(March 12, 2013 at 5:50 pm)jstrodel Wrote: If it is not a knowledge claim, than it is non-authoritative and should not be used to de facto argue for the non-existence of God while requiring a different sense of justification for God (sneaky).
Can you give an example of an atheist using atheism to argue for the non-existence of God?
(March 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm)jstrodel Wrote: To argue for the non-existence of God requires knowledge that God does not exist, otherwise it is lying.
So I can't argue that it's unlikely that you have a skunk in the trunk of your car unless I know you don't have a skunk in the trunk of your car? Your position seems awfully tailored to the convenience of someone who wants to assert something for which there is no evidence.
(March 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm)jstrodel Wrote: If there is not a strong sense of justification attached to claims against God's existence it is immoral to advocate anything which dramatically affects peoples lives without a strong sense of clarity that it is acceptable.
Translation: I'm going to go to an atheist forum and tell them it's wrong for them to tell me my position is unjustified, completely unaware of the irony or of just how many of my positions revolve around being able to say that people who won't agree with me are doing something bad.
Don't worry, I have a strong sense of clarity that people shouldn't believe things for bad reasons.
(March 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm)jstrodel Wrote: To start with the position "I do not believe any gods exist" and argue from that much weaker sense of belief which has no authority is to reject the epistemological norms which require more serious considerations to deserve a higher degree of certainty to attain to ethical justification (first do no harm - Hypocrites).
We're not arguing anything from our lack of belief. Our not believing in God is in no way an argument against the existence of God, and not only do we not do that, it's kind of silly to think that we would. I have a high degree of certainty that beliefs should be carefully scrutinized and rigorously critiqued so that we only retain the ones that are the most robust, and that our degree of certainty in our beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence that they are true. And I think you mean Hippocrates.
(March 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm)jstrodel Wrote: I would also argue that that statement "I do not believe any gods exist" is inconsistent and does not capture the rhetoric of the atheist movement which is almost always in actual practice saying "no gods exist". If a weaker sense of justification is understood, that sense should translate into the spirit of the words.
I would also argue that the statement 'I believe some god or God exists' is inconsistent and does not capture the rhetoric of the theist movement which is almost always in actual practice saying a particular God exists (even though they can't agree on which god or how many).
There is no 'atheist movement'. I know there are atheists who refer to one, but they are just as wrong as a Ba'hai who claimed there is a 'theist movement' would be. You repeatedly argue with us by making assertions about what the 'atheists out there' are saying without (or likely, to avoid) addressing what the 'atheists in here' are saying. You're just going to have to live with the heartbreak of our not conforming to your sweeping generalizations about atheists, and I have a faint hope that, years from now, you may realize the problem is not with us but with your stereotyping of us.
(March 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Regardless of what people describe about their actions, their words signify the sense of epistemic justification. The positions "I am not making a knowledge claim" and "I am making a knowledge claim are mutually exclusive". If a knowledge claim is being made, an argument can be made. If no knowledge claim is being made, no argument can be made, since it is morally wrong to lie (lying is sharing false beliefs and where there is no knowledge there could be false beliefs).
It's morally wrong to use rhetoric to poison the well of debate. Do you know that an asteroid the size of Mongolia isn't going to hit the earth in the next 72 hours? Then apparently, it would be wrong for you to make any argument that we'll still be here in 73. I'm trying to take you seriously, but you're not making it easy. I recommend thinking of possible counters to your claims before you make them. I don't know where you're getting your stuff, but you should consider another source.
