(September 15, 2026 at 7:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 7:34 am)Angrboda Wrote: I think that Sheldon has hit the nail on the head.  No claim requires a counter-claim to justify skepticism.  If an atheist wishes to provide one, well enough, but it is something extra on top of his atheism.  Any such counter-claims are not legitimately said to belong to atheism, whether they be of character epistemological or not.

I have not said that atheists must make a counter-claim. I have said that they use beliefs to evaluate other people's claims. 

If you want to say, as some have, that rocks and lizards are atheists, that's fine. Atheists of this type do not evaluate claims. But as far as I can tell there are no rocks or lizards posting here. Everyone here is capable of evaluating claims.

You actually did do that, when you switched disbelief of a claim to have seen mermaids, to believes they have not seen mermaids, above. However this again is aimed at atheists, and as we have demonstrated, and as should be obvious, if one had no knowledge or concept of deities, (babies for example) then one would lack belief in them and  by definition be an atheist, since atheism is the lack or absence of belief. 

Atheism is not a claim nor is it a belief, nor is it a worldview, though an atheist might make claims, and hold beliefs about deities, and will usually have a worldview that encompasses that lack of belief. 

My assertion that atheism need no more explain anything, than not believing in mermaids, was misrepresented by you at the start when you quoted me (an atheist) explaining why I disbelieved. Atheists and atheism are not the same thing.

(September 15, 2026 at 7:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 7:34 am)Angrboda Wrote: I think that Sheldon has hit the nail on the head.  No claim requires a counter-claim to justify skepticism.  If an atheist wishes to provide one, well enough, but it is something extra on top of his atheism.  Any such counter-claims are not legitimately said to belong to atheism, whether they be of character epistemological or not.

I have not said that atheists must make a counter-claim. I have said that they use beliefs to evaluate other people's claims. 

If you want to say, as some have, that rocks and lizards are atheists, that's fine. Atheists of this type do not evaluate claims. But as far as I can tell there are no rocks or lizards posting here. Everyone here is capable of evaluating claims.

I think fencing in what counts as a counter-claim so conservatively reflects your own self-interest rather than a charitable view of the facts. Epistemological standards are claims of a sort.

As an additional matter, I have been unable to find information on how many atheists root their disbelief in evidentialism, so I'm wondering where you get your figure that 'most' atheists do?

(September 15, 2026 at 7:47 am)Belacqua Wrote: I have said, however, that people reject claims for reasons.

One need not reject a claim to lack belief in it, quite obviously being entirely unaware of a claim would involve lacking belief in that claim...

Babies are not born with beliefs, ipso facto they lack theistic belief, ipso facto they are atheists by definition. Just like an atheist who for example claimed no deity exists, they would both lack theistic belief, and would both be atheists. look at the Venn diagram above, I can explain it any simpler than that.

Atheism is not a claim nor is it a belief, thus it makes no more sense for the thread author to demand to know how aspects of objective reality came to exist without a deity, he was reversing his burden of proof.

Years ago when we atheists were arguing against religious people on the Internet, we used to say that we reject their claims due to logic and empirical evidence. These were the reasons we had for rejecting what they said.

For example, if they claimed that Noah's ark was real, we could say that everything we know about geological history, and the amount of water there is in the world, and other empirical facts made the claim impossible, and therefore we reject it.

Other claims could be rejected simply because they made no logical sense.

So we felt we had good reasons to reject the claims. We had criteria according to which we could judge.

Now it appears that some atheists are saying that they reject religious people's claims based on no reasons whatsoever. That, somehow, if we claim that there isn't enough water in the world to cover all the mountaintops, this is making a claim, and atheists don't make claims. Or if we doubt that a man rose from the dead, simply because all our empirical evidence indicates that this is impossible, this would be making a claim -- but atheists, I'm now told, don't make claims.

I thought the earlier way was better, because it gave us arguments to use. If a religious person said "God made the world in six days," we had good reasons to reject that claim, and we could say clearly what they are, and we could argue for them.

I don't think anything is gained by insisting that atheists reject claims without such reasons.

(September 15, 2026 at 8:24 am)Angrboda Wrote: As an additional matter, I have been unable to find information on how many atheists root their disbelief in evidentialism, so I'm wondering where you get your figure that 'most' atheists do?

I have no idea what the percentages are. But I'm sure you're right that lots of atheists don't reject the claims of religious people based on evidence. 

Some atheists are atheists because the nuns were mean to them. Others became atheists because they thought Christopher Hitchens was cool. There are lots of reasons why people reject the claims made by religious people. Some reasons are better than others, and it makes sense to recognize and try to improve the claims we make and the reasons we use.

(September 15, 2026 at 11:45 am)Belacqua Wrote: Now it appears that some atheists are saying that they reject religious people's claims based on no reasons whatsoever. 

Quote:Sheldon: Can't say I've seen any atheist claim this, ever, but it still has little relevance I can see to the thread authors attempt to reverse the burden of proof his claims incurred, as atheism is not a claim or a belief it doesn't have to explain anything, even if individual atheists make that claims that do. 

That, somehow, if we claim that there isn't enough water in the world to cover all the mountaintops, this is making a claim, and atheists don't make claims.

Quote:Sheldon: I don't believe anyone has made this absolute generic claim?

 Or if we doubt that a man rose from the dead, simply because all our empirical evidence indicates that this is impossible, this would be making a claim -- 

Quote:Sheldon: Again you are conflating disbelief with a claim, when it need not involve one. It is also obvious that as an atheist, I can doubt some claims without having evidence they're false, whereas I can have knowledge that other claims are false, you seem t be unaware of this distinction, or are ignoring it? 

but atheists, I'm now told, don't make claims.

Quote:Sheldon: That is not true, all you were told is that atheism is not a claim. 

I thought the earlier way was better, because it gave us arguments to use.

Quote:Sheldon: It's not a choice that anyone has to make, it's a straw man as far as I can see.

If a religious person said "God made the world in six days," we had good reasons to reject that claim, and we could say clearly what they are, and we could argue for them.

Quote:Sheldon: We still do, but not all religious claims are falsifiable, so why are you ignoring this fact?

I don't think anything is gained by insisting that atheists reject claims without such reasons.

Quote:Sheldon: I have not seen anyone claiming any atheist should do this? I can disbelieve a claim if it is insufficiently evidenced, but also believe it to be wrong if there is sufficient evidence, it's nt one or the other. 

Quote:When we hear other people's claims, we evaluate them against what we hold to be true.

no, we evaluate them against the evidence provided by the claimant. Then we update our position on what we believe to be true.

Again Bel fails at the basics while trying to do "advanced philosophy".

(Slight derailment)

I never thought I’d be happy to see Bel take over a thread.

Boru

(September 15, 2026 at 12:46 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

Quote:When we hear other people's claims, we evaluate them against what we hold to be true.

no, we evaluate them against the evidence provided by the claimant. Then we update our position on what we believe to be true.

Exactly, that is precisely how any open minded person would evaluate a claim.

(September 15, 2026 at 2:02 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 15, 2026 at 12:46 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: no, we evaluate them against the evidence provided by the claimant. Then we update our position on what we believe to be true.

Exactly, that is precisely how any open minded person would evaluate a claim.

He probably revealed his own close mindedness.

I am not an expert in philosophy, but it seems he also is ignorant of another basic fact wrt to "reasons not to believe".

I can have a terrible standard for accepting beliefs, in that I mostly reject true beliefs. That may make me ignorant but not irrstional. If I have a terrible standard for accepting wrong beliefs, I may the up holding conflicting beliefs, which is irrational. That's why having a high standard for believing is so important.
One may correct me if I am wrong.

Oh, and I hate to agree with Boru