Ambiguity of Atheism

[cottage]

You stated that there was "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." While I agree that theists should be held accountable, I was merely pointing out that it is not unreasonable to desire an explanation of an atheist's stance as well. One of the reasons why it is not unreasonable is that the majority of people on Earth do believe in the existence of God, making the atheist belief a minority. That is what my original post in response to your post was about (post 84, page 9).

I see absolutely no benefit derived from the spiraling argument about who is responsible for making their argument first. And that is what I was reacting against in your post.

It is a peculiar argument to say because 80% of people in the world are in some sense religious, or have some kind of spiritual or mystical belief (which, incidentally, doesn’t necessarily include ‘God’ or gods in every case), the 20% who don’t share those beliefs are therefore expected to justify to the 80% their lack of emotional, superstitious or faith-based beliefs in mystical beings and the supernatural! Since believers’ faith-based arguments reject probability in favour of certain truth, the obvious question is why do the majority not use their 80% worth of claimed certainty to soundly trump the doubtful minority in an instant, proving once and for all that the doubts are misplaced instead of demanding of the poor old Twenty-Percenters that they must make a case for being unconvinced? As to the question of who is responsible for making their argument first, it is self-evident that the antecedent position lies with the theists - as I’ve already said elsewhere: no theism, then no atheism.

While belief of the majority is not proof of the truth of the belief, it does lend it some credence; it is evidence in the belief's favor. That is simply how our minds work in the real world.

But I was not using the argumentum ad populum as proof for theism. I was using it as a reason why atheists have a responsibility to present their own argument.

It isn’t evidence for other worlds (i.e. gods, etc); it is merely evidence that a [questionable] majority are superstitious or are attracted to metaphysical systems or that they believe-as-faith in a supernatural being. The ‘real world’ you speak of is the empirical world, a world of facts and possible experience where everything is open to being challenged or being shown to be wrong. Mystical beliefs have no right to automatic credibility since the claims are made from a supposed certainty that is never demonstrated! The litmus test of ‘reasonableness’, therefore, is entirely on the part of the mystic, who having made a claim to the ‘truth’ should be expected to show how and why it is true, rather than passing it to the doubter with the challenge to disprove it or come up with, for example, an ‘alternative world view’ (another example of obfuscation and fallacious argumentation based on the false premise that if the sceptic cannot account for the world then it follows that theism is true by default, a common component in transcendental arguments and the POE).

How is a negative stance (I don't believe in the existence of gods) any less of a stance than the positive (I believe in the existence of gods)? Heck, even someone with the "Oh, I just lack a belief in the existence of gods" is still taking a position. We all are asserting something.

I’m sorry but you have it wrong. ‘I don’t believe in the existence of gods’ is not an assertion. An assertion is: ‘There are no gods’ or God does not exist’. It happens to be the case that I don’t believe in alien species; I don’t even believe that there are alien species. I’m not asserting that there are no alien species, since there might be! All I’m doing is giving you my thoughts, the content or present state of my mind on the subject. But if alien species there are, then alien species exist and I can confidentially assert that fact. And so it is with the argument to gods.

 

[Falvlun]

It is a peculiar argument to say because 80% of people in the world are in some sense religious, or have some kind of spiritual or mystical belief (which, incidentally, doesn’t necessarily include ‘God’ or gods in every case), the 20% who don’t share those beliefs are therefore expected to justify to the 80% their lack of emotional, superstitious or faith-based beliefs in mystical beings and the supernatural! Since believers’ faith-based arguments reject probability in favour of certain truth, the obvious question is why do the majority not use their 80% worth of claimed certainty to soundly trump the doubtful minority in an instant, proving once and for all that the doubts are misplaced instead of demanding of the poor old Twenty-Percenters that they must make a case for being unconvinced? As to the question of who is responsible for making their argument first, it is self-evident that the antecedent position lies with the theists - as I’ve already said elsewhere: no theism, then no atheism.

You keep trying to make my position seem more extreme than it actually is. I am not saying that atheists are solely responsible for presenting evidence, nor am I saying that theists have no responsibilities whatsoever. I am merely pointing out that it is reasonable to ask atheists to explain why they believe-- or don't believe-- what they do. And part of why that is a reasonable request is that their belief is in the minority.

It isn’t evidence for other worlds (i.e. gods, etc); it is merely evidence that a [questionable] majority are superstitious or are attracted to metaphysical systems or that they believe-as-faith in a supernatural being. The ‘real world’ you speak of is the empirical world, a world of facts and possible experience where everything is open to being challenged or being shown to be wrong. Mystical beliefs have no right to automatic credibility since the claims are made from a supposed certainty that is never demonstrated!

A majority belief is given credibility simply by virtue of being a majority belief. It might not be a lot, it might not be great evidence, but it does lend credibility nonetheless.

You say we live in an empircal world. Yes we do. And millions of people have claimed experience with God, or gods, and other things of a spirtual nature. Experience is the rudimentary basis of empiricism. That is why it is not so easy to simply brush off the experiences of all these people.

The litmus test of ‘reasonableness’, therefore, is entirely on the part of the mystic, who having made a claim to the ‘truth’ should be expected to show how and why it is true, rather than passing it to the doubter with the challenge to disprove it or come up with, for example, an ‘alternative world view’ (another example of obfuscation and fallacious argumentation based on the false premise that if the sceptic cannot account for the world then it follows that theism is true by default, a common component in transcendental arguments and the POE).

Again, I have never argued that theists don't have a responsibility to support their own stance.

I’m sorry but you have it wrong. ‘I don’t believe in the existence of gods’ is not an assertion. An assertion is: ‘There are no gods’ or God does not exist’. It happens to be the case that I don’t believe in alien species; I don’t even believe that there are alien species. I’m not asserting that there are no alien species, since there might be! All I’m doing is giving you my thoughts, the content or present state of my mind on the subject. But if alien species there are, then alien species exist and I can confidentially assert that fact. And so it is with the argument to gods.

"I don't believe" is an assertion; it is only in overthought, armchair philosophical debate sites like this that people try to argue that it's not.

You are, in effect, asserting that the evidence, or reasons, are not convincing enough for you to believe in it. As mentioned to idav, we do not just reject reasons or evidence willy-nilly. We have reasons for rejecting that evidence. And those reasons are just as much statements of "this is how the world is" as anything else.

Furthermore, in any normal conversation, "I don't believe..." means "I believe not...". It is only in the semantical squirreliness of atheist debating that it takes on this nebulous "I have no position" stance.

 

[Willamena]

"I don't believe" is an assertion; it is only in overthought, armchair philosophical debate sites like this that people try to argue that it's not.

And even then, they're wrong.

There is no epistemology without ontology.

 

[idav]

The fuzzy nature of a definition for God is what makes the concept of God plausible. If we find a clear cut definition of God, that would be evidence against God's existence.

(Trying to use another similarly irrational and bizarre type claim as this one above, to fit into this thread.)

If it is unexplainable it must exist. That does seem a bit like telling someone 'they believe they do not believe'.

 

[idav]

We have reasons for rejecting that evidence. And those reasons are just as much statements of "this is how the world is" as anything else.

Furthermore, in any normal conversation, "I don't believe..." means "I believe not...". It is only in the semantical squirreliness of atheist debating that it takes on this nebulous "I have no position" stance.

We have reasons but sometimes if something doesn't exist there simply isn't evidence of it. Should we be considering all claims as rational evidence for there side when it is evidence for something else all together? Thats where I think perception comes into play. If something doesn't exist what evidence is being rejected where theists say "creation is evidence of a creator" as if atheists are crazy rejecting basic reality.

 

[Falvlun]

We have reasons but sometimes if something doesn't exist there simply isn't evidence of it. Should we be considering all claims as rational evidence for there side when it is evidence for something else all together? Thats where I think perception comes into play. If something doesn't exist what evidence is being rejected where theists say "creation is evidence of a creator" as if atheists are crazy rejecting basic reality.

Okay. Let's take your own example. The theist claims that creation is evidence of a Creator. The atheist rejects that claim. Why? There are a couple reasons.

1) The claim is begging the question: Of course, a creation would require a creator. But has the universe been shown to be a creation? So, the claim can be rejected on its fallacious nature. Or you can ask for evidence that the universe is a creation. Which is usually fruitless, or will lead to reason #2 for rejection.

2) There is increasing scientific evidence that it is possible for the universe, and the life within it, to have formed through natural causes: Evolution, Big Bang (and related theories), abiogenesis, etc.

To be able to utilize reason #2, however, you must have a worldview which accepts these sorts of scientific theories. In essence, you are making the claim that you are placing your trust in the truth of science.

And no, not every reason put forth by theists (or atheists for that matter) are sound bits of evidence (like your "creation needs a creator example). But that still doesn't mean that you don't need to know why they are unsound (or, at the very least, why you reject them.)

 

[Acim]

If it is unexplainable it must exist.

No, it's clearly explainable. It's just not readily definable. And that's what gives it plausible existence.

(Hint: Think about species concept)

 

[Copernicus]

I’m sorry but you have it wrong. ‘I don’t believe in the existence of gods’ is not an assertion. An assertion is: ‘There are no gods’ or God does not exist’. It happens to be the case that I don’t believe in alien species; I don’t even believe that there are alien species. I’m not asserting that there are no alien species, since there might be! All I’m doing is giving you my thoughts, the content or present state of my mind on the subject. But if alien species there are, then alien species exist and I can confidentially assert that fact. And so it is with the argument to gods.

Cottage, your grammar and your reasoning are incorrect on this point. "I don't believe in the existence of God" is an assertion. What you are saying is that it is a logically different assertion than the one that Falvlun attributes to it. You are claiming that it is merely an assertion of what you believe, not an assertion of the non-existence of God. Now it is technically correct that you could only be making an assertion about what you do not believe in and nothing more. However, there is another level of complexity to speech acts that we are all intuitively aware of. Philosophers and linguists talk about indirect speech acts and conversational implicatures. To give a crude example, you can use the question "Why believe in God?" either as a genuine question or a suggestion that one ought not to believe in God (sometimes called a rhetorical question).

So the claim "I don't believe in God" could be just an assertion about belief, as you have claimed, but it quite often takes on a different interpretation in a conversation where an atheist makes the assertion, because the atheist's lack of belief is already known. Normally, you do not assert what everyone already knows, so people attribute an indirect meaning--that it is really an assertion that you have a good reason not to believe in God. The expectation is that you can back your lack of belief up with a substantive argument, not just an argument that people who disagree have no good reason to disagree (which they usually do not have) .

 

[cottage]

Cottage, your grammar and your reasoning are incorrect on this point. "I don't believe in the existence of God" is an assertion. What you are saying is that it is a logically different assertion than the one that Falvlun attributes to it. You are claiming that it is merely an assertion of what you believe, not an assertion of the non-existence of God. Now it is technically correct that you could only be making an assertion about what you do not believe in and nothing more. However, there is another level of complexity to speech acts that we are all intuitively aware of. Philosophers and linguists talk about indirect speech acts and conversational implicatures. To give a crude example, you can use the question "Why believe in God?" either as a genuine question or a suggestion that one ought not to believe in God (sometimes called a rhetorical question).

So the claim "I don't believe in God" could be just an assertion about belief, as you have claimed, but it quite often takes on a different interpretation in a conversation where an atheist makes the assertion, because the atheist's lack of belief is already known. Normally, you do not assert what everyone already knows, so people attribute an indirect meaning--that it is really an assertion that you have a good reason not to believe in God. The expectation is that you can back your lack of belief up with a substantive argument, not just an argument that people who disagree have no good reason to disagree (which they usually do not have) .

Yes, I see what you're saying, but it doesn't really reflect my position on the matter because there is an important distinction to be made. I don't believe in gods (polytheism), nor do I believe that there is a God if we're speaking of some kind of entity in religious terms. But since I've argued elsewhere for the logically possible existence of a Necessary Being I'm certainly not going to pin myself down with assertions to the opposite. My general arguments centre on a supposed, omnipotent, benevolent, worshipful being who is said to have done, and will yet do, particular things. I am on record as stating, ie asserting, no such a being exists. That is the difference.

 

[cottage]

You keep trying to make my position seem more extreme than it actually is. I am not saying that atheists are solely responsible for presenting evidence, nor am I saying that theists have no responsibilities whatsoever. I am merely pointing out that it is reasonable to ask atheists to explain why they believe-- or don't believe-- what they do. And part of why that is a reasonable request is that their belief is in the minority.

A majority belief is given credibility simply by virtue of being a majority belief. It might not be a lot, it might not be great evidence, but it does lend credibility nonetheless.

It seems to me that you think theism and atheism are somehow equal and that atheism needs to justify itself to theism. My understanding is, as with any argument, that those making a claim are to put their case and the sceptics or unbelievers then question it. That is the proper way that an argument is conducted. This skewed idea that sceptics have to justify their reasons for their disbelief is sidestepping the very issue in question: the advocate’s claims to the truth. Now, once again back to the river analogy. What is the relative importance of my reasons for thinking the jump impossible or improbable, compared with the person who is making the claim? What settles the matter, my reasons for doubting or the actual of act of proving the claim true?

And I must take issue with what you claim is a majority belief, which is wrong on two counts. Firstly it is fallacious to argue that something has, or may have, a truth-value due the number of people that subscribe to it; and secondly there is no all-encompassing element that joins together all mystical belief systems and all believers. A belief is not given credibility ‘by virtue of being a majority belief.’ But it may, however, be given a fair hearing on that basis. The credibility of the belief will only be apparent, or not, when the arguments are properly heard and considered. Figures alone do not award credibility on a claim, which is just calling upon the classic appeal to the people argument once again. Why, for example, should the views of 1000 people who believe in a supernatural being from faith alone be more credible than 100 who do not, ie why does credibility depend upon numbers, rather than the substance of the claim? And why are the faith-based 1000 given the greater benefit of the doubt in the matter of truth/falsehood, while the 100 are not? And are the unbelieving 100 to be given no credibility for their not unreasonable position?

You say we live in an empircal world. Yes we do. And millions of people have claimed experience with God, or gods, and other things of a spirtual nature. Experience is the rudimentary basis of empiricism. That is why it is not so easy to simply brush off the experiences of all these people.

But it is also the case that millions of people, if we’re to bandy unverified numbers, have never experienced God and gods, including a great many who believe in them! It’s not as if its true that religious beliefs only have their inception through experience or personal revelation; in fact the common understanding of religious faith is that it is held in spite of proof or any belief-confirming experiences. So there is nothing to say these ‘millions’ have all had godly or spiritual experiences, and we know there are plenty of religious believers who have never made such claims. Then there are the religions that do not feature gods at all, as well as those with pagan beliefs. And we must not forget the contradictory nature of many of the beliefs, which effectively cancel one another out. There are also those who say rather vaguely ‘I believe in something’! So these ‘millions of people’ do not have a single, universal and coherent belief. It is misleading to lump them altogether with all their manifest differences and then appeal to their numbers as if there were some unifying necessary link, other than belief in ‘something’.

"I don't believe" is an assertion; it is only in overthought, armchair philosophical debate sites like this that people try to argue that it's not.

There is actually a subtle difference between ‘I don’t believe in God’ and ‘There is no God.’ The latter statement is making an adamant assertion, which we should rightly expect to be followed with demonstration or proof, just as we would for the assertion ‘God exists’. It won’t surprise you that I believe there is no ‘God’. But the prefix ‘I believe’ is necessary to distinguish the remark from a claim to some fact or demonstration. I use this in the same way that I don’t believe there are aliens species (because none have been found or seen), but I’m not claiming alien existence is impossible.

You are, in effect, asserting that the evidence, or reasons, are not convincing enough for you to believe in it. As mentioned to idav, we do not just reject reasons or evidence willy-nilly. We have reasons for rejecting that evidence. And those reasons are just as much statements of "this is how the world is" as anything else.

Yes, I am saying that ‘the evidence or reasons are not convincing enough for me to believe in it’. But I think there might be some confusion here between the term ‘reject’ and ‘dismiss’? I regularly reject arguments, some of them out of hand, but always with arguments of my own. But I have never yet dismissed one.
But let me give you a different, albeit hypothetical scenario. Now of course I’m a sceptic, well used to the rough and tumble of the forums. But in ordinary life individuals are not required to give reasons or justify a lack of belief in supernatural beings or religious doctrines. And why should they? People either have faith or they don’t, and generally there is no intense level of introspection in order to come to the view that they do, as if they were missing a necessary truth. Those same individuals might visit a forum such as this expecting those with faith to provide an argument to the contrary, but instead they find they are expected to account for their own disbelief. Now isn’t that an odd state of affairs? Something is said to be true but nobody can show that it is true, and yet the unbeliever is expected to show that this thing that is said to true, but which cannot be shown to be true, isn’t a thing that is true! All very Lewis Carroll!

So what I’m saying, and I hope this is the last time I need to reiterate it, is that atheism is only a response to theism and theists cannot make claims to certainty from mysticism and then expect the sceptic to disprove them, or fail to make a proper argument. How I am I to build an appropriate response if the advocate refuses to properly engage with me? The arguments for mystical beings and their works are propositional, something is being asserted as certain and true, but the evidence can be rejected on the grounds that it argues from inference or revelation or indirectly from other sources. The bottom line here is that the theist claim to the ‘Truth’ is never established.

 

[Copernicus]

There is actually a subtle difference between ‘I don’t believe in God’ and ‘There is no God.’ The latter statement is making an adamant assertion, which we should rightly expect to be followed with demonstration or proof, just as we would for the assertion ‘God exists’. It won’t surprise you that I believe there is no ‘God’. But the prefix ‘I believe’ is necessary to distinguish the remark from a claim to some fact or demonstration. I use this in the same way that I don’t believe there are aliens species (because none have been found or seen), but I’m not claiming alien existence is impossible.

You are assuming a conversational context to explain your use of "I believe that there is no God", and it is a plausible one. You could just be mitigating the force of the statement by treating it as an opinion rather than a bald assertion. However, it would be odd to claim "I do not believe that there are alien species" when, in fact, you do believe they exist but they just haven't been discovered yet.

I can certainly agree with you that you are not required to justify your lack of belief in gods any more than others are required to justify their belief in gods. You have the same right to your opinions as anyone else. But we are really talking about the context of a religious debate in which there are two opposing opinions and an obligation on both sides to defend a controversial opinion. In such a case, there is a presumption that the minority opinion is more in need of defense than the majority one. It is reasonable to point out that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and that the burden of proof lies on those who make a positive claim, but those are fairly weak debate strategies. You probably would not deny the existence of Santa Claus on the grounds that we haven't found any evidence of his existence. That would convey the false impression that such a being is plausible, when one could make a much stronger case for not believing.

 

[cottage]

You are assuming a conversational context to explain your use of "I believe that there is no God", and it is a plausible one. You could just be mitigating the force of the statement by treating it as an opinion rather than a bald assertion. However, it would be odd to claim "I do not believe that there are alien species" when, in fact, you do believe they exist but they just haven't been discovered yet.

If I’m saying I don’t believe in alien species, I am not therefore saying ‘I do believe they exist but they just haven’t been discovered yet’. That would absurd and contradictory. To clarify, I’m saying I do not believe that aliens species exist, but the existence of alien species is nevertheless possible. And the same applies in the case of the bare-bones concept of Supreme Being.

I can certainly agree with you that you are not required to justify your lack of belief in gods any more than others are required to justify their belief in gods. You have the same right to your opinions as anyone else. But we are really talking about the context of a religious debate in which there are two opposing opinions and an obligation on both sides to defend a controversial opinion. In such a case, there is a presumption that the minority opinion is more in need of defense than the majority one.

I completely disagree for two reasons. First of all I question your use of the term ‘majority’ for the several reasons that I’ve already given to another contributor. And secondly we are not simply discussing a situation where the views of a minority need to be justified because they are extreme or out of kilter with general experience. Conversely and as a matter of plain fact, it is your so-called ‘majority’ who hold to an extreme view and make a claim to the ‘Truth’ that, historically, they have been signally unable to demonstrate. But where you are saying both sides have an obligation to defend their arguments, then my reply is: well of course!

It is reasonable to point out that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and that the burden of proof lies on those who make a positive claim, but those are fairly weak debate strategies. You probably would not deny the existence of Santa Claus on the grounds that we haven't found any evidence of his existence. That would convey the false impression that such a being is plausible, when one could make a much stronger case for not believing.

The tired old Santa Claus chestnut is itself a fallacious form of argument. Nobody…nobody, has ever advocated Santa as to be anything but mythical. And that also includes the other worn-out cliches like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns and mermaids.

And, again, I have already given a list of reasons why an appeal to the people is fallacious in this case, and not a mere ‘debating strategy’ as you imply.

 

[Copernicus]

If I’m saying I don’t believe in alien species, I am not therefore saying ‘I do believe they exist but they just haven’t been discovered yet’. That would absurd and contradictory. To clarify, I’m saying I do not believe that aliens species exist, but the existence of alien species is nevertheless possible. And the same applies in the case of the bare-bones concept of Supreme Being.

Independently of context, the utterance "I do not believe that alien species exist" is ambiguous between an assertion that you have no such belief and that you have a negative belief in their existence. That ambiguity is well known, and I can prove it again for you, if you don't believe me. I refrain from doing that here, because I've done it before in threads that you've participated in.

I completely disagree for two reasons. First of all I question your use of the term ‘majority’ for the several reasons that I’ve already given to another contributor...

I stand by my the claim that it is a 'majority' position. Almost every culture has a religion with gods in it. The concept of gods is fairly common across human cultures and pervasive. Atheism has almost always been a minority position in every culture, even in countries where it is much more popular than in the US. We aren't talking about belief in any particular gods, but in the proposition that any gods at all exist. It may not be logical, but the popularity of a belief does affect the degree to which you must mount a case against it in the context of a public debate.

And secondly we are not simply discussing a situation where the views of a minority need to be justified because they are extreme or out of kilter with general experience. Conversely and as a matter of plain fact, it is your so-called ‘majority’ who hold to an extreme view and make a claim to the ‘Truth’ that, historically, they have been signally unable to demonstrate.

I disagree with your expression "out of kilter with general experience". It is out of kilter with how you and I interpret experience. Experience is necessarily a subjective phenomenon, and, although your experience may share the same putative "reality" as the theist, you impose different interpretations on it and standards for evaluating it. I can certainly agree with your point that theists have been "signally unable" to demonstrate the existence of any god, but that is an incredibly weak argument to make with someone who believes that theists have demonstrated the plausibility of the belief. To many theists, it just sounds like you are dodging the question.

But where you are saying both sides have an obligation to defend their arguments, then my reply is: well of course!

But I am not just saying that. I am saying that how people defend their arguments is important. Falling back on the argument that theists have failed to make their case, especially before any real discussion has started, is just lame. Most theists do believe that they have and can make their case. If they didn't, they wouldn't be trying to debate skeptics.

The tired old Santa Claus chestnut is itself a fallacious form of argument. Nobody…nobody, has ever advocated Santa as to be anything but mythical. And that also includes the other worn-out cliches like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns and mermaids.

First of all, you are wrong that "nobody has ever advocated Santa, unicorns, and mermaids as anything but mythical". Adults advocate Santa as real to children all the time, and unicorns and mermaids have been taken seriously in the past as real beings by adults. Ironically, what you are doing here is making an argument based on popularity. Just because very few people nowadays argue the existence of those beings seriously, that does not logically imply that they do not exist. The reason you are putting it in that way is that we all intuitively buy off on the idea that the popularity of a belief is something that matters when arguing a point. And that is exactly my point. Gods are no more plausible than Santa Claus, mermaids, or unicorns to me. (The latter two things are actually more plausible.) But large numbers of people take them seriously enough that my skepticism demands something more than a blanket claim that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof.

And, again, I have already given a list of reasons why an appeal to the people is fallacious in this case, and not a mere 'debating strategy' as you imply.

And I have already affirmed that appeal to popularity is a fallacy. That isn't the point. The point is that it is a tepid argument that fails to convince anyone but the already-convinced. It is a point in favor of suspension of belief, not rejection of belief.

 

[cottage]

Independently of context, the utterance "I do not believe that alien species exist" is ambiguous between an assertion that you have no such belief and that you have a negative belief in their existence.

Yes, yes! Exactly! It is ambiguous. It is meant to be! I’m not making assertion in either case. I don’t have a belief in God or aliens, but neither do I have arguments to the effect that their existence is impossible. And that has always been my position with the exception of where a self-contradiction or some other inconsistency is involved, as with the PoE and numerous biblical utterances where I make that very clear.

That ambiguity is well known, and I can prove it again for you, if you don't believe me. I refrain from doing that here, because I've done it before in threads that you've participated in.

Your remarks above are ominous and rather opaque. If you don’t mind I’d rather you just posted what it is you want to say so that I can give you a proper response?

I stand by my the claim that it is a 'majority' position. Almost every culture has a religion with gods in it. The concept of gods is fairly common across human cultures and pervasive. Atheism has almost always been a minority position in every culture, even in countries where it is much more popular than in the US. We aren't talking about belief in any particular gods, but in the proposition that any gods at all exist. It may not be logical, but the popularity of a belief does affect the degree to which you must mount a case against it in the context of a public debate.

You’ve joined a debate in which the argument from popularity has been proposed on the basis of ‘credibility’. I have questioned that credibility as you are now doing.
Your ‘majority’ merely shows a human inclination or a psychological disposition to believe in some authority or supposed truth, but how exactly does ‘credibility’ emerge from all the vagueness, disparity and contradictions in the beliefs? If it is ‘reasonable’ to hold that their numbers alone warrant credibility then I have to question the very meaning of the term, as I understand it.

I disagree with your expression "out of kilter with general experience". It is out of kilter with how you and I interpret experience. Experience is necessarily a subjective phenomenon, and, although your experience may share the same putative "reality" as the theist, you impose different interpretations on it and standards for evaluating it. I can certainly agree with your point that theists have been "signally unable" to demonstrate the existence of any god, but that is an incredibly weak argument to make with someone who believes that theists have demonstrated the plausibility of the belief. To many theists, it just sounds like you are dodging the question.

‘Incredibly weak argument’! <gulp> As a matter of fact, the failure to demonstrate the existence of gods since time immemorial is the very reason you and I are having this discussion. I’m sorry but it is not enough to ‘demonstrate’ [!] the plausibility of the beliefs. Alien existence is plausible, but we do not on that account believe in and worship aliens. Wars have been started and people have suffered enormously in the name of gods, and political decisions are made and our lives are affected in all sorts of ways because of a belief that is held from faith alone. And the experience you speak of is indeed subjective, but it is the objective world we all have to share. Proof is always with those asserting some truth or fact. So why do we make an exception in the case of a single genre of subjective beliefs? If it satisfies you to say ‘because it is a majority view’, then I’m afraid we are never, ever, going to find any common ground on which to debate.

But I am not just saying that. I am saying that how people defend their arguments is important. Falling back on the argument that theists have failed to make their case, especially before any real discussion has started, is just lame. Most theists do believe that they have and can make their case. If they didn't, they wouldn't be trying to debate skeptics.

I can’t say I recognise what you’ve written above as being relative to my argument. Let me sum up. We are in a situation where, after all the millions of words have been written, after the claims and counters-claims are made and every argument on both sides subjected to close appraisal, the advocates of mysticism are no nearer to demonstrating the truth of what they claim, and although the sceptics can examine the arguments, and identify errors, mystical claims can never be disproved. There is nothing to say, for example, that the Supreme Being is an impossible concept, but the balance of the argument must be with the claimant, to demonstrate the truth of what they say. That’s it in a nutshell.

First of all, you are wrong that "nobody has ever advocated Santa, unicorns, and mermaids as anything but mythical". Adults advocate Santa as real to children all the time, and unicorns and mermaids have been taken seriously in the past as real beings by adults. Ironically, what you are doing here is making an argument based on popularity. Just because very few people nowadays argue the existence of those beings seriously, that does not logically imply that they do not exist. The reason you are putting it in that way is that we all intuitively buy off on the idea that the popularity of a belief is something that matters when arguing a point. And that is exactly my point. Gods are no more plausible than Santa Claus, mermaids, or unicorns to me. (The latter two things are actually more plausible.) But large numbers of people take them seriously enough that my skepticism demands something more than a blanket claim that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof.

Oh for heaven’s sake! Adults introduce a romantic story to children. Santa is a delightful aspect of childhood and not a doctrinal belief that’s being imposed. And in the matter of ‘irony’ I see you reject one fallacy by introducing another: “Just because very few people nowadays argue the existence of those beings seriously, that does not logically imply that they do not exist.” (Argumentum ad ignorantiam) The ‘Just because we can’t see him…’ routine is usually a ploy used by mystics when every other defence has been exhausted. It is a terrible argument that informs us of precisely nothing.
And if you read my past posts you will see that my scepticism also 'demands more than a blanket claim that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof'. While I do of course absolutely stand firm for the ultimate test of the truth, which is the logical conclusion, it appears that for some reason this one aspect is being jumped on and misrepresented to mean 'atheists have no case to make', which is arrant nonsense. But perhaps you didn't read my op?

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, yes! Exactly! It is ambiguous. It is meant to be! I&#8217;m not making assertion in either case. I don&#8217;t have a belief in God or aliens, but neither do I have arguments to the effect that their existence is impossible. And that has always been my position with the exception of where a self-contradiction or some other inconsistency is involved, as with the PoE and numerous biblical utterances where I make that very clear.

You do not understand. Linguistic expressions are seldom ambiguous in context. Their ambiguity disappears when we use them in conversations. It is only outside of a context that the sentence is ambiguous, and I can give you examples of "I do not believe that S" in which the ambiguity does not exist even outside of a conversational context. Puns are examples of intended ambiguity in context, and they are funny precisely because of the play on words. The expression "I do not believe that God exists" can be either a denial of belief or a rejection of belief, but not both.

Your remarks above are ominous and rather opaque. If you don&#8217;t mind I&#8217;d rather you just posted what it is you want to say so that I can give you a proper response?

What I said was that I could prove the ambiguity to you, if necessary. Since you acknowledge the ambiguity, it is unnecessary.

You&#8217;ve joined a debate in which the argument from popularity has been proposed on the basis of &#8216;credibility&#8217;. I have questioned that credibility as you are now doing.

My position is that arguments from popularity are logical fallacies that are extremely credible to humans at a gut level. Being a social species, we are hardwired to treat that kind of reasoning as credible. You treat them that way too, and that is precisely why you often make arguments that start with "Nobody has argued that..." We treat popularity of belief as a type of evidence.

Your &#8216;majority&#8217; merely shows a human inclination or a psychological disposition to believe in some authority or supposed truth, but how exactly does &#8216;credibility&#8217; emerge from all the vagueness, disparity and contradictions in the beliefs? If it is &#8216;reasonable&#8217; to hold that their numbers alone warrant credibility then I have to question the very meaning of the term, as I understand it.

I'm not arguing that argumentum ad populum warrants credibility. I am arguing that it is an ineffective argument against theism, and it often comes off as condescending and arrogant. What people want to know is why you think that a minority point of view on the existence of God ought to be treated as credible. It is true that the majority can be wrong. Everybody acknowledges that. But why do you think they are wrong in this case? Too many atheists think that they hold the logical high ground, so they don't have to work as hard to make their case. That just isn't true. They may hold the logical high ground, but that does not make a very strong case for rejection of belief. Theism could be correct even if every argument in support of it is invalid. There are much better reasons to reject belief in God than that it is an invalid conclusion.

&#8216;Incredibly weak argument&#8217;! <gulp> As a matter of fact, the failure to demonstrate the existence of gods since time immemorial is the very reason you and I are having this discussion. I&#8217;m sorry but it is not enough to &#8216;demonstrate&#8217; [!] the plausibility of the beliefs...

Cottage, if you are going to have a debate with me about the existence of God, then you really do not have to work very hard. We are on the same side of the question. What you seem unable or unwilling to grasp here is that the argument is weak when directed at someone who is on the opposite side of the question.

Alien existence is plausible, but we do not on that account believe in and worship aliens...

Who said anything about worshiping aliens? The existence of aliens is another matter. You have already said that you believe in their existence, yet you also appear to deny it. Which is it? I think that you just mean to say that your belief is grounded in other things than concrete evidence--the plausibility of life having developed on other planets and the vastness of the universe, which makes the existence of other intelligent species likely. You can use similar arguments for rejecting belief in gods.

Wars have been started and people have suffered enormously in the name of gods, and political decisions are made and our lives are affected in all sorts of ways because of a belief that is held from faith alone. And the experience you speak of is indeed subjective, but it is the objective world we all have to share.

No, it isn't. Debate is not about objectivity, but about sharing subjective opinion. It depends on forceful argument for one side or the other, not just the claim that one side of the debate has failed to prove its point and loses by default. It is subjective interpretations of the world that we have to share.

Proof is always with those asserting some truth or fact. So why do we make an exception in the case of a single genre of subjective beliefs? If it satisfies you to say &#8216;because it is a majority view&#8217;, then I&#8217;m afraid we are never, ever, going to find any common ground on which to debate.

Perhaps not. I'm just pointing out that you are not going to win many debates by ignoring popularity of belief, especially when you yourself seem to swear by it when it comes to taking the existence of other mythical beings seriously.

I can&#8217;t say I recognise what you&#8217;ve written above as being relative to my argument. Let me sum up. We are in a situation where, after all the millions of words have been written, after the claims and counters-claims are made and every argument on both sides subjected to close appraisal, the advocates of mysticism are no nearer to demonstrating the truth of what they claim, and although the sceptics can examine the arguments, and identify errors, mystical claims can never be disproved. There is nothing to say, for example, that the Supreme Being is an impossible concept, but the balance of the argument must be with the claimant, to demonstrate the truth of what they say. That&#8217;s it in a nutshell.

And I'll give you my argument in a nutshell. You will win every debate in which you are a self-appointed referee, but your opponents will likely remain unconvinced that you have won. You can proselytize atheism all day long to someone like me, and you will find your arguments an easy sell. Not so much with theists, however, since they do not start out with the assumption that you win by default.

Oh for heaven&#8217;s sake! Adults introduce a romantic story to children. Santa is a delightful aspect of childhood and not a doctrinal belief that&#8217;s being imposed. And in the matter of &#8216;irony&#8217; I see you reject one fallacy by introducing another: &#8220;Just because very few people nowadays argue the existence of those beings seriously, that does not logically imply that they do not exist.&#8221; (Argumentum ad ignorantiam) The &#8216;Just because we can&#8217;t see him&#8230;&#8217; routine is usually a ploy used by mystics when every other defence has been exhausted. It is a terrible argument that informs us of precisely nothing.

It informs us of why we should not expect to see them. If you say that we do not find evidence for Santa's existence, then the defender merely has to patiently explain the nature of magic to you. There are far better arguments against belief in Santa than merely pointing out there is no evidence for him, and you come up with them quite easily when pressed. The same is often true of arguments against God. There are far better reasons not to believe than the mere fact that we have no concrete evidence of his existence.

And if you read my past posts you will see that my scepticism also 'demands more than a blanket claim that theists have failed to meet their burden of proof'. While I do of course absolutely stand firm for the ultimate test of the truth, which is the logical conclusion, it appears that for some reason this one aspect is being jumped on and misrepresented to mean 'atheists have no case to make', which is arrant nonsense. But perhaps you didn't read my op?

Yes, you do make perfectly good arguments that have nothing to do with "burden of proof". That is not what this discussion has been about. It has been about the underwhelming effect that "burden of proof" arguments have on others in these debates. Very few theists are going to admit that they have to prove the existence of God, but those who do tend to think that they can. Pointing out to them that it has never been done before is a waste of your time and theirs.

 

[Falvlun]

And even then, they're wrong.

There is no epistemology without ontology.

I have to look up what those two words mean every time. :cover:

So... we have to know "what is" (or think we know "what is") before we can come up with explanations/justifications for why it is?

That is backwards from how we should be doing things, but there is a ring of truth to it. I'm sure we do that far more often than we'd like to admit.

 

[Falvlun]

My position is that arguments from popularity are logical fallacies that are extremely credible to humans at a gut level. Being a social species, we are hardwired to treat that kind of reasoning as credible. You treat them that way too, and that is precisely why you often make arguments that start with "Nobody has argued that..." We treat popularity of belief as a type of evidence.

I'm not arguing that argumentum ad populum warrants credibility. I am arguing that it is an ineffective argument against theism, and it often comes off as condescending and arrogant. What people want to know is why you think that a minority point of view on the existence of God ought to be treated as credible. It is true that the majority can be wrong. Everybody acknowledges that. But why do you think they are wrong in this case? Too many atheists think that they hold the logical high ground, so they don't have to work as hard to make their case. That just isn't true. They may hold the logical high ground, but that does not make a very strong case for rejection of belief. Theism could be correct even if every argument in support of it is invalid. There are much better reasons to reject belief in God than that it is an invalid conclusion.

This sums up my position precisely. Since Copernicus is saying what I want to say, only better, I will only comment on the bits and pieces I have something different to add, so as not to make this so repetetive.

 

[Falvlun]

Cottage, your grammar and your reasoning are incorrect on this point. "I don't believe in the existence of God" is an assertion. What you are saying is that it is a logically different assertion than the one that Falvlun attributes to it. You are claiming that it is merely an assertion of what you believe, not an assertion of the non-existence of God. Now it is technically correct that you could only be making an assertion about what you do not believe in and nothing more. However, there is another level of complexity to speech acts that we are all intuitively aware of. Philosophers and linguists talk about indirect speech acts and conversational implicatures. To give a crude example, you can use the question "Why believe in God?" either as a genuine question or a suggestion that one ought not to believe in God (sometimes called a rhetorical question).

So the claim "I don't believe in God" could be just an assertion about belief, as you have claimed, but it quite often takes on a different interpretation in a conversation where an atheist makes the assertion, because the atheist's lack of belief is already known. Normally, you do not assert what everyone already knows, so people attribute an indirect meaning--that it is really an assertion that you have a good reason not to believe in God. The expectation is that you can back your lack of belief up with a substantive argument, not just an argument that people who disagree have no good reason to disagree (which they usually do not have) .

Yes, I see what you're saying, but it doesn't really reflect my position on the matter because there is an important distinction to be made. I don't believe in gods (polytheism), nor do I believe that there is a God if we're speaking of some kind of entity in religious terms. But since I've argued elsewhere for the logically possible existence of a Necessary Being I'm certainly not going to pin myself down with assertions to the opposite. My general arguments centre on a supposed, omnipotent, benevolent, worshipful being who is said to have done, and will yet do, particular things. I am on record as stating, ie asserting, no such a being exists. That is the difference.

Here is where I may differ from you both. I find the statement "I don't believe in the existence of gods" to be an assertion about "how the world is" regardless of whether it is meant just as a statement about your belief, and not as a positive assertion that gods do not exist. There are a couple reasons for this.

1.) If you do not believe in something, it is because you have found the evidence lacking, or the arguements unconvincing. So, right off the bat, by claiming that you do not have that belief, you are asserting that there are no good reasons (for you) to believe it. That seems to me to be a pretty big assertion.

2.) Beliefs, rarely, are about something which we know to be true (ie, are 100% certain about its veracity). If they were, we would call them knowledge, we would say "I know" instead of "I believe". Beliefs, inherently, are about what we find likely to be true; they are about what we find to be probable, versus what we find to be improbable.

So, even if someone says "I don't believe gods exist" and means it to literally convey his belief that gods do not exist, that does not necessarily mean that he finds it impossible for gods to exist, or that he is asserting that gods do not exist (because, then he'd have said "I know gods do not exist"). He is likely saying that he finds it improbable that gods exist.

3.) Just because someone is not making an "absolute assertion" (ie, Gods do not exist) does not mean he is not making any assertion. He is still claiming that he finds it improbable, unlikely, that gods exist. That is an assertion about how he finds the world to be. And that is a stance that certainly should require justification. Why do you find it improbable that gods exist?

This is why I find the popular atheist position that they really don't have a position-- merely a "lack" of one-- to be a bit naiive. They have a belief regarding the matter; it just doesn't happen to fall at the extreme end of certainty.

 

[Falvlun]

It seems to me that you think theism and atheism are somehow equal and that atheism needs to justify itself to theism.

I'm sorry you still think that is my point. To reiterate, I am merely claiming that it is reasonable for theists to desire atheists to explain/justify their beliefs.

I do think theists are making the "bigger" claim, thus requiring a greater amount and quality of evidence. But, yes, in a sense, I do believe a claim is a claim is a claim, and people should know why they believe what they do, regardless of what that is.

In other words, I don't believe that atheism needs to justify itself to theism (it's only reasonable and polite to do so.) Atheists do, however, need to be able to justify atheism to themselves.

Now, once again back to the river analogy. What is the relative importance of my reasons for thinking the jump impossible or improbable, compared with the person who is making the claim? What settles the matter, my reasons for doubting or the actual of act of proving the claim true?

Of course, actually running the experiment would be the only thing that could settle the matter. But, that's not always possible. What if the person dies before he is able to back up his claim? Proponents of the river jump could offer up other candidates, but even should they all fail, you would never know for sure that the original boaster couldn't have done it. So, what are your reasons for disbelief in the face of an inability for the question to be perfectly settled? You can't just claim a win because they failed to prove their point; as Copernicus pointed out, just because all of the theists' arguments fail doesn't mean that god still couldn't exist.

I am also perplexed by your use of "relative importance". Sure, it might be more important for the proponents to prove their wild claim (they have more riding on it), but that doesn't mean that there is no importance whatsoever for you to be able to back up your own disbelief. There seems to be an all or nothing feel to the "burden of proof" stance. Just because atheism and theism are not equally substantiative claims, and just because theism has a greater relative importance in proving its stance, doesn't mean that atheism has no responsibility, no substance, no importance whatsoever.

 

[Willamena]

I have to look up what those two words mean every time. :cover:

I did too, at one time (not too long ago).

So... we have to know "what is" (or think we know "what is") before we can come up with explanations/justifications for why it is?

That is backwards from how we should be doing things, but there is a ring of truth to it. I'm sure we do that far more often than we'd like to admit.

Close. The ontological is "it is," and the epistemological is, "I know it is" --"no epistemology without ontology" means that the relationship is that if it's something we can genuinely call "knowledge," then it's real and true, and it's justified to believe in it. Conversely, if we take that from its rear-end and claim we don't believe in it, the relationship goes back up the ladder: it's not justified to believe it, because it's not real, true or actual.

There's your assertion.