Help me out with this statement

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
SoCalExile
Valued Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
Christian: Yes

Help me out with this statement

Postby SoCalExile » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:05 pm

It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:
You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.


Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17866
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby RickD » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:28 pm

SoCalExile wrote:It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:
You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.


Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

I've had discussions about this before. To me, it's a cop out.
Atheists saying they just don't believe God exists, is the same as saying that they believe God doesn't exist. The only difference, is that if they don't say, "I believe God doesn't exist", then they don't have to defend it. By saying, "I don't believe God exists", it's not an assertion, which they claim needs no proof.
It's simply a cop out, and a cowardly way to have a belief in something, without the nads to make an argument for that belief.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby Kenny » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:30 am

SoCalExile wrote:It seems to me to be full of contradictions and intellectual backflips:
You're right that if someone asserts something, they should demonstrate why its true. The problem comes at this assumption you have that atheists are people who assert no god exists. When someone comes up to you and says "There is no god!" that's more then an atheists position even is. An atheist is someone who doesn't assert a god exists. It's someone who doesn't believe in a god. That's completely different then someone who asserts god doesn't exist, or someone who believes that gods don't exist. I have met an innumerable amount of atheists in my life, and yet I have not met one person EVER who believes god doesn't exist. That isn't to say that someone who would believe in no gods wouldn't be an atheist, it just is irrelevant to an atheists position. This is your mistake. You assume that an atheist believes in no god, which is wrong. Atheists just don't believe there is one. Anyone who can't tell the difference between those two things I hope is never a juror in a case of any significance. After all, they might think that because the preponderance of the evidence indicating someone is not guilty is somehow the same as the courts asserting that the person is innocent.

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/understand ... hypothesis

You're fighting a strawman position held by no one, then labeling that as some particular atheists position. It isn't.

However, if it is, your person there needs to demonstrate their wild claim that there is no god, like you said. They are still an atheist, but they are making a separate claim unrelated to atheism. Some sort of wacky counter-theistic claim, which isn't even named because nobody has it.


Granted I've had one or two head injuries in my lifetime, does this make any sense to anyone else?

I believe the following is the point the person is attempting to make, and I will use myself as an example

If you ask me if I believe God exists, I will first ask you to define God, THEN I can tell you if I believe he exists or not; because what you call God very well may exist! I believe there was a story in the Bible of people worshipping a golden calf (a chunk of metal), I believe there are religions where people worship nature. etc and for me to say what these people call God doesn't exist would be foolish. I know they exist, I just don't call them God, thus I am atheist towards what they call God.
Because out of all the God claims I've heard, none of them sound credible and I don't call them God, I am considered Atheist. I hope that clears things up.

Ken

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 7625
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby PaulSacramento » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:36 am

The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.

SoCalExile
Valued Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby SoCalExile » Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:52 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.


Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby Kenny » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:32 pm

SoCalExile wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.




Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.


Most theists will define God in a way that he can't be disproven. Is it your opinion that if a person cannot disprove the existence of God (prove a negative) they aren't atheist?

Ken

User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby jlay » Wed Apr 01, 2015 4:44 pm

There is a ton in Frank Turek's new book Stealing From God on this exact objection.

Bottom line, it's bologne.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious

SoCalExile
Valued Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby SoCalExile » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:10 pm

Kenny wrote:
SoCalExile wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.




Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.


Most theists will define God in a way that he can't be disproven. Is it your opinion that if a person cannot disprove the existence of God (prove a negative) they aren't atheist?

Ken


I was attempting to illustrate the weakness of the basic atheistic argument, which is a classic argument from ignorance, by holding them to the burden of proof. This guy tries to weasel out of that burden with logic-that-isn't-logic-but-is-logic.
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.

Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby Proinsias » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:24 pm

Weaseling out of a 'burden of proof' seems a little harsh. It's a little like 'meet my demands or recant your position'. People choose agnosticsm/atheism/theism for a variety of reasons often wholly ignorant of, or largely unconcerned about, modal logic. It seems no more controversial than asserting theism whilst being largley ignorant of, or unconcerned with, the negative tetralemma of Indian logic.

The Stanford entry on atheism/agnosticism is quite interesting and fairly ontopic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby Kenny » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:26 pm

SoCalExile wrote:
Kenny wrote:
SoCalExile wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:The dictionary is your friend:

as·sert
əˈsərt/Submit
verb
state a fact or belief confidently and forcefully.

TO assert something is to state a belief or a fact in a confident and forceful way.

When any atheist states that He/She does not believe that a god exists, they are asserting that view.
Unless of course they do NOT believe it in a confident matter, ex:

Assertion: I do not believe in a god or that a god exists.
Non-assertion: I don't know if god exists but I don't think so.




Which is an agnostic view from what I understand.

The context of this post was a discussion on bad arguments that atheists make. My point was about how they try to avoid the burden of proof when asserting that there is no God. Of course, every one tried to weasel out of that obligation, yet maintain their status as an atheist. Seems they are so devoted to the concept of avoiding responsibility for their assertions (while trying to hold theists to imaginary ones), that they do intellectual backflips that make no sense to anyone with a concept of modal logic.


Most theists will define God in a way that he can't be disproven. Is it your opinion that if a person cannot disprove the existence of God (prove a negative) they aren't atheist?

Ken


I was attempting to illustrate the weakness of the basic atheistic argument, which is a classic argument from ignorance, by holding them to the burden of proof. This guy tries to weasel out of that burden with logic-that-isn't-logic-but-is-logic.

I think it would be foolish for an atheist to claim he can provide proof to the satisfaction of the believer, that his God doesn't exist.

Ken

SoCalExile
Valued Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm
Christian: Yes

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby SoCalExile » Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:37 pm

Proinsias wrote:Weaseling out of a 'burden of proof' seems a little harsh. It's a little like 'meet my demands or recant your position'. People choose agnosticsm/atheism/theism for a variety of reasons often wholly ignorant of, or largely unconcerned about, modal logic. It seems no more controversial than asserting theism whilst being largley ignorant of, or unconcerned with, the negative tetralemma of Indian logic.

The Stanford entry on atheism/agnosticism is quite interesting and fairly ontopic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/


You're right about, "weaseling", my bad.

I agree that views about God and His existence aren't necessarily founded in pure logic. I've found that many of the most die-hard anti-theist has often suffered some emotional trauma that relates in some way to the religion targeted in their personal crusades.

Now in the discussion that prompted the post above, I merely maintained that the burden of proof was on the person making the assertion, and not always on the theist. Of course, this brought out a host of objections. Then came the assertions-without-assertion.

And as an aside, while this little list has a lot of tongue-in-cheek modal arguments, I have seen many of these: http://www.thomism.org/atheism/atheist_logic.html
God's grace is not cheap; it's free.

Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby Proinsias » Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:19 pm

To describe someone as "the most die hard anti-....." automatically conjures up notions of emotional attachment regardless of the subject matter in most cases I can think of. Might be better aiming for a dialogue instead of 'burden of proof' tennis. It would be very wearisome if someone wanting to proclaim a life free of religion would be under the burden of having to adequetaley refute the religious and philisophical underpinnings of all the major religious systems to the satisfaction of their members.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4132
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby abelcainsbrother » Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:37 am

Proinsias wrote:To describe someone as "the most die hard anti-....." automatically conjures up notions of emotional attachment regardless of the subject matter in most cases I can think of. Might be better aiming for a dialogue instead of 'burden of proof' tennis. It would be very wearisome if someone wanting to proclaim a life free of religion would be under the burden of having to adequetaley refute the religious and philisophical underpinnings of all the major religious systems to the satisfaction of their members.


I've had them tell me they were anti-theist,also it might be wearisome but when they are claiming no God is real then it becomes belief and there are then reasons to believe it and these need to be explained,you cannot believe something for no reason and a lot of times it is from a corrupt understanding of the word of God and based on atheist talking points which is like a bible for them and they try to make you prove God is real just so they can explain it all away with talking points while they think they don't have to prove why God doesn't exist.It is a cop-out and weakness.It is just a game for them that do this and no matter how much evidence you present for God it is denied and rejected for intellectual dishonesty.It is a wonder how they can believe something so futile.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby Kenny » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:28 am

abelcainsbrother wrote:,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 7625
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Help me out with this statement

Postby PaulSacramento » Thu Apr 02, 2015 5:49 am

Kenny wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:,you cannot believe something for no reason.

You don't need a reason to not believe something; a failure to be convinced is all that is necessary.

Ken

Ken, a failure to be convinced IS a reason not to believe in something.


Return to “Questioning Non-belief”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests