" I'd say in response to specific enough god claims, most atheists are positive-- "

Based on what evidence exactly? That is not my experience, nor my position as an atheist.

My position and experience is that most atheists avoid making claims, as to do so attracts the burden of proof. Instead , I and others say only that "I do not believe". This a statement of position, not of belief .

Of course I realise that your direct experience with atheists may well be far in excess of mine. I would be grateful if you could let me know the factual basis for your generalisation.

(February 25, 2019 at 9:19 pm)fredd bear Wrote: My position and experience is that  most atheists avoid making claims, as to do so  attracts the burden of proof. Instead , I and others say only that "I do not believe". This a statement  of position, not of belief .

You have heard, and rejected, the claims made by religious people. 

By what criteria did you reject these claims? 

There is a claim implicit in your rejection of religion: that religion's claims are unpersuasive. If you had been raised by wolves and never heard about religion, then your atheism would be just a lack. As it is, however, your atheism shows a commitment to standards of judgment. These standards are your beliefs, and carry a burden of proof.

(February 25, 2019 at 7:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 25, 2019 at 5:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: That's where this goes off the rails.
Cats and particles are well defined.
A god is not.

Therefore your analogy is false.

?

I feel like people aren't reading the posts.  Please read the posts first, and then respond to them.

---

Yeah, I'm reading them. What you're saying is ridiculous. 
Dependent of WHAT "knowledge" ?

---

(February 25, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Belaqua Wrote: By what criteria did you reject these claims? 

There is a claim implicit in your rejection of religion: that religion's claims are unpersuasive. If you had been raised by wolves and never heard about religion, then your atheism would be just a lack. As it is, however, your atheism shows a commitment to standards of judgment. These standards are your beliefs, and carry a burden of proof.

There is no implicit *claim*. A commitment to a standard is not a claim. It may be an unspoken assumption, but it is not a claim. 
Some standards may be "beliefs", however you are equivocating the word "belief" ... as sound standards which are based on experience and EVIDENCE are not "beliefs", and are in no way the equivalent to religious claims.

(February 25, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(February 25, 2019 at 9:19 pm)fredd bear Wrote: My position and experience is that  most atheists avoid making claims, as to do so  attracts the burden of proof. Instead , I and others say only that "I do not believe". This a statement  of position, not of belief .

You have heard, and rejected, the claims made by religious people. 

By what criteria did you reject these claims? 

There is a claim implicit in your rejection of religion: that religion's claims are unpersuasive. If you had been raised by wolves and never heard about religion, then your atheism would be just a lack. As it is, however, your atheism shows a commitment to standards of judgment. These standards are your beliefs, and carry a burden of proof.

Have you any idea just how dumb that is? It's one of the worst attempts at reversal of the burden of proof?

I claim that I do not believe in any gods. That is an affirmative claim for which I bear the burden of proof. What is my evidence? Me. Because I don't believe in any gods. Are you about to stupidly claim that I am lying and that I really do I am simply pretending not to? 

I further claim that I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Do you accept or reject my claim? By what criteria?

Fuck off with this childish bullshittery.

(February 25, 2019 at 11:29 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(February 25, 2019 at 9:35 pm)Belaqua Wrote: You have heard, and rejected, the claims made by religious people. 

By what criteria did you reject these claims? 

There is a claim implicit in your rejection of religion: that religion's claims are unpersuasive. If you had been raised by wolves and never heard about religion, then your atheism would be just a lack. As it is, however, your atheism shows a commitment to standards of judgment. These standards are your beliefs, and carry a burden of proof.

Have you any idea just how dumb that is? It's one of the worst attempts at reversal of the burden of proof?

I claim that I do not believe in any gods. That is an affirmative claim for which I bear the burden of proof. What is my evidence? Me. Because I don't believe in any gods. Are you about to stupidly claim that I am lying and that I really do I am simply pretending not to? 

I further claim that I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Do you accept or reject my claim? By what criteria?

Fuck off with this childish bullshittery.


Thanks for that. I have him on ignore, so can only read his post if they are quoted by some one else.. Really can't be bothered with his undergraduate sophistry.

(February 25, 2019 at 11:29 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: I claim that I do not believe in any gods. 

Yes, that's no problem. I'm addressing why it is so.

Here's an example of what I mean.

Literalist Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I evaluate this claim according to two facts which I hold to be true:

1) No reputable, non-propagandistic source has ever recorded someone rising from the dead.

2) Many myths and other kinds of fiction (e.g. the stories of Bacchus and of Marvel comic book characters) tell stories about people coming back from the dead, in order to teach moral or propagandistic messages. 

Because I hold these things to be true, they form, for me, solid criteria by which I reject the claims of the religious people, that Jesus rose from the dead. 

This is an example of what I mean, when I say that we have criteria by which we judge the claims of religious people. 

Do you think that my two criteria here are bad ones? Do you think my conclusion from these criteria, that the resurrection story is fiction, is a bad conclusion?

I talk about this alot on the boards.  I think that people who grew up in religious traditions tend to employ some particular statement or commitment as the defining moment or reason that they ultimately rejected the faith of their father or cultural majority.  That's how it happened for them, some straw that broke the camels back.  

I never had that.  I had the nagging suspicion while reciting the pledge of allegiance that some of those little bastards around me really did believe in the "under god" part.  It wasn't for any specific reason that I was an atheist then, even though I have command of the position now as an adult. I just don't find stories like that credible. I can't remember having ever found them credible. It's a fact of education and maturity that I could not possibly have known how full of shit they actually were as a young child. I was working on curious george at the time, not secular philosophy, scientific theory, critical skepticism, or anthropology.

(February 25, 2019 at 11:42 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I talk about this alot on the boards.

"Alot" is not an English word.

My mother was an english teacher.  It didn't take when she tried it, you won't do any better, lol.

(February 25, 2019 at 11:40 pm)Belaqua Wrote:

(February 25, 2019 at 11:29 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: I claim that I do not believe in any gods. 

Yes, that's no problem. I'm addressing why it is so.

Here's an example of what I mean.

Literalist Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I evaluate this claim according to two facts which I hold to be true:

1) No reputable, non-propagandistic source has ever recorded someone rising from the dead.

2) Many myths and other kinds of fiction (e.g. the stories of Bacchus and of Marvel comic book characters) tell stories about people coming back from the dead, in order to teach moral or propagandistic messages. 

Because I hold these things to be true, they form, for me, solid criteria by which I reject the claims of the religious people, that Jesus rose from the dead. 

This is an example of what I mean, when I say that we have criteria by which we judge the claims of religious people. 

Do you think that my two criteria here are bad ones? Do you think my conclusion from these criteria, that the resurrection story is fiction, is a bad conclusion?

Your two criteria are OK, but there are better ones, AND neither yours nor the better ones are "claims" nor are they "beliefs".

That's alot of "nors" right over there.