All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists

[Desert Snake]

In argumentation it is absolutely your responsibility to support an affirmative claim.

The user claiming that deity does not exist is making an affirmative claim. You can make affirmative claims using negatives.
ie, I don't believe in ufo's, ufo's don't exist.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are responsible to support that claim.

So, I f I say, 'the moon does not exist'', I'm not responsible for the claim?lol
Your using a flawed method of determining ''burden of proof'', etc. it's hopelessly mixed up. I suggest you scrap it and start afresh, tbh.

 

[Curious George]

This is a nicely put argument (and of course I agree with it )

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

Lol, look what happens when atheism is poorly defined. We get sweeping statements that cause confusion.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Prove to me that He doesn't exist.

Nothing is first assumed to exist without evidence. That is an illogical axiom.

 

[leibowde84]

So, I f I say, 'the moon does not exist'', I'm not responsible for the claim?lol
Your using a flawed method of determining ''burden of proof'', etc. it's hopelessly mixed up. I suggest you scrap it and start afresh, tbh.

So, one person says the moon does exist, and the other said that it didn't? The burden would still be on the one claiming existence. It would be very easy for them to support their claim though. And pretty much impossible to refute.

The absurdity of the negative claim in response to the affirmative does not remove the burden. It merely makes the affirmative very easy to validly support.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nothing is first assumed to exist without evidence. That is an illogical axiom.

Your use of the word ''nothing'', is incorrect. Ie, there is nothing inherently more accurate or logical in assuming that there isn't a Deity. We don't start at ''no deity'', we start at /0/, in theory. /0/, isn't deity, or no deity, it's neither. This is theoretical, or rather basis of usage, as people generally apply other things to their beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

Lol, look what happens when atheism is poorly defined. We get sweeping statements that cause confusion.

What do you disagree with in the article and why? I admit the name is silly, but the article definitely makes a valid point. And, they used the qualifier "militant", so doesn't that support our argument?

 

[leibowde84]

Your use of the word ''nothing'', is incorrect. Ie, there is nothing inherently more accurate or logical in assuming that there isn't a Deity. We don't start at ''no deity'', we start at /0/, in theory. /0/, isn't deity, or no deity, it's neither. This is theoretical, or rather basis of usage, as people generally apply other things to their beliefs.

You just agreed with him. Neither belief nor disbelief is still not assuming existence. That is indisputably the case.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Your use of the word ''nothing'', is incorrect. Ie, there is nothing inherently more accurate or logical in assuming that there isn't a Deity. We don't start at ''no deity'', we start at /0/, in theory. /0/, isn't deity, or no deity, it's neither. This is theoretical, or rather basis of usage, as people generally apply other things to their beliefs.

I feel this is wrong. God is a concept. Any concept is not assumed to be correct until there is evidence. There are an infinite number of concepts that theoretically exist but are not considered correct as they do not have evidence to support them.

 

[Desert Snake]

You just agreed with him. Neither belief nor disbelief is still not assuming existence. That is indisputably the case.

No, I didn't agree with him. You would also not assume non-existence. Your use of this concept, is not practical at all. For example, using your usage, we leave logical inference behind, among other things.

 

[Yorutenchi]

No, I didn't agree with him. You would also not assume non-existence. Your use of this concept, is not practical at all. For example, using your usage, we leave logical inference behind, among other things.

Is god not a concept? Is there no concept of god? If there is then the default is to act in a way as if we were without that concept.

 

[Desert Snake]

I feel this is wrong. God is a concept. Any concept is not assumed to be correct until there is evidence. There are an infinite number of concepts that theoretically exist but are not considered correct as they do not have evidence to support them.

This would only be the case contextually. So, it loses practical argumentation purpose. If someone were to have obvious evidence of deity, and I did not, it would not change the fact that the person had evidence, whether I was aware of it, could prove it, etc. So, what we are actually doing, is making conclusions drawn from most probable, and even what we have a proclivity to. One of the problems with a broad atheistic stance is that it is actually difficult to support in the face of the statistical possibilities, that all the theists, who believe they have evidence, are incorrect. Explicit atheism , for example, would be pretty difficult for me to justify, considering the data and parameters for probability, that I employ. Certain deity concepts, that's easier, but even that is problematic. Once one has any evidence contrary to explicit atheism, or I would call it materialism, /as atheism isn't tenable imo/, it is almost impossible to come up with alternative 'certainties', and very problematic for alternative 'possibilities, as well. It can be done, but there is nothing inherently more probable with these alternative theories.

 

[Yorutenchi]

This would only be the case contextually. So, it loses practical argumentation purpose. If someone were to have obvious evidence of deity, and I did not, it would not change the fact the person had evidence, whether I was arare of it, could prove it, etc. So, what we are actually doing, is making conclusions drawn from most probable, and even what we have a proclivity to. One of the problems with a broad atheistic stance is that it is actually difficult to support in the face of the statistical possibilities that all the theists who believe they have evidence, is incorrect. Explicit atheism , for example, would be pretty difficult for me to justify, considering the data and parameters for probability that I employ. Certain deity concepts, that's easier, but even that is problematic. It's like when people on the net say something like, ''that image is scarred into my brain'', etc, .lol. Once any evidence contrary to explicit atheism, or I would call it materialism, /as atheism isn't tenable imo/, it is almost impossible to come up with alternative 'certainties', and very problematic for alternative 'possibilities, as well. It can be done, but there is nothing inherently more probable with these alternative theories.

There has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with the evidence and basis of concepts and ideas. Both in practical usage and in contextual diagrams this is true.

Another word for god other than concept could be theory. The theory of god and its evidence. So far there is no sufficient evidence. The evidence that doe exist is not verifiable and fails most commonly agreed upon basis for scrutiny. The number of people who believe matters not. The faith and compulsion of people matters not. Atheism itself is the realization that humanity as a whole is most likely wrong and that everything we think about the universe and the way that we seek knowledge and wisdom is wrong. There is already the declaration against all odds to be an atheist. And that is the point of it.

 

[Desert Snake]

There has nothing to do with statistics. It has to do with the evidence and basis of concepts and ideas. Both in practical usage and in contextual diagrams this is true.

Another word for god other than concept could be theory. The theory of god and its evidence. So far there is no sufficient evidence. The evidence that doe exist is not verifiable and fails most commonly agreed upon basis for scrutiny. The number of people who believe matters not. The faith and compulsion of people matters not. Atheism itself is the realization that humanity as a whole is most likely wrong and that everything we think about the universe and the way that we seek knowledge and wisdom is wrong. There is already the declaration against all odds to be an atheist. And that is the point of it.

Except, that I explained the problem with explicit atheism, /broadly/. It doesn't matter if one ''believes'' that I'm incorrect, the reality is that it has problems with evidence, and thus problems with inference. It's a declarative that ultimately is not logical, based on the parameters by which we would determine a logical declarative. That's fine. But it doesn't mean that I have to ''prove'' that your declarative is incorrect. Hence, we are back to the ''burden of proof'', subject proposed in the thread.
//Meaning, the burden of proof is not on my side, in this argument.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Except, that I explained the problem with explicit atheism, /broadly/. It doesn't matter if one ''believes'' that I'm incorrect, the reality is that it has problems with evidence, and thus problems with inference. It's a declarative that ultimately is not logical, based on the parameters by which we would determine a logical declarative. That's fine. But it doesn't mean that I have to ''prove'' that your declarative is incorrect. Hence, we are back to the ''burden of proof'', subject proposed in the thread.
//Meaning, the burden of proof is not on my side, in this argument.

Belief does not matter. Evidence matters. In the context of a discussion there is no logical reason to assume a concept or theory is correct without that evidence. It is the burden of the one claiming that it is correct. Always.

What is your side specifically that does not have burden of proof? I admit I am somewhat lost on that.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I didn't agree with him. You would also not assume non-existence. Your use of this concept, is not practical at all. For example, using your usage, we leave logical inference behind, among other things.

Do they assume A (God exists) or B (God doesn't exist)? No, they don't assume A, and they don't assume B.

Do they assume A? No.

 

[leibowde84]

Except, that I explained the problem with explicit atheism, /broadly/. It doesn't matter if one ''believes'' that I'm incorrect, the reality is that it has problems with evidence, and thus problems with inference. It's a declarative that ultimately is not logical, based on the parameters by which we would determine a logical declarative. That's fine. But it doesn't mean that I have to ''prove'' that your declarative is incorrect. Hence, we are back to the ''burden of proof'', subject proposed in the thread.
//Meaning, the burden of proof is not on my side, in this argument.

Who made the claim that God does not exist here, though?

 

[leibowde84]

Belief does not matter. Evidence matters. In the context of a discussion there is no logical reason to assume a concept or theory is correct without that evidence. It is the burden of the one claiming that it is correct. Always.

What is your side specifically that does not have burden of proof? I admit I am somewhat lost on that.

He is arguing that the side making the negative claim, that something (god) doesn't exist, has the burden of proof. He has yet to support this claim though. I explained that even with absurd negative claims, the burden is still on the one making the positive claim. It is just very easy to support the affirmative claim in that situation. He has yet to respond.

 

[Desert Snake]

Belief does not matter. Evidence matters. In the context of a discussion there is no logical reason to assume a concept or theory is correct without that evidence. It is the burden of the one claiming that it is correct. Always.

Atheism, /theoretically/, would use the same parameters to determine the best available option, or meta-option, regarding the existence of deities, or even broader ideas concerning theism, in all it's variations. So, no, there is no more burden of proof on theists to back up their beliefs ie ''claims'', in this context.

What is your side specifically that does not have burden of proof? I admit I am somewhat lost on that.

In this thread, ''theism''. Contextually for this argument, 'G-d' was the subject of the debate. So, G-d, or, my statement that G-d exists, vs. the statement, that deity does not exist. The original post/s/ also included, ''other beings'', and the user offered some examples which I believe are arbitrary.

 

[Quagmire]

Going to side with q konn on this one.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

A negative claim

is a colloquialism for an affirmed claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. The belief that a "negative" cannot be proved is incorrect: there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics including Arrow's impossibility theorem.

And:

edit[/URL]]

]When two parties are in a discussion and one affirms a claim that the other disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim.[1] An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[4]

I would add to that to say that just because someone is asking for validation of a negative claim, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that they're advocating for it's opposite:

Bob the mechanic: What's wrong with this car?

Bill the mechanic: The carburetors aren't getting any gas.

Bob the mechanic: What makes you think the carburetors aren't getting any gas?

Bill the mechanic: Well, what makes you think that they are?

(that cars probably not going to get fixed anytime soon)