states, "No, he is not fictional, he is non-fictional" (i.e., the claim of the authors of the mythology and its subsequent adherents).

Pointing out that this claim has not been demonstrated to be true (i.e., the fulfillment of the burden of proof) is not a claim at all; it is an observation of extant fact.

Regardless, even if my choice of words when challenging the claim were poorly chosen and gave the appearance of a claim, pointing out that somebody else's burden has not been met either does not negate or alleviate the original claimant's burden.

If I challenge the theists' claim: God is a non-fictional being by asking them to fulfill their burden and they counter with, "Prove he is a fictional being," this does not in any way alleviate their own burden of proof.

The theist's claim has never been demonstrated (and, in fact, can not be demonstrated as part and parcel to the claim, which is why they are conditioned to believe without proof) so pointing anyone toward other claims that may or may not have been demonstrated is nothing more than evasion from the issue.

See what I mean? It is entirely irrelevant what other claims exist in the world.

Incorrect. What's flawed is misconstruing what is and is not a positive claim. One's "worldview" does not change that fact. Indeed, simply because in the theist's "worldview," they are falsley conditioned to think they shoulder no burden of proof, or, worse, that because there exist other burdens of proof out there that are also unmet, that somehow alleviates their own when challenged, renders their "worldview" illegitimate.

Now, whether or not they care that their "worldview" is illegitimate or not may be in question, but the fact that it is is not, for the above simple reasons.

Well, again, you are using a trivial claim, but, to be didactic (and pedantic, to of my favorite tics ), especially in this day and time, the assumption that everybody must have a mother should not be merely accepted as part of our worldview.

Regardless, a "worldview" does not give one license to simply rewrite the rules, other than in an illegitimate sense.

Incorrect. A positive claim is a positive claim, regardless of what may or may not be "accepted" by a particular group of people. You're equivocating too many terms here. What is "accepted" by theists, for example, is precisely what is in question. While they certainly can (and do) say, "I don't need to prove it," that doesn't alleviate their burden.

Again, it is not a claim (negative or positive) to state what is extant; namely that the theists have not met their burden.

Right, which is precisely why they are required to provide evidence in support of their "world," yes? Isn't that the whole purpose of challenging it and the entirety of their claim?

They are claiming that they live (we all live) in a world where fictional creatures from ancient mythology are in fact non-fictional.

That is the crux of the issue in a nutshell and the defining quality of their burden of proof. For them to simply say, "I live in this worldview" is not acceptable, nor does it alleviate their burden of proof.

Nor would saying something like, "Ok, then where is the proof that your worldview is correct?" Nothing a theist can ever evade with will change the fact that there is still a burden of proof for their worldview.

I don't understand how you're failing to get the fact that their burden of proof has nothing to do with me or my worldview or anything at all, in fact.

Their burden of proof is a fact inherent in their claim. Assuming there must be a god with the same strength that they assume that all people have mothers in no way alleviates them from the burden inherent in their claim, especially since pointing out that their assumptions have no basis proves that fact.

First of all, I rarely, if ever, do such a thing, so why have you made this observation? Or, for that matter, why engage theists at all if it is not to challenge the evidence in support of their worldview, or, indeed, to challenge the fact that they merely accept without evidence said worldviews?

I see no relevance to your observations. All you seem to be arguing is that, so long as a group assumes something is true, then that's the end of it.

Which, in this case, is the theist, who is advocating that we merely accept something to be true because they tell us it is true, yes?

How, if you don't accept "proof" as a legitimate yardstick to change your mind?

The fact that they are conditioned to believe without proof would be the very first thing one would have to address long before providing proof, yes?

Indeed. The theist's burden in a nutshell.

False. Most theists will remain theists because they have been conditioned to believe without proof; that "proof," in fact, is anathema to their beliefs. Challenging that conditioning would have to be the very first thing anyone does who might engage a theist, yes?

Agreed. So, tell me, how would you go about doing it, if you've already granted that their "worldview" (i.e., believing that black is white precisely because there is no proof of it) is an accepted one; that they merely accept something as true? How do you change someone's mind without challenging the fact that nothing will change their minds, and why such a "worldview" is not legitimate for the reasons I (and others) have provided?

If, indeed, your goal is to change someone's mind and their conditioning is such that changing their mind cannnot be allowed no matter what evidence or argument you present to convince them, how do you propose you do it?

AJ113

I am reading this thread with great interest.
I have been a practising RC for 40 years. I am a paid-up member of JP Holding's website.
I joined this forum about a year ago with the express intent of witnessing, and displaying my superior knowledge of christian apologetics.

As a sensible, rational human being I have had to come to terms with the fact that my position is untenable.

I have no proof or evidence of my beliefs, so I have no chance of converting any infidels, and furthermore I have absolutely no excuse for holding my beliefs.

Therefore I have renounced my faith and become, well, a non-believer.

The point is, Koy is totally correct. Anyone who believes in the christian god believes in nothing more substantial than the IPU. Fair enough, live and let live. But for me it is not enough. Josh McDowell says in ETDAV "..the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false..." Although he was attempting to make a biased apologetic point, he is exactly right.

So if my christian friends and family want me to believe in their god, then they need to show me a good reason for doing so. Not a fairy tale reason, a genuine one.

AJ113

I am reading this thread with great interest.
I have been a practising RC for 40 years. I am a paid-up member of JP Holding's website.
I joined this forum about a year ago with the express intent of witnessing, and displaying my superior knowledge of christian apologetics.

As a sensible, rational human being I have had to come to terms with the fact that my position is untenable.

I have no proof or evidence of my beliefs, so I have no chance of converting any infidels, and furthermore I have absolutely no excuse for holding my beliefs.

Therefore I have renounced my faith and become, well, a non-believer.

The point is, Koy is totally correct. Anyone who believes in the christian god believes in nothing more substantial than the IPU. Fair enough, live and let live. But for me it is not enough. Josh McDowell says in ETDAV "..the heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false..." Although he was attempting to make a biased apologetic point, he is exactly right.

So if my christian friends and family want me to believe in their god, then they need to show me a good reason for doing so. Not a fairy tale reason, a genuine one.

ex-xian

AJ113: It seems to me that you're a perfect example of the postition that Asha'man and I have taken. You were a rational, intelligent christian who thought that reason was on your side. But, same as me, you realized that you were mistaken. The crux of Koy's argument seems to be that all theists in general are unreasonable. While this may be true of the majority today, this hasn't always been the case. Medieval philosophy is filled with christians who argued the christianity was the correct position because it was the logical position. Augustine, Anslem, Aquinas, the list goes on and on.

It's is unfortunate the fundamentalism is the dominant way of thinking today. Not only in christianity, but there has been a rise of fundamentalism in judiasm, islam, and even hinduism. To me, this only makes it more important to be able to communicate effectiviely with the traditional theists. No one here disputes that the burden of proof about the existence of god lies with those making the claim. However, those of us who want the freethinking lifestyle and philosophy to spread, this typically isn't useful.

With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the intent of the phrase "advocate of change. In terms of society, we are the ones advocating change.

However, if a christian attempts to evangelize me, I may point out to her that she must demonstrate the validity of her points. But I will still be ready to point out the flaws in her thinking beyond merely saying "You're wrong, and I'm right. Prove different."

Koyaanisqatsi

No, the crux is that they shoulder a burden of proof for their claims.

Very true, but you're forgetting one thing; their logic was flawed as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Aquinas, for example (and if memory serves), simply declared that which he attempted to prove; i.e., that god was the uncaused cause. This assumes the very question he sought to prove.

"Isn't useful" in what sense?

As I pointed out previously, how do you propose to be an effective advocate of change when the cult conditioning is to state, "Believe on faith alone" (i.e., without proof)? If you don't address the fundamental conditioning against change then how can you be an effective advocate for change?

I know this wasn't necessarily directed at me, but that was not my argument in the slightest and I would appreciate it if you didn't continue to so misconstrue what I argued (if, indeed, that was an indictment of my posts).

Cult conditioning requires deprogramming; especially when that conditioning's primary goal is to remove reasoning from their reasoning, yes? Part and parcel to being an "advocate for change" is to detail why such change is legitimate, yes? Doesn't that also entail detailing how the theist's position is illegitimate?

If you don't strike at the foundation, how do you plan on rebuilding the house?

All of the atheists I have ever encountered (both here and in "real" life) who were once cult members themselves (including myself) have all agreed that the first step to their deprogramming came largely from recognizing that the "rules" of reasoning (i.e., what we've been talking about) are not being followed and without legitimate reason. In other words, we all first challenged (or were challenged on) the fundamental conditioning that turns black into white based upon nothing more than somebody else's say so.

That isn't just saying, "I'm right and you're wrong. Now prove me wrong." In fact, it has little to nothing to do with challenging the theist to "prove me wrong," and everything to do with, "You claim you are right, please provide the evidence in support of that claim."

I'm sure you'll agree that there is a tremendous difference between childishly declaring, "I'm right and you're wrong," and demonstrating how somebody is wrong (i.e., incorrect), yes?

Isn't that what being an "advocate for change" is all about? Demonstrating the invalidity of the thinking involved, as I took great pains to do in my posts?

For example, by pointing out that God is nothing more than a fictional creature from ancient mythology until demonstrated to be non-fictional, the theist's only response is to say something, like, "Oh yeah, well prove that god is fictional," an exceedingly easy burden to fulfill and one that, in the offing, affords the "advocate for change" every opportunity to strike at the heart of the matter, while at the same time appealing directly to the very reasoning their cult has fought so hard to destroy.

Indeed, all one would have to do is say, "Ok, then Apollo is non-fictional, or Allah is non-fictional or Holden Caulfield is non-fictional based upon the exact same reasoning," and you've effectively demonstrated the flaw in the theist position, for which there is no counter argument (or no legitimate one, anyway), and so on from there.

At the very least it forces the theist to face one of the most fundamental flaws in their conditioning; hopefully "triggering" them to "reboot" their own reasoning so that they don't just accept something to be true based on no evidence and cult conditioning, yes?

After all, this isn't just about a tabla rassa intellect that stumbled upon the Bible one day and out of that vacuum reasoned that it was "true." That isn't the nature of theism; it is a conditioned reprogramming of the intellect to discard reason as it is applied to arguably the most important question of all. If you can't get a theist to understand or even recognize that they are being deliberately manipulated in this manner, then how do you propose to be any kind of advocate for change?

The thing that needs changing the most is the reasoning (or scrambled reasoning, if you prefer) employed in regard to their beliefs, yes?

The fact that a theist sees black for white is precisely the process you are advocating needs to be changed in the first place.

It isn't about declaring they are wrong, it is about demonstrating how wrong they are and why that is.

Big Spoon

I'm in the first year of a maths degree myself and it's appealing to think that a mathematical approach can solve anything. But God isn't some mathematical statement, nor is God governed by any formal system.

As an atheist, the best you can do is to show that assumptions and deductions that theists make about god lead to inconsistencies or contradictions.

When it comes down to it, theists can change their minds as much as they like regarding the nature of god and so god's existance will never be proven or disproven, which is why i consider my atheism to be my default position on the matter.

Jayhawker Soule

Aah - so the burden of proof is not on you, but on atheists. I see. I have no issue with proclaiming that logically impossible deities are logically impossible, so perhaps we've reached common ground. I would only add that the narrowness of this 'atheist' stance is likely related to your willingness to vacillate between agnostcism and the admittedly "theistic position" of panentheism.

Clutch

I don't understand why some people think that the "burden of proof" line is a bad one to direct at theists.

There's absolutely no reason to believe in a god; and when there is no reason to believe in something -- especially after sustained searching and argumentation -- then there is reason to believe there's no such thing. (Endlessly many IPU examples can be used to show this.) Hence there is reason to believe there is no god.

This is just another way of saying that the theist who wants to defend her view owes some positive evidence.

ex-xian

Reductio ad absurdum arguments are used in philosophical argumentation all the time. Further, while supernaturalists hold that God is transcendent to the temporal/spatial universe, they do hold that god is transcendent to the logical universe. Otherwise, they would have no problem predicating absurdities such as god making a rock so big that he can't lift it or god knows what blue smells like to god.

No, I'm perfectly willing to assume the burden of proof for any affirmation of god that I make. This just isn't the thread to do that. Let me state this explicitly once again. I do agree that theists of any type hold the burden of proof, however, I do not feel that this is a productive form of argumentation to engage in when advocating for change, as Asha'man so eloquently put it.

I'm glad that I have common ground with someone. But even if I were a strong atheist, my position wrt this thread would be the same.
No, I didn't forget that. I grant with you that their logic was flawed. My point was that they tried used reasonable argumentation to get their point across, and not brainwashing or other cultish techniques that you seem to attribute to all theists.

Isn't useful as a productive method of argumentation. The typical theist would see this as a refusal to debate and assume that they win by default. Of course, this would be a wrong assumption, but they would think that they won. While freethinkers may leave with the satisfaction of knowing that they are correct, nothing useful took place.

I do not believe that all theism necessarily equals cult conditioning. 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.

I honestly cannot understand the hostility to the OP. As diana indicated, this is what goes on regularly in the EoG and biblical criticism forums.

Koyaanisqatsi

I tell you what xianseeker. Please stop generalizing about what it is I "seem" to be saying and instead address what it is I am actually posting so that we can both avoid repeating ground already covered (and not addressed), ok?

I.e.: 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.

Apologists who seek to use the tools of logic and reason (such as Aquinas) to obfuscate this fundamental flaw in theism is another matter entirely, but, you will still run into the exact same problem when challenging the validity of their use (or should I say, deliberate misuse?) of logic and reason.

What are you talking about? Your own incorrect assessment of what I seem to be arguing? Again, if you will instead directly address what I actually wrote, it would help, since the section you did not address specifically detailed a careful delineation of what my position is and how you had fallaciously characterized it.

"Nothing useful" again in accordance to your incorrect assessment of what I was arguing.

What do you call threatening somebody (either directly or indirectly) with eternal punishment for non-belief and, further, that one's belief must be based on faith, if not cult conditioning?

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?

You state that they "honestly believe that traditional theism is the correct position," but upon what are they basing this? Which "traditional theism" are you talking about? Islam? Judaism? Christianity? A generalized amalgam of them all?

Where else would that come from, if not their parents, preachers and social environment, i.e., the concerted efforts by a minority to intentially distort their concept of reality?

And I don't see why are you labeling it "hostility." I am doing nothing more than I always do in EoG; pointing out the flaws in the reasoning process and all of the glaring oversimplifications where those flaws regularly hide within, such as I have found your respones to represent.

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)?

And, further, what is the relevance of pointing out that theism is their "accepted" way of life? We all know it's accepted. That's the very foundation that anyone challenging it would seek to dislodge, yes? And not by childishly declaring "I'm right and you're wrong," either, but by doing as I argued; demonstrating how and why they are incorrect.

Do you understand what it means to demonstrate someone is incorrect? It has nothing to do with getting in their face and taunting them with, "Nyah, nyah, you're wrong and I'm right!" Capisca?