Thank you. I'll amend my arguments to reflect that it's modern atheists who use the word for segregation.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ambiguity of Atheism
- Thread starter Acim
- Start date
Yes what "common sense" means has changed since ancient times but I've found that atheist is a dirty word still today, at least where I come from.
This thread is a perfect example of why I describe myself as a religious sceptic, rather than using that awful baggage-laden term 'atheist'.
A visitor from Mars who observed how the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' are bandied about could be forgiven for thinking that each was an independent entity existing of itself. But of course the fact of the matter is this: no theism, then no atheism. The latter is only a response to the former. So threads questioning atheism seem to me to be an intellectual red herring, especially since no individuals outside of religion who question or doubt particular arguments are immediately awarded, or take for themselves, a title specific to the matter in question. Attempting to put the onus on any individual who doubts mystical claims seems to imply incredulity on the part of the mystic, as if their arguments to the supernatural were somehow self-evident.
There's an element of sophistry and mischief in the ploy of failing to make a proper case and demanding of the doubters that they make theirs instead. Theism, when all is said and done, is only a belief. And in response to that specious back-to-front way of doing things I look to invoke the anlaogy of the river jump. If someone claimed to be able to leap across a river, ten metres in width, the onus would then be upon that person to show me that they can in fact clear that distance. It wouldnt be up to me to carry out tests, apply physics, use biologically inspired models or attempt to jump the river myself!
A visitor from Mars who observed how the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' are bandied about could be forgiven for thinking that each was an independent entity existing of itself. But of course the fact of the matter is this: no theism, then no atheism. The latter is only a response to the former. So threads questioning atheism seem to me to be an intellectual red herring, especially since no individuals outside of religion who question or doubt particular arguments are immediately awarded, or take for themselves, a title specific to the matter in question. Attempting to put the onus on any individual who doubts mystical claims seems to imply incredulity on the part of the mystic, as if their arguments to the supernatural were somehow self-evident.
There's an element of sophistry and mischief in the ploy of failing to make a proper case and demanding of the doubters that they make theirs instead. Theism, when all is said and done, is only a belief. And in response to that specious back-to-front way of doing things I look to invoke the anlaogy of the river jump. If someone claimed to be able to leap across a river, ten metres in width, the onus would then be upon that person to show me that they can in fact clear that distance. It wouldnt be up to me to carry out tests, apply physics, use biologically inspired models or attempt to jump the river myself!
But what if everyone else does believe that Someone is able to leap across that ten metre river? Wouldn't it be odd for you to be the only one, or one of a few, that doesn't believe it?
Would you not want to know why someone doesn't believe that the Earth revolves around the sun? How about someone who lacks belief in the existence of oxygen? Should these people not have to explain their stances simply because they hold a negative, rather than a positive, position?
For such a prevalent belief, I do think that it's a fair question to ask atheists to explain how they came to that worldview. I have never understood the argument that demands a rational basis for a positive belief, but lets a negative belief, or even a "lack of belief", get by scot free.
All those examples you used need the person to present the evidence. A person doesn't need to present evidence that oxygen or fairies don't exist, how could that be done. If it exists then show it.
I could say I've been to the moon so if someone believe it or not doesn't matter but someone who doesn't believe me doesn't need to prove anything, it would be up to me to provide evidence.
So yes, someone with a "lack" of belief gets off scot free since something that doesn't exist will never have evidence.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Language change is natural and inevitable. Words never lose meaning or interpretation. In this case, we are not speaking of a word borrowed from Greek, but from French. The negative "a-" prefix exists as a productive prefix in English, but it is not the same prefix that the Greeks used, and it usually only attaches to adjectives as such. When English speakers came to use the French word, they just used it in its French meaning.
But what a word means isn't a question of preference. It is a question of how people actually use the word in practice. It means what it means because of the way speakers use it, not because of its origin.
To the extent that the word "god" means anything at all, belief in the existence of a god is something that someone can choose to accept, reject, or take no stand on. I do not believe that the concept of a "god" is any harder to grasp than any other word of English. Gods are beings that think and act, just like us. They are thought to be immensely powerful--in control of physical reality--and people usually seek to influence their behavior by praising them and asking them for favors. The concept is well-enough understood around the world in many languages, not just English.
That's not the argument. Does everyone believe that an individual is able to leap a ten metre river?
While I would want to hear an explanation of why or how the Earth revolves round the sun, just as I would wish to have the existence of oxygen explained to me, neither of those things are being presented as anything but empirical probabilities, that is to say therories subject to the scientific method. No argument is ever proposed solely under those terms in the case of theism. In fact to do so would be absurd, since belief in God is held as an article of faith.
I'm sorry but I really cannot stress how strongly I disagree. The point here is that the rational argument demanded is never delivered! One can make a philosophical argument for the existence of a Supreme Being from a teleological view, from a causal explanation or even from pure logic alone, but that is not the case made by theists who, although they might refer to the foregoing to support their doctrine, have their beliefs from faith and not from philosophy or rational argument alone. It is not therefore incumbent upon the sceptic or unbeliever to rationally defend his or her doubt against what cannot be subjected to rational examination. If 'God exists' is indeed true, then it is for the believer to show how that proposition is true. And I most certainly don't see a lack of belief in this matter somehow being seen as 'getting off scot free'! Does an individual really have to justify seeing no reason to believe as faith in an otherworldly, or supernatural being?
If a person believes that oxygen doesn't exist, then yes, he would have to give a pretty darn good reason for not believing it.
Look at Copernicus and Galileo. They needed to provide some pretty strong evidence for their disbelief that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. They didn't just get to say "Jeez, guys. I need no reason to not believe you. It's up to you to prove your stance."
The whole position is pretty childish, in my opinion.
I'm not talking about "proof". I'm talking about reason, evidence, explanation, etc. You should have an argument to back up any claim you make. If you don't, then it's not a very good claim to have.idav said:
There still are reasons for not believing in the existence of something. You can never prove it's non-existence with 100% certainty, but then again, is there anything we know with 100% certainty?idav said:
Some reasons you could give off the top of my head: Lack of evidence. The inclination of humans to ascribe agency to natural events. The vast discrepancies in the descriptions of god. The evolutionary and power-obtaining advantages of religion (explaining it's origin). I'm sure you can think of some too, already have your reasons for your stance.
Last edited:
Did you not realize that was a hypothetical? If we are relating your 10 meter river jump to the question of god's existence, then yes, belief in the existence of god vastly outnumbers disbelief.
You are moving the goal posts. The argument is that "those making a positive claim have the burden of proof." There is no caveat that says "this only applies to non-science based questions." Either positive and negative claims both have a burden or not; you can't pick and choose.cottage said:
So your response is to say "I'm not going to give you a rational argument either"? How does that make sense? If the other party fails in supporting their view, that does not mean that your view automatically wins without having to present a shred of reason.cottage said:
You are exhibiting your bias. Most theists claim experience as evidence for their belief in the existence of God. What makes you disbelieve their claims?cottage said:
If the arguement against theism is so self-evident, than why do you go through such lengths to avoid making that arguement? Wouldn't it be easier, and less jerk-like, to simply respond to a theist's question with your reasons for disbelief, rather than this whole spiel about how you aren't required to have any reasons?cottage said:
And yes, I firmly stand by this: Regardless of your belief, claim, position, etc, you ought to be able to explain why you hold that particular stance. If you can't, then it's time to re-evaluate.
Someone is making a claim. Whether it is a claim that the earth is flat or a claim that the earth is round. Whoever is making the claim needs to prove it.
Agreed
That is the thing. It is silly to try and prove the non-existence of something. Nobody is ever going to search the entire universe to prove something does not exist. If there is a claim that something is true or that something exists then they should show the evidence. Not believing doesn't require showing evidence but someone can certainly show them evidence in the form of photos or whatever to prove the non-believer wrong.
Yes lack of evidence is always the issue. Until there is evidence there is no reason to believe it other than wanting to.
Your example was of everyone believing something. Should we believe it cause a bunch of people say something happened. Depends. Most the world believes in a god but there isn't evidence for it so what then? There is the story of Fatima that a bunch of people witnessed? Do we believe them? What if a bunch of people said some dude named Jesus Copperfield walked on water should we believe them or wait for the video confirmation?
Okay, we agree there. But I take it a step further, perhaps. I believe that saying "I don't believe that" is just as much a claim. Why wouldn't it be? It is displaying your concept of how the universe is, which afterall, is all a claim is.
I agree that we can never prove the non-existence of something 100%. Which tells me that the belief "Gods do not exist" is not a good belief to hold. But most atheists don't believe that; most are pretty content with "I believe it is unlikely that gods exist" or "I believe that the god hypothesis is unlikely." Why does this stance not require any supporting material?idav said:
We agree that theists should ante up their evidence. Why shouldn't atheists as well? What is lost by doing so? More importantly, what is lost by not doing so?
No. My point was that if the majority of people believe something, and the disbelief is the minority view, than the disbelief does, reasonably, have more explaining to do. It does not absolve the majority from their evidence-producing duties as well. But it does give the minority a greater responsibility. Afterall, reality is essentially defined by what the most people agree upon.idav said:
Of course we can never prove the non-existence of something 100% and that endeavor would be futile. We never go about trying to prove something exists we do it the other way. We try to prove something exists or something happened based on evidence. Since there will NEVER be evidence for something not existing there is no proof to have for it.
Yes... adjectives like "abiogenesis" and "apathy".
Well, it's a good thing that's not what I'm suggesting we must do.
Evidence does not equal proof.idav said:
Are you really saying that there is no evidence for your position? Then why do you hold it? Doesn't that strike you as a bad thing?
If there is no evidence for the existence of god and no evidence for the non-existence of god, then what's the rational difference in holding either belief?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
The prefix in "apathy" is not productive, since there is no stem "-pathy" to affix it to. You might try to make a case for a kind of negative prefix for nouns that belong to the loosely-defined class of Latinate (i.e. Greek + Latin) words, but you would find that the productivity of that prefix is extremely uneven.
Seriously, Penguin, I do know what I am talking about here. I have taught courses and written research papers on morphology. Latinate morphology, which is what we are talking about with loan words of Greek and Latin origin, can actually get quite complex.
Is your intention here to say that the so-called "etymological fallacy" is not really a fallacy or that genetic fallacies as a class are not really fallacies? What is your ultimate point?
Well I'm no atheist but if I was there would be no evidence to give for such a position. How would someone provide evidence for something that doesn't exist whether it be god or me having been to the moon.
With my personal opinion I can't very well point to a tree and say it is evidence of god. My position is that there must be a source for everything and that remnants of that source is around us today. Not sure any of that can be considered evidence.
I'm asking how can someone provide evidence for something that doesn't exist.He's saying there really is no evidence for God.
And the great part is, the way he's set it up, he doesn't need evidence that there's no evidence for God.
Evidence of no evidence is interesting though.
You're correct that no one can provide evidence for non-existence, but the claim that God doesn't exist is a different thing.I'm asking how can someone provide evidence for something that doesn't exist.
Evidence of no evidence is interesting though.
Regardless of how you say it, if you have a stance, you gotta be able to support it.He's saying there really is no evidence for God.
And the great part is, the way he's set it up, he doesn't need evidence that there's no evidence for God.
As for claiming that there is no evidence for god, you just ain't looking hard enough. There's evidence. It's just not convincing. And as mentioned before, just because someone else's argument sucks doesn't give you the license to have a sucky arguement too.
I've given a couple of reasons. And note, that they are reasons for believing that it is unlikely that god exists. A subtle difference there.
Lack of evidence is indeed evidence; it's just not proof. Do you understand the difference?
General knowledge about how people end up on the moon would provide reasons for disbelieving that you've been on the moon. I can't prove that you haven't been up there. But I can provide good reasons for assuming that you have not. Same with the question of the existence of god.