The Theist Position

[catholicray]

I’ve been in the trenches combatting atheists lately. It’s a challenge to say the least. I wanted to share an error I uncovered in dialogue.

Atheist will say that the Theist position is that God exists therefore we shoulder the burden of proof. This is false.

Mark 9:24

Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

The Theist position is that we do not believe in the non-existence of God/s. Whereby, if we are following the rules of atheism, we are not making a claim at this level and zero evidence is necessary for our “unbelief”.

Catholicism is the most reasonable answer to filling our void of unbelief. It does so by filling that void with God whereby the void is filled to overflowing.

By this I say the unbelief of a Theist is a better position in its’ conclusion than the unbelief of the atheist position.

We are skeptics. We are skeptical of skepticism. God Bless!

 

[Jbrady]

The Theist position is that we do not believe in the non-existence of God/s.

Ummm… no. You’re not going to find many people, theist or atheist, who would agree with that statement. As a Catholic, I find it a totally absurd mischaracterization of my beliefs.

And yes, the burden of proof is on us, something I have absolutely no problem with, as you seem to.

 

[Bradskii]

I’ve been in the trenches combatting atheists lately. It’s a challenge to say the least. I wanted to share an error I uncovered in dialogue.

Atheist will say that the Theist position is that God exists therefore we shoulder the burden of proof. This is false.

Mark 9:24

Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

The Theist position is that we do not believe in the non-existence of God/s. Whereby, if we are following the rules of atheism, we are not making a claim at this level and zero evidence is necessary for our “unbelief”.

Catholicism is the most reasonable answer to filling our void of unbelief. It does so by filling that void with God whereby the void is filled to overflowing.

By this I say the unbelief of a Theist is a better position in its’ conclusion than the unbelief of the atheist position.

We are skeptics. We are skeptical of skepticism. God Bless!

Joe believes…

…that voting Republican is the best option.
…that BigFoot exists.
…that aliens have visited earth.
…that God exists.
…that water freezes below 0 degrees C.
…that global warming is a threat to the planet.

Do I share any of those beliefs? Well, if I had no knowledge of any of them, I would ask Joe why he held them.

When he has explained the reasons why, then I can say if I agree with him or not.

Pretty straightforward really. Someone professes a belief and then backs it up with reasons why they hold it and then I can decide whether to agree or not. I cannot in any way argue against a claim until I have the reasons for holding it.

Edit: If I do not believe in the non existence of the FSM, according to you the onus is on you to prove that it doesn’t exist.

Off you go…

 

[niceatheist]

And how is quoting scripture to atheists working for you?

 

[Calliope]

There isn’t really a burden of proof issue when it comes to belief in general discussion.

I believe this, you can either take me at my word or watch my behavior and choices to see if they are consistent.

You believe that. I can take your word for it or watch your behaviors and actions to see if they back it up.

The burden of proof only comes when one makes a definitive statement.

I can tell you Neil Armstrong was my father. If you doubt me you can ask me for documentation, and it’s on me to provide it. It’s not really on you to go hunting for documents or trolling my Facebook page or hunt down my siblings and interview them.

If an atheist tells you they don’t believe in god, you can take them at their word or not. If they say there is no god, well it’s not really possible for anyone to prove an invisible all powerful being doesn’t exist, because by definition such a being could be the ultimate champion at hide and go seek if it chose to be. There’s no way to prove it doesn’t exist.

If there is a way to prove it does exist and you’re invested in that position, then the burden of proof is on you.

If I claim not only to believe that Nyan Cat is real but that it’s out there in space soaring around singing, I don’t think the burden of proof that it’s not is on the people who don’t believe that. It would be on me to prove that it’s out there…or admit that my belief is based on faith rather than evidence.

Atheism is a position of belief.

Some atheists do make a definitive statement that there is no god, but it’s pretty much impossible to prove the lack of existence of anything.

You are welcome to believe or unbelieve whatever you want, but it’s no one’s job to prove or disprove anything on your behalf. If it matters to you, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[tafan2]

I will defend the thought of @CatholicRay, to an extent.
Disbelieve in God is not the same as disbelief in Bigfoot for athiests. It’s actually a dishonest argument. If I don’t believe in Bigfoot, it’s not just because I don’t have evidence of his existence, it’s because I actually have evidence that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. The world is not that big and we have explored it and documented quite well the set of large animal species, both past and present. There is no evolutionary fossil evidence of animals that either are or evolved into a Bigfoot.

Disbelief in God is another matter. There are philosophical arguments for God, one may find them unconvincing, but one cannot deny they exist. In addition, we have not evidence that God does not exist.

The argument against God boils down to “I see no evidence”, the argument against Bigfoot is “I see no evidence, if he existed, I most certainly would have concrete evidence”.

OTOH, @Bradskii is correct, we must present a solid, logical argument for our beliefs. That is in us. one cannot expect anyone to immediately leap from disbelief, to an act of faith. And I do see that as more important.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If you want to convince someone of something, antagonizing them off the bat is not a good approach.

 

[Gab123]

And yes, the burden of proof is on us

Nonsense. The burden of proof are those who are arguing against reason.

 

[blackforest]

I’ve been in the trenches combatting atheists lately. It’s a challenge to say the least.

I don’t normally engage atheists in these discussions because it involves two separate “languages,” two separate modes of thought, and therefore two people merely talking past each other. It’s like debating abortion - when two parties are trying to gain control over how to frame the issue, “life” vs. “choice.”

@tafan2 nails it well in stating:

The argument against God boils down to “I see no evidence”, the argument against Bigfoot is “I see no evidence, if he existed, I most certainly would have concrete evidence”.

What we’re dealing with here is modern atheism’s origins in Enlightenment-era positivist thinking. I believe that it has revolutionized, (largely for the better), how we approach mathematics and the so-called “hard” sciences. On the other hand, it gets dicier when one tries to apply it to moral, philosophical, and - yes - theological discussions. This mode of thought is also uniquely Western, (therefore potentially ethnocentric in some cultural contexts), and relatively new historically.

Theology, by contrast, is a discipline of abstraction, something that won’t jive with the I’ll-believe-it-when-I-see-it folks. It calls to mind the modern Russian parable about an astronaut and a brain surgeon debating religion. The astronaut stated, “I’ve been to space many times have never seen God.” The brain surgeon replied, “I’ve operated on brains many times and never seen a thought.”

I get atheists because I’ve been there. Many of them get me because they’ve been religious at one time. I’m not going to equip any religious people with any “gotcha” retorts for this age-old debate. I simply want to underscore what makes communication in it so difficult.

 

[catholicray]

Edit: If I do not believe in the non existence of the FSM, according to you the onus is on you to prove that it doesn’t exist.

That’s an error the burden is on me when I make the claim “the FSM does not exist”.

 

[Calliope]

Something that many theists seem to forget when arguing with atheists is the sheer number of gods/goddesses/deities /spirits etc that have been believed in and proposed throughout history.

To compare it to the Bigfoot example, there’s been little to no evidence of any of those deities, who had many thousands and perhaps millions of followers, existing in actual reality (not merely as a concept).

While monotheists believe their god and situation to be unique, to most atheists it’s just one more on a long list of deities that have come and gone and morphed and been revived, or forgotten. There is no material difference to an outside observer.

Many of the arguments that I’ve heard theists propose fall flat because they simply aren’t unique. If a Catholic argues that the story of Jesus MUST be true because the apostles were willing to die rather than deny it, well, what about the millions of others who have died for their various faiths? What of those who dove head first into volcanoes or presented themselves as sacrifices or were martyred…some of them by Christians, rather than deny their faith.

The longevity argument is the same…well, the faith MUST be true or how has it survived 2,000 years? There are faiths that have been around longer or as long.

Miracles…many faiths have them. Transformed lives? Examples of that all over the place in many philosophies and belief systems.

People’s faiths are unique to them, special, significant etc, but that alone doesn’t make them unique to an observer, and their claims don’t seem any more credible than those of other faiths.

Many religions are believed, by their proponents, to be particular to a people, place or culture. They accept that each area and people has their own set of deities that they are in contract with. Monotheism doesn’t accept that, and sometimes they claim that the gods, miracles, and any good that exists in any faith system is really theirs, the people just haven’t recognized it yet.

It’s their god interacting with people of other faiths on the sly. So yes, I’d say someone who makes that claim does bear the burden of proof, if they want others to accept their claims as reality.

If I began to make claims about an invisible being interacting with me in astounding ways, I wouldn’t be insulted or surprised when others asked me for some proof before taking me at my word.

What is a beautiful, magnificent, miraculous, mysterious wonder to a person of faith, is just an interesting and sometimes odd claim to those outside of it. I’m guessing that most theists have had the experience when they observe faiths other than their own.

It’s true that monotheists are atheistic about every god but their own. Can you prove none of them existed or do exist? Should you be expected to?

 

[catholicray]

I don’t quote scripture to atheists generally unless they challenge me in scripture. The quote was to Christians.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Nonsense. The burden of proof are those who are arguing against reason.

Sorry, but that is ostentatiously circular. All arguments begin with intellectual humility.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Edit: If I do not believe in the non existence of the FSM, according to you the onus is on you to prove that it doesn’t exist.

That’s an error the burden is on me when I make the claim “the FSM does not exist”.

You are arguing against your own post. I have simply replaced God with the FSM. Notwithstanding that the way that it is phrased means that it suggests that the FSM does exist. Not ‘does not’.

And it also refers to a belief and not to a statement of fact. That is ‘I believe that the FSM exists’ as opposed to ‘The FSM exists’.

No wonder you are having a problem debating atheists…

 

[tafan2]

Something that many theists seem to forget when arguing with atheists is the sheer number of gods/goddesses/deities /spirits etc that have been believed in and proposed throughout history.

Its not that theists forget this. Its that it is not important to the argument. Theists (I am just using the term of this thread) actually are making an argument for a supreme creator. Now, there may be lots of different understanding of this being, but that does not matter to start out with. As to other deities, they do not matter either, as they represent something theists are not arguing for.

The longevity argument is the same…well, the faith MUST be true or how has it survived 2,000 years? There are faiths that have been around longer or as long.

This I agree with you.

If a Catholic argues that the story of Jesus MUST be true because the apostles were willing to die rather than deny it, well, what about the millions of others who have died for their various faiths?

Beside the point. When does a Catholic argue this with an atheist? This would be an argument used against a fellow theist.

 

[Gab123]

Sorry, but that is ostentatiously circular.

Nonsense again. The burden of proof is on those who argue that a cathedral built itself. The witness of an ordered and remarkable creation (Romans 1:20) and the universal witness of an internal conscience, and the fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that only a fool says in his heart “there is no God”
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

Reason demands that the words you are reading right now came from a logical source. Thus the burden of proof is on you to argue that the words you are reading right now are the result of an irrational purposeless internet accident.

 

[Calliope]

I see that argument with great regularity online and have had it offered to me in real life. Heard it on EWTN radio yesterday.

 

[tafan2]

not saying it isn’t made or that it doesn’t have its place, the question is who one is arguing with.

 

[Calliope]

The burden of proof is on those who argue that a cathedral built itself. The witness of an ordered and remarkable creation (Romans 1:20) and the universal witness of an internal conscience, and the fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that only a fool says in his heart “there is no God”
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

Except that a Cathedral is clearly made my humans, is a human design and created by human hands. The Universe? In now way does it appear to need or beg for a Creator. It has its own order, a Cathedral does not, it appears to have it’s own purpose, a Cathedral does not, it was created to fulfill the purpose of something else.

Yes I see order in the universe and in no way deny it. I don’t follow the logic that therefore God! Its order appears to be internal, it follows its own order and doesn’t seem to be doing the work of something outside of itself, which is a claim monotheists make. That their God is not the Universe, is outside the Universe and the Universe is doing God’s will. That’s a stretch way beyond any logic.

 

[Calliope]

I’m an atheist and it’s been presented to me as evidence of the truth of the Christian faith (a theistic stance).

Glad to hear you don’t use it in your discussions with atheists.