Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

That was the point, when atheists make assertions about God or Christians, or anything else it is reasonable to ask them why they believe that!  If they call Christians delusional, or claim the Bible is fiction or just stories, then that is making an assertion.  I find that many atheists have trouble not making assertions about what they believe (at least on the internets).  And many of the same will run to a false equivocation of the definition above, when confronted.  While not always it often seems like a cop out. There is a lot of pseudo skepticism around. That was all I was commenting on.  If that doesn’t apply to you....then good

There's a difference between assertions you expect other people to accept without support, and opinions. Not everything someone says is a component of an argument. I think the supernatural claims of Christians as fanciful as the supernatural claims of anyone else. I don't feel the need to support that, it's self-evident to me and I'm not interested in convincing you that I'm right. I wouldn't start a thread about it, for instance. Ultimately, it's my opinion, and clearly your mileage varies. I don't expect you to be convinced just because I said it, and I have no obligation to support it unless I want you to believe it enough to make the effort. Now, if you want to persuade me otherwise, you're welcome to try. If you challenge me to support the contention, I may or may not choose to accept that challenge. If I don't particularly care whether you agree with me about it or not, I may decline without implication that I'm wrong.

In common language, you are expected to be able to distinguish when someone is stating their opinion or making an assertion, even if they don't use qualifiers like 'I find'. Sometimes it can be a subtle difference, but that's what clarifying questions are for.

Now if I said 'Road Runner runs to false equivocation when confronted about a certain definition and engages in pseudo-skepticism', that's a matter of fact that I should be able to support with specific examples if it's true, and since it's kind of insulting to Road Runner, I shouldn't say it unless I'm ready to back it up. It's a claim about Road Runner's behavior, and I should expect Road Runner to challenge me on it, especially if I know it's a mischaracterization. The context makes it clear I'm making an assertion about Road Runner, I'm stating it like it's a fact and the claim falls in the realm of something I ought to be able to demonstrate if it's true.  

It's an unsupported assertion (and seems like a cop-out) when you vaguely refer to some atheists somewhere resorting to false equivocation when confronted without providing any specific examples, but you do you. I'd note that if those atheists aren't here on this forum, they're not really relevant to the issue at hand, and if they are, you should be able to quote them.

It doesn't apply to me, and I'm not sure it applies to anyone on the forum who could reasonably be described as a skeptic. I could be wrong, but I guess I'll never know unless you support your assertion. It doesn't apply to me and I doubt your testimony about it...but that's just my opinion.

---

Like what?  I find that atheists are inconsistent with their principles concerning evidence.

Who cares what you find? You never back your claims about atheists up with examples, which would be a bare beginning for supporting the notion that the inconsistency you 'find' is characteristic.

I'm sorry, that you feel that way. I don't believe that I bring it up, unless others do, or it is applicable to the immediate conversation. I realize, that those who are agnostic, you probably don't hear from as much, and it is those who are making claims, who stand out most.

I don't keep a list of what people say, so I can go back later, and say gotcha. For me, it is more about the ideas. Would you agree, that it is wrong (and possibly dishonest) to make claims, and then fall back to an equivocation on what the word "atheist" means? Or perhaps it can be agreed upon that we only bring up the claims in the immediate conversation (as well as let others speak for themselves)? You know... civil discussion. You don't have to look very far on these boards, to see atheists making claims that the Bible is fiction, or that theists are delusional. There are claims about history, amazingly without appealing to historical evidence or much reason other than personal incredulity and making something up in it's place. There are claims of the motivation of theists, seemingly to indicate that they can't really believe it's true, so there must be some psychological dysfunction or devious motivation.

I don't' see anything wrong in pointing out, when this subject comes up (which it seems to often) in pointing out that many do go beyond merely stating the "lack of belief" and referring to their own mental state. And that when this occurs and they start making objective claims, that they can't go back and hide behind skepticism again (at least not without retracting their statements). It's fine, if you are making a statement of truth, or if you hold to an agnostic position. But, if you don't see this occurring, then I feel even more compelled to mention it (when others bring it up or it's applicable in context) perhaps you will become more aware when this is occuring

[Mister Agenda]

I think you are right about the definition, but that is not my point. I am claiming that when an atheist says something akin to: "You are wrong but I don't have to say why because I make no claims..." they are completely wrong. They are making both implicit and explicit claims to knowledge the moment they say the evidence is insufficient (or worse, there is no evidence).  I have no problems with atheists who don't tell me I'm wrong -- they don't have a burden of proof. But I am not sure there are any here.

Could you quote an atheist on this forum making such a statement, please? I'll wait. And I'll dissect their comment like I would anyone else's if it was as incoherent as you describe.

---

Let me get this straight. If people report an experience with God, that is not information of facts (evidence) that support the premise that God exists? Then the converse must be true: if God exists we cannot have any experience of him. This is obviously false. Your defense is some sort of shifting from 'experiences' to 'beliefs' and then to beliefs can be false and then an unjustified leap to these beliefs are false.  You don't have a logical leg to stand on here. 

We cannot have an experience that would allow us to know that the cause of the experience is the theodic maker of the universe. That is not something that is possible to know by any experience. You might be left with a feeling of certainty or knowledge about what you experienced, but actual knowledge of such a being is inaccessible to humans. Even if some being contacts us with a revelation or something, we have no way to evaluate the experience as truly being 'from God'. We'd have to be omniscient ourselves to be able to know that what 'touched' us was the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe. The most we can ever get from a personal experience of contact with something that seems to us divine, even if we eliminate something just happening in our brain as a possibility (which we can't do), we are still just left with a personal experience that seemed to us divine, for some other reason than our internal brain activity. That doesn't get you t a capital G God. It doesn't even get you to an intangible spirit, aliens with mind-affecting rays could be the cause. If God is real, personal experiences aren't enough to show it.

Now, if everyone's personal experience of the divine were consistent, that would be something to pay more attention to. It would at least require explanation if large numbers of Hindus started having visions that inspired them to become Christians, and the visions were theologically consistent, to boot (agreed on things like baptism and what is necessary for salvation)! Or if God could be counted on to give verifiable information that we couldn't possibly have obtained on our own.

That Middle Easterners had different divine experiences than people from India or China is par for the course. It's what we'd expect if those experiences have more to do with brain chemistry than an omnipotent supernatural influence.

If there's a God, it can certainly contact you. But you can't know your experience was genuinely from God. All you've got to go on is 'feels', and anything that could contact you could probably make you feel any way it wanted to about it. And drugs can provide similar experiences (not to mention schizophrenia), which I find telling.

[SteveII]

I think you are right about the definition, but that is not my point. I am claiming that when an atheist says something akin to: "You are wrong but I don't have to say why because I make no claims..." they are completely wrong. They are making both implicit and explicit claims to knowledge the moment they say the evidence is insufficient (or worse, there is no evidence).  I have no problems with atheists who don't tell me I'm wrong -- they don't have a burden of proof. But I am not sure there are any here.

Could you quote an atheist on this forum making such a statement. I'll wait. And I'll dissect their comment like I would anyone else's if it was as incoherent as you describe.

ALL of you say 'atheism' makes no claims. But that is not were MOST of you stop--"you are wrong" is in every other post on this site.  Look the meme in the OP. 'Rejecting' literally means asserting a positive claim of inadequacy. So while technically the definition of atheism may shield a person from shouldering any burden of proof, in actuality, once you say someone is wrong (rejecting), there is a requirement to justify the claim.

[RoadRunner79]

Could you quote an atheist on this forum making such a statement. I'll wait. And I'll dissect their comment like I would anyone else's if it was as incoherent as you describe.

ALL of you say 'atheism' makes no claims. But that is not were MOST of you stop--"you are wrong" is in every other post on this site.  Look the meme in the OP. 'Rejecting' literally means asserting a positive claim of inadequacy. So while technically the definition of atheism may shield a person from shouldering any burden of proof, in actuality, once you say someone is wrong (rejecting), there is a requirement to justify the claim.

I've even had people argue, that only claims of what are true have the burden of proof.  That they can claim that something is false (rejecting) and have no burden.  However this is bad logic, because even when you are claiming something is false, you are still making an objective truth claim.

[Mister Agenda]

Testimony is not evidence, you could never convict someone on testimony alone.  Set Bill Cosby Free!

Sigh. The people testifying against Cosby were subject to cross-examination. Their testimony had to stand up to scrutiny. The parts of their testimony available to verification had to confirm the testimony. The disparate testimony had to converge on facts that shouldn't be similar if they had not had the same experience. A bunch of accusations from witnesses who's testimony could not stand up to scrutiny and could not demonstrate that Cosby had the opportunity to drug and rape them would not have stood in court. And it didn't hurt that Cosby admitted to giving women barbiturates before sex to 'help them relax.'

The testimony of itself wasn't enough in the case of Cosby. What you're really saying is that a much lower standard should be acceptable to convict the Romans of having executed the miracle-working virgin-born son of God. I'm no fan of the Romans, and I'm sure they executed a lot of people who should have been allowed to live, but I'm gonna need more to believe that one of their victims was God cosplaying.

---

I was asking you a question. Are you going to answer it?

They are different, but that doesn’t change the evidence....   does evidence matter to you?

They are different in precisely a way that changes the evidence.

---

It does.  But my standard of evidence for supernatural claims like the ones in the Bible are much higher than for a claim that a powerful, rich, male celebrity took advantage of vulnerable women.  For one, I know Bill Cosby exists...

So what evidence would be sufficient to learn that something exists?  Do you think that bias effects your standards of evidence?   There is no epistemological foundation for a shifting standard of evidence. Which is why I asked if evidence matters. What type of evidence would it take?

The standards of evidence are consistent, you not being able to tell that is not evidence of a lack of epistemological consistency in others. Cosby wouldn't have been convicted on the same kind of evidence that is presented for Jesus actually being God (or a close relative).

---

And FYI were still not claiming theists are wrong .

Just that if they're right, it's unlikely to be for the reasons they give.

---

There's a difference between assertions you expect other people to accept without support, and opinions. Not everything someone says is a component of an argument. I think the supernatural claims of Christians as fanciful as the supernatural claims of anyone else. I don't feel the need to support that, it's self-evident to me and I'm not interested in convincing you that I'm right. I wouldn't start a thread about it, for instance. Ultimately, it's my opinion, and clearly your mileage varies. I don't expect you to be convinced just because I said it, and I have no obligation to support it unless I want you to believe it enough to make the effort. Now, if you want to persuade me otherwise, you're welcome to try. If you challenge me to support the contention, I may or may not choose to accept that challenge. If I don't particularly care whether you agree with me about it or not, I may decline without implication that I'm wrong.

In common language, you are expected to be able to distinguish when someone is stating their opinion or making an assertion, even if they don't use qualifiers like 'I find'. Sometimes it can be a subtle difference, but that's what clarifying questions are for.

Now if I said 'Road Runner runs to false equivocation when confronted about a certain definition and engages in pseudo-skepticism', that's a matter of fact that I should be able to support with specific examples if it's true, and since it's kind of insulting to Road Runner, I shouldn't say it unless I'm ready to back it up. It's a claim about Road Runner's behavior, and I should expect Road Runner to challenge me on it, especially if I know it's a mischaracterization. The context makes it clear I'm making an assertion about Road Runner, I'm stating it like it's a fact and the claim falls in the realm of something I ought to be able to demonstrate if it's true.  

It's an unsupported assertion (and seems like a cop-out) when you vaguely refer to some atheists somewhere resorting to false equivocation when confronted without providing any specific examples, but you do you. I'd note that if those atheists aren't here on this forum, they're not really relevant to the issue at hand, and if they are, you should be able to quote them.

It doesn't apply to me, and I'm not sure it applies to anyone on the forum who could reasonably be described as a skeptic. I could be wrong, but I guess I'll never know unless you support your assertion. It doesn't apply to me and I doubt your testimony about it...but that's just my opinion.

---

Who cares what you find? You never back your claims about atheists up with examples, which would be a bare beginning for supporting the notion that the inconsistency you 'find' is characteristic.

I'm sorry, that you feel that way.   I don't believe that I bring it up, unless others do, or it is applicable to the immediate conversation.   I realize, that those who are agnostic, you probably don't hear from as much, and it is those who are making claims, who stand out most.  

I don't keep a list of what people say, so I can go back later, and say gotcha.  For me, it is more about the ideas.   Would you agree, that it is wrong (and possibly dishonest) to make claims, and then fall back to an equivocation on what the word "atheist" means?  Or perhaps it can be agreed upon that we only bring up the claims in the immediate conversation (as well as let others speak for themselves)?   You know... civil discussion.    You don't have to look very far on these boards, to see atheists making claims that the Bible is fiction, or that theists are delusional.  There are claims about history, amazingly without appealing to historical evidence or much reason other than personal incredulity and making something up in it's place.  There are claims of the motivation of theists, seemingly to indicate that they can't really believe it's true, so there must be some psychological dysfunction or devious motivation.

I don't' see anything wrong in pointing out, when this subject comes up (which it seems to often) in pointing out that many do go beyond merely stating the "lack of belief" and referring to their own mental state.  And that when this occurs and they start making objective claims, that they can't go back and hide behind skepticism again (at least not without retracting their statements).  It's fine, if you are making a statement of truth, or if you hold to an agnostic position.  But, if you don't see this occurring, then I feel even more compelled to mention it (when others bring it up or it's applicable in context) perhaps you will become more aware when this is occurring

Note my bolding. It doesn't seem to come up often enough for you to ever be able to give even one example and I don't see it occurring. So I don't believe you. I'm not going to become more aware of anything except your propensity to attribute behavior to atheists when you can't back it up if you keep repeating this pattern of behavior. How about you jump on the next one you see here and PM me? It shouldn't take long if it happens 'so often'.

---

Could you quote an atheist on this forum making such a statement. I'll wait. And I'll dissect their comment like I would anyone else's if it was as incoherent as you describe.

ALL of you say 'atheism' makes no claims. But that is not were MOST of you stop--"you are wrong" is in every other post on this site.  Look the meme in the OP. 'Rejecting' literally means asserting a positive claim of inadequacy. So while technically the definition of atheism may shield a person from shouldering any burden of proof, in actuality, once you say someone is wrong (rejecting), there is a requirement to justify the claim.

Atheism makes no claims. Atheists do, but the state of being an atheist is not why they do. Plenty of atheists don't even want to have this conversation. Why is this so hard for you wrap your brain around?

[I_am_not_mafia]

I've even had people argue, that only claims of what are true have the burden of proof.  That they can claim that something is false (rejecting) and have no burden.  However this is bad logic, because even when you are claiming something is false, you are still making an objective truth claim.

On here? I haven't seen that myself but I am happy to be proved wrong. The whole point of a burden of proof is to determine whether a claim is true. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand what they were saying?

[Mister Agenda]

ALL of you say 'atheism' makes no claims. But that is not were MOST of you stop--"you are wrong" is in every other post on this site.  Look the meme in the OP. 'Rejecting' literally means asserting a positive claim of inadequacy. So while technically the definition of atheism may shield a person from shouldering any burden of proof, in actuality, once you say someone is wrong (rejecting), there is a requirement to justify the claim.

I've even had people argue, that only claims of what are true have the burden of proof.  That they can claim that something is false (rejecting) and have no burden.  However this is bad logic, because even when you are claiming something is false, you are still making an objective truth claim.

Any hypothesis has to overcome the null hypothesis (the presumption that proposed hypothesis is not actually the case). A hypothesis could conceivably be true without overcoming the null, but holding the null remains the most reasonable response to a hypothesis that has not overcome it. The null hypothesis is precisely defined in statistics, you know just how much of a result an experiment needs to have to justify saying it has overcome the null, in common language there's much more room for disagreement. It's still a good epistemological principle, especially considering the alternatives.

If I stated that a million people are abducted from NYC each year by space aliens, you ought to hold the null hypothesis until I provide enough evidence to convince you otherwise. Or do you think that doing so is bad logic?

[Whateverist]

RR wrote:

So what evidence would be sufficient to learn that something exists?  Do you think that bias effects your standards of evidence?   There is no epistemological foundation for a shifting standard of evidence. Which is why I asked if evidence matters. What type of evidence would it take?

1. Not my problem 
2.No
3.Yes there it's all in pattern of shift and to what . 
4.Of course it matters 
5.Not my problem

1.  For empirical claims I prefer the methods of science.  For psychological claims I'm happy to accept what you say as true for you based only on your word so long as I think you're being sincere.  I actually think consciousness is more than than capable of producing more than your conscious mind.  In fact I'll make that my psychological confession.  But if you think God is more than a co-product of consciousness with an existence and agency beyond your own mind and body, then the standard for empirical claims applies.

2.  For psychological claims, of course.  For empirical claims, where bias is found it can be corrected for.

3.  The domains of the empirical and the psychological just do have separate epistemological standards.

4.  Evidence is the name of the game where formal science is concerned.  Of course we are all capable of acting on seat-of-the-pants empirical theories in our daily lives and formal science only cares about some of those.  Without the benefit of peer review our rough and ready empirical assumptions are indeed error prone.

5.  To move your psychological confession -which is what I think belief in God is- into the realm of empirical claims you would need peer reviewed evidence arrived at repeatedly by multiple groups independently performing the experiment.  If your claims regarding God are not amenable to testing, then you should admit what you hold is a psychological claim, the truth of which may be shared by some and not by others.  The good news for you is that your psychological claim is safe from being disproven by empirical standards.

[RoadRunner79]

I've even had people argue, that only claims of what are true have the burden of proof.  That they can claim that something is false (rejecting) and have no burden.  However this is bad logic, because even when you are claiming something is false, you are still making an objective truth claim.

On here? I haven't seen that myself but I am happy to be proved wrong. The whole point of a burden of proof is to determine whether a claim is true. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand what they were saying?

Yes.... actually I think only on here have I seen this.  I think that what was confusing them is that the burden of proof  is on the one making a claim of truth.   Which was interpreted to mean that you can say something is false, without having to give reason for that claim.   But in claiming that it is false, you are making a claim about objective truth. 

And to clarify, I'm not trying to point fingers and I'm not saying that this applies to all atheists.  I'm not as concerned with what has happened in the past, but the future.  Talking about the definition of "atheist" doesn't get you out of a claim that you just made.   Would you agree?

[FatAndFaithless]

On here? I haven't seen that myself but I am happy to be proved wrong. The whole point of a burden of proof is to determine whether a claim is true. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand what they were saying?

Yes.... actually I think only on here have I seen this.  I think that what was confusing them is that the burden of proof  is on the one making a claim of truth.   Which was interpreted to mean that you can say something is false, without having to give reason for that claim.   But in claiming that it is false, you are making a claim about objective truth. 

And to clarify, I'm not trying to point fingers and I'm not saying that this applies to all atheists.  I'm not as concerned with what has happened in the past, but the future.  Talking about the definition of "atheist" doesn't get you out of a claim that you just made.   Would you agree?

I agree that anyone who asserts that "God exists" is false assumes as much a burden of proof as the person claiming it's true.  And I also agree that people on this forum (and in general, really) can be less-than-careful with their words.  However, I think the majority of atheists on the forum would, when asked, not assert that the statement "God exists" is false, but rather just that they do not believe the statement has met its burden of proof to be considered true.

That being said, there are some folks that will make the assertion that there are no god(s), I'm just not one of them, unless the definition of the god in question is logically incoherent.