" burden of proof "

[j1akey]

In a democratic society the view of the majority is regarded as significant and not to be ignored. Since the vast majority of people in the world are theists the onus is on the minority of atheists to justify their position. Theists also have to justify theirs. To hold or reject any view which affects society without giving any reason is not only unreasonable but unfair…

Many atheists have [ad nauseum] justified their position many many times. Some are famous, like Richard Dawkins and Same Harris, some are not so famous like the faceless people on this message board. However we have all made arguments to justify our position, they just keep getting rejected by pepole who can’t contemplate a state of non-believe in a deity regardless of who that deity is.

Remember, atheists are equal-opportonity blasphemers, Christians aren’t special when it comes to our lack of belief.

I’m also not sure why you imply that the majority, in this case christians, are being ignored. There are several churches in just about every city or town, you can barely get elected to public office unless you’re a christian these days, religious organizations have huge influence on our political system yet somehow remain tax free institutions, I mean it’s even on the money.

 

[tonyrey]

Since the vast majority of people in the world are theists the onus is on the minority of atheists to justify their position.

Existential questions cannot be answered solely in terms of logic and deduction. They have to take into account facts about the universe and its inhabitants. You may regard the opinion of the majority as insignificant but a recent scientific study of bees has established that a community can find solutions more readily than individuals working alone. We are not bees but this principle is being used successfully in business. It is a common error to despise the masses…

The atheist position is that there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.

The justification for this position is the correct observation that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any god.

Your notion of evidence is inadequate because it is restricted to sense data and omits the interpreters of that data - which is where all knowledge begins.

 

[tonyrey]

In a democratic society the view of the majority is regarded as significant and not to be ignored. Since the vast majority of people in the world are theists the onus is on the minority of atheists to justify their position. Theists also have to justify theirs. To hold or reject any view which affects society without giving any reason is not only unreasonable but unfair…

You are begging the question by assuming that their arguments are not only valid but conclusive.

I’m also not sure why you imply that the majority, in this case christians, are being ignored.

Your view is too parochial. I referred explicitly to the majority of theists in the world.

 

[j1akey]

You are begging the question by assuming that their arguments are not only valid but conclusive.

No…I’m not. Because I agree with what someone says doesn’t mean I’m begging the question. For the record I never even heard of people like Richards Dawkins until I came to this website and decided to go look him up after I saw a bunch of people bashing him in some forum post. I agreed with them before I ever heard of them.

Anyway begging the question occurs when you use th conclusion of an argument as the premise of that argument, also called circular reasoning. I don’t believe I’ve done that here.

Your view is too parochial. I referred explicitly to the majority of theists in the world.

I have to be honest here this seems a little too broad of a classification. Abrahamic religions make up a little more than half of the worlds population, I think it’s something like 55% or something, maybe a little more, that’s basically christianity and islam but you don’t believe the same things. Either way when you say “theists in the world” I have to say that seems a little out there to me since not all theists believe the same thing or even in the same god for that matter. If you’re looking at a global scale then no religion boasts a > 50% world population membership. There is no majority, just certain groups that have more members than others.

We can look at it this way. According to every religion currently in existance, most of the world is wrong in what they believe or don’t believe. You can’t just say all theists are right because they’re in the majority when they don’t even believe in the same gods.

 

[_Locke]

tonyrey:

How do you explain the fact that atheists are constantly stating that the amount of evil in the world proves that God does not exist?

There certainly are arguments against the existence of God or gods. While all atheists lack a belief in gods (by definition) some (myself included) go a step further and say that the existence of God or gods is unlikely or exceedingly improbably. This necessarily requires a justification. (Once against, see Burden of Proof)

j1akey:

I’ve never used that one because personally I think it’s a stupid argument to make in the first place.

I’ll have to disagree with you there, seeing that many men smarter than you and I have spent centuries trying to reconcile the existence of evil with the Christian God. I must assume either you’ve resolved it or haven’t examined it closely enough. Christian apologist William Lane Craig called it “atheism’s killer argument.”

tonyrey:

In a democratic society the view of the majority is regarded as significant and not to be ignored. Since the vast majority of people in the world are theists the onus is on the minority of atheists to justify their position.

How is “a democratic society” relevant to truth in a philosophical discussion? This sounds like an argumentum ad populum.

If you want refutations of arguments for God and arguments for atheism you can certainly find them, but “temporary” forum rules state they cannot be posted, under punishment of ban. [Insert quote about censorship here]

 

[traillius]

sorry, there is plenty of evidence for God. Its not scientific, but its there. Ontology, philosophy, etc… provide proofs. Blame not me if you will only accept ‘scientific’ proof. Ignore or dismiss the proof that abounds in non-science at your own peril. If you think any field of study other than science is flawed, or insufficient, that is also not my problem.

 

[vz71]

The atheist position is that there is insufficient evidence to accept the claim that gods exist.

That is the agnostic position. Not the atheist position.

The atheist position actively promotes the non-existence of God, not the non-existence of evidence.

 

[_Locke]

traillius:

sorry, there is plenty of evidence for God. Its not scientific, but its there. Ontology, philosophy, etc… provide proofs. Blame not me if you will only accept ‘scientific’ proof. Ignore or dismiss the proof that abounds in non-science at your own peril. If you think any field of study other than science is flawed, or insufficient, that is also not my problem.

Who said anything about only accepting scientific proof? I happen to love philosophy. Post your favorite philosophical proof of God. I didn’t lose my religion because I didn’t look hard enough

vz71:

That is the agnostic position. Not the atheist position.

The atheist position actively promotes the non-existence of God, not the non-existence of evidence.

Here I’ll refer you to Wikipedia articles on Atheism and Agnosticism. Atheism is “the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.” Agnosticism is “the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.” So one can be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist, but agnosticism itself is not a third way. Granted these definitions can be contested, but for the purpose of this thread atheism is used in its literal sense, meaning “without gods.”

 

[tonyrey]

**j1akey **

Why is he a Christian then? Almost all philosophers of religion agree that evil is compatible with the existence of God. Just produce one conclusive argument to the contrary. That is the acid test of your opinion…

In a democratic society the view of the majority is regarded as significant and not to be ignored. Since the vast majority of people in the world are theists the onus is on the minority of atheists to justify their position.

How is “a democratic society” relevant to truth in a philosophical discussion? This sounds like an argumentum ad populum.

“sounds like” <> “is”! If you reject the view of the majority without producing a good reason for doing so you imply that their view is worthless. Do you have such a low opinion of the average person?

Your “many men smarter than you and I” argument is an appeal to (fallible) authority…

 

[vz71]

Granted these definitions can be contested, but for the purpose of this thread atheism is used in its literal sense, meaning “without gods.”

I can file that under the heading of the weak argument attempting to control (or change) the vocabulary.

First off, wikipedia is hardly what one could call a reliable source. And for one so caught up in the “lack of scientific evidence” train of thought, reliability of the source matter should be a paramount concern.

So how about looking at other more reliable sources…
From Dictionary.com:

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Or from thefreedictionary.com:

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Or perhaps even the American Atheist website itself:

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

 

[wanstronian]

You can’t just say all theists are right because they’re in the majority when they don’t even believe in the same gods.

Nor could you say it even if they did all believe in the same god(s).

 

[wanstronian]

So how about looking at other more reliable sources…
From Dictionary.com:

Or from thefreedictionary.com:

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Neither of which conflicts with what Locke posted - the Wikipedia page discusses negative and positive atheism, which both your cited definitions refer to, although not specifically by name.

Perhaps you should learn about it so you can at least be precise in your comments on the subject!

Also, given the direction this thread has taken, I suspect it’ll be removed by the mods any minute. Atheists are forbidden from correcting theistic misrepresentations of their position, unfortunately.

 

[vz71]

Perhaps you should learn about it so you can at least be precise in your comments on the subject!

I know enough about the faith to know it is incorrect.
As for precision, if two well respected dictionaries and the atheists own website are not precise enough I suggest someone has a much weaker argument and are simply trying to split hairs somewhere to provide for wiggle room in their error.

Atheists are forbidden from correcting theistic misrepresentations of their position, unfortunately.

Two dictionaries and the atheists own authoratative website are not “theistic misrepresentations.”

As I said before:

I can file that under the heading of the weak argument attempting to control (or change) the vocabulary.

 

[grannymh]

The burden of proof fallacy is often employed by atheists. The way they get around it being applied to them is either they say " A claim in favor of X existing assumes the burden of proof " or they say " I don’t make any assertions, I simply disagree with yours. "
Both are intellectually dishonest. In effect, disbelieving the existence of God is philosophically the same as believing the nonexistence of God. Thus atheists are making a specific claim of the nonexistence of God. Generally burden of proof applies equally to both sides of an argument. But in this case, burden of proof would dictate that atheists must prove their specific claim, because of an implicit challenge that we should accept their claim that nonexistence of God is actual. And, if they say their statement of belief in the nonexistence of God is not a challenge for us to accept their belief, then neither is our statement of belief in the existence of God a challenge(implicit or otherwise) for them to accept our belief.** Saying " I believe " is not an implicit assertion that " you must believe "**
whether the belief is in existence or nonexistence of anything is immaterial to burden of proof falling in all directions equally, or not at all, at least in matters of philosophy.

I agree especially with the ending I put in bold. Having both intellect and will, i.e., a human nature which is rational/corporeal, spirit/matter, body and soul; therefore, what I believe about the existence of a transcendent, supernatural being, does not depend on another human’s affirmation or denial.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[_Locke]

tonyrey:

Your “many men smarter than you and I” argument is an appeal to (fallible) authority…

You’re right, I retract that statement. I meant to refer to the multitudes of philosophers (Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Kreeft, etc) who have examined the problem in shorter terms.

tonyrey:

Almost all philosophers of religion agree that evil is compatible with the existence of God.

Besides making the same appeal to authority you accused me of, you’ve forgotten your source.

tonyrey:

If you reject the view of the majority without producing a good reason for doing so you imply that their view is worthless. Do you have such a low opinion of the average person?

Both non-sequiturs, and an attempt (albeit a poor one) at a slur.

vz71:

I know enough about the faith to know it is incorrect.

Not sure what being Catholic has to do with knowing what atheism is, but if you’re working off the Second Vatican Council’s eight forms of disbelief (identified under ‘atheismus’) we’d be in agreement. "…Others maintain that man cannot make any assertion whatsoever about Him. " (catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32007) I also like the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on atheism, where “we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism.” (newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm)

vz71:

As for precision, if two well respected dictionaries and the atheists own website are not precise enough I suggest someone has a much weaker argument and are simply trying to split hairs somewhere to provide for wiggle room in their error.

Nobody said they weren’t precise enough, and as wanstronian stated neither conflict with what I posted. Furthermore the distinction between “I do not believe God exists” and “I believe God does not exist” is an important one, and is certainly not a matter of “splitting hairs.”

 

[Prophesy]

The burden of proof fallacy is often employed by atheists. The way they get around it being applied to them is either they say " A claim in favor of X existing assumes the burden of proof " or they say " I don’t make any assertions, I simply disagree with yours. "
Both are intellectually dishonest. In effect, disbelieving the existence of God is philosophically the same as believing the nonexistence of God. Thus atheists are making a specific claim of the nonexistence of God. Generally burden of proof applies equally to both sides of an argument. But in this case, burden of proof would dictate that atheists must prove their specific claim, because of an implicit challenge that we should accept their claim that nonexistence of God is actual. And, if they say their statement of belief in the nonexistence of God is not a challenge for us to accept their belief, then neither is our statement of belief in the existence of God a challenge(implicit or otherwise) for them to accept our belief. Saying " I believe " is not an implicit assertion that " you must believe "
whether the belief is in existence or nonexistence of anything is immaterial to burden of proof falling in all directions equally, or not at all, at least in matters of philosophy.

I feel that the burden of proof does lie with the believer. It’s a lot easier to prove the existence of something than it is to prove the non-existence of something. It is always more mature to take on the burden of proof in a debate than stating that they must prove otherwise. Just keep in mind that there are a number of good proofs for the existence of God and learn to start there in a debate. If you can establish that as a position, I believe it gives you a much stronger foothold in the long run.

My advice, take on the burden of proof and carry on with the debate. If all they have for their argument is that, you just need to recant a proof for the existence of God and be done with it.

-Prophecy

 

[vz71]

I know enough about the faith to know it is incorrect.

Not sure what being Catholic has to do with knowing what atheism is, but if you’re working off the Second Vatican Council’s eight forms of disbelief (identified under ‘atheismus’) we’d be in agreement.

Actually, I was referencing the faith that is atheism.
If one is to adhere to the logic that you cannot prove a negative, then you also must accept that there will always be insufficient evidence to prove that God does not exist.
Therefore the claim that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the claim that there is a God.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The burden of proof fallacy is often employed by atheists. The way they get around it being applied to them is either they say " A claim in favor of X existing assumes the burden of proof " or they say " I don’t make any assertions, I simply disagree with yours. "
Both are intellectually dishonest. In effect, disbelieving the existence of God is philosophically the same as believing the nonexistence of God. Thus atheists are making a specific claim of the nonexistence of God. Generally burden of proof applies equally to both sides of an argument. But in this case, burden of proof would dictate that atheists must prove their specific claim, because of an implicit challenge that we should accept their claim that nonexistence of God is actual. And, if they say their statement of belief in the nonexistence of God is not a challenge for us to accept their belief, then neither is our statement of belief in the existence of God a challenge(implicit or otherwise) for them to accept our belief. Saying " I believe " is not an implicit assertion that " you must believe "
whether the belief is in existence or nonexistence of anything is immaterial to burden of proof falling in all directions equally, or not at all, at least in matters of philosophy.

You’re confused old son.

Belief is not the same as knowledge.

Everyone on Earth is an agnostic. Anyone who says they know whether or not there is a God is either a liar, an imbecile, an epileptic or a paranoid schizophrenic.

No one knows whether or not there is a God.

I am an atheist because every single religious claim I have ever heard has been moronic to the point of being risible.

 

[JohnDamian]

You’re confused old son.

Belief is not the same as knowledge.

Everyone on Earth is an agnostic. Anyone who says they know whether or not there is a God is either a liar, an imbecile, an epileptic or a paranoid schizophrenic.

No one knows whether or not there is a God.

I am afraid you are the one who is confused;

When a belief matches a truth; there is knowlege.

So; we can know that there is a God; by Believing that there is a God (if there is a God).

Yet; we cannot know that our belief in God is knowlege of God; but to state that it is not knowlege just because the belief is not known to be a known thing is incorrect.

 

[wanstronian]

I know enough about the faith to know it is incorrect.

What faith?

Aah, I see from a later thread that you’re still labouring under the dogmatic misapprehension that atheism is a faith.

You really do know very little indeed. Are you trolling? Or are you just trying to use this forum as a learning tool? In which case, maybe you should come clean.

As for precision, if two well respected dictionaries and the atheists own website are not precise enough I suggest someone has a much weaker argument and are simply trying to split hairs somewhere to provide for wiggle room in their error.

It’s not a case of precision, but of concision. It’s simply that there are different ‘strengths’ of atheism - if this weren’t reflected in the dictionaries, then the definitions would be inconcise. You can try and make this out as a flaw in the argument if you like, but it’s just bluster.

Two dictionaries and the atheists own authoratative website are not “theistic misrepresentations.”

I was talking more generally, rather than specifically about definitions, as was obvious from the context statement which you excluded. Although that doesn’t mean you’re not wrong about the definition. You most definitely are.