All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[Ouroboros]

I think that the analogy is getting stretched to far to become useful. I am saying I don't have to propose that there is no god to not have a belief in a god.

Did I say that? I thought you're the one who said that the bald person makes the claim of it being proper or not, i.e. the atheist being the one saying what belief is proper or not. Does the atheist know what a proper definition of God is? How can it be just "lack" in belief when it is a rejection? Knowing what God is supposed to be, and then reject that idea, that makes an atheist, but it doesn't make someone "just lacking belief", but rather showing that the person is having belief against the idea.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Did I say that? I thought you're the one who said that the bald person makes the claim of it being proper or not, i.e. the atheist being the one saying what belief is proper or not. Does the atheist know what a proper definition of God is? How can it be just "lack" in belief when it is a rejection? Knowing what God is supposed to be, and then reject that idea, that makes an atheist, but it doesn't make someone "just lacking belief", but rather showing that the person is having belief against the idea.

No. It has to do from where the root of the idea is.

If why do Christians not believe in Buddha? Is it because Buddha has not provided evidence? No. It is because they already believe in Jesus. They cannot believe in both Jesus and Buddha. So they deny Buddha based on what they believe.

An atheist does not accept Jesus. Why? It is because Jesus has not provided evidence. They do not have a belief already set in place that stops them from believing in Jesus. That is what I am. I lack a belief in Jesus. I don't reject him because of an already formulated belief.

 

[Ouroboros]

No. It has to do from where the root of the idea is.

If why do Christians not believe in Buddha? Is it because Buddha has not provided evidence? No. It is because they already believe in Jesus. They cannot believe in both Jesus and Buddha. So they deny Buddha based on what they believe.

An atheist does not accept Jesus. Why? It is because Jesus has not provided evidence. They do not have a belief already set in place that stops them from believing in Jesus. That is what I am. I lack a belief in Jesus. I don't reject him because of an already formulated belief.

Whatever. It has been discussed to no end in some other threads.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Whatever. It has been discussed to no end in some other threads.

Agreed.

 

[Curious George]

I believe that there is not sufficient evidence for god. Therefore I lack a belief in god.

Word games. You do not lack belief. Belief in god refers to gods objective existence. You have a belief regarding gods objective existence.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Word games. You do not lack belief. Belief in god refers to gods objective existence. You have a belief regarding gods objective existence.

I lack the belief that god exists. I do not have a belief that god doesn't exist either. I am unconvinced of god.

Having a belief regarding something in the general sense of the term is not the same as specifically believing something exists as explained.

 

[Curious George]

I think that the analogy is getting stretched to far to become useful. I am saying I don't have to propose that there is no god to not have a belief in a god.

No one said you did. What was pointed out is not believing god exists is just a characteristic of your belief. To say you lack belief is untrue.

 

[Curious George]

I lack the belief that god exists. I do not have a belief that god doesn't exist either. I am unconvinced of god.

Having a belief regarding something in the general sense of the term is not the same as specifically believing something exists as explained.

But you have a positive belief, which means you too have a burden of proof. You cannot use the label lack of belief to avoid a burden

 

[Yorutenchi]

No one said you did. What was pointed out is not believing god exists is just a characteristic of your belief. To say you lack belief is untrue.

I didn't say I lacked any beliefs. I said I lacked a belief in god. I like how I put it earlier.

I do not reject belief in god because of a pre-existing beilef. I reject the concept of god purely on the lack of evidence. My rejection is not a counterclaim. My rejection is not from a per-existing belief of which I would have to defend. If I did it would be that I believe that beliefs should be based on evidence. Do I need to supply a justification or evidence for the belief that beliefs should be based on evidence?

But you have a positive belief, which means you too have a burden of proof. You cannot use the label lack of belief to avoid a burden

What is my positive belief? Define it for me.

 

[Curious George]

I didn't say I lacked any beliefs. I said I lacked a belief in god. I like how I put it earlier.

I do not reject belief in god because of a pre-existing beilef. I reject the concept of god purely on the lack of evidence. My rejection is not a counterclaim. My rejection is not from a per-existing belief of which I would have to defend. If I did it would be that I believe that beliefs should be based on evidence. Do I need to supply a justification or evidence for the belief that beliefs should be based on evidence?

Yes, and show how a belief in god fits with these.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Yes, and show how a belief in god fits with these.

What part are you referring to specifically with this? I don't follow the context.

Secondly please answer my question. Define what it is that I have a positive belief in that I have failed to substantiate.

 

[Curious George]

What part are you referring to specifically with this? I don't follow the context.

Secondly please answer my question. Define what it is that I have a positive belief in that I have failed to substantiate.

Your positive belief is that concepts should be rejected until proven otherwise.

However you also believe that there is insufficient evidence.

That the evidence fails to reasonably prove that god exists (or does not exist).

That you understand the evidence about which you make such claims.

And then there are the positive claims necessary to dismiss any given evidence.

Really, the whole burden of proof argument is a weak argument.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Your positive belief is that concepts should be rejected until proven otherwise.

I suppose that is my belief but is also a logical necessity for debate. Otherwise there is no burden of proof and we could just go back and forth forever.

However you also believe that there is insufficient evidence.

I have objectively observed that there is insufficient evidence. Has there been any evidence that can't be written off as subjective experiences?

That the evidence fails to reasonably prove that god exists (or does not exist).

That you understand the evidence about which you make such claims.

And then there are the positive claims necessary to dismiss any given evidence.

Which are? I may believe that any piece of evidence is not real yes. But that does not require a positive claim on god.

Really, the whole burden of proof argument is a weak argument.

When you don't understand the reasoning of the burden of proof it seems that way.

 

[Curious George]

I suppose that is my belief but is also a logical necessity for debate. Otherwise there is no burden of proof and we could just go back and forth forever.

I have objectively observed that there is insufficient evidence. Has there been any evidence that can't be written off as subjective experiences?

Which are? I may believe that any piece of evidence is not real yes. But that does not require a positive claim on god.

When you don't understand the reasoning of the burden of proof it seems that way.

Incorrect, burden of proof can be used to exclude rather than accept. Yet another reason why burden of proof matters little in every dayc context.

Even your objective observations can be written off as subjective, so no...I suppose we could technically write all evidence off as subjective.

It does not require a positive claim on gods existence but it requires positive claims nonetheless.

Lol, I understand the burden of proof quite well. Certainly more so than people who think it is an effective argument against anything.

The only time a burden of proof argument is relevant is when an assumption is being made regarding how to handle the debate, case, or experiment.

The most interesting fact about burden of proof, is that we can even turn it on its head and require the burden to fall on someone who wishes to reject a proposition.

Ultimately, those who do not understand burden of proof tend to think too highly of the argument.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Incorrect, burden of proof can be used to exclude rather than accept. Yet another reason why burden of proof matters little in every dayc context.

It is inherently understood and utilized in almost every normal context of daily life.

Even your objective observations can be written off as subjective, so no...I suppose we could technically write all evidence off as subjective.

If It is an objective observation then it is objective. Something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time. What you mean to say is that you can't take my "word" for it. I agree. However objective evidence is evidence I can show you. ITs something you can see. Subjective evidence is something I am not able to show you.

It does not require a positive claim on gods existence but it requires positive claims nonetheless.

That is the whole argument. I don't have to make a positive claim on god's existence. Done deal. Boom /thread.

Lol, I understand the burden of proof quite well. Certainly more so than people who think it is an effective argument against anything.

The only time a burden of proof argument is relevant is when an assumption is being made regarding how to handle the debate, case, or experiment.

The most interesting fact about burden of proof, is that we can even turn it on its head and require the burden to fall on someone who wishes to reject a proposition.

You keep saying you understand teh burden of proof but then you turn around and say that it can be turned to the rejection. That is only ever true if there is evidence presented. It is NEVER upon the rejection of the proposal to bring evidence first. It is the burden of the claim to provide evidence first. Then counter-eviedence. Never counter-evidence first. Either you are speaking poorly or you actually don't understand it.

Ultimately, those who do not understand burden of proof tend to think too highly of the argument.

IT isn't an argument. Its simply a fact. If you wish to make a claim you must provide evidence of that claim. It is not up to anyone else to provide evidence your baseless assertion is not correct before you support it. Its not even an argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is inherently understood and utilized in almost every normal context of daily life.

If It is an objective observation then it is objective. Something cannot be both objective and subjective at the same time. What you mean to say is that you can't take my "word" for it. I agree. However objective evidence is evidence I can show you. ITs something you can see. Subjective evidence is something I am not able to show you.

That is the whole argument. I don't have to make a positive claim on god's existence. Done deal. Boom /thread.

You keep saying you understand teh burden of proof but then you turn around and say that it can be turned to the rejection. That is only ever true if there is evidence presented. It is NEVER upon the rejection of the proposal to bring evidence first. It is the burden of the claim to provide evidence first. Then counter-eviedence. Never counter-evidence first. Either you are speaking poorly or you actually don't understand it.

IT isn't an argument. Its simply a fact. If you wish to make a claim you must provide evidence of that claim. It is not up to anyone else to provide evidence your baseless assertion is not correct before you support it. Its not even an argument.

No, this is putting burden of proof on positions that one doesn't hold, arbitrarily, that's all. The reason why your position seems //objective/,correct to you, is because it seems like the best option/ argument. But it isn't, necessarily.

 

[Demonslayer]

Really, the whole burden of proof argument is a weak argument.

How so? Without it, anything can be true. The existence of Hobbits or fairies or leprechauns is as likely as the existence of Yahweh or Zeus. No one accepts the idea of leprechauns, you'd ask someone to prove it if they claimed they had one living in their backyard.

 

[Politesse]

How so? Without it, anything can be true. The existence of Hobbits or fairies or leprechauns is as likely as the existence of Yahweh or Zeus. No one accepts the idea of leprechauns, you'd ask someone to prove it if they claimed they had one living in their backyard.

"Common sense" over experimentation: the anti-scientific perspective summarized.

Sure, you're saying we ought to test things, but then you aren't waiting for them to be tested before coming to your conclusion. Or have you checked your yard for fairies lately?

 

[Demonslayer]

More importantly....how the heck do I make it so I don't get an e-mail every time someone responds to a post?? I'm new here and I shut off all my alerts, but my e-mail is blowing up!

 

[Yorutenchi]

No, this is putting burden of proof on positions that one doesn't hold, arbitrarily, that's all. The reason why your position seems //objective/,correct to you, is because it seems like the best option/ argument. But it isn't, necessarily.

What burden is put on someone who isn't supporting it?

Honestly I feel that is me. I do not support the claim god doesn't exist and don't argue for it. Yet that has been something they wanted me to provide.

But the burden of proof does have a clear place and it can be found logically. The point of burdens of proof is to remove this arbitrary issue.