Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[RoadRunner79]

---

This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important. 

This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them.  This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.

---

Atheism, by definition, is an absence of belief in a supernatural, intelligent creator. It is, in its essence, a lack of belief. Many agnostic atheists, such as myself, choose to take that further into other, more complex ideas and concepts, but atheism in and of itself is a lack of belief. In fact, as a bit of anecdotal evidence for you if it means anything, most atheists I know in my personal life don't really make any claims about god. They pretty much say that they don't hold a belief in anything like that and call it a day. Plenty of atheists on this site are the same way.

The incessant need need for theists to create atheism into some sort of religion or belief system of its own is, at this point, pretty sad. I mean look at the simple structure of the word... a- meaning without... theism- meaning belief in a personal god and supernatural creator. Let it go. Find another way to argue your position, it's just pathetic at this point.

---

I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported.  That going down this path, and falling back to a position of skepticism requires a retreat.

---

What are you even saying here? I admit that I claim there to be no god and that part of that claim is an absence of evidence. I also admit that atheism, in and of itself, is simply a lack of belief in a personal god and supernatural creator (however you want to word it is up to you). Where is there a retreat in those two admissions? If I admit that I'm a tennis player and also a racket ball player does that change what it means to be a tennis player? No.

If you want to argue your position, go ahead. But once again, don't do so by trying to change the definition of a word in the English language. That is not going to be a very long or productive conversation, I promise you.

It seems that you are bringing into this conversation a lot of things, that I didn't say.  Interesting, since you seem to be accusing me of doing just that.   Just to clarify, I'm only discussing within the context of this discussion, and what has been stated here.  I'm not making any statements about all atheists, and I (as a course of principle) try not to argue any assumptions about your or others positions, that you don't put forth yourself.  I would appreciate the same courtesy.

So it is only directed, towards those making claims in this thread.  If I'm mistaken on your position and you are not making claims, including evidence of absence, then I apologize, and you only need to correct where I misunderstood. 

Note:  I do think that denying, is an active rather than neutral action.   Normally I would say this takes you out of skepticism and puts a burden of proof on your claim.   If you are intending to convey the more neutral idea of mere doubt, then this wouldn't apply. 

In "On Pseudoskepticism" by Marcello Truzzi he lists the following characteristics of pseudo skepticsm and skepticism which may be helpful.

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
   
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
   
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
   
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
   
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
   
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
   
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
   
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim
   

He characterized true skepticism as:

1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
   
2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
   
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
   
4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
   
5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
   
6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found
   

---

This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important. 

This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them.  This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.

I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported.

Quite right.

It just happens that it is supported, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the absence is present where the evidence should be.

If someone claims that there is an elephant in my living room, and I go look, and find nothing, then I have evidence that there is no elephant in my living room.

If someone tells me that a deity exists that flooded the world, parted the Red Sea, brought down the walls of Jericho at a certain period in history, and so on, and we go and check and find nothing, then we have evidence that said deity does not exist.

Yes... those would be claims that you would need to support.  However I don't think that it follows, and is a bit overreaching to come to the conclusion that said diety doesn't exist if you are successful in supporting those claims.